Aristotle’s teacher, Plato also supported slavery and did not see any injustice in the practice as it was, because of the slaves’ “inherent inferiority.” Slaves were essential to running the state so they should be used for their intended use. He said a knife is good if it is used efficiently, that is if it cuts well to accomplish a task. Slaves, most of the populace, were efficient tools to the betterment of society.

However, God looks upon all men as equal, not in ability, but in their status before Him. Consequently, any forced slavery is a sin against God.

Most Americans have an unrealistic and skewed impression of slavery that they have received from a flawed public school system and media moguls. They have been inculcated with the lie (spoken loudly and at length) that white Christians are somehow responsible for slavery! The fact is we did not start slavery. We ended it!

We even hear of Christians who surrendered their own freedom to ransom others. Slaves were granted religious equality and were permitted to hold office in the Church, even that of a bishop. However, it is noteworthy that Christ never commissioned His Disciples to launch a crusade to dismantle slavery. The New Birth would eventually solve the problem.

Social justice warriors on the left have not considered that aspect of the problem.

Loosey goosey Evangelicals who vie with others to see who is more woke are an embarrassment to genuine Christians who take a biblical position on the cultural issues facing our world. Most of those effervescent EvanJellicals would confess they are “profamily” but are not critical of sodomy or same-sex “marriage.”  They would be gladly cast as “Americans” but not as “nationalists.”  Too many don’t know what a woman is and are perplexed about female sanitary products in male restrooms. The problem is most of today’s soft middle of the road, never take a firm stand Christians are a theological, mental, emotional mess. They are very mushy on border issues and quickly hug any leftwing racial issue to their bosoms like an insecure kid and his ever-present security blanket.  

They watched Alex Haley’s televised Roots series sold to the public as a “historic novel.” We saw a handsome black man walking through his idyllic African jungle home when he was accosted by vicious white men, subdued after a valiant effort of resistance, chained, and taken to America where he lived and died a slave on a Southern plantation. That myth has been perpetuated by black preachers (who should be more dedicated to truth) when they tell their people that their ancestors were black royalty who were dragged from their homes by white Americans. Sorry, but it didn’t happen that way.

Black apologist Michael Eric Dyson pitched Alex Haley’s Roots as “unquestionably one of the nation’s seminal texts. It affected events far beyond its pages and was a literary North Star…. Each generation must make up its own mind about how it will navigate the treacherous waters of our nation’s racial sin. And each generation must overcome our social ills through greater knowledge and decisive action. Roots is a stirring reminder that we can achieve these goals only if we look history squarely in the face.”

But Roots doesn’t “look history squarely in the face.” It was fictional from the first page. It was a case of factualizing fiction.

Most Americans still don’t know that historians confronted Haley with his inaccurate screed, and he admitted, “I tried to give my people a myth to live by.” I believe thinking Blacks would prefer to live by the truth rather than a myth. The truth is that Haley pirated (stole, lifted, plagiarized, etc.) from The African, and accused of plagiarism, he settled with the author for $650,000.00.

Some have used the Bible to justify slavery but without success. Exodus 21:16 clearly forbids slavery: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him…shall surely be put to death.” So God prescribed the death penalty for those who deal in human flesh! And the death penalty was for both buyer and seller! But what about the Bible supporting slavery in other places? It doesn’t. The Mosaic Law did not establish slavery. The Old Testament recognized slavery as a reality and sought to mitigate it since it was a fact of life throughout the world. The taking of captives in war is another matter but has been a factor in slavery since the beginning of time.

In I Timothy 1:10, the Apostle Paul condemned “menstealers” affirming that such a sin was why the Law of Moses was given.  The epistle of Philemon does not endorse slavery as some suggest. Onesimus was a run-away indentured servant who owed a debt to Philemon, (Paul’s friend) and Paul recommended that Philemon release him when Onesimus returned to him. Paul promised to pay any debt Onesimus owed to Philemon.  In Christ, there is neither bond nor free. All are equal in Christ.

When slavery is discussed, it usually focuses on Southern slavery with more heat than light. Slavery has been a reality since Joseph was sold into slavery in the early days of civilization as recorded in Genesis. Far more Whites have been slaves than Blacks, and it has always been wrong.

Black slaves were first taken to Europe in the late 1400s and to the New World in 1502. Between 1500 and 1860, it is estimated that over nine million Blacks were taken from Africa to the New World, but less than three percent were sold in America during the 350 years preceding the Civil War. Brazil was the biggest market by far.

Black slaves usually fell into one of three categories: (1) captives taken in war or those kidnapped by black chiefs (2) convicted criminals such as killers, thieves, etc.) (3) those born into slavery.

Some suggest that white men introduced slavery to the African continent; however, that is a fairy story. Slavery was known throughout Africa for centuries before white traders sailed into African ports. Slaves were used as money to pay taxes, to purchase a wife, cattle, or crops. As the black historian Nathan Huggins pointed out, “virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans.”

Some have tried to defend slavery because the enslaved Blacks were taken to “enlightened” countries where they heard the Gospel of Christ. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt! While Christianity is the answer to paganism, the residual effects of slavery do not justify the buying or selling of humans.

The degrading, dastardly, and despicable practice of slavery has gone on since the beginning of time in all nations of the earth, but most Americans only think of North America when they think of slavery.

While slavery is a blot on the face of America (and the world) there were some residual benefits that black leaders admit.  In his Up From Slavery, Booker T. Washington said that the Negro was the beneficiary, not the victim of slavery!

Muhammad Ali fought George Foreman in the mid-1970s in the African nation of Zaire and after his victorious fight, Ali flew back to the U.S.  On his return to America, a reporter asked Ali what he thought of Africa, and he replied, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.”

Evidently, Ali thought that something positive came out of slavery, and while he had major problems, famous Greek philosophers were more troubling about slavery than the brain-damaged boxer.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

In fact, the comparison is eerie.

Rome was founded in 753 B.C. with Romulus as the first king ruling over erratic and violent citizens characterized by Livy as “a rabble of vagrants, mostly runaways and refugees, unrestrained by the power of the throne.” Rome’s early days are shrouded in mystery and myth and mistakes involving the “god” Mars, who fathered Romulus and his twin brother Remus and left them to die after their birth. The twin babies, washed up on a riverbank, were suckled by a she-wolf, and Romulus became king of Rome and killed his brother.

Wow, from miraculous birth to marvelous childhood to a mighty king in one generation!

Interestingly, city guides in Rome propagate that myth as fact to gullible tourists. When I kindly challenged them and finally ridiculed their promotion of a silly legend, they became indignant as if I also asserted the earth is flat, or even worse, that the city of Rome was overrated and overpriced.

After casting off the shackles of the Monarchy with the overthrow of the last of Rome’s seven kings who were absolute dictators, the Monarchy was followed by a Republic in 509 B.C.

The new Roman Republic was the period when the city-state of Rome was a republican government (from 509 B.C. to 27 B.C.). The Romans had replaced their last king with elected magistrates, which lasted until 27 B.C. It was one of the world’s first examples of representative democracy.

National Geographic asserts, “The Republic began to engage in wars with its neighboring rivals, slowly eliminating threats to its superiority in the Mediterranean. By the first century B.C., the Roman Republic stood alone as the dominant power in the Mediterranean region.”

During the middle of the first century B.C., Rome was marked by civil wars and the dictatorship of Julius Caesar. Caesar asked the statesman Cicero to work with his dictatorship; however, Cicero refused being a republican and desiring a return to traditional republican government.

