of speech and religion. Let me read for you the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Remember, the Constitution was not ratified without the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. And they're really, I like what Richard Howe says, they're not really constitutional rights, they're actually First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peacefully to assemble or to petition the government for redress of grievances. So the freedom of speech and press. Here I talk about the American concept of freedom, not absolute, you can't print counterfeit money, you can't slander, but you're free to pursue happiness so long as you don't infringe on another's freedom. But I'll say that some of these things, like pornography, some of these issues, nudity and violence on television, things of that sort and stuff, the main thing that our Founding Fathers were getting out by freedom of speech was that the federal government could not control your speech. And by the way, the speech that needs to be protected is not. If I want to compliment Pat and say, Pat, you're a great guy, I don't need freedom of speech to do that. If he wants to compliment me, he doesn't need freedom of speech to do it. But if I want to disagree with him, say, man, you're wrong. Or if he wants to disagree with me, if he wants to say, you're an idiot. See, the kind of speech that is being protected is by definition offensive speech, okay? Now, the founding fathers, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, a lot of people don't realize, even with freedom of religion, a lot of the guys who signed the Constitution went back to their states, and if you wanted the full rights in your state, you had to be a member of the Church of England or something. OK? So, now, a lot of the guys, though, that signed the Constitution, they went back to their states and their states had the same freedom of religion that the federal government had. OK? So, it's the same with freedom of speech. The government cannot tell you what to say and what not to say. At the same time, on the state level and the local level, You could say, you could have a town ordinance, we don't allow any public cursing here. You get fined $25 or whatever. So, the whole idea of political freedom and limited government is the government is tiny at the top and has very little, I mean, If we were totally constitutional, you'd care more about who your next mayor was going to be, the mayor of Bremerton, than you would about the next president of the United States. Because if you're not at war, the president of the United States is almost irrelevant to your life. And then, if you don't have a draft, if you think a war is unjust, just don't sign up and discourage people from signing up. But right now everything is so top-heavy, you know, most of us wouldn't run for mayor just because we think it might be a waste of time, a waste of a life. And so everything is backwards now. Now, some of the really difficult issues when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of press, is things like the Internet, which knows no boundaries. So then what do you do? See, because you could be in a pro-pornography state. Let's say Oregon is a pro-pornography state and Washington says, no, we don't allow that form of speech here. If you don't like the pornography in Oregon, you try to change it, you can't change it, you move to Washington. Okay? But the Founding Fathers did not believe that the federal government had any say when it came to speech. But with the Internet, that creates all kinds of other problems. So let the Constitutionalists debate that. But with the Internet, all of a sudden, you know, it may be that it just gives the opportunity for technology companies to come up with blocks that can be put on computers, in houses, in schools, or whatever, I don't know. But basically, when your freedom of speech is gone, you're not free at all. When a federal government can tell its people you can't complain about the government any longer. And by the way, watch how that goes. Anytime you disagree with some of our politicians, to him against King George. They even took his troops to the woodshed. They even fought them. And so this creates a lot of difficult issues. I was part of a group of Christians and non-Christians who tried to get the Silverdale counsel or whatever, but try to fight about keeping that big pornography shop that's behind Jack in the Box. Try to keep them out. And I'm pro-freedom of speech. I don't want Washington, D.C. saying it. And I'm not even sure I want Olympia saying it. But in our local area? Yeah, I'm going to exercise my say. I don't think the federal government has any constitutional right to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government those rights, so automatically it falls back to the states and the people. So it should be Washington state making laws against or for like marijuana or heroin or whatever. And if it be, we might say as Washingtonians, no! We want that handled on a local level. And so, Kitsap County might say, hey, you know what? We don't want guys dealing drugs in our town. So you want to do that, man, you've got to go to Pierce County. You can't do it here. But this is, freedom is a scary, when you actually explain what the American concept of freedom is, it's actually scary. It means you could have, I mean, they had pro-slave