Secular Square

Pastor in Chief

2012-02-13T06:07:00.000-08:00

The great things about the Bible is that passages lifted from it can support anything.

Both conservatives and liberal find ample ammunition in the Goodbook to fight the culture and political wars.

A recent article by A. Barton Hinkle in Reason surveys President Obama's faith driven administration and the silence of the liberal intelligentsia that usual serve as gatekeepers for the separation of church and state.

While braying noisily about President Bush's faith based initiatives, they sit silently or offer a hearty "amen" as the President undergirds his policies with claims that "I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper."

But as with many religions, the President's liberal fundamentalism brooks no toleration for heretics, as seen in the recent clash with the Catholic Church over insurance mandates for birth control.

For recent expressions of his religious faith, here is the President at the recent national prayer breakfast.

Paua White and the Torah

2012-02-11T03:50:00.000-08:00

After rumours emerged that television pastorette Paula White had engaged in a Torah ceremony similar to that of Bishop Eddie Long, her lawyer categorically denied it. Then, ooops . . .

Hail! King of the Jews

2012-02-05T08:06:00.000-08:00

After his wife served him with divorce papers, Bishop Eddie Long took some time off from the pulpit.

Now he is back as King of the Jews.

God's State of the Union

2012-01-29T06:42:00.000-08:00

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels gave an articulate and well-received Republican response to President Obama's annual State of the Union message. Less well-known is Pastor Steven Andrew's Christian State of the Union response.

Andrew does not really provide any detail scriptural assessment of the state of our union. He directs his listeners to look to Jessus, look to the Holy Spirit, and look to the Bible. The theme of his message is forgiveness for the sins we have committed against God.

He assures us that God still loves us because we are God's covenent Christian nation. For evidence, he cites the dedication prayer of the Jamestown settlement of 1607 and the Mayflower Compact. Andrew's ministry website, USAChristianMinistries, quotes the relavant text:

“We do hereby dedicate this Land, and ourselves, to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to raise up Godly generations after us, and with these generations take the Kingdom of God to all the earth. May this Covenant of Dedication remain to all generations, as long as this earth remains… May all who see this Cross, remember what we have done here, and may those who come here to inhabit join us in this Covenant…” – Jamestown Settlers Covenant Dedication, 1607

Because of the Jamestown settlers and the Mayflower Pilgrims, we began as a covenant nation.

Not being a theologian or bible scholar, I am not sure what to make of this claim. First, the Mosaic (or Old Covenant/Testament) and the Christian (or New Covenant/Testament) were initiated by God. This holds true for other lesser covenants as well, such as the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant. Can a group of worshippers initiate their own covenant and establish its terms? I don't know. Second, how do they know if God accepts the terms of their covenant?

Moreover, the settlers made these covenants as subjects of England. Were they not already part of a covenanted Christian nation? Now he does claim that the founders, or at least some of them, participated in bible reading and prayer as the first act of the new government. But we started the new nation as a republic, which traditionally means a government without a king. Andrew claims that we have Jesus as our king and suggests the following prayer to acknowledge it:

"Father as your Christian nation we affirm our covenant that you are our God and we are your people. We love you with all our heart, soul mind and strength. Jesus is our king. We obey what you say in the Holy Bible. We love one another as Jesus loved us. In Jesus' name, Amen."

So are we a republic or a monarchy? Or are we a mixed regime with Jesus as our king, the President as His chief minister, and the Congress as our deliberative law making body? And which is the "fundamental" constitution does our Congress follow--the bible or the Constitution of 1787.

Or has Paster Andrew even thought about it.

"God Told Me To Run"

2012-01-27T07:12:00.000-08:00

As the Florida Republican primary nears, the slate of "God Endorsed" candidates has dwindled to one. Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry all made well publicized claims that God told them to run for President. All three have since dropped out. Now only Rick Santorum remains.

What is the average unbeliever ( or even believer) to make of such things?

I suppose God could "call" someone to run for President. After all, the Bible teaches that:

"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Prov 21:1

Surely he could "turn" the heart of some anointed person to seek office.

But an omnipotent God certainly could endorse just one candidate and insure that person's election. The Bible asserts that

"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Psalms 115:3

That could include turning the hearts of voters to one candidate. If he can turn the hearts of kings, certainly he can turn the heart of voters. Yet the voters rejected three of those candidates and will eventually reject the fourth.

As horrifying to these candidates that this might sound, it is possible that God lied to them. The Bible does narrate occasions when God lied to accomplish "whatsoever he hath pleased." In order to undo King Ahab, God asked of his heavenly spirits for a volunteer to go lie to Ahab:

"I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1 Kings 22:19-23.

Assuming God knew that all his candidates would lose, maybe he just wanted them to run to get his message out there. He seemed to have great success after nominating his own son as "King of the Jews." The people rejected the idea, but the message spread worldwide the next two thousand years.

But no real need exists for this message today. Every knows already what is message is. The chief message most people heard from the Bachmann, Perry, and Cain campaigns was that these candidates proved notoriously inept and unqualified for the Presidency.

But maybe its just a case of what in the olden days people called "enthusiasm." Although today used to describe one's positive emotional state, the word originally mean someone under the influence of some divine or supernatural influence. It usually referred to ancient pagan religious practice, especially in their more exotic manifestations. Sometimes, however, more "rationalist" Christians used it to describe some of the practices of dissenting Christian sects. Opponents of the early American "religious awakenings" regularly threw that charge at the movement.

As Samuel Johnson defined it in his dictionary, one of the first in the English language:

"a vain belief of private revelation; a vain confidence of divine favour or communication."

The voters have exposed the vanity for what it is.

I wonder if these candidates will be as "soul searching" about their rejection as they were about their "call."

2012-01-19T16:40:00.000-08:00

Leaving aside for a time God's chosen in the book of Genesis, the Secular Square takes a look a God's chosen in our comtemporary world.

Recently Pastor Ed Young, Jr. and his wife Lisa created a stir in the evangelical world by participating in a "bed-in" to promote their their new book 7 Days to Lasting Intimacy with Your Spouse.

They say that sex is " God created, not X rated," but that Satan or the culture (they are not sure which) hijacked sex and turned it from God's plan.

The "bed-in" consisted of the couple laying in bed on the roof of their church while cameras fed the video feed to the worldwide web.

As a conservative, I share their concern about sexual sexuality's reduction to simply a bodily function and all the psychological and social consequences that attend that view.

I am not sure, however, what their stunt says about Christianity. Since they direct their book and "bed-in" primarily to Christians, one can only conclude that Satan, or the culture, has hijacked the Christians as well. If the Christians have embraced Satan's or the culture's view of sex, what does that say about Christians claims to be "more that conquerers" or those who have "overcome the world."

In addtion, the pastor himself seems to be following the culture.The stunt itself simply imitates John and Yoko's "bed-in" for peace back in 1969.

And just as silly.

Abraham Gathered to his People

2012-01-17T09:58:00.000-08:00

In chapter 25 of Genesis, the book of beginnings, God's unfolding covenant reaches a significant turning point: the death of Abraham.

After Abraham secured a wife for his son Isaac, he caught the wedding bug himself. Although well over one hundred years old according to "God's Word," Abraham weds and fathers several more children. A multitude of children, of course, is a sign of divine blessing in most traditional societies, including that of the ancient Hebrew. In addition, the narrative account contributes again to the Hebrew understanding of the people groups who dwelt around them.

In protection of the covenant offspring Isaac, however, Abraham provides his additional children with gifts and sends them away.

Finally, at the fantastically unbelievable age of175, Abraham dies.

The Genesis narrative then picks up with the promises covenant offspring, Isaac.

Changes for Abraham

2012-01-15T07:13:00.000-08:00

Sarah died, allegedly at 127 years, probably still as beautiful as she was at 99.

Abraham finally decides to secure a wife for his son, Isaac. We see the beginnings of the tradition of "biblical marriage."

First, as in all traditional societies, the marriage is arranged for Isaac. He really does not enjoy to opportunity to courts any of the daughters of local bedouins.

Second, biblical marriage is endogamous, that is, permitted only within the tribal unit. Abraham sends for his oldest, most trusted servant and makes him sware an oath:

"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. " Gen 24:2-4 (KJV)

The servant loads up ten camels with gifts and departs to Haran. While water the camels after his arrival, he "providentially" meets Rebekah. Because this providential meeting appeared to be the answer to prayer, the servant makes a marriage offer on behalf of Abraham. Rebekah's family and Rebekah herself accepts the marriage proposal. She joined the servant on the journey back to Canaan and becomes Isaac's wife. Rebekah is Isaac's second cousin.

Interestingly, at this stage, no religious ceremony occurs and no religious meaning is attributed to the marriage. It appears solely an agreement between families. Marriage in the bible seems different from "Biblical Marriage."

Lo Saturnalia!

2011-12-25T18:11:00.000-08:00

Its that time again. Eating. Drinking. Music. Exchanging gifts. Decorating trees.

Its Saturnalia!

Well, maybe not. It used to be Saturnalia. But with the introduction of a small Judean religious sect and its remarkable growth in adherents in the West that far exceeded its adherents in its native land, Saturnalia is all but forgotten.

They have taken Saturn out of Saturnalia.

Saturn is the name of the Roman god of agriculture and harvest. He is associated with the goddess of plenty, Ops. The weekly time of partying, Saturday, is named for him.

Between December 17 and 23, Romans honored him with a feast. Romans decorated the trees on the grounds of their villas. They ate, drank, exchanged gifts, and made merry by saying “Lo! Saturnalia.” Slaves and their owners exchanged roles. The slaveholders served and the slaves enjoyed be served. The holiday also served as a transition into the celebration of the Dies Natalis Solis Invictis, or Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun. This latter festival honored the birthday of the sun god, which fell on December 25, the date of the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar. Disagreement exists over how early and in what form worship of the sun took place.

Meanwhile, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. The resurrection emerged as the most important Christian festival because of its theological importance. In addition, the Church more easily could settle on a date since the crucifixion and resurrection coincided with the Hebrew Passover Feast. Over several decades, however, the celebration of the birth of Jesus grew in importance. But the church celebrated it on different days in different parts of the empire. The Church in Rome celebrated the day on December 25, possibly based upon calculations by Pope Julius 1. As Rome grew and achieved primacy over the rest of the church in its theology and authority, the December 25 date became standard through out the Church for “Christ’s Mass.”

No direct evidence suggests that the Church authorities chose the date to obscure the pagan festivals of Saturnalia or Sol Invictus. But some church fathers noted the coincidence. Cyprian (?-258) noted “How wonderfully acted providence that on the day when that sun was born, Christ should be born.” In addition, Chrysostom wrote that “Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December. But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered.' But who indeed is unconquered as our Lord?”

As Christianity spread, Christmas became intermingled with additional pagan winter celebration traditions: yule logs, mistletoe, and Christmas trees. Today it offers a syncretistic something for everyone.

So, “Lo Saturnalia.” And “Merry Christmas.”

The Origins of Munchausen by Proxy

2011-12-20T01:58:00.001-08:00

Sarah originated the scheme in which Abraham could have a child by proxy through her servant Hagar. When she finally conceived her own child at nearly 100 years old, she demands that Abraham sent Hagar and her child. God tells Abraham not to grieve but to once again accede to Sarah's wishes.

So he sends Hagar and Ishmael away.

"And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba." Gen. 21:14

After commanding Abraham to send Hagar away, he next comes to her rescue:

"And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is." Gen. 21:15-17.

Is this not a case of Munchausen by proxy? Typically, a person with this syndrome causes harm to someone under their care through abuse or neglect and then seeks praise and adulation for saving them. In this case, God allegedly ordered events so that Hagar would deliver Abraham's first child, suffer rejection at the hands of Sarah, and face death in the desert. In the midst of this divinely ordered crisis, God comes to the rescue.

God promises deliverance and future blessings. Ishmael will not only survive, but also will prosper and father a great nation.
"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt." Gen 21:1-21 (KJV)

One major theme of the Bible is God's faithfulness to those who are faithful to him. But in a world where all events are ordered and ordained by an omnipotent God, this faithfulness seems more like a psychological disorder.

Abraham's Dysfunctional Family

2011-12-18T07:53:00.000-08:00

Abraham and Sarah finally have the long promised son. He allegedly was 100 years old, her not far behind. Joy turned to bitterness:

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son." Gen 21:9-11 (KJV)

At the first sign of domestic trouble for his first family, the Divine Dr. Phil intervenes in the material world to insure the success of his plan.

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed ." Gen 21:12-13 (KJV)

This passage again makes a distinction already noted between the natural seed of Abraham, which includes all his physical progeny, and the special seed of Abraham, which includes only those through whom God will bless by fulfilling is covenant promises. Although God applies part of his promises to Ishmael through the multiplication of his descendants, he clearly identifies Isaac as the heir of the bulk of promises.

This passage looms even more important for another reason. In Paul's New Testament writings, one of his most formidable challenges is to explain why the Hebrews failed to believe in their messiah and seemed to forfeit the promises given to Abraham. Moreover, Paul must explain how the Gentiles could possibly inherit those promises and define their relationship to Mosaic Law. Paul rips the phrase from the context this passage, "in Isaac shall they see be called", and applies it not to Isaac but to Jesus. In Galatians 3:16, Paul argues that Jesus is the promised heir of Abraham and Gentiles become heirs as well through their faith in him.

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal 3:15-16 (KJV)

Many of the promises God allegedly made to Abraham about his "seed" clearly refer to multiple descendants. This passage in Genesis, however, is the first that clearly refers to one person. And this provides Paul with this text, or pretext, to make sense of Christianity in light of the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament.

Anyway, back to our story. . .

Faithless Abraham Redux

2011-12-16T07:12:00.000-08:00

After the destruction of the four cities of the plain, Abraham wanders South.

According to Genesis, Abraham again experiences problems with foreigners desiring his now very aged wife, Sarah. In fact, the account so closely resembles that described in chapter 12 that it is difficult not to conclude that it is merely a retelling of the story within a different context. Instead of the Egyptian Pharoah taking Sarah, Abimelch, the king of the Philestine village of Gerar, seizes her. Consequently, the author of Genesis reminds Hebrew readers about God's faithfulness to them, even when it means injustice to those outside the covenant.

As our bible bedouin Abraham wandered South and entered Gerar, he tried the same unsuccessful ploy to protect Sarah as he tried in the earlier account. In order to discourge anyone from killing him and taking his wife, he claimed that Sarah was his sister. Abimelech predictably seizes Sarah for his harem.

In one of the unusual instances of God allegedly commuicating with those outside his chosen covenant people, he warns Abimelech about his error.

"But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife." Gen 20:3 (KJV)

Either in the dream or after he awoke (the Bible is rarely clear on this issue of divine revelation), Abimelech protests to God:

"But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?  Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. " Gen 20:4-5 (KJV)

God revisits Abimelech in dreamland to issue his reply:

"And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.  Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine."
Gen 20:6-7 (KJV)

Abimelech shares his dream with his people and confronts Abraham about his dishonesty. He returns Sarah, along with some gifts and some sarastic remarks about the experience:

"And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife.  And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee.  And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." Gen 20:14-16 (KJV)

Abraham prays for Abimelech and his people. Why? Even though God knew Abimelech acting out the integrity and prevented Abimelech from sinning through violating Sarah, he afflicted Abimelech's family anyway.

"So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.  For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife." Gen 20:17-18 (KJV)

This account expresses legitimate fears experienced in an era and region in which political authority was weak and often arbitrary. No doubt marauding bands seeking plunder afflicted peaceful people by stealing their animals, raping or capturing their women, and destroying their settlements. And as the episode of Lot and Sodom revealed, strangers entering a village settlement faced similar risks.

But it also continues the development of the concept of God as a being that distinguishes between his chosen people and the "outsiders" and who remains faithful to his chosen people, even in the face of their own dishonesty and duplicity.

Vice is Nice, but Incest is Best

2011-12-11T06:25:00.000-08:00

Leaving aside for a bit the long running “Curious History of Republicanism,” the Secular Square returns to the survey of Genesis, the book of beginnings.

Following the Bible's account of the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other “cities of the plain,” a strange episode occurs that probably both seeks to explain the origins of the neighboring peoples of the Hebrews, but also cast aspersions upon them.

According to the author of Genesis, God delivered Lot as part of a promise to Abraham. Lot and his family fled Sodom for the neighboring village of Zoar. Although he asked the angelic deliverers for permission to flee to Zoar, he later had second thoughts. After the destruction of Sodom, he feared to live in Zoar. He took his daughters to the mountains.

Fearful that they would never marry, create a family, and carry on the family line, Lot's daughters conspire to reproduce through Dad:

“And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.” Gen 19:31-33 (KJV)

So on two successive nights, they liquor up Lot and engaged in sexual intercourse with him. They both quickly became pregnant.

“Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.” Gen 19:36-38 (KJV)

This explains the origins of the Moabites and Ammonites that dwelt on the eastern borders of the ancient Hebrew promised land. Moreover, the account establishes for the Hebrews a moral contrast between them and their “cousins.” The Hebrews originated in a divine call; the Moabites and Ammonites originated in a “booty call.”

She Divorced Me, She Divorced Me not, She Divorced Me . . .

2011-12-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

In the continuing saga of Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that his wife has filed a petition for divorce and he announced to his congregation that he was taking a leave of absence.

The petition comes in the wake of lawsuits by four former members who filed lawsuits against Bishop Long claiming that he used his authority of coerce them into homosexual relations and then rewarded them with gifts. Long settled the lawsuit out of court.

Vanessa Long filed the petition Thursday December 1, 2011. Early Friday morning she announced her decision. But in the early afternoon, she announced that she planned to withdraw the petition. Several hours later, however, her lawyer announce her decision to continued with the divorce petition.

Long responded with a statement Friday night maintaining that the love for his wife remains “deep and unwavering.” Moreover, he asserted that “it remains our sincere desire to continue working together in seeking God’s will in these circumstances."

“Seeking God's will” in Christianity often means taking whatever course of action one desires.

For example, the time that Vanessa married Long in the first place. He already had been divorced by his first wife for alleged physical abuse. And God allegedly expressed his will on that question:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt 5:31-32 (KJV)

Yet Vanessa went through with the marriage anyway.

Now technically, this admonition of Jesus refers only to husbands. In our modern society, churches usually apply it to wives as well. But if taken in its literal and culturally bound context, it creates another complexity: NOWHERE in the bible does it say a woman can divorce her husband. In that ancient Semitic culture, women had no such rights.

Only time will tell what they decide that the Lord's will is this time.

Milton Resists the Restoration

2011-12-04T05:31:00.000-08:00

In Search of the Republic--20

After a turbulent 20 year experiment with republican government, England slowly staggered its way back to monarchy. Republican polemicist John Milton, now blind, wrote a last defense of the republic and warned against the return to monarchy. In The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth (1659), he described his vision of the ideal republic. Moreover, he introduced a model for virtue that differed from the classical aristocratic notions of virtue. This other concept of virtue gradually supplanted the older classical virtue as republics supplanted monarchies.

Milton opens by reminding his readers of the struggles of the 1640s, when the people threw off monarchy. "The Parliament of England," he writes,

"assisted by a great number of the people who appeared and stuck to them faithfullest in defence of religion and their civil liberties, judging kingship by long experience a government burdensome, expensive, useless, and dangerous, justly and magnanimously abolished it."

After the overthrow of Charles I, the Parliament disregarded tradition and the ancient constitution. Instead, bound by "the law of nature only, which is the only law of laws truly and properly to all mankind fundamental," established the commonwealth.

He warns his readers that if England returns to monarch, they will "soon repent" of it when they gradually see "the old encroachments" on their religious consciences which "necessarily proceed from the king and bishop united inseparably in one interest."

He reminds them of the "haughty court" that will emerge with a restoration, the "vast expense and luxury" that will burden the people, and the claim of "hereditary right over them as their Lord" that will soon be asserted.