Cicero knew an authoritarian ruler, like Caesar, could bring stability, safety, and success to a nation, but dictatorship always results in loss of personal freedom.

Caesar (who never lost a war) defeated Pompey in a civil war and led the nation out of a Republic into a dictatorship until his assassination in 44 B.C. Thus, he played a significant role in the events that led to the ruin of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. Following Caesar’s death, his adopted son Octavian won some major battles (defeating Mark Antony and Cleopatra), and the Senate proclaimed him Emperor Augustus Caesar in 27 B.C., followed by an unprecedented 200 years of peace.

Then, it was downhill to the emperors who were morally corrupt, mentally incompetent, and murder prone—often using assassination as a standard political tool.

Cicero was, for his day, a principled Roman, famous for his oratory. He vigorously criticized Caesar, Mark Antony, and other politicians who thought the Republic was passé and constantly grabbed personal political power. Antony was often criticized by Cicero, and Cicero was finally assassinated while leaving for a sea voyage. Cicero’s hands, which had penned the famous harangues against Antony, were cut off, and he was beheaded. His hands and his head were nailed to the podium in the Roman Forum. Antony’s wife pulled out the dead orator’s tongue and repeatedly thrust a pin through it, letting all know what she thought of his powerful speaking.

Before Cicero was killed in 43 B.C., he declared, “Rome’s swollen population of unemployed immigrates from the country-side was a bonfire waiting to be lit.” Rome was constantly on the march taking new territories of people whose language, religion, personal habits, and general culture differed from Roman citizens. As the conquered territories were farther and farther distant from Rome, it became more difficult to control them.

The Republic was followed by the Roman Empire ruled by numerous incompetent, immoral, even incestuous Emperors and only five good ones under whom there was impressive success and growth from 96 A.D. to 180. A.D. Rome’s control rapidly expanded during this period—from the city’s immediate surroundings to control of the entire Mediterranean world. The period witnessed a considerable expansion of the Empire into northern Britain and east to Mesopotamia.

The great Mediterranean Sea became a Roman lake.

By the end of the third century, Rome was still a powerful empire, but all was not well below the surface. The foundations were cracking and crumbling, and dangerous ideas were invading the Empire. The cities were decreasing, and industry was declining, and agriculture was being destroyed by excessive taxation. Peasants could no longer make a living by farming.

Travel was no longer safe. Under Caesar’s rule, he had produced peace, and “there are neither wars, nor battles, nor great robberies, nor piracies; but we may travel at all hours and sail from east to west,” according to Epictetus. That was no longer true, and the value of Roman citizenship was devalued since no one was safe and justice was only a word.

Outside Rome’s borders, vast numbers of barbarians had become more sophisticated in warfare and surged through the Empire, causing restless sleep in the Emperor’s palace. The Huns, in the 370s, invaded along the Danube River, driving the Germanic tribes into the Roman provinces. Rome was willing to accept that, but the desired controlled relocation of barbarians within the Empire’s borders ended as an invasion.

I’ve heard of that happening recently.

Small farmers of central Italy had been the foundation of Roman life but could not compete with imported grains from around the Black Sea. Therefore, they sold their land and moved to the city, and lived on welfare. They joined the mobs who demanded more bread and vicious contests and more exciting games. The government used public taxes and provided the mobs free grain at public events, including chariot races, gladiator contests, and mock naval battles.

Cicero wrote: “The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease.” One Roman is recorded as saying: “Those who live at the expense of the public funds are more numerous than those who provide them.” That could not continue.

Rome was no longer Rome.

The civilization of a thousand years could see the handwriting on the wall: the brutal barbarians were at the gates of Rome, and collapse was imminent. In 410, Rome, the city of the Caesars, fell to the uncivilized, uneducated, uncouth Barbarians. With the collapse of Rome, a chill was felt through the civilized world.

If it could happen to mighty Rome, it could happen to any nation.

The Germanic clans 600 miles north of Rome did not want to destroy the Empire, but they were attracted to the “good life,” a consequence of civilization. Moreover, they liked the prestige and protection of Roman citizenship. Roman historian Tacitus in 98 B.C. was the first historian to mention Germanic tribes who were moving into southwestern Germany about the same time the Romans were conquering present-day Gaul—France, Switzerland, Belgium, and northern Italy.

Caesar defeated a barbarian clan in 70 B.C., making the Rhine River the boundary between Roman and German territory.

Some Germanic tribes lived outside Rome’s boundary and over the first few hundred years of the Christian era had been Romanized through trade and travel. As tribes prospered in their trade and made adjustments to their rugged lifestyle, they drew attention to the Huns who rode in from the Asian steppes. Roman citizenship looked very profitable to the German tribes since they would be protected by the greatest power on earth and the weather was much warmer, an advantage to farmers.

Rome was not opposed to taking the tribes into their Empire, and many Germans adapted well to the Roman Army. However, all immigrants had to assimilate. They were forbidden to live in cliques, perpetuating their old culture. They were dispersed throughout the Empire and had to become Romans, the price of citizenship.

Great, grand, and grandiose plan, but it didn’t work.

Bill Federer wrote, “Illegal immigrants poured across the Roman borders: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Anglos, Saxons, Alemanni, Thuringians, Rugians, Jutes, Picts, Burgundians, Lombards, Alans, Vandals, as well as African Berbers and Arab raiders.”

After a slow deterioration process, the Romans lost control of the immigration procedure during the Fifth Century. Defeated Persia (Iran) felt frisky and lively again and made sounds like a powerful nation. Rome sent its troops to put the Persians back in their place as a failed empire. The Germanic tribes were permitted into the Empire, but they continued their political and cultural identities. They did not assimilate, even uniting with other tribes to form armies within the Roman Empire!

Will and Ariel Durant wrote, “If Rome had not engulfed so many men of alien blood in so brief a time, if she had passed all these newcomers through her schools instead of her slums, if she had treated them as men with a hundred potential excellences, if she had occasionally closed her gates to let assimilation catch up with infiltration, she might have gained new racial and literary vitality from the infusion, and might have remained a Roman Rome, the voice and citadel of the West.”

America has not learned from Rome’s many mistakes, and it is insane to expect a favorable result. Last week, the U.S. has absorbed over 15,000 Haitians of a different language, religion, personal habits, and race. This mass was added to the hundreds of thousands of others from Central American nations, plus an unknown number of Muslims whose religion demands they do not assimilate or cooperate with their new surroundings.

America’s politicians still do not understand that true Muslims can not and will not assimilate—they always dominate.

Many churches, like those today, had only a temporary influence on the dying Empire.

Richard A. Todd wrote in The Fall of the Roman Empire, “The church, while preaching against abuses, contributed to the decline by discouraging good Christians from holding public office.” And while we have some of that today, it seems the problem is not lack of Christians in office but lack of Christians in office with backbone.

The Fifth Century historian Salvian shockingly wrote, “For all the lurid Roman tales of their atrocities … the barbarians displayed … a good deal more fidelity to their wives.” He declared, “O Roman people be ashamed; be ashamed of your lives. Almost no cities are free of evil dens, are altogether free of impurities, except the cities in which the barbarians have begun to live. … Let nobody think otherwise, the vices of our bad lives have alone conquered us. … The Goths lie, but are chaste, the Franks lie, but are generous, the Saxons are savage in cruelty … but are admirable in chastity. … What hope can there be for the Romans when the barbarians are more pure than they?”

