Introduction and Scripture Reading

Weaver introduces the topic, noting the need for two parts, and reads Exodus 20:1-3, emphasizing the command to have no other gods.

Exodus chapter 20, and let me just say up front that I'm going to have to bring this message in two parts. Originally, I wanted to bring the entire message in one, but there's just so much material, it's going to require at least two messages. So this is going to be part one on the pledge, its history, and its problems. So please make sure that you listen to the entire message. Notice Exodus chapter 20, beginning with verse one,

Now, you're going to see the relevance of this scripture when I close and end this message. But note verse 3, God said,

Everyone knows the Pledge of Allegiance, and most of us have recited that pledge since we were children. In fact, the pledge has become part and parcel of our lives. The problem or one of the problems with the pledge is this, that we have repeated it so often without thinking of its implications, its history, its origin, its aim, or anything. In fact, most people repeat the pledge the way they sing a lot of the hymns of the faith.

The Pledge and Patriotism

Weaver challenges the equation of the pledge with patriotism, noting that many historical patriots never recited it, and the pledge has been revised multiple times.

They just say the words. They never ever think about what they're saying, nor the implications of what they're saying. In fact, we have equated the Pledge of Allegiance with patriotism and of being good Americans. In fact, usually speaking, we could say this, that our feathers are very quickly ruffled by anyone who refuses to say the Pledge or at least stand reverently while the Pledge is being said. The mindset of most Americans is simply this. Those who would not recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the Pledge of Allegiance is in the least unpatriotic, and at the most, they have to be either Marxist or Communist. Let me just say up front that I hesitated in tackling this subject simply because it is indeed so controversial. And let me go ahead and say this, as I deal with the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not simply trying to stir up trouble.

I have enough of that already. And when I deal with this subject, I am not trying to enter into a debate with anyone. I do not have time to enter into debates. However, I am trying to answer questions and present the truth in a reasonable, rational, and biblical framework. So I would encourage anyone and everyone who hears this first message, before you jump down my throat, please listen to the second message as well, okay?

Now I said earlier that many of us and many people have equated the pledge with patriotism. And the attitude of the average American is that anyone who will not recite that pledge or stand while it is being said is at the least unpatriotic and maybe at the most they may be Marxist or Communist. It is absolutely impossible to equate the pledge with patriotism. Let me state that again, and I'll tell you why. It's absolutely impossible to equate the Pledge with patriotism. If you make the Pledge of Allegiance your standard for patriotism, how were men patriotic before the Pledge was ever written? May I ask you, would you consider George Washington a patriot? Would you consider Thomas Jefferson a patriot? Would you consider Robert E.

Lee and Stonewall Jackson patriots? Would you consider Charles Lindbergh and Congressman Louis McFadden, who warned us concerning the Federal Reserve System, would you consider those individuals patriots? And the answer is yes. But do you realize that none of those men that I mentioned and a whole multitude of others ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance? Many could not have recited it, because the pledge was not even written until August of 1892, and it really did not become recognized fully in America until about 1923. So the Pledge of Allegiance is basically of recent origin. Now, Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge. The original words of the pledge were these, "I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Now the little word "to" was added in October of 1892. "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands." It was on Columbus Day of October 1882 that the Pledge of Allegiance and an official program was presented where all the public school children stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance. It was on June 14, 1923, at the first National Flag Conference that was held in Washington, D.C. under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, that the words of the pledge were changed. Words were added on the ground that some foreign-born children and adults, when giving the pledge, might have the flag of their native land in mind. And so the words were changed to these. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1924, the words "of America" were added. So, now it goes, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Now, there have been legal battles concerning the Pledge of Allegiance for a multitude of years. In fact, in its 1940 Gobitis decision, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could compel students to recite the pledge. The United States Congress recognized the pledge officially in 1942. In 1943, the Gobitis decision was overruled in the Barnett decision and they said, the Supreme Court reversed itself and said, that school children could not be forced to recite the pledge as part of their school day routine. Now today when you come to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, the wording is set in the U.S. Code at 4 U.S. Code 4. On Flag Day, in 1954, under the urging and at the desire of President Dwight David Eisenhower and some other organizations, the words "under God" were added. So, when you recite the words "under God," those words were not added until 1954. Now, listen carefully. I said earlier, you cannot make the Pledge of Allegiance your standard for patriotism. If you do, may I ask you, which version is your standard?