Instead of depending on a monarchy and an aristocratic court with its classical pretended virtues of leisure, wealth, and refinement, Milton asserts that his readers that they "need depend on none but God and our own counsels, our own active virtue and industry. He quotes the Biblical Solomon:

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard, saith Solomon, and consider her ways and be wise, which having no prince, ruler, or lord, provides her meat in the summer, and gathers here food in the harvest."

According to Milton, this passage uphold the ant as an example of

"frugal and self-governing democratic or commonwealth, safer and more thriving in the joint providence and counsel of may industrious equals, than under the single domination of one imperious Lord."

This important passage contrasts the virtue of equal, hardworking citizens with the classical virtue of a hierarchy of well-born and leisured aristocrats who disdained work.

Milton then describes his vision for the ideal republic. He deviates from the traditional republican ideal of a mixed government in which some kind of aristocracy is represented in one lawmaking assembly and the people are represented in another. Milton argues for a single legislative body, not filled with a hereditary aristocracy, but with representatives elected by the people. Echoing James Harrington's notion of a "natural aristocracy" of merit, Milton asserts that this body should contain the "ablest men." A natural aristocracy of merit is to be preferred to a hereditary aristocracy based upon birth. But in contrast to Harrington's position on rotation in office, Milton suggested that these legislators serve for life. Milton obviously disapproved of what he called the "successive and transitory parliaments" that plague the English commonwealth.

He judged that such a Senate of principled men would better protect the liberty of the people than an "licentious and unbridled democracy." He divided liberties into two types: civil and spiritual.

Civil liberties consists

"in the civil rights and advancements of every person according to his merit; the enjoyment of those never more certain and the access to these never more open, than in a free Commonwealth."

Spiritual liberty consists

"in the liberty to serve God and to save his own soul, according to the best light which God hath planted in him to that purpose, by the reading of his revealed will and the guidance of his holy spirit."

Consequently, Milton supported freedom of conscience in matters of faith.

Both civil freedom and religious freedom are threatened by monarchy, a hereditary aristocracy, and a state supported episcopacy.

Milton's warning went unheeded, however, and in 1660. England restored the Stuart dynasty to the throne.

Only a free commonwealth insured a government of laws and not of men.

James Harrington Defends the Republic

2011-12-02T05:36:00.000-08:00

In Search of the Republic--19

The most well-known and influential defender of republicanism during England's commonwealth period was James Harrington. When the commonwealth came under attack by absolutist Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan, Harrington crafted a defense he entitled The Commonwealth of Oceana.(1656) In this work, Harrington wrote a fictionalized account of England (Oceana) and theorized about the elements of an ideal republic.

The bulk of the work to too detailed in its presentation and too stilted in its prose to thoroughly analyze here. But his “preliminaries,” as he calls them, identify the main contours of his though.

First, Harrington appeals to classical ideas about the foundation of republican government, largely derived from his reading of Niccolo Machiavelli's writings on ancient republics. He contrasts the classical view of government favorably with the modern view on the grounds of how they protect the liberty of the people:

“Government (to define it de jure, or according to ancient prudence) is an art whereby a civil society of men is instituted and preserved upon the foundation of common right or interest; or, to follow Aristotle and Livy, it is the empire of laws, and not of men.”

An empire of laws, and not of men, is one in which people are not subject to the arbitrary will of rulers.

In contrast:

“Government (to define it de facto, or according to modern prudence) is an art whereby some man, or some few men, subject a city or a nation, and rule it according to his or their private interest; which, because the laws in such cases are made according to the interest of a man, or of some few families, may be said to be the empire of men, and not of laws.”

Second, Harrington approves of the classical republican model of mixed government. He writes that just governments rule according to reason for the common good. All governments, however, grow corrupt because of the passions for private interest. Monarchy degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into anarchy.

To prevent this, the ancients

“invented another, consisting of a mixture of them all, which only is good. This is the doctrine of the ancients.”

So how should government be mixed? Harrington presents a model resembling that of Rome.

First, he proposes a Senate that, like the Roman Senate, does not make laws but only deliberates and makes suggestions for the people.

“Wherefore the office of the senate is not to be commanders, but counsellors, of the people; and that which is proper to counsellors is first to debate, and afterward to give advice in the business whereupon they have debated, whence the decrees of the senate are never laws, nor so called; and these being maturely framed, it is their duty to propose in the case to the people.”

Harrington's Senate, however, differs in one important from the Roman and from the English House of Lords. He argues that its members should be elected. In a observation that influenced the founders of our own republic, Harrington posits the existence of a “natural aristocracy” that is “diffused throughout the whole body of mankind.” The people will recognize this "natural aristocracy" for their virtue and talents, not for their wealth or noble birth. These will make the best Senators.

Second, Harrington proposes a legislature to choose from the alternatives deliberated upon and forwarded to it from the Senate. Although the Senate is the wisdom of the commonwealth, the people's assembly is its interest in the common good.

“The wisdom of the few may be the light of mankind; but the interest of the few is not the profit of mankind nor of a commonwealth. Wherefore, seeing we have granted interest to be reason, they must not choose lest it put out their light. But as the council dividing consists of the wisdom of the commonwealth, so the assembly or council choosing should consist of the interest of the commonwealth: as the wisdom of the commonwealth is in the aristocracy, so the interest of the commonwealth is in the whole body of the people.”

Finally, he proposes a magistrate to carry out the decisions of the assembly. But, in accordance to “an empire of laws and not of men,” the magistrate carry out his duties according to law and must remain accountable to the people.

“Nevertheless there is one condition of it that must be the same in every one, or it dissolves the commonwealth where it is wanting. And this is no less than that, as the hand of the magistrate is the executive power of the law, so the head of the magistrate is answerable to the people, that his execution be according to the law.”

This is the basic structure of Harrington's republic.

He adds some other principles as well. He, like Aristotle, analyzes government economically. He feared that too much wealth concentrated in few hands could allow a faction of the extremely wealthy to overpower the balance in the government of a republic and overthrow it. Consequently, he proposed agrarian laws governing the accumulation of land in order to prevent the growth of a landed aristocracy. He also urged rotation in office. This, too, helps preserve some semblance of equality to preserve a balanced government. Finally, he argued for liberty of conscience in matters of religion.

“A government pretending to liberty, and yet suppressing liberty of conscience must be a contradiction.”

James Harrington

Milton Defends the Republic

2011-11-30T23:41:00.001-08:00

In search of the republic--17

Before the recent tour of Occupy Wall Street, Right Detour featured a series of posts examining the curious history of republicanism. These posts concluded with England's experiment with republican government that began with the English Civil War in 1641 and lasted until the Restoration of 1660.

After the English Civil War and the overthrow of King Charles I, the House of Commons declared England to be a Commonwealth, or republic. The House of Commons abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords. In their place, it set up Oliver Cromwell as the chief magistrate with a Council of State.

The Commonwealth era proved to be one of turmoil and disorder during which the English repeatedly modified their government in its search for order. Presbyterian parliamentarians who maintained royalist sympathies found themselves purged from the Commons, leaving a 50 or so member Rump Parliament. Cromwell eventually dissolved the Rump and replaced them with a new one incorporating representatives from Scotland and Wales with himself as Lord Protector. This parliament, too, was abandoned. After Cromwell's death and the ascension of his son Richard as Lord Protector, the army forced a recall of the original Rump Parliament. The Rump parliament soon readmitted surviving members of the purged Presbyterians. Finally, as the Englished moved closer to abandoning their republican experiment, a Convention Parliament with a new House of Lords assembled. This Parliament effected the end of the republic and the restoration of monarchy.

Although the English Republican experiment failed, the tumultuous period generated several polemical and philosophical writings about republican government. These writings not only inspired the English in their "Glorious Revolution of 1688" against monarchical absolutism, but also influenced the thinking of British North Americans over one hundred years later, when they revolted against their mother country. These next couple of posts will look at some of those writings.

So What Happened at Sodom?

2011-11-22T07:49:00.000-08:00

Well, nobody really knows.

Maybe nothing. Perhaps it is a mythical tale about cities that never existed.

Maybe anything. At least, anything but what the Bible describes.

The Bible speaks of brimstone out of heaven. A naturalistic interpretation might suggest volcanic activity. The Dead Sea basin, howver, has no volcanoes.

The Dead Sea does lie, however, in Jordan's Rift Valley.

Perhaps the perimeter of the Dead Sea, or Salt Sea, was dotted with villages notorious for their inhospitable treatment of their own people and any unwary strangers who wandered into their gates. The shifting plates may have generated an earthquake that destroyed them and made them inhabitable.

In addition, they may have been reclaimed, either temporarily or permanently, by the fluctuating levels of the Dead Sea.

The author of Genesis then could write of a natural event in which he perceived God acting on behalf and justice and confirming that Abraham's covenant is with a just and faithful God.

Salt formations around the Dead Sea

The Dead Sea from the surrounding mountains

So Why Destroy Sodom?

2011-11-21T07:58:00.000-08:00

Although the Biblical lesson of Sodom's destruction addresses God's faithfulness to Abraham, readers often extract other teachings from the text.

Biblical writers employ Sodom and Gomorrah as symbols of evil and ungodliness (Isa. 3:9; Jer. 23:14). They also use the destruction by God as an example and warning to others. (Isa. 13.19: Jer. 49:18, 50:40: Luke 17:29; 2Peter 2:9.). Just what was their offense?

Christians traditionally view the text as an indictment of homosexuality. Moreover, they argue that homosexuality moved God to destroy the cities. They cite passages such as Jude 7:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1:7 (KJV)

Of course, this will not really do. According to Genesis, God and his angels had decided already to destroy the cities before the homosexuals surrounded Lot's place.

Liberal Christians see something else. They point to texts such as this one from Ezekiel :

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Ezek 16:49-50 (KJV)

Liberal Christians, wanting to remove the stigma attached to homosexuality, point out that the most explicit explanation for what moved God was pride, idleness, and neglect of the poor in spite of their own wealth. In addition, they allude to this remark from Jesus:

"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." Matt 10:15 (KJV)

In that passage, Jesus threatens villages that refused hospitality to his disciples and compared them to Sodom and Gomorrah. So that is why God destroyed those cities: they lacked hospitality to strangers.

This will not do, either.

First, that reference to "abomination" in Ezekiel probably refers to homosexuality. Throughout the Bible, homosexuality in one of several practices like idolatry described as an "abomination."

Moreover, it is difficult to believe the liberal presupposition that these ancient Semitic writings from a primitive, backward culture really accepted homosexuality and that only the modern manifestations of those writings--Fundamentalist Christians and Moslems--have distorted them.

Of course, the contrasting interpretations are not technically contradictions. They both can be true. And maybe they both are true.

The cities in question--actually four in all according to Deut. 29:13--lacked both compassion for their poor and engaged in all kinds of abominable sexual behavior by ancient Semitic cultural standards, including homosexuality. In addition, they earned a nasty reputation among neighboring villages for their treatment of strangers. Perhaps they subjected anyone who wandered in to those villages to all kinds of inhospitable treatment, including rape--homosexual and otherwise. Perhaps that is the reason that twice the author of Genesis alludes to God hearing the "outcry" against those cities. As a result of the outcry from neighboring villages, the author of Genesis tries to show God establishing justice in the region. And Lot's presence in one of those cities ties the justice of God with his faithfulness to Abraham.

So Long Sodom

2011-11-20T08:00:00.000-08:00

After dining with Abraham, the two angels arrived in Sodom. Abraham's nephew, Lot, greets them at the city gate. In conformity with Semitic standards of hospitality to strangers, Lot invites them home for a foot washing and a feast.

"And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;  And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night." Gen 19:1-2 (KJV)

Lot presses them and persuades them to come home with him. Then all hell breaks loose.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:  And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Gen 19:4-5 (KJV)

Lot steps outside and tries to dissuade them. He offers up his daughters. This is perverse, of course, to modern Western standards. The offer, however, appears to be a variation of "hospitality" offered to strangers in many cultures. In his exhausting history of marriage, Edward Westermarck notes that in some primitive cultures, a husband will offer his wife for the night to visiting strangers in the name of hospitality. Although never a part of Semitic cultures, perhaps Lots offer of the daughters consists of a variation on this theme. Instead of offering the daughter to the angels for the night, he offers them up to the raging homosexuals outside his home.

The crowd refuses Instead, they threaten "to deal worse" with him than with his two guests. What could be worse than subject to homosexual rape it is difficult to say. Anyway, the angels open the front door and pull him inside. They blind the crowd:

"But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.  And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door." Gen 19:10-11 (KJV)

The angels warn Lot about the destruction to come because of the outcry against Sodom by neighboring villages. They inquire about his family in order to effect an escape to the surrounding mountains. At least two married daughters and their husbands mock the threat. Accustomed to life in a village, Lot asks to escape to the nearby village of Zoar. The angels accept Lot's plan and promise not to destroy that city. That night Lot flees with his wife and two unmarried daughters.

As they neared Zoar at dawn when God destroys Sodom:

"The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;  And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground." Gen 19:23-25 (KJV)

Unfortunately, in an effort to save himself, Lot let his wife fall behind. And when she paused to witness the destruction of her home and family, she turned into a pillar of salt..

"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." Gen 19:26 (KJV)

Although this bible story offers many lessons, its author intended it as confirmation of God's faithfulness to Abraham:

"And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord:  And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.  And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt." Gen 19:27-29 (KJV)

The Cry of Sodom

2011-11-16T01:07:00.000-08:00

After dining and updating his promise to Abraham, God and a couple of angels head to Sodom.

"And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord." Gen 18:20-22 (KJV)

This first thing to note is, again, the scriptures imply that God is not omniscient, that he does not intuitively know about all states of affairs at any given time. He tells Abraham he hears the cry of Sodom, but want to see for himself. If taken literally, it may mean that God afar off in the heavens can hear the noise of Sodom's cries or shrieks, but he cannot see them. So he has come down to investigate.

The problem is that Abraham's nephew lot lives in Sodom. Without mentioning Lot by name, Abraham begins some elaborate questioning of God in an appeal to his justice to prevent even ten just persons from suffering the judgment of God. This would cover Lot and his family.

Once God agrees, he moves on to Sodom while Abraham returns to the home.

"And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place." Gen 18:33 (KJV)

This episode contrasts the hospitality that Abraham offered God and his angelic companions with the greeting that awaiting them when they arrived in Sodom.

Dining with the Divinity

2011-11-15T12:02:00.000-08:00

The next time God allegedly paid a visit to Abraham, he stopped by for lunch with two angles on his way to incinerate the people of Sodom.

"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,  And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:  Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:  And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said." Gen 18:1-5 (KJV)

Abraham gets a calf from his herd, dresses it, and grills it for his visitors. While eating under the shade of a tree, God inquires about Sarah and finally informs Abraham about the impending fulfillment of the promised son.

"And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.  And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.  Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.  Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?  And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?  Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.  Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh." Gen 18:9-15 (KJV)

After the feast, Abraham accompanies them on part of their journey to Sodom. God deliberates about whether or not to tell Abraham his plans for Sodom. God's reasoning suggests that perhaps his covenant is not as conditional as the meeting in Genesis 17 suggest. In that earlier passage, God seems to suggest that fulfillment of the covenant depends upon the condition that Abraham "walk before me and be perfect." But in this passage, God says that he knows already that Abraham will "keep the way of the Lord."

"And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.  And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;  Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Gen 18:16-19 (KJV)

Maybe God knows because as other biblical texts assure us, God enables his chosen to will according to his wishes but also to act according those those wishes.

In God's next major interaction with Abraham, however, God muddies the understanding by behaving as if he did NOT know whether or not Abraham would fulfill.

Before that episode, however, God completed his journey to Sodom.

Natural Seed and Covenant Seed

2011-11-14T03:46:00.000-08:00

After God commands circumcision for Abraham and his household, God adds some specificity to his promises:

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. 1 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. " Gen 17:15-16 (KJV)

Abraham, the father of the faithful, laughed in disbelief and directs God's attention to his existing son:

"Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! " Gen 17:17-18 (KJV)

God redirects Abraham's attention back to his divine promise of a son. God not only confirms the promise but names the offspring. God asserts that he will establish the covenant and its blessing with Isaac, not Ishmael.

Although God already promised Ishmael's mother blessing for Ishmael, he feigns that he approves of Abraham's pleading before God to bless Ishmael.

"And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham."
Gen 17:19-22 (KJV)

Consequently, God makes the first distinction about the meaning of his covenant. He promises to carry it out through the line of the promised seed or descendants, not through Abraham's descendants in general.

This idea of the promised seed plays an important role in Paul's theology later when he tried to explain why God apparently failed to keep his covenant promises.

More Cutting of the Covenant

2011-11-13T05:01:00.000-08:00

For reasons known only to him (or maybe even unknown to him), God appeared again to Abraham to provide supplementary information about the covenant he established with him..

God introduced the basic terms back in Genesis 12 with his initial call. God promised that Abraham would father a multitude of descendants, that he would occupy the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession for those descendants, and that he would be the source of blessing for all the families of the earth.

In Genesis 15, God repeated the promised and actually "cut the covenant" in the manner of ancient Middle Eastern suzerainty treaties by sacrificing an animal.

Now God adds some conditions:

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." Gen 17:1-2 (KJV)

God repeats the promises, those parts of the covenant that he pledges to fulfill.

God demands another symbolic cutting--of Abraham's foreskin:

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." Gen 17:10-11 (KJV)

God demanded this not only from Abraham, but also from his male descendants in perpetuity. Moreover, God also demanded it of all males in the household, including servants and slaves.

Anyone not circumcised is accounted a covenant breaker.

This ritual provides yet another difficulty centuries later when Paul tries to make sense of God's faithfulness to his covenant promises in the wake of Jewish unbelief in Jesus.

Faithless Sarah

2011-11-08T06:22:00.000-08:00

In the continuing story of the Bible's first family of faith, Sarah takes things into her own hands.

Despite God's repeated promises, Sarah executes the "God helps those who help themselves" tactic to help God fulfill his promises:

" Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.  And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.  And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife."
Gen 16:1-3 (KJV)

Although shocking to modern sensibilities (except among those into "swinging"), polygamy has a long history in the Middle East among the Semitic peoples. What is unusual about his case is that it was initiated by the woman. And as might be expected, it led to bad consequences:

"And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.  And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee.  But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face."
Gen 16:4-6 (KJV)

Fortunately, as the account has it, God has everyone's back. Although not proactive enough to prevent the calamity, God reactive capacities brings equilibrium back to their universe.

God sends an angel to look for Hagar in the desert and direct her to return to Abraham and Sarah.

"And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.  And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.  And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." Gen 16:7-9 (KJV)

The angel encourages Hagar with a promise--an attractive one in ancient Semitic culture--that God will multiply her descendants

"And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Gen 16:10-12 (KJV)

Although this promise resembles somewhat the covenant with Abraham, it is not an additional covenant. It is merely one way which God fulfills his covenant with Abraham. God promised him a multitude of descendants, and Ishmael will help provide them

Unfortunately, some of these descendants became the Arabs.

God Cuts a Covenant

2011-11-07T06:09:00.000-08:00

After returning from Egypt, Abraham divided the land with his nephew Lot and later rescued him with other residents of Sodom and Gomorrah from a marauding band of tribes.

He received another communication from God, this time in a vision:

"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." Gen 15:1 (KJV)

Abraham questioned God about those promises, because he had no heir. Abraham hinted that his servant Eliezer might become his heir, in accordance with Code of Hammurabi art. 191.

God repeated and elaborated his promise:

"And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." Gen 15:4-5 (KJV)

The writer of Genesis then introduces what will become one of the most important passages in the bible:

"And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen 15:6 (KJV)

God formalized his promise by cutting a covenant. Structured in the form of Near East suzerainty treaties offered from a superior king to a vassal, the covenant repeated the promises and solemnized them with the slaying of animals.

