Government is the Rebel
Originally posted to the L.I.F.T. mail list.
This is gonna open a can of worms.... :-)
Doug asked:
>>public schools as we have them today are an
intrinsic violation of the
>>Constitution,
>Excuse me? I
haven't heard this comment before. I would be very
>interested in the
support for it. I can imaging that if public schools
>are an intrinsic
violation of the constitution, so is publicly provided
>health care and
many other services. --
Yes, that is correct. As I have hopefully begun to demonstrate by now,
education is an inherently religious affair, so establishment of government
operated schools is an effective breach of the 1st Amendment prohibition on
establishment of a national religion.
[A student of law pointed out schools
are mostly state entities, thus this would only apply if states themselves have
prohibitions against establishment of religion. This would still apply to
federal agencies & involvement in education, such as GOALS 2000.]
That is why public schools supported by the government did not even exist for two generations after the founding of the Republic. Despite the fact that in 1787 the government passed the Northwest Ordinance, which stated:
ARTICLE III
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
are forever encouraged.
If they didn't even have government schools, that could only mean the government was to encourage and generally support (Christian) private schooling, of an explicitly religious character as noted in the Ordinance itself.
And that is why the Catholics never gave in to the public school idea. They knew from the start it was a plot by Protestant/Unitarian leaders to indoctrinate the entire nation with their religious worldview. So the Catholics, and the Jews, and even some far-sighted Lutherans, established their own schools and fought the trend towards public education within the broadly theistic public school framework.
What about other "services" we get from the Federal Government? The Constitution is clear, for those with eyes to see.
AMENDMENT X to the Constitution of the United States of America:
The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
(Emphasis
mine)
There are basically two mindsets about freedom. The predominant one in our society seems to be that humans have no God-given rights, that we do not have the right to do something until the government gives us that privilege. The default lies with the State. This was anathema to the Founders. In their view the default right to do something lay with the individual, until such time as the People decided in an orderly manner to restrict an activity by passing laws against it. [Of course, biblical standards played the vital role in this process. Humanism had no recognized place in their process.]
Based on Amendment X it is easy enough to see that many of our government's activities are, well, illegal. They have no right to engage in income redistribution, welfare, education/indoctrination, etc., particularly since each illegal activity must be financed by forcible coercion of taxes from citizens, and to resist is to face the fury of the State. [Comment: Some believe religion-free education is possible. I disagree. I believe what they mean is that certain metaphysical assumptions are so widely shared, by Christiants, atheists, Jews, Hindus, etc. that some education can be based on those common assumptions. This may be true but I believe the scope of agreement is less than most would imagine, even at a local level.]
Government should NOT have a "Christian agenda." It should not have a humanist agenda either. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY AGENDA WHATSOEVER. It is to be the humbled, defanged and declawed servant of the will of the people, not a master in itself in any way. Whether it is shooting for a manned lunar landing, preventing (if it exists) global warming, or making America technologically competitive for the 21st century, that is not government's job. It may be somebody's job, but not the government of the Founders. [Note that the Bible does indicate that governments are ordained by God, thus they do, however unwittingly, follow "God's agenda" ultimately. Also, governments and legal systems must invariably be based on some sort of religious worldview, and let it be recognized that ours is and must necessarily be based on the Judeo-Christian worldview.]
It is also worth pointing out another plain text of the Constitution:
ARTICLE I, Section 1 of the Constitution:
All legislative Powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Gee golly whiz. Does that mean judges can't legislate, either enacting or repealing legislation on their own whim, with no means of recourse by the people? Gee, come to think of it, that is just what they did for the first 150 years of the Republic; they interpreted tough cases to judge whether laws made by the legislature had actually been broken, but they didn't presume to strike down or create law. And if the people disagreed with an interpretation of the Court, they elected legislators who passed legislation clarifying things. The people held final power.
They call their legislating "Constitutional Review" [or "judicial review"]. Giving it a name doesn't make it any less illegal.
So, the founders of our country basically went to war because of "taxation without representation." Surely we, vigilant defenders of liberty, would do the same if that happened today? Whoops, no, that happened when a judge ordered [local] property taxes doubled in Kansas in 1987. [Reported in Michigan Militia Weekly Update, "Congress Makes Our Laws, Right?".]
Surely if a gross breach of morality occurred, like some judges declaring homosexuals can "get married," we would put the judicial branch in its' place? Whoops, no, Hawaii, rats... [Not to mention Colorado's brazen act of judicial imperialism when judges crushed the will of the majority by fiat declaration.]
Surely, SURELY, if a handful of jurists were to sanction the murder of innocent children, on a scale surpassing the Nazi death camps, we would rise up in righteous revolution to restore the Constitutional Republic and the inalienable right to life found in the Declaration of Independence???
Roe v. Wade. Judicial fiat legislation.
Whenever a Christian sees where I'm headed, they pull out all the verses commanding us to obey our ruling authority, pointing out that rebels will be condemned. There are many such verses. "You have to obey the government, even if they aren't perfect, because they are the authority and to do otherwise is to be the rebel who stands condemned in Scripture."
Baloney. Yes, Scripture commands us to obey our rightful authorities. And certainly we should not be or work as accomplices to rebels against those authorities.
When the Founders rebelled, though, consider this. They had rights as Englishmen, from the Magna Carta to four centuries and more of Common Law. These rights were recognized to transcend the limited power of the King and Parliament. THAT WAS THEIR AUTHORITY. And the Parliament and King violated those authorities, Parliament and King became the rebels! We make the mistake of assuming "authorities" have to be human authorities, themselves under law, too easily.
So it is today. We have a Constitution, to which the President, the judges and the legislators must all SWEAR AN OATH. That is their authority. When they violate it, do we join as accomplices in rebellion (either actively or tacitly and passively) as they sanction the murder of millions and daily violations of the established Constitution? Or do we press for a Restoration of the authority, recognizing treason and rebellion against the Constitution and taking appropriate action against it?
I am not saying you should go off half-cocked, running down Pennsylvania Avenue waving an AK-47. Nor am I IN ANY WAY suggesting or encouraging witless acts of destruction to give expression to anger or frustration. I expect to see more of both in the future, from the humanistic libertarians, not from the Christians. Nor does this mean rebelling against every authority out there, even the compromised or rebellious ones, all the time. (See verses below)
But I do plan to work to win, as cleanly as possible. At least now everyone knows why there is a "Citizen Militia" section on my web site.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities
that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against
the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so
will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do
right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one
in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's
servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear
the sword for nothing. He is God's servant an agent of wrath to bring
punishment on the wrongdoer."
(Romans 13:1-4)
Think about it.
"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide
what laws are constitutional and what not... would make the judiciary a despotic
branch... [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which
would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has
erected no such single tribunal."
Thomas Jefferson
Return to
Social Issues