Archives for : Constitution

The REAL separation of church and state – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : February 27, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

1947 was a busy, exhilarating, and optimistic year in America. The final days of World War II ended sixteen months earlier with the defeat of the Japanese Empire. Miracle on 34th Street was playing in the movie houses across the nation, and a solid-state semi-conductor called a transistor was invented in the Bell Laboratories. An unknown object crashed in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico. Thousands of former soldiers and sailors were in their second year of a G.I. Bill-financed college education, and the first Boomer generation children were barely over a year old.

But in 1947, many Americans also sensed an increasing undercurrent of unease and foreboding. The post war euphoria was short-lived as 1947 was the beginning of the four-decade long Cold War with the Soviet Union. The two superpowers were now separated by the “Iron Curtain,” so labeled in March 1946 by Winston Churchill in his famous speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. The West was being challenged by an aggressive Soviet Union and a monolithic block of “satellite” states under soviet domination, eastern European countries formerly under the control of Nazi Germany. The House Un-American Activities Committee held nine days of hearings into alleged communist influence and propaganda within the Hollywood motion picture industry.

Amidst the tumultuous events of 1947 there was also one little-noticed occurrence—a seemingly insignificant ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that would eventually have a monumental impact on the course of religious liberty and freedom of speech for almost seven decades lasting to the present day. Known as Everson v. Board of Education, the case revolved around the authorization by the Ewing Township School Board for reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools. The school board made the authorization pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing district boards of education to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools operated for profit. Therefore, parents of children attending not-for-profit Catholic schools qualified for reimbursement under the New Jersey statute.[1]

In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Hugo Black spoke for the majority of the Court in their finding that upheld the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals’ decision which struck down the New Jersey statute:

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.

… The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.[2] [emphasis added]

The particulars of the case were relatively unimportant except to Plaintiff Everson and the citizens of Ewing Township, New Jersey, but the larger ramifications of the decision would spread into almost every facet of American society by overturning one-hundred fifty years of legal precedent, legislative actions, and its citizens’ quiet enjoyment of their religious liberties. The Court’s decision was contrary to the intent of the Founders with regard to the Establishment Clause and the meaning of Jefferson’s metaphor in his January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The Establishment Clause derives its name from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]

The First Amendment protections for religious liberty were extremely important to the citizens of the newly-formed nation. In England, the established state church had been an onerous foe of those whose religious beliefs differed. Facing religious oppression in Europe, the original colonies were primarily founded by those seeking religious liberty. By the 1760s, the colonists had experienced this freedom of religion for almost one-hundred fifty years, but in those final years before the Revolution, they received a rude reminder of former times of religious oppression by one denomination over another when King George III appointed an Anglican bishopric to oversee the religious affairs of Puritan New England—the very reason the Puritans had left their homeland.[4]

At the time of the writing of the Constitution in 1789, although the states encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored denomination. A dozen years after the drafting of the Bill of Rights which included the First Amendment, rumors still circulated that the new American government would designate a state-authorized denomination. These rumors were so prevalent that the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson about their concern that a particular denomination would be established as the official denomination. It was in this context that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists at Danbury, Connecticut, to assure them that the rumor had no basis in fact. In an attempt to assuage their fears, he said,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[5] [emphasis added]

Jefferson’s belief that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal government’s establishment of a national denomination is confirmed by his letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signor of the Declaration of Independence.

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States…especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe…any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.[6] [emphasis added]

Jefferson’s metaphor of “a wall of separation” meant only the establishment of one particular denomination as the state-authorized denomination. Also, Jefferson’s wall was intended to be a one-way wall to protect the church from the state and not the other way around. But modern court rulings have perverted the original intent of the Establishment Clause to allow, in their own words, the construction of a “high and impregnable” wall between church and state.

The Supreme Court’s Everson decision divorced the First Amendment from its original intent and “…reinterpreted it without regard to either historical context or previous judicial decisions.”[7] In effect, the Supreme Court took eight words from Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists out of context and used them without support of sound judicial precedent to dramatically diminish religious freedom in the United States. Subsequently, the ruling has been used for additional judicial chicanery by the proponents of a humanistic worldview to systematically and completely remove religion and especially Christianity from all spheres of American public life.

Jefferson would have strenuously objected to the 1947 Supreme Court’s departure from original intent with regard to the First Amendment as can be seen in his admonishment to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.[8]

James Madison’s regard for the importance of original intent also mirrored Jefferson’s beliefs.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers…What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.[9] [emphasis added]

In 1947, the Supreme Court produced Madison’s dreaded metamorphosis as original intent was dumped for modern invention. As the Establishment Clause has been reconstructed by the Court’s Constitutional revisionists, the illegitimate modern interpretation of Jefferson’s wall of separation produces the same consequences as Churchill’s infamous Iron Curtain—the suppression and ultimate destruction of religious liberty.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] The U.S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, No. 52. Decided February 10, 1947.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/case.html (accessed February 5, 2015).
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Constitution of the United States of America, (Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration).
[4] M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), p. 217.
[5] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), pp. 51-52.
[6] Ibid., p. 51.
[7] Ibid., p. 27.
[8] Ibid, p. 28.
[9] Ibid., p. 28.

The REAL separation of church and state – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : February 20, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

Ask the average American to define the meaning of the oft-repeated phrase of “separation of church and state” and usually you will receive a blank stare. Following a brief pause, they may start giving examples like: “It means we can’t have prayer in schools.” “The government can’t sponsor any event that is connected with a church.” or “The Founders wanted to keep church and faith out of government.” If one follows up with a question as to the origins of “separation of church,” answers will include: “It was invented by Thomas Jefferson.” “It is part of the Declaration of Independence.” “It was established by the Supreme Court.” And a few will identify its source as the U.S. Constitution.

Not only are most Americans substantially ignorant of our nation’s history, they are grossly uninformed about the form and operation of American government. What little understanding of government they have usually originates from listening to the nightly news, political pundits, Hollywood and media celebrities, Internet headlines and sound bites, and an educational system vehemently opposed to the central cultural vision of the Founders. Few concepts within American governance are so important and so misunderstood as that of separation of church and state.

The original Constitution was signed by Congress on September 17, 1787 and subsequently ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress on September 26, 1789 and became part of the Constitution when Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the Amendments on December 15, 1791.[1] The First Amendment reads as follows:

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 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[2]

The Founders were strong proponents of separation of church and state. But the confusion as to its meaning over the last seventy years derives from the modern revisionists’ misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause as opposed to those who argue for the original intent of the Founders that had been observed by custom and the courts for over 150 years.

It is clear from the words and actions of the Founders that the intent of the Establishment Clause was to prohibit government from establishing one denomination as the official or preferred church. Modernists have reinterpreted the Establishment Clause to be a separation clause that effectively purges any hint of religious activity and influence in the public square which has come to mean any of the spheres of American life.