"And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. 11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. 12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. 18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Gen. 15:7-21)

The exact nature of the covenant, important as it was, has been the source of the most fundamental of disagreements between believers. As future post will show, it not only divides Jew from Christians, but also Catholics from Protestants, Lutherans from Calvinists, and Dispensationalists from everyone else.

So much for the perspicuity of the scriptures.

Faithful Abraham, Faithless Abraham

2011-11-06T20:11:00.000-08:00

After Abraham heard a voice in his head commanding him to leave Haran and promising a new land, many descendants, and the source of blessing for the entire world, he demonstrated his faith by setting off for Canaan. Well, sort of. Although commanded to leave his family, he wanted until his father died; then he left. The author of Genesis does not describe how God directed Abraham to his new homeland.

Once he arrived, however, God confirmed his earlier message. In case Abraham had any doubts about hearing the voices in his head back in Haran, God alieved them by a appearing in person:

"And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." (Gen. 12:6-7)

He soom experienced his first test of faith. A drought caused a famine in the land to which God had directed him. Abraham and his flocks migrated toward Egypt. Although his wife Sarah was 65 years old, Abraham discerned that Egyptian men might find her desirable. Fearing that they would kill him in order to take her, he asked her to tell the lie that she really was his sister.

And wouldn't you know, that's just what happened. Some servants of Pharoah noted Abraham's sexy senior, and told Pharoah all about her. Sure enough, they seized her for Pharoah's harem.

Fortunately Abraham's God afflicted the Egyptians with plagues, even though they were the victims of Abraham's deceit. They brought her back, indigant abouth what Abraham did.

But God made his first statement distinguishing the "us" for the "them."

The Call of Abraham

2011-11-05T06:15:00.000-07:00

After attending to current religious news and the continuing history of republicanism, the Secular Square returns to God's alleged unfolding revelation . . .

For about 500 years following the flood account of Genesis, God remained in silence. The writer of Genesis followed the flood story with an account of the origins of the peoples with who the Hebrews interacted for so many centuries.

Then in Genesis 12, God speaks. God initiated contact with the people who claimed to be his special, chosen nation.

Genesis 12:1-3:

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The bible does not say exactly how God communicated to Abraham. Did he appear to Abraham? Or did he only communicate verbally? Neither is the bible clear on where this communication occurred.

Abraham lived with his father Terah and two brothers, Nahor and Haran, in the city of Ur, located in southern Mesopotamia. Haran died, so the brothers assumed responsibilty for the family. Abraham brought Haran's son Lot into his household. Nahor took Haran's daughter as his wife. Abraham at some time married a woman named Sarah. The father took the family to a trading center called Haran near the western edge of Mesopotamia, where he died. The immediate text suggests God's call came in Haran. But other biblical texts (Acts 7) suggest it occurred back in Ur).

At any rate, God in that initial call to Abraham gave a three part promise: a land in which to dwell, a great nation of descendants, and a source of blessing to all nations of the earth. These promises, and their disputed meanings, serve as the foundations for the three historic monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Living in Glass Houses

2011-10-30T03:55:00.000-07:00

Chrystal Cathedral Ministries, burdened with $50 million in debt was able to buy some time.

Some months ago, the ministry filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The ministry owes approximately $12 to vendors for the church's Glory of Christmas program in 2009. Like many families, the church overspent for its "family members' that holiday season. The ministry also owes $38 million to it bank.

Over the past few months, Crystal Cathedral Ministries has been implementing a plan given to them by God. Pastorette Shiela Schuller Coleman and a board member explain:

As usual, God's plan involved focusing the eyes of the world on Chrystal Cathedral.

And God's plan did not work.

Despite the board members promised that the Chrystal Cathedral is " not for sale at any price," the board reached an agreement with Chapman University. The small private liberal arts school agreed to purchase the Chrystal Cathedral Campus in a lease-back program. The university will use some of the church property to expand its education programs while offering Chrystal Cathedral Ministries the oportunity Chrystal Cathedral Ministries the option to eventually buy back the glass house.

A local FOX affiliate featured this Glory of Christmas 2009 segment

Fleecing the Sheep at New Birth Missionary Baptist

2011-10-27T18:19:00.000-07:00

Bishop Eddie Long finds himself served with another lawsuit.

Last year he faced suits by four young men who claimed that Eddie Long made sexual advances while they participated in a church ministry named, appropriately enough, the "Longfellow Academy"

Now the Wall Street Journal reports that several members of Long's church filed suit against him. They allege that Long encouraged them to invest money with an outfit called City Capital Corp based in Chicago in which promises of returns up to 20 percent were made. The ten church members in the lawsuit claim to have lost over one million dollars.

City Capital Corp used some of the money to acquire video sweepstakes machines that police later seized as part of an illegal gambling operation.

While Long probably preached sound messages about hard work, saving, and investing to his largely middle class congregation, he apparently does not have any sage advice to offere regarding specific inventments. I guess that's why he is a pastor, and not a licensed financial advisor.

It's the End of the World, I'll Tell Ya. . . . Again

2011-10-27T00:00:00.000-07:00

The Secular Square takes a brief break from the history of the idea of republicanism to survey the latest on the contemporary religious scene.

Well, we're still here.

Several months back, Family Radio's Harold Camping announced that the world would end end on May 21, 2011.

When his prediction failed to materialize, he at first claimed to be flabbergasted.

After additional study of the scriptures, he acknowledged a mistake. He said that the May 21 date actually referred to a "spiritual judgment." The real date was October 2.

But now that day, too, has come and gone.

According the a source in the church who spoke with Camping, the preacher is shocked at this third failed prediction for the end of the age. Camping summed up the situation with the statement, "I have no answers."

That may be because the Bible has none.

Harold Camping

The Bible

The Restoration

2011-10-25T08:03:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--16

After Oliver Cromwell's death, his son Richard assumed the position of Lord Protector. Unlike his father the soldier and country gentleman, Richard could not hold together the uneasy alliance of the army and the republican gentry that established the republic.

When his first Parliament met in1659, the majority desire to continued the Protectorate. They attempted, however, to assume control over the army. When it enacted legislation forbidding any general meetings of the army during sessions of Parliament, Cromwell's brother-in-law and military commander Charles Fleetwood demanded the dissolution of Parliament. Cromwell complied, effectively ending the Protectorate.

Without any government in place, The Council of Officers called for the convening of the the so-called Rump Parliament that functioned under the original republic. It, too, sought to reassert Parliamentary control over the army. It revoked the commission of Lambert and several other officers. Instead, forces under the command of John Lambert surrounded Westminster and dispursed the Parliament.

By then, however, the army found itself divided. General George Monk in Scotland cross the border with his army to confront Lambert, whose forces dispersed. The rump Parliament reassembled and named Monk commander. Monk called upon the rump Parliament to readmit the excluded Presbyterians and royalists and called for elections of a new free Parliament. The new Long Parliament subsequently called for free election of a new Parliment and dissolved itself.

A new Parliament met in April 1660. In the election, many of the republicans and army officers had been swept from power. Advocates of restoration dominated the Parliament.

Meanwhile Charles II, in exile since the execution of his father, issued the Declaration of Breda stating his terms for restoration. The document had been drafted with the help of George Monk and the king's closest advisors. The Declaration was submitted to Parliament and on May 1, 1660, both houses unanimously voted for the restoration of England's monarchy.

George Monk

The Protectorate

2011-10-23T18:55:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--15

After Cromwell dismissed the Nominated Assembly, the government reorganized under England's first written constitution, the Instrument of Government.

The document established a parliament of 400 members from England, 30 from Scotland, and 30 from Ireland. It met in its first session in 1654 only to be dissolved by Cromwell the following year.

Cromwell continued to rule through the army the next couple of years.

In 1657, the English attempted another revision of the legislature of the republic. Under a second written constitution called the Humble Petition and Advice, England abandoned the one house legislature in favor of the traditional republican two house legislature. The Petition called for a lower house elected by the voters. A separate upper house would be elected by the lower house. This would introduced an aristocratic element at the expense of the Council of State. Despite his loyalties to his republican and Puritan supporters, he accepted the terms of the Humble Petition.

Facing opposition from the newly constituted upper house, who desired a restoration of an aristocracy, and a lower house that felt betrayed, Cromwell soon dissolved this parliament as well.

He died the following year. Parliament began serious entertaining the idea of the restoration of monarchy.

The Collapse of the English Republic

2011-10-22T07:40:00.001-07:00

In Search of the Republic--14

The English experiment with republic government turned out to be a short and unhappy affair.

In addition to the politcal and religious settlements, one of few major accomplishments of the republic was an anchievement sought but never accomplished by the Stuarts: the unification of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The civil war did not end until their conquest by the New Model Army.

Despite Cromwells hope for good law from Parliament, it members seemed divided among themselves. Moreover, they sense the continuing threats from royalists on the one hand, and the radical Levelers and Ranters on the other. And throughout the commonwealth period, the threat of intervention from the army loomed over the Parliament.

In 1653. it finally happened. Cromwell and the Army expelled the Parliament. In its place ?Cromwell establisedh a new nominated assembly of "saints." This, too, proved short lived. Cromwell dismissed them after five months.

The repubic was replaced by the "Protectorate."

The English Republic

2011-10-20T07:51:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--13

After Charles I raised the royal standard declaring war, the Parliament organized the New Model Army. It dispensed with the tradition of creating an army organized around local militias. It created a truly national army. Also, officers were appointed based upon merit rather than status. They appointed Thomas Fairfax to lead it. They also forged an alliance with the Scots, who had organized already in anticipation of invasion by Charles to force religious union.

With the help of the Scottish army, the New Model Army defeated the King and his loyalist forces. He was captured and imprisoned by the Scots. During his imprisonment, Parliament initiated several attempts at compromise and reconciliation. Because they included among other things assumption of control of the army by Parliament, the King rejected it. He also continued secret negotiations with the Scots and the French to effect his escape and restoration to power.

Meanwhile, the Army purged the Parliament of those members that it considered sympathetic to the royalist cause and unsympathetic to Army grievances. The remaining members became known as the Rump Parliament.

When all negotiations failed, the Scots turned him over to Parliament. King Charles was tried and executed.

The Parliament then abolished the monarchy and its aristocratic support, the House of Lords. It replaced the monarchy with a Council of State to act as executive authority. A couple of months later it declared England to be a commonwealth or republic. It also passed laws requiring oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth and acknowledgment of the Parliament as the supreme sovereign power in England.

The republican Parliament adopted the Westminster Confession, the product of a conference of English and Scottish divines, as part of the new religious settlement. An act of toleration was passed. It also enacted a Blasphemy Act against more radical Christian sects.

It repealed laws that required attendance to parish churches every Sunday. But it also enacted law requiring strict observance of the Sunday sabbath, ending the tradition of devoting the day to sports.

The English republic, however, proved short lived. In 1653 Cromwell dismissed Parliament, with a cavalry unit forcibly removing it from its meeting place. The republic was replaced by the so-called Protectorate.

The struggle between the King and Parliament and the English experiment with republican government had one very important side effect. It generated a rich philosophical and polemical literary output by such writers as Thomas Hobbs, Robert Filmer, John Milton, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke over the origins and nature of civil government. These writers shaped not only English ideas about their constitution, but also eventually gave birth to the greatest of modern republics: the United States of America.

Preminence of Parliament

2011-10-16T06:24:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--12

The English Parliament made its greatest assertions of authority in the 17th century against the Stuart dynasty. It resulted ultimately in the overthrow and execution of the king.

The conditions that gave rise to the English Civil War and the establishment of a republic can be traced to the earlier Tudor dynasty. During the last decades of the Tudor dynasty an unprecedented turnover in noble families occurred. Large numbers of noble families declined in their fortunes while new families ascended. In addition, wealth gravitated to the middle class lesser gentry at the expense of both the aristocrats and the poor. The decline in financial status of the aristocracy was accompanied by a decline in their social status. They could not maintain the same influence that they once had enjoyed.

In addition, the Tudors unintentionally weakened the ecclesiastical support for the English monarchy. When Henry VIII assumed control over the state church and rechristened it the Church of England, he seized and sold the lands of the Catholic Church and established in its place an impoverished state church with not enough ministers to service the parishes. The action left many aristocrats secretly loyal to the Catholic Church and disaffected with the Tudor monarchy. Many of the lesser gentry, too, found little appeal in the new Church of England. Increasing numbers of these lesser gentry affiliated with more reformed or Puritan bodies, such as the Presbyterian Church or independent Congregationalists. Although traditionally influential only in their local counties or shires, increasing numbers of these gentry began representing their shires in the House of Commons.

Finally, a personality cult of sorts had developed around the last of the Tudors, Elizabeth I. Regardless of who followed her, they never would be able to live up to her mythic proportions.

James I ascended the thrown upon the death of Elizabeth. Although he had written a treatise asserting the divine right of kings, James promised in his coronation to rule according to "the laws and customs of the realm." Not only did he never neared the popularity of Elizabeth, he also failed to accomplish his most ambitious plan: a formal union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland accompanied with a reunion of the Church of England with the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

The aggressive pursuit of these aims by his son and heir, Charles I led to civil war. The two main obstacles to his aims included an independent parliament and the puritan movement.

The first obstacle arose because of the efforts of Charles to fund foreign wars.

When Charles called together his first two Parliaments in 1925 and 1626, he ended up dissolving them. He needed money to fund war with Spain. Parliament provided only limited funds tried to reduce the king's prerogatives. He began collecting forced loans through arrests. Seventy six prominent men were arrested, including including 27 members of the House of Commons. He also raised so called ship money, taxes on seaport towns to upgrade coastal defenses and the navy.

Revenue problems finally forced Charles I to call a Parliament in 1628, He asked for five subsidies.

Parliament replied with its “Petition of Right.”Parliament asked him to wave his prerogatives and to accede to the normal functions of law on the issue of taxation, imprisonment, and martial law. The subsidies were provided in exchange for the king's agreement on prerogatives. Charles intended, however, to disregard the provisions contained in the provisions.

These issue arose again the following year when his third Parliament began its second session.

In March 10 1629, the King again dissolved Parliament. He ruled without Parliament for the next seven years through loans from the greater nobles. Charles received some financial relief, too,when he signed peace treaties with France and Spain. This reduced his expenses. And with the resumption of overseas trade, the treasury began to grow through customs duties.

The second main obstacle arose because of the religious policy of Charles.

Church of England Archbishop William Laud attempted to reduce the nonconformity of Puritans to the used of the Book of Common Prayer and to institute a more formal, more Catholic form of worship. Laud's efforts only served to radicalize Puritan dissenters.

Moreover, Charles and Laud planned to force a modified version of the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland.

The Scots organized for armed resistance.

In need of funds to put down the Scottish rebellion, he assembled Parliament for the first time in over ten years. Instead of discussing war, however, Parliament wanted to discuss Laud's religious reforms and Charles' continued disregard for the Petition of Right to which he agreed. Parliament began forming committees to investigate the administration's conduct during the eleven years of personal rule.

Parliament again dissolved. Meeting for only three weeks, it became known as the short parliament.

He called together Parliament after six months in 1640.

When it resumed, Parliament aggressively asserted its rights: bills passed abolishing certain courts such as the star chamber, Parliament had to meet every three years, it could not be dissolved without its own permission, and abolished virtually all of the king's prerogative courts, and declared any taxes illegal that were levied without the approval of Parliament

Parliament issued what is known as The Grand Remonstrance in 1641. It listed grievances of Parliament and called for the King to relinquish many of his prerogatives, especially those regarding military appointments. Parliament was attempting to bring control of the military under Parliament.

This provoked a reaction from the King. Charles attempted to arrest some leading members of Parliament, but they escaped. Charles then gathered loyalists in the town of York, where he planned to raise an army to assert his rights.

In June 1641, Parliament sent the Nineteen Propositions which in fact was an ultimatum demanding that the kind surrender his remaining prerogatives. It demanded that privy councilors, ministers, and military officers all be placed under the authority of Parliament.

Charles replied:

We call God to witnesse, that as for Our Subjects sake these rights are vested in Us, so for their sakes, as well as for Our own, We are resolved not to quit them, nor to subvert (though in a Parliamentary way) the ancient, equall, happy, well-poised and never-enough commended Constitution of the Government of this Kingdom ... There being three kindesinconveniencies. The experience and wisdom of your Ancestors hath so moulded this out of a mixture of these, a s to give to this Kingdom (as far as humane Prudence can provide) the conveniencies of all three, without the inconveniencies of any one, as long as the Balance hangs even between the three Estates, and they run jointly on in their proper Chanell... The ill of absolute Monarchy is Tyranny, the ill of Aristocracy is Faction and Division, the ills of Democracy are Tumults, Violence and Licentiousnesse. The good of Monarchy is the uniting of a Nation under one Head to resist Invasion from abroad, and Insurrection at home: The good of Aristocracy is the Conjunction of Counsell in the ablest Persons of a State for the publike benefit: The good of Democracy is Liberty, and the Courage and Industry which Liberty begetts.

In these disputes, both Parliament and the King appealed to its rights from England's "ancient constitution" in support of their respective positions. And ultimately, in the king;s answer to the Nineteen Proposition, Charles appealed to the idea of the balanced constitution between Crown, Lords, and Commons derived from Aristotle's philosophy on correct constitutions.

In order to preserve such a balance, Charles rejected the Nineteen Propositions. Parliament began to plans for an army to support its view. The King raised his standard and the war was on.

The Rise of the Constituent Assemblies

2011-10-14T18:04:00.001-07:00

In Search of the Republic--11

Europe in the Middle Ages witnessed the rise of hereditary monarchs. These monarchs emerged when some greater landholding lords increased their military power vis-a-vis other lords. In some cases, the lesser lords acquiesced to the shifting imbalance of power by electing a greater lord to kingship and subordinating themselves to him as his vassals.

The new monarchs used the vassals as an instrument to propagate his laws and execute his will throughout the realm. The lesser lords also established themselves advised the king and attempted to set limits to his authority. Eventually all across Europe, nobles developed permanent constituent bodies representing the nobles. These bodies bore different names in different places. They were called estates in France, diets in the German provinces, cortes in Spain, and parliaments in England. The monarchs and aristocratic bodies often conflicted, however, over the limits of authority. In some countries such as France and Russia, the kings overawed the nobles to establish themselves as absolute monarchs. In England, however, the struggle resulted in a different outcome.

In England, landed nobles successfully asserted themselves against King John. He was politically weak because he had lost most of the continental provinces that had been part of the realm. Now the English coast became directly exposed to attacks from Normandy. A costly navy had to be built. And he was poor. Much of the nation's treasury had been spent on continental wars.

John issued new taxes on property, rents, fines to raise money. Moreover, after a quarrel with the church over who possessed the power to appoint the archbishop of Canterbury, John seized the revenues of the see of Canterbury. The pope responded by ending all ordinary services and ceremonies in England and excommunicating the king. He responded by seizing more church property. He finally reconciled with the pope, accepted Stephen Langton as the archbishop.

The military situation improved when the English defeated a French navy near Bruges. But as he prepared for a new counteroffensive against France, he learned many of the Barons opposed him. He invaded France anyway and suffered defeat, confirming the loss of Normandy and other English provinces in France. He went home more weakened than ever before.

In 1215, the great Barons forced King John to accept the Magna Carta, or Great Charter of Liberties.( It dealt for the most part with the liberties of the nobles. He later repudiated it). Its immediate import was that the baron's forced John to at least acknowledge the traditional customary relations between a monarch and the nobility. And it called for a Great Council to be summoned to decide taxation. The barons did not know that they had formed the basis for a limited constitutional monarchy. John died the following year.

