The Myth of the Talking Snake

"Meanwhile, snakes lack vocal chords, so no, they cannot speak--they never have and never will. At least not with their voices" Tristan Vick, Advocatus Atheist, 2/21/12 Link

I'm sorry, but whenever I hear one of the uninformed referring to a 'talking snake' from the third chapter of the Book of Genesis, my mind immediately goes back to Sir Hiss (above) of the animated version of the film Robin Hood.

I found the above statement by atheist Tristan Vick to be quite amusing to say the least. It only goes to show you that there are skeptics out there that claim to have studied scripture before rejecting it, yet didn't give scripture a fair shake when examining it the first time.

However, Vick is not alone in such a mischaracterization. In fact, not long ago a California atheist group laid bare their ignorance for all to see by referring to the 'talking snake' myth on a billboard. If you're going to be intellectually dodgy, why not advertise the fact?

Right in the beginning of 3rd Genesis, 1st verse, we read that "The snake was more clever than all the wild animals the LORD God had made" (God's Word translation). Some translations substitute 'snake' for the word 'serpent' and 'clever' for 'crafty', but irregardless, even if 'crafty' more accurately describes the serpent, then this would signify at least some level of high intelligence on the part of the creature mentioned here.

We all know that the narrative in Genesis goes on to give account that Eve was (verbally) tempted by this very smart creature to eat the forbidden fruit. However, upon God finding out that this fruit was eaten against His command, we see that God is assigning at least part of the blame on the temptor in this case, the serpent. We read in verses 14 & 15...

"So the LORD God said to the snake, "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all the wild or domestic animals. You will crawl on your belly. You will be the lowest of animals as long as you live.

I will make you and the woman hostile toward each other. I will make your descendants and her descendant hostile toward each other. He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel."

So if the Genesis account here is to be examined from a strictly literary point of view, then it is entirely consistant that the serpent (or snake) was physically a very different creature before God passed judgement upon it. In fact, simply typing the words [Eve tempted garden image] into a popular search engine will reveal that there are artists out there that that do not depict the aforementioned creature as being like the snake/serpent that we know of today.


"[W]orld-famous Bible teacher, author, and statesman for Reformed theology" James Montgomery Boice, whom Vick seems (unsuprisingly) unfamiliar with, had this to say about the interpretation of Genesis Chapter 3...

"..the idea that Genesis 3 presents us with a talking snake is based on an inaccurate reading of the passage. I know this is the way the passage is generally taken. We have all seen pictures in which Eve is seen standing demurely in the bushes while overhead a snake is slithering down out of a tree to tempt her to eat the forbidden 'apple.' But Genesis does not say that Eve was tempted by a talking serpent. The serpent that tempted Eve, as a result of God's judgement, slithered away into the bushes to the intense horror of Adam and Eve, who wondered if God's just judgement on the serpent might be their own. But when the creature spoke to Eve there is no reason for thinking that this was any other than an upright creature, not dissimilar to Adam and Eve themselves. We must not press this too far, or course, for in Chapter 2 we have been told that Adam did not find a creature suitable to be his companion and helper until God made Eve. Still, this was not a snake and was undoubtedly an extraordinary and beautiful creature."

Boice, James Mongomery: An Expositionary Commentary, Genesis Volume I, pg 159

EDIT: I also wanted to address this statement by Vick, quote.. "Lack of basic continuity is usually a strong indicator of myths and fables. So are cultural morals, talking animals , and repetition. All of which are present".

From E.J. Young in relation as to whether the fall account is a 'fable', "We realize immediately that this is not the case. In the Old Testament, animals do not speak. We have the special case of Balaam's [donkey], but no other cases than that and the speaking of the serpent in Genesis ever occur. Furthermore, if you are going to dismiss this as being a fable, you would have to come up with some sort of moral. A fable has a moral, but there is no moral attached here at all. So to say that the 3rd chapter of Genesis is just a fable is really not to do justice to it."

