Old Testament Blog In our second blog post and first Old Testament Blog we are going to start with the, appropriately enough, Garden of Eden and where Satan was first mentioned in the Bible. The Biblical Archaeology Society article “Satin” examines who Satan really is and where he appears in the “Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in a collection of Bible Review articles” (https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/collections/satan). The main context of this blog is from Shawna Bolansky article “How the Serpent in the Garden Became Satan” (June 23, 2026) https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/how-the-serpent-in-the-garden-became-satan/. Introduced as “the most clever of all of the beasts of the field that YHWH God had made,” the serpent in the Garden of Eden is portrayed as just that: a serpent. Satan does not make an appearance in Genesis 2–3, for the simple reason that when the story was written, the concept of the devil had not yet been invented. Explaining the serpent in the Garden of Eden as Satan would have been as foreign a concept to the ancient authors of the text as referring to Ezekiel’s vision as a UFO (but Google “Ezekiel’s vision” now, and you’ll see that plenty of people today have made that connection!). In fact, while the word satan appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, it is never a proper name; since there is no devil in ancient Israel’s worldview, there can’t yet have been a proper name for such a creature. The serpent of Eden is just called nahash, or serpent; he's never referred to as the Devil or Satan. The noun satan, Hebrew for “adversary” or “accuser,” occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible: five times to describe a human military, political or legal opponent, and four times with reference to a divine being. In Numbers 22, the prophet Balaam, hired to curse the Israelites, is stopped by a messenger from Israel’s God YHWH, described as “the satan” acting on God’s behalf. In Job, “the satan” is a member of God’s heavenly council - one of the divine beings, whose role in Job’s story is to be an “accuser,” a status acquired by people in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia for the purposes of particular legal proceedings. The figure called Satan in the Book of Job is not a character bearing this name but a heavenly official with the title Satan, meaning “Prosecutor.” (The Hebrew term derives from the verb “to accuse.”) A fully realized dualist concept of Satan as we know him - a Prince of Darkness, the embodiment of cosmic Evil perpetually at war with the Good of God, first appears in the second- or first-century B.C.E. writings of the Dead Sea Scroll community, which generally refers to him as Belial. It is not until the first century C.E., in the Jewish Apocalypse of Moses and the Jewish-Christian (New Testament) Book of Revelation (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), that the serpent of Genesis is identified explicitly with the Devil. Some extrabiblical traditions even suggest that Eve bore Cain after a serpentine sexual seduction. Another peculiar consequence of this connection between the Devil and the serpent features regularly in medieval and Renaissance depictions of the Genesis story where (as you can see from the painting) the serpent-Devil is a woman! This is no lesbian serpent-girl on the make for Eve; rather she derives from the medieval Jewish-Christian Lilith tradition, which tried to reconcile the two accounts of the creation of woman in Genesis 1 and 2. According to this legend, the woman created in Genesis 1:27 was Lilith, Adam’s first, rebellious wife; after Lilith left Adam, Eve was produced from his rib, as recounted in Genesis 2:21–22. Jealous, Lilith, with the help of the devil, shape-shifted into a serpent (albeit with her seductive face and hair intact and indistinguishable from Eve’s). She then returned to Eden to wreak her vengeance upon the new couple. The snake may have been posted at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil whose fruit, according to the snake, would take Adam and Eve across the threshold that separated “living beings” from the gods. Yahweh’s curse is most appropriate: The snake must slither upon his belly. Apparently he has lost his wings. No longer winged or celestial, the snake is lower than all the other mere creatures of the earth and is condemned to a diet of dust. (Mary Joan Winn Leith - https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/department/from-seraph-to-satan/ According to the Book of Job, the Prosecutor roams "to and fro on the earth" and takes his place among the other "sons of God" (bene elohim); his job is to report on earthly doings to the heavenly court (Job 1:6-7). In fact, the first biblical figure to bear the title of satan is non other than King David (1 Samuel 29:4: "he may become an adversary (satan) to us in battle"). In Job’s case, what’s on trial is God’s assertion that Job is completely “blameless and upright” vs. the satan’s contention that Job only behaves himself because God has rewarded him. God argues that Job is rewarded because he is good, and not good because he is rewarded. The satan challenges God to a wager that if everything is taken away from poor Job, he won’t be so good anymore, and God accepts. Though a perception of “the satan” as Satan would make this portrait of God easier to swallow, the story demonstrates otherwise; like Yahweh’s messenger in Numbers 22, this satan acts on YHWH’s instructions (and as a result of God’s braggadocio) and is not an independent force of evil. In Zechariah 3, the prophet describes a vision of the high priest Joshua standing in a similar divine council, also functioning as a tribunal. Before him stand YHWH’s messenger and the satan, who is there to accuse him. This vision is Zechariah’s way of pronouncing YHWH’s approval of Joshua’s appointment to the high priesthood in the face of adversarial community members, represented by the satan. The messenger rebukes the satan and orders that Joshua’s dirty clothing be replaced, as he promises Joshua continuing access to the divine council. Once again, the satan is not Satan who we read about in the New Testament. The word satan appears only once without “the” in front of it in the entire Hebrew Bible: in 1 Chronicles 21:1. Is it possible that we finally have Satan here portrayed? 