At that time, the “Christians” were quibbling over who was to be the supreme leader, what language would be used, the use of indulgences, Purgatory and Limbo, whether Jesus was human and divine; etc. While the various religious groups continued to win adherents, they made little impact on the direction of the Empire. It is agreed that the religious authority of the now developing Roman Catholic Church held the barbarians at bay for a while, which was only temporary.

I wish I had the talent of Gibbon to graphically write The Decline and Fall of the American Empire as a warning. I see no hope, and history gives no example of a nation, once on the slippery slope, ever recovering its greatness on its own.

Rome was an empire of legions and law devolving into luxury and license and became a hodgepodge of conquest and cruelty.

Personal virtue determines national values, and Rome permitted itself to become worse than Barbarians whose presence they welcomed.

America, are you listening?

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support his work with a donation.)

That’s why we celebrate Christmas.

Each nation is made up of all kinds of people: atheists, humanists, secularists, do-gooders, good-doers, traditionalists, religious people of hundreds of religions, church members, nominal Christians, and dedicated Christians. Most of these people celebrate Christmas, at least a secular Christmas. But then, a secular Christmas, while completely legal, is not celebrating Christmas.

Some people have an affinity toward snowmen, Rudolph, a jolly old man, gifts, wild parties, elves, and reindeer. If that’s your thing, go with it. But it isn’t Christmas.

Some dedicated Christians refuse to celebrate Christmas for various reasons. They are correct in their belief that the Bible gives no command to do so, but then there is no biblical command to observe Easter. We are not even sure when Christ was born. Evidently, we don’t need to know that fact. The fact of His birth is sufficient. The day doesn’t matter.

Upper-class Romans believed that Mithra, born from a rock as a youth on December 25, was an infant god, the god of the unconquerable sun. That date was the most sacred day of the year. It is said that Christians, as they rose to some influence, usurped that day for the birth of Christ.

With the reign of Constantine (died A.D. 337), Christianity quickly became more powerful and the dominant religion around the Mediterranean area, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, part of Turkey), and Central Europe. By the Middle Ages, nominal Christianity had replaced paganism. Roman Catholics slowly dominated all religions throughout Europe, building enormous cathedrals in larger cities and parish churches in smaller towns. The independent Bible Churches continued to operate in their shadow. The Catholics went to church on Christmas Day, jumped through the religious hoops, then left church to celebrate in a raucous, drunken, carnival-like atmosphere somewhat like today’s Mardi Gras.

The Christians in colonial America wanted nothing to do with the drunken partying of European church members, so Christmas was not observed in the 1600s in Puritan colonies. It was even illegal to observe the day in Boston, but Christmas was slowly accepted until it was declared a national holiday in 1870. Jamestown was an exception since it was more secular than the other colonies, and Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was universally observed in Jamestown.

Principled Christians who refuse to observe Christmas are not without ostensible biblical and historical support. Jeremiah 10:2-4 commands, “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.”

So, nonobservant Christians claim scriptural support, but it is a perversion of Scripture to give that support. We must never twist Scripture to support what we choose to believe. We frame our beliefs with the proper interpretation of Scripture.

Christmas critics hone in on “deck it with silver and with gold.” However, this is a warning to Jews not to commit idolatry by doing as the heathen in worshiping the heavens, cutting down trees and carving, polishing, and painting wooden idols and worshipping them.

Isaiah 44:14-15 says, “He heweth him down cedars, …Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.” Here, too, is a warning against idolatry in “maketh a god and worshippeth it.”

Even if they are sincere, it is a twisting of Scripture to use those verses to support the refusal to celebrate Christmas.

There is no doubt that many Christmas traditions have roots back into paganism, but that does not require us to reject the holiday. After all, the days of the week are pagan-based, but when we think of Sunday, we don’t think of pagans who worshiped the sun god. Same with the other weekdays.

A big criticism of Christmas is that it is so commercial, and the message of a baby being born (incarnate God) who would bear the sins of mankind is lost in all the buying and selling, drinking and carousing, giving and getting. However, that does not negate the true meaning of Christmas; after all, man has corrupted everything from sex, the family, the church, etc. What’s wrong with families making an untainted Christ-honoring season to observe?

It is alleged that observing Christmas gives credibility to paganism and revives and recognizes the wild, wicked, and wayward practices of the Middle Ages. After all, the Apostle Paul warned in I Thessalonians 5:22 to “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” But that means to have nothing to do with any genuine form of evil as revealed in the Word of God, not man’s ever-changing conjecture of right and wrong.

Paul reminds us that some people see evil in everything, and that too is wrong. Titus 1:15 tells us, “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” There are some who teach that all sex is wrong or it must be for the purpose of procreation; however, that is a distortion of what the Bible teaches.

The critics remind us that since the Bible does not tell us to observe Christmas, it is a presumptive sin to do so; however, that is fallacious logic. We don’t have biblical support for youth pastors, 401-k plans, Lincoln Town Cars, church vans, church dinners, Christian schools, hymnbooks, church pews, Wednesday evening services, sabbaticals, and mission boards. The old discredited argument from silence only works on the non-thinkers and the simpleminded.

Colossians 2:16 declares, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” It is each person’s decision as to what he or she will celebrate. But it must be sincere and not contrary to Scripture.

It must be remembered that there are precedents for making much of His birth. After all, the shepherds caused a big stir about it. The angels made a big deal out of His birthday. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” The wise men from the East came hundreds of miles with hundreds in their entourage to celebrate His birth. The early churches met each Sunday to commemorate His death and resurrection. And there is no scriptural command to go to church on Sunday. Fact is, the early Christians met every day and later changed it to Sunday. As circumstances changed, they adjusted as long as no Scripture was violated.

The criticism that we spend large sums of money is a legitimate criticism. Children are often overwhelmed with gifts and are not reminded about the gifts of the wise men to celebrate the birth of Christ. Or the fact that Christ gave Himself as the sin offering for the world. Moreover, excessive spending is a bad example for children who learn not to appreciate their gifts.

The ultimate reason for the season is to recognize, repent, and receive the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ as the gift of personal salvation—the most important, inspiring, and illustrious events in history. Moreover, it would seem to be unusual if those events were not recognized as such by His followers.

Become convinced in your own mind what to do about celebrating Christmas, then don’t judge others who disagree with you. Romans 14:5 warns, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Whatever you do about Christmas, what will you do about the Santa thing? What will you tell your children? A big mistake is made if you confuse Santa and the Savior. It is already being done because “Santa knows when you’ve been sleeping; he knows when you’re awake; he knows if you’ve been bad or good.” Sounds like an omniscient God to me.

Furthermore, if you support the receiving of gifts because you’ve been good, you are promoting the heretical idea that one must earn his or her salvation. Another horrific result is the children who don’t believe their parents when they tell them about Christ after deceiving them about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

Christmas should be a time of fun for children; however, parents must not instill a lifetime heresy in them. My wife and I never spoke about Santa or discussed it with the children since they were bright enough to know a big fat man could not ride around the world in a sleigh pulled by reindeer and get it done in one night. Furthermore, they knew he could not get down the chimney and eat cookies and milk in every home. Besides, we didn’t have a chimney.

God instructed the Jews in Deuteronomy 6:6, 7 to give a proper answer when the children asked about their traditions, such as the Passover. “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” Special days were to be teaching experiences.

