Examining the Jeffersonian Wall

Listed below are three of the most important statements made in the history of the world concerning religious freedom. All came largely from the pen of one man, Thomas Jefferson. First is the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom adopted in 1786, then is the First Amendment to the US constitution ratified in 1791, and finally the famous letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802. I will make a few comments after but far more important is that you please read and understand the actual writings of Jefferson.

I.                     Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do . .

II.                 II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

.

III.               III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right

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 a redress of grievances.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

It is no surprise that Jefferson was so intent on religious freedom. He was often critical of what he considered misrepresentations of Christ, and though he ardently professed himself a Christian he was at least sympathetic if not wholly endorsive of the views of the Unitarian Church and the teachings of Joseph Priestly. (A good article http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasjefferson.html) he has become a hero to all who hold sacred the concept of religious freedom, I wish merely to make a few observations, as these texts will serve as a foundation as we look into religious freedoms and threats to the same in our current society.

First, no element of Jefferson’s words place limitations on the individual. Separation of church and state was always intended to hold the government bound and double ironed. There cannot be the official church of the United States or any governmental regulation over the teachings of such a church. Ministers and individuals seek God as their own hearts and conscience dictate and they have every write to bring those views to public life, to govern according to those principles and to persuade others as to the correctness of those beliefs.

Second, an acknowledgement of God does not constitute the establishment of religion. The very essence of America is that man has certain inalienable rights which are given not by the whim of the government, but by the will of God.  In the Danbury letter Jefferson refers to these as natural rights, that free thought was naturally programmed into the human brain and that no power of government has the power to change that.

Finally, religious conviction is not opposed to good citizenship it is a part of the same. Man’s duty to state is inseparable from his duty to God but should the state lay upon him burdens contrary to the will of God as he believes it to be, than the will of God takes precedent

Freedom neglected is freedom lost. Keep on the firing line. 

And the Greatest of these is Love

There is always a crisis. Freedom is under assault. The GOP establishment is trying to ramrod a candidate through who I very seriously doubt is a true conservative. Our president holds our constitution in the same regard as our calves do the straw we bed down their pens with. The personal mandate tears at the very core of our liberty. Government agents patrol the schools to inspect bagged lunches. The unelected bureaucracy issues regulation that carries the full weight of law without any involvement of the legislature, and has reached levels of tyranny that would make King George of England’s ears burn.  Now we are meant to believe that the right to free contraceptives overrides everything else even religious freedom. For these and a thousand other reasons people like me take the time to write every week about different elements of freedom and first principles of the founding of our nation in the hopes of passing on the torch of freedom to one more generation. Often I do so with heavy heart, you see America is the greatest exercise in human liberty ever dared attempted. Of all history here resides the idea that the individual is sovereign and that the powers of the state restricted. We do not always appreciate how few members of Adam’s race have lived free, and we have the honor and responsibility of maintaining it one generation at a time. As much as I believe the hand of God was in the founding of America, I am under no delusion America is ephemeral. Some day people like me will sit and write words to desperately persuade others to save the American dream but will not be heeded In the Revelation 3:2 Christ warns the Church at Sardis words which apply to us today Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

. Their will come a day when all we have built must go the way of all the Earth.

I do not believe this is that day.

Still we should always be mindful of the eternal, of the unchanging and everlasting truths that shape the foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic. With the passing of Valentine’s Day this last week I am reminded of the words of St Paul: So these three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the best one of these is love.

God is Love. All we know of love is what we understand of God, all we know of God is what we understand of love. In the Greek language 4 different words are translated “love”. Storge, Philia, Eros, and agape each describe a different aspect of affection. Of all the eternal truths we have forsaken I suspect our understanding of love is near the top of the list. In John 14:9 Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” If then Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father, and in fact Jesus is God, then all aspects of human love must be perfectly represented in the life of Christ. It would behoove us to take a moment and remember these things.

Storge- this is the Greek for “natural affection” it is often used for family relations. The Greek word is not used in scripture however family is the first human institution initiated by God and is the only thing sinful man was allowed to keep that was of paradise after the fall (Gen 3) Christ though Lord and King, lived within the structure of the family. You see him at the age of 12, full self aware, debating and instructing the Pharisees and scribes, in Luke 2: 41-51. When his parents sought him out and his mother scolded him the Bible says: 51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.

Later at the end of his earthly life Jesus again demonstrates his love of family when from the agony of the cross he makes arrangements for his mother’s provision.<< John 19 >> New American Standard Bible

---

26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

  

Eros- from this word we get the English Erotic, and yes it is usually used to describe romantic love. While Jesus was never in a marital relationship yet he is the perfect example of this type of love. It is the relationship of husband and wife which the Lord uses to describe the love of the Lord to his Church. Ephesians 5:25-33

---

      25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. 