To understand the concept of separation of church and state and why the Founders so valued it, we must look back in history. The idea that a group of people bound by a religious allegiance with its own history, beliefs, and traditions could exist within a society but remain independent of the governing political entity was a concept unknown to the ancients. This radical concept that a distinction must be made between the roles of church and state arose from Christianity at its very birth.[3] It was evident in Christ’s challenged to the politically-connected religious leaders (Pharisees and Herodians) when they attempted to entrap Him with questions as to man’s loyalty to man or God. “Then he said unto them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” [Matthew 22:21a. RSV]

For the next three hundred years the church fathers maintained this separation but endured severe persecution as a consequence. In 313 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, but he soon began intruding in church affairs. In 353-356, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, reprimanded one of Constantine’s three sons (Emperor Constantius II) for intruding in church affairs by attempting to get Western bishops to oppose Athanasius of Alexandria for supporting those who rejected the Arian heresy. Hosius invoked Christ’s words in Matthew 22:21 which were preceded by a warning to the Emperor. “Intrude not yourself into ecclesiastical affairs…God has put into your hands the [secular] kingdom; to us [bishops] He has entrusted the affairs of His church.”[4]

Because of Constantine’s legalization of Christianity and in spite of the church’s early resistance to government interference, the church began a thousand year period in its history when church and state were intertwined to varying degrees. At the beginning of this period, government attempted to interfere with and bend the church to its will. However by the Middle Ages, it was the church who attempted to bend government to the will of the church. This was a corruption of God’s design for each realm.[5]

Out of the mixing of church and state came abuses such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. In spite of their motives to further His kingdom, the church had violated God’s plan because Christianity is not a religion that can coerce faith for it is a matter of the heart.[6] This intermingling of the spiritual and secular realms corrupted the roles of both church and state. A few men such as John Wycliffe and John Huss in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries recognized this corruption and called for changes in the church which was in dire need of fundamental reform. They also recognized that such reform would only occur with the recognition that the Bible was the final arbiter of faith and not the church.[7] These early stirrings of reformation exploded in the early sixteenth century when Martin Luther nailed his ninety five theses to the door of the Wittenberg church. The turmoil within the church produced one of the doctrinal pillars of Protestantism–the priesthood of the believer.

Alvin Schmidt presents an excellent summation of Martin Luther’s understanding of the distinct roles of the two realms in the early sixteenth century.

He [Luther] especially criticized the papacy’s role in secular government, seeing it as violating what he called the concept of the two kingdoms (realms). It was the church’s task solely to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ…the government’s task was to keep peace and order in society by restraining and punishing the unlawful. The secular government can only compel people to behave outwardly; it can never make a person’s heart spiritually righteous. Only the preaching of the Gospel (the spiritual realm) can do that. In the spiritual realm the Christian functions as a disciple of Christ; in the secular realm he functions as citizen. Although the two realms are separate, the faithful Christian is active in both because God is active in both. In the spiritual realm he is active in proclaiming the gospel, whereas in the secular kingdom he is active by means of the law and the sword, or government.[8]

The early colonists and their descendants still had fresh memories of the church-state conflagrations that swept Europe in the century prior to their first arrivals on the eastern shore of America. They well understood the need for separation of church and state, but that separation was a freedom of religion and not a freedom from religion as interpreted and imposed by modern Constitutional revisionists. For the colonists and Founders, separation of church and state was an institutional separation and not an influential separation. Institutional separation meant that government has certain roles and duties in which the church must not interfere (keeping peace and order in society by restraining and punishing the unlawful by means of the sword). Yet, the church has every right and duty to influence government. Likewise, the government does not have the right to interfere with the roles and duties of the church (teaching and preaching the gospel and influencing society).

There are numerous documents that attest to the Founders’ sentiments of the right of the church to influence society. Perhaps one of the best examples of the attitude of the Founders was expressed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, the fourth president and delegate to the Constitutional Convention which speaks volumes about Story’s understanding of the Founders’ meaning and intent with regard to the Constitution and its Amendments). Speaking specifically of the Establishment Clause, Story wrote:

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it, the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation (condemnation), if not universal indignation.[9]

To confirm the continuing existence of this strong religious sanction that still held sway over the nation forty years after the Constitutional Convention, we look to the words of Alexis De Tocqueville’s 1835 Democracy in America, one of the most influential political texts ever written about America.

Americans so completely identify the spirit of Christianity with freedom in their minds that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive the one without the other…

In France I had seen the spirit of religion moving in the opposite direction to that of the spirit of freedom. In America, I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.[10]

Tocqueville went on to say that the peaceful influence exercised by religion over the nation was due to separation of church and state.[11] Unlike the modernists’ separation of church and state, Tocqueville’s separation was a separation of the spheres of power and not a separation of government from ethics and moral guidance supplied by the moral suasion of Christianity and the church.

The Founders did not prohibit but encouraged the church’s influence upon government, and for one hundred fifty years the church played a vital role in helping the state be the state by continually asking if the state’s actions were justified as a legitimate fulfillment of its role. Since 1947, the courts have sided with the modern Constitutional revisionists who deny the church has a right to influence the state and society in the public square. This denial is the subject to be discussed in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Michael Kammen, ed., The Origins of the American Constitution – A Documentary History, (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), p. xxix.
[2] The Constitution of the United States of America, (Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration).
[3] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 265-266.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 266.
[6] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 86.
[7] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 143-145.
[8] Schmidt, p. 266.
[9] David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1989), p. 32.
[10] Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Gerald E. Bevan, Trans., (London, England: Penguin Books, 2003), pp. 343, 345.
[11] Ibid, p. 345.

Humanism’s equality handcuffs freedom and violates the Constitution

Posted by :webmaster On : February 6, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, Equality, Homosexuality

Until recently most Americans had never heard of the highly respected Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran. That changed dramatically when Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed fired Cochran because of his religious beliefs. The facts behind the firing are straightforward. Cochran self-published a book in 2013 titled Who Told You That You Were Naked? One paragraph in the book labeled homosexuality as “a perversion.” After the mayor learned of the book, he initially placed Cochran on a thirty-day suspension beginning November 24, 2014.[1] The mayor denied knowing that Cochran had written a book prior to his suspension. However, Cochran stated that he had given the mayor a copy of the book in January 2014, and that the mayor promised to read it on an upcoming trip. Cochran also said the director of Atlanta’s ethics office had given him permission to write the book and to mention in his biography that he was the city’s fire chief.[2]

Following the one-month suspension, the mayor fired Cochran just as he was preparing to return as head of the fire department. Defending his decision to fire Cochran the mayor stated, “This is not about religious freedom. This is not about free speech. Judgment is the basis of the problem.” Prior to Cochran’s firing, the mayor publicly condemned the fire chief on his official Facebook page. “I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham stated that Cochran’s “anti-gay” views could result in a hostile work environment.[3]

Cochran said that the comments regarding homosexuality were contained in less than one-half page of a 160 page book he wrote for a men’s Bible study group at his Baptist church. He stated that the reference to homosexuality was made in the larger context that sexual activity was designed to be between a man and a woman in holy matrimony. Outside of that, any other sexual activity including homosexuality is sin.[4] Further, Cochran defended his beliefs and his right to express himself.

The LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.[5]

In an Opinion Page piece by The New York Times, it was not a surprise to find that the newspaper supported Cochran’s firing. The Times Editorial Board stated that Cochran’s claim of religious discrimination had it backwards.

It is, as Mr. Reed said at a news conference, about ‘making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against…It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. The First Amendment already protects religious freedom…Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.[6] [emphasis added]

It appears that the Times Editorial Board subordinates religious freedom and the practice thereof to the whims of a hypersensitive workplace environment and totally extinguishes freedom of religion and speech for high-level public servants and governmental officials.

Should the Times Editorial Board have been present with the patriots at Valley Forge on March 10, 1778, their radical egalitarian sensibilities would have experienced great shock perhaps resulting in terminal apoplexy because of a high governmental official’s supposed flagrant discrimination against one Lieutenant Enslin as a result of his attempt at homosexual actions.

Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.[7]

Should the Editorial Board still be in doubt as to Washington’s Christian beliefs, less than two months after Lieutenant Enslin’s disgrace Washington issued these orders to his troops at Valley Forge.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.[8]

How did America arrive at such a state of affairs that the extreme egalitarian views of humanistic governmental officials equate one’s Christian beliefs and the sharing of those beliefs with the creation of a hostile work environment? Even though the fire chief was not found guilty of mistreatment of homosexuals in or out of government, Cochran was deemed guilty because of his status as a public official who expressed religious beliefs that were contrary to the beliefs of the homosexual community. It is ludicrous for The New York Times to label Cochran’s firing as anything other than a blatant violation of Cochran’s First Amendment rights which apply to every American including public servants and officials of whatever rank or station.

Equality, rightly applied, is equality before God and the law. However, the humanist understanding of equality is synonymous with a rapacious egalitarianism that imposes regimentation and leveling. This twisted understanding of human equality places special emphasis on social, political, and economic rights and privileges and focuses on the removal of any imagined or invented inequalities among humankind. This focus results in a forced leveling of society which leads to socialism and ultimately loss of freedom.

Driving religious beliefs from the public square does not enhance but destroys religious freedom in order to attain the egalitarian ideal. Because of a growing humanistic worldview among the leadership of the institutions of American life, the nation’s central cultural vision is under assault from humanists’ surgically precise efforts to separate church and state and to sweep away all evidence of our Christian cultural heritage. Even our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of religion and speech are no longer sacrosanct from such assaults. For humanists, religious freedom means only freedom to spread the humanist orthodoxy and worship their god of equality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Atlanta Fire Chief fired over controversial statements,” myfoxatlanta.com, January 6, 2015. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/27772986/mayor-holds-news-conference-on-fire-chiefs-future (accessed January 21, 2015).
[2] Todd Starnes, “Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith,” Fox News, January 7, 2015.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-was-fired-because-my-christian-faith/ (accessed
January 21, 2015).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] The Editorial Board, “God, Gays, and the Atlanta Fire Department,” The New York Times, January 13, 2015.
[7] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), p. 642.
[8] Ibid., pp. 642-643.

Gridlock – Governmental stalemate arising from a deeper cultural divide

Posted by :webmaster On : December 5, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Constitution, Government, Progressivism

Gridlock is a favorite bogeyman of journalists, columnists, and commentators in recent years, especially following national elections. They may as well save their breath and barrels of printer’s ink for the political divide has never been wider and deeper. Perennial prescriptions of non-partisanship and cooperation disappear as quickly as the morning mist following Election Day. One must ask if political polarization always results in gridlock which is shorthand for the inability of government to govern effectively. A cursory review of American history reveals many times of intense polarization, but the country and its government survived. Why was that possible then and not possible now? An examination of one of the defining moments in our nation’s history suggests an answer.

The fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention had labored through the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. Their efforts to draft a constitution for the fledgling nation were floundering and near failure amidst bitter debate and hostile feelings. On June 28th, eighty-one year old Benjamin Franklin rose to his feet and addressed General Washington who served as Convention president and the other 54 delegates. Here we recite only portions of this perhaps nation-saving speech.

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question…is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.

In this situation of the assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God Governs in the affairs of men…

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: we shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages…I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…[1]

Franklin noted on the bottom of his copy of the speech that the convention, except for three or four, thought prayers were unnecessary.[2] But he was wrong. Jonathan Drayton, delegate from New Jersey, reported the response of the convention.

The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected.[3]

Upon motion of James Madison, seconded by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Franklin’s appeal for prayer was approved by the delegates who further voted that at the request of the Convention a sermon be preached on July 4th and thereafter prayers be used in the Convention every morning.[4]

On June 30, two days after his speech, Franklin would help set in motion events that would break the impasse and ultimately help shape the new nation.[5] John Drayton noted a profound change in the convention as they assembled on July 2nd. “We assembled again; and …every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”[6]

The entire delegation assembled at the Reformed Calvinistic Church on July 4th to hear a sermon preached by Reverend William Rogers. Rogers prayed that the delegates would be favored “…with thy inspiring presence, be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the great whole…” He closed with, “May we…continue, under the influence of republican virtue, to partake of all blessings of cultivated and Christian society.”[7] God answered Rogers’ request. On September 17, 1787, the delegates approved the Constitution of the United States of America. This was not the first of many instances of God’s providence in the founding and preservation of the nation amidst polarizing events and difficulties including the greatest threat of all—the Civil War that divided the nation not only politically but also divided families and friends.

In reality, the political divide in the nation’s first 150 years was probably more dramatic then than it is today. So what makes modern political divisiveness more intractable than that of our forebears?

The fundamental divide in America goes far deeper than mere political polarization and gridlock. This divide is the result of the ascendance of a humanistic worldview that believes that “change and progress are the law of life.” To maintain progress, America must be unshackled from the past. On the other side of the divide are those who are concerned with the nature of man and values.[8] It is on this side we find the central cultural vision of the colonial Americans, the Founders, and most Americans since then.

The collective consciousness of those early Americans was essentially Christian in the way they saw the world. Man was fallen but redeemable. Their values were fixed by timeless truths found both in the natural law and the revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. Even though Franklin and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were mired in deep philosophical disagreements regarding the details of founding a nation, the Christian worldview held by virtually all of the delegates defined their basic beliefs and informed their deliberations which made possible compromise and success in creating a document that reflected their understanding of timeless values and the nature of man.