The first one, the second one, the third one, or the fourth one? Because it has been revised four times now. You see, another problem that is associated with the Pledge of Allegiance is this, that a few well-intentioned individuals wish to demonstrate their patriotism by legislating that the Pledge must be said in every public and private organization known to man. And if the Pledge is not recited, then they become upset, and they question the patriotism of those who do not wish to have the pledge recited.

Now let me make a statement, and I want everyone to please remember this. It is not my intent to attack anyone in this message, nor am I questioning anyone's patriotism who either recites or does not recite the pledge. It is my intention to lay out the facts so that we may be knowledgeable and have the facts to decide for ourselves whether or not, as Christians and as Southerners, that we should be reciting the Pledge. I want you to understand also from the outset that this subject would fall in the category of what the Apostle Paul classified as indifferent.

Indifferent Matters and Serious Questions

He classifies the pledge as an indifferent matter regarding salvation but raises questions about pledging allegiance to a secular state that rejects God's sovereignty.

Let me explain what I mean by that. When something is indifferent, it does not affect our salvation. No one is more saved for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. And no one is less saved for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. You follow me? So in that sense of the word, it is indifferent. Now, a little bit later on, if we understand the intent and we understand idolatry, then we may have a different view of some things, but I'm just simply saying that basically no one is more saved for reciting it and no one is less saved for not reciting it. However, as one author pointed out, while the current U.S. government is not tolerant of any expression of faith, acknowledgement of, or allegiance to God on the part of teachers and students, yet they expect students to repeat a secular prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, invoking the name of God, an obvious conflict they are willing to use for their own purely secular purposes. Tim Manning, Sr., in his book on the Pledge, has two very serious and solemn questions. And I want to read these questions.

Listen to these questions. He asks, "Considering the religious convictions and strong sense of moral commitment still held by many Americans, the question is being raised as to why and by what authority does the now secular state require its subjects, particularly children, to daily repeat for years an oath of unquestioning fidelity to a political entity that emphatically rejects the belief that God's laws are sovereign and above all human laws?" That's a good question. Now stop and think about that. Why and by what authority does the now secular state require its subjects, particularly children, to daily repeat for years an oath of unquestioning fidelity to a political entity that emphatically rejects the belief that God's laws are sovereign and above all human laws? He then continues, "The second question is closely related to the first. It is, is the United States government so designed and constituted that we should pledge an oath of allegiance to it? Does the federal government that possesses, or should possess, clearly defined, enumerated, and delegated powers and responsibilities assigned to it by the states, possess sovereignty in order to require a pledge of allegiance from the citizens of its constituent states?" Now, that's equally a good question.

In order to answer these questions, and hopefully a lot more, I want you to consider several things with me. I'm going to give you an outline. We will probably only cover two points today. I want you to see the author of the pledge, the aim of the pledge, the analysis of the pledge, and finally the applications that will be brought forward. So let's go to the author of the pledge. If I were to ask you who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, most of you could probably tell me Francis Bellamy. But that's probably about all that you could tell me.

The Author: Francis Bellamy

Weaver details Bellamy's background as a socialist Baptist minister, his involvement with the Christian Society of Socialists, and his forced resignation from his church.

Most of you know that I love books. And I have a few of them. When someone recommends a book to me, usually the first question I ask is who is the author? And if I know the author I can automatically tell you probably whether the book is a good book or a bad book or at least I can tell you what slant or what perspective you will find in that book because I know the author. Well, when I ask you who the author of the Pledge of Allegiance is and you tell me it is Francis Bellamy, what do you know about Francis Bellamy? The interesting thing is this, a great deal of information can be found on Francis Bellamy just simply from the internet. However, there are three books that I want to recommend to you. The first one is basically a little pamphlet. It was written by Pastor Charles Jennings, "To Pledge or Not to Pledge," which is an excellent little booklet.

The second one is not yet printed, but Tim Manning graciously gave me a copy of it. His book is entitled, "The Pledge of Allegiance: Is It Patriotic?" It is an excellent and a wonderful book. And the third book was written by John Bayer and it is entitled "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History from 1892 to 1992," from which I will be quoting a great deal and from which I've adapted a lot of this material. Those three books are very primary and they are full of wonderful information.

