Posted on 09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT by betty boop
Freeper Investigation: Original Intent and Constitutional Jurisprudence
by Jean F. Drew
English and Anglo-American law’s core principle is the opposition to abusive power as exercised by the state. As Dan Gifford writes in “The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason,”
“The law is not the law regardless if it be good, bad, or indifferent. There is a higher moral law, originating within ancient Jewish law, which requires individual responsibility for opposing evil and promoting goodness. It is from this basic tenet that English law and Anglo-American law embody the following principle: The individual has rights against the state….
“The danger posed by the usual suspects in government for the sake of power is obvious. However, not as obvious is the more insidious danger posed by a list of usual suspects claiming to be [society’s] defenders…. Their attacks on God, traditional Judeo-Christian morals, the Calvinist concept of conscience, republican virtu, and Aristotelian reason or logos — the five essential elements that make our system work — as obstructions to social progress have been devastating….”1
Without doubt, “God, traditional Judeo-Christian morals, the Calvinist concept of conscience, republican virtu, and Aristotelian reason or logos” informed the worldview of the Framers of the Constitution and constitute that document’s spirit, meaning, philosophy — and vitality.
Russell Kirk corroborates this understanding, stating that the roots of American order trace back to four historical cities: (1) Jerusalem, in both the Israelite and Christian developments; (2) Athens, with its classical view of man as a “thinking animal” who possesses reason and soul; Rome, for the idea of “republican virtu” — personal self-restraint and direct participation in the governance and defense of the state; and London, for its concepts regarding the necessity of restraining monarchical power vis-à-vis the subject in the interest of preserving the public good of individual liberty. 2
Thus the Constitution is an extraordinarily “conservative document,” given its “roots in a much older tradition,” writes Stephen Tonsor. “Its world view is Roman or Anglo-Catholic; its political philosophy, Aristotelian and Thomist; its concerns, moral and ethical; its culture, that of Christian humanism.” 3
The “problem with the constitution” nowadays is that these ideas no longer inform the worldview of many Americans, in particular the “cultural elites” who sit on federal and state benches, who man the federal bureaucracies, staff the professoriate, and run the organs of public communications (i.e., the so-called “mainstream media”). All these constituencies, moreover, are effectively unaccountable to the people whom they purport to serve.
In light of breaking events — the recent ruling of a federal court in California that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its “under God” language, the recent New London eminent-domain decision of the Supreme Court, and two Supreme Court vacancies (with possibly more to come within the tenure of the Bush presidency) — as well as long-standing public quarrels over the meanings of e.g., the Second, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, we thought it would be useful to inaugurate a Freeper Research Project into theories of the Constitution, “then” and “now”; i.e., the original intent of the Framers vs. modern “prudential” and ideological constructions. In particular it would be useful to explore the roles of all the players in a constitutional system based on the separation and balance of powers, to see how well that concept is working nowadays.
Or not, as the case may be. And if that is the case, then to ask: Why not? What has “gone wrong” such that, e.g., federal judges routinely feel free to legislate their ideals of social progress from the bench?
I thought I’d get the ball rolling with a piece on the cultural component of such questions. I’m sure my thoughts may prove controversial to some of my Freeper friends; for I intend to show that the single most influential cause of current-day constitutional chaos is the breakdown of a common understanding of God and man and of their mutual relations. It is my view, however — the only view that I can relate, based on my observation, experience, and the indirect sources that further inform the present state of my knowledge — and anyone’s free to disagree with it. I just hope we can all be civil and respectful when/if we do disagree.
The point is, I can’t “do your seeing for you” anymore than you can “do my seeing for me.” Under the circumstances, it seems to me the best course would be to simply “compare notes” and see if we might learn something from one other.