For those who believe that change and progress are the fundamental forces for directing life, it is essential that the Founders’ central cultural vision and values be discarded. In their central cultural vision, man is not fallen. He need not look to any god or the supernatural for solutions to his problems for those solutions come only through man’s reason and scientific advancement. As man progresses, values must change to reflect the times and accommodate current attitudes and situations.

The problem with the worldview of progress and change is that it violates the essential requirements that define a viable and sustainable culture. The essence of culture is to give allegiance to a center of authority that reflects moral codes and laws whereby it enforces what it believes is right and good for society. In other words, a culture must have a unifying central vision of how things ought to work, what’s important, its moral values, and what must be included and what must be excluded from that culture.

The progressive view of culture is essentially disintegrative because it has no unifying, cohesive central vision for it, by definition, produces multiple centers of cultural vision. Progressives attempt to create coherence and cohesiveness among these multiple centers of vision by substituting falsely defined concepts such as diversity, equality, and other egalitarian ideals as the cultural center of authority. However, these concepts do not resonate with man’s innate understanding of truth and freedom and fail to answer the basic questions of life. Therefore, these humanistic concepts inevitably lead to tensions and frictions, are inherently divisive, and result in cultural disintegration.

These tensions and frictions are most evident in the modern political arena and result in gridlock. Present day political polarization has become insurmountable because the conflict flows from fundamental differences in our basic beliefs that can’t be compromised without destroying who we claim to be as individuals and as a nation. And it is in these basic differences of belief that we see the flashpoints in the culture wars which include abortion, same-sex marriage, and homosexuality.

For over 150 years America overcame its political polarization and gridlock because its citizens and leaders were guided by a single cultural vision. Now, many of the leaders in the nation’s spheres of influence adhere to and promote a humanistic view of life in which God is a myth and man is the master of his own destiny. From such beliefs come political solutions that conflict with the central cultural vision that has been held by most Americans for three hundred years (colonial Americans, Founders, and most citizens since then). And without the cohesive and coherent central cultural vision of the Founders, there is no firm foundation upon which America’s leaders can overcome political polarization and gridlock. In Franklin’s words, they have become “the builders of Babel.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc.1996), pp. 248-249.
[2] Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin – An American Life, (New York, Simon & Schuster), 2003), p. 452.
[3] Federer, p. 249.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Isaacson, p. 452.
[6] Federer, p. 250.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), pp. 4-5.

The end of sustainable government

Posted by :webmaster On : August 15, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government

America has been a wildly successful country because of its sustainable government, and we can thank our founders for making that possible. However, the Obama presidency has done more to damage that sustainability than any administration in the nation’s history.

All governments are systems of ruling or controlling, and every system of government has a source of power. Every government’s source of power may be visualized as being at some point on a continuum of power. At one end of the continuum is anarchy at which there is no law, no order, and no systematic control and quickly slides into some form of tyranny. Tyranny resides at the other end of the continuum and imposes too much control and results in loss of freedom, oppression, and eventual slavery. Under the one system there is no law; under the other is the ruler’s law. What the Founders’ desired was a people’s law with “…enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people.”[1]

People’s law resides at the center of the continuum between anarchy and ruler’s law. How is this achieved? The Founders began their task with an understanding of the tendency of governments and cultures throughout history to swing from one extreme (tyranny) to the other (anarchy) and back. The Founders also recognized the difficulties of sustaining a government based on the people’s law because of the inherently corrupt nature of mankind.

In creating a government that was sustainable, the Founders recognized the inherent fallibility of any system of government based solely on law designed and guided by corrupt human nature that ultimately devolves into a succession of governments of tyrants or roiling mobs. To address the tendency of governments to fluctuate between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy, the Founders formed a government based on constitutionalism. A constitution designed by the people to reflect the people’s law marks the boundaries or limits of power delegated to the rulers of government. Because the Founders recognized the truth of the fallen nature of man, the American Constitution included a system of checks and balances known as the separation of powers.

By the late nineteenth century the tentacles of humanism would spread into American jurisprudence and began to undermine the biblical foundations of the law that had been laid by the Founders and threatened the restraining force of the Constitution. The new theory of law was based on relativism and introduced by Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Langdell in the 1870s. The major tenets of the progressivists’ theory of law are:

There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.

Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, the law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up.

Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law.

To study law, get the original sources of law – the decision of judges.[2]

In his incisive indictment of progressivism in American jurisprudence, Bradley C. S. Watson states that “…such jurisprudence is destined to be destructive to any and all claims of moral truth…not only hostile to the liberal constitutionalism of the American Founders, but to any moral-political philosophy that allows for the possibility of a truth that is not time-bound.”[3]

Watson believes that there are two fundamental facts that mark the founding of America and subsequently the design of the Constitution. One was creedal and one was cultural. First, the Founders had a creedal “…understanding of natural rights, which were held not to be culturally derived or time-bound or subject to infinite incremental growth, but applicable to all men everywhere and final.” [emphasis added] In other words, there were eternal truths which transcended man and his time on this earth and were inviolable. Second, the Founders believed that American culture resulted from inherited or customary understandings that reflected the application or working out of the principles of timeless truths in daily life. The Founders’ creedal and the cultural beliefs were not in conflict but expressions of the same truth, and both rested firmly on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith and its eternal truths.[4] These two facts regarding the founding of America stand in stark contrast to progressivism’s faulty assumptions of the evolutionary nature of the Constitution and laws.

Because of the nature of the duties of the judiciary, Progressivists’ damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution has occurred primarily within that branch of government. But the brazen overreach of the Obama administration through disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers may be unparalleled in American history. In addition to scorning the rebukes by the Supreme Court for his un-Constitutional executive actions, the President has violated his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws by selective enforcement and/or changes to laws enacted by Congress. Additionally, the administration has regularly circumvented the powers of the legislative branch through the issuance of illegitimate executive orders to accomplish what Congress would not approve.

Such is the seriousness and extent of the abuse of power of the executive branch that on July, 16, 2014, Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, appeared before the Committee on Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives to discuss litigation for actions by the President inconsistent with his duties under the Constitution. In his prepared remarks, Turley stated:

The President’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. In perhaps the saddest reflection of our divisive times, many of our citizens and Members are now embracing the very model of a dominant executive that the Framers fought to excise from our country almost 250 years ago.[5]

Sustainable government requires adherence to Constitutional limitations of power and the recognition of and adherence to timeless fixed moral and political truths from which there can be no departure. However, because of the ascendance of the humanistic worldview, there is an assault on these principles necessary to sustain government. In American jurisprudence this assault is a result of judicial activism that changes or creates laws or goes against precedent rather than just applying or interpreting laws. The more recent assault on the Constitution by the executive branch is evident in the maneuverings of a president seemingly bent on one-man rule based on man’s law disconnected from eternal truths.