It would be a rejection of their heritage not to tell them about Jewish captivity in Egypt and God’s deliverance. When children ask about Christmas, they must get the right story, not some silly myth. Go on, if you must, with the Santa stuff but be sure they know it is a myth. You might suggest that they not discuss Santa with their friends. My four-year-old daughter was told by her older sister that Santa was a myth, and she told her pre-kindergarten class, causing a sobbing brouhaha with fellow students. The teacher, who was my friend whom I had hired, had to calm her whole class. I suggest you require your children not share with believers (in Santa) that he is a myth. It is the job of parents.

My wife, Ellen’s three-year-old Jennifer, asked her, “Is there a real live Santa Claus man in this whole world of ours?” Her mother told her the true meaning of Christmas and that people made up Santa for fun. When asked by her pastor’s grown son, what Santa brought her, she replied, “Philip, you know there is no real live Santa Clause man in this whole world of ours.”

In the early churches, the question of eating meat that had been offered to idols was hotly contested. Some said it was endorsing paganism while others suggested idols are simply pieces of wood; therefore, there is no harm in eating such meat. I Corinthians 8:9 reminds us, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” We need to apply this biblical principle to this issue.

Now, go out and get your Christmas tree.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

The charge is often made that Christians were always soft on slavery, but that is a slander. Slavery was practiced in Old Testament times; however, it was worldwide, mainly because of almost constant wars. What few know is that slavery in Israel was not severe; it fact, it was illegal to mistreat a “slave.” The slave was really an indentured servant who was to be treated like one of the family! Any mistreatment and the servant would go free. In fact, a “slave” could walk over to a neighbor’s property and leave his slavery! However, many American Christians, especially in the South, taught that slavery was permitted and sanctioned in the Bible. They were wrong and it is a blight, especially on Methodist and Baptist slaveholders of that era, because of that sin.

Moreover, as early as the first century, the Essenes (one of the three major Jewish sects of that period) prohibited slavery according to A Manual of Church History. Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers and thousands lived throughout Judea.

The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types: slaves and non-slaves. Therefore, it was natural for some to rule and others to be ruled. Slaves were simply property to be used as advantageously as possible. That was in the “golden age” of Greece when pederasty, infanticide, and discerning the future by looking at the entrails of a chicken were popular! Golden age indeed!

Christianity began to change all that as it influenced a broad spectrum of the world: princes and  paupers; educated and ignorant; lords and serfs; and Christians and heathen.

Christians have often been accused of being anti-science; however, such claims are made by ignorant or bigoted men. Dr. Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion, states in his For the Glory of God, “The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overwhelmingly were devout Christians who believed it was their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork.” Without the work of Bible-believing scientists such as Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestly, and others the world would not be nearly what it is today.

Michael Faraday was a scientist and evangelical Christian whose pioneering work changed the modern world in that he helped give us electricity and was the founder of the Greenwich Observatory.

Johann Kepler, an active Christian and creationist was best known for his laws of planetary motion. He was a mathematical genius who made contributions to the Copernican concepts and for his own additions to astronomy. His work provided a foundation for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.

Isaac Newton was reared in a Christian home and went to the university primarily with the purpose of entering the Christian ministry. Instead, he discovered universal gravity.

Joseph Priestly was an 18th-century English theologian, natural philosopher, chemist, and author of 150 books. He was identified with the English dissenters during the religious confrontations. He has historically been credited with the discovery of oxygen.

John Locke was reared in a Puritan home, a fact reflected in his writing and political positions and Emmanuel Kant had his roots deep in the pietist foundations.

Kenneth Latourette in his classic A History of the Expansion of Christianity, reveals, “From it (the Christian church) sprang peace societies, societies for the abolition of slavery, organizations for the betterment of the condition of the laboring classes, temperance societies, hospitals, orphanages, societies for the distribution of wholesome literature, and thousands of schools.”

Christian leaders started and helped fund schools for infants and cripples, rescue homes, help for the poor, the sick, and the mentally abnormal, service for discharged prisoners and the families of prisoners, lodging houses, clubs for apprentices, and campaigns against beggary, drunkenness, and prostitution.

Pastor Theodore Fliedner in Kaiserswerth inaugurated a home for discharged women convicts and influenced Florence Nightingale who went on to create the modern nursing profession.

Anthony Ashley Cooper grew up in a moderately religious home but became a Christian because of his childhood nurse. As a member of the English Parliament, he strongly advocated better treatment of the insane, legislation that improved working conditions in mills and factories, and limiting the working day to ten hours. His work led to the barring of boys under thirteen and women from the mines, protection for chimney sweeps, and an act which brought improved housing conditions.

Missionary followers of Jesus are credited with stopping cannibalism and head hunting in many primitive societies.

The influence of Jesus on society via music, art, architecture, and literature is impossible to quantify.

Because Christ was born, we have literature by such Christian writers as Bunyan, Dante, Chaucer, Donne, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Milton, and Shakespeare. Regarding Shakespeare, William Burgess in his The Bible in Shakespeare wrote, “it is seen that Shakespeare drank so deeply from the wells of Scripture that one may say, without any straining of the evidence, without the Bible Shakespeare could not be.”

Had Jesus never been born, music would not be comparable to what we experience. Handel, Vivaldi, and Bach were professing Christians who worked to honor God with their work. Bach, for example, signed all his works with Soli Deo Gloria or “Solely to the glory of God.”

Many of the art productions would be absent without the Christian-themed artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and countless others.

And think of all the incredible architecture through the years. Especially noteworthy are the beautiful cathedrals in Europe. I am not an advocate of Roman Catholicism but they built the most incredible cathedrals in the world.

Christians don’t claim that the U.S. Constitution is overtly Christian, but no informed person doubts that its basis comes from biblical teaching. Our civil laws are obviously based on the Ten Commandments. Also, the incredible principle of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches is taken directly from Isaiah 33:22. Requiring at least two witnesses to a crime comes directly from the Bible. At least 50 of the 55 signers of the U.S. Constitution were orthodox Christians.

Private property rights are sourced in the commandments, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet.”

Cynics and critics can criticize Christianity that has failed at times to live what it professes, but they have no valid complaint against Christ. His life, death, and resurrection have made a greater impact on the world than any other person who ever lived. He sure has changed the world and made it infinitely better.

Has He changed you?

Boys’ book  Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy,  click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Many parts of the world were obsessed with the two deaths and as the 20th anniversary approaches, Europe is sweep up in a bizarre mania. “Diana-mania” is spreading from Britain (and advancing in America) to all of Europe as the death anniversary looms. I have written about both women in columns and in my yet to be published memoirs: Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Regrets! The information below comes from those sources.

Within days of Diana’s death, I had one of my best opportunities to present the Gospel while appearing on a British talk show dealing with Princess Diana and Teresa. Immediately following Diana’s death August 31, 1997, a Pentecostal church in London went public with her final destination and it wasn’t Heaven! The show’s producer asked me to discuss her death and asked if Diana went to Hell because she had been visiting nightclubs and bars the night of her death. When I was asked that question during the show, I hesitated a little since this was an extremely hot topic and so close to her death. I said, “Well, no one can be sure what happens in the final seconds of a person’s life. Who knows what sermons a person has heard or what a parent or preacher has taught them that might flash through the dying person’s mind at the last minute. So I can’t know for sure.” My answer was a little soft, and sure, but safe.

After softening up the audience all over Great Britain and the host who was also a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, I steadied myself and said, “Deathbed conversions are highly unlikely since there is only one such experience in the Bible and Christ is the One who won the dying thief hanging beside him, promising him that he would be with Him that day in Paradise.” I ended by saying, “I would not give much chance of Diana’s last minute conversion to Christ. Princess Diana is probably in Hell tonight.” There was a loud gasp from the audience.

