The Sabbath, Oath of Office, First Amendment and More! Foundations Of Freedom Thursday!

The Sabbath, Oath of Office, First Amendment and More! Foundations Of Freedom Thursday!: It’sÂ Foundations of Freedom Thursday, a special day of the week where we get to answer questions from you, the listeners! Always answering your questions from constitutional principles! Tune in today as we answer your questions such as, what happens when a politician ignores their oath to uphold the Constitution? Should businesses be allowed to turn away customers? What about our First Amendment rights? Does the Sabbath commandment still apply in the 21st century? What did the Founders say about the Sabbath? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date:Â 02/08/2018

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

WallBuilders | American historical events, founding fathers, historical documents, books, videos, CDs, tapes, David Barton’s speaking schedule.
Coupons: Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order on ALL WallBuilders Store Products!!
Helpful links:

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note: Â As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we talk about today”s hottest topics on policy, faith, and other areas of the culture. We”re always looking at those things from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective.

And today specifically diving into those Constitutional perspectives because it’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Almost every week on Thursdays we dive into foundational principles driven by your questions. So you can send those into [email protected], that’s [email protected]

Those questions are going to be answered by David and Tim Barton. David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. Tim Barton, national speaker and pastor and the president of WallBuilders. And my name’s Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

Find out more at WallBuildersLive.com and also get archives of our programs over the last few weeks. Then at WallBuilders.com, a wealth of resources and materials available for you and your family to get equipped and inspired, learn how to be better citizens, and learn how to protect this freedom for future generations.

So, David, Tim, we’ve got a lot of questions. We”re not going to get to all of them today, but if you guys are ready to dive in, I’ll read the first one.

David:

You bet. Go for it.

Oath of Office Only for Show?

Rick:

Alright, it comes from Minnesota this time and it comes from Ron. He said, “This may sound like a terrible question to ask, but our nation is at risk. In the oath of office that elected officials swear to protect one oath asked the candidate to protect our nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Is that not right? A domestic enemy, who or what would that be or look like?

“Also, if the candidate is asked to protect the nation and the Constitution from attack, why wouldn”t a sitting president be guilty when they circumvent the Constitution to drive an agenda or make deliberate decisions that put our nation at risk? Either by a physical enemy or purposely in acting presidential decrees that cause our nation financial collapse and etc.? It seems the oath taken is only for show and then the candidate is never held accountable for their actions. Am I all wrong on this? Surely would appreciate your reply.”

So, David, Tim, great question and, obviously, we have a, I guess, perception of most politicians as saying one thing on the campaign trail, take the oath of office, and then ignore what they said on the campaign trail. This question actually dives into something even deeper. When they’re actually taking the oath, they’re saying they’re going to uphold the Constitution and defend it against enemies foreign and domestic. What happens when they don’t do that?

David:

This is where we are now in the modern era where you make your own definitions as you go. Because ask President Obama what an enemy to the nation is, and ask President Bush what an enemy to the nation is, and ask President Trump, and ask President Clinton, and you”ll probably afford different answers.

Tim:

Well, not to mention the idea of what’s best for America. Because the idea is that you’re supposed to uphold the Constitution, defend America. Well, if you think what’s best for America is to have an Iran Nuclear Deal, now, you’re an idiot, right? But if– we live in a world of subjective truths, subjective reality, it’s up to the individual to decide.

It Should be a Simple Black and White

Tim:

And you have someone that thinks this is going to be beneficial for us, or you have a president who thinks, “You know, we need to take America off a pedestal, take them down.” When it”s a subjective nature of what is good and what is beneficial and their job is to uphold and defend America, to do what’s good for America.

Well, what’s good for America now has become a very convoluted concept that, as much as there should be a very simple black and white, and I would look at this and think there is a very simple black and white, there’s a lot of disagreement with this. Especially in the political realm, political spectrum, of what people think is right, is wrong, is Constitutional, is good, is bad, etc.. And so it’s easy to see where, in this modern definition of truth or lack of truth, how we could be confused about this.

David:

Yeah, because it’s not objective anymore. What is an enemy, what is good, and what is the good of the country – to a liberal, secular, progressive, is very different from what it is to a God-fearing Constitutional conservative.

Here’s a great example, President Trump has now put back into the Pentagon and all the the manuals there from the executive branch, we’re back to talking about radical Islam and jihad. Because conservatives see that as an enemy. They see that as a problem.