1 Chronicles 21 parallels the story of David’s census in 2 Samuel 24, in which God orders David to “go number Israel and Judah” and then punishes the king and kingdom for doing so. The Chronicler changes this story, as he does others, to portray the relationship between God and David as uncompromised; he writes that “a satan stood up against Israel and he provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:6–7; 27:24). Although it is possible to read “Satan” here instead of “a satan” (Hebrew uses neither uppercase letters, nor indefinite articles, e.g., “a”), nothing else in this story or in any texts for another 300 years indicates that the idea of an evil prince of darkness exists in the consciousness of the Israelites. If there’s no Satan in the Hebrew Bible, how does the serpent in the garden become Satan? The worldview of Jewish readers of Genesis 2–3 profoundly changed in the centuries since the story was first written. After the canon of the Hebrew Bible closed,1 beliefs in angels, demons and a final apocalyptic battle arose in a divided and turbulent Jewish community. In light of this impending end, many turned to a renewed understanding of the beginning, and the Garden of Eden was re-read - and re-written - to reflect the changing ideas of a changed world. Two separate things happened and then merged: Satan became the proper name of the devil, a supernatural power now seen to oppose God as the leader of demons and the forces of evil; and the serpent in the Garden of Eden came to be identified with him. While we begin to see the first idea occurring in texts two centuries before the New Testament, the second won’t happen until later; the serpent in the Garden is not identified with Satan anywhere in the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. The concept of the devil begins to appear in the second and first centuries B.C.E. Jewish texts. In 1 Enoch, the “angel” who “led Eve astray” and “showed the weapons of death to the children of men” was called Gadreel (not Satan). Around the same time, the Wisdom of Solomon taught that “through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who are on his side suffer it.” Though this may very well be the earliest reference to Eden’s serpent as the devil, in neither text, nor in any document we have until after the New Testament, is Satan clearly understood as the serpent in Eden. At Qumran, though, Satan is the leader of the forces of darkness; his power is said to threaten humanity, and it was believed that salvation would bring the absence of Satan and evil. By the first century C.E., Satan is adopted into the nascent Christian movement, as ruler over a kingdom of darkness, an opponent and deceiver of Jesus (Mark 1:13), prince of the devils and opposing force to God (Luke 11:15–19; Matthew 12:24–27; Mark 3:22–23:26); Jesus’ ministry puts a temporary end to Satan’s reign (Luke 10:18) and the conversion of the gentiles leads them from Satan to God (Acts 26:18). Most famously, Satan endangers the Christian communities but will fall in Christ’s final act of salvation, described in detail in the book of Revelation. But curiously, although the author of Revelation describes Satan as “the ancient serpent” (Revelation 12:9; 20:2), there is no clear link anywhere in the Bible between Satan and the serpent in the garden. The ancient Near Eastern combat myth motif, exemplified in the battle between Marduk and Tiamat in Enuma Elish and Baal and Yam/Mot in ancient Canaan, typically depicted the bad guy as a serpent. The characterization of Leviathan in Isaiah 27 reflects such myths nicely: On that day YHWH will punishWith his hard and big and strong swordLeviathan the fleeing serpent,Leviathan the twisted serpent,And he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. So the reference in Revelation 12:9 to Satan as “the ancient serpent” probably reflects mythical monsters like Leviathan rather than the clever, legged, talking creature in Eden. In the New Testament, Satan and his demons have the power to enter and possess people; this is what is said to have happened to Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:27; cf. Mark 5:12–13; Luke 8:30–32). But when Paul re-tells the story of Adam and Eve, he places the blame on the humans (Romans 5:18; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:21–22) and not on fallen angels, or on the serpent as Satan. Still, the conflation begged to be made, and it will seem natural for later Christian authors - Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus and Augustine, for example—to assume Satan’s association with Eden’s talking snake. Most famously, in the 17th century, John Milton elaborates Satan’s role in the Garden poetically, in great detail in Paradise Lost. But this connection is not forged anywhere in the Bible. Shawna Dolansky is Adjunct Research Professor and Instructor in the program in Religion at the College of Humanities, Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. She coauthored the well-known The Bible Now (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011) with Richard Friedman.