John's successor, Henry III also faced a revolt from the nobles. Again, he needed money for war. When he appealed to the greater nobles for aid in1258, they instead presented him with the Provisions of Oxford. It demanded a council of 15 to advise the King and required the meeting of the Great Council--or parliament-to take place three times each year.

Henry faced a greater revolt in 1263. His brother in law, Simon de Montfort demanded strict observance of the Provisions of Oxford. He wanted a government dominated by the aristocracy rather that the king and his ministers. A short civil war erupted in which Simon de Montfort defeated royal forces and captured the king. Simon de Montfort ruled for a year in the king's name. During that time he called a parliament that included representation of two knights elected from each shire court and two citizens, or burgesses, from each of the larger towns.

A second civil war broke out in which Simon de Montfort was killed.

The Great Council continued to meet, however, and eventually included regular representation from the knights and burgesses. Later, the Great Council separated into two bodies--the House of Lords that included the great nobles, and the House of Commons, that included the lesser gentry from the shires and the burgesses from the cities.

The Return of Monarchy

2011-10-10T18:43:00.001-07:00

In Search of the Republic--10

An earlier post described the disintegration of the Roman empire in the West and its replacement by Germanic kingdoms that failed to preserve the urban and transportation infrastructure developed by Rome. Germanic warrior class assumed responsibility for governing authority in their locality. They developed into a landed nobility of feudal lords.

The local control enjoyed by various princes and feudal lords eventually began to give way to hereditary monarchies. Some stronger Lords began expanding their political and legal jurisdiction, backed by military force. They hoped, too, to establish their regimes into organized, hereditary monarchies that would last beyond their lifetimes.

The lesser nobles resisted these efforts. Sometimes compromises came through the creation of an elective monarchy. The local princes chose the king and agreed to become his vassals. The great lords in France, for example, elected Hugh Capet as their king. The idea of an elective kingship continued in the later Holy Roman Empire. Such elective monarchs initially exercised little power. Later they grew into strong hereditary monarchies.

These early kings, however, often met "in court" with his vassals. These assemblies of kings and their vassals became known as estates general in France, diets in the German principalities, cortes in Spain, and Parliaments in England. In some countries, representatives from the resurgent commercial towns attended. These assemblies claimed to represent the king's realm as a whole. They enabled the king to strengthen his rule by utilizing the nobility as an instrument for carrying out policy decisions. They also permitted the nobility to limit the scope of the king's authority. And they also eventually served as the ground for the development of the modern republic.

The Renaisance Republics

2011-10-05T08:57:00.000-07:00

After the brief excursion into recent developments in the Republican campaign, we return to the brief history of the idea of a republic.

Some previous posts at Secular Square surveyed the origins of the concept of republican government.

After classifying legitimate constitutions into rule by the one (monarchy), rule by the few (aristocracy), and rule by the many (polity), Aristotle described a variety of polity that embodies both the poor and the wealth in the constitution. He suggested a mixture in which the poor assemble to make the laws, but the elect magistrates to carry out those laws. According to Aristotle, the election of magistrates introduces an aristocratic element into an otherwise democratic government. In theory, with both poor and rich embodied in the constitution, the society would experience less of the class conflict between poor and rich that plagued many of the ancient Greek city-states.

A different sort of mixed regime developed centuries later on the Italian peninsula. Cicero described a government in which the poor met in assembly to make laws. They usually followed the lead, however, of a heredity aristocracy embodied in the Roman Senate. Cicero titled his book about this regime, which embodied both poor and rich in the constitution, de re publica, or On The Republic.

With the overthrow of the Roman republic, republicanism disappeared from the face of the earth.

In western Europe, the Roman empire collapsed under the pressure of invasion by Germanic tribes from across the Rhine River. A series of Germanic kingdoms arose that eventually gave rise to modern European nation states. In western Europe, the Roman empire continued to thrive for several more centuries in a modifies form. It became cultural more Greek and religiously officially Christian.

Republicans reemerged, however, in the Middle Ages. Several small maritime republics emerged once again on the Italian peninsula. These included Amalfi, Venice, Genoa, and Pisa. Venice became the most powerful and well-known.

They resembled the ancient Greek city states in that they were small and war-like. They fought wars with, the Arabs, the Turks, with other European kingdoms, and with each other. They differed from the ancient city-states in that they operated as commercial republics. Many ancients, such as Aristotle and Cicero, remained suspicious of some kinds of trade and the use of money. The expansion of the use of money as a medium of exchange and banking helped make these Italian city-states commercial maritime republics. But it also led to a new kind of aristocracy. The merchant class dominated these latter Renaissance republics.

Venice, for example, was an extremely restrictive mixed republic. The most democratic body, the Great Council, consisted exclusively of noble merchant families. The Great Council elected from among themselves a Senate. Finally, they elected the chief magistrate, called a Doge. Over time the government grew increasingly exclusive and restricted to the same families.

These republics eventually succumbed to the surrounding non-republican powers. Even these surrounding kingdoms, however, developed some institutions that opened the way for another revival of the idea of republicanism.

The next post will look at these institutions.

God, the Death Penalty, and Troy Davis

2011-09-25T04:46:00.000-07:00

"The best thing to do is you gotta pray. Anything is possible. We're looking for a miracle right now"

                                                                                                                                            --Big Boi


After 22 years of trials and multiple appeals, convicted murderer Troy Davis was executed.

Some of these multiple appeals went beyond the lower levels of the Georgia state and United States Federal Courts. They went to the Supreme Judge of Heaven and Earth. Several internet news sources, including Huffington Post and the Washington Post featured stories from this angle.

As should have been expected, however, the Supreme Judge of Heaven and Earth denied those appeals without comment.

Coinciding with the execution of Troy Davis were debates about the death in general. The death penalty became a hot topic because presidential candidate and evangelical Rick Perry has presided over more than 200 executions during his ten year term of office. You can read some of the opinions at the On Faith blog at the Washington Post.

The opinions offered at On Faith seem silly and misdirected on several grounds.

First, why should anyone care what some desert savage said in his "Mosaic Law" three thousand years ago or what some apocalyptic preacher from Galilee said one thousand years later? From a conservative viewpoint, if we should not consider judicial rulings of foreign courts based upon laws of foreign countries, why should be consider laws or teachings from an ancient Semitic religious book?

Second, as evidenced by the diversity of views at On Faith, no one can make sense of the bible anyway. We know the bible contains a Mosaic Covenant with its laws. And Christians claim that it also contains a New Covenant with its laws. In two thousand years, no theologians have crafted a satisfactory explanation about how they fit together. Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, and Dispensationalists all adhere to different opinions.

Finally, the debate often turns to the question of consistency between views about the death penalty and views about abortion. How can anyone claim to be pro-life regarding the unborn and yet support the death penalty. How can anyone claim to be pro-life regarding the death penalty and yet support the killing of the unborn?

These are two very different questions. The question of the death penalty is about justice. Is it just or not to put to death anyone for their crimes? And why do some criminals suffer the death penalty and why are others spared?

The question of abortion is about rights. Does a pregnant women have the right to end her pregnancy without interference of the government? Or does the state have an obligation to make a rights claim on behalf of the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves?

When considered this way, both liberals and conservatives are consistent in their arguments, even if they both cannot be right. But until the discussions are framed in this way, the debates about life and death will not only go on interminably, but they will also never even phrase the issues correctly.

Robertson Add to Criteria for Divorce

2011-09-20T14:05:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson recently added one more exception to Jesus' guidelines regarding divorce:

Jesus, of course, restricted legal divorces to cases of fornication (Matt. 5:32). Over the years, the church has expanded this list to include inability to conceive, irreconcilable differences, and now illness.

In the piece above, Robertson calls Alzheimer's "a kind of death." Robertson's analogy or metaphor is an accurate one. Legal decisions should not be based, however, on analogies or metaphors.

Alzheimer's is a disease. And it will lead to physical rather than metaphorical death. Most marriage vows include such passages as 'in sickness and in health" and "until death do us part." Most couples understand that last expression to mean physical death, not "a kind of death"

Moreover, all kinds of circumstances can be understood as "a kind of death." The decline of emotional feelings for a spouse is " a kind of death." The loss of sexual desire for a spouse is "a kind of death." Such a criteria for divorce opens the door to anything.

Oh yeah, that's the purpose of "irreconcilable differences."

Jesus would be turning over in his grave if he knew what his followers are saying today.

Ten Years After

2011-09-12T19:11:00.000-07:00

In an essay about World War I, diplomat George Kennan wrote the following about democracies and they way that they wage war:

"But I sometimes wonder whether in this respect a democracy is not uncomfortably similar to one of those prehistoric monsters with a body as long this room and a brain the size of a pin; he lies there in his comfortable primeval mud and pays little attention to his environment; he is slow to wrath--in fact you practically have to whack his tail off to make him aware that his interests are being disturbed; but once he grasps this, he lays about him with such blind determination that he not only destroys his adversary but wrecks his native habitat.You wonder whether it would not have been wiser to have taken a little more interest in what was going on at an earlier date and to have seen whether he could not have prevented some of these situations from arising instead of proceeding from an undiscriminating indifference to a holy wrath equally undiscriminating."

In some respects, that summarizes the Bush administration and terrorism.

The Bush administration, like previous administrations of both parties, seemed oblivious as Kennan's dinosaur to the threats of terrorism or even actual attacks. Repeated attacks in the past evoked no response from the US government. Successive administrations seemed to ring their hands in anxiety about the correctness of attacking governments who sponsored or enabled terrorism. "Well, it really wasn't the government of Syria . . . the government of Iran . . . the government of Iraq . . . ." On 9/11/2001, the attacks took us completely by surprise. It took the deaths of 3,000 Americans to move our government against another nation who sponsored terrorist attacks.

The even this hopeful change soured.

First, the Bush administration put too few troops on the ground to capture Osama bin Laden or to guard the escape routes to Pakistan. Instead, it adopted the laughable policy of paying millions of dollars to Afghan warlords such as Hazrat Ali and Haji Zaman, whom they trusted to capture bin Laden and bear the onus of turning him over to the infidel. They let him escape with thousands to Taliban and foreign fighters. We supported the indigenous Northern Alliance to expel the Taliban. Incapable of holding Afghanistan, the new government now depends upon US support for survival. Ten years after, we are still there.

Second, because the Bush administration allowed them to escape to Pakistan, we are engaged in a "drone war' in that country. The United States attempts to track down an kill Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders even while Pakistan's intelligence service continues their support. Ten years after, we are still there.

Third, the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq. Although the government of Iraq had nothing to do with the attach, the newly crafted "Bush Doctrine" justified a preemptive attack on any nation with so-called "weapons of mass destruction" perceived to pose a threat to the United States. Ten year after, we are still there.

In contrast, the Bush administration had little to say about Saudi Arabia. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal blamed US Middle East policy for the attack. Saudi Interior Minister Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz blamed the Jews. And, of course, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Several arrived under the "Visa Express" program that permitted them to enter the United States without a background check. Months later, after Bush administration statements claimed that it terminated the program, we learned it still operated under a new name. Saudi Arabia remained off limits for criticism.

Fourth, the Bush administration has violated our civil liberties in its well intentioned but ill executed efforts to prevent terrorist attacks from ever happening again.

Like the provoked dinosaur, we have been thrashing about destroying everything about us. And ten years after . . . .

In the Name of God

2011-09-11T06:05:00.000-07:00

Pleading the Tenth Amendment

2011-09-07T17:59:00.000-07:00

Sometimes during criminal justice proceedings, a defendant will "plead the Fifth Amendment" protection against being compelled to witness against oneself.

The various Tea Party movements and their supporters would like to "plead the Tenth Amendment."

How did the Tenth Amendment come about?

When the Congress under the old Articles of Confederation submitted the new Constitution of 1787 to the American people for their approval, many Americans opposed it. One widespread argument against the new Constitution was that it contained no bill of rights. Some Americans feared the stronger federal government created under the Constitution of 1787 and vowed to oppose its adoption unless it included a bill of rights.

The most prominent supporters of the new Constitution, however, resisted efforts to amend it with a bill of rights. They made several cogent arguments.

First, the Constitution granted to the new federal government only specific enumerated powers. Moreover, it contained numerous prohibitions of other powers. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 84 argued that a bill of rights is not really appropriate for a "constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interest of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns." Later in that paper, he asserted that "the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS."

Second, Hamilton suggested that a bill of rights might actually be construed to expand government powers beyond what the Constitution allows. It could be argued that the new federal government possessed the powers to act in any way not forbidden by specific provisions in a bill of rights. According to Hamilton, provisions of a bill of rights "would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted."

James Madison made a similar argument. He served as a delegate to the Virginia state convention that considered ratification of the Constitution. At that convention, he opposed the addition of a bill of rights. He argued that "by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication that those rights which were not singled out were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government . . . "

Despite the opposition of supporters of the new Constitution like Hamilton and Madison, the promise of a bill of rights eventually contributed to the ratification of the new Constitution.

The first Congress under the new Constitution subsequently worked on the creation of a bill of rights that considered the concerns about the new stronger federal government and the natural rights of Americans. Most of the specific provisions that Congress incorporated into the first eight amendments came from suggestions proposed in the various state ratification conventions.

The last two amendments, the Ninth and Tenth, addressed those very concerns expressed by supporters of the Constitution who also opposed amending it with a bill of rights. Both amendments intended to prevent the government from construing the bill of rights to actually limit the rights of the people or claim powers for itself not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Those two amendments read as follows:

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not e construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Sates respective, or to the people.

These two principles seem to have been lost in the two hundred years since the drafting of the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been trampled upon by Presidents, Congresses, and the justices of the Supreme Court.

The revival of these principles is just part of the objectives of the Tea Party Movment.

During the post-revolutionary era of constitution making, the state of Virginia, too, issued a Declaration of Rights. Article 15 reads "that no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugalistyk, ad virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

It is that recurrence to fundamental principles that energizes the Tea Party movment.

(See more on the Tenth Amendment at here. )

States Rights and Human Rights

2011-09-06T18:19:00.000-07:00

Andre Carson's recent rant on the Congressmen supported by the Tea Party is just a continuation of the liberal narrative that slanders the conservative populist movement as nothing more than a lcoal chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

A couple of months earlier, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. made a more subtle argument along the same lines. In addition to another ignorant Christian claim that " God intervened in the affairs of the American people," he provided the following analysis of the Tea Party and federalism:

In the video, Jackson at least notes one substantive position of the Tea Party: the return to the federal system under which the federal government confines itself to the specific enumerated powers given it in the Constitution. All other power the Constitution reserves for the states, as is reinforced by the Tenth Amendment.

He asserts that "if slavery is as state right, then state rights can never and will never be human rights.”

He adds, “Someone needs to tell the Tea Party that state rights are not human rights.”

Someone needs to tell Jesse several things.

First, he adopts the erroneous slaveholder and segregationist language. States do not really have rights. They have powers. These powers are defined in each state's constitution. Only people have rights. Some of these are natural or human rights; others are civil rights.

Second, even if one concedes the language issue, Jackson appears to commit an informal logical fallacy called the fallacy of composition. It occurs when one applies the attribute of one member of a class to all members of that class. Contrary to Jackson's claim, just because we agree that slavery was not a human right, it does not follow logically that no state right is a human right.

Third, if we correct the language problem, Jesse forgot that the federal system and the Tenth Amendment, or states rights, were designed to protect human rights. Many Americans in 1787 feared the powers delegated to the new federal government. All the amendments, including the Tenth, were designed to protect natural rights more fundamental than property in humans. )The next post will explain how.)

Finally, Jesse forgets that slaveholders not only asserted “states rights” to protect their property in humans, but also-when their interest demanded it-asserted federal power. When it came to enforcing the federal fugitive slave laws, slaveholders quickly through “state rights” out the window.

That's a lot of history forgotten by a man invited to dedicate a museum devote to our collective historical memory.

Andre Carson: A Real Debit to His Race

2011-09-01T17:10:00.001-07:00

The Tea Party movement is in the news again.

But not for any rallies or conventions that it organized. At a townhall meeting in Miami, Congressman Andre Carson accused the movement of racism. Since its inception, the Tea Party movement has consistently directed its fury at corporate bailouts and the national debt incurred to fund them. Nevertheless, liberal purveyers of " the paranoid style" continue to treat the Tea Party as modern resurgence of the old White Citizens Councils that opposed integration, obstructed voting rights, and warned young people about the dangers of that "niggra" rock music.

In his rant, Carson argues that Barack Obama supports change; he is black. The Tea Party oppposes change; therefore they are racist. Carson's delusional rant went way over the line. For he directed his obscene comments not to the Tea Party movement itself, but to fellow members of the House of Representatives supported by the Tea Party.

Does he really believe that his fellow Congressmen want to see black citizen hanging from tree? If he knows any such representatives, then he needs to name them. He needs to do more that claim that "I hold in my hand a list" like Joseph McCarthy.

And how does he know?

Has Carson secretly witnessed them burning crosses at Tea Party townhall meetings?

Has Carson seen any of these representatives sending out their Klan robes to be laundered?

Has Carson seen nooses hanging in the Congressional washrooms?

Maybe its time for John Boehner to appoint a special committee to investigate.

Andre Carson--a real debit to his race.

A Desultory Dedication

2011-09-01T00:30:00.001-07:00

The official dedication of the Martin Luther King Memorial had to be postponed because of Hurricane Irene. Harry Johnson, Sr, president of the memorial foundation, consulted with Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and the National Park Service and made the decision to postpone the ceremony until late September or early October.

That did not dissuade Martin Luther King's old fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, from holding their own dedication. The event turned into a desultory dedication, filled with gaffes.

First, the ceremony was sparsely attended. The National Park Service anticipated 250,000 for the official dedication. The Alpha Phi Alpha event was attended by . . . well . . . hundreds. Thousands of empty fold out chairs filled the Mall.

Second, the Reverend Bernice King, daughter of the civil rights leader, delivered a disjointed dedication speech that possessed none of the rhetorical flair of her father.

Third, during the speech King alluded to Lincoln and his signing of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, of course, wrote and signed the Declaration. Lincoln used the Declaration's core ideas in his speech dedicating the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, PA. Although conservative pundits noted the error, mainstream media outlets gave her the pass that they never allow for conservative female speakers.

Finally, the symbolic location of the King Memorial eluded Ms. King. The memorial sits between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials because King sought to remind Americans of their ideals as articulated by those two men and how we needed to starting living up to those ideals.

Instead, Bernice King tried to create her own symbolism and only confounded traditional symbolism in the process. In an effort to elevate her father at the expense of Lincoln, she somehow found meaning in the fact that King is standing and Lincoln is seated in their respective memorials.

Traditionally, however, the symbolic significance of a seated leader is not deference but authority. That is why kings have thrones. While the United States is a republic and not a monarchy, Lincoln's seat represents judgment and justice.

One standing near the authority is a mere attendant. Sorry, Ms. King, despite the great achievements of your father, Lincoln is not taking a “backseat” to anyone.

Pat Robertson Gets Weird on This

2011-08-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

Despite his disclaimer at the beginning of his remarks, Pat Robertson once again "gets weird" on the so-called "problem of evil."

Bad things happen. For people of faith, the occurrance of bad things seems to require some type of explanation that preserves their world view of a universe under the control of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent supreme being.

Sometimes the problem involves human evil, like the Islamic terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.

Sometimes the problem involves natural evil, like hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes.

People of faith usually explain the problem of evil as divine judgment or a divine message of some kind.

It seems that these days, God never speaks in propositional statements. He only speaks through signs and wonders that require the interpretive expertise of people like Pat Robertson.

From the Mouths of Babes . . .

2011-08-29T23:18:00.000-07:00

The Secular Square leaves aside the history of idea of republicanism to explore whats new in the world of religion and politics.

The National Geographic Channel plans to run a special entitled "Pint Sized Preachers" which features several very young preachers of God's Holy Word. Below is a Youtube video of one of those preachers.