I thought my appearance was over but the host said, “Well, what about Mother Teresa?” who had died six days after Diana’s death. I cringed. We had not discussed Teresa’s death in pre-show preparation. Teresa was a Catholic icon who spent her life in the ghettos of India. She was known as the “Saint of the Gutters” and it is one thing to suggest that an adulterous, boozing, former princess was in Hell but something else to suggest that one of the most kind, sacrificing, inauspicious do-gooders of history might not be in Heaven! Of course, no one can be sure about anyone except himself.

The talk show host continued, “Does that mean Mother Teresa is not in Heaven?” I gulped, thought for a second, and said, “Well, I can’t know any person’s heart but if Teresa trusted the Roman Catholic Church, or baptism, or her good and admirable works to get her to Heaven, she is not there.” The show’s host gasped! I felt like a skunk at a ladies’ tea party.

I told the host, “Good people don’t necessarily go to Heaven and bad people don’t necessarily go to Hell.” She was astounded and said, “Would you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I made it very clear that people go to Heaven after placing personal faith in the shed blood of Christ.

I was on a roll so I continued, “In fact, there are people in Hell tonight who, while on this earth, lived a better life than some people in Heaven.” She was shocked again and said, “Will you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I explained that some people are genuine Christians but are very nominal in their daily living while there were non-Christians who are more noble, kind, decent, and benevolent but have never experienced the New Birth by trusting Christ as Savior.

What a show! I reached more people in that one hour than D. L. Moody did in his London crusade–but without his results! In addition to making the plan of salvation very clear, even stark, I tried to emphasize that real salvation results in the change of the morals, mores, manners, and motives of the convert.

There is no doubt that evangelical and fundamental Christians can learn something from Teresa who ministered to the unwanted, unloved, and uncared for and Diana who appeared to be a loving mother. No one should be more concerned for the poor, disadvantaged, hurting, sick, hungry people of the world than Christians. I think we could be more involved than we are; although many of us give to world missions, feed the hungry, provide clean water, medical missions, go to mission fields, etc., but we could probably do much more without sacrificing the essential message that only Christ saves.

Moreover, the Social Gospelers have confused personal responsibility with the churches’ responsibility. A church must never get her eyes off the main goal of taking the Gospel to the world and then training for Christian service those who believe it, while having outreaches for the poor. However, as individuals we should also support outreaches to the poor and needy but we must use discretion since many secular organizations are not worthy of support. My wife and I have supported those individuals we know who deserve support, help for flood victims, earthquake relief, providing portable generators for native churches in Central America, and efforts to bring clean water to desperate African villages. Such activities are not the major job of churches.

Teresa did not appear sophisticated; however, she or her handlers were very astute in using the media for her own end—raising money for her cause. She had connections with rich, famous people who funded her charity according to Christopher Hitchens in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Some of those “sugar daddies” were disreputable, unscrupulous people such as former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (who plundered Haiti), Charles Keating, and other scoundrels such as Communist Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha who ruled for 40 years. Hoxha was married and although homosexuality was illegal in Albania, he is commonly believed to have had perverted relations most of his adult life. It is said that he used to take handsome Albanian soldiers to bed with him and then have them shot the next morning.

One egregious example is Teresa’s relationship with Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L shame. Keating gave more than a million dollars to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud for bilking 23,000 investors out of their money, she wrote Judge Ito telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. Teresa advised the judge to “do what Jesus would do.” I’m not sure what Jesus would have done, but the judge gave Keating ten years for fraud. Keating served four-and-a half years in prison.

Following the trial, Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was stolen from hard working people and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, “After all, that is what Jesus would have done.” The good nun never answered his letter nor returned the stolen money. After all, it was for the “poor.”

Teresa was also involved with Princess Diana who sought consolation when she was divorced. Teresa said that the divorce was unfortunate but was probably a good thing! However, Teresa took the opposite position when Ireland was debating what to do about their prohibition of divorce and remarriage. It seems the nun was an opportunist, especially when it fit her agenda. Her agenda was to raise money for her charity by schmoozing up to rich and famous people. She raised a fortune but never built a hospital, or hospice, or home for children in India but did build convents in more than 150 countries! There has never been an accounting of the fortune she raised.

CNN reported on Teresa’s charity declaring, “It’s true there’s no transparency–and very little information available–on the group’s bookkeeping. CNN‘s request to interview the current head of the organization was declined.”

But sainthood continued on the fast track and Teresa is now a beloved Roman Catholic saint.

Is a secular sainthood in the works for Princess Diana?

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

And the white flag went up again!

It is good that President Trump did not follow the example of Obama and declare June the month to honor the homosexual crowd; he only permitted surrogates to do so. I’m afraid that the President will approve, applaud, and even abet the practice of homosexuality. He carries a white flag with a rainbow inset just for that crowd.

When Tillerson was president of the Boy Scouts, he was the major player in corrupting the Boy Scouts by removing the ban on homosexual scout masters! Now, he continues to advocate for perversion in the State Department. Just what we need: more corruption.

Of course, this continuation of Obama’s advocacy for abnormality is pitched as showing love, tolerance, and compassion; but it is not love or tolerance or compassion to support people in a lifestyle that will destroy them! How is that love?

America has been bullied, badgered, and blackmailed into accepting the homosexual lifestyle as normal if not desirable–but it is a deathstyle. Furthermore, many professing Christians and church leaders have swallowed the pathetic pitch of perversion. That makes them come under God’s judgment as Isaiah proclaimed in Isa. 5:20, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.”

It shocks my critics to hear that homosexuals don’t exist; only heterosexuals who refuse to live as God intended–one man with one woman in marriage totally faithful to each other for a lifetime. However, those of us who believe that are said to be ignorant, insensitive, and intolerant when we are really observant, obedient, and orthodox.

Homosexuality has long been recognized by normal, decent people as a perversion of reality. It is abnormal, aberrational, and abhorrent and has been for millennia. Only a few years ago, this was not even debated except by a miniscule subculture of deviates.

Homosexuality is obviously unnatural when you compare male and female bodies. Two people of the same sex simply do not fit. Homosexuals must “work around the system” to do their “thing” and their “thing” is diseased, degenerative, dangerous, and deadly. About here, my critics will scream and throw a hissy fit instead of answering my objections to a perverted lifestyle.

I concede that many famous people have been and are bisexual or homosexual but that proves nothing other than some famous people make very dumb decisions. Famous homosexuals include Alexander the Great, Drew Barrymore, Leonard Bernstein, Raymond Burr, Ellen DeGeneres, Jodie Foster, Alfred Kinsey, Don Lemon, Leonardo da Vinci, Lindsay Lohan, Rachel Maddow, Barry Manilow, Michelangelo, Marquis de Sade, Shepard Smith, Tim Cook, Anderson Cooper, Socrates, Jim Nabors, and on and on and on.

When the sodomites of Sodom tried to take Lot’s two heavenly guests, the angels struck the whole crowd with blindness. Sodomites are blind to this day! When homosexuals say, “I was born this way,” they are right: they, like everyone, were born sinners. They say they can’t change; however, Bruce Jenner, a man who dresses like a woman, says he has changed. Why isn’t it very wrong to change Bruce from the way he was born?