Master Pastor's ethnicity is 50% Armenian. Now study the map of Armenia and surrounding countries. If the Mastor Pastor's ancestors had lived 400 miles North, South, East, or West, what religion would the good pastor be: A) Muslim? B) Hindu? C) Buddhist? D) Christian? E) Aetheist? Answer: A) Muslim

Examine the above photo of two women. According to Deuteronomy 22:5 which woman is an abomination to the Lord: A) the one wearing a dress? B) the one wearing pants? Answer: B

Religion Blog Welcome to Biblacon’s first blog. There are three blog sections in the website (Religion, The Old Testament and, The New Testament). This one is about religion and because we have the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence we thought we would focus on the freedom of religion, the separation of church and state and America’s unique brand of democracy that supports these two foundational elements of the United States. Since the founding of our nation these three notions have been intermittently attacked by the right wing elements of our political divide. The latest attack on these elements is Trump's Religious Liberty Commission and “Texas Public School Students and the Bible”. Our first “Religion” blog is the article “Separation of Church and State: America’s Best Idea,”(6/15/2025) from the publication “The Nation” and written by John Fugelsang. John is a comedian which livens up his writing. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/separation-of-church-and-state-religious-freedom/ Let us pray: In 1774, the First Continental Congress opened with a prayer - a decision that inspired some sectarian squabbling - but in the new nation that followed, the founders were determined to keep church and state separate. CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS KEEP FORGETTING WHAT THE COUNTRY'S FOUNDERS KEPT WRITING DOWN AMERICA IS NOT, HAS NEVER BEEN, AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A CHRISTIAN NATION. To modern Christian nationalists, that sounds like heresy. They’ll argue that all of our presidents have been Christian, the majority of our citizens are Christian, our elected officials swear their oaths on a Bible, and politicians and preachers alike cry out God’s name during sex with their mistresses and male escorts. Everyone knows we were founded by the Puritans, right? And they were so religiously uptight they got kicked out of England. How can we not be a Christian nation? But the truth is that America is something far more ambitious, and far more fragile: A SECULAR REPUBLIC WHERE EVERY BELIEF IS PROTECTED, BECAUSE NONE IS IMPOSED. Yes, the founders who began this experiment had flaws - plenty of them. Yes, they were slave owners talking about “freedom.” Yes, they practiced ethnic cleansing against the Indigenous peoples of this land. And yes, they neglected to include women in their Democracy. BUT THE FOUNDERS GOT ONE VERY SIMPLE AND MORAL CONCEPT JUST RIGHT: A SYSTEM UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T DICTATE HOW YOU CAN OR CANNOT PRAY, OR WHETHER YOU SHOULD PRAY AT ALL. They knew the dangers of merging their new government, which at its best was designed to protect individual rights, with religion, which was a matter of individual conscience. Unfortunately, that’s not how the Christian right sees it. And throughout my entire lifetime, they’ve been trying to rewrite our history. WHITE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS have been WORKING FOR DECADES TO GIVE AMERICA A REVISIONIST ORIGIN STORY: A HOLY CHRISTIAN REPUBLIC, ORDAINED FROM THE START BY DEEPLY PIOUS FOLLOWERS OF JESUS WHO ALSO JUST HAPPENED TO OWN PEOPLE. So, as we mark the 250th anniversary of the United States, let’s remember that THE FOUNDERS WERE QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS BEING A DELIBERATELY SECULAR NATION. They even wrote it down - and more than once. That’s the part the right wants us to forget. Today, we’re witnessing a nationwide push by Christian nationalist politicians to force one version of Christianity into public schools, and it’s not just the voucher programs designed to route public money toward specific religions that we all grew up with. Louisiana recently became the first state to pass a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public-school classroom, SO 7-YEAR-OLDS WILL KNOW NOT TO COVET THEIR NEIGHBORS’ WIVES. (This is