Insofar as the account being a 'myth', this would indicate that the narrative is NOT meant to be taken literally and Mr Vick is welcome to present any evidence that would indicate that this was the writer's intention.

Obama alienating the Catholic Left

Liberal Catholics reliably voted for a complete unknown in 2008 and were hoping for the best. It seems that now some are coming to the realization that they've been had and that the person that they put in office isn't quite so hopey-changey as they desired and instead is ramming mandatory birth control/sterilization coverage by employers down their collective throats. Conscientoius objector? Not allowed in the New World Order of Obama...

"The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience"—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of "civil disobedience" and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That's the same understanding two of the president's own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school's First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an "unnecessary government intervention" that puts many organizations such as his in an "untenable position."

Here's just part of what he means by "untenable": Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?"

Barry is doing a wonderful job of alienating a core group that supported him in 2008. One thing that liberals never seem to like to admit or are completely oblivious to is the authoritarian streak inherent in alot of liberal policies and ideas. Their ideas aren't popular to begin with and the only way they can implement them is through judicial rulings and presidential orders rather than any sort of debate and subsequent voting by congress.

A day with Senator Rick Santorum

The Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach was the setting yesterday for a visit by presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who attended the morning worship service and delivered about 20 minutes worth of remarks...

"His (Santorum's) remarks there focused on his personal journey as a Christian, which he said infused his overall views.

"Faith plus family equals freedom in America," Santorum said. "So many ways the brokenness that we see in America is the brokenness of the foundational pillars that we see in society…. I'm the candidate who understands the foundation upon which everything else is built, and that's faith and family.

"If you want to fix the economy in this country, let's do something about fixing the families in this country," he said.

He also said many of the nation's ills, including economic difficulties, would be fixed if men and women got married before having children. He has a long history of opposition to issues important to gays and lesbians, and he repeatedly emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.

Santorum, who is strongly anti-abortion, detailed his years-long fight to outlaw the procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Earlier Sunday, Santorum said he has no intention of dropping out of the Republican presidential race."


The Shark Tank.net has put up a video of Santorum's remarks at the church that I was privileged to attend yesterday. As the field of potential republican candidates now stands at four, it is becoming increasingly clear that Santorum is the best candidate still standing. I agree with Santorum about 90% of the time on a variety of issues. However, he doesn't seem to have Gingrich's long line of extra baggage, seems more firmly grounded in conservative principals than Romney, and doesn't subscribe to the 'Blame America-Isolationist' stance adopted by libertarian Ron Paul that doesn't play very well outside his circle of fervent supporters.

Here's to hoping for a long and fruitful electoral process in which the candidates debate and offer up solutions and a number of states weigh in with their thoughts on the issues rather than just the first few in line.

EDIT: A special shout-out to Tea Party Ft Lauderdale which was well represented at yesterday's service. Such a 'Rainbow Coalition' on public display would be enough to give Jesse Jackson conniptions! HA!

On MLK and Homosexuality

As I have previously mentioned, the Gay Left has done a masterful job at selling people on the fallacy of comparing the drive to redefine 'marriage' to the struggle for civil rights during the decade of the 1960's. While the Pink Hand pushes this faulty comparison, one thing they never seems to be asked is to produce a single person who has ever left behind the 'black lifestyle' to heal emotional pain while the list is nearly endless of those who are no longer homosexual.



A recent Christian Post article takes a look back at the man who was the most iconic figure of Civil Rights era, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and examines in his own words what Dr. King thought about homosexuality. In a letter published in a 1958 edition of Ebony magazine a young reader expresses that he has same-sex attractions and and this was Dr King's reply...

"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."

So we don't see Dr King telling the young man to embrace a homosexual identity, calls his same-sex attraction a 'problem' and then suggests that he can be delivered from such desires. Somehow I don't think this will go over well with the Wayne Besen/Dan Savage/Lady Gaga crowd, but since when were they ever concerned with facts to begin with?

