Posted on 09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT by betty boop
Indeed, it could be said; and, like you, I do say it!!!
That is to say, I whole-heartedly agree with this insight. The true church is not a building with pews in it, and people sitting in the pews listening to the preacher once a week. The True Church is the Body of Christ. And so it is entirely possible that church institutions may crumble, but the Spirit that informs the Body of Christ gathers strength. Personally, I think we are living in a time of rising spirituality....
Thank you for your magnificent essay/post, Eastlander!
The strange result of today's political and legal environment is that it forces those who have confessed belief in Christ to affirm or deny that belief by making hard choices in the Spirit which become self-evident in their words and deeds. One cannot be cavalier in this environment.
We've previously used the metaphor of a great ship parting waters for the Spiritual "sense" that many of us Christians have today: He is moving. Maranatha, Jesus! (Rev 22:10-21)
"Thank you for your magnificent essay/post, Eastlander!"
As do I, betty boop. I think when that '100th monkey' starts washing his spuds in the river, a most excellent mystery will be revealed.
Thank you for the ping and your encouraging reply, my friend.
Thank you so much, dear friend!!!
And as a moral, just, and honorable person, I do not find civil laws based on Judeo-Christian tradition particularly confining.”
“One hypothetical example I use is human sacrifice.
If a particular religion were outlawed in the US due to a passage in it's holy book condoning human sacrifice, that would be in violation of the First Amendment.”
I don’t think anyone in the Union is going to be permitted to practice human sacrifice as a religious observance (I know you know this, and I know you do not advocate any such practices), and I doubt First Amendment religious provisions would receive even so much as a moment’s judicial notice in the consideration. We aren’t allowed to falsely cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, despite a First Amendment provision protecting free speech, and ritual human sacrifice will certainly fare no better than crying “FIRE!” You may be perfectly assured that such an act would most decidedly immediately subject one to the criminal laws of some one or another legal jurisdiction.
In the present judicial atmosphere one cannot even count on First Amendment protections for religious practices far less bizarre than the one you describe (and again, yes, I understand you do not propose their practice). In fact, the First has been turned on its head, and it would seem that the ‘free exercise thereof’ provision will soon be found contrary to the ‘prohibition of establishment’ provision (it is now, in reality, if not pro forma).
The First Amendment, remarkably, has become the primary instrument in use to exclude religious practitioners, primarily Christians, from participation in public life. Is this the result either we, the presently living, or the long-departed generation of the Founding Fathers, expected the prohibition against religious establishment would produce? Surely, that is not the case.
A little perspective on an issue almost sure to arise:
Has anyone considered what would be involved in an actual circumstance where we had an accomplished establishment of religion in America? Is it not so that we ought to consider it?
If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?
1) A resolution establishing a specific denomination as the “official” state religion of this country.
2) The expenditure of public funds directly subsidizing the operations of that denomination, to the exclusion of all others.
3) A resolution mandating the public and private observance of religious holidays and other religious days specific to that denomination (and perhaps to the exclusion of all others).
4) The enactment of laws codifying, at least in part, the church doctrines specific to that denomination and perhaps outlawing, as well, the public and private observance of the doctrines of other denominations and sects.
5) A resolution mandating the education of all children, if not adults, in the doctrines of the “established” church, or perhaps the establishment of public schools devoted to religiously approved education, to the exclusion of any other institutions of education, public or private.
6) An outright ban of the public or private practice of certain categories of religions. For example, Congress might outlaw all organizations it would choose to designate as being a “cult”, even though the cult’s practices might not come into conflict with any other long established and well received public policies.
7) As a matter of custom or fundamental law, the right of high church officers to occupy certain governmental posts (such as Secretary of Education, Secretary of State, or perhaps Attorney General).
Does the above, in any way, resemble the controversies with which public forums are presently seized? And what, exactly, is meant by ‘government sponsored’ or ‘government sanctioned’ religion?
Anyone?
Congress doesn't even have to bother, YHAOS; for the simple reason that there effectively already is a federal "establishment" of religion: Secular Humanism. And it has a most jealous God, one that will not brook any "false idol" in preference to itself. Which is why the Christian faith is "persecuted" these days, inexorably and progressively delegitimated by the federal courts.
And surely you've noticed that Christian-bashing is the last "socially-acceptable form of bigotry" in America....
YHAOS,
An excellent question posed with remarkable clarity.
A curious thought struck me as I was reading commentaries about the emergence of the Christian experience outside the realm of the established church. Your remarks crystallized my insight.
I have long been dismayed that mainline denominations - Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, et al - have moved far to the left during the past 40 years.
I have been a part of the institution for nearly all of those years. Those of us who were raised in the church when it revered traditional Christian thought grew increasingly frustrated. Many left the church and began ministries outside institutional frameworks. There is no question but that followers of Christ are as numerous as ever.