states and anti-slave states. So, I mean, freedom is a very scary thing, and only people who are spiritually mature enough to police themselves can handle it. So I argue, in the realm of ideas, that we should go back to the constitutional form of government. The fact of the matter is, though, if we went back there tonight, By tomorrow, large quantities of people will begin to starve to death. And we, the guys in this room, myself included, we start finding out how dependent we are on the government. Even though we're not on welfare, we don't get food stamps, we actually start finding out. I mean, if you pay for your power, which we all do, those power companies are so regulated So, when you turn the lights on, it's like, thank you Uncle Sam. When you turn the heat on, thank you all powerful Washington, D.C. And unlike our grandparents, most of us, I know I wouldn't, wouldn't exist without things that the government provides. So it's a scary, scary situation. But freedom of speech and press, Freedom of religion, the freedom of the First Amendment is taken out of context. People say, well, it's the freedom from religion. No, it isn't. It's the freedom of religion. People refer to it as the separation of church and state. Let me say this, separation of church and state, it's more nuanced than most Christians think. Because there is a constitutional separation of church and state. But there's also a Soviet Union separation of church and state. So, the U.S. Tommy Jefferson view, Tommy Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, the Baptists were afraid, they said, man, we're going to lose our religious freedom. And Thomas Jefferson said, no, there's a wall of separation between the church and the state. What Thomas Jefferson meant, a wall that only blocks the state. The church is free. But the USSR What they meant by the separation of church and state is that church has no political say, and so in essence, the state controls the church. That's the problem with liberal politicians today, they are trying to, through sleight of hand, take the Thomas Jefferson Wallace separation of church and state and turn it into the Soviet Union. So I try not to use the expression separation of church and state. The fact of the matter is Baptists have used it probably since the time of Jefferson, because what that tells them is separation of church and state. The Baptists believe in local church autonomy. that not only the Roman Catholics were on the state, but when the reformers took over, the Lutherans controlled Germany, the Presbyterian churches, the Reformed churches controlled, everybody in the Reformation carried with them the Roman Catholic view that the church controls the state. They're like one and the same to a certain degree. said, no, you've got to be re-baptized, and they were more on the local church autonomy. So for the Southern Baptist, separation of church and state means that the state cannot control the church. For the Soviet Union, it means the exact opposite. So public school issues with prayer not being allowed, sometimes Bible clubs not allowed. By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled so much in favor of Christianity on this subject that it's amazing what is protected even according to the non-constitutional Supreme Court. But right now in Washington State we teach the five pillars of Islam, but we act like it's unconstitutional to teach the Ten Commandments. But the issue should prayer be allowed in the public schools? If you ask Thomas Jefferson that question, should prayer be allowed in public schools, he would be freaked out by the question. Okay? Should prayer be allowed in the government-run schools? You see, Thomas Jefferson understood that there's no Department of Education in the Constitution. The federal government has no say over education. Now, in Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto, it's free public education for all, run by the government. That's because the government wanted to indoctrinate people to be socialists and communists. In Plato's Republic, the government does all the schooling. But, if you want people to be free, you've got to be like the founding fathers, or you've got to be like Jesus and the apostles. I doubt very much Jesus told the apostles make sure you send your kid to a good Roman pagan school for a good Roman pagan education. No, it's like, your wife teaches them at home and if she can't handle all of it, come and see your rabbi. Okay? And so it was all done by the families and by their faith. Okay? And so, you know, but as time went on, we prospered so much, we thought, well look at the states. can start providing education, and then eventually the federal government start bribing the states to do its work for it. But if you ask Thomas Jefferson, should we take prayer and religion out of the government-run schools, he would say, no, you need to take the government out of the schools. So this is a really good organization out of Southern California. Separation of state and schools. recognizing that the government's got no business. See, when the government controls education, education becomes indoctrination and political correctness. It serves the purposes. It teaches your kids what is best for those in positions of power to remain in power or to gain more power. Okay, Georgetown University was a Catholic school of court rule. They could not discriminate