Now Francis Bellamy was born in Mount Morris, New York into the home of a Baptist minister, his father, David Bellamy. As a child, he attended a public school in Rome, New York. In 1872, he entered the University of Rochester as a ministerial student, and listen carefully, you're going to pick up on some things if you will listen now, because at his graduation commencement, he spoke on the subject of "The Poetry of Human Brotherhood." In his speech, he applauded the concepts of the French Revolution. He said it was those concepts that awakened a man to a realization of his personal dignity and God-given rights. And soon he was openly advocating the French Revolutionary slogan, "liberty, equality, and fraternity." In 1876, Bellamy enrolled in Rochester Theological Seminary. Upon his graduation in 1880, he began his public ministry in the Baptist Church in Middle Falls, New York and soon became involved with the National Prohibition Party. In 1885, he moved to the Dearborn Street Baptist Church and changed the name to Bethany Baptist Church. And it was there he really began to expound his ideas on socialism.

He worked with the poor of the city. And he brought a sermon entitled, "Jesus the Socialist." And then he did a whole series of sermons on the socialism of the primitive church. Francis Bellamy had some cousins and one of them's name was Edward. Edward happened to be a best-selling author. And two of his books were entitled "Looking Backward" and "Equality." Edward Bellamy was a leader in the socialistic movement of that day. Both of these books advocated a socialistic utopian state with political, social, and economic equality for all operated by national government. Now, Francis Bellamy became vice president of the Christian Society of Socialists, which was an auxiliary of his cousin's nationalism movement. In 1891, Francis Bellamy was forced to resign from his Boston church because the conservative businessmen in the area viewed his work and his sermons as becoming increasingly socialistic and increasingly unbiblical.

Now, do they have a right to complain? And the answer is unequivocally, yes. In case you do not know it, let me spell it out to you. The Word of God does not teach socialism. And I hope you know enough about the French Revolution to know that the French Revolution was humanistic to the bone. The French Revolution did everything it could to outlaw God, to outlaw His Word, to outlaw His worship, and to outlaw any recognition of Him. They even elevated a prostitute on the altar and worshipped her. Bellamy was a socialist to the core. And Francis Bellamy did not get his socialism from the Word of God. Now, what do I mean by socialism? Some of you could understand the word fascism, but let me tell you what socialism is. Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and control of the means of production. And the means of production are often defined as land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship. In other words, the government owns everything. Fascism. The government owns everything, controls everything, and does everything for the benefit of all. Many understand that part of socialism is the redistribution of wealth.

That's what the income tax is all about. It is taking from some and giving to others. It is a means of socialism. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this: Bellamy not only was a socialist himself, but he had to organize a society for Christian socialists. And in that society, they had a declaration of their principles. And here is what Bellamy said. The principles stated that, listen carefully now, that economic rights and powers were gifts of God. Well, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it? We would say that everything we have is a gift from God, but he doesn't stop there. He says this, that the economic rights and powers are gifts of God, and not for the receiver's use only, but for the benefit of all. All social, political, and industrial relations should be based on the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man in the spirit and teachings of Jesus. Capitalism was not based upon Christian love, but on a selfish individualism.

Another name for Francis Bellamy's socialism was nationalism or National Socialist. Bellamy, his cousins, his associates taught National Socialism 30 years before Hitler. In fact, originally, the original pledge included the Nazi salute. I'm going to read to you the official program for the National Columbus Public School celebration of October the 21st, 1892. Here's the complete program that was drawn up by Francis Bellamy himself. Very quickly let me read it. Number one, here's what they were going to do in every public school, reading of the president's proclamation by the master of ceremonies. Number two, raising of the flag by veterans. Number three, salute to the flag by the pupils. Listen carefully. I'm reading verbatim. "At a signal from the principal, the students in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the flag. Another order is given. Every pupil gives the flag the military salute, the right hand lifted palm downward to align with his forehead close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together slowly, 'I pledge allegiance to my flag.'"

"and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. At the words, 'To my flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward toward the flag, and remains in this gesture until the end of the affirmation, whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side. Then still standing as the instrument strikes a chord, all will sing 'America, my country, 'tis of thee.'" Number four, Acknowledgement of God and Prayer or Scripture. So the original recitation of the pledge began like this. And only, as you said, "my flag," did you turn the palm upward.

