tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32156037539683832712024-03-05T12:06:18.436-05:00The Radical CentristHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-27163607844547978102011-11-12T07:36:00.001-05:002011-11-12T08:34:46.412-05:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part XI, One Nation Under God, Why That Is ImportantIn the last couple of installments in our series, <i>American IS a Christian Nation</i>, we have learned that the Declaration of Independence is, but in an ideal sense, what the Constitution is in a practical sense. The Declaration is the message, the Constitution is the means. The Declaration is the source of authority. The Constitution is the use of authority. We also contrasted the American form of government, under the authority of Jesus Christ of the New Testament scriptures, with that of Great Britain, another nation which proclaims its submission to the Holy Trinity, and thereby Jesus Christ, Who according to those same scriptures owns all authority in Heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). Any nation that effectively 'buys into that,' also buys into submitting to the authority of the New Testament scriptures. So both nations profess to be <i>'nations under God.'</i><br />
<br />
But just because a nation professes to be under the authority of God of the Bible and New Testament, that does not mean that its people lose all autonomy or free will in how they vote, or operate their chosen government, or their daily lives. Absolutely not! Even in a nation ostensibly founded under the Christian God's authority, there is a role for popular opinion. So let's talk about the role of popular opinion in America's form of government. We illustrate that role though by again looking back at Great Britain.<br />
<br />
Remember, Great Britain has no comparable constitution as that of the United States of America. America’s mother country has a system of laws that essentially passes to Parliament its sovereign source of law-making authority. Some refer to that system of laws that dates back to the Magna Charta as the British Constitution. That system however does not serve the same function as the United States Constitution. British law is essentially what the Parliament says it is. Unlike American law, British laws are enforced with no question as to their 'constitutionality.' The British laws are part and parcel of that constitution. Each new law is effectively a new amendment to the British Constitution. The British Parliament has unlimited prerogative to make law within the British national purview of sovereign authority. Because the Parliament is directly elected by popular vote, the only remedy for unpopular law is for the people to vote unpopular lawmakers out of office. Their hope can be that new lawmakers will be more “popular.” Therefore, as British popular opinion changes, so one might expect their laws and constitution to follow in order to reflect the new prevailing opinions. In that manner, the British Constitution allows for the direct input of unbridled popular opinion. Because it allows the direct input of prevailing opinions and preferences, there is no effective check on the law-making power of the majority of popular opinion in the British system. That system can be said to be “highly democratic.” A nation such as Great Britain can be thought of as a nation floating on a sea of popular opinion.<br />
<br />
But by contrast, and in theory, the American system of government only allows laws to change if they can show logical derivation from the basic rules established under the Constitution. As Lincoln professed, and as has been demonstrated logically to be the case, the basic rules of the Constitution carry primal American national authority only when understood to approximate in law the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. (This must be true because, as we have demonstrated, the authority by which the Constitution was first proposed can show derivation to a primal source of American national sovereign authority only if reasoned to be that same authority implied to pursue the ideal intentions of the “good People of the colonies.” No other source of authority can demonstrate a logical derivation to what might be considered a primal root.) Therefore, in order to adequately check the powers of government and to preserve the endowment of unalienable rights and equality for all men, the Constitution was conceived and authorized. That document’s purpose was (and is) to list the specific limited purview of authority the people, and the states, wished (and wish) to delegate to their federal government. For this reason , as opposed to a nation floating on a sea of popular opinion, America might be better understood as a nation floating on a sea of popular opinion, however staked to a somewhat stubbornly movable buoy. Because new enactments of law must show practical derivation from the basic rules of the Constitution, and because those basic rules can only carry sovereign authority if they can demonstrate to logically derive from the source of all primal American authority, and because the source of all primal American authority can show derivation only when understood to pursue the ideal intentions of the “good People of the colonies” expressed within the Declaration of Independence, in a theoretical sense, one conclusion regarding the purpose of the Constitution logically follows:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>The authoritative purpose of the United States Constitution is to provide that all enactments of law and functions of government are fundamentally consistent with the ideal steering principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence.</b></i></div>