My friend YHAOS writes: “The Founders bequeathed to their posterity rather a unique philosophy, not only of government, but of human relationships.” Indeed, YHAOS; the Framers’ view of human relationships was predicated on the understanding that “all men are created equal,” and thus all have dependence on a creator. Further, because they are equally the creations of one Creator, all men share a common humanity that effectively makes them “brothers.” All men are created with possessing reason and free will as a natural birthright, and are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” All men are equal before the law, while constituting the sovereign We the People — connoting one single community — who delegate a very few existential powers (29 by my last count) to the government, and retain all others unto themselves.
YHAOS continues, “It was a philosophy that was greeted with disfavor by all the rulers of the world the moment they were exposed to it, because it left their rule to the sufferance of their subjects, and eliminated their ability to rule as they saw fit. They hated it then, they hate it today. This philosophy, so hated by the rulers and other elites of the world, is found and best expressed in the words of the Founders and of others who were most closely associated with the philosophy of Natural Law and with the events which occasioned the creation of the Declaration of Independence and of The Constitution.”4
Indeed, YHAOS. Those who would rule don’t much care for this sort of thing as a rule….
The “spirit of liberty” that informed the American Founding whereby the role of the state was to be severely delimited and constrained was brilliantly expressed by Trenchard & Gordon in Cato’s Letters (~1720):
All men are born free; Liberty is a Gift which they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes….
Liberty is the power which every man has over his own Actions, and the Right to enjoy the Fruit of his Labor, Art, and Industry, as far as by it he hurts not the Society, or any Member of it, by taking from any Member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.
The fruits of a Man’s honest Industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal Equity, as is his Title to use them in the Manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above Limitations, every Man is Sole Lord and Arbiter of his own Private Actions and Property5….
In short, in the early eighteenth century, there was a cultural consensus in England and in the Colonies that it is the God–Man relation from which the just relations of man with his fellow man flows that (not coincidentally) constitutes the limit or check on state power and authority. The Constitution itself epitomizes and expresses this consensus.
So it’s hardly surprising that, as YHAOS continues, “It was a philosophy that was greeted with disfavor by all the rulers of the world the moment they were exposed to it, because it left their rule to the sufferance of their subjects, and eliminated their ability to rule as they saw fit. They hated it then, they hate it today. This philosophy, so hated by the rulers and other elites of the world, is found and best expressed in the words of the Founders and of others who were most closely associated with the philosophy of Natural Law and with the events which occasioned the creation of the Declaration of Independence and of The Constitution.”6
Indeed, YHAOS. Those who would rule don’t much care for this sort of thing as a rule…. And I am particularly intrigued by your notice of “the other elites.”
These “other elites” are informed by other notions that were altogether foreign at the time of the American Founding, and for more than a century thereafter. These notions are a specifically German cultural import — from Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx & Co., a going (and growing) concern since the mid-nineteenth century.
All three men were obsessed by power. Hegel’s model of the ideal state was Prussia, which was authoritarian and repressive. He worshipped Napoleon as a new World Savior. All three men wanted to “kill God.” This last, of course, is required for the free exercise of an unconstrained Will to Power: With God around, plans for constructing Utopia could never come to fruit. So they all decided He needed to be “bumped off” in order to clear the decks for a reconstruction of the world and human history, in order to perfect future history. Thus history as we know it must end.
And as it turns out, history under God becomes a dead letter with His demise. Then — and only then — can self-appointed Great Men assume the divine rule and enterprise with a free hand, “starting over from scratch,” as it were. Hegel and Marx both apparently believed that they could just start from nothing and, by the use of “pure” Reason, construct ever more perfect worlds, correcting all the imperfections that God left in His Creation, which is now to be happily Over, dispensed with. Men — or at least some men — have become “self-divinized.” A New World is a-borning.
We are speaking of the construction of progressivist utopias here.
Now the meaning of “Utopia” — a neologism of Thomas More — means “Nowhere.” Utopia is “a model of a perfect society that cannot be realized because an important sector of reality has been omitted from its construction, but its authors and addicts have suspended their consciousness that it is unrealizable because of the omission.”7 As the greatest English-speaking poet of the twentieth century put it:
They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one Will need to be good….