Now most of us probably think it is silly for allegedly mature fully grown adults to sit in church mesmerized by the rantings of a toddler. We might prefer an adult whose rational faculties have been more fully developed makes a superior preacher, or a superior anything.

But I suppose, in the strange world of Christianity, things appear differently. In that world, God regularly takes over the cognitive faculties of human beings to reveal divine thoughts.God uses his chosen vessels to express his own conscious thoughts. Sometimes Christians call it "filled with the spirit" or "controlled" by the Holy Spirit.

And if that turns out to be a toddler, well, " the foolishness of God is wiser than men."

Or at least they say so.

Cicero Christens the Republic

2011-08-24T23:37:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--8

The previous post explored the historian Polybius and his interpretation of the ancient Roman government as a mixed regime that contained elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

This post considers how that type of regime became known as a republic.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106BC-43BC) served Rome as a lawyer, a scholar, and statesman. As he watched the triumvirate of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompeius increase their power and influence through bribery, intimidation, and demagoguery, Cicero began writing his most well-known work, De re publica. Translators have rendered this title in the variations of On the Government, On the Commonwealth, and On the Republic. This latter rendering is of particular interest. Although the expression originally referred to the state or constitution of Rome's government in general, re publica eventually became attached the the specific type of government he described.

Cicero wrote De re publica as a dialogue in which the main character, Scipio, the triumphant general in the Punic Wars, instructs his listeners about the history and meaning of the Roman republic.

According to Cicero, “Our Roman constitution . . . did not spring from the genius of an individual, but of many; and it was established, not in the lifetime of a man, but in the course of ages and centuries.” It borrowed from many nations but improved upon these borrowings.

He says that like Sparta, Rome had a government that mixed monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, In his account, Romulus founded Rome as its first monarch. He later “formed a royal council or senate of the chief noblemen, who were entitled by the affection of the people Patres, or Patricians.” This group became the hereditary body representing the aristocracy of Rome's founding families. Although advisory in nature, the Senate dominated the government. Romulus also formed a comitia (assembly) representing the tribes. This became the poplar assembly or democratic branch. Although the Senate and comitia changed over time, they formed the essence of the Roman republic—a mixed regime in which the affluent and the poor participated.

The kingship, too, changed over time. Cicero credited Rome with recognizing “the importance of appointing a king, not for his family, but for his virtue and experience.” Eventually, the kingship was abolished in favor of an elected executive called the Consul.

Consequently, a republic came to designate a different type of government that those three fundamental types into which Aristotle originally classified all regimes. Essentially a version of Aristotle's polity, a republic meant a constitution in which separate assemblies representing the affluent and the poor enabled both classes to participate in sovereignty and one in which there was no hereditary monarch.

Cicero's celebration of the Roman republic proved short lived. Caesar eventually overthrew the republic. He kept the form of the constitution even while he ruled as a dictator. After his assassination, a complex power struggle ensued. During the course of that power struggle, Cicero was declared an enemy of the state and executed in 43BC.

Cicero experienced something of a resurrection when Renaissance thinkers began exploring an alternative to the Christian monarchies that dominated Europe at that time. They called it a republic.

Rome: The Original Republic

2011-08-23T17:41:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--7

Leaving the presidential race aside, the Secular Square resumes a very brief history of the idea of a republic.

Several previous posts argue that Aristotle invented the type of government known as a republic. In his work The Politics, Aristotle classified government into three general types: rule by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. When these types of governments operate for the common good of the society, they are known as monarchy, aristocracy, and polity. When these governments operate only for the good of the rulers, they are known as tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Oligarch means rule by the rich; democracy mean rule by the poor.

While Aristotle believed that an aristocracy functioned as the best ideal government, he thought that polity was the best obtainable government. Aristotle described a specific kind of polity, one in which the affluent and the poor shared power. He suggested the the majority should exercise power through a popular assembly in which no property qualifications were required for participation. The popular assembly would elect the members of the government administration, who would no doubt be the more affluent, more well-educated people. In this way, both poor and rich shared power. Hopefully, this arrangement would prevent class based factions from forming and tearing the society apart. When both social orders participated in the constitution, this would reduce the desire of each group to seek to rule for its own interest instead of the common good. Aristotle hoped that this would prevent the more typical experience shared by most Greek city-states that dotted the Mediterranean basin that included factions, civil war, and the overthrow of democracies and their replacement with oligarchies or tyrannies.

Aristotle derived his model polity from observations regarding the Athenian, Carthaginian, and Spartan constitutions. After Aristotle's death, however, another regime arose that became the model for almost all future republics: the republic of Rome.

The most widely read analysis of the Roman constitution was produced by a Greek historian named Polybius. Born around 200 BC on southern Greece, Polybius was the son of a politician and cavalry officer. After the Roman conquest of Macedonia, the Romans deported Polybius and over a thousand other Greeks to Rome. Like many Greek captives, he served a a tutor for an elite Roman family. He became an acquaintance of the Roman general Scipio, who he accompanied during the final Roman conquest of Carthage. Polybius later wrote his Histories, which account the rise of Rome to dominion over the Mediterranean.

Although historians doubt the accuracy of many of his observations, the Histories of Polybius proved extremely influential on later political philosophers who explored the republic as alternative to the monarchies that came to dominate Europe.

He described the Roman government as a mixed or balanced government:

The three kinds of government, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, were all found united in the commonwealth of Rome. And so even was the balance between them all, and so regular the administration that resulted from their union, that it was no easy thing to determine with assurance, whether the entire state was to be estimated an aristocracy, a democracy, or a monarchy. For if they turned their view upon the power of the consuls, the government appeared to be purely monarchical and regal. If, again, the authority of the senate was considered, it then seemed to wear the form of aristocracy. And, lastly, if regard was to be had to the share which the people possessed in the administration of affairs, it could then scarcely fail to be denominated a popular state.

For when any one of the three classes becomes puffed up, and manifests an inclination to be contentious and unduly encroaching, the mutual interdependency of all the three, and the possibility of the pretensions of any one being being brought up short and thwarted by the others, must plainly check this tendency: and so the proper equilibrium is maintained by the impulsiveness of the one part being checked by its fear of the other.

The three parts of the government to which he referred were the Consuls or executive leadership ( monarchy), the Senate, (aristocracy), and the people's assembly (democracy).

This concept of a mixed government, embodying both the rich and the poor in the constitution endured for centuries and influence political thinkers down to the era of our own Founding Fathers.

Bachmann's Blasphemy

2011-08-13T06:33:00.000-07:00

The pre-straw poll debate among Republicans has come and gone, evoking from the viewing audience a gaping yawn. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner, probably expected to be the center of attention as the other candidates seek to close the gap in public opinion. Instead, he stood aloof as the other candidates, particularly Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, went at each other. Perhaps Bachmann and Pawlently hoped to separate from the pack and to create the impression of a two-candidate race between Romney and whoever emerged less scathed from “Minnesota Mean.”

One of the more talked about exchanges took place when panelist Byron York asked Michele Bachmann about the scriptural command for a woman to submit to her husband. He reminded Bachmann of a previous occasion when that scripture guided her decision making. He inquired, “As President, would you be submissive to your husband?" Christians in the auditorium booed, of course. They are all about Christian candidates expressing their religious views. Just don't challenge them. That seemed to be the point of the question: the apparent incongruity of serving as the leader of the executive branch and yet committing to submitting to the leadership of one's spouse.

As might be expected, Bachmann finessed the question. She changed the biblical command from “submit” to “respect,” a dynamic much more congenial to our modern age.As she received almost universal praise from debate analysts.

But is this what the Bible says? The text to which York alluded is found in Paul's letter to a church a Ephesus. In this letter, he writes:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

In this passage, Paul includes an analogy that precludes the notion of respect. He instructs Christian women to submit to husbands in the same way they submit to God. No Christian seriously believes that the relationship between God and any human being is one of mutual respect. It is creator and creature, savior and sinner.

A little word study makes this even clearer. The Greek word for submit is hupotasso. It means to obey, to submit, to subordinate. The same word is used in commands for believers to obey God Almighty as in James 4:7, for Christians to obey the laws as in Romans 13:1, and for slaves to obey masters as in Titus 2:9.

Some Christians might claim that this text refers only to the home. Paul did write, however, that wives are to submit in “everything.”

Bachmann might be referring, however, to another passage in the letter in which Paul, after exhorting husbands to love their wives, summarizes his teaching in the following manner:

“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Some moderns translations, as a concession to modern sensibilities, render the word reverence as respect.

But even this will not do. The Greek word used in this text for respect is phobeo, which means to be frightened, alarmed, or in awe. This pretty much captures the ancient Semitic view of women that endures today in Islam. Paul probably felt the need to write this as the Jewish-Christian missionaries brought their religion to the pagan West, where women enjoyed more rights under Roman law than they did under Mosaic law.

Perhaps York should have asked Bachmann not only if she will submit to her husband as President, but also will she live in fear and dread of him in the White House--secret service protection notwithstanding.

This little episode from the debate illustrates why the Bible is irrelevant to contemporary public affairs. It is not even relevant to the Christians who claim to believe it.

Aristotle's Republic and Virtue

2011-08-12T17:27:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--6

With all of Aristotle's attention to the origins of the state, the different kinds of constitutions, how they are preserved and how they are overthrown, the nature of citizenship, and the education of citizens, one theme runs throughout his exposition: the concept of virtue.

The state's concern with the virtue of its citizens is not merely of antiquarian or religious interest. Over the last three decades, a revolution in the understanding of our nation's founding has unfolded within the academic world. Historians J.G.A. Pocock, Gordon Wood, and Lance Banning resurrected this ancient idea and argued that the classical idea of virtue, rather than liberty, best serves as the organizing principle of our understanding of the American founding. And should the state inculcate virtue in its citizens today. If so, how? A future post will weigh those propositions.

The state's role in cultivating virtue in its citizens makes explicit the connection between Aristotle's The Politics and its “prequel,” Ethics. In this book, Aristotle defined happiness as the “rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” Men are to use reason to cultivate specific intellectual and moral excellencies identified by Aristotle. Most translations of Aristotle's work utilize the word virtue instead of excellencies.

These virtues, however, can only be acquired, developed, and practices within organized society.

“For as man is the best of all animals when he has reached his full development, so he is the worst of all when divorced from law and justice. Injustice armed is hardest to deal with; and though man is born with weapons which he can use in the service of practical wisdom and virtue, it is all too easy for him to use them for he opposite purposes. Hence, man without virtue is the most savage, the most unrighteous, and the worst in regard to sexual license and gluttony. The virtue of justice is a feature of a state; for justice is the arrangement of the political association and a sense of justice decides what is just.”

The concern with virtue, in fact, defines a state. According to Aristotle, “that which is genuinely and not just nominally called a state must concern itself with virtue.” He rejects the modern conceptions of the state. He contends that “the state is not an association of people dwelling in the same place, established to prevent its member from committing injustice against each other, and to promote transactions. Certainly all these features must be present,” but more is needed. In his view, the purpose is “a perfect and self-sufficient life” in which the citizen live together “happily and nobly.” The associate of the state exists “for the sake of noble actions.”

The reference to “noble actions” suggests a caveat concerning Aristotle's views on virtue. They are decidedly elitist. One purpose of the virtues is the acquisition of wealth. In his words, “It is not by means of external goods that men acquire and keep the virtues, but the other way round.” Possession of the intellectual and moral virtues lead to the possession of adequate material goods.The intellectual virtues included knowledge, intution, skill, prudence, and wisdom. The moral virtues include courage, temperance, generousity, and amiability. And only a person with adequate material goods possesses the leisure time required to participate meaningfully in public life. One function of the state is to provide the means to develop virtues in its elite citizens. Then a properly organzed state will permit the exercise of virtue by those elites in political life.

Consequently, in an aristocratic constitution, mechanics and day laborers cannot participate and therefore are not full citizens.

"Citizens must not live a mechanical or commercial life. jSuch a life is not noble, and it militates against virtue.Nor must those who are to be citizen be agricultural workers, for they must have leisure to develop their virtue, and for the activities of a citizen."

The only virtue Aristotle found in the lower orders was martial virtues: the excellence of the hoplite soldier in defence of the city-state.

Aristotle's ideal constitution, then, is an aristotcracy.

But in his best obtainable constitution, Aristotle's mixed regime allows both the noble and the common persons to participate fully as citizens.

Aristotle's Middle Class Republic

2011-08-08T07:42:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--5

Aristotle argued that the best possible constitution is one in which both the poor and the rich possess a share in administration. He suggested that the best way to divide these shares was through an assembly without property qualifications in which all citizens, poor and rich participate in the lawmaking process, and through administrative offices to which the assembly elevates the best citizens by means of elections. The use of elections, according to Aristotle, introduces an element of aristocracy into a fundamentally democratic constitution.

Aristotle recognized, however, the existence of another segment of society—the middle class. He asked,

“What is the best constitution and what is the best life for the majority of states and the majority of men? We have in mind men whose virtue does not rise above that of ordinary people, and whose education does not depend on the luck either of their natural ability or of their resources."

He believed the middle orders of people serve to moderate the vices possess by the rich and the poor. “The former,” according to Aristotle, incline more to arrogance and crime on a large scale while the latter are more than averagely prone to wicked ways and petty crime.”

In addition, the middle orders of people are more secure from possessing the vices of covetousness and from becoming the victims of covetousness. “It is the middle citizens in a state who are the most secure: they neither covet, like the poor, the possessions of others, nor do others covet theirs as the poor covet those of the rich. So they live without risk, not scheming and not being schemed against.”

This helps prevent the rise of class based factions in the city-state. Class based factions plagued the Greek city-states and in many cases contributed to the degeneration of their democracies into tyrannies. In Aristotle's view, class based factions emerge when classes seek a larger share in the constitution based upon their particular version of justice. The poor claim that “those who are equal in any respect are equal absolutely. All are like free, therefore they claim that they are alike absolutely.” In contrast, the rich assume that “being unequal in wealth they assume themselves to be unequal absolutely.” Consequently, according to Aristotle, “whenever either side does not share in the constitution according to their fundamental assumption in each case, they form factions.”

In a constitution where “the middle element is large,” however, “there least of all arise factions and divisions among the citizens. And large states are freer from faction, from this same reason, namely that their middle element is large.”

Aristotle maintained that a such a well-mixed constitution will prove to be the longest lasting.

Although Aristotle's observations pertained to the city-states of his time, they possess some validity for contemporary America. The existence of our large middle class softens the class conflict between rich and poor. Such conflict has resulted in small changes to our constitution rather than convulsive, violent alterations. Consequently, we have the oldest written constitution in the world.

Aristotle's Republic

2011-08-07T08:25:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--4

Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle never composed a book called The Republic.

He did describe, however, a kind of government that later assumed that name. He called it a polity.

By polity Aristotle meant a popular government that rules in the common interest of the city-state. The best means of crafting such a constitution is to include both poor and rich in the administration of the state.

Aristotle proposed several ways to accomplish this. First, the laws could require the state to pay the poor for attending and to fine the rich for not attending the meetings of the assembly. This would encourage participation of both orders. Second, the laws could assess a small property requirement for participation in the assembly. This requirement might increase the influence of the more affluent, educated members of the city-state. Finally, the laws could divide the different parts of the government between the different orders.

Aristotle suggested the laws establish a popular assembly with no property qualifications to insure the poor a share in the constitution. In contrast, he suggested a property qualification for the offices of the state. Moreover, instead of filling of offices by lot, as was the case in most democracies, they should be filled by elections. In this way, the people might choose those they believed best to rule for the common interest of the city-state. This introduces an aristocratic element into the constitution.

This constitution, which Aristotle called not the ideal but the best obtainable, mixes democracy and aristocracy. Under such a constitution, the mass of the people would dominate the assembly and the judicial element, while the aristocrats or notables would dominant the offices that managed the city-state between meetings of the assembly. With both groups enjoying a share in the constitution, perhaps they both would seek to rule for the common good. Because both orders shared the government, it reduced the likelihood of one order or the other forming a faction.
It was this idea of a mixed regime that came to be identified as a republic and which endured until the time of the founding of the United States.

Aristotle on Obama and the Social Democrats

2011-08-05T18:54:00.000-07:00

Aristotle not only analyzed different kinds of constitutions, but he also explored how they are preserved and how they change. Aristotle's remarks on constitutional change seem especially apropos for the Obama and the Social Democrats.

Aristotle notes three sources of constitutional change.

First, the people prove negligent in elevating the wrong people to high office. According to the philosopher, “It is owing to lack of vigilance that those who are not friendly to the constitution are sometimes allowed to get into the supreme offices.” That seems to have been the central message of President Obama's campaign theme of “change you can believe in.” Aside from the bad grammar, the message failed to convey just what kind of change Barak Obama had in mind. Most voters wanted change from the Bush administration. Obama's message, however, proved short on specifics.

They probably did not want constitutional change. That is, however, what they got. Instead of a government that created conditions enabling free people to pursue their happiness in whatever way they chose, they found themselves confronted with a government that sought to bring their lives in conformity with its desires. The Obama administration has demonstrated repeatedly its unfriendliness to our constitution.

Second, Aristotle observed that “it very often happens that a considerable change in a country's customs take place imperceptibly, each little change slipping by unnoticed.” This statement summarizes the twentieth century. Progressive era reforms, some good and some bad, were followed by New Deal initiatives, which were followed by Great Society programs, which were in turn followed by Obama care.

Third, Aristotle noted the “difference in stock, which remains a stimulus to faction until such a time as the two groups learn to live together.” It appears that even in ancient Greece, ethnic based politics existed. The Social Democrats today thrive on ethnic division and ethnically based political factions. They not only encourage ethnic solidarity, at least among non-whites, they also resist any attempt to control the borders, at least among non-whites.

Maybe its time for a candidate who supports an “America you can believe in.”

Aristotle and Democracy and Demagogues

2011-08-03T04:12:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--3

After classifying all governments into monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (and of course, their deviations tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy), Aristotle made some interesting observations about democracies. The reader at his point is reminded of Aristotle's definition of democracy: "a democracy exists whenever those who are free are not well-off, being in the majority, are in sovereign control of government."

This includes all parts of the government. According to Aristotle, there are three elements: "The three are, first, the deliberative, which discusses everything of common importance; second, the officials; and third, the judicial element." A democracy exists when the mass of people control all three elements.

The deliberative element is the assembly of the citizens of the city-state. The tasks of assemblies differ between the city-states. In general, they enact laws, decide the question of war and peace, and elect officials from among themselves to administer the city-state between meetings of the assembly.

These officials, what we might today call the executive, generally assume office through selection by drawing lots. In Aristotle's democracy, where all citizens possess equality, selection to the assembly is not by election but by lot. The citizens take turns ruling and being ruled.

The judicial element, which settles disputes about law, consists of citizens selected by lot. Again, the democratic principle requires that equal citizens take turns in office.

Not all democracies are alike, however, according to Aristotle. Practices differed among the democracies of his day. He divided them into two general types.

The first rests on the principle of complete equality among all the citizens, “when all alike share most fully in the constitution.” By equality, he meant no property or other qualifications for voting in the assembly of the city-state or serving in its offices. In a second type, a modest property qualification is required. When a person does not meet the property requirement or once having met it subsequently loses it, he can no longer participate in the Assembly, offices, or law courts.

Aristotle added that in some of these constitutions the majority exercises sovereignty over all public questions, “when the multitude is sovereign and not the law." The democratic assembly gathers and simply votes, much like a jury. Aristotle observed that it is “the demagogues who bring about this state of affairs.” They do this when “they bring every question before the people, and make its decrees sovereign instead of the laws . . . and the multitude follows their lead.” When demagogues bring questions before the people, most often the audience is the poor: “the mass of the poor take they most time off; they have no encumbrances, while the wealthy, who have private affairs to look after, often do not take part in the Assembly and courts of law.” This is especially true of the urban poor. Less affluent farmers sometimes experienced difficulty taking time out from labors in the surrounding countryside to travel into the city for assembly meetings. The urban poor already were there.