<br />
The steering principles of the Declaration are what I referred above as the 'stubbornly moveable buoy.' <br />
<br />
Although popular opinion certainly has a role to play in the decision-making process of the American system of government, unlike that of Great Britain, the American Constitution provides that the role of popular opinion, as a source of authority, is not unbridled under the auspices of the present revolutionary document. In that same theoretical sense, popular opinions from which America's laws derive, may only carry primal American national sovereign authority, which authority comes from God, and thereby “authoritatively” affect the American system of laws and government, when those opinions can demonstrate consistency with the nation’s constitutional rules. Providing the nation’s constitutional rules and system of laws are reasonable practical approximations of the steering ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, AKA, God's Natural Laws; and providing those interpretations of the Constitution and Declaration remain as they were first intended by the “good People,” which was to fulfill God's will on earth, the Theory of America predicts that America, by the divine Providence “relied” upon by the Founding Fathers, will continue to be protected from the effects of a fallen world.<br />
<br />
Conversely, if America’s Constitution, its laws or their respective interpretations ever diverge from the original 'ideal intentions' expressed in the Declaration, the Theory of America predicts that America would travel down a perilous pathway. The result of such a course would be an America, simply another nation among nations, in wait of the next despotic ruler to come along. This is the same fate that Israel of the Old Testament faced each time it turned away from God. Whenever any of the twelve tribes of Israel turned away from God, they were conquered by opposing world forces. As of the time that Jesus Christ came into the world, only one of the original tribes of Israel remained, one remnant, the tribe of Judah. According to the Theory of America, if America, of its own free will, turns from God, the very same fate awaits. God gives America and its citizens the right of free will. God of the Bible and New Testament will never force obedience on anyone. But that God of the New Testament only protects those who respect His authority, who thereby profess faith in His Son, and by their works obey the Son's commands. Men have free will to form their own personal opinions and preferences regarding how their governments and laws should operate. Men are free to institute governments according to those opinions. But God has free will too. And God's covenant of protection for His people only extends to those who submit to Him. The Theory of America predicts that any nation under God, which forgets its source of authority, and thereby forgets its very purpose, just like the eleven lost tribes of Israel, will become a people scattered to the wind, fallen as the prey to the world's despots. We should all take note; what I describe is the history of the world. In that world, only the strongest survive. In that world Darwin was exactly right. After all, it is a Darwinian world which does not respect the authority of God. But the scriptures promise a greater power exists in the believer than that is in the world. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. (1 John 4:4)</i></blockquote>
According to the Theory of America, to combat the world's forces formed against them, Americans would be wise to draw upon that power. That is because according to the scriptures,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 54:17)</i></blockquote>
<br />
These scriptures are portions of God's covenant with mankind. The Founders understood man's responsibility to live under God, and their own responsibility to design their new nation as <i>One Nation Under God</i>. Perhaps at this juncture, the reader is beginning to more fully understand all that passed through the minds of the Founders as they stood in line to sign the Declaration of Independence.<br />
<br />
In our next installment of America IS A Christian nation, We will gaze into the figurative 'test tube' in which the American Experiment is performed, and we will continue to learn about the relationship between life inside that test tube. <br />
<br />
Join me then. I'll be back soon.<br />
<br />
-HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-86036603628126864752011-10-31T10:15:00.000-04:002013-08-16T07:05:54.253-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part X, Contrasting the 'Divine Rights of Man' and 'Divine Right of Kings' Systems of Human GovernmentIn the last installment of <i>America IS a Christian Nation</i>, we derived that the Declaration of Independence, as the nation’s charter, is the superior state document of the United States of America. The pursuit of the People’s original ideal intentions as expressed or directly implied in the Declaration is the only legitimate source of primal authority for the American nation's government. The Union of States and its Constitution were founded with and depend upon that source of primal authority.<br />