funny, pathetic and scary) Former Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction Ryan Walters famously ordered all public schools to incorporate the Bible and the Ten Commandments into the curriculum, and multiple Republican-led states have approved the CONSERVATIVE-MEDIA NONPROFIT PRAGERU’S educational materials for classroom - which include an animated video of FREDERICK DOUGLASS EXPLAINING THAT SLAVERY WAS A “COMPROMISE” BETWEEN THE FOUNDERS AND THE SOUTHERN COLONIES. Of course, like most of right-wing Christianity, none of these curricula focus on the moral teachings of Jesus, who commanded His followers - both individuals and nations—to feed the poor, care for the sick, put away their weapons, and welcome the stranger. NO, THIS WAS PURE INDOCTRINATION INTO RIGHT-WING AUTHORITARIAN CHRISTIAN POLITICS. Today, while THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS IDENTIFYING AS RELIGIOUS CONTINUES TO DECLINE, THE PERCENTAGE OF CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE THAT AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION IS INCREASING. In other words, as the religious population shrinks, the fringe is growing. The Republican Party platforms in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky even proclaim - or, to be more precise, bear false witness - that THE COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON “JUDEO-CHRISTIAN” PRINCIPLES. In a 2015 sermon, Republican House Speaker (and America’s Creepiest Youth Pastor) Mike Johnson proclaimed that America is - and was founded as - a Christian nation, and that Thomas Jefferson was “divinely inspired” in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. In 2023, Johnson appeared on CNBC to gently instruct us that the separation of church and state is “a misnomer.” As the speaker explained, “Of course, it comes from…a letter that Jefferson wrote. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church - not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It’s exactly the opposite.” Johnson’s claim is the misnomer. But repetition is powerful - especially when it’s employed as part of a blaspheming spiritual grift. So the FANTASY THAT THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION REMAINS STUBBORNLY POPULAR AMONG PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT THE COUNTRY TO DO ON A POLICY LEVEL THE ACTUAL THINGS THAT JESUS COMMANDED. Consider the polls: • A majority of Americans believe the founders intended the United States to be Christian (Pew). • Roughly 30 percent of Americans either endorse or sympathize with Christian nationalism (PRRI). • Forty-five percent of Americans favor declaring the United States to be a “Christian nation” - even though many of them acknowledge that it would be unconstitutional (Pew). That’s the paradox: THOSE PEOPLE WANT A SYSTEM THAT THEY KNOW VIOLATES THE SYSTEM. That’s because MODERN CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM ISN’T ABOUT SERVING THE LORD, OR FIGHTING SATAN, OR EXERCISING “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.” And it’s seriously not about the COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS, which they robustly despise. THEIR TRUE BELIEF SYSTEM IS, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN, CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN CONTROL OVER SOCIETY. The push to redefine America as a Christian nation isn’t just historical revisionism. It’s a POLITICAL STRATEGY WITH A WHITE-SUPREMACIST BENT. It REFRAMES CITIZENSHIP IN RELIGIOUS TERMS; IT NARROWS WHO BELONGS AND TURNS FAITH INTO A TOOL OF THE POWERFUL RATHER THAN A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE—OR A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE LESS FORTUNATE. Just as Christian nationalism rejects the Beatitudes, it also IGNORES THE VERY LESSON THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO TEACH: THAT WHEN YOU FUSE RELIGION WITH POWER, YOU DON’T GET MORE FAITH. YOU GET LESS FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, LESS OPEN DISCOURSE, AND LESS OF THE MELTING POT THAT THE RIGHT HAS ALWAYS DISDAINED. In 2022, the PUBLIC RELIGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE reported that nearly A THIRD OF AMERICANS - AND ALMOST HALF OF REPUBLICANS— BELIEVE THAT GOD INTENDED THE UNITED STATES TO BE A “NEW PROMISED LAND” FOR EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS. Tough