When demagogues bring every question before an assembly meeting consisting primarily of the urban poor, this gives rise to factions, pitting the poor and rich against each other. The poor will seek to confiscate the wealth of the rich; the rich will seek to disenfranchise to poor. According to Aristotle, "when those in office ill-treat others and get larger shared for themselves, men form factions both against each other and against the constitution to which they owe their power to act." These factions between poor and rich plagued all city-states in the ancient world.

He noted, however, that in other democracies established laws govern all decisions instead of majority vote. Officials apply the established laws like judges. In fact, Aristotle asserted that where “laws do not rule, there is no constitution.” He argued that “the laws ought to rule over all, in general terms, and the officials ought to make rulings in individual cases.” He suggested that when most of the people are farmers or possess a moderate amount of property, they work in the Assembly to “puts the law in charge” so that the Assembly is not deciding every question and repeatedly requiring them to leave the countryside for assembly meetings. In this way, even a democracy can be a government of laws and not of men.

In describing this last type of democracy, Aristotle began his transition to what he believed to be the best possible government: a mixed regime in which both the wealthy and the poor shared sovereignty. Only this mixed government in which the wealthy and poor shared offices would rule for the common good .

He called it a polity. It later became known as a republic.

That will be the subject of a future post.

Aristotle's Three Governments

2011-07-31T19:04:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--2

At the close of is essay Ethics, Aristotle anticipates what will follow in the continuation of that work which came be known as The Politics. Aristotle declared his intention to be the analyze various constitutions, evaluate assessment made by earlier thinkers, and consider “what influence are conservative and what are destructive of a state.” This statement serves as the most fundamental of conservative ideas; preservation of the fundamental political order. Aristotle's classifications of constitutions defined the terms of political debate for the next 2,300 years.

He begins with one of his tentative and partial definitions of what constitutes the state. He defines it as a voluntary association to achieve a greater good than can be achieved by individuals alone. According to Aristotle, “Observation tells us that every state is an association, and that every association is formed a view to some good purpose. I say good, because in all their actions all men do in fact aim at that they think good.” Moreover, “the association which is the most sovereign among them all and embraces all others will aim highest, i.e. at the most sovereign of all goods,. This is the association which we call the state, the association which is political.”

He sees the state in general as something natural rather than artificial. He bases this conclusion on his historical understanding of the origin of states. He suggests that to understand the state, “We shall, I think, in this as in other subject, get the best view of the matter if we look at the natural growth of things from the beginning.”

The state begins with family:

“The first point is that those which are incapable of existing without each other must be united as a pair. For example, the union of male and female is essential for reproduction; and this is not a matter of choice, but is due to the natural urge, which exist in the other animals too . . . To propagate one’s kind.”

This is the beginning of the household.

As families grow and establish kinship networks through marriage with other branches of the family or with others outside the family. These new households eventually develop into a village.

“The next stage is the village, the first association of at number of houses of the satisfaction of something more than daily needs. It comes into being through the processes of nature in the fullest sense, as offshoots of a household are set up by sons and grandsons.”

Finally, after establishment of several villages, comes the state.

“The final association, formed of several villages, is the state. For all practical purposes, the process is now complete: self-sufficiency has been reached and while the state came about as a means of securing life itself, it continues in being to secure the good life. . Therefore, every state exists by nature as the earlier associations too were natural”

Through this inquiry into the origin of the state, Aristotle concludes that it is natural.

“It follows that the state belong to the class of object which exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.”

And what is the chief good brought about by the state? Justice.

“Among all men, then there is a natural impulse toward this kind of association; and the first man to construct a state deserves credit for conferring very great benefits.”

Aristotle sees justice as related to the exercise of the human virtues or excellencies that he delineated in Ethics. He writes that human beings have many excellencies that can be used for practical wisdom and virtue. Men too often lack virtues or use them for injustice. Aristotle sees the role of the state to inculcate virtue in its citizens so they will seek justice.

“For as man is the best of all animals when he has reached his full development, so he is worst of all when divorces from law and justice. Hence man without virtue is the most savage, the most unrighteous, and the worst in regard to sexual license and gluttony. The virtue of justice is a feature of a state.”

He turns to different ways that men have organized, or constituted the state.

Aristotle defined a constitution as “the organization of the offices, and in particular of the one that is sovereign over all the others.” This differs from the concept of constitution that we have today. Modern Americans think of a written document which specifically creates the arrangement of offices and describes the powers invested in each office. Aristotle defined constitution as the arrangement of the offices themselves, whether or not any written document created them.

In addition, Aristotle distinguished between correct and deviant constitutions. He wrote:

“It is clear then that those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice; while those which aim only at the good of the rulers are wrong. They are all deviations from the right constitutions.”

Aristotle identified three general types of correct constitutions with operate for the common good:

--Rule by one, called monarchy, that aims at the common good.

--Rule by the few, called aristocracy, in which the best men, or most virtuous, men rule for what is best for the state.The most virtuous are those who have developed the human virtues or excellencies described in his earlier work Ethics. Aristotle's virtues included such moral virtues as courage, temperance, generosity, and amiability. They included such intellectual virtues as knowledge, intuition, skill, prudence, and wisdom. As might be expected, Aristotle believed that an aristocracy was the best government. It is, after all, government by the best, or most virtuous.

--Rule by the many, called polity, in which the mass of the populace exercise power in the common interest. In contrast to the many virtues of the aristocrats, the only virtue possessed by the masses is military virtue. That is why, according to Aristotle, the “defensive element is the most sovereign body, and those who share in the constitution are those who bear arms.”

Aristotle observed that different city-states developed many variations of these three basic types of governments. Much of his text explored the different varieties of democracies and aristocracies.

Aristotle noted, however, that these correct constitutions degenerate into deviant forms in which those with the sovereign power no longer exercise it for the common good, but for the private good of the rulers. He defined three deviant constitutions:

--Rule by the one, called tyranny, or monarchy for the benefit of the monarch.

--Rule by the few, called oligarchy, for the benefit of men of means

--Rule by the many, called democracy, for the benefit of men without means.

Aristotle distinguished these constitutions by the ends that they serve, but Aristotle noted something in common when he elaborated on these constitutions from an economic perspective. Aristocracy is rule by "the best," but this usually means the rich. In this way it resembles an oligarchy. Polity is rule by the many, but this usually means the poor. In this way, polity resembles a democracy. Correct and deviant constitutions resemble each other when compared economically. They differ dramatically when compared teleologically--what end or purpose do they serve.

What seems to be missing from his account?

A republic.

The Politics of Aristotle

2011-07-27T08:39:00.000-07:00

In Search of the Republic--1

Any examination of the history of constitutions must begin with Aristotle's The Politics. This examination will not be a systematic, chapter by chapter analysis. Rather, it will focus on those ideas of Aristotle that influenced the Founding Fathers. Aristotle established the framework in which all discussions of governments have taken place. Moreover, Aristotle's insights have influenced the many different streams of both conservative and liberal ideas about society and government.

Readers are reminded that The Politics is actually a continuation of his work, Ethics. In that essay, Aristotle asserted that the primary motivation for human behavior is happiness. He made this conclusion because happiness is the only good that is sought for itself and not sought for the sake of something else.

Aristotle used the term in a different sense than we do today. The modern definition of happiness held by most people is that happiness is the psychological or emotional state that comes from getting what one wants. The Greek word Aristotle used for happiness is better translated, thriving or flourishing. So the question Aristotle tried to answer in Ethics was how do men thrive or how do we create thriving men? It was his way of asking the more modern inquiry, What is the good life?

Aristotle based his answers on man’s nature. He conceived man as “the rational animal.” Consequently, he argued that the pursuit of happiness will be a rational activity. In addition, Aristotle recognized that human beings by nature possess certain species specific excellencies or , as modern translations have it, virtues. Aristotle believed that human beings should cultivate these virtues. Aristotle thus defined happiness as “the rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue or excellence. In other words, happiness means excelling at being human or becoming an excellent human being.

But Aristotle also recognized man as “a political animal.” By nature human beings live in organized societies. Without society, man cannot fully thrive or achieve happiness. So in The Politics, Aristotle explores the different ways people have organized their societies and which ones are most conducive for human thriving or happiness. He examines some idealistic speculative constitutions created by philosophers. He examines actual constitutions of various Mediterranean communities. And, finally, he offers his own ideal constitution.

Readers are reminded, too, of the context of Aristotle’s The Politics. When Aristotle wrote, the form of social organization most familiar was the Greek city-state or polis (hence the word politics.) Dozens of them dotted the Mediterranean. The Greek city-states emerged in the 800s BC following the disappearance of Mycenaean civilization and its kings. The Dorian Invasions,about which ancient history scholars disagree, swept way Mycenaean civilization and brought about the subsequent Greek “dark ages.” The new city-states that emerged began as self-sufficient societies based upon kinship networks. Perhaps to prevent another catastrophe like the Dorian invasion, they grew into fiercely independent armed camps based upon citizen soldiers (the hoplites.)

The city-states consisted of a small urban center and the surrounding countryside. Athens, the adopted home of Aristotle, grew into one of the largest. It contained around 1,000 square miles, making it slightly smaller than Rhode Island. Most other city-states spread only between 30 and 500 square miles and had only 2,000 to 10,000 people. Athenians numbered about 350,000 people. Only about half of these possessed citizenship--the right to hold office and participate in juries. The rest were dependents-- women, children, and slaves-- or resident aliens.

This small size, both geographically and demographically, of the Greek city-state must be remembered as one reads The Politics. In addition, one must note the impulse to unity and conformity.
The notion of individual natural or political rights was largely alien to the ancient Greeks. The main liberty they embraced was liberty under the law, the idea that they lived under laws of their own making. This is one reason they contrasted themselves with the surrounding barbarians of other nations. Because the foreigners lived under the arbitrary power of kings and tyrants, they were the equivalent of slaves. This conception of "republican liberty" endured as the most commonly held view of liberty before the advent of modern liberalism.

These two facts--the small size of the polis and the impulse for uniformity--present difficulties for application of Aristotle’s ideas to modern megalopolis or the expansive modern nation state.

But Aristotle's ideas, the good and the bad, possess a longevity enjoyed by those of few other thinkers.

And some of Aristotle’s ideas may provide insight into the challenges facing our own societies. They may also suggest common sense conservative approaches to overcome those challenges.

The Curious History of "Republicanism"

2011-07-26T19:27:00.000-07:00

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

--James Madison

A democracy is really a republic as an oak is a tree, or a temple a building

--John Adams

A couple of weeks back at the Secular Square, several posts described the philosophy of government as contained in the Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson asserted that people establish governments to protect their rights, and that these governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Sometimes such a government is described as popular government, a republic, or a democracy.

Sometimes we conservatives engage in disputatious word games about the difference between republics and democracies. As the quotes above illustrate, however, disagreements and ambiguities abound about those terms. Madison distinguished between a democracy and a republic. Adams asserted the the former is a species of the latter.

Most people understand that a democracy denotes a system of government in which the people in some sense rule. Republicanism, however, is much less understood. The term republican derives from the latin phrase, res publica. This means " a thing of the people" or "a public affair." Historically the word has been translated variously as republic, commonwealth, constitution, adminstration, government, and state. Moreover, even when used to describe particular forms of government, the term republic has undergone change over time.

In the next few posts, the Secular Square will examine just what republic came to mean, and how the Founders of our American regime created a republic like no other in the history of the world.

Oprah Winfrey: Whore of Babylon or Anti-Christ

2011-07-22T06:54:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media, showing an untypical interest in religious dogma, brought attention to Marcus and Michele Bachmann's former denomination. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, following their founder Martin Luther, believes that the Pope is the Anti-Christ prophesied in the Bible. The point of the attention, however, was more political than theological. Such belief might jeopardize Bachmann's run for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. She may experience difficulty winning support from any Catholic voters who consider a candidate's religion when determining a favorite.

Fortunately, other Christians regularly offer up revised speculations about just who it the Anti-Christ. One of the more recent names dropped: Oprah Winfrey. Or, at least the whore of Babylon preparing the nation for the Anti-Christ.

Caught in the "Mittle"

2011-07-21T20:17:00.000-07:00

Although no Constitutional religious test exists for serving in federal office, the public does have its own test. In general, a candidate must profess belief in God or dissemble about believing in God. If a candidate's beliefs can fit within the parameters of orthodox Christianity, it may not matter what one believes. (As long as you don't believe to strongly.) The devil might be in those details.

What about Mormonism? Two Mormon candidates have declared for the presidency, one of which, Mitt Romney is the early front runner. Mainstream media reports do not investigate much about the history of Mormonism or delve into its rather eccentric doctrines. Reports generally note its awkward place even in America's diverse religious landscape.

One liberal mainstream media personality, Lawrence O'Donnell went off of Mormonism and some of its more despicable teachings:

While conservative pastor and theologians have no doubt analyzed Mormonism for their congregations, few conservative media personalities have weighed in. Recently another mainstream media personality took a swipe at Mormonism. FOX news personality Ainsely Earhardt, obviously a Christian, commented on Mitt Romney's prospects for fundraising and support among the religious right. She asserted that Romney, "obviously not being a Christian," might experience some trouble:

Poor Mitt seems caught in the middle between liberal secularists who do not like his religion because of its reactionary social views, and conservative Christians who do not like his religion because of its religious doctrines.

Bachmann, the Bible, and Beelzebub

2011-07-19T18:05:00.000-07:00

When seeking public office, one's personal religious affiliations can become a source of controversy. President Obama learned that lesson in 2008 with the raging psychopath, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Michele Bachmann and her husband recently withdrew their membership from Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, where they have worshiped for ten years. CNN Belief Blog reports that the request came several weeks before she announced that she would seek the Republican nomination for POTUS. They had not attended the church in over two years but has been worshiping at an undisclosed non-denominational congregation when time permits.

Because she never explained why, (not that any requirement exists to do so), reporters have begun to speculate.

Salem Lutheran Church is a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, one of the more traditional Lutheran church organizations. One of its traditional beliefs, following the lead of founder Martin Luther, is that the Pope is the Anti-Christ of the Bible. The Synod bases this on historical judgments based upon the Bible, not upon any proposition to that effect contained in the Bible.

Obviously, affiliation with a church that holds such beliefs might be a political handicap. Catholic voters, even those who share Bachmann's political views, may find themselves reluctant to support her candidacy. Although she left the church and has not worshiped there in two years, one might reasonably ask why she stayed there for ten?

It is interesting that the mainstream media has suddenly acquired an interest in the minutia of church dogmatics. If their interest proves enduring, they will have a field day with Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Usually, the media assesses the candidate about their consistency on hot button issues such as abortion: how does any candidate's positions line up with those of their church. In recent times, the positions of most presidential candidates on abortion actually conflict with the positions of the church denominations where they worship.

If the media attempts to generate controversy on the Bachmann family's choice of churches, rejecting their church's teaching may be the best solution. Whether the media will give Bachmann the same pass on this issue which they gave to Obama, time will tell.

Michele Bachmann

The Current Anti=Christ

Does Rick Perry Have a Prayer?

2011-07-17T20:42:00.000-07:00

Last week, beginning on Independence Day, the Secular Square featured a series on the background and meaning of the Declaration of Independence. The core ideas of the philosophy behind the Declaration included equality, natural rights, and government by consent. In the future the Secular Square will explore just what kind of government upon which the Founders finally agreed.

With the preliminary skirmishes of the presidential campaign of 2012 under way, however, let's take a break for some reflections on some the personalities and issues of that campaign.

An event that will be in the news for the next several weeks is the rally called “The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis,” scheduled for August 6, 2011 at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas. The rally's website describes its purpose and lists the promoters. It observes that the nation is under seige from "financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters." Preventing such things seems to be within the job class description of "All powerful Deity." Nevertheless, the rally's sponsors hope to rekindle God's interest in his creation.

A problem is that the person described at the initiator is Texas governor Rick Perry. This moved the Freedom from Religious Foundation to file a lawsuit to prevent his appearance and to force the removal of an announcement about the meeting from the official website of the Texas governor. As might be expected, the FFRF claims his appearance violates the “separation of church and state.” Unfortuantely, this outfit does not rest content to maintaining its freedom from religion by not attending the rally. A governor attending a prayer meeting is now a constitutional crisis.

Religious proclamations from governors are nothing new. During the BP oil spill disaster, governors Bob Riley of Alabama, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and , yes, Rick Perry of Texas, all issued proclamations in June 2010 declaring days of prayer and fasting about the disaster. Attending such prayersdoes not seem to have sparked much controversy in the past. Because of a severe drought in Georgia, state Governor Sonny Perdue actually led prayers for rain on the steps of the state capital.

eof these things bothered the FFRF. But then again, none of the men involved then were considering a run for the Whitehouse.

The Declaration and the Meaning of America

2011-07-12T08:35:00.000-07:00

Jefferson's Declaration began as simply a political document announcing the separation from Britain and the birth of a new independent nation. It has become much more than that. It is now an American creed, assuming an almost religious significance about what we believe as Americans: liberty, equality, and republican government. And in the absence of traditional components of nationality, those ideas in the Declaration of Independence have become a substitute for those components. It is the ideas of the Declaration of Independence that constitute our national identity.

Traditionally, any people's national identity rests upon geography, language, ethnicity, and religion. People groups generally identify with some geographic location where they have lived. Regardless of how well their land has provided material needs, they romanticize it as their homeland. They lay some claim to it based upon historical or mythological narratives about how they settled there. They are unified by a common language. Speakers of other languages are often seen as less civilized. Perhaps the linguistic group share some physical characteristics that encourage the development of some degree of ethnic consciousness. Finally, a shared religious tradition adds to their social cohesion and provides myths about origins and destiny Often their government provides legal and financial support to their historic faith.

These traditional elements of national identity only had shallow roots in the New World. Over the two centuries of our history as an independent nation, there roots have withered. First, America’s sense of place is not as deep rooted as that in other nations. Many of the first settlers, especially the wealthier leadership behind the colonization efforts never intended to make North America their permanent home. They hoped to strike it rich like Spanish conquistadors and return home to Britain to assume the life of country gentlemen. Most of those who stayed did so because they never became prosperous enough to make it back home to Britain. For others, the North American wilderness offered opportunities for the future, not a basis for a historic homeland rooted in the past.

Second, Americans do not have their own language. We speak a foreign language: English. Even the regions accents of American speakers of English derive from the different regions of England fromw which they originated.

Third, America’s ethnic diversity is hardly a recent development. Britain’s colonies from the beginning possessed a diverse population. Europeans from Britain, Sweden, Holland, Germany, and France established enclaves of settlement. Africans from that continent’s West Coast lived throughout the colonies, though chiefly in the Southern region. A general sense of Northern European identity that Americans shared gradually disappeared with the later arrival of Eastern and Southern Europeans, Asians, and in more recent times, Hispanics. Because of this immigration and ethnic diversity, Americans possess no distinct physical characteristics of an ethnic group.

Finally, America has no national, government supported religion. This circumstance, too, results from our long standing diversity. Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Baptists, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Deists populated the early colonies. Some colonies established a particular denomination as the government sanctioned faith. This resulted in some persecution of Quakers by Congregationalists in Massachusetts, and of Baptists in Virginia by Anglicans. Partly because of this religious diversity, the Constitutional Convention created no nationally established religious denomination. The Constitution of 1787 left the legal status of religion to the states. Gradually, however, even the state establishments disappeared. Americans shared a general sense of Protestantism (that accompanied their self-conception as ethnic Northern Europeans) for many decades. The immigration that brought new ethnic groups also brought new religious faiths. Adherents to Catholicism now outnumber any Protestant denomination and a wide range of non-western religious faith now dot the cultural landscape.