The troubling aspect of this transition in the institutional church runs parallel with the government's opression of religion. That opression is demonstrably ideological. It is socialist and humanist.
Church institutional leadership has kept pace with the ideology of the left. Clearly they have done so to preserve the influence of the church in the public sector. Tragically they have not understood that they have put themselves in bed with the devil.
Just this same condition ocurred in Germany in the 30s. The church sold its soul to maintain its profile.
Diminished numbers in the church in no way demonstrate a lessening of spirituality. In fact, it probably demonstrates quite the opposite.
YHAOS, you asked: If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?
IMHO, all Congress has to do is to enact law to codify the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court for the last quarter century (theistic symbols, actions and speech being abolished from publicly funded institutions).
I suspect Congress has already codified these decisions at least in the Federal workplace and use of funds for public schools - but I don't have time to search the Titles and Regs because my niece is coming to visit very soon now. But I will when I get a chance.
Further, I suspect a keen legal mind (like soon to be Chief Justice Roberts) - will pick up on atheism as a religion (various caselaw in above post 68) when it visits the Newdow "under God" decision assuming it is appealed.
That "win" could (IMHO) bring the whole house of cards down around the secular humanists....
The boundaries of the 'United States' government is given in the Constitution at Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
So the 'United States' is NOT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY as government would have us believe, because it's legal 'jurisdiction' can only extend to Washington D.C.and any military base or port.... so says the legal contract known as the Constitution.
Our country was not ORIGINALLY constructed with the States in a subservient position to the federal government, but an EQUAL and co-existing one.
The ONLY time the federal government had authority over the states was when it remained in it's specific and enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution.
______________________________________________________
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
______________________________________________________________
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
____________________________________________________________
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Most of us here never, in fact, claimed US citizenship.
You haven't? Do you have a social security number? Do you vote? Do you have a driver's license?
If you've EVER checked that little YES box on ANY government form that says: 'Are you a U.S. citizen', then you have indeed claimed U.S. citizenship and created a legal entity subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
And you did it voluntarily!
Exactly right and didn't the SC rule in some case that a "US citizen" has NO rights?
I don't see why they wouldn't have considering the quotes in US v. Cruikshank states: citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally
This means a citizen of the United States is not even a human being, but an artificial construct.
What so many people can't seem to understand is that there is more than one type of 'law' in operation. Natural law and positive law.
The Constitution is merely an operations manual for government. It has nothing to do with the People who ordained and established it except to enumerate a few positive law rights in the Bill of Rights.
Folks also don't realize the federal Bill of Rights was merely to ensure the rights of people residing in Washington D.C. The States each all already HAD their own 'Bill of Rights'.
======================
I believe you are mistaking paragraph 17, w/ paragraph 18. To wit: Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17:
[i] The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[ii]To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
[iii]To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
[iv]To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
[v]To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
[vi]To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
[vii]To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
[viii]To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
[ix]To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
[x]To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[xi]To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[xii]To provide and maintain a Navy;
[xiii]To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
[xiv]To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
[xv]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
[xvi]To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
[vii] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
==============
But regardless, IMHO you have misread this particular paragraph. The wording goes, and the USC give Congress the power, "...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States..."
This is not b/c the United States is not the entire country. But b/c the District of Columbia was/is not part of any state. Laws, rules, policies, etc. were/are required for D.C. as they are for every place where men gather; but, as D.C. was not part of any state, it was therefor not subject, governed by, liable to the laws of any state. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 16 addressed this -- making the nation's capital subject to governance to the US Congress.
Simply amazing insights, Amos.
IMHO, we are in a period of history that strongly evokes the history of the German church in the run-up to, and during the Third Reich. The lesson to be learned from that experience is that organized churches that bend the Truth of God to the exigencies of the sociopolitical Zeitgeist of an age are selling out the legacy that God intends for man.
The other lesson to be drawn from this period is that faithful and loving men such as Dietrich Bonhoffer are the ones who pay the ultimate price for faithful and principled defense of eternal truth in the teeth of the devil's power.
Now the Reformed Church seems not to have any saints. But from my RC perspective, I just have to say: Bonhoffer was one of the few great Christian martyrs of the 20th century: He was strung up, at age 39, by piano wire, the very day immediately preceding the day Hitler committed suicide. If he were a Catholic, we would have been beatified in anticipation of sainthood long before now.
Given Bonhoeffer's experience, reason, and spirituality, it is not surprising he envisioned an ultimately "churchless Christianity" -- as the only means of escape for the spiritual life of man from the libido dominandi of the self-selected and self-divinized "masters of mankind" that emerged with a vengeance in the middle of the last century and thereafter, and unto our own day.