<br />
We also noted that America, and its government are authorized by ideals, statements describing the perfect condition, perfect in the eyes of God. The Constitution is a practical mechanism meant to approximate those ideals in an imperfect world.<br />
<br />
There are other nations ostensibly designed to live under certain ideals portrayed as God's Laws. So America is not unique in that one respect. These other nations, however, begin with entirely different and even incompatible assumptions regarding what God's Laws actually are. Let's look at one of these, Great Britain.<br />
<br />
Great Britain boasts of a constitution, however that constitution is not simply one document, such as we know the American Constitution. That constitution is somewhat ethereal. It is comprised of a series of documents and court cases that date back as far as the Magna Carta. Because over time, cases may be decided on opposing principles from previous cases, the resulting principles of which derive the 'Common Law,' the supreme law in Great Britain is subject to change, not so much from acts of Parliament, but from acts of the courts. Because the primary influence on newly decided cases is a certain prevailing standard of the day, the meaning of the British Constitution changes with each newly decided court precedent. In this manner, popular opinion has a direct role in the meaning of British Supreme Law. Although it is an imperfect instrument of supreme law, at least in theory, the United States Constitution is founded on authoritative ideals, ostensibly Natural Laws of God, and not prevailing societal opinions. <br />
<br />
But according to the British Supreme Law, the head of the government remains in the person of the monarch, the King or Queen of England. It has to be that way because, according to the supreme law, sovereign authority for Great Britain flows from God, to the monarch, from the monarch to the government, and from the government to the people. In this manner, the people receive authority from God, but the authority they receive is a mere remnant of the authority first passed from God to the monarch.<br />
<br />
But that seems to fly in the face of what we are taught, that Britain is a democracy; that its parliament is elected by the people, the "commoners." That is true, but only by contract, not by authority directly from God. <b>By contract</b> with the monarchy does the House of Lords receive authority. <b>By contract</b> with the House of Lords does the House of Commons receive authority. And only because the <b>House of Commons allows itself to be elected by the people</b> does Great Britain resemble a democracy. The House of Commons could change that simply by changing the laws. THe House of Commons owns sufficient authority to do that. But the chances are great against it, because if they did, they would likely have a revolution on their hands. A revolution could change the very nature by which authority is conveyed. Therefore, popular opinion, and possibly fear of reprisal, keeps Great Britain resembling a democracy, at least to the extent that it does. But to the extent that it resembles a democracy, it does so only out of a series of historical agreements that emerged for various reasons, and at various times, those agreements being between and among the monarchy, the Lordship and the commoners.<br />
<br />
Not lost in all of this transfer of authority, however, is that <u>sovereign authority enters the British system of government through the monarchy</u>. As much as it may seem differently, Great Britain still holds to the <i>'Divine Right of Kings'</i> model of national government. That is why the monarch is referred in Great Britain as <i>'the Sovereign.'</i> And because of this close relationship, ostensibly with God, the monarch is the actual head of the Church of England. And this is why each succession to the throne is performed under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_British_monarch">coronation ceremony</a> in Westminster Cathedral, by the second in charge of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury.<br />
<br />
So in Great Britain, sovereign authority flows in the following manner:<br />
<br />
<i>God >> Monarch >> Lordship >> Commoners</i><br />
<br />
Authority for government flows in the following manner:<br />
<br />
<i>God >> Monarch >> House of Lords >> House of Commons >> Commoners</i><br />
<br />
So it is easy to see who is really at the bottom of the pecking order of authority in Great Britain. At the very bottom are the people. Only by contract, and indeed contract entered into through coercion, were any rights to govern ever wrested from the monarchy. Still, officially, and legally, the British Monarch is more than simply a figurehead. The British Monarch is still the head of state in Great Britain, receiving authority directly from God, or so the laws express.<br />
<br />