But the man that is will shadow The man that pretends to be. 8
The “omitted sector” of reality is precisely the spiritual sector, constituted by the relations of God and man — the divine-human encounter that orders human souls, and from souls to societies, including political societies. That is to say, the total eclipse of the great Hierarchy of Being: God – Man – Society – World. It seems plain to me that “the murder of God” involves a double homicide, one a parricide, the other a suicide….
Clearly, there was a profound sea-change in the understanding of Reality and of human self-understanding between the time of Locke and the time of Hegel. Rather than present a lengthy and probably tiresome analysis of how this noxious diremption occurred, let me just give you a sampler of how meanings central to the human person and to political society are understood these days under the respective frameworks of the Judeo-Christian/classical (JCC) worldview, and the progressivist (P) worldview.
JCC says: “There is a nature of man, a definite structure of existence that puts limits on perfectability.”9
P replies: “The nature of man can be changed, either through historical evolution or through revolutionary action, so that a perfect realm of freedom can be established in history.”10
JCC says: “Philosophy is the endeavor to advance from opinion (doxa) about the order of man and society to science (episteme)…”11
P replies: “No science in such matters is possible, only opinion; everybody is entitled to his opinions; we have a pluralist society.” 12
JCC says: “Society is man written large.”
P replies: “Man is society written small.” 13
JCC says: “Man lives in erotic [faithfully loving] tension toward the divine ground of his existence.”
P replies: “He doesn’t; for I don’t; and I’m the measure of man.”14
JCC says: “Education is the art of periagoge, or turning around (Plato).” [Essentially, this means that education is the art of transmitting the greatest achievements of human intellect and culture to the next-rising generation, which, as we have already suggested above, include achievements of great antiquity. In the specific Platonic sense, this process requires a “turning to the Light” or alternatively, a “tuning into the God.”]
P replies: “Education is the art of adjusting people so solidly to the climate of opinion prevalent at the time that they do not feel any ‘desire to know.’ Education is the art of preventing people from acquiring the knowledge that would enable them to articulate the questions of existence. Education is the art of pressuring young people into a state of alienation that will result in either quiet despair or aggressive militancy.”15
JCC says: “Through the life of reason (bios theoretikos) man realizes his freedom.”
P replies: “Plato and Aristotle were fascists. The life of reason is a fascist enterprise.”16
JCC says: The process in which the nature of man and the other participants in the great Hierarchy of Being becomes conscious and noetically articulate and luminous to the human mind constitutes the life of reason.
P replies: “Reason is instrumental reason. There is no such thing as a noetic rationality of man.”17
Just in case the foregoing “dialog” comes across as a tad too “abstract,” let me give an example from concrete American historical experience that fully reflects the “tensions” inherent in such “irreconcilable differences,” and get off the soap box. (Then it will be someone else’s turn).
My example concerns the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment.
JCC says:
Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the [Founding] period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty-Six of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them....” On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.
In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the “importance” of the Second Amendment. He went on to describe the militia as “the natural defence of a free country” not only “against sudden foreign invasions” and “domestic insurrections,” with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against “domestic usurpations of power by rulers.” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” Story wrote, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
“…the repository of a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence [by the state] — that is so commonly used by political scientists … is a profoundly statist definition, the product of a specifically German tradition of the (strong) state rather than of a strikingly different American political tradition that is fundamentally mistrustful of state power and vigilant about maintaining ultimate power, including the power of arms, in the populace.” 18
P replies (actually, this is Justice William Burger, who “never wrote a word abut the Second Amendment. Yet after retirement, he wrote an article for Parade magazine that is the only extended analysis by any Supreme Court Justice of why the Second Amendment does not guarantee and individual right”).19
“… the Second Amendment is obsolete because we “need” a large standing army, rather than a well-armed citizenry.”20 Plus we all know guns are dangerous things. Dangerous things should not be left in the hands of “innocent” (inept) civilians, especially when there are standing armies and organized police forces to whom we may safely delegate the use of force in our society.