It is interesting that most homosexuals are or have (like Bruce) been married, sometime for many years, even producing children. It’s also interesting that most people applaud his change but get indignant when we insist that homosexuals can and should change. Thousands of homosexuals have changed from abnormal to normal without chopping off sensitive body parts. They make that change with reparative therapy; will power; or a new birth experience with Christ–which is more permanent and quicker; it also guarantees eternal life.

From my conversations with homosexuals, I have been told that they could not be sexually normal if they tried to be. Many of them have “tried” but failed. Often, that failure is one reason they turned to the same sex. That is no excuse but it is an explanation.

Another explanation for homosexuality is almost half the homosexuals were seduced into perversion before they were fourteen-years-old. For that reason, we should show some patience with them. Conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce, an admitted lesbian, wrote: “Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood—molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.”

Classic studies prove that homosexuals become “that way” through various human experiences from a smothering mother to an absent or aloof father to molestation and seduction–with an enormous boost from the media and public education. There is plenty of blame to go around.

In recent years, it is not enough for perversion to be acceptable but now it is demanded that the blessings of the state and church be conveyed upon their “marriage.” But same-sex “marriage” is like Grape-Nuts–neither grapes nor nuts. Same-sex “marriage” is sinful, stupid, and senseless. It is also contrary to nature and to the Scripture.

That brings me to fundamental and evangelical Christians. We are often caricatured in the press, accused of being uneducated, closed minded, bigoted, and even haters. Almost weekly, the media accuse us of being homophobic because we don’t believe homosexuality is normal, desirable, or acceptable. Nor should it be legal! Because we take that position, we are said to be haters. And we are supposed to fear homosexuals.

Look, I don’t hate or fear anyone. I’m a lover; however, I believe that homosexuality is perversion and there are not enough change agents, civil rights adjusters, third rate psychologists, homosexual lawyers, state and federal agents and prosecutors of “hate” laws who can change my mind. No wiggle room.

Because most of the media are too unfair or too slow to understand this correct take on homosexuality, should I instigate a riot to teach the dummies a lesson? Should I fly a plane into a building to express my anger? Maybe I could get Jerry Falwell, Jr., Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Jim Dobson, and a few hundred Christians to race through Washington streets overturning cars, burning buildings, and harming innocent people! I think not. You see, Christians don’t act like that. People without character and biblical principles do.

I demand an answer from my critics: if homosexuality is permissible then why not accept bestiality, pedophilia, sex with the dead, and polygamy? How about some honesty and candor! Who decides where to draw the line?

God drew the line centuries ago when He decided that Adam and Eve were to cleave to each other all their lives in total faithfulness. Then Christ warned us to not even think illicit thoughts!

It’s dangerous, deadly, and possibly even damming to cross God’s line.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

The Muslim group went even further to preempt a brutal battle similar to what erupted in a town nearby over building a mosque. Trying to satisfy the opposition, the Muslims chose not to have a dome and its minarets would be chimney-style as are homes in the area. And the minarets would not be as high as church steeples. That would eliminate Christians whining, “Your minarets are higher than our steeple. It’s unfair.”

The opposing group determined to wear down the Muslims by making various excessive demands. There were 39 public hearings, and almost four years of demands for one change after another by town officials and planning board members. Even though each proposal was agreed to by the Muslims, they were followed by additional demands.

The four-acre requirement for churches was increased to six-acres. The parking lot was approved for 50 cars but was increased to 107 cars. But the mosque approval was denied by the town. Obviously, most of the opposition to the mosque was ill-disguised and ill-considered and without merit.

The major opponent declared, “Shariah law is one of the greatest threats to American values and liberties.” So, obviously, the issue was what Muslims believed and practiced. Therein is the rub.

Christian groups, including some Baptists, got involved in a suit to permit the mosque to be constructed! While I believe in religious liberty, I think Baptists have far more pressing and less controversial issues to support. I wonder if the broadminded Christians would be so supportive of a satanic group wanting to build a temple for their coven of Satanists! If not, why not? Islam is far more deceitful, disruptive, and dangerous than a few Satanists performing their silly rituals.

Brent Walker is the recently retired Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty who said, “It’s good when we can join hands with…folks we are sometimes on the other side of.” But God warned us not to be yoked together with unbelievers.

Other non-Muslim mosque-supporters included Dr. Russell Moore of the Ethics and the Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and Dr. David Platt of the International Mission Board (IMB), both agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Platt “apologized” for his actions that were distracting and divisive but not for disobedience of Scripture! Bud Ahlheim wrote in Pulpit & Pen, “But in the case of much of the SBC, it seems that Biblical disobedience isn’t all that much of a crime, isn’t a sin, and isn’t an issue. When you get caught, apologize for the confusion, not for the transgression.” True, but that is typical of everyone, including Independent Baptists.

When Dr. Moore was confronted by fellow-Baptists about the mosque caper, he refused to apologize but did manage to antagonize his critics. Moore could only be more controversial if he led a short-term mission project to help build the New Jersey mosque! Reports have surfaced that Moore may get the axe during the annual SBC meeting in Phoenix next month; however, only his executive board has the authority to remove him. The fate of Moore may determine the future of the SBC.

Not to be outdone, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) signed on to support the mosque-builders. About 20 other faith-based groups have joined the suit including Hare Krishna, Sikh, Jewish, and Muslim.

The suit declares that the town cannot discriminate against Muslims by requiring a different criterion from other religious groups. This is an old story of which all sincere people should be aware. For decades, Christians in America have been refused permission to build by big-city authorities because “we don’t need any more churches in this part of town.” Of course, this has been an ongoing problem for centuries in Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. I think it should be heralded that there is not one church in Saudi Arabia! Why is no one screaming about that? Have all these religious groups taken a public stand on that issue? Why not?

All right, this is America so we are held to a higher standard. I agree and I feel queasy about the silly, unfair demands made by the opponents of the mosque. If a town can ban Muslims, they can ban Methodists. I detest inconsistency. Additionally, it is illegal to use zoning as an excuse to ban a religious group from building based on the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

“We really felt it was important to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Muslim brothers and sisters,” Walker the Baptist said. Say what? Has Walker lost his mind or is he overcome in a seizure of an ecumenical spasm that shut off his thinking process? All Baptists know that we are brothers to those who have been born into the family of God through the New Birth. Has he been called upon to explain his ridiculously unscriptural statement? Or, is this issue the cause of his retirement?

A major principle that most Americans don’t know is that no one speaks for Baptists. You can speak to Baptists but not for Baptists. I speak for myself.

Galen Carey of the NAE said it was not unusual for the association to support plaintiffs of other religions. Carey said it has backed a Muslim prisoner’s right to grow a beard and Jewish inmates’ right to kosher food behind bars and a Muslim woman’s successful Supreme Court case to wear a hijab while working at retail store.

I think those issues are without merit, after all, doesn’t a department store have a right to determine employees’ dress? Must a prison cater to every religious practice? Can a snake-handling fanatic demand a bag of rattlesnakes in his cell? After all, that is a religiously held belief with more biblical support than a hijab. And no one can question the sincerity of snake-handlers!

There are limits on what can be permitted based on religious belief. Some church members sit around in the nude so is the state required to overlook the harm done to children in such a church? If a church believes in sacrificing a virgin on an altar every January 1, are they to be permitted to do it? These days they will not have much of a future since virgins are difficult to find. Since Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in blood transfusions, are they to be permitted to refuse blood for their sickly children? So, there are some limits to religious freedom, and I believe there must be limits on all mosques, and even on churches in extreme cases!