against homosexual students. I think the Archbishop of Boston or something stated he would have closed down Georgetown before allowing it. Just closed the university. By the way, in Massachusetts, they passed you have to be willing to place child in gay homes. Roman Catholic Church fought for an exemption, didn't get it, and so they closed down their adoption agencies in Massachusetts, which was the majority of the adoption agencies in Massachusetts. So who cares about the kids anymore? So public education is actually government-run schools, is actually unconstitutional, it's Marx and Engels. See, the idea that religion cannot get involved with politics, I like to ask people this question. Should a United States political document which expresses belief in God as creator and bases political doctrines on that belief be declared unconstitutional? Okay? Because most of the PC crowd, politically correct, would say yes. But if yes, then the United States Constitution would declare the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional. Because it expresses belief in God, all men are created equal, and given by that God certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So some people say, well, government should not enforce morality. Well, it depends what you mean by morality, because thou shalt not kill. Laws against murder and laws against stealing are enforcing morality. So the issue is not should the government enforce morality. The government doesn't enforce morality. It's got nothing to do but pick up its paychecks on Friday afternoons. So the government's got to enforce morality. The question is whose morality is the question. So again, it comes down to the politically correct, tolerant people say you Christians are evil because you draw lines between right and wrong. But by calling us evil, the politically correct tolerant are also drawing lines. So how can they slam us for drawing lines when they draw lines too? They can say, well we don't draw lines, well you just called me wrong. He just called me evil. So the issue is not, is the government going to enforce morality, but whose morality is the government going to enforce? I would say this to Christians, though. God did not institute the government to enforce all of Christian morality. In other words, God did not institute the government to take His place. So, lying is a sin, cursing is a sin, But do we really want the government to make laws against lying and cursing just in somebody's private life? So, if we really get back to limited government, I think most Christians want some form of Christian big government. And if we really get back to limited government, there's an awful lot of issues that have got to be dealt with in the home, in the local community, in the local churches, that the government's got probably been as unsuccessful as the war on terrorism. By the way, you know, I'll just talk for a few minutes on terrorism, but I don't think you could have... I think a war on terrorism is a Nazi moron. That would be like saying we're going to have a war on a war on nerve gas, or whatever. I mean, it's just like, you can't declare war on an unethical strategy. Okay? Now, I think you could declare war on Al-Qaeda. I think you could declare war on ISIS. You could declare war on the Taliban. But, if you could declare war on terrorism, guess what? Until Jesus comes back, terrorism isn't going to be here. You're automatically going to lose. You're never going to attain your goal unless your goal is to keep us in a state of perpetual war. And James Madison said that anybody who stays in a state of perpetual war, any country that does that cannot keep. how America should respond to terrorism. What really takes me off is that most Christians give one answer and that's actually two questions. When you ask how America should respond to terrorism, it's almost like we assume if something's wrong, the federal government has to deal with it in our law. And we've got to get away from that kind of government-dependent, government-worshipping, deification of state, government-worshipping type thinking. It's actually two questions. How should the Church respond to terrorism, and how should the government respond to terrorism? The Church's response, according to Jesus in Matthew 5, verses 43 to 48, were to love our enemies and pray for them. When was the last time you prayed for ISIS terrorists? We're also to aid their victims, aid the homeless and the needy. James 2.27, Matthew 25, 31-46. And then we're to preach the gospel throughout the world, Matthew 28, 19, and 20. Now you might read that and say, oh, so then we should allow Syrian refugees into the country. and even if they are, even if some of them are terrorists. No, that's a whole different question. It's not the church's job to determine who comes into our country and who leaves it. Okay? This is where, like, the Baptists believe separation of church is faith. Church has a different role in this state. So it's our job, love these terrorists, love our enemies and pray for them, pray for their salvation, and then come to the aid of their victims. But that might mean, if our government's not letting them in here, that might mean us going to... I mean, I've got a guy in the church that his daughter, who was one of my former students, and his son-in-law are now in Germany dealing with Syrian refugees, trying to get the