To which JCC might retort: “Well, who’s policing the police? And what if the standing army comes after US?”
On that happy note, a few last words:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! “— George Washington
“All powers granted by the Constitution, are derived from the people of the United States; and may be resumed by them when perverted to their injury or oppression; and … every power not granted remains with them, and at their will; and … no right of any description can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President or any department, or officer of the United States.” — John C. Calhoun
“The power of kings and magistrates is nothing else, but what is derivative, transferred and committed to them in trust from the people, to the common good of them all, in whom the power remains fundamentally, and cannot be taken from them without a violation of their natural birthright.” — John Milton
_________________________
Notes:
1 In Tennessee Law Review: Second Amendment Symposium, vol. 62, no. 3, 1995: 759, http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Gifford1.htm .
2 Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
3 Retrieved from a collection of aphorisms I’ve been compiling for many years. Unfortunately, at the time I found this one, I was not in the habit of recording the titles of works in which the aporism appears, e.g., in which Tonsor’s remark was given; and now do not remember it. (Mea culpa — So sorry!)
4 YHAOS at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1470264/posts?page=1150#1150
5 John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters or Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995 [1720]. Trenchard & Gordon were writing about 40 years after England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688, of which John Locke was major mentor and instigator. The Framers were well acquainted with the works of all three men, for Locke and Trenchard & Gordon were quintessential sources of the history of “revolution” in the British historical context; plus the philosophical/sociopolitical movements that they were describing were relatively recent from the Framers’ standpoint.
6 YHAOS op cit.
7 Eric Voegelin, “Wisdom and the Magic of the Extreme,” op. cit. The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, p.316.
8 T. S. Eliot, Choruses from “The Rock,” as quoted by Voegelin, ibid.
9 Eric Voegelin, op. cit., p. 258
10 ibid.
11 ibid.
12 ibid.
13 ibid.
14 ibid.
15 ibid, p. 260 16 ibid.
17 ibid.
18 Sanford Levinson, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” Yale Law Journal. Originally published as 99 Yale L.J. 637–659 (1989).
19 David B. Kopel, “The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment,” 2000; http://www.i2iorg/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm
20 ibid.
The ME in the credit for the letter refers to “Memorial Edition” as Bergh’s effort was more or less timed to correspond with the centennial of the Louisiana Purchase.
TO JAMES MADISON. MONTICELLO, August 30, 1823.
DEAR SIR,-I received the enclosed letters from the President, with a request, that after perusal I would forward them to you, for perusal by yourself also, and to be returned then to him. You have doubtless seen Timothy Pickering's Fourth of July observations on the Declaration of Independence.
If his principles and prejudices, personal and political, gave us no reason to doubt whether he had truly quoted the information he alleges to have received from Mr. Adams, I should then say, that in some of the particulars, Mr. Adams' memory has led him into unquestionable error. At the age of eighty-eight, and forty-seven years after the transactions of Independence, this is not wonderful. Nor should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantage of that difference only, venture to oppose my memory to his, were it not supported by written notes, taken by myself at the [15-461] moment and on the spot.
He says, "the committee of five, to wit, Dr. Franklin, Sherman, Livingston, and ourselves, met, discussed the subject, and then appointed him and myself to make the draught; that we, as a sub-committee, met, and after the urgencies of each on the other, I consented to undertake the task; that the draught being made, we, the sub-committee, met, and conned the paper over, and he does not remember that he made or suggested a single alteration."
Now these details are quite incorrect. The committee of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee, I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections, because they were the two members of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the benefit, before presenting it to the committee; and you have seen the original paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in their own handwritings. Their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal.
I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress.