luck, all you Christians from other continents. Believe me, I get it. It’s emotionally satisfying. It’s politically useful. But JUST AS THE ARGUMENT FOR MAGA CHRISTIANITY COLLAPSES WHEN ONE ACTUALLY READS THE WORDS OF JESUS, THE BELIEF IN AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN ORIGINS EVAPORATES UNDER THE MOST CURSORY READING OF THE CONSTITUTION. Because here’s the inconvenient history: THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN FAITH WITHOUT FORCE. They knew from experience that MIXING THE TWO RARELY - IF EVER - ENDS WELL. Europe had spent centuries in bloody religious disputes. STATE-SPONSORED CHURCHES hadn’t produced unity - they had PRODUCED PERSECUTION. Catholics oppressed Protestants; Protestants oppressed Catholics. EVERYBODY TOOK TURNS BURNING SOMEBODY. As James Madison put it, established religion had yielded “PRIDE AND INDOLENCE IN THE CLERGY” and “SUPERSTITION, BIGOTRY AND PERSECUTION” in society at large. The 13 US colonies were already a patchwork of religious refugees: Puritans fleeing the Church of England, Quakers who’d been persecuted across Europe, Catholics who’d faced discrimination in Protestant countries. These Weren’t People Who Needed Convincing That State Religion Was Dangerous; They Already Had The Scars To Prove It. The founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, weren’t anti-religion. Many were religious in their own way, and many admired Jesus as a moral teacher. But they were DEEPLY SKEPTICAL OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WIELDING POLITICAL POWER. A number of them, from Jefferson to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, were influenced by DEISM, a BELIEF SYSTEM THAT EMPHASIZED REASON AND NATURAL LAW OVER DOCTRINE AND MIRACLES. DEISTS REJECTED JESUS’S DIVINITY, BELIEVING INSTEAD IN A DISTANT, IMPERSONAL GOD WHO SET UP NATURAL LAWS TO GOVERN THE UNIVERSE BUT WASN’T BIG ON INTERVENING IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, like a boss who only works remotely and never pops into the Zoom meetings. So they built a very new kind of system based on FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE. YOU COULD WORSHIP HOWEVER YOU WANTED - OR NOT AT ALL - AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD STAY OUT OF IT, EMPHASIZING REASON AND NATURAL LAW OVER RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES. NOT BECAUSE RELIGION DIDN’T MATTER, BUT BECAUSE IT MATTERED TOO MUCH TO HAND OVER TO POLITICIANS. Now our right-wing friends like to solemnly intone that the Constitution never actually uses the expression “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.” And THEY’RE RIGHT. But do remind them: THE FOUNDERS APPROVED A CONSTITUTION WITH ZERO REFERENCES TO CHRISTIANITY. None - no mention of Jesus, no mention of the Bible, not even a vague nod to divine authority. Despite what Christian nationalists would have you believe, THE CONSTITUTION MENTIONS RELIGION ONLY TO RESTRICT ITS ABUSE AS A TOOL OF EXCLUSION - DECLARING IN ARTICLE VI THAT “NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES.” THIS WAS RADICAL. Every 18th-century Christian nation in Europe required oaths, loyalty to state churches, or adherence to some particular creed. POLITICAL POWER WAS IN A DEEPLY CODEPENDENT MARRIAGE WITH RELIGIOUS IDENTITY. If you weren’t the right kind of Christian, you weren’t getting anywhere near the government. Furthermore, the constitution’s FREE-EXERCISE CLAUSE was committed to RELIGIOUS PLURALISM, PROTECTING CITIZENS’ RIGHTS TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MEDDLING. So it’s a good thing that the HERITAGE FOUNDATION has never read it. But in case anybody still needed it to be spelled out for them, in 1791 the BILL OF RIGHTS was added to the Constitution, including THE FIRST AMENDMENT, which REINFORCED THAT FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY AND EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED ANY NATIONAL RELIGION, stating: “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.” That means you can’t claim “ORIGINAL INTENT” and then FORGET THE FIRST AMENDMENT, like a dog you left in a locked car on a hot day. Even if the words “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” DON’T APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE IDEA IS BAKED INTO ITS STRUCTURE like flour in bread. Keep in mind