In this we have both the perfect picture of God’s view of marriage and the perfect example of the desire of Christ in how a husband and wife should relate. I think it no coincidence that Christ chose the most passionate of loves to express his love of us. Throughout the Old Testament similar descriptions are used though they often revolve around the infidelity or “whoredoms” of God’s people, but in the Song on Songs or Song of Solomon the Lord reveals both his heart for us and the heart of the man to his lover. True love is jealous. Not the violent stalker jealousy that we picture the “green eyed monster” as but God demands the fidelity of his bride, Eros love is exclusive and unique. This is water drunk from one’s own well and not that of a stranger. The lover is never to be shared and this is the exclusiveness of Love.

There is a Brad Paisley song I probably shouldn’t like but that I really do “I’m still a guy” one line says “And I'll pour out my heart, hold your hand in the car,

 Write a love song that makes you cry.

Then turn right around knock
some jerk to the ground 'cause he [acted inappropriately] as you walk by.”

I see this as an example of Godly jealousy and Godly Eros.

Philia-(brotherly love) “There is a love that is stronger than death and a friend that sticks closer than a brother.” When Jesus asks Peter following the resurrection “Do you love me” he uses the word Agape the first two times, Peter responds “You know that I Love you” he uses the word Philia. The third time Peter is distressed because the Lord drops agape and uses Philia. In other words he meets Peter where he was. Philia demands loyalty, virtue and fidelity, while it is devoid of the passion of Eros it is the appropriate term to describe great loyalty. It would likely be the term for love of country as well. We see Jesus model this love in many ways. He called his disciples not servants but friends. He shared the words of His Father with them, even gave them nicknames. In John 14:28 Jesus notes that his disciples are saddened that he has said He will return to his Father and He says: Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

So we learn from the Lord that true friendship always seeks the best of the friend, even if it is to our hurt this is true of Philia rather it is for family, friend, or flag. If you love someone you will seek the best for them.

Agape- this is the Love of God. It is all encompassing and unfailing. Often translated charity in the King James it is a love from which there is no return, no second thought, this is the love that held Christ on the cross. It is a purely voluntary love, our Lord was under no obligation to go to the cross for us, He did it by choice. “Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friend”

I Corithians Chapter 13 defines Agape love thus:

⁴ Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; ⁵ does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; ⁶ does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;⁷ bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸ Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whetherthere is knowledge, it will vanish away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part. ¹⁰ But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

¹¹ When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. ¹² For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

¹³ And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Notice that love does not condone all things, but there is a necessary morality, a necessary virtue, and yet it is this love that lead the virtuous One to die for the corrupted, the Holy One to die for the defiled. If we are to return this love to God it will be because He first loved us and gave His Life as a ransom for our souls.

May God bless you and cvcause His love to shine in your heart.

Until next time Keep on the firing line.

Putting the Electability question to bed!

Have you noticed how few of the Mitt Romney supporters back him because they believe he would be the best President?  The reason to support Romney has always been, “He can win.” Is that so? What is it about a guy whose record winning elections would earn him a trip back to the minors if he were a big league starter that should make us so convinced he is the only one who can go up against the “big bat” of the incumbency and get the put out? Why should we assume that though Santorum would be far and above the better President we should select Romney because he’s the best candidate?

Some will say Romney has money. This is true and he has proven that when he can outspend an opponent 5-1 he does fairly well. He won Florida and came in a close second in Iowa with his spending; he then rode the momentum from Florida to win Nevada. Is that impressive?  The only wins he has without a media blitz smear assault are New Hampshire and Maine, and if a New England Governor can’t win those that would be a story. Meanwhile Santorum has done more with less than nearly any campaign in recent history. He won Iowa than swept Colorado Minnesota and Missouri, and will undoubtedly gain a great deal of financial support now that the conservative base seems to be solidifying around him. This is important because the Republican nominee will not be able to outspend Obama 5-1, not to mention the millions of free advertising the traditional media will give him. The problem with Gov. Romney’s attempts to “buy” the nomination is that his ads are high in why-not-vote for the opponent (even if the facts he uses are at times suspect) and very thin in the why-vote for me factor. Further, though this is a subjective opinion, I do not see Gov Romney going after Obama nearly as viciously as he did Newt, even though you don’t have to take any of Obama’s quotes out of context or exaggerate his record to make a very persuasive argument.

The second reason we are told we need Romney is that he will attract moderates and independents. (I addressed this in my first ever post on 3/24/11) let us recall that 42% of this country considers itself conservative and only 21% liberal. To win a general election a Republican must first win the conservative base. A strong conservative will have no trouble winning over 10-12% of the moderate vote if he excites the conservative base. This is how Reagan won a 49 state landslide. I would say even if you concede that Romney is more attractive to moderates (which I do not) than if he cannot win over the conservatives which he has yet to do, he would need to dominate the moderate vote by unrealistic percentages. Santorum on the other hand would rev up the conservative base and moderates would respond to the excitement of those supporters.  