Now, Daniel Ford was a friend of Francis Bellamy. In fact, he was a member of Bethany Baptist Church and a close friend and supporter with Bellamy. And he agreed with the socialistic ideas. And so after Bellamy was basically forced to resign his church, Daniel Ford then offered him a position on the staff of his magazine which was entitled "The Youth's Companion." Now "The Youth's Companion" was a national magazine and it was quite successful. After Daniel Ford's death, two million dollars of his fortune went to the Baptist Social Union of Boston who built Ford Hall, a meeting place for the Ford Hall Forum. Now, when you talk about two million dollars, we're talking about two million dollars in 1920 money, not two million in today's money. So, two million in silver and gold would be what today, Henry? Approximately millions, much more than two. Well, this hall was built then for an open discussion for controversial social, economic, political, and religious issues. In 1928, a conservative Baptist group, along with the Daughters of the American Revolution, charged the forum with promoting anti-Christian, un-American, and socialistic and communistic ideas.

And the forum, therefore, was announced by the Boston Baptist Social Union. Now, let me just try to explain to you how serious a socialist Francis Bellamy really was. Of course, he agreed with his cousin Edward's book, "Looking Backward." And I want to just tell you something about this book. "Looking Backward" is about a man who goes to sleep in 1887 and he awakes in the year 2000. And when he wakes, he finds that the United States has become one giant socialistic monopoly. He wasn't too far off, was he?

Now listen, the document, this book openly portrays men treated as military draftees, but wait a minute, let me explain this, as military draftees from the ages of 21 until the age of 45 in the United States Industrial Army, not the military army, but the industrial army. In other words, when you get to be 21, you come into the service of the state. When you get to be 45, you exit the service of the state. Bellamy's glorification of the military includes government control of all jobs. Who determines what you do? Who determines where you work? The government. Everyone is issued ration cards which are used to draw goods from government storehouses. Everyone is permitted only the same amount in value annually. The entire school system is only a governmental school system and it is an integral part of the development of the industrial army and of the entire socialistic monopolistic system. The point I'm trying to make is this.

These men were very serious socialists. In fact, Edward Bellamy's book, "Looking Backward," was such a success that it had inspired nationalistic movements and nationalist clubs or Bellamy clubs all over the country whose members wanted the federal government to nationalize the American economy. They saw governmental schools as a means of promoting and acquiring national socialism. They weren't far off there either, were they? It should not be necessary to point out that Bellamy and his cousins were totalitarian socialists and the ideas that inspired the pledge have caused mass atrocities worldwide. I did not say the pledge caused mass atrocities worldwide. I said the ideas, the socialistic ideas that inspired the pledge have caused mass atrocities worldwide. Many problems that exist in our own country today are the fruits of socialism. Who was Francis Bellamy? Let me answer that.

He was an ousted, defrocked Baptist preacher, a socialist, a Freemason, and one who embraced Abraham Lincoln's philosophy of the centralization of power. He wanted a strong, central, nationalistic government that would control everything and run everything. So there's the author.

The Aim: National Socialism

Bellamy's own words reveal his intent to promote a one-nation, indivisible republic and indoctrinate children into national socialism, undermining states' rights.

Now, secondly today, I want to talk about the aim. When you think about who Francis Bellamy was, what he believed, you automatically should ask yourself, well, what were his intentions? What did he intend by writing the pledge? What did he mean? What do those words mean that we recite all of the time? Now, it is true that Francis Bellamy was asked to write the pledge to which he eagerly accepted. And what I'm going to share with you right now are Bellamy's own words of the thoughts that entered his mind in August of 1892 when he wrote the pledge. Here's what he said, I'm quoting his words, these are not mine.

He said, "It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards, with the makings of the Constitution, with the meaning of the Civil War, with the aspiration of the people." Now, end quote. Let me ask a question. He said it began with an intensive communion with the salient points on our national history, with the Declaration of Independence, with the makings of the Constitution, with the meaning of the Civil War. Here's my question. Whose meaning of the Civil War? I hope everyone understands that every individual speaks from his own framework and from his own perspective. Your own framework and your own perspective is always influenced by your theology or your lack thereof, or your culture or your lack thereof. So he said, when I began to write the pledge, I began to think of the salient points of our history, the Declaration, the Constitution, the meaning of the Civil War.