This personal communication and consultation with Mr. Adams, he has misremembered into the actings of a sub-committee. Pickering's observations, and Mr. Adams' in addition, “that it contained no new ideas, that it is a commonplace compilation, its sentiments hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in Otis' pamphlet," may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's treatise on government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before.
Had Mr. Adams been so restrained, Congress would have lost the benefit of his bold and impressive advocations of the rights of Revolution. For no man's confident and fervid addresses, more than Mr. Adams', encouraged and supported us through the difficulties surrounding us, which, like the ceaseless action of gravity, weighed on us by night and by day. Yet, on the same ground, we may ask what of these elevated thoughts was new, or can be affirmed never before to have entered the conceptions of man? Whether, also, the sentiments of Independence, and the reasons for declaring it, which make so great a portion of the instrument, had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before the 4th of July, '76, or this dictum also of Mr. Adams be another slip of memory, let history say. This, however, I will say for Mr. Adams, that he supported the Declaration with zeal and ability, fighting fearlessly for every word of it.
As to myself, I thought it a duty to be, on that occasion, a passive auditor of the opinions of others, more impartial judges than I could be, of its merits or demerits. During the debate I was sitting by Doctor Franklin, and he observed that I was writhing a little under the acrimonious criticisms on some of its parts; and it was on that occasion, that by way of comfort, he told me the story of John Thompson, the hatter, and his new sign.
Timothy thinks the instrument the better for having a fourth of it expunged. He would have thought it still better, had the other three-fourths gone out also, all but the single sentiment (the only one he approves), which recommends friendship to his dear England, whenever she is willing to be at peace with us. His insinuations are, that although “the high tone of the instrument was in unison with the warm feelings of the times, this sentiment of habitual friendship to England should never be forgotten, and that the duties it enjoins should especially be borne in mind on every celebration of this anniversary.” In other words that the Declaration, as being a libel on the government of England, composed in times of passion, should now be buried in utter oblivion, to spare the feelings of our English friends and Angloman fellow citizens.
But it is not to wound them that we wish to keep it in mind; but to cherish the principles of the instrument in the bosoms of our own citizens: and it is a heavenly comfort to see that these principles are yet so strongly felt, as to render a circumstance so trifling as this little lapse of memory of Mr. Adams, worthy of being solemnly announced and supported at an anniversary assemblage of the nation on its birthday.
In opposition, however, to Mr. Pickering, I pray God that these principles may be eternal, and close the prayer with my affectionate wishes for yourself of long life, health and happiness.
. . . . . Jefferson, letter to James Madison, August 30, 1823, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, ME, vol. 15 - pg 461
Jefferson's reference to Adams' memory lapse as "not wonderful" simply meant to confer an absence of any surprise that someone of Adams' advanced age might suffer such a lapse.
And finally found a sympathetic federal judge who ruled the language “unconstitutional.” Of course, the decision will be appealed, no news there. My questions go to the reason of Newdow’s animosity, and to the question of how a federal judge had reached this conclusion.
The way I analyze the problem: The first inalienable right of the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience. There are two clauses that refer to this right. The first — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” — clearly restrains federal power vis-à-vis the states in matters of religion/conscience. At the time of the Founding, several states had “established” (i.e., “official”) churches of their own, and were mighty jealous to preserve them. The second — “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — extends to the personal sphere: the federal government may not prohibit religious practice or the right of conscience more generally, with respect to the human person. Indeed, this is the government’s most basic pledge to free men — to get “out of their face” when it comes to matters spiritual.
The problem I’m having with the Newdow case is I don’t see how the “under God” language is a constitutional issue. Because (1) that language was authorized by due, legitimate enactment of Congress. Now Congress is — under the constitutional framework — supposed to be the closest governmental body to the People there is — and of the three equal yet separate and balanced powers, the one most directly responsible/accountable to them.
What I want to know is: Where is the interest of the “sovereign states” in the Newdow matter? Where the interest of (2) the human person? Does Newdow really imagine that ideas of God contribute to the delinquency of minors? Or somehow subvert the civil peace? If that is the case, by such criteria of judgment as he employs, pornography gets an easier ride in contemporary culture than religion does.