""I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he [MLK] did not take a bullet for same-sex unions" Rev Bernice King, daughter of MLK

3:16

GetReligion.org is reporting that in the 2009 BCS Championship Game, quarterback Tim Tebow wore the verse John 3:16 on the black tape under his eyes and Tebow has said that this is his favorite Bible verse. Tebow wearing that particular verse in this all important college game caused approximately 92 million people to google [John 3:16] and eye messaging was soon afterward banned for all players. Can't have people sharing any Good News now, can we?

In last Sunday's highly improbable overtime victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers, quarterback Tim Tebow passed for 316 yards in leading the Denver Broncos to victory. Coincidence? Maybe.

Tebow completed 10 passes in accumulating 316 yards in Sunday's upset win. Not 9 passes or 11 passes, but 10. Thus in the all important important statistic of his average yards per completion, Tebow averaged 31.6 yards per completion. Coincidence? Maybe.

Apparently the the overtime period of the game drew a 31.6 televison rating. Coincidence? Awww, c'mon man!

EDIT: Now Baptist Press is reporting that Pittsburgh's time of possession for the game was 31 minutes and 6 seconds. You can't make this stuff up.

Ward: 'Religion answers the factual questions science neglects'

There's an excellent article in today's Guardian regarding the faux 'war' between science and religion. You can click here for the entire article, but here's a brief snippet...

"A huge number of factual claims are not scientifically testable. Many historical and autobiographical claims, for instance, are not repeatable, not publicly observable now or in future, and are not subsumable under any general law. We know that rational answers to many historical questions depend on general philosophical views, moral views, personal experience and judgment. There are no history laboratories. Much history, like much religion, is evidence-based, but the evidence is not scientifically tractable...

Claims that the cosmos is created do not "trespass onto" scientific territory. They are factual claims in which scientific investigators are not, as such, interested. Scientific facts are, of course, relevant to many religious claims. But not all facts are scientific facts – the claim that I was in Oxford last night, unseen by anyone, will occur in no scientific paper, but it is a hard fact. So it is with the miracles of Jesus, with the creation of the cosmos and with its end. The interesting question is not whether religion is compatible with science, but whether there are important factual questions – and some important non-factual questions, too, such as moral ones – with which the physical sciences do not usually deal. The answer seems pretty obvious, without trying to manufacture sharp and artificial distinctions between "hows" and "whys"."

Pastors Challenge Free Speech Bigotry

The Christian Post is reporting on a growing phenomenon among Christian churches in which pastors are speaking freely on political matters from the pulpit and thus challenging the so-called Johnson amendment...

"This Sunday, more than 400 pastors will be using their pulpits to preach politics and challenge the Internal Revenue Service's regulations that restrict religious leaders from endorsing candidates and discussing policies with their congregations.

Oct. 2 is Pulpit Freedom Sunday, and this year Alliance Defense Fund and its supporters have quadrupled its participation from last year. Last year, 100 pastors committed to the event, but this year, registration lists are exploding, with 475 pastors who will participate in the event...

While no participants of the project actually lost their tax-exempt status, several churches have been subject to a possible investigation after preaching the biblical view of government policies and politicians in their churches.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an IRS complaint against Warroad Community Church in 2008 after Minnesota pastor Gus Booth taught his congregation what the Scripture says about abortion and same-sex marriage and compared those teachings to candidates' positions.

In 2009, a California-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights group filed an IRS complaint against the Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine, after it announced it would gather signatures for a voter referendum on the state's same-sex marriage law."

If I may be allowed to weigh in on the topic, my views on this are as follows.

My main concern on religious freedom in the pulpit is allowing pastors to preach through all sections of the Bible and not have to worry about reprisals from the government. For example, a Swedish pastor was sentenced to a month in prison after delivering a sermon critical of homosexuality. I don't doubt for a moment that free speech bigots in this country would gladly do the same since it took seven years for a Canadian pastor to be cleared of hate crime charges after writing a letter to the editor of an Alberta newspaper. I would never want to see the government hold 'tax-exempt status' held over the heads of churches for the refusal to accept the radical agendas offered up by Gay Inc. or the abortion industry.