Now, Bellamy continues, and I'm quoting. Listen to what he says. "The true reasons for allegiance to the flag is the republic for which it stands. And what does that vast thing, the republic, mean? It is the concise political word for the nation, the one nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches, and its future," and then a question mark. Now, before I go further, listen to what he said. The true reason for the allegiance of the flag is the republic for which it stands, and what does that vast thing, the republic, mean? Now, I'm going to explain this when I get to the analysis, but listen carefully. It is the concise political word for the nation, one nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. He says to make that one nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.

Now, folks, I don't know if you have picked up on the meaning of what he has just said, but I'm going to explain it to you. It'll probably take next week to do so, but I'm going to explain to you what he's talking about when he talks about the one nation. Now, he ended that phrase, "and its future." I'm quoting Tim Manning again, but listen to what he says. His question "and its future" is answered in the next paragraph. He, that is Bellamy, saw that as a result of the Civil War, the United States had taken a giant step toward becoming the socialistic utopia, a utopian society born of the French Revolution that he dreamed of creating in the United States. Bellamy stated that the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance was to fulfill his and his cousin's lifelong goal of making their socialism fantasy a reality, and the true reason for the allegiance to the flag was to indoctrinate American schoolchildren into what our Founding Fathers would have considered totalitarian socialism.

Now, let me ask you a question. Why did Francis Bellamy write the pledge? And the answer is to promote his idea of National Socialism. Let me explain this in simple terms. If Bellamy's idea of National Socialism is correct, then states' rights are wrong. States independence and state sovereignty are meaningless. In other words, that which mattered to Bellamy and to his socialistic cousins and friends was the nation.

The many had to be sacrificed for the one. I don't want to get into this today, but let me tell you, there is a historical battle between the philosophies of nominalism and realism. Those two philosophies have always been in each other's throat. One teaches the many are more important than the one and the other teaches the one is more important than the many. And so in National Socialism, you have the one is more important than the many. So National Socialism teaches that the many, that is the individuals or the states, must be sacrificed for the one, that is the nation. They have to be sacrificed for the unity.

Now according to Abraham Lincoln and those who followed the philosophy of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, the nation preceded the states. The nation existed before the states. I don't know quite how you can get that from history and from truth, but according to their philosophy, they say the nation existed first. By the way, you know there is a debate out entitled "The Great Debate" between Peter Marshall and Steve Wilkins, which is wonderful, you need to watch it, but Peter Marshall's position is that the nation preceded the states, and therefore the nation is more important. By the way, there is a difference between federalism and nationalism. When you and I think of nationalism, what we tend to think of is we're for our nation.

I mean, come on, let's be honest. That's what we think because if you have two boxers, one from Russia and one from the United States of America, automatically we're pulling for the American. Why? Well, we're Americans. And when we think of the word nationalism, we just understand it means being for our nation. Let me tell you something. Words have meanings. And words do not always mean what we think they mean. And the meanings of words, words change. And if you want to understand something that someone said 200 years ago, you better know what those words meant 200 years ago. There's a difference between nationalism and federalism.

Our founding fathers did not create a national government, but rather a federal government. There is a huge difference. You say, what are you talking about? Well, let me give you the difference. This is from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th edition, and here's the difference legally. Listen carefully. "National government, a government of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government." What? Did you hear that? What is a national government? It is a government that possesses complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.

You could just put down totalitarianism. You could put down tyranny, dictatorship. Here's what Bouvier says concerning a federal government. Listen carefully. "A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states united by compact." What did the sovereign, independent, and free 13 states do in 1787? They came together by compact, and created the federal government and gave it certain limited, defined powers. The rest they kept to themselves. They reserved to themselves. So, our Founding Fathers did not create a national government, they created a federal government. But Bellamy and his cousins and associates wanted a national government.