As a result of these onslaughts, the hard-won people’s law of the Founders is endangered, and the end of our once sustainable American government is at hand. It is time for the states, Congress, and the American people to reign in the judicial and executive branches of government and return to the Constitutional balanced of powers as Madison and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, (www.nccs.net: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1981), pp. 10, 19.
[2] David Barton, Original Intent, 5th Edition, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuider Press, 2008), pp. 233-234.
[3] Bradley C. S. Watson, Living Constitution, Dying Faith, (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009), p. xvi.
[4] Ibid., pp. 23-14.
[5] Jonathan Turley, “Authorization to Initiate Action for Litigation for Actions by the President Inconsistent with His Duties under the Constitution of the United States,” Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, July 16, 2014. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20140716/102507/HMTG-113-RU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20140716.pdf (accessed August 11, 2014).

The Fragility of Free Speech in America

Posted by :webmaster On : March 21, 2014
0

Category: Constitution, Government, Socialism, Truth

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: “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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” The free exercise of religion has been under assault by the liberalism for a number of years and the assault has accelerated significantly in the last two or three years. Attacks on free speech are increasing but of more recent occurrence.

Attacks on free speech increased significantly with efforts to classify certain opinions as hate speech. The problem with prohibiting hate speech is one of determining what is and what is not hate speech. Most often, the efforts at eliminating hate speech are aimed at the “content” of the speech rather than the intolerable mode of expressing the speech (e.g., violence). Here we are not talking about profanity or obscene language that offends the common decency of a civil society. Speech that is bad or hurtful may not be obscene or profane, and slander and libel laws are available where necessary. Also, enforced tolerance through limitations on the content of hate speech may have the opposite effect—that of promoting even more hateful speech or worse. Most importantly, any limit on free speech, however hateful or hurtful, is a slippery slope at whose base is an abyss in which free speech is not only lost but other liberties as well.

As America races toward a monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing government, free speech is under attack in a variety of ways.

Government approved speech

We recently wrote of the federal government’s first steps at limiting freedom of the press through proposed Federal Communications Commission’s monitoring of newsrooms to determine bias in the provision of critical information needs as determined by the government. [See: “The New Ministry of Truth 2014”]

Government limits on speech through regulation

But government reach goes beyond the newsroom and into cyberspace. Health-wise, Steve Cooksey was a walking time bomb. He was obese, lethargic, asthmatic, chronically ill, and a pre-diabetic. Ignoring the advice of medical personnel and others, he chose to eat a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (beef, pork, chicken, leafy vegetables). He lost seventy-five pounds and no longer needed medications. He began sharing his dietary opinions on his Internet blog and interacting with his readers. When asked he would give his opinion, but the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition got wind of his treachery and following a three-month investigation ordered him stop as he was “counseling” and needed a license to do so. The Institute for Justice defended Cooksey’s First Amendment right of free speech citing the fact that Cooksey’s speech “…involves no sensitive relationships (as in psychological counseling, no uniquely vulnerable listeners (as in potential legal clients forced to make snap decisions), and no plausible presumption that the listeners are unable to exercise independent judgment.” Cooksey’s advice was unpaid, freely sought, involved no professional-client relationships. [Will]

Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.

Limiting when and where free speech may occur

Free speech is under attack on many of the nation’s colleges and universities. Robert Van Tuinen, a student at Modesto Junior College, was stopped by campus police from distributing copies of the Constitution on the 226th anniversary of its signing. College officials told Van Tuinen that he could get permission to distribute the Constitution if he pre-registered for time in the “free speech zone” which reportedly was small slab of concrete just big enough for two people. However, once registered, Van Tuinen would have to wait for an available opening. Effectively, administration officials used campus police to enforce an unconstitutional rule, declared the campus to be off limits for free speech except for a small “free speech” area, and limited when and how many could use so-called free speech area, all in violation of the First Amendment. [Haynes]

Criminalizing free speech

Want to go to jail for your views—spoken or written? Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, suggests that some scientists and their financial backers may be both morally and criminally negligent if their views contradict a set of facts that the majority of scientists agree upon. As an example, Torcello believes that, “We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.” [Torcello]

Torcello brushes aside free speech concerns by distinguishing between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs and the funding of a strategically organized campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Torcello states that, “Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.” But Torcello should read the First Amendment again. There is no limit on free speech because it is strategically organized and well-financed. [Torcello] The Left questions the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions without help from the liberal intellectual elites. The problem for the Left is that the public is getting wise to the liberal, radical environmentalist agenda and other pseudo-scientific pronouncements, and the Left’s only recourse is silence their critics.

Writing seventy years ago in his seminal Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek identified the liberal necessity of group-think for the masses to achieve their ends.

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends…Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants. [emphasis added][Hayek, p. 171.]

For liberals, any public criticism or even expressions of doubt tend to weaken public support for the official doctrine, creed, values, or views of the regime. The acts of government must be sacrosanct and exempt from criticism. Even though the great majority may have surrendered independent thought, the minority’s doubt, discontent, and criticisms must be suppressed or silenced. [Hayek, pp. 175-176.]

The suppression of free speech in America ranks high on the liberal agenda because the end of liberalism is socialism, and the end of socialism is totalitarianism. That is why those pesky three little words of “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment are so troubling to the liberal establishment.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, “The Ministry of Truth 2014,” culturewarrior.net, March 7, 2014. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/on-college-campuses-zoning-out-free-speech (accessed 3-19-14)

Charles C. Haynes, “On college campuses, zoning out free speech,” First Amendment Center, October 14, 2013. www.firstamendmentcenter.org/on-college-campuses-zoning-out-free-speech#tab-section (accessed 3-19-14).

Lawrence Torcello, “Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?” The Conversation, March 13, 2014. https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111##comment_333276 (accessed March 19, 2014).

F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom – Text and Documents, ed. Bruce Caldwell, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1944, 2007), pp. 171, 175-176.

George Will, “An attack on free speech in North Carolina,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2012, A-16.

Christianity in the Public Square – Part II – The Founders’ Establishment Clause v. the Modern Secularists’ Separation Clause

Posted by :webmaster On : September 27, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution

In Part I we examined statements made in a newspaper article by a Baptist minister and a retired school teacher who support a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) seeking removal of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments located on the State Capitol grounds. [Hoberock, 9-9-13] In opposition to the monument, the minister and teacher made a series of comments which serve as a basis for examining the larger issue of Christianity in the public square. Part I dealt with the legitimacy or right to express one’s faith in the public square. In Part II we shall move to the larger issue of what the Founders meant by inclusion of the Establishment clause in the First Amendment.