What no one claims would propel Romney to victory is his record. I am certain the next round of trash the conservative from the Romney camp will focus on two votes on Santorum’s record. Certain earmarks that brought federal funds to Pa and the prescription drug plan for Medicare. Legitimate points, though I do not doubt Santorum has answered them to the satisfaction of most conservatives. In spite of this Santorum offers a clear sharp contrast between his own ideology and that of the President. With Mitt we are weakened on three of our greatest points of debate. First is TARP Romney and Obama support and defend it. The second is the global warming hoax. Romney and Obama believe in it, though Romney’s position may still be evolving. The third and most damning for Romney is health care. Romney vows to overturn Obama-care because the federal government lacks the authority to impose it but he does not oppose any aspect of it on moral grounds. In fact Romney care which is virtually identical to Obama-care still has the support of the Mass governor who implemented it  some where in the core of his being Mitt Romney, like Obama, believes that government is better suited to make health care choices than is the individual. It is difficult to get exited about Romney as a capitalist when he rejects the free market in healthcare in his own state, in fact he sabotages it. I find it hard to see Mitt Romney as a champion of limited government when he believes that government, albeit state not federal, has the right to force individuals to purchase products they may not want.

I find it very difficult to see Romney as a champion of liberty when he as governor refused to exempt religious hospitals from giving emergency contraceptives and abortives to certain patients. Obama is disregarding religious liberty in the same way.

Neither Romney nor Santorum have any major ethics gaps or great personal moral failings for the left to exploit, as was the case with Newt. Whoever the nominee is however they can expect to be beat up by the Obama attack machine which will make the Romney attack squad seem amateur.

Maybe Romney is better looking than Santorum? Beats me, I’ll let any ladies out there tell me about that. I am certain however that conservative women would not fall into that trap.

Personally I think the idea of voting for “the best candidate” as opposed to “the best president” is flawed from the get go. I will go for the candidate who I believe in every time. I think more people will than we realize and that makes Santorum not Romney the most electable candidate standing.

Until next time keep on the firing line!

Why the Mandate must die!

Once there was an idea, a bold and transformative idea that caught the interest of some, and sparked debate in others. The idea was that perhaps the government should make a law that said everyone has to buy health insurance. This idea was cunning, for a little while it even pretended to be a conservative idea, and some of the best conservative thinkers thought, “My what a clever little idea you are!” You see there were some who were not paying for the health services they received. Hospitals had to treat them by law and they never paid for what they took. Many of these people weren’t even legal residents of our country, and they liked to “stick” the rest of us with their bills. The hospital still had to pay the doctors who treated them, the nurses who cared for them, the custodians who cleaned up after them, the technicians who ran their tests, buy the machines to process their tests, the syringes and IV bags and on and on, so they had no choice but to charge the people who did pay more, to cover the costs of those who never paid. One of the conservatives to briefly buy into the mandate’s chicanery was Newt, little surprise, Newt is a bombastic speaker and a lover of big solutions and revolutionary thinking, even the Heritage Foundation, advisers to the great conservative Prince Valiant Reagan the Great, listened to the lie of the Mandate Idea that it cared for personal responsibility and jumped on board for a while. A certain Massachusetts governor even decided to enact a mandate on the good citizens of his state.

Alas the truth was bitter! For you see the Mandate cared nothing for health care, and it despised the very notion of personal responsibility it claimed to support. Mandate was really and assassin sent to kill the one thing Americans love more than life, liberty. You see, personal responsibility demands that each person be responsible for his or her own health care. You either buy insurance or you take the calculated risk of not doing so and choose to spend that money else where knowing that any medical needs will need to be paid out of pocket.  This is choice. This is liberty. Mandate says government must make that decision for you.

Ah but herein lies the rub!  For the mandate to do what it does a darker more insidious power must lie behind it.  The dark force which gives Mandate its life is the most sinister of all: unlimited governmental power. If the government can compel a citizen to buy insurance, it can decide what type of policy it must be, it can determine what insurance companies must offer, how much they can charge, what procedures are covered and for whom. Then they can decide how much of   a person’s own money they may spend. It can order religious organizations to participate in plans that cover contraception and abortion even though the specific doctrine of their church believes these things sinful. If it can do this then freedom of religion is at the whim of government. Rights are given by government not endowed by the Creator. No right is inalienable. The individual does not have sovereignty over himself; he exists merely by the good grace of the state; that which is his property is given only by the generosity of the state.

In the end, this country isn’t big enough for the both of them, Mandate and Liberty cannot coexist. The line is drawn and the duel has begun. One of them will not be here for our children.

If Liberty is to survive the Mandate must die.

Keep on the Firing line.