So what holds such diverse elements together? The ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence. The devotion to the ideas of liberty, equality, and republican government provides the cohesion that in many other diverse countries can only be achieved through authoritarian governments.

As historian Richard Hofstadter put it, "It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one."

In other words, we are not Americans because of who we are geographically, linguistically, ethnically, or religiously. We are Americans because of what we believe.

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor"

2011-07-11T19:56:00.001-07:00

Jefferson, after the addition by other editors of the passage professing their appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world, incorporated Richard Henry Lee's resolution declaring independence. Lee's resolution referred to "these united colonies." Because this declaration asserts a change in the existing states of affairs, Jefferson introduces Lee's resolution as a declaration by representatives of "the united States of America."

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

After an editorial addition by others expressing their "reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," Jefferson ends with this pledge:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Although the Constinental Congress passed Lee's resolution for independence on 2 July 1776, we celebrate the birthday of the nation on the day that the Congress approved Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. For the Declaration is more than a political document altering the relationship with Britain or a philosophical statement of the American theory of just governments. It has become of statement of what we seek to become as a people and the source of our national identity. For this reason, we celebrate Independence Day and uphold the "sacred honor" of the men who made it possible.

"Let the Facts be Submitted"

2011-07-10T17:06:00.000-07:00

After Jefferson developed the American philosophy behind equality, liberty, and government by consent, he finally began the primary purpose for the writing of the Declaration: to explain to the world why America chose to separate from Great Britain.

He conceded that such action should not be taken without careful consideration:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Jefferson characterized British policies regarding the colonies, however, neither "light" nor "transient.” Americans had enjoyed a great deal of autonomy in the relations with Britain. Because of what Parliamentarian Edmund Burke described as a “wise and salutary neglect” by the mother country, Britain's North American colonies had grown prosperous. In addition, they had enjoyed a great deal of autonomy and local self government through their colonial legislatures. After the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, however, Britain embarked on a systematic effort to tighten their control over the colonies through new regulatory and tax initiatives.

The colonists interpreted these initiatives as omens of something much more sinister. From their widespread reading of polemical writing from radical Whigs in Britain, Americans became predisposed to see in British actions a conspiracy of power against liberty. Edmund Burke, a friend of the colonies, warned his fellow representatives in Parliament of the “fierce spirit of liberty” among Americans and that they “auger misgovernment at a distance and sniff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.”

Jefferson confirmed Burke's insight into the perspective of the colonists in the next section of the Declaration. He drew a conclusion, however, that Burke could not share: although they did not live under a tyranny, they believed they saw one in the making.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Then follows the great body of the Declaration: the charges against the the king. Many of these charges only repeated what Jefferson already had leveled at the king in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774). He had written this to express the views of the colony of Virginia regarding the imperial crisis. Some additional charges came from other petitions and protests originating from other local assemblies in the colonies over the previous decade.

So why blame the king for the actions taken by Parliament?

He probably blamed the king because by this time the colonists had rejected Parliamentary sovereignty over them. Americans had come to conceive of the British Empire as much like the British Commonwealth of Nations today: each province with its own lawmaking body but united by ties with the British monarchy. They blamed him because he cooperated in Parliament's attempt to subject the colonists to its authority. Americans showed prudence and patience in their appeals, protests, and boycotts. In response, the Parliament continued to subject the colonies to their tax and regulatory powers.

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Even the British public appeared deaf to their appeals. Under such circumstances, the only course of action possible by the colonists was independence. Jefferson described it as he did in the opening paragraph of the Declaration: one of necessity.

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Jefferson's rhetorical reached a crescendo at last with the incorporation into the Declaration of Richard Henry Lee's resolution for independence passed by Congress on 2 July 1776.

"To Secure These Rights"

2011-07-09T18:51:00.000-07:00

After Jefferson asserted the equality of human beings in their possession of natural rights, he turned to other self evident truths on why men form governments and why men dissolve them.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In a state of nature without government, men possess their natural rights precariously. They possess claim rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against interference from all other men. Not all men, however, respect the natural rights of others. Men are vulnerable to threats from others to their lives and property. Consequently, men form governments to protect those rights. Of their own consent, they empower those governments with whatever means they deem necessary to protect those rights.

Moreover, men have the right to dissolve their governments. Not all men honor the rights claims of others; not all governments fulfill their proper purpose to protect those rights. When governments fail to protect rights, the people can replace that government with another one that will.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

After laying out the political philosophy behind forming just government and dissolving the unjust, Jefferson presented the charge that the administration of George III was exactly that kind of government.

"All Men are Created Equal"

2011-07-08T18:27:00.000-07:00

So what are the truths that Jefferson asserted?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Jefferson asserts three self-evident truths: that men are created equal, that they possess rights given to them by God that cannot be taken way, and that these rights include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These truths do not stand alone. Through his structure and punctuation, Jefferson connected them with each other and separated them from a second set of self-evident truths. To understand his meaning, the reader must interpret them within that context.

So what did he mean when he claimed all men are created equal? In the context of the chain of propositions in the argument as it unfolds, Jefferson seems to have meant that God created men equal in their common humanity and human nature. (The idea of creation, of course, is not all that self-evident. If Jefferson wrote the proposition as "all men are by nature equal," the proposition might be more self-eveident.) The most distinctive aspect of human nature is free will. Unlike animals that derive behavior from inborn instinct, human beings deliberate and make choices from alternative courses of action. Human nature can be seen as a potentiality that is fulfilled through rational choices. This is why the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle called man "the rational animal." Man lives by his reasoning abilities. This suggests a second way in which men are equal. Because all men share the same human nature, all men exercise their free will equally without the permission of others. No one is created to rule over others or to be ruled over. This is what his original draft suggests, where he wrote that “all men are created equal and independent." Men exercise their free will independently of others.

These two concepts of equality entail the next self-evident truth: that men possess God given rights that cannot be taken away. Again, rights as gift from God is not self-evident. Because Jefferson was not a Christian, he did not find these rights in the Bible or in any creedal statements. ( I doubt any Christian can). He derived them from human nature. This can be seen in his original draft, in which he wrote that "from their equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Natural rights inhere in our human nature as created by God. Because men possess a common nature distinctive for free will and potentiality that must be fulfilled through rational choices, this entails rights claims against other men. In order to fulfill human nature's potentially, men claim the rights to execute those rational choices free from the interference of others. Others cannot take them away. The most general or fundamental rights include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every man has the right to defend and protect his life. Every man has the right to exercise natural or personal liberty in fulfilling his potentiality through rational choices. And every man has the right the pursuit happiness through those rational choices.

Two caveats, however, must be added. First, the idea of happiness is an ancient term with a long history of meaning that differs from modernity. Today we think of happiness as the pleasurable psychological state that results from acquiring whatever it is we want. The traditional meaning, again going back to Aristotle, was "thriving" or "flourishing." It meant fulfilling one's specific human nature. In other words, pursuit of happiness implied seeking those things that help one thrive and succeed at being human. Second, natural rights claims are reciprocal. Because of common human nature, every man's rights claims must be respected by every other man.

Sometimes men do not respect the rights claims of others. That leads to the next self evident truths of Jefferson regarding the purposes of government.

"We Hold These Truths"

2011-07-07T19:08:00.000-07:00

Jefferson begins explaining the reasons for the break with Great Britain with these well-known words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . .”

Just what does the expression “self-evident” truths mean? Basically, it means that the truth of a given proposition is clear without the inclusion of additional propositions or evidence. Once one understands the terms contained in the proposition, its truthfulness is clear. This implies that a state of affairs contradicting the proposition is not seriously worthy of consideration. Jefferson implied as much in his original phrasing which said the truths were “sacred and undeniable.” A self-evident truth is undeniable in that it's opposite cannot seriously be considered.

The proposition to which Jefferson alluded concerned natural equality, natural rights, and republican government. Whether the propositions really are self evident may depend upon what Jefferson meant by them. The same goes for whether or not they are true at all. Nevertheless, they have become the ideas on which our nation is founded. The next post will look at those ideas.

"When in the Course of Human Events"

2011-07-06T18:36:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson opened his Declaration of Independence with a paragraph explaining its purpose:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Jefferson asserts that events have made it “necessary” to sever our political ties with Britain. This statement almost carries the ring of determinism. Events have forced Americans into this action. They can envision no other way to preserve their natural liberties than to assume “the separate and equal station” of an independent country. The Law of Nature and Nature's God to which Jefferson appeals that entitles the Americans to take this step is simply another name for justice.

Jefferson asserts that a decent respect for the opinions or judgments of mankind requires that we state the causes that have forced or , his words, impelled, the decision for independence. He probably had three audiences in mind. First, the Declaration addressed other Americans. At the Continental Congress, nearly a month passed before a delegates reached a consensus on declaring independence. Moreover, John Adams believed that only about one-third of Americans fully supported the Revolution. The remaining holdouts were undecided or loyalists to the British crown. Second, the Declaration addressed the British public. Many British citizens wondered why subjects to the freest government in the world rebelled against it. Finally, the Declaration addressed foreign leaders. The Americans needed financial and material support from foreign countries in order to win independence. No foreign power cared during the years that the colonists asserted their ancient rights as British citizens. Once America made it clear to seek independence, other powers found it in their interest to encourage the break up the British Empire.

A Declaration of the Representatives of the United States of America

2011-07-04T09:25:00.000-07:00

After approving Richard Henry Lee's resolution declaring independence on 2 July 1776, the delegates of the Continental Congress began discussing the text of the formal declaration. The draft Jeffersons submitted to the Congress already reflected revisions suggested by the other drafting committee members, especially those by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. The delegates devoting much of their 3 July agenda completing additional revisions of the document, including the ending professing their "reliance on the protectio of Divine Providence."

On 4 July 1776 the Congress approved the final text of the Declaration of Independence.

So why is Independence Day celebrated on July fourth instead of July second?

One reason is that it defines the ideas, or ideals, upon which our founders established the nation. In the absence of the traditional ethic, linguistic, religious, and geographic attributes of national identity, the Declaration of Independence substitutes an ideology. As historian Richard Hofstadter put it, "It is our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one." Moreover, because the Declaration of Independence is so intertwined with the creation and definition of a new people, it has assumed a quasi-religious standing not unlike the Ten Commandments to the ancient Hebrews. Some writers have, in fact, referred to the Declaration as the American testament or American scipture.

But the ideas contained in the Declaration did not originate from Jefferson. They consisted of a synthesis from many sources. As Jefferson himself explained in a letter written 1in 1825, shortly before the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration:

"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c."

The next few posts will look at those sentiments.

The Birth of the Republic

2011-07-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

On this date two hundred thirty five years ago thirteen of Great Britain's twenty seven North American colonies declared independence.

The Second Continental Congress convened on 10 May 1776 to assess the progress made since its sessions the previous summer in maintaining their rights while at the save time preserving their union with Britain. The situation had worsened.

The previous October King George III charged in a speech before Parliament that opposition in the colonies was “carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent Empire.” The colonists, he continued, make “vague expression of attachments to the parent state, and the strongest protestations of loyalty to me, whilst they were preparing for a general revolt.” It was time, he concluded, “ to put a speedy and to these disorders by the most decisive exertions.” In response to the King's charges, Parliament passed the Prohibitory Act. This acts declared the colonies outside the protection of the empire, prohibited all commerce with the colonies and initiated a naval blockade, and announced that all colonial ships and cargo forfeit to the Crown as enemy vessels. Moreover, the month before the convening of the Congress, fighting erupted between British regulars and Massachusetts militiamen at Lexington and Concord.

During the month of May, Congress assumed the role of an unofficial provisional government, trying to coordinate the colonies and assume military control over the thousands of militiamen gathering in the Boston area.

Then on 7 June 1776, representative Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced the following resolution:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted tot he respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.”

After a couple of days debate, the Congress postponed additional discussion until July. At the time, only slightly more than half the colonies supported independence. A consensus had to be formed. Meanwhile, the Congress appointed a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence for adoption once the colonies reached a consensus. The committee then delegated to one of its members, Thomas Jefferson, the task of writing the draft.

Finally, on 1 July, the Congress resumed debate on Lee's original resolution. Although no new points emerged, a virtual consensus had been reached. Only the delegates from the state of New York had failed to receive any instructions to support the resolution. So on 2 July 1776, the Continental Congress voted to pass the Lee resolution declaring independence. The United Colonies became the United States.

Richard Henry Lee

Shootin' for Jesus

2011-07-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

This week in religious news includes continuing fallout from the failed prophetical interpretations of Harold Camping.

According to police in Eugene, Oregon, a follower of Camping named Dale O'Callighan shot one of his co-workers in a dispute about Camping. O'Callaghan who had no previous criminal record, apparently grew tired of verbal abuse from co-workers about his belief in Camping and the predictions of the return of Jesus on May 21 and their failure to come to fruition.

One day O'Callaghan brought in a 357 magnum and shot co-worker Jerry Andrews in the shoulder. The bullet lodged in Andrew's back and narrowing missed paralyzing him.

Andrews is in the hospital and O'Callaghan is in Lane County jail charged with first degree assault.

It is not known if the rapture will occur before O'Callaghan faces trial.

Repent You Christians and Pray for America.

2011-06-30T04:43:00.000-07:00

We infidels are counting on you!

The previous post aluded to well-known evanglical minister and author John MacArthur and his message of doom. He suggested that despite the fact that the United States is not a "covenant" nation in the same sense that Israel possessed a covenant relationship with God, the experience of Israel has important lessons for us. The main lesson: we are doomed.

Maybe its not the fault of our nation's infidels. Maybe its the fault of its Christians.

Often, especially around Independence Day, signs like the one below being to appear in front yards.

The bible verse referenced in the signs days:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselve, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and heal their land."

The passage calls upon Christians to repent and pray. It says nothing about our nation's unbelievers. So it sounds like it's not the infidels of American who deserved blame for our nation's problems. It's the Christians.

If only THEY would get right with God, then all will go well for us.

WE ARE DOOMED!

2011-06-29T19:40:00.000-07:00

If Steven Andrews soul stirring prayers and implied death threats unnerved any infidel readers, another Christian minister offered more comforting news, er, sort of.

John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church spoke at something called the Resolved Conference in Palm Springs, California last week. In contrast to Andrews, MacArthur asserted that we are NOT a covenant nation. (Perhaps the two should get together for a “theological throwdown” determine whether or not the United States enjoys a covenant relationship God). Consequently, his message contained no exhortations about renewing any covenants and no references to scriptures about putting to death anyone who declines to participate in the renewal.

But he offered some other somewhat unsettling news:

WE ARE DOOMED.

In a sermon on Isaiah, MacArthur identified six sins of Israel and six curses from God. God, of course, eventually destroyed Israel as a nation. MacArthur said that “We are not a covenant people in America, but we have been a privileged people.” Even after that claim, however, MacArthur could not refrain from applying Israel's experience to our own. Just because God showed patience with Israel, that does not mean he will show it to us. “If God does not destroy America pretty soon,” he stated, “he's gonna have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

At least in Sodom God, or his angels anyway, actually intervened to prevent some evil, detestable acts before he incinerated the place.

During the four day Resolved Conference, who knows how many people in this nation were robbed, raped, or murdered while God stood idly by and did nothing.

Grace abounding, indeed.

Reaffirming our Constitution, er, Covenant

2011-06-27T07:39:00.000-07:00

The Secular Square resumes surveying the religious landscape.

Many Christians lead lives of perpetual repentance. I am not sure what that says about the moral condition of their lives. With Independence Day approaching, however, many Christians see that day as an appropriate occasion for national repentance. They recognized that our republic--both the government and its people--does not seem to be living up to the vision hoped for by the founders. As a conservative, I share their concerns. Many of our most pressing political problems emerge as symptoms of moral problems. Christianity, however, does not offer a coherent approach to these problems through a call for national repentance.

Take for exanple the call of Steven Andrew of USA Christian Ministries. He is calling for a national day of rededication to God. The ministry provides a place on their webpage for believers to type their confessions of both personal and national sins and to receive forgiveness. In addition, USA Christian Ministries offers a kit that contains a church bulletin and a prayer that congregations across America can recite together during worship services on July 3. The text is as follows::

Father,

As Your Christian nation, we affirm our covenant: You, the LORD, are the God of the USA and we are Your people. Jesus is our King. We obey what You say in the Holy Bible. We love You with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. We love one another as Jesus loved us. We ask You to forgive our sins by Jesus' sacrifice.

In Jesus' name. Amen.

(Psalm 33:12, Mark 12:30, John 13:34, 2 Chronicles 15:12)

The immediate things that stikes the reader is the incongruity between the United States as a republic and the declaration of Jesus as the King of the USA. The concept of a republic has carried diverse attributes in its use throughtout the centuries. One of the most general uses of the term is to denote regimes that have no king. Moreover, our founding documents, the ones to which we adhere, consist of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But in this prayer, the petitioners recognize a foreigner named Jesus as the king and profess obedience to the bible.

Equally interesting, however, is the bible verses referenced at the close of the prayer. Ps. 33:12 seems innocent enough:

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord and the People whon he hath chosen for His own inheritance."

The passage 2 Chronicle 15:12 presents more difficulties:

"And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul."

But that is not all that they covenanted. The following verse continues as follows:

"That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, wherher man or woman"

Now I am sure these Christians have no intent to fulfill that part of their covenantal obligations. Perhaps their prayer should say "We obey some of what you say in the Holy Bible." This does illustrate, however, the unintelligibility of Christianity in addressing our nation.

The Genesis of Nothing

2011-06-23T08:55:00.000-07:00

Over the past several weeks, the Secular Square has surveyed Genesis, the book of beginnings, from the creation story to the call of Abraham and the origins of the Hebrews. This survey took the text the literal sense and in the context of the era in which it was written and/or edited. The purpose was to assess the claim of its divine origin as propositional truth.

The books reveals a primitive understanding of the cosmos as a young, divinely created order that consists of a flat, square or circular landmass, floating atop the oceans, with a dome overhead. The sun, moon, and start are small bodies that circle over the land, perhaps attached to the dome.

This conception of the cosmos is fused with mythical tales about a world remarkably different from the world “as we know it.” It was a world in which there was no rain until the Great Deluge of Noah and yet the earth produced its abundance without cultivation; a world in which humans did not consume animals so they did not inspire fear in them; a world in which humans lived to extraordinarily long ages and spoke one uniform language. And about 4000 B.C., a flood destroyed all animal life except those preserved on a large barge. Somehow, vegetation survived a year of submersion under the flood waters.

After the flood, the world "as we know it” emerged. People slowly died at earlier ages, consumption of animal flesh led to their fear of us, and human language became confounded by God when people attempted to built a tower to reach to the dome above.

These primitive notions contrast starkly with our modern scientific understanding of the cosmos and man's place in it. They suggest that the opening chapters of Genesis is hardly the stuff of divine revelation. This does not exclude other passages, however, from divine origin. But it does permit us to conclude that when some preacher raises a bible above his head and declares it God's word "from cover to cover" he does not know what he is talking about.

.

Some Words About Words

2011-06-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

The account of the confusion of languages at Babel not only reveals a primitive understanding of cosmology, but also suggests a lack of understanding about the basics of human language.

God thwarted the attempt to build a tower up to the dome of heaven by "confusing" everyone's language. Because they could no longer communicate, they left off building the tower. Although not explicitly stated, the passages seems to suggest the the ancient Hebrews believed that each language is natural and intrinsic to its speakers and that languages are fixed attributes of those speakers. This conflicts with our modern understanding of language.

Words are not natural or intrinsic at all. Words are arbitrary sounds we articulate to symbolize the objects of our thought. These objects of thought may be concrete objects that constitute external reality, abstract concepts such as love, liberty, and God, or products of our imagination. Languages do share some structural similarities in propositions that describe the relationships between an actor, and object, and changes of some kind that an actor imposes on an object. But little else. Moreover, languages evolve. In the Western world, this is most obvious in the case of Latin, which evolved into Italian, French, Spanish, Portugese, and Romanian.