But the real question is: Can a supposedly “sane” society justify such things?
This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.
I have strong doubts about both statements. I wonder what you think.
Thanks so very much for your informative and thought-provocative essay/post, and for the great quotes!
Was there more or less crime before "under God" was added to the pledge?
For that matter, did crime go down when "In God We Trust" was added to coinage?
I question this statement that "By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government..."
Most of us here never, in fact, claimed US citizenship. Instead we achieved this citizenship by simply by being born within the geographical borders of the United States or in its acknowledged possessions overseas, i.e. military bases,etc.
This being the case does the phrase, "...we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government" still hold true?
This reminds me of little tit-for-tat that took place in the 1870s British Raj. The British Commander in charge of this particular district learned that the rite of suttee was going to be performed in a near by village.
The British officer went to the village and reminded the village chief that suttee was illegal under the Raj. To which the chief haughtily replied the suttee would take place anyway, explaining: "It is the custom of my people."
To which the British officer replied: "And it is the custom of my people to hang murderers. And if you follow the custom of you people, then I shall follow the custom of mine."
The suttee did not take place.
====================================== Suttee: the act of a Hindu widow being burned alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband
traviskicks, I’m wondering whether you might have any insight into why Michael Newdow would so object to the “under God” language of the Pledge of Allegiance that he would make a personal crusade out of legally extirpating it, which arguably he has done.
---
IMO, this falls under a very sticky category. It is sticky because the root problems that are causing the problem are often not addressed, which, unfortunately, validates them. The root of the problem is socialism, with has spawned this question of whether 'under God' should be said in public school.
It has spawned the problem because, under the Constitution, Newdow and the parents he is representing have a right to raise their children a certain way and should be allowed to raise their children that way, free of government coercion. His point, that he is forced to pay tax money to an institution that flagrantly defies his values, is, in a way, valid. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
But on the other side, we have the vast majority of Americans who don't have a problem with 'Under God' and don't mind it being in public schools. Yet, some of these parents have problems with evolution being taught in school and sex/ed etc.. etc.. Their rights are being violated in the same way as Newdow's - opinions they abhor are being taught to their own children with their own tax money. It is repulsive.
To have an opinion one way or the other on any one of these issues is besides the point and counterproductive as it misses the bigger picture: socialism of public schools. Having government controlling public schools results in all these problems. If charter schools/school choice existed (or government was completely removed from education), then no one could complain about the happenings in the school their kids attend because no one is forced to send their kids to any particular school.
But our public schools are not run by the parents, they are run by the government: local, state, and federal, and so they are not free from political control. Thus, this problem exists. Both Newdow and other parents who disagree with any aspect of the public education forced on their kids should join forces to destroy educational socialism. Yet, because of differing ideology, an alliance of this nature would surely make these groups uneasy.
FYI, more on Charter schools:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm
This pattern exists elsewhere. The same parallel is found in the gay marriage debate. Why is there a debate over whether gays can marry? Why can't they just 'do it' at a Church that recognizes it? And why do they even need a Church? Why can't they just recognize it themselves. But they cannot because government has given itself the power to define marriage. Churches, religious institutions, etc... and whomever wants should be able to define marriage, without coercion from government and the benefits (tax etc..) that come with marriage are problems of over taxation and socialism.
There are a variety of other examples of this sort of thing I could give, for example, immigrants putting 'strain' on 'social services' is not a problem of immigration, but a problem of socialism. The argument that helmets should be required by law, because other people end up paying for that person's injury, is a problem of socialism.
Socialism, in any form, spawns all of these problems, which cause rancor, chaos, anger, and instability in society. It must be eliminated in the United States.
This Supreme Court will no doubt face a review of that decision in the 9th and (IMHO) a related decision made in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kaufman v. McCaughtry
In that case, the court held that atheism is a religion. This puts an entirely new spin on a lot of things.