To help us do so, we look to comments by the minister and teacher which express popular but misguided understandings of the Constitution with regard to religion in general and Christianity in particular:

He is trying to express his faith in the public square. He shouldn’t be doing that with monuments trying to make it look like the government is endorsing his particular faith. [Minister referring to the person who paid for the Ten Commandments monument with private funds.]

I am a religious person and to me separation of church and state isn’t the concern about the government trying to control my religion. It is concern about religion trying to control my government. [Teacher]

Again, the validity of these comments must be examined by answering a number of questions.

• Was the Establishment clause meant to protect religion or the government?
• What were the Founders’ attitudes toward Christianity in the public square?
• Is there a difference between our government adhering to biblical principles upon which the nation was founded and the promotion of Christianity or a particular denomination thereof?

To answer the first question, we must examine the meaning of the Establishment clause and the modern misinterpretation of it as a “separation” clause. To impute the First Amendment’s Establishment clause as a separation clause is the typical misreading of the First Amendment in an attempt to drive Christianity from the public square by secular humanists. Specifically, the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof…” The phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution of the United States.

The Founders were very explicit in their words and deeds in demonstrating that religion was to play an important and central role in the public affairs of the nation. The First Amendment prohibition dealt with the establishment of a preferred religion, a state sponsored religion if you will. It also prohibited the meddling of the federal government in the free exercise thereof.

At the time of the Constitution, although the states encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored denomination. There was a time when one denomination ruled over and oppressed others. This was fresh in the minds of the people, so much so, that the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson regarding a rumor that a particular denomination would become the official denomination. It was in this context that Jefferson wrote to a gathering of Danbury Baptists at Danbury, Connecticut, on January 1, 1802 to assure them that the rumor had no basis in fact. In an attempt to assuage their fears, he said,

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [Barton, p. 41.]

Here we have a politician, visiting his constituents, to assure them that their concerns were baseless, that is, no one Christian denomination would become the official national denomination. That is the context and in no way threatens the Danbury Baptist or other denominations with expulsion from the public square by means of a wall of separation. In effect, Jefferson’s wall was a one-way wall—protecting the church from the government. That is the complete opposite of the meaning as it is used today to drive Christianity out of the public square.

Simply put, government cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion. In the context of the times and the purpose of his letter to the Danbury Baptists, this meant “preferred religion” and not an absence of religion in government or public life.

This attitude was subsequently demonstrated a few years later by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, considered to be the father of the Constitution) who wrote,

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. [Barton, p. 32.]

Contrast Justice Story’s comments to what has occurred in this country beginning with the last half of the 20th century. Voluntary school prayer establishes a national religion, allowing students to pray allowed over their lunches establishes a national religion, displaying the Ten Commandments on public buildings is establishment of a national religion, etc. [Barton, p. 32.]

It is ironic that this belief that any hint of Christianity in the public life of the country becomes the establishment of religion. Effectively, the free exercise of religion (guaranteed in the same sentence) now triggers the prohibited establishment of religion.

In answer to our last question, there is a difference between our government’s adherence to biblical principles upon which the nation was founded and the promotion of Christianity or particular denomination of within Christianity. It is important to understand that the United States is not a nation that attempts to impose Christianity on all of its citizens but rather it is a nation founded upon on Judeo-Christian principles that form the nation’s central cultural vision. The worldview of the Founders dictated the principles or values under which the United States was founded. And with even the most cursory examination of the Founders and the history of the nation, we can unequivocally say we were founded upon Christian principles. And this is the essence of this Christian worldview as it relates to forming a nation: All of society’s laws must be subject to the authority of a higher law. This was the belief of our Founders and this belief is evident in their words and actions.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Barbara Hoberock, “Minister: Display breaches barrier,” Tulsa World, September 9, 2013, A-9.

David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1878), pp. 32, 41.

Christianity in the Public Square – Part I- The Constitution and the Ten Commandments Monument

Posted by :webmaster On : September 20, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against the Capital Preservation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, seeking removal of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments located on the State Capitol grounds. The suit states that, “This piece of public property, placed upon public property, conveys an explicit religious message that supports and endorses the faiths and creeds of some churches and sects.” Brady Henderson, Legal Director with the Oklahoma ACLU, stated “Our constitution makes it clear you cannot use state property and state resources to support a particular religion and this monument does just that.” [foxnews.com]

A recent newspaper article featured the opinions of a Baptist minister and a retired school teacher, both of whom support the lawsuit. [Tulsa World, 9-9-2013] The article offered a number of quotes by the two opponents of the monument which parrot much of the common but misguided understanding of the Constitution with regard to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Here are some excerpts from their statements:

Most of my concern is that this is another in-your-face attempt by misguided Christians to assert their faith in the public square. [Minister]

If Christians want to share their faith, they should do it face-to-face. They do not need to try to find ways to dominate the public square and impose their will on everyone else. [Minister]

I believe wholeheartedly religion is a personal, private issue and I do not want the government telling me how to worship. [Teacher]

The validity of these comments must be examined by answering a number of questions:

• What rights do Christians have to express their faith in the public square?
• Why must Christians only express their faith face-to-face?
• Are the First Amendment rights of Christians to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech being violated by attempts to quell expressions of faith in the public square?

Questions raised by other statements of the two opponents to the monument are addressed in Part II.

The issue of expressing one’s faith raised by the minister is archetypal in that it clearly defines the conflicts surrounding the assault on Christianity in the public arena. The minister appears to be saying that any attempt to share one’s faith in the public arena, other than face-to-face, is misguided and an attempt to dominate the public square and impose their will on everyone else. The rebuttal to the minister’s and the teacher’s assertions must be made on two levels.

Our first response is to Christians. Christians that are faithful to Christ and his direction for living in this world must recognize the importance of sharing the Christian faith. According to Scripture (Matthew 28:19-20), one must teach all nations to observe His commandments. But this response, addressed to Christians, will not satisfy non-Christians.

The minister’s requirement that such displays of faith be made only in a face-to-face manner are hypocritical given the fact that Christians are being punished for merely exercising their right of free speech about their faith. TSgt. Layne Wilson, a 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard, was reprimanded after he emailed a letter to someone he believed to be a chaplain at West Point. In the email he objected to a gay wedding that was to be held in the West Point chapel which at the time was a violation of the law. As a result of his email, he was officially reprimanded and denied a six-year reenlistment contract and allowed only a one-year extension. He was told that he his views were “…no longer compatible with further military service,” [foxnewsinsider.com] University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs fired Crystal Dixon, then interim associate vice president for human resources, in 2008 for publicly expressing an opinion contrary to school policy. Dixon claimed the school’s action violated her First Amendment right to free speech but lost her appeal when a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the University’s firing of Dixon after she wrote an editorial for the Toledo Free Press expressing her opinion that the homosexual lifestyle was not a civil right but a choice. The court ruled that the school’s interest in promoting its values and policies outweighed Dixon’s free-speech interests. [worldmag.com] These are just two examples of the rampant and pernicious hostility in all spheres of American life to Christians’ expressions of their faith.