These obvious facts, however, seem to have eluded the editor of Genesis. Because words serve as arbitrary symbols of our objects of thought, God's confusion of language presented but a small barrier to communication. The inhabitants of Babel could easily have reconstituted a uniform language and continued their project.

Tower of Power

2011-06-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

Genesis claims that the descendants of Noah's three sons spread out and repopulated the earth according to their families, tongues, lands, and nations. An editor of Genesis included an addendum to this claim that explains how and why.

The people, according to this addition, spoke one language. Their migrations after the flood brought them to Shiner or Babylonia. Once there, the embarked on an ambitious project.

"And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." Genesis 11:3-4

In accordance with the primitive biblical belief in a flat earth covered with a dome, the inhabitants believed that they could build a tower to reach the dome. And God thought so, too.

"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Genesis 11:5-6

Alarmed at the progress, God decided to confound their speech so that they could no longer cooperate

"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth". Genesis 11:7-9

Without the ability to communicate, the people stopped building their tower and resumed their migrations. Consequently, they allegedly settled themselves according to the pattern described in the previous chapter. In this way, the ancient Hebrews came to explain the origins and presence of the surrounding peoples.

"After their Familes, their Tongues, Their Countries, and Their Nations"

2011-06-13T07:58:00.000-07:00

Noah's three sons and their families then allegedly repopulated the earth.

The passage Genesis 10, sometimes called the "table of nations, lays out this history.

The descendants of Japheth, or "coastland peoples," settled along the Mediterranean coast, Asia Minor, and northern Mesopotamia. From them emerged the Europeans and Iranians.

The descendants of Ham settled in Canann, Africa, and across the fertile crescent. Again, the bible attributes the establishment of cities to individuals. According to this account, the descendants of Ham built the ancient cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Nineveh. From them emerged the Africans and some Middle Eastern peoples.

Finally, the descendants of Seth settled through out the Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsula. From them emerged most Middle Eastern peoples, including the Hebrews and the Arabs.

This is how the ancient Hebrews understood the origins of the people groups that surrounded them.

Each account of the descendants of Noah's sons is said to be "atter their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations."

Only in the next section does the bible attempt to explain the origin of language. And as one might suspect, the account differs from reality.

The New First Family

2011-06-07T18:45:00.000-07:00

After God washed away all animal and plant life, Noah and him family left the ark. He built an altar and offered a burnt sacrifice of some animal or another. God smelled the "soothing aroma" of burning flesh, as some translations have it, and promised never to "curse the ground any more for man's sake."

He commanded them to replenish the earth. So Japheth, Shem, and Ham began to replenish the earth.

He pronounced that from that time on, the fear and dread of mankind will be upon all animals.

He now permitted the consumption of animal flesh. He restricted humans, however, from eating the blood of the animals under penalty of death. "And surely your blood of your lives will I require, " warned God, "at the hand of every beat will I require it." Apparently who even eats animal meat with the blood will himself be killed by animals.

He forbids the taking of human life under penalty of death. "At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso shedeth mans' blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man."

Finally, God make a covenant never to destroy all life through a flood and created the rainbow as a sign of the covenant.

It's Still the End of the World, I Tell Ya

2011-05-31T14:09:00.000-07:00

When Harold Camping and his followers found themselves still dwelling in this current four dimensional space-time reality, Camping returned to his study.He knew the bible could not be in error; it had to be his computations. So he recalculated his figures to arrive at a new proposed date for the rapture: October 21, 2011.

Most Christians cringe that Camping garnered so much media attention. They are all too famliar with that admonition of Jesus that "'no man knows the hour."

The problem with prophesy for these Christians is that the bible says one can know the era. According to Matthew 16:27-28

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:27-28

Because events failed to unfold like Jesus predicted, Christians have generated a host of schemes of biblical interpretation to explain why. Classical premillenialism, historical premillenialims, amillenialism, postmillenialism, dispensational premillenialism, and preterism all seek to bring the many sayings of Jesus into a coherent explanatory model that ultimately tries to explain why Jesus did not return when he predicted.

Most Christians agree that "no one knows the hour." But they disagree about everything else.

It's the End of the World, I Tell Ya!

2011-05-21T11:52:00.000-07:00

The latest Christian news on Noah's flood is not that the ark has been found AGAIN, but that the account of the flood reveals that the end of the age is, well, today.
Harold Camping, a fundamentalist preacher and owner of Family Radio predicted that the rapture will occur today and begin the sequence of events that culminate in the end of this age and the beginning of the millenium. For according to Camping, today is the 7,000 anniversary to the day of Noah's flood.You can read it here. If Camping and his follows are still here tomorrow, the page link might be removed or replaced by a second updated calculation.This is, after all, Campling's second attempt to predict the end.

Not that he is alone in this folly. Jesus himself missed the day as well (Matt. 16:27-28).

God's Fresh Start

2011-05-20T07:15:00.000-07:00

In this continuing survey of Genesis, the book of beginnings . . .

The most well-known story in the bible is that of Noah and the flood. The purpose of the story seems to be to assign meaning to historic floods experienced by people in Mesopotamia and to explain the origin and presence of people living in proximity to the Hebrews. It also is a story of God's mercy and wrath.

The basic account is simple enough. God sees the wickedness of mankind. He decides to destroy not only mankind, but all other animal life as well. He graciously spares Noah and his family by instructing him to build a barge to preserve Noah's family and specimens of the surrounding animal life. Flood waters fall from the sky for 40 days and 40 nights. Fountains from the deep open. Water covers the earth and destroys everything. In the seventh month, the waters began to recede and Noah's ark eventually come to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The family and all the animals leave the ark and repopulate the earth. God promises never to destroy the earth again with a flood and indicates his faithfulness by the appearance of a rainbow in the sky.

As to its historicity, the story of the flood may preserve the oral traditions about the flooding of the Tigress and Euphrates rivers or even about the Black Sea. It at least superficially resembles the Epic of Gilgamesh. The biblical story may even conflate two different accounts. As in the opening chapters of Genesis describing the creation, the account of the flood uses two different names for God. The directions given Noah by the two “gods” differ. One directs Noah to collect animals in pairs; the other directs him to gather seven pairs of animals.

The primitive notion of a worldwide flood that persists among bible-believing Christian is, well, primitive. The Genesis account of the flood, like the account of creation, assumes the “earth” is a flat landmass floating on water, not a spherical planet. Moreover, the landmass is covered with a large dome. This dome has windows through which the water poured to destroy the earth. It is a poor hermeneutic to read back into this ancient text the modern understanding of geophysics. And it leads to conclusions more ridiculous than when taking the story at face value. There is simply not enough water above or beneath the earth for a worldwide flood. To overcome modern scientific objections, one must adopt the presupposition behind all myths—that the world “of old” differed fundamentally from the world “as we know it.”

Then there is the problem of all those animals. Just gathering them all in only seven days seems the most fundamental challenge. Since we did not eat animals before the flood (and presumably they did not each each other), Noah could successfully gather them two by two ( or two by two by seven). Again, the world “before” differed from “the world as we know it.”

And why this mission of saving the animals anyway? God's wrath against the wickedness of man. Only man possesses the free will to deliberate and choose between different courses of action. Animal behavior derives from instinct. Moral accountability for them should be a non-issue. Seen in this light, the flood comes across as not so much a divine punishment resting upon a finely honed sense of justice as an intemperate act of rage against circumstances beyond one's control.

Recently some Christians found additional meaning for the flood. As the next post will show, it helps to pinpoint the exact timing of the final intemperate act of rage: the end of the world.

Every children's story must have a children's song

The children's song innocently ignores the
millions of bloated, rotting carcasses left
after the flood.

Marriages Made in Heaven

2011-05-15T08:31:00.000-07:00

In the continuing survey of Genesis, the book of beginnings . . .

The section subtitled the “Generations of Adam” concludes with a very unusual development. Angels, expelled from heaven, began to take human women as wives.

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Genesis 6:1-2

The phrase sons of God most commonly denotes angelic beings (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Dan 3:25).

The text does not explain how spiritual beings could engage in carnal relations with humans. Medieval Christian philosophers distinguished animals, humans, and angels according to the following scheme: animals were bodies without minds, humans were bodies with minds (or minds with bodies), and angels were minds without bodies. Just how do minds without bodies engage in sexual relations? Perhaps the text assumes angelic or demonic possession; but that seems to be a New Testament phenomenon.

Interwoven with this story is God's disgust with human evil and impending judgment through a worldwide flood.

“And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Genesis 6:3

God warns that in one hundred twenty more years, he will no longer strive against man to restrain his evil ways.

As a result of the trans-dimensional sexual intercourse between angels and women, a race of giants roamed the earth who became men of renown.

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Genesis 6:4

The phrase giants means “fallen ones,” perhaps derived from the idea of fallen angels.

The text returns to the theme of impending judgment.

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” Genesis 6:5-7

Although not explicitly stated, the context suggests a relationship between the wickedness that displeased God and the fallen ones.

God impending judgment, however, seems unjust. If the flood intended to destroy this race of fallend ones, it failed. Centuries later, when the Hebrews left Egypt for Canaan, they encounter more of these giants. Apparently another outbreak of trans-dimensional intercourse occurred. (This might be implied by the phrase “and after that” in Gen. 6:4 above).Moreover, it the destruction of non-human animal life appears to be a misdirected expression of divine anger. Finally, it is difficult to believe that the imagination of every human being was of only evil continually. Some humans, however, were spared:

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Genesis 6:8

One of those Sons of God

The Bible and the Biological Roots of Marriage

2011-05-10T05:01:00.000-07:00

The second section of “generations” purports to describe the “Generations of Adam.” The passage begins as follows;

“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Genesis 5:1-2

The text reiterates the origin of mankind. It attributes to God the creation of human beings. He created them as distinct genders. He called them Adam, which simply means “man.” The text then traces the firstborn of each generation down to Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham, Japheth.

The bible thus offers a primitive view of the origins of human beings and the two genders that understandably make no use of science. And as future posts will show, it also codifies primitive regulations about marriage alien to even the most conservative contemporary Christian and Jewish views of marriage. The bible, nonetheless, reflects a common sense understanding of the biological basis of marriage, reproduction, and family life that seems forgotten, or more accurately, deliberately avoided these days in the debate over same sex marriage.

Man and women have been engaging in sexual intercourse, bearing offspring, and sustaining family life for hundreds of thousands of years. They formed extended families and broader kinship networks based upon consanguinity. Indeed, if human being evolved so that they reproduced asexually, marriage would not even exist.

As human social organization grew, so did cultural practices around marriage . Most of these infused a religious meaning into marriage, as in the Bible. Modern nation states have erected detailed laws regulating marriage and family. And now progressives propose the radical re-definition, or rather de-definition of marriage.

The insurmountable problem is that same sex marriage in only a hollow imitation of biologically based marriage. Same sex couples cannot engage in sexual intercourse properly speaking. They cannot reproduce children through sexual intercourse. They cannot form extended kinship networks based upon consanguinity. To apply marriage and family law to such relationships seems, well, downright silly.

Religious Delusions Shattered by a Bullet

2011-05-07T19:49:00.000-07:00

“Oh Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet, and give us control over them”

--Usama bin Laden (1996)

He saw the world of Islam under siege from the West.. First, the West supported, and continues to support, the establishment of European Jewry in Palestine as a twentieth century resumption of the Crusades. Second, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Third, the United States invaded Iraq.

In addition, the West uses money to secure allies among Muslim nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This allows the West to pursue its anti-Muslim policies unhindered. The presence of United States military personnel in Saudi Arabia proved the last straw.

Bin Laden aimed to use Al-Qaeda to attack the West and demoralize it. He hoped to divide the West from their Muslim allies in the Middle East as a prelude to their overthrow. Finally, he hoped to unify the Muslim world into one political Caliphate under sharia law. With the Pakistani bomb and the Saudi oil, this Muslim superstate would wage war and conquer the West.

A bullet ended the religious delusions of Usama bin Laden.

He Has Risen, Indeed! Or Has He?

2011-04-24T16:04:00.000-07:00

1. And Jesus died.

And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last ( Mark 15:37)

2. Because the Sabbath approached, they found a cave nearby so that they could entomb Jesus quickly even without proper preparation of the body.

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb (Matthew 27:57-60)

A couple of female disciples followed to learn the location of the tomb place so they could return after the Sabbath to properly prepare the body for burial.

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb (Matthew 27:61)

OR

Joseph and Nicodemus already prepared the body for a proper burial, eliminating the need for the female disciples to return to the tomb.

After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:38-41).

3. After the Sabbath passed, two women arrive after sun had risen to anoint the body for burial

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb ( Mark 16:1-2)

OR

Before the sun rose, Mary came alone to the tomb. Because Nicodemus already prepared the body for burial, Mary brought no spices but only came to grieve.

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark (John 20:1)

4. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrive to witness an earthquake, the stoned rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, and one angel sitting upon the stone. Although the tomb guards fainted with fear, the two women approached the scene.

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. (Matt. 28:1-4).

OR

Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome arrive to find the stone rolled back and no angel upon it. They entered the tomb to discover one angel and were alarmed.

And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back— it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed (Mark 16:3-5).

OR

The women find the stone rolled back and no angel on it. They enter the tomb to discover two angels and became frightened.

And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground (Luke 24:2-5).

OR

Mary Magdalene came alone to discover the stone rolled away, saw no angels, and ran . . .

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran . . . ( John 20:1-2)

5. The one angel sitting on the stone tells the women that Jesus has risen. He directs the women to tell the other disciples the good news of the resurrection and that they should go to Galilee to meet Jesus. As they leave, they run into Jesus, who greet them repeats the instructions given by the angels.

But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me. (Matthew 28:5-10)

OR

One of two angels inside the tomb tells the women that Jesus has risen. He gives no instructions about meeting Jesus in Galilee. Neither do they run into Jesus as they run from the scene to tell the disciples the good news.

And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise." And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. ( Luke 24:5-9)

OR

After Mary Magdalene, who initially saw no angels, told the disciples about the empty tomb, the disciples came and witnessed it for themselves. They returned home. Mary, still weeping by the tomb, then enters the tomb to see two angels. Then she turns to see the risen Jesus.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni" (John 20:11-16).

OR

The only angel inside the tomb tells them Jesus has risen and that Jesus will meet his disciples in Galilee. Because of their fear, however, the women told no one.

And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid (Mark 16:6-8).

He has risen!

OR

Has he ?

When a Murderer Invented Civilization

2011-04-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

In this strange episode, the two sons of Adam and Eve bring offerings to God. Cain, a tiller of the ground, brought his produce. Abel, a keeper of sheep, brought a sacrifice from his flocks. God accepted Abel's offering (by fire out of heaven?) by not that of Cain. No explanation occurs as to why God accepted one offering and not another. Indeed, no passages provide any information about God communicating the time and place for offerings or their purpose.

God recognized Cain's disappointment and warned that well doing will find acceptance from God. In a passage that belies the New Testament conception of mankind as slaves to sin, God observes that while sin lies at the door, Cain “shall rule over him.” This suggests that mankind possesses the power to resist and overcome evil.

Cain failed to exercise that rule over sin, however, and murdered his brother. It almost appears as a human sacrifice, Cain's original offering failed to please God so he offered up his brother. Like the aroma of a burnt offering that ascends to the heavens, Abel's blood cries out to God “from the ground.”

Interestingly, God banished Cain rather than executing him. Perhaps this passage attempts to explain the ancient practice of exclusion through "hating out," ostracism, or religious excommunication. Because Abel's blood cried up from the ground, God pronounced a curse that the ground will not yield its strength for Cain. (A bit redundant, since God allegedly afflicted all of mankind with that curse after the fall in Eden. Is this yet another story attempting to explain the origin of natural evil, why men must engage in intensive labor to survive?) God also declared that he will live as a fugitive and vagabond. Cain left for the East.

But God's curse came to naught in any meaningful way.

Cain left for the East. Somehow, the East was peopled already. He married and had a son named Enoch. Sometime after he settled, the bible says he built a CITY. This is, of course, the foundation of civilization. (The word civilization comes from the Latin, civilis, which pertains to citizens and cities.) Moreover, in the genealogy of Cain, the bible credits some of Cain's descendants for building on that foundation. In the biblical pattern of attributing the origin of certain skills or practices to a particular individuals, the text explains the role that Cain's tribe played in the development of civilized life. Tubal-cain became an artificer and instructor in working with brass and iron. He invented the manual arts or useful arts. Jubal was “the father of such as handle the hard and organ.” He invented fine arts, or the arts of the beautiful. Only Jabal is described by the bible as “the father of such that dwell in tents and of such as have cattle.” But this claim is even more questionable than the others. For the rest of the first family remained back in Western Mesopotamia dwelling in tents as uncivilized nomadic shepherds. .

The American Civil War

2011-04-12T19:24:00.000-07:00

One hundred fifty years ago today, on 12 April 1861, militiamen under the command of P. G. T. Beauregard fired upon Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. In response, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down what he described as an insurrection “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” The American Civil War was on.

Following Lincoln's election the previous November, seven southern states voted to secede from the United States.. South Carolina was these first on 20 December 1865. In addition to the claim of establishing their sovereignty, South Carolina sought to gain control over two forts still under control of the United States, forts Moultrie and Sumter.. United States troops under the command of Robert Anderson garrisoned Fort Moultrie. Only a few construction workers finishing up their work garrisoned Sumter. Anderson once served as one of Beauregard's professors at West Point.

Negotiations over transferring control of the forts took place between South Carolina Governor Francis Pickins and President James Buchanan during the last days of his administration.. As these negotiations dragged on, Anderson decided to move his men to the larger, more secure Fort Sumter on 26 December, 1864. After March, “unofficial” negotiations continued between the newly formed government of the Confederate States of America and recently inaugurated President Lincoln. When Lincoln learned about supply problems at Fort Sumter, he decided to send a relief ship. Not officially recognizing the CSA, Lincoln informed Governor Pickens of his decision to resupply Sumter.

In an emergency cabinet meeting CSA President Jefferson Davis decided to seize the fort before the relief ship arrived. Consequently, on 12 April, 1861 at 4:30 a.m., Beauregard ordered the first shots to be fired on Sumter.

The first shot allegedly was fired by Edmund Ruffin. He was a writer on agricultural techniques and a fire-eating secessionist. He also had written a book comparing slavery to free labor that resembled the observations of Karl Marx. Ruffin also fired one of the last shots of the Civil War. Shortly after the war ended, Ruffin swore his hatred of Yankee rule and put a gun to his head and killed himself.

But Christians began their own civil war years earlier. Before the nation divided over slavery, the Christian churches split. While politicians might compromise over interpretation of the Constitution, Christians cannot compromise over interpretation of their Holy Scriptures.

The three largest denominations that fractured over slavery were the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Presbyterians.

The Methodist Church originally opposed slavery, but changed its views as it spread into the South. The church allowed laymen to own slaves but not clergy. Controvery arose when Bishop James Andrew of Georgia attention the Methodist general conference in 1844. He owned no slaves when he received his appointment as Bishop. He later married a woman who owned slaves.When controversy broke out over this issue, the Southerners voted for separation.

In 1814, the Baptists formed a Triennial Convention that met every three years. Officially, the church remained neutral on the question of slavery. The Georgia Baptist Convention, however, nominated a slaveholder named James Reeve to the denomination's Home Mission Board in 1844 as a missionary to Cherokee Indians. The board rejected him because he held slaves. The following year, most Baptist churches in the South withdrew and formed the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Presbyterians had split already over religious issues into "New School" and "Old School" branches. They divided again over slavery. The "New School" located mostly in the North split in 1857. The "Old School located mostly in the South split in 1861.