I will point out, that in the Obama administration, WallBuilders was listed as an enemy of the state. And that was part of what was being taught along with the American Family Association, along with Focus on the Family, along with Family Research Council. And so we were all on the list as domestic terrorists in the Obama administration. Well, for them, we are the enemy. Of course for us, radical jihad, and sharia, that”s an enemy.

So, this is an objective problem. And the problem we have is we no longer believe in absolute truth. And absolute truth is defined by natural law, by facts, statistics, and by God’s word, quite frankly. That’s how we used to know.

Who Does a Liberal Secular Progressive, Take an Oath To?

David:

That’s why– he mentioned the oath, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. But who does a secular progressive, a liberal secular progressive, take an oath to? Certainly not to God, even though they say, “so help me God”. God is what they make for themselves. And so look at the religious beliefs of President Obama and then take a traditional view of God.

Even Benjamin Franklin, considered one of the least religious Founding Fathers, when he wrote the Constitution in 1776, helped to write that from Pennsylvania. He said, “You can’t hold an oath of office unless you believe in a future state of rewards and punishments.” You have to believe when you take the oath that you’re going to be standing before God at some point and you’re going to have to answer to him for everything you do. If you have a cognitive sense of the judgment of God, you will behave differently than those that do not believe they’ll stand before God someday.

And so if you don’t believe you’re going to stand before God someday, why not murder children right now? Why not redefine marriage? Why not say that the Conservatives are the enemy? On the other hand, if you’re going to stand before God and know that you”ll answer to Him, then I’m not going to shed innocent blood in unborn children. I’m not going to redefine what God said is marriage between a man and a woman and a lifelong union,etc..

It all goes back to God conscious, and the more secular you become, the harder it is to have an oath that you can uphold, the harder it is to know what is a domestic enemy and what is a foreign enemy, the harder– Because truth is all subjective now and we live in a place in America where only one out of three Americans, and only one out of three Christians, believe that there is absolute moral truth. Two out of three don’t believe that.

Where You Get the Stuff of a Living Constitution

David:

And so that’s where you get this stuff of a living Constitution, it lives and breathes. And the court helps evolve the Constitution as opposed to those of us that say, “No, that’s a black and white document and until the people pass a Constitutional amendment, we go with a black and white document.” You”ve got two completely * views, non-compatible views of what Constitution is and what domestic and foreign enemies are.

Rick:

Going to take a quick break, guys. We”ve got more questions to get to. Stay with us, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

George Washington said, “The constitution approaches nearer to perfection than any other government instituted among men.”

Moment From American History

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. Many today assert that religion is something private, that has no place in the public square, and that it is incompatible with government.

The Founding Fathers believed exactly the opposite. They held that religion was absolutely necessary in order to maintain our free system of government. For example, John Adams declared, “We have no government armed with power, capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”

And signer of the declaration, Benjamin Rush, similarly affirmed, “Without religion there can be no virtue and without virtue there can be no liberty and liberty is the object and life of all Republican governments.” The Founding Fathers understood that limited government required public morality from the people. And that public morality was produced by the Christian religion. For more information about the Founding Fathers views on religion in public life go to WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Rick:

Welcome back, thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live. It”s Foundations of Freedom Thursday. You can send your questions into [email protected] We try to get to those on Thursday.

Masterpiece Cake Shop Court Case

Rick:

We love getting questions about the Constitution, about different laws, and history, and we’ll get to as many of them as we can. This next one comes from John in Gainesville, Florida.

He says, “Dear WallBuilders crew, my family and friends are so blessed by your show and other resources. Thanks for everything. Here’s my question for Foundations of Freedom Thursday and hopefully it makes sense.” He said, “Recently, with the masterpiece cake shop court case, and other similar cases–“ and guys, before I give the rest of that, I want to give a reminder of the masterpiece case.

Tim:

Yeah, that was Jack Phillips up in Colorado. He’s the guy that had a cake company and just incredible design decoration. But in his cake shop, he sold all kinds of cakes and people would come in and buy them. And there was a homosexual couple who wanted him to do a special designed wedding cake for their wedding.

And he said, “Guys, I’m not going to do that. My faith will not allow me. However, I’ve got all these cakes in the shop, if you want to buy a cake I’ve already done, I’d be happy for you to take one of those cakes. But I cannot take my artistic ability and specifically create and design something to promote homosexuality because I believe it’s wrong.”