Islam is not only a religion but is a total way of life–economic, social, legal, and religious–that Muslims believe should regulate everyone. Christianity is also a total way of life but without coercion. It is fact that every true Muslim is obligated to make the nation in which he or she lives, a Muslim nation. All true Muslims believe in sharia law. Since 51% of American Muslims believe they have the right to be ruled by sharia rather than local laws and 20% of American Muslims believe violence is permitted to make sharia the law of the land, it is not only a religious matter. It is not very smart to encourage your executioner.

Islam is a poitical system taking advantage of our much-revered first amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion. It is seeking to destroy our Constitution and Bill of Rights, to replace them with sharia to gain world domination and subjugation of all non-Muslims. No mosque should be permitted in America unless the leadership declares under oath that they do not have plans to conquer America; they do not support female sexual mutilation; do not support honor killings; do not support violence against those who criticize Islam or Mohammed; do not support retaliation against those who leave Islam; and disavowal all forms of terror any place in the world. After permission to build the mosque, any deviation of the above would result in the leaders being arrested and the mosque demolished.

After all, under President Bush, on February 13, 2001, Federal Marshals raided the Indianapolis Baptist Temple and carried out many of my friends who were praying at the altar! The feds sold the 6 million dollar property for 1.5 million to a charter school. They attacked and later destroyed the large, famous, fundamental church based on far less (and inaccurate) transgressions than the above.

By the way, where were all the Christian mosque-defenders when the beautiful auditorium was bulldozed to the ground? They were not in Indianapolis for sure; after all, it was an Independent Baptist Church, not a Muslim mosque!

Maybe George Orwell was right. While all animals are equal, it seems some animals are more equal than others!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

An old saying tells us “Clothes make the man” (or woman), but an even older saying is “the habit does not make the monk.” Both are partly true. I have met men and women who were impeccably dressed with everything matching and very expensive accessories but they were people without character, charm, or civility. Good, elegant dress does not mean that one has good principles or is a person you would want as a dinner guest. In like manner, because a person is very casual in his dress does not indicate he is without principles.

However, while the habit does not make the monk, it does identify him and it affects the way everyone looks at him. How a person dresses also affects how he or she looks at himself or herself.

As an educator, I noticed that when students were better dressed it influenced their self-control. Uniforms are even a better guarantee of good discipline. So clothes are important. I would be horrified if my wife or daughters dressed the way most professing Christians dress. It is bad enough for teens to dress with their rears and bosoms on display but to see a 45-year-old woman do so is pathetic. She is trying to return to her spent (misspent) youth so she dresses as a youth in a failed and desperate attempt to return to yesteryears. She expects observers to admire her juvenile fashions on her ever-spreading, ever-sagging, and ever-shapeless body. These infantile fashions are not accidental. The wearing of juvenile-appearing clothing is just one more attempt to create an illusion of eternal youth or eternal adolescence, a phenomenon that is called the “Peter Pan syndrome.”

Modern fashion displays this tendency to infantilize people. An international fashion critic thus expressed herself: “For a long time now, we have seen on catwalks, both international and domestic, fashions that should be displayed at the Children’s Expo, such is the level of infantilization they suggest. Stylists over 25 years old were designing (and wearing) clothes that could be worn by children in a daycare center.”

Others, wearing short, seductive dresses, sit displaying the charm and grace of an obese elephant sitting on a bar stool.

I must say that my mother (even when she was not a Christian), my deceased wife, my present wife, and my daughters were/are the epitome of modesty. I have never been embarrassed or ashamed of any of them, not in the way they dressed or the way they acted.

People go to church, to weddings and to funerals dressed as street urchins but they would not visit the Queen or the President dressed that way. Those loose dressers use “being comfortable” as the determining factor in choosing clothes but that dog won’t hunt. While doing conferences in Japan, a Marine captain who was my driver, told us that he would have to adjust our schedule the next day because he had to see the general. He of course would wear his dress blues with highly polished shoes, a clean shave and combed hair. He was showing respect for a superior officer, his boss. It didn’t matter how uncomfortable he might be in the hot weather.

Others use the culture as an excuse to expose themselves; however, while culture, fashions, etc., constantly change, modesty is always demanded. If one takes the position that modesty is controlled by the crowd, customs, culture, and circumstances then they can also plead that honesty is dependent on the crowd, customs, culture, and circumstances. No honest person really believes that.

It seems active Christians think the above excuse changes the rules temporarily but that is not so. No Christian girl should lower herself to fashion simply because she is a bride or bride’s maid. “But all the dresses are strapless and very, very low,” says an excited bride-to-be. All right, then don’t have a formal wedding or have a seamstress redesign your dress. I recently saw where a bride had purchased a strapless dress and had a beautiful top made for it. Modesty is always in. Immodesty is always out.

Children are permitted to watch all the silly shows on television and movies that brutally attack everything godly, good, and graceful. I just saw four or five dolls dressed as street walkers. Of course, little girls will be impressed to dress similar to them or at least defend such dress. I would not purchase such dolls.

Christians should dress as Christians at all times–understanding the occasion, the time, and all circumstances. After all, we should set the standards not follow them.

A professing female Christian from one of the largest and famous Independent Baptist Churches and Colleges in America said, “I developed a gigantic, curvaceous, apple-bottom *** when I was around 14. [Already there is a signal that she is not a committed Christian.] Then the comments started coming such as ‘You have a lot of junk in your trunk! Your butt wiggles when you walk. Your bouncing rear-end is distracting my husband.’” Then she says that many years later when she thinks about those comments, “I want to curl up into a ball until the pain goes away.” That just doesn’t ring true to me. Me thinks she protests too much. If she is so pained, maybe much of it is guilt.

She found a wedding dress that was immodest and she knew everyone would critically respond to her wearing it. (Maybe this gal is mistaken about how much or how little people think about her.) But she decided to buy the dress whatever anyone thought. She said, “When I pushed my credit card across the counter, I felt… proud. Because I knew what I’d just accomplished, and it had been monumental: don’t let the ******** get you down, and I thought, and I scheduled my first fitting.” I believe she revealed her true rebellious, carnal, immodest heart without realizing it.

She was sure that her Christian friends back in Indiana would ask how she could wear a dress like that. Or how could her parents permit and pay for such a dress. And why would her future husband permit such a thing? I know that I have had such thoughts many times!

She says that those who emphasize modesty do so because we think a woman’s body is an “unclean object.” What silliness and immaturity. She is only seeking a foundation upon which she can stand to defend her own immodesty. Obviously, her college and church, where I have preached a couple of times did not teach her logic and systematic thinking. God helped Adam and Eve with their clothing dilemma. Sin had revealed they were naked and He covered them in animal skins.

She whined on and on saying, “No matter what I wore, I was still on the receiving end of cat calls, jeers, slurs– I was stared at, grabbed at, slapped, and mocked, because my body was unclean, and my body was under the purview of what men thought about it.” I don’t believe it! That did not happen at the church or college she attended. Maybe, just maybe, while shopping in Chicago it did but I even doubt that.

Her last statement is proof that she has major spiritual problems. She wrote, “But what I have learned since then is that there is nothing about my body that I need to hide!” So, what do you want to do, jerk it off and prove you are a totally liberated but frustrated, feminine Fundamentalist! After all, even nudity can be “justified” by some people.

This is no plea for the burqa, only attractive dress that covers what sane people have always known should be covered. For sure, no one should dress to tease, tempt, or tantalize others.