Our second rebuttal to the minister’s and teacher’s assertions is made to the humanists and non-Christians. For the secularist, humanist, or others not holding the Christian faith, we counter with a question, “Why not discuss with someone what they should believe, either publicly or privately?” Who made the rule that we shouldn’t? The airwaves are filled with thousands of people discussing their most intimate and private lives before millions of people. Some will counter that discussions of religion and faith is just not done in polite society. However, is it a matter of etiquette to not offer a solution and solace to those in pain or despair? If one were in a dire, life-threatening situation and the secularist or humanist held the means of escape, would he or she hesitate to offer assistance? Of course they wouldn’t. Likewise, Christians are not imposing their views on anyone but sharing the difference Jesus has made in their lives and they care enough about others to want to share His (Christ) message in the hope that other lives will be similarly transformed. [Johnson, p. 183.]

As one can see, the comments of the minister and teacher do not deal with the Ten Commandments but larger issues of the supposed separation of church and state which will be dealt with in Part II. But let’s return to the issue at hand by looking at the words of John Quincy Adams, one of America’s Founders and the sixth president of the United States, with regard to the Ten Commandments and their place in civil and municipal government.

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code…laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity [secular history]…to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue [Ten Commandments] lays down. [Barton, p. 178.]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

“ACLU sues to remove Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument” foxnews.com, August 22, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/aclu-sues-to-remove-oklahoma-10-commandments-monument/#ixzz2dHrcZwgM (accessed August 28, 2013).

Barbara Hoberock, “Minister: Display breaches barrier,” Tulsa World, September 9, 2013, A-9.

Todd Starnes, “Nat’l Guardsman Punished for Objecting to Gay Marriage in Military Chapel,” foxnewsinsider.com, July 11, 2013. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/07/11/national-guard-veteran-layne-wilson-punished-objecting-gay-marriage-west-point-chapel#ixzz2eb2PMRzw (accessed September 11, 2013).

Leigh Jones, “Court says college administrator has no right to oppose gay rights,” worldmag.com, December 21, 2012. http://www.worldmag.com/2012/12/court_says_ college_administrator_has_no_right_to_oppose_gay_rights (accessed 9-11-13).

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 183.

David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 178.

The Reasons for Governmental Abuse of Power

Posted by :webmaster On : June 21, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Constitution, Government

We are a nation ruled by laws that exist under the Constitutional umbrella. The rule of law implies that governmental authority (power) is limited and may only be exercised in accordance with written laws adopted through an established procedure. When elected or appointed officials and bureaucrats exercise power beyond the limits established by the law, it is called abuse. This abuse of power has increased significantly as a result of the rejection of the biblical worldview and the adoption of a humanistic, secular worldview by many of the leaders of American institutions and especially leaders of government and related bureaucracies.

Numerous scandals have erupted in recent weeks because of widespread abuse of power in the Obama administration and many departments of the federal government. Although scandals in government punctuate every time period in our nation’s history, the recent scandals in various segments of government appear systemic in nature and go beyond anything in memory, at least as to frequency and pervasiveness but possibly of magnitude as well (which is yet to be determined).

Typically, government scandals are primarily about isolated abuses of power by governmental officials and bureaucrats which are related to financial gain and/or waste which appear to be endemic to a sprawling government filled with faceless bureaucrats insulated from accountability and punishment for wrongdoing. The more serious and systemic abuses of power go beyond theft or malfeasance and revolve around intimidation, coercion, injustice, loss of freedom, and a general and pervasive attitude of lawlessness. More than greed and waste, these abuses of power cut as the heart of protections afforded by the Constitution and our laws.

For all of its failings, the one for which the Obama administration will be remembered most is the widespread lawlessness at all levels of government during his administration. Regardless of President Obama’s involvement, knowledge, or lack thereof in the various scandals rocking his administration, his arrogant example sent the message that his decrees and agenda were superior to the laws of the land, especially if those laws were based on a biblical worldview as held by the Founders.

Because of the President’s arrogant attitude and actions in pursuit of his ideological agenda that disregard Constitutional limits and many laws passed by Congress, his administration and much of the governmental bureaucracy have followed his example. The President’s “above-the-law” attitude and actions include many instances of his unilateral violation of the Constitutional separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative and judicial branches which were meant to limit government authority and thereby protect individual liberty; abuse of the power of executive privilege; non-enforcement of laws passed by Congress; and vocal denigration of the judiciary and its decisions with consequent promotion of disrespect of the law.

Following the President’s lead, various agencies and departments have become a law unto themselves through imposition of draconian regulations (many which are far removed from the original intent of the laws permitting those regulations) and selective enforcement of laws and regulations for the purpose of furthering the administration’s ideological agenda through the power of their position. Examples include:

• The federal government’s refusal to continue enforcement of the Clinton-era welfare reform that required aid recipients (all who were able) to work.
• Rewriting of immigration laws without Congressional approval.
• Implementation of elements of the President’s Dream Act which Congress refused to adopt.
• Imposition of environmental rules (e.g., cap-and-trade carbon rules) which the Congress refused to adopt.
[Samuel E. Burns, “Blatant disregard of laws passed by Congress violates separation of powers.”]

The most recent scandals at the IRS and Departments of State, Justice, and Health and Human Services have exposed the dark underbelly of the monster created by the consistent public flaunting by the President and his minions of the Constitution, its protections and processes, and the laws of the land.

The media, investigators, and the public dissect, discuss, and demand retribution for the transgressions of government, but few talk of the underlying structural/systemic reasons that provide fertile ground for the abuse of power to occur. Only when those structural/systemic deficiencies are addressed and corrected will we see a decline in the abuse of power by the government.

The governmental structure upon which the nation was founded rested on the biblical worldview of the Founders and was reflected in the Constitution. Fundamental to this governmental structure were the limitations placed upon it. The retreat from the biblical worldview as the basis for our laws and policy making began accelerating in the 1930s. At the same time there began a vast increase in the scope and authority of government over society and its institutions in a manner not intended by the Founders or God’s design for the social order. Again, the government abuses its power when its reach usurps the power and authority of other spheres of the social structure designed by God. Here we speak of the family, church, labor, community, and relationship between man and God. This intrusion is so omnipresent and complex, even the most ardent socialist cannot deny it.

To remedy the structural or systemic failings that have led to abuse of power in the government, four actions must be taken. First, we must hold all branches and departments of government strictly accountable to the Constitution and laws of the land. Second, we must remove (by vote or action of law) and/or prosecute those who violate the Constitution and/or laws of the land. Third, we must limit the size of government. And fourth, we must limit the reach of government into the various spheres of the social order for which government was never intended to intrude.