So, he was sued and it’s been appealed at every level, going to the Supreme Court. But that is the just behind it, where, even though he was willing to sell them any cake in the shop, he did not want to do a special design. Because he believed it was an endorsement of that behavior, homosexual behavior, which he convicted felt was wrong because of his Christian faith.

Rick:

Endorsement and participation in.

Tim:

Correct, correct.

Rick:

So, it’s like you’re participating in something you disagree with.

Tim:

Participating in their wedding which was–yeah, so for me, I’m saying that was his endorsement and approval of it. But yeah, so he’s taking part in this ceremony by doing this cake. Anyway, so they were very offended because he wouldn’t do this design even though he would sell them any other cake in the shop. And so it’s gone, now, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Facing Jail Time

David:

By the way, if he loses this case, he is facing jail time in Colorado for not baking the cake.

Rick:

Wow.

Tim:

Even though he was willing to sell them any cake in the shop.

Rick:

And recommend other bakers and whatnot that would do the wedding cake.

David:

And even though things like marijuana is still a federal crime, which you don’t get jail for, he’s facing jail time for not baking a cake for refusing to participate as a violation conscience. It’s amazing how far this has gone.

Rick:

Well, having that case in context I think it really helps with John’s question. So, he says, with that case in mind, “It seems like–“ he goes on to say, “It seems like some people have become obsessed with sounding alarms about businesses discriminating against customers. It seems to me that we have straight away from the original intent of the First Amendment’s idea of freedom of association. If I were a business owner, shouldn”t I be legally protected to not serve anyone for any reason?

“To be clear, I would serve anyone no matter what he looked like on the outside. However, I may choose not to serve someone if I thought my service was in any way going to be viewed as supporting certain behaviors or ideas that, as a Christian, I’m opposed to. And while I may disagree with a business owner”s reason for discriminating, like on the basis of skin color, I would think the founders intended for the free market to solve this problem. That is by another business opening to serve these customers Â or other public pressure.

“Have I misunderstood the original intent and did the 1964 Civil Rights Act get any of this wrong? Thanks so much. John.”

The Market Would Solve This

Rick:

And, guys, on the example he gives, the market would solve that. First of all, regardless of government intervention, in today’s marketplace, if you refused to serve based on color of skin, there’d be picketers the next day, you’d be out of business within probably 48 hours. So, the market would solve that one. But back to his original question, shouldn’t that be a– the ability to have free association and free market.

And I would add to his question, if you guys don’t mind, this idea of businesses “discriminating”. That word has been turned into a very negative thing in our culture today, but discriminating simply means making a choice, being able to tell whether or not doing something is right or wrong.

Tim:

For John’s e-mail he sent in, kind of his overarching question he says, “In my understanding, this right, the original intent.” And I would say, “Yeah, you are understanding it correctly.” And, Rick, to your point, the idea that a business owner has the ability to discriminate is actually a very good thing and we’ve really misconstrued some of this.

Just, for example, if you were someone who owned a restaurant and someone comes in, and in the restaurant they have a verbal fight, a verbal altercation, they began yelling, cussing, screaming, at each other, it would be very logical for the manager to go over and say, “Hey, would you guys mind kind of calming this down? We don’t want cursing in here. Could you take it outside?”

David:

I thought you had a right to free speech.

The Free Speech Argument

Tim:

And that’s exactly what they would argue, “Wait a second, I have the freedom of speech, it’s in the First Amendment. Freedom of speech–“ is what the argument would be. Now, does freedom of speech mean that the manager, that the restaurant owner, couldn’t ask you to stop cursing, and yelling, and screaming, in the restaurant? Well, of course not, that would be ludicrous. They have the right to ask you to not, in this case, practice your First Amendment right in their private business.

Now, I’m saying that certainly we would even say with the First Amendment and with the freedom of speech, that you have a responsibility in how you use your speech. And so just because you have the freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want, however you want, whenever you want etc.. But this is where we kind of misconstrue this. And for I don’t know how many decades or generations, there were these signs that said, “We reserve the right to refuse anyone”. This is something that’s just been understood with private businesses.

And, Rick, even as you pointed out, the free market would control this. If you are discriminating in a manner that is based on race, or based on gender, or ethnicity, the free market, especially with with social media these days, it’s going to get posted on social media so fast, people are going to oppose that so quickly, there’s no way the free market would allow that to continue.

David:

Here’s where it complicates, and he raised the– I had to address this on a media program this week where the host did the same thing and said, “Yeah, but that– what if I didn’t want to serve blacks or whatever?” And he mentioned the 1964 Civil Rights law. I think that’s an excellent point to make because the reason we had trouble with racism was because the government promoted it.