But the American Founders understood a different flow of authority, inherent in the Scriptures of the Bible, than are evident in the design of the British <i>Divine Right of Kings</i> model. Using the scriptures as the basis of their reasoning, the American Founders acted on the self-evident truth that, rather than national sovereign authority flowing from God, to a monarch, on its way to the people, God instead endows that authority directly to each individual. And with that authority, the people decide whether they will authorize a government to take on certain roles they feel may be necessary. In this fashion, the American flow of authority might be better understood as the <i>"Divine Rights of Man"</i> model. The American model of the flow of sovereign authority is thus.<br />
<br />
<i>God >> Individuals >> Government</i><br />
<br />
Recognizing that these models for governing are fundamentally incompatible, because the Founders reasoned the authority for their actions in defiance of the king, and did so directly from the same scriptures the king read from, they were able to justify the authority necessary to break the political bonds that connected them with Great Britain, and did so within a jurisdiction in which the King, himself, was bound, the King James Scriptures.<br />
<br />
Within those Scriptures, the Founders' view of God's authority to men is inferred from Jesus' sermons, given directly to the people, bypassing local governments, bypassing local religious authorities. The Apostle John wrote of this flow of authority. When Judas betrays Jesus, and as a result Jesus is brought before the court of Pontius Pilot, Pilot demands Jesus to cooperation in the proceedings. When Jesus refuses cooperate, Pilot speaks,<br />
<br />
<i>"Do you refuse to speak to me? Don't you realize I have power [authority] either to free you or to crucify you?" (John 19:10)</i><br />
<br />
To which, Jesus responds,<br />
<br />
<i>"You would have no power [authority] over me if it were not given to you from above.
Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater
sin." (John 19:11)</i><br />
<br />
Because God's authority to govern one's self extends directly to men, that authority is unaffected by powers assumed by an unelected government. Unelected by the people, and therefore owning no real authority to govern, Jesus understood that Pilot had no authority over Him. Had Pilot owned authority, it would have been given to him by God above, which it was not. To crucify Jesus would therefore be the act of a despot, a tyrant, a king, such as King George represented to the American Founders. And so, according to Jesus Christ, the greater sin than even the crucifixion by Roman government, by men following orders according to man's law, however unauthorized by God, was a voluntary act of betrayal by Judas. Judas possessed God's authority to utilize his own free will. But Judas used that authority against God. Although both are sins, according to Jesus, personal betrayal of God is sin greater than that of crucifying God by the power of a despot. And therefore, the individual who betrays God is owed the greater punishment.<br />
<br />
And so the lesson here is that the two basic models of government, the American <i>"Divine Rights of Man" </i>model, and the British <i>"Divine Right of Kings"</i> model, practiced in their basic forms, are incompatible. The Founders drew authority from the Scriptures to break from the king's supposed authority. And they did so by nullifying the king's authority, holding that it was invalid according to the Scriptures. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, however, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the both sides decided to peacefully coexist. Under that treaty's terms, neither side validates the others source of authority; but both sides hold to that their claim that their respective nations are authorized by the <i>"most Holy and Undivided Trinity."</i><br />
<br />
Next in our series, <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, we will begin to discover just what it means to be <i>'one nation under God.'</i>Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-82466120054172937982011-10-23T09:42:00.002-04:002013-08-15T07:09:49.920-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part IX, 'A More Perfect Union'From the previous installment of <i>America IS a Christian Nation</i>, we learned that the very authority of the Constitution derives directly from the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. So one major lesson we can now understand is that the Constitution can only be correctly understood when interpreted in the light of that meaning. For this reason, any correct constitutional interpretation must respect, and therefore preserve, the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution must preserve the Declaration of Independence; or if it does not, it loses all legal authority. In Lincoln's terms, to preserve itself, the Constitution must preserve the Declaration of Independence, <i>"the apple of gold preserved in the picture of silver."</i><br />
<br />
And we also learned from the previous installment that this intricate relationship between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that we are talking about is no vicarious result, no accident. No, that relationship was anticipated by our Founders, and is the product of intelligent design.<br />
<br />