Concerning Newdow, the removing of the “under God” is to establish atheism as a state religion under the First Amendment. Likewise, the inability to speak of God – pray to God – refer to God – in a publicly funded environment is to establish atheism as a state religion. This will no doubt reach to the Intelligent Design litigation as well.
From the opinion:
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by … God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion, Fleishfresser v. Dirs. Of Sch Dist. (7th Cir. 1994); see also Welsh v.United States … (1970); United States v. Seeger … (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos…. (7th,cir 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”) Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. … (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of the Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
Bookmarked for later response.
~ joanie
This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.
---
As government retreats, religion generally expands. Is it any coincidence that the religious revival of the 80s and 90s parallels the rising of conservatism?
Religion often performs many functions that governemnt often tyrnanically assumes, thus governments have historically been very wary of religion because religion can foster independent thought and form strong political movements. This is why most communist countries banned all religions and other tyrants (middle eastern) make sure they control religion or merge the two together (Iran).
So, as long as we keep expanding freedom, I think we have nothing to worry about regarding Christianity expanding.
One last thought, is that if government begins to exerte control over relgion, then religion and governemnt will become corrupted. It has been a dissapointment for me to see President Bush's 'faith based' inititatives lauded here on FR.
I don't want government controlling religion, I'd rather God control religion. Since government is a necessary evil, as James Madison said, "if men were angels there would be no need for government" (paraphrasing from Federalsit papers), then it maks no sense to put this necessary evil in charge of religion.
Of course, it is 'unfair' that faith based groups can't recieve public funds, but, again, this is a problem, not of discrimination, but of socialism. No groups should receive public funds for anything. Then the argument is moot.
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine
"A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."
- Justice Roy Black
The original socialist idea was to require people chant The Pledge to build up the Sense Of Union (as opposed to the Confederacy). In the 1950s, adding "under God" was added to separate Christian Socialism from Communist Socialism.
Where has government retreated? The growth of power and size of the government has coincided with growth in conservatism and religious revivalism. W has increased government spending, control, power, influence, etc., more than anyone since Wilson.
Good point. These charts will turn your stomach:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400545/posts?page=59#55
But it does seem like the Conservative movement is growing in this country, even if W is exapnding socialism at the moment. School choice, personal retirement accounts, demise of unions, flat/fair tax proposals, all of these ideas are considered seriously and hopefully will be enacted in the next 10 years. Media turnover has been especially helpeful.
I think the statement, "as government retreats, religion and morality exapnd", is generally true, but on a fundemental level. It is hard to measure such an abstract thing.
Interesting question. Shuffling a couple of words here, could it be said that contemporary Christianity is in severe decline but the work of the true church moves forward unabated and un-noticed?
It's possible that more and more people are leaving the form to merge with the substance. If so, then the quality of the mores of society at large would have to show a pronounced gain over the years, which actually may be the case if examined closely enough.
I think that is the case. The 'negative' gets the press and attracts our attraction, continually obscuring the real world.
But the real world does manage to shine through once in a while. For example, how many people in the country were aware of the good things that were happening during and after Katrina, as opposed to the bad things that were happening?
Quality and quantity were on the side of the good, I'm sure. And though I don't have the vision to make a comparison between how the world and society at large responded to such catastrophes throughout history, intuitively I think the activity of today's generation would prove that substance is winning over form.
So regardless of those folks who attempt to alter our political system -- and succeed, or the actions of those folks who bend the system to popularize and support their proclivities and perpetrations, it should have no effect on our personal journeys, for government is not the teacher of ethics, morals, or righteousness, but the protector of the concensus.
That does not mean that we should just lay back and allow the perps to mangle the system. On the contrary, it should spur us on to greater efforts in preserving and refining how we are governed and represented.
Those we fight against are those that want to RE-define how we are governed and represented, and that takes us back to the source of the problem -- pro-active judges who are re-defining and creating law.