Quite frankly, when you go back to what the Declaration says, “All men are created equal.” The bill of rights gave equal protection to every single individual citizen in America. So, you go back, it was people in the south and it was governments in the south, who said, “No, we’re going to discriminate against certain citizens if they have the wrong color.” It was government that created the problem.

Civil Rights Law

David:

And so the 1964 Civil Rights law, along with the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment, not to mention the 13th Amendment, was to create the government doing something wrong that went against what our founding documents said. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, regardless of the color of the skin, or the gender that you are, you have certain rights from God. It was government that screwed that up. So, government, what they did in the “64 Civil Rights law was try to undo what government had done wrong. But had it been left to the free market, instead of government getting involved violating the rights, we”d have a whole different discussion here.

And so what’s your back to is you”ve now got government involved again, like with Jack Phillips, violating a God given right. Keep the government out of violating God given rights. Government is supposed to protect those, not supposed to violate those. And so that’s where the issue is, and that’s why, really, pointing to civil rights is a bad example. Because it’s not based on the right of a business to discriminate, it’s based on the government got involved in enforcing a bad idea that violated an inalienable right and when it does that, everything gets out of kilter, everything gets out of skew.

But, again, if you had a business and said, “I don’t want to serve blacks, or Hispanics, or I don’t want to serve whites, or I don”t want to serve whatever.”, the free market is going to take care of that. That’s just going to be– especially if the government is into protecting all people equally as they should.

Rick:

Yeah, and I think it helps me to put this in perspective because it gets couched so much in the refusing service that’s like food, or something like that, and into the civil rights movement, and that sort of thing. It always helps me to look at this from the perspective of look– asking someone, forcing someone, to bake a cake, or take pictures, or play the music, or whatever, to participate in an event that violates your closely held beliefs and what you stand for is what we’re talking about here.

We Just Had the Grammy”s

Rick:

And so to put that in perspective, we just had the Grammys, and I don’t know who any of these artists are, but I had the headlines fill my inbox and you got, again, I don’t know who these people are or what kind of music they sing. But just looking at the pictures you”ve got Lamar, Kendrick Lamar, who is a black rap artist. You”ve got Bruno Mars who is some kind of black artist that won a bunch of Grammy Awards. Ok, I don”t know anything about their music, but my guess is that if the KKK, or some skinhead organization, tried to book them to sing at their rally standing for the exact opposite of what those guys, I’m sure, would would say about their position on race, no one in the country would think that we should fine them, threaten them with jail, or in other ways force them to go use their talent and their gift to participate in an event that violates what they believe in.

It’s the exact same thing when you’re asking a person of faith, or for whatever their reasons are, to not participate in a homosexual marriage. It’s the exact exact same thing. But sometimes we have trouble making that–

First Amendment Right of Association

David:

Well, that”s the First Amendment right of association which the government is to protect – not violate.

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

And you have the right to choose your company, you have the right to choose the people you hang with, you have the right to choose those things. That’s your First Amendment right of association which is a guaranteed right that”s supposed to be protected by the government. But now you have the government picking who you will associate with and who you will not associate with. That’s not the role of government to do that.

Rick:

No doubt, no doubt. Alright, quick break. We’ll be right back with more questions on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Stay with us folks. You”re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Samuel Adams said, “The liberties of our Country, and the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending against hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

Patriot Academy

Patriot Academy

Have you noticed the vacuum of leadership in America? We’re looking around for leaders of principle to step up and too often no one is there. God is raising up a generation of young leaders with a passion for impacting the world around them. They’re crying out for the mentorship and leadership training they need. Patriot Academy was created to meet that need. Patriot Academy graduates now serve in state capitals around America, in the halls of Congress, in business, in the film industry, in the pulpit, in every area of the culture. They’re leading effectively and impacting the world around them.

Patriot Academy is now expanding across the nation and now is your chance to experience this life changing week that trains champions to change the world. Visit PatriotAcademy.com for dates and locations. Our core program is still for young leaders 16 to 25 years old, but we also now have a citizen track for adults. So visit the website today to learn more. Help us fill the void of leadership in America. Join us in training champions to change the world at PatriotAcademy.com.

Intro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Rick:

We’re back on the Foundations of Freedom Thursday WallBuilders live program. Thanks for staying with us. Next question comes from Patrick.