Jerome in the fourth century scolded a Roman woman: “Your vest is slit on purpose….Your breasts are confined in strips of linen, your chest is imprisoned in a tight girdle…your shawl sometimes drops so as to leave your white shoulders bare; and then it hastily hides what it intentionally revealed.” Not many preachers like Jerome today.

Most modern preacher stay away from the dress issue the way a mythical vampire flees the son light.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

In plowing through King’s writings during the holidays, I found that he was very careless and poorly educated. He often started a sentence with the first two letters in caps, he repeated words, and he left the suffix or “s” off words. Misspellings are numerous and he seldom used commas! He evidently did not know the difference in led and lead since he made that mistake many times. He also did not know that there is no word undermind confusing it with undermine. His work is not the quality of a seminary student but maybe an average college freshman!

King’s major problem was his heresy. He easily disassociated himself from traditional Christianity and it is shocking that so many Christians and Conservatives refuse to hold his feet to the theological fire. Principled people traffic in truth and eschew error in anyone and everyone. Such people do not bow to “sacred cows.”

In a paper written on the “Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Moreover, King posited the theological error that Scripture was subpoenaed to “appear before the judgement [sic] seat of reason.” He continued: “They realized that if they wanted to get an objective standard of reference they would they would [sic] have to go beyond the pages of the old [sic] testament [sic] into the path that lead [sic] to that locked door.” King was favoring the position that the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record.

He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that the non-canonical books were as good as or better than the Old Testament books! “To my mind, many of the works of this period were infinitely more valuable than those that received canonicity. The materials to justify such statements are found mainly in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These works, although presented pseudonymously, are of lasting significance to the Biblical student.” He is saying the contradictions, conflicts, and confusion of non-biblical books are better than the God-inspired books!

He also decided that the Genesis accounts of man’s creation and the Flood were not original–or accurate. King concluded that the writer of Genesis took information from the Gilgamesh Epic. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise pagan literature.

King concludes his paper dealing with archeology and the Old Testament: “If we accept the Old Testament as being ‘true’ we will find it full of errors, contradictions, and obvious impossibilities–as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.” No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture. And Moses did write the Pentateuch.

In a paper titled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection,” King let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. Note the title alone is incriminating. The doctrines of Christ did not come about because of “experiences” of the early Christians! They came about because the Holy Spirit moved upon men to write about eternal truths.

King declared, “But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, [Christ’s deity, virgin birth, and physical resurrection] and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically [sic] untenable.” Untenable means something that cannot be defended or maintained. You only thought you could defend the doctrines surrounding Christ.

He added, “Saint Paul and the early church followers could have never come to the conclusion that Jesus was divine if there had not been some uniqueness in the personality of the historical Jesus.” So the early Christians had no other reason to believe He was deity? What about His miraculous birth? What about walking on water? What about raising the dead? What about giving sight to the blind? What about rising from the dead? What about Christ’s declaration: “I and my Father are one.” No, no reason at all!

Returning to the divinity of Christ, King concluded: “So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og [sic] God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.” So all men have the potential of being divine!

King was a great speaker, a crusader, and had courage but he was not a believer! He had no regard for truth. He can be respected for his contribution to civil rights but not revered, respected, and remembered as a Christian leader for that he was not.

My critics should remember Socrates’ concept that “a man must not be honored above the truth.” So, I won’t be honoring King this year as I have not in past years.

Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! is available at amazon.com for $3.99.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Many “recovering Fundamentalists,” like many Evangelicals, are not militant but are moderate, even mushy and are only mad at true Fundamentalists from whom they separated. Evangelicals are mad because they can’t answer the Fundamentalist accusation of cowardice, compromise, and corruption.

Original Christians separated from heresy. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp (died in 156 and who had studied under the Apostle John) once met the heretic Marcion in the street: “Do you recognize me?” asked Marcion. “Indeed,” replied Polycarp, “I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!” Polycarp was a Fundamentalist and was martyred for his faith in 150 A.D. Marcion did not believe God created the earth and rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament. Polycarp separated himself from the heretic. Polycarp was not into bridge building. Most modern religious leaders confer legitimacy on heretics by recognizing them as their peers.

Irenaeus (d. 202), in his Against Heresies, reports a story told by Polycarp. Once, when the Apostle John walked into a public bath, he heard that a famed leader of the Gnostics was already inside. Reportedly, John immediately grabbed his belongings and fled from the place, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within!” Cerinthus did not believe God created the universe nor did he believe in Christ’s virgin birth. He taught that Christ would be raised from the dead when others will be raised. John was not willing to give Cerinthus any credibility by sitting with him in the bath. John also wrote in his second epistle that unbelievers should be rejected including anyone who denied the doctrine of Christ–not bidding God speed to any heretic.

Most preachers almost say something during their preaching and when they do so, they never offend anyone. While we should never try to offend others, we must not offend God by encouraging, engaging, and excusing false doctrine. We are required to rebuke it. However, we must rebuke with a loving attitude and never in a self-righteous manner, a mistake made by many leading Fundamentalists in the past.

Responsible militancy is another proof that Fundamentalists are the original Christians. This is evident from Christ Himself as he castigated the unholy merchandizers in the Temple and even chased them from the Temple with a whip that He made for that purpose.

Another example of militancy is that of Paul and Barnabas and their disagreement over John Mark (Acts 15:36–41). This was a conflict and confrontation, not simply a conversation. Also in a militant vein, Paul opposed Peter “to his face” for his duplicity before the Gentiles, and Paul did it “before them all” (Gal. 2:11–14). This was no suggestion that “we can have a difference of opinion” but a direct, definite, denunciation of error. Many modern Fundamentalists are very reluctant to confront compromise lest they be accused of being “holier than thou,” “bigots,” etc.

I must admit that Fundamentalists have produced some weirdos but then all groups have done so. Some Baptist pastors have been or are very close to being cult leaders–with a King James Bible. They should be rebuked, rejected, and removed although Fundamentalists have always believed that each church is totally independent with no hierarchy in control. That leaves each church responsible for any error in the pulpit and most church members fail to challenge and remove a wavering, waffling, and willful pastor. One reason for their refusal is they are very uninformed and often intimidated.

The Recovering Fundamentalist website is dishonest. In attempting to ridicule the Bible, it reports what Jews would do in the future (cannibalism) as if it were a command for them to eat their own children! That is disingenuous, dishonest, and despicable.

Famous recovering Fundamentalist Frank Schaeffer is the renegade son of theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer. Frank seems to be obsessed about Fundamentalists fearing homosexuals. However, we don’t fear them. We object to their wicked lifestyle that is killing them!

A recovering Fundamentalist wrote of Christ, “He hung out with whores” yet Christ was never alone with a woman (except His mother) unless you believe being alone means speaking with a woman at a public well at high noon. Recovering Fundamentalists use that argument to justify their willingness to associate with any lowlife with whom they curse, drink, and generally act like heathen. Need I say that Christ always reproved the sinners with whom he “hung around”?

It is a fact that Fundamentalists are the original Christians in their teaching, their godly lifestyle, their separation (personal and ecclesiastical), and their responsible militancy.

I’m a lifetime Fundamentalist with a grand, great, and glorious heritage and I’m not recovering from anything. Moreover, I have nothing to recover from–other than the blather of “recovering Fundamentalists” who use the unjust treatment received from false Fundamentalists as an excuse to whine, whimper, and weep about their actual or alleged mistreatment.

I suggest they grow up; chill out; visit a dying Christian; win a lost person to Christ; and remember, respect, and return to their Fundamentalist roots.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Muslim Invasion, click here. An eBook edition is also available.