There will always be the flag-burners and pledge-slayers amongst us.
Indeed. I believe that it was Goethe who said
The God to whom a man proves devoutSome people do not worship God; some people “worship themselves,” believing that they alone are “the captains of their souls, the masters of their fates.” They “give law” unto themselves, and resent the idea that there is a God to whom they owe any duty. Clearly, this is a religious view, specifically the religious view of the atheist. It seems to me the First Amendment protects this view just as assuredly as it protects the views of theism.
That is his own soul, turned inside out.
In short, the First Amendment says that what a man does with his own spirituality is none of the federal government’s business. Whether he opens his soul to God, or shuts it down to Him and “Katy bar the door!” is a matter of private conscience. (In thinking of some of my friends here at FR who shall be nameless, I sometimes conjure up an fanciful image of them slamming shut the “door of the soul,” activating seven deadbolts and innumerable other types of locks, then piling up all the household moveables against an already “hermetically sealed” door, just to make sure no “thief” can break in, in the dead of night… offering grace and light….)
I’m so sorry to have been so scarce lately. I am just buried in work lately. Sigh…. Will try to catch up asap.
Thanks so very much for your informative essay on SCOTUS’ current view of atheism as a form of religious expression, and its view that the Establishment Clause "mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
Excellent analysis of the important distinctions in play here, YHAOS. Thank you!
Hello Doc! Crime is hardly the only index of social disorder, or even the most important one. Of much greater concern to me as an indicator of social disorder is the virtual destruction of rational discourse in public life. Case in point: the Cindy Sheehan affair. The woman is a certifiable nut job; yet the MSM slavishly follow her around and report her every word as if she were Moses come down from the Mount with the Two Tablets. Of course, they love her because she is "an embarrassment to the president." And of course as far as these lunatics are concerned, it's perfectly okay to "embarrass" the commander-in-chief in time of war....
And then there were Bill Clinton's performances on this past Sunday's talk shows (i.e., Russert's and Stephanopoulos'). Absolutely every word out of his mouth "shaved the truth" by obscuring or misrepresenting relevant evidence (e.g., his own performance in office as compared with that of his successor) and engaging in every manner of logical fallacy and "sleight-of-hand spin."
Clinton is a world-class sophist, and uses all the sophistical tricks. How many people do you think there are out there who can spot them? Language is increasingly corrupted when it comes out of the mouths of -- and is heard and interpreted by -- disordered people. As Heraclitus put it,
Eyes and ears are bad witnessesHow many people do you suppose there are these days who recognize the former president as the megalomaniacal narcissist he truly is -- and thus not someone fit to hold high public office or be trusted with power over other men? He swore an oath of office, to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution. Do you think he ever kept faith with that oath? I wonder how many people are still around who even care about a question like that.
For men whose souls are barbarous.
Personal disorder per se is not a prosecutable crime -- even though it undermines the public order itself, and destroys the social consensus that a republican democracy absolutely requires in order to function.
And you yourself "get" the import of "the medicalization of sin." There is no evil in the world, only treatable health problems. So the "person in ill health" cannot commit evil acts. Thus he is free to engage in any behavior he likes; and when he "hits the wall" as the inevitable consequence of his behavior, we just pass the tab along to society at large; i.e., to the taxpayer. So "sin" is not just "medicalized"; it is socialized.
This is what Eliot meant by progressivist/utopian dreams "of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good."
And yet there can be no liberty without personal responsibility. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Of course, would-be tyrants have no stake in the personal liberty of other people, because it makes their job difficult if not impossible. It should come as no surprise that Marx was a tireless promoter of amorality. In his view, morality is the embodiment of repression and tyranny...just another instrument of class warfare, of the subjection of the "weak" by the "powerful."
But all the same, it is no less than the very truth that amorality goes hand in glove with personal irresponsibility and together they work to enslave men to the State. FWIW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.