Another item brought up in the above, cited article is the endorsement of specific political candidates from the pulpit. I think Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention summed up the optimal way candidates could be seen as 'endorsed' by a specific church.

"We (Southern Baptists) don't believe that pastors and churches should be endorsing candidates," he said. "We believe that candidates should be endorsing them and their values and beliefs.”"

I believe that candidates seeking out churches that reflect their values and themselves striving for their endorsements is the best way to proceed here. The only way I could see a church specifically endorsing a political candidate is if a particular candidate's position[s] on certain social issues is SO extreme, well, I can then see how some churches could feel compelled to endorse a candidate in certain election races. That doesn't mean that such instances are highly optimal or even desired. I admit that how one determines whether a candidate's position is extreme or not is a bit subjective and I welcome your feedback in the comment section below.

EDIT: I found an interesting article from 2008 that appeared in The Los Angeles Times featuring a dialogue between Barry Lynn of Americans United for Seperation of Church and State and the head of the Pulpit Initiative, Derek Stanley, if anyone is so interested in this topic. Link

Is the Mormon Church a Cult?

While significant differences still remain that seperate Mormonism from being defined as anything close to mainstream orthodox Christianity, Jana Reiss explores the distinct possibility that Mormons might be moving to become more mainstream....

"In their 2010 book American Grace, sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell revealed that Mormons rank as the third-most-hated religious group in America, after Muslims (no surprise) and Buddhists (a major surprise). The study's findings also showed, however, that suspicion of minority religions decreases significantly when people have personal interactions or friendships with members of those religions. A conservative evangelical soccer mom may claim to despise Mormonism, but her qualms tend to lessen when she becomes friendly with a Mormon co-worker or neighbor.

Therein lies a problem: unfamiliarity. A 2009 LDS-sponsored study indicated that nearly half of Americans understand next to nothing about Mormons, and many have never known a Mormon personally...

Many of Mormonism's critics fail to appreciate the ways that Mormon theology has changed through the years, often by way of the guidance that the LDS president claims to receive from God through "continuing revelation." (The teachings of a previous era are almost never explicitly repudiated, however.) For example, the doctrine that African Americans bear the "curse of Cain" is certainly not LDS doctrine today, though it was in the days of Brigham Young.

Some theological teachings are more opaque. For example, Mormon theology has traditionally dictated that human beings will become gods and that God himself was once human. An apparent disclaimer of this early Mormon teaching came when LDS prophet Gordon B. Hinckley appeared on Larry King Live in 1998 and, when asked whether Mormons believe that God was once a man, answered, "I wouldn't say that." He had given similarly vague denials the previous year to reporters from Time and the San Francisco Chronicle.

But what one LDS leader says to the media is not as reliable a gauge of the changing winds of LDS theology as the wording used in the LDS Church's twice-annual General Conference, when many worldwide Mormon leaders address the faithful by satellite or streaming Internet. In that forum, it's been rare to hear leaders talk about godhood recently unless they are quoting earlier leaders on the subject—and even that happens less frequently than it used to.

An investigation of the official LDS website confirms this trend. From 2006 to 2011, the word godhood appeared only ten times in official General Conference talks, church magazines and manuals. Of those cases, two quoted former LDS prophet Spencer W. Kimball about human beings becoming gods; one quoted former prophet David O. McKay on the subject; one cited midcentury leader Hugh B. Brown; and two drew from former apostle Marion G. Romney (a cousin of George Romney, Mitt's father). Two others referred to the "godhood" of Jesus Christ. Only one magazine piece—written anonymously—asserted that human beings "have within us the seeds of godhood," while an article about recovering from romantic breakups mentioned godhood twice as a goal for righteous human beings. Interestingly, that article was not written by a high-ranking international leader.