He says, “Hello WallBuilders. Rick, David, and Tim, thank you for all you guys do in educating our fellow patriots about our Biblical, historical, and Constitutional heritage. I love what you guys are doing. I’m a devoted Christian and patriot and was curious about what our Founding Fathers” view on keeping the Sabbath was in lot of the Old and New Testament. And, more specifically, the teachings of Christ. How should a Christian in the 21st century live this commandment out week to week if it still applies? Thank you for your input and everything you guys do. God bless.”

Thanks, Patrick, for your question. David, Tim, what about the Sabbath? The founders view on that and then really playing it out in the way things work today.

The Sundays Excepted Clause

David:

One of the clauses that no one pays attention to today in the Constitution is what”s called the “Sundays Excepted Clause”. The Sundays Excepted says that when Congress passes a law, the president has 10 days to sign that law, Sundays excepted, or the law goes into effect over his– without his signature. Now, the courts pointed out that Sundays excepted proved the Christian construction of the Constitution. Because as they pointed out, they said Mohamedans have a Friday Sabbath, Hebrews have a Saturday Sabbath, and Christians have a Sunday Sabbath.

Now, it’s not that all Christians have a Sunday Sabbath, you have Sabbatarians, you have Seventh day Adventists, you have Seventh Day Baptists, who do a Saturday Sabbath. But Christianity is the only religion in the world that has a Sunday Sabbath. Not all Christians have a Sunday Sabbath, but that is the Christian Sabbath in general. And so the Constitution recognized the Christian Sabbath and said, “We don’t do any congressional work on that day and the president doesn’t count that as one of the ten days on which he has to sign the law. That’s the Sabbath day, that’s not a work day, we don’t use it.”

So, from that perspective, that’s why mail is never delivered on Sundays. It can be delivered on Saturdays or Mondays. And granted, those can be Sabbaths for other folks, but in America, we’ve said, “No, the Christian Sabbath is all off limits.” And so in 1830s-1840s, they had big debates on whether to start delivering mail on Sundays. They said, “No, we don’t do that in a Christian country.” So, there is a big belief that the Christian Sabbath was to be observed. Even if you were not a Sunday Sabbath person, you still observed the Sunday Sabbath.

By the way, we have a proclamation you can see on the website from John Dickinson, a signer of the Constitution. He’s calling on the people of Delaware and Pennsylvania to be faithful in observing the Sabbath as Christians.

Let”s Hear from Paul

David:

Now, I”ll point out, from what Paul said, Paul said, “It doesn’t matter what day you choose, choose a day. God said there’s a Sabbath.” I think it’s Hebrews 4:11 that says, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God.” God set the precedent, that’s moral law, it did not go away with the Old Testament. God said, “Look, I worked six days. Seventh day I rested. Follow my example.”

And that’s why the Ten Commandments say, “Six days shalt thou work.” Not optional – you”re supposed to be working six days and we’re trying to get away from that. Work is healthy. Proverbs 14:23 says, “All hard work is profitable.” God knows what’s good for us.

So, work six days, seventh day you rest. You don’t do your stuff. You do God stuff on that day. If your Sabbath day is Thursday, great, if it’s Tuesday, great, if it’s Saturday, or Sunday, or Friday, great. But in the Bible, New Testament and Old Testament, you still have a Sabbath.

But the founding fathers views on that were very, very, strong. As a matter of fact, even Thomas Jefferson, who we consider one of the least religious founding fathers, had a, as governor, put it in a state law on protecting the Sabbath. And that if you violate the Sabbath, or disturb the Sabbath, there was actually a fine for doing so, and that came from Thomas Jefferson.

So, their view is very clear, Bible’s view is very clear. It’s something I think still belongs to Christians today to observe a Sabbath, to take a day of rest and remember God – not your own pleasures. Think about God, that’s what He told us to do on the Sabbath.

Rick:

Yeah, and you guys, kind of the second part of his question, living that out in today’s frantic schedules that we have, sometimes different types of schedules. It doesn’t have to be on Sunday to be able to still have a Sabbath, right?

Tim:

No, it doesn’t have to be on the Sabbath. One of the things that, as my dad just pointed out, Paul said is that, “Make sure you have a day of rest.” But when you determine that Sabbath– and I know there’s probably listeners saying, “Wait a second, no, it has to be on Sunday, it has to be on Saturday, it has to be on Monday.” That’s fine, if you have a conviction about it, that’s great.