Now, I'm going to give you a quote from Bellamy. He wrote an address entitled, "The Meaning of Four Centuries." And I want you to listen to what he says. This will blow your mind. But I'm quoting, here's what Bellamy himself wrote. As a strong proponent of public education, he stated this. "We assemble here that we too may exalt the free school that embodies the American principle of universal enlightenment and equality, the most characteristic product of our four centuries of American life." "One institution more than any other has wrought out the achievements of the past and is today the most trusted for the future. Our fathers, in their wisdom, knew that the foundation of liberty, fraternity, and equality must be universal education. The free school," put government school there, public school. "The free school, therefore, was conceived as the cornerstone of our republic. Washington and Jefferson recognized that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of the church or of other private interests." Put parents there. "That while religious training belongs to the church and while technical and higher culture may be given by private institutions, the training of citizens in the common knowledge and in the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the state."

Now let me just stop there. First of all, did you hear the slogan of the French Revolution, liberty, fraternity, and equality? What did he say was the primary institution to teach that? It was the free school, the government school, the public school. And then he invokes Washington and Jefferson and of course he takes them out of context. He says they recognize that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of the church or of other private interests. Who else would have a private interest in the education of children? Their parents. So what's he saying? Church has nothing to do with this. Parents have nothing to do with this. The obligation to train children, he says, belongs irrevocably to the state.

Now you remember when you hear the words liberty, fraternity, and equality, that was the slogan of the French Revolution. It was under this slogan that the French revolutionaries believed that the mass killing by the state was always justified because it was done for the grand purpose of achieving equality.

Can you stop and imagine, and I did know the number, but I have now forgotten, how many millions of people were executed in France under the guise of liberty, fraternity, and equality. Under that slogan, millions have been mass murdered for the purpose of achieving equality. It was the Republic. It was the nation that was important. The people were expendable. Bellamy's philosophy was our children should be indoctrinated by the state in order to ensure that they would be good little statists.

National vs. Federal Government

Weaver distinguishes between a national government (totalitarian) and a federal government (limited by compact), arguing Bellamy sought the former.

Our founding fathers did not create a national government, but rather a federal government. There is a huge difference. You say, what are you talking about? Well, let me give you the difference. This is from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th edition, and here's the difference legally. Listen carefully. "National government, a government of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government." What? Did you hear that? What is a national government? It is a government that possesses complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.

You could just put down totalitarianism. You could put down tyranny, dictatorship. Here's what Bouvier says concerning a federal government. Listen carefully. "A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states united by compact." What did the sovereign, independent, and free 13 states do in 1787? They came together by compact, and created the federal government and gave it certain limited, defined powers. The rest they kept to themselves. They reserved to themselves. So, our Founding Fathers did not create a national government, they created a federal government. But Bellamy and his cousins and associates wanted a national government.

Now, I'm going to give you a quote from Bellamy. He wrote an address entitled, "The Meaning of Four Centuries." And I want you to listen to what he says. This will blow your mind. But I'm quoting, here's what Bellamy himself wrote. As a strong proponent of public education, he stated this. "We assemble here that we too may exalt the free school that embodies the American principle of universal enlightenment and equality, the most characteristic product of our four centuries of American life."

State Education and Idolatry

Bellamy advocated state control of education to instill socialist values. Weaver warns that ascribing undue sovereignty to government is idolatry, violating the First Commandment.

"One institution more than any other has wrought out the achievements of the past and is today the most trusted for the future. Our fathers, in their wisdom, knew that the foundation of liberty, fraternity, and equality must be universal education. The free school," put government school there, public school. "The free school, therefore, was conceived as the cornerstone of our republic. Washington and Jefferson recognized that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of the church or of other private interests." Put parents there. "That while religious training belongs to the church and while technical and higher culture may be given by private institutions, the training of citizens in the common knowledge and in the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the state."

Now let me just stop there. First of all, did you hear the slogan of the French Revolution, liberty, fraternity, and equality? What did he say was the primary institution to teach that? It was the free school, the government school, the public school. And then he invokes Washington and Jefferson and of course he takes them out of context. He says they recognize that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of the church or of other private interests. Who else would have a private interest in the education of children? Their parents. So what's he saying? Church has nothing to do with this. Parents have nothing to do with this. The obligation to train children, he says, belongs irrevocably to the state.

Now you remember when you hear the words liberty, fraternity, and equality, that was the slogan of the French Revolution. It was under this slogan that the French revolutionaries believed that the mass killing by the state was always justified because it was done for the grand purpose of achieving equality.