that the VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, authored by JEFFERSON and CHAMPIONED BY JAMES MADISON, had already DECLARED THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO SUPPORT OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. It became the PHILOSOPHICAL BACKBONE of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Jefferson later described the result as a “WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE” in that famously despised letter to the Danbury Baptists Even claims that the UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED ON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES are historically daft and dodgy. THE FOUNDERS DELIBERATELY AVOIDED GROUNDING THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY RELIGIOUS FRAMEWORK PRECISELY TO PREVENT ONE GROUP FROM DOMINATING THE REST. They recognized that A GOVERNMENT FREE FROM RELIGIOUS ENTANGLEMENTS WOULD BE MORE INCLUSIVE AND GENERALLY MORE DRAMA-FREE. MIXING RELIGION WITH GOVERNMENT inevitably leads to FACTIONALISM AND DIVISION, SUPPRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND THE MANDATORY IMPOSITION OF ONE BELIEF SYSTEM - none of which would have helped establish STABILITY FOR THE NEW NATION. The first presidents and the first Congresses knew this. And again, they wrote it down - even after the Bill of Rights. Which brings us to the TREATY OF TRIPOLI, America’s most ignored mic drop. Two hundred years before 9/11, when EXTREME RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS WOULD REMIND THE WORLD (AGAIN) THAT POWER AND RELIGION ARE A BAD MIX, the young United States had a piracy problem off the coast of North Africa. TO ADDRESS IT, THE FLEDGLING COUNTRY SIGNED TREATIES WITH THE BARBARY STATES (TRIPOLI, TUNIS, ALGIERS, AND MOROCCO) TO END THE TARGETING OF AMERICAN MERCHANT SHIPS CROSSING THE MEDITERRANEAN. The founders, being good diplomats with an eye on successful commerce, WERE KEEN TO MAKE PEACE WITH THESE MUSLIM NATIONS, which they referred to as “Mahometan” nations and their inhabitants as “Musselmen.” That’s why, during the first years of the American experiment, PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON initiated negotiations with these nations, which led to the Treaty of Tripoli. Approved without debate by the US Senate in 1797, it was signed by PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS, with a notable clause, ARTICLE 11, that explicitly states: As THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION - as it has in itself NO CHARACTER OF ENMITY AGAINST THE LAWS, RELIGION OR TRANQUILLITY OF MUSSELMEN - AND AS THE SAID STATES NEVER HAVE ENTERED INTO ANY WAR OR ACT OF HOSTILITY AGAINST ANY MAHOMETAN NATION, it is declared by the parties, that NO PRETEXT ARISING FROM RELIGIOUS OPINIONS SHALL EVER PRODUCE AN INTERRUPTION OF THE HARMONY EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. Got that? “THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.” I mean, I could’ve just started with that and made this a much shorter rant. And beyond that, the treaty itself shows the wisdom of keeping government and religion separate. BY EMPHASIZING THAT OUR NEW NATION HAD A SECULAR GOVERNMENT THAT WAS FRIENDLY TO ALL, THE UNITED STATES WAS ABLE TO GET CONSERVATIVE, RELIGION-BASED SOCIETIES TO TRUST US, WHICH ESTABLISHED AND PROTECTED INTERNATIONAL TRADE. Not having a state religion was extremely good for capitalism. A secular government could make peace across religious lines, engage in global trade with all faiths, and avoid violent, unnecessary conflicts rooted in theology. When confronted with Article VI, the free-exercise clause, the First Amendment, the Virginia Statute, and the Treaty of Tripoli, you can expect our Christian nationalist friends to angrily point out that the Constitution does contain the phrase “Year of our Lord.” That’s when you can let them know: That’s not state theology—it’s a time stamp. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MADE IT EASIER TO MAKE PEACE, ENJOY FREEDOM, DO BUSINESS, AND DEAL WITH PIRATES. So sorry, Christian nationalists: Our official religion remains all and/or none. You get to call yourselves “Christian,” and everyone else gets to be what they want to be. Sit down, and let freedom ring. Comedian John Fugelsang hosts Tell Me Everything on SiriusXM. He is the author of A Separation of Church and Hate.