gospel message to them. Okay? So that's our job, is to love the terrorists and their victims, and try to bring aid to the victims, and try to preach the gospel to both groups. The second question is, what's the government's response? I already told you about the biblical basis for human government, it's creation in the fall, human life is worth protecting, and needs protecting, and since the human leaders of human government are fallen, sinful separation of powers, federal, state, local government, three branches of the federal government. It's because Lord Act didn't realize that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the government's response, since the government is supposed to maintain order, there's only two ways to maintain order in a society. A constitutional way, limited government, nobody messes with you because you're probably armed, they're not going to break into your house, you'll probably shoot them. And then there's the police state model, the old Soviet Union, nobody breaks into your house because there's a tank rolling down the street every 10 minutes. The reason why America has so much problems maintaining order is because we've left the limited government model, but we haven't arrived at the Soviet Union police state model yet. Now when we get there, we'll be safe, we just won't be free. This is why I think that many of our leaders want. They make decisions that will lead to more terrorist attacks, even on our own homeland, because then it makes their argument for them taking more power and creating a police state, it makes that argument seem more reasonable. And the view of the Founding Fathers was give me liberty or give me death, Patrick Henry. So I am not of the viewpoint I do not agree with the liberals, let the Islamic terrorists pee all over us. No. I didn't do three years in the United States Marine Corps to learn how to be a wimp. So I don't agree with the liberal Democrats. But I also don't agree with the neocon Republicans who want to keep infringing on my rights and bring in a big police state. So, you know, either way, I agree with Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death. So what should the government respond if the government's going to do what God's called it to do, which is protect its people? First thing you've got to do is call it what it is. It's Islamic terrorism. A government cannot effectively fight an enemy it has yet to identify. So it's Islamic terrorism. These are not Norwegian terrorists, okay? Now, we do need to recognize most Muslims are peaceful. Still, there's 1.4 billion Muslims on Earth. If only 1% of Muslims are terrorists, that would still be 14 million terrorists. That's a pretty big army, especially when they're using a hit-and-run style, where it's harder to detect. The Quran and the Hadith call for violence against infidels. Surah 95 of the Quran is an example. And so we're fortunate that most Muslims either do not read the Quran, or they don't interpret it literally, or they simply choose to refrain from practicing Jihad, but it is Islamic terrorism. Number two in the government's response, we need to stop trying to police the earth. Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not the United States government. You can't police what you don't own. We don't own the earth. We toppled Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, look at what's going on there. We toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, now ISIS is in control. Now we want to topple Syria. Syria is Russia's ally. Putin has threatened us with war if we topple Syria. I don't feel like going to war with them. And then secondly, who's the most likely candidate to take over if we topple Syria? ISIS. John Quincy Adams said that America seeks not monsters abroad to destroy, lest we lose freedom within our borders. George Washington in his farewell address said avoid foreign entanglements. Okay, number three in the government response, swift retribution if the source of a terrorist attack can be identified. Anytime, I don't care if it's ISIS, If Isis isn't inspiring it, even from self-styled guys, there's ways that we can get swift retribution. Bombing their headquarters, bombing their leaders. Paul says in Romans 13, for a government is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. That's not the church's job, but it's the government's job. Our job to love our enemies, I found out that we gave, it's pretty obvious, we gave $400 million to Iran for the release of several hostages. Number five in the government response, support Israel, not her enemies. Absolutely no foreign aid to governments that support terrorism. When Rand Paul argued for that, he only got four other senators to vote for him. with them. It was an 88-5 vote against that. So apparently John McCain and John Kerry came side-by-side before Kerry was Secretary of State to argue that we need to give foreign aid, billions of dollars of foreign aid to governments to support terrorism. Go figure who they're working for. They're not working for us. Number six in the government's response. Sharpen our intelligence agencies without spying on law-abiding US citizens. In other words, you're going to need warrants and probable cause. Forget about the Patriot Act that just shredded the Bill of Rights. Ben Franklin said, any people who are willing to surrender liberty for security deserve neither. OK, number