Can you stop and imagine, and I did know the number, but I have now forgotten, how many millions of people were executed in France under the guise of liberty, fraternity, and equality. Under that slogan, millions have been mass murdered for the purpose of achieving equality. It was the Republic. It was the nation that was important. The people were expendable. Bellamy's philosophy was our children should be indoctrinated by the state in order to ensure that they would be good little statists. He envisioned a national government, not a federal one, but a national government that had total and complete control. I want to go back and give you a quote from Tim Manning. Again, he said this, "The purpose of the war being called for by President Lincoln," now listen carefully, "the purpose of the war being called for by President Lincoln was to revolutionize the United States government, changing it from a constitutional republic into a plutocratic, socialistic nation."

"The Pledge of Allegiance is the representative embodiment of the heart of the Deep North's uncivil rebellion during the 1860s. Listen, all who did not support the pledge, back when it was written, were passionately denounced in newspapers as unpatriotic, un-American, and traitorous. Those disagreeing with governmental foreign policy today, of the use of the United States military are still labeled and libeled this way by the news media." What was it that President Bush said concerning the war in Iraq? "If you're not for us, then you're against us." Manning goes on, he says, "The pledge also was born out of 19th century concepts of nationalistic socialism and atheism centered in the New England states." It seems to me that other problems arose out of the New England states, but I'm just telling you that's where he said it was centered.

"Today, the government and its minions in the media continue to deny that the United States are now or have ever been a confederated republic and refuse to recognize its distinctively Christian origin, character, and foundation. They boast that the federal government never made a distinction between Christianity and other religious faiths or lack of faith, and force individual states to do the same. Even a cursory study of our republic's founding will put to rest the misconception that the United States were never Christian republics and intended to remain so." The central focus of Bellamy in writing the Pledge of Allegiance was to elevate the state and to create a universal vow of allegiance to the state's authority. The idea of the pledge, he said, Bellamy said, and I'll discuss this next week, the idea of the pledge was from the loyalty oaths imposed upon the Southerners during Lincoln's war to prevent Southern independence, and during the social and physical deconstruction of southern life and culture. Do you realize that during the war and after the war, during the time which is commonly known as the Reconstruction Era, during that time many adult southerners were given the option of taking the loyalty oath or being shot. This, with the strength of Christianity in the South, explains why many Southerners are still sensitive on this subject.

The ideas that inspired the pledge are the same ideas that led to the socialist and communist mass atrocities worldwide during the 19th and 20th centuries. They are not, however, those principles which inspired the founding fathers of this country, that of our Constitution. Let me just end there today, but let me make an application, because this next point is going to take a lot of explaining. I began by reading Exodus 20. "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me." You know what we have forgotten? We have forgotten that government can become a God just like any false idol or any false statue. Do you realize that when you ascribe power, authority, or sovereignty to government over and above and beyond that which God gave it, you have engaged in idolatry? The founding fathers of the United States and the Confederate States of America publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the supremacy of biblical law. And they said that government was to be in subjection to the law of God.

And what is the attitude of the modern day American? Here's the attitude, government can do whatever it wants to do. The average American takes the attitude, you can't fight city hall. What are they saying? Government is God. Government is sovereign. And because of that attitude, our government has given us aborticide, infanticide, euthanasia, genocide. It promotes, protects, and funds sodomy, theft, wickedness, and many and multitudinous legal ways.

The recent ruling of eminent domain, for example. Now, my question is this, folks. What was the idea of the apostles? When they were called in and confronted by their leaders and they said, "Did we not straightly command you that you should not preach anymore in his name?" And what did Peter and the other apostles say? Acts 5 verse 29,

What were they saying? Government is not God. God is God. We will obey government as long as it is in line with the law of God. But when we have to choose between government and God, we will take God because He is the true sovereign.

Conclusion and Prayer

Weaver previews the next message on analyzing the pledge's words and closes in prayer, asking for wisdom and application of truth.

Lord willing, next week, I'm going to show you an analysis of the pledge and what we're actually saying and what is actually meant by the use of those words. Let's pray. Our Father, we ask you in the name of Jesus Christ to help us, teach us, give us wisdom, give us insight, help us to learn, help us to be knowledgeable and help us to apply truth. In the name of Jesus Christ we ask and pray, Amen.