Which 1777 legislative document (enacted in 1786) did Jefferson consider one of his greatest achievements, explicitly disestablishing the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteeing freedom of religion to people of all faiths? A) The Declaration of Independence B) The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom C) The Summary View of the Rights of British America D) Notes on the State of Virginia Answer: B) The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom – Jefferson was so proud of this bill that he ordered it to be engraved on his tombstone, alongside authoring the Declaration of Independence and founding the University of Virginia.

According to Numbers 5:11-31 when is the ONLY TIME a Bible based abortion is allowed: A) the life of the mother is a risk? B) the fetus is not viable? C) the husband simply suspects his wife of infidelity and a pregnacy may have resulted? D) the parents are not married? E) A&B is the best answer? Answer: C) the husband simply suspects his wife of infidelity and a pregnacy may have resulted.

Study the above photo of a modern-day fortune teller. According to Leviticus 20:27 and as God's laws reign supreme, what should you do if you encounter such as person: A) smash her crystal ball? B) perform an exorcism? C) Call the Master Pastor - STAT? D) kill her? E) A&C is the best answer? Answer? D) kill her

Who were the Bogomils, what did they believe, and how did this religion meet it's demise: A) they built wind mills to the Lord, they lived in Bulgaria , and were destroyed by both Catholic inquisirions and the Ottoman Empire by the 15th century? B) they believed that the god of Earth was evil and that procreation was unethical. C) the Bogomils were the predecessors to The Greek Orthodox Church and they never went extinct D) this Bulgarian sect of Christianity eventually moved, to the new world and eventually became the Shakers? E) A&B only? Answer? B) they believed that the god of Earth was evil and that procreation was unethical. They lived in Bulgaria , and were destroyed by both Catholic inquisirions and the Ottoman Empire by the 15th century?

As a Biblical marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, which one of Jesus' patriarchal lineage had the most wives: A) King Solomon? B) King David? C) Aaron? D) Abraham? E) King Abijah? Answer: A) King Solomon had 700 wives Extra Credit: Did any of these characters have concubines (i.e. a woman who cohabitates with a man while not legally married): Y/N and how many? Answer: King Solomon had 300 concubines And they all wanted to talk about their relationship

As suggested in 1 Corinthians 14:27, some denominations of Pentecostalism talk in an incomprehensible language known as "speaking in tongues." What is the official name of this glutteral phenomenon: A) insanity? B) attention seeking? C) glossolalia? D) being infused the The Holy Spirit? E) C&D is the best answer? Answer? E) C&D is the best answer https://youtu.be/J0TEagjwEbQ

According to Deuteronomy 21:20 and as God's laws are higher than man's laws, what remedies do parents have if their son is a drunk and rebellious: A) Put the kid in a boarding School? B) Put the kid in Juvenille detension? C) Ground the kid and take away his privilages? D) Stone him to death? E) Just how drunk and rebellious qualifies for the level of punishment? F) Rehabilitation? Answer: D) Stone him to death. The Old Testment sure has tough love.

Carefully examine this artist's rendition of a Biblical scene depicted in the Book of Revelation. What animal is the whore of Babylon riding? A) a lion? B) a horse? C) a dragon? D) The Beast that will emerge out of the sea? E) it's a mystery? Answer:? D) The Beast that will emerge out of the sea