seven in the government's response. Our government must protect our borders. We need to first stop illegal immigration. I mean, why frisk me, an American citizen, at the airport, when I'm just going from one state to another state, why frisk me while allowing anyone to just come into America, come across our borders? It doesn't make any sense at all. Since 9-11, the only people who get messed with are American citizens. The illegal immigrants get a free ride, so we've got to stop illegal immigration. Number 8, the government we must be more selective of those we allow to legally immigrate to America. Actually, that's what Pat Buchanan was arguing for in the early 1990s and now Donald Trump is arguing for it. See, we've got to ask the question and look for evidence on one side or the other. Do you want to assimilate? Do you want to become an American and submit to our Constitution and become part of our culture? Do you want to assimilate or do you want to annihilate? and if our government is allowing people to enter this country who might want to annihilate us, then our government is not doing its job. Government's response number nine, encourage Americans to responsibly exercise their right to bear arms. Okay? So gun-free zones, and by the way, I'm not hearing a whole lot of Republicans argue this, but that gay nightclub In Florida, if the people were just exercising the right to bear arms, somebody could have put this guy down and saved a lot of lives. Gun-free zones. We do this to our schools. We're just banging terrorists in. They're called soft targets. We, our government, is creating soft targets. By the way, there's a right way to do a gun-free zone. And there's a wrong way to do it. The wrong way to do a gun-free zone is you put gun-free zone on the school and you have no armed security. The right way to do gun-free zones is just visit a courthouse, visit an airport. To properly do a gun-free zone, if you really want it to be safe and not a soft target, you've got to have metal detectors at every entrance and exit, and you've got to have armed security. So the proper way to do a gun-free zone is you have a monopoly on the firearms. You can protect your private business. Let's say you have a nightclub and so now your bouncers have to get trained in firearms they have to carry and metal detectors at all the doors. This would also create another business across the street from nightclubs people would have, they would look like little UPS places or PO boxes but be gun lockers and for $25 an hour you can check in your firearm But let me tell you, it's going to be harder and harder. The only way the federal government can protect us from terrorist attacks here in America is the USSR police state. So if they can't protect us, they've got to encourage us to exercise our Second Amendment right to protect ourselves. If more and more of these terrorists make jackasses out of themselves, like the, and I wasn't even for the drawing Mohammed, you're just asking for it there, but in Texas, the guy made a total jackass out of himself because he just went there and got shot. He didn't kill anybody. If people are laughing at ISIS because they're messing with armed Americans, ISIS will stop hitting armed Americans. By the way, if you want to create more terrorism, continue to try to police the earth. If we keep sticking our nose in everybody else's business, they put us as number one or number two, sometimes we're behind Israel, on their enemy list. But if we mind our own business, we wouldn't even be targeted as much. Okay, number 9, oh no, we mentioned that already. Thomas Jefferson said, when the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. There are a lot of government leaders that want us disarmed because they fear us. And hey, we'll be free if the government fears us. And then number 10, Declaring war on terrorism is nonsense. You cannot declare war on an unethical strategy. There will always be terrorists. And then who defines terrorism? According to Janet Reno of the Bill Clinton administration, we're terrorists. Because we go to Bible studies, we believe in the second coming of Christ, we believe in the right to bear arms. I think storing food was the only thing I wasn't doing back then, on her list. And nothing on her list ever said killing innocent people for political reasons or whatever. So you declare war on terrorism, Bible-believing Christians might sometimes, the government might fit us into that definition. That's like, you know, if you're on the watch list, you shouldn't have the right to bear arms. We still don't know how somebody gets on the watch list. You buy a one-way ticket to an Arab country, you're on the watch list. Apparently some congressman or senator did. And we don't even know how you can get off the watch list. In conclusion, if our government rejects these suggestions, our choice will be either surrender to terrorists or surrender to an all-powerful police state. So regardless of what our government or the terrorists do, The church still has to be the church. We've got to love our enemies, pray for them, help the helpless, preach the gospel, and disciple. Conversely, we must build the kingdom of God, not our own kingdoms. Ultimately, we're not really citizens of America. We're citizens of heaven. Okay, so that's the conclusion of our course. We didn't get to that as early as I wanted to, but...