FWIW. Thank you so much for your beautiful essay.
Your comment on people being artificial constructs is very critical to understanding how we're dealt with by the powers that be. As I'm sure you know we're dealing on a daily basis with agents of several "artificial entities" aka corporations who go by "the City of__ , or the County of__ or the State of___.
Since an artificial entity cannot impose it's will on a living, breathing soul along came the 14th amendment in time to help turn us all into "federal or US citizens" or in other words little mini-corporations with no real status or standing. That's why people continue to wonder why they can't get justice in the courts and continue to have more control exerted over their daily lives or have untold $ extracted from them by numerous gov't. agencies of the gov't.
Like it or not we're living in a real version of the Matrix in which much of what we've been brainwashed to believe by the public fool system is just total BS. We've lost our way and until we begin to understand "who we really are again" the downward spiral will continue.
Dear YHAOS, when one writes in haste, one repents at leisure. It seems my take on Jefferson’s “happiness” was incorrect and misleading, as you point out in the above. In an earlier post, I claimed that, as a “squishy” Deist, Jefferson eschewed the Lockean language of “property” as the third inalienable human right that a just government must secure, in favor of the language of “happiness.” My claim was based on my memory of a facsimile of an early draft of the DoI in Jefferson’s handwriting, reproduced in Thomas Fleming’s magisterial and amazingly comprehensive Liberty!: The American Revolution [Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1997, p, 171].
So, magnifying glass in hand, I went back to my source. Though there were many cross-outs and overwrites in the text, the “happiness” language wasn’t one of them. In the accompanying caption, Fleming remarks, “This early draft shows how heavily Jefferson edited the Declaration. In one version, he changed almost one-third of the words.”
I earlier complained that the “happiness” language was too “squishy” because every person would define “happiness” in a different way. Then I realized, we don’t need to concern ourselves with any multiplicity of definitions. For our present purposes it is sufficient to ask: What does Jefferson mean by this word?
It seems Jefferson was forthcoming with his answer in a letter to James Monroe dated 1782 [op. cit.]:
If we are made in some degree for others, yet, in a greater, are we made for ourselves. It were contrary to feeling, and indeed ridiculous to suppose that a man had less rights in himself than one of his neighbors, or indeed all of them put together. This would be slavery, and not that liberty which the bill of rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged. Nothing could so completely divest us of that liberty as the establishment of the opinion, that the State has perpetual right to the services of its members. This, to men of certain ways of thinking, would be to annihilate the blessings of existence, and to contradict the Giver of life, who gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness. And certainly, to such it were better that they had never been born. [Democracy by Thomas Jefferson, “selected and arranged with an introduction by Saul K. Padover, Ph.D., formerly Research Associate in History, University of California." New York and London: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1939, p. 22f.]Furthermore, Jay was not involved with the DoI as I alleged earlier. I was thinking of John Adams — and should have remembered his name, if only because I’m born and raised in Massachusetts. (John Adams is the author of The Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; that is to say, of the Massachusetts bill of rights.) But really, I do think my allegation that the other men comprising the “committee” charged with writing the DoI really did “fade into the background,” once it became evident that TJ was on “a roll.” Including Ben Franklin, which says a lot.
Please may we correct the public record in all the foregoing regards?
That exercise beats “urban legends” any day of the week….
Thank you so very much for your scholarship, astuteness, and ever gracious conversation, dear YHAOS!
Martin Luther? His actions -- and those of like pursasion both before and after him -- could be said to have bent "...the Truth of God to the exigencies of the sociopolitical Zeitgeist.." of the age; most certainly to the RC point of view.
===============
...envisioned an ultimately "**churchless Christianity" -- as the only means of escape for the spiritual life of man from the libido dominandi of the self-selected and self-divinized "masters of mankind" that emerged with a vengeance in the middle of the last century and thereafter, and unto our own day.
IMHO you are basing your declaration,
1)The idea that church -- both the physical building and congregation -- are simply a convenient assembly place for worship of the Divine. That it is not -- or should not be -- needed for the true believers.But while this may be good theory it is, I'm afraid, rather bad psychology. Given how long both have been in existence, both established places of worship, and the willingness of men to assemble, serve as proof to the fact that they both have a profound effect of the human spirit (the Divine) and psyche (the human). It touches a deep, needful cord in us.
[** I would direct your attention to the late 17th c. Quietism based in the Convent Saint-Cyr, near Paris, as an example of "churchless Christianity".]
"Medicalization of sin" is just an excuse for the government to intervene in cases such as obesity, alcholism, drug abuse, tobacco abuse, prostitution, gambling, movie content, musical style, etc. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives have generally objected to such medicalizations.
bookmarked for return.
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.