We gain an appreciation of the importance of these four actions when we turn to F. A. Hayek’s words written during World War II in his seminal work titled The Road to Serfdom.

There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary…it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary…If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power. (emphasis added)

The President and his administration have refused to be guided by fixed rules and as a result have arbitrarily used government power to further the President’s ideological agenda and purposes. The shield of democracy will not hide the abuses of that power. Prevention of abuse comes only with limitation of the power of government. Those limitations must be guided by the fixed rules of the biblical worldview which the Founders held and not the humanistic perversions of moral relativism.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Samuel E. Burns, “Blatant disregard of laws passed by Congress violates separation of powers,” The Last Chance for Freedom, August 6, 2012. http://thelastchanceoffreedom.blogspot.com/2012/08/blatant-disregard-of-laws-passed-by.html (accessed June 4, 2013).

F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Bruce Caldwell, ed., (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1944, 2007), p. 111.

Assault and battery on Freedom of Speech and Due Process provisions of the Constitution

Posted by :webmaster On : June 14, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Constitution

First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, November 3, 1791:

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 the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thoughtful judicial interpretation of laws in light of the Constitution is the courts’ proper role. But through judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature in making laws, the courts have appropriated unto themselves a law-making role never intended by the Founders. Additionally, their power to decide what is right and wrong is all too frequently based on man’s law, not God’s laws. These abuses of power by the judiciary have significantly undermined the Founders’ meaning and intent with regard to the Constitution.

As these modern false meanings with regard to the Constitution have gain currency and faux-legitimacy in twenty-first century American culture, the courts, the bureaucracy, and their sycophant fellow travelers implement these radical perversions into the minutiae of everyday life of the citizenry and their institutions. During the almost half-decade of the Obama administration, the volume and intrusiveness of these flawed regulations, requirements, and obligations imposed upon the nation have been astounding but should be no surprise to those who understand the humanistic worldview and its pervasive presence in our government.

The attack upon freedom of speech has reached monumental proportions during President Obama’s tenure in the White House. Illustrative of big government arrogance, the recent agreement between the Department of Justice and Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights with the University of Montana-Missoula is but one example of the attack by our government gone wild in the pursuit of absurd understandings of equality and justice. The university was accused of mishandling sexual assault-harassment claims (the university handled the claims but not to the satisfaction of the DOJ and DOE) and settled by signing a sixteen page Resolution Agreement. The subsequent thirty-two page letter of findings detailed the sins of the university and remedies thereto which will cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in time and money to meet the specifications dictated.

The regulatory cost affects not only the University of Montana, but as the DOJ/DOE letter made clear, “The Agreement will serve as a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault.” One need not wonder at the reason for the astronomical cost of higher education in the US after reading the DOJ/DOE’s compliance requirements. I encourage those with the stamina and stomach to read these documents.

But the loss of freedom of speech on American college campuses far exceeds the DOJ/DOE’s financial bludgeoning of American universities, students, parents, and taxpayers. The sweeping new definitions of sexual harassment have effectively trumped any consideration of constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech. According to the DOJ/DOE,

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX and Title IV. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault or acts of sexual violence. [DOJ/DOE letter, p. 4.]

So, what is the standard for determining what is unwelcome verbal conduct (i.e., speech) of a sexual nature and therefore is to be deemed sexual harassment? There is no standard measure other than the opinion of the hearer who perceives any speech unwelcome if he/she considers it to be of a sexual nature, unwanted, and harassment. Effectively, the definition of sexual harassment is unleashed from the standards of law and culture with regard to what a reasonable person considers offensive or whether it was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to create a hostile environment.

But there are other Constitutional problems with the DOJ/DOE letter.

In addition, a university must take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution. Appropriate steps may include separating the accused harasser and the complainant, providing counseling for the complainant and/or harasser, and/or taking disciplinary action against the harasser. These steps should minimize the burden on the complainant and should not be delayed until the outcome of a criminal proceeding. [DOJ/DOE letter, p. 6.]

By fiat, the DOJ/DOE has dispensed with due process of law for those accused of sexual harassment. Due process of law is a foundational protection in American society, is found as a part of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and stretches back to clause 39 of the Magna Carta of thirteenth century England.

Notice the DOJ/DOE requirements: immediate steps must be taken, and those appropriate steps may include “…provision of counseling for the complainant and/or harasser…” (notice the absence of “alleged” before harasser), or “…taking disciplinary action against the harasser.” In other words, the harasser (guilty or not) may be immediately counseled and/or punished before due process of law runs its course. Such is the Machiavellian thought processes of those that have abandoned the biblical worldview of law and justice upon which the Founders’ constructed the Constitution.

Being the law enforcement arm of government and understanding the supreme position of the Constitution with regard to the nation’s laws and regulations, why would Department of Justice officials render so blatantly unconstitutional regulations? The answer lies in their humanistic view of their role in society. For progressives such as President Obama and bureaucrats found in the DOJ and DOE, the top-down approach is a progressive’s statement of the natural order of things. The restrictions and regulations of the humanist society (which must ultimately evolve to a socialistic system of organizing society) are decided by its social engineers who believe in the perfectibility of man and deny his fallen nature. Therefore, man and his society must be molded and shaped by the elites or conditioners of society (as C. S. Lewis called them).

However, the falseness and folly of the progressives’ view becomes apparent when we once again refer to Tocqueville’s words of 180 years ago as he spoke of the new despotism (which is now called socialism) that succinctly describes American government in the twenty-first century.

…the ruling power, having taken each citizen one by one into its powerful grasp and having molded him to its own liking, spreads it arms over the whole of society, covering the surface of social life with a network of petty, complicated, detailed, and uniform rules through which even the most original minds and the most energetic of spirits cannot reach the light in order to rise above the crowd.

The ruling powers at the DOJ and DOE have chosen their own artificial norms which are inherently domineering, restrictive, and restraining in the details of life and which ultimately lead to loss of freedom on American college campuses. Even as court challenges will surely reverse the most extreme elements of the regulations, the ever present powerful grasp and pervasive reach of Big Brother will still sap much of the spirit and energy of all but the hardiest of American citizens.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, DOJ Case No. DJ 169-44-9, OCR Case No. 10126001, Resolution Agreement – The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, (May 8, 2013). http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/montana-missoula-resolution-agreement.pdf (accessed May 28, 2013).

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, DOJ Case No. DJ 169-44-9, OCR Case No. 10126001, Letter to President Royce Engstrom, Office of the President The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, (May 9, 2013), pp. l, 4, 6. http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/montana-missoula-letter.pdf (accessed May 28, 2013).

Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Gerald E. Bevan, Trans., (London, England: Penguin Books, 2003), p. 806.