By comparison, church talks and materials from the 1970s and 1980s employed the concept freely in relation to the eternal destiny of men and women. As then-prophet Spencer W. Kimball said in 1976, "Our Heavenly Father has a plan for man's growth from infancy to godhood."

Does that mean that Mormons no longer believe that they can become gods? It is difficult to say. Many Mormons no longer think about the topic at all; it has become an insignificant aspect of contemporary theological expression. The idea may someday fade away, just as the church's encouragement of plural marriage—once a cornerstone not just of Mormon practice but of its belief system—has faded away."


The entire article is a good read and if you have the chance, click on the above link to check out the author's thoughts on how Mormons are helping to shape the political and cultural debates of our time.

I personally applaud such changes within their church and I think that mainline churches would do well if they could achieve what Mormons have insofar as attendance and tithing. But I don't know if Mormonism will ever be accepted as a member of the orthodox community as long as they adhere to the idea that such works as The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price are viewed as being 'inspired'. It's a bitter pill for a religion to swallow to accept that that their foundational documents aren't God-breathed and I doubt if these obstacles could be overcome anytime soon, if ever.

The Secular Blue Yonder

After 20 years of teaching a course on Just War Theory that utilized certain Bible verses in it's cirriculum, historically ignorant, free-speech bigots within the United States Air Force have succeeded in suspending the course...

"The use of Bible passage and other elements was just inappropriate,” he said. Mikey Weinstein, the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, hailed the military’s decision to suspend the course. “We’re very pleased that the Air Force did it,” Weinstein told Fox News Radio. “Had they not done that, we would have filed an immediate class-action lawsuit in federal court to force their hand.”

Weinstein said the officers who complained are Protestant and Roman Catholics, noting the class was simply “unconstitutional training.”

“The United States Air Force was promoting a particular brand of right-wing fundamentalist Christianity,” he said. “The main essence was that war is a natural part of the human experience and it’s something that is favored by this particular perspective of the New Testament.

Weinstein said he was particularly concerned about a passage of Scripture that was taught from the New Testament book of Revelations. The passage, chapter 19, verse 11, describes Jesus as a mighty warrior, Weinstein said.

But David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, said there is no violation of the Constitution. “Just-War theory has been a vital part of American military history for the last several hundred years,” French said, dismissing the complaints as what he called “another attempt to cleanse American history of its religious realities.”

“It’s about cleansing religion from the public square and building a completely secular society and military, said French. Commander Daniel McKay, a retired U.S. Navy Chaplain, agreed, telling Fox News Radio he was deeply concerned by the military’s decision.

“Why is it inappropriate to give our people guidelines that have withstood the test of time – to give us moral guidance,” McKay asked. “I think there are certain segments within our society who are making concerted efforts to take us away from our Judeo-Christian values, principles and morals,” he said."

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the verses mentioned were addressed in a purely clinical sense in this course, trying to reason with cultural Christians who might be uneasy about pushing the Big Red Button. I find the timing rather interesting given the recent push to have atheist chaplains in the military. This whole, sorry incident is just another reminder of just how poorly understood the Establishment Clause really is and how well anti-religious lobbyists and attorneys have indoctrinated the last generation of Americans.

The Establishment Clause barred the federal government from establishing a national, state church as had existed in England and Scandinavian countries at the time. It did not prevent individual states from establishing their own and somehow the fact that Massachusetts had an official state religion (Congregationalist) up until 1833 is NEVER mentioned lest that detract from the atheist mantra that the Establishment Clause was meant to avoid any interaction by government with religion like the plague.

Hemingway Exposing Left-Wing Myths About 'Right-Wing, Extremist Christians'

We have recently discussed on this blog the rapid speed in which the MSM jumped on the "Right-Wing Christian Extremist" bandwagon while the shots were still echoing in Norway following the horrific killing spree of Anders Behring Breivik. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard is obliterating the worn out templates regularly used by Leftists who will not own up to their own kindred spirits being responsible for some of the most devastating attacks in recent memory. First, Hemingway delves into the mindset of convicted bomber Eric Rudolph (above) who stated, according to USA Today...

"Many good people continue to send me money and books," .. "Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

I don't know about you, but I've yet to attend a church in which a reading from the Book of Zarathustra segues neatly into that week's sermon.

Next, Hemingway examines the case of (alleged) Anthrax killer, Bruce Ivins...

"As for alleged Anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins being supposedly motivated by his pro-life, Catholic views -- well, that's a pretty unfounded assertion based on a lot of tenuous and anonymous sources. Further, from what we know about his religious views -- to say nothing of considerable evidence that he was mentally ill -- he wanted the Catholic church to liberalize on the issue of female and married clergy. Not exactly what one thinks of when we discuss extremist religious views."

The article goes on to point out the Leftist leanings of Andrew Joseph Stack who flew his plane into IRS offices in 2010 and holocaust memorial shooter James von Brunn . Next time a tragic event unfolds and the finger is immediately pointed at the Right or Christians, just wait for all of the facts to come in. Bill O'Reilly (who I often disagree with) summed it up rather accurately as to why the Left-wing media so readily pounces on such gross mischaracterizations.

"Two reasons. First, some on the left want to make an equivalency argument between Muslim terrorism and other kinds of violent acts. The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was often branded "a right-wing terrorist" in the media*. Terrorism is terrorism the analysis goes. It's not fair to constantly emphasize Muslim terrorism without acknowledging the others. Besides, bad men like George W. Bush hype the Muslim threat and use it to do evil things such as invade Iraq.

The second reason is purely political. The left well understands that Christian opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization makes those liberal causes more difficult to achieve. Thus, anything that diminishes Christianity is fair game to be promoted. Every newsworthy sin committed by a Christian is highlighted with a sneering reference to hypocrisy. Any whiff of Christian intolerance is celebrated in the press.

Breivik did not kill in the name of Jesus. He was not a member of a Christian-based al-Qaida-like group. He was not funded by Iran or enabled by Pakistan. It seems he is simply a murderer, a man devoid of any spiritual conscience, a direct descendant of Cain."

* (And positively, NEVER mentioning the fact that McVeigh would often state that "Science is my Religion")

EDIT: Reuters Labels Norway Terror Suspect as ‘Right-Wing’ 25 Times IN ONE ARTICLE

One More Reason to Really Like Ike

Columnist Mark Tooley is fast becoming one of my favorite writers. Today's installment focuses on the religious beliefs of the 34th President of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower, (above, pictured with Bernard Montgomery). Tooley writes...

"After retirement, the Eisenhowers became active at Gettysburg's Presbyterian congregation, whose young pastor, the Rev. James MacAskill, Ike especially appreciated. Young David as a teenager even found the minister "spellbinding." Having a former president in MacAskill's flock attracted offers of larger churches with greater salaries. Unwilling to see him leave, Ike intervened to ensure a higher salary for the minister. In turn, MacAskill was impressed with Eisenhower's own depth of religious faith and his immunity to passing fads.

Reputed to have cited his appointment of Earl Warren as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice as one of his greatest errors, Eisenhower disapproved of the 1963 court ruling banning Bible readings from public schools. Ike saw religion as a crucial moral force, particularly for civil rights. He had been the first president to sign civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, and he supported the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. As David Eisenhower writes, his grandfather thought the "Warren Court's bias against the church undermined its promotion of equal rights because sociology was no substitute for moral teaching." In that ruling's wake, Ike delivered a sermon at his Gettysburg church.

"I do not see how any Supreme Court in the world can declare teachings in this vein illegal," Ike preached. "There is no reason for Americans to raise their children in a communist type school that denies the existence of a God." He noted that the "theory of the equality of man is religious in origin." And he observed: "To raise our children in a moral atmosphere is to recognize the existence of a Supreme Overlord."

Having passed through Gettysburg numerous times, it's easy to see why Ike would want to settle there. It is a beautiful area with alot of history associated with it.