But today, we will look at the term, 'self-government,' how that term derives with respect to America's founding documents, and how it relates to the type of government America instituted under the Constitution.<br />
<br />
One common misconception is that any particular nation’s sovereignty is recognizable only upon the establishment of a formal national government. On the contrary, as of the signing of the Declaration, The United States of America existed as a sovereign nation, but it had no formal government. That fact demonstrates the very heart of the American Theory. The United States of America is governed by its people, and with the consent of those same people. Lincoln referred to that concept as <i>“self government,”</i> or government <i>“of the people, by the people and for the people.”</i> Within the Declaration of Independence is a statement of steering ideals. Those ideals <i><b>steer</b></i> because they <i><b>authorize</b></i>. They authorize only certain actions, certain 'roads' for the government to take. These ideals are like guardrails on the highway. They do not allow America to venture far off course before America runs out of authority. For that reason, they tend to steer the American government only to act according to the ideals of the declaration. American authority may therefore be thought of as <i>'ideal authority,'</i> the authority that is derives from striving for perfection, the perfect state of government, self-government.<br />
<br />
Ideally, people who understand that they are all created with equal rights with respect to their lives, their freedom and their daily pursuit of happiness, should all be able to get along together, work together, play together, respecting each others' rights, as they would have theirs respected. In such a neighborhood, or town, or city, or even such a nation, no formal governing body would be necessary. The Declaration of Independence is a description of an ideal world. The Declaration of Independence is a description of life in Heaven; or perhaps more accurately described as life should be<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
'on earth...as It Is In Heaven.'</div>
<br />
Knowing however that, practically speaking, the American ideals could never be lived to, one reasonable question might be to ask the tangible benefit that such a statement of ideals could bring to those who might subscribe to them. Lincoln offers us his opinion. He steadfastly maintained that in stating the ideals as they did in the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>set up a standard maxim for free society, which could be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.</i></blockquote>
They used the assertion that <i>“all men are created equal”</i> as:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism,</i></blockquote>
for if: <br />
<blockquote>
<i>such (despots) should re appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.</i></blockquote>
One, two, three. <br />
<br />
So in an ideal world, self-government requires no formal common governing structure. In that world, everyone always does the right thing, respecting each others' rights, helping each other through life. But the founding fathers knew that life in America, populated by a people who were subject to the corrupting influences living a natural world with limited resources, though those people might live under the bright promise of the
“blessings of liberty,” that life could never approach the common
conception of “Heaven.” Understanding that in that world, Americans could not on a daily basis live up to the ideals of the Declaration, in authorizing that document, the <i>'good people of the colonies,' </i>through their representatives, authorized their successors to approximate those ideals in a practical, livable governing mechanism. The founders authorized that pursuit expressing one certain <i>'self-evident truth'</i> in the Declaration, one that their successors could utilize to authorize a formal governing structure. According to the Declaration, in order to<br />
<blockquote>
<i>secure these [human] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.</i></blockquote>
Acting with the authority implied by that <i>truth</i>, the Founders' successors subsequently justified the authority necessary to create the present day constitutional document and United States Government. Some disagree, saying that the Constitution authorizes itself and needs no authority from any previous agreement. Well, that cannot be, and here is why. In its preamble, the Constitution invokes its source of authority. That authority is <i>“We the People of the United States.”</i> But <i>“The United States”</i> to which <i>“the People” </i>refer, as we have demonstrated in previous installments, was itself created with the primal American authority first reasoned to exist in the Declaration of Independence. And so we can know that the authority for the Constitution is the same authority for the Declaration of Independence.<br />
<br />
And because it is the same authority, subject to the same conditions, which conditions are synonymous with original theoretical intentions of the people represented by the Founders, the Constitution can be understood to be an authoritative document only when understood, even in the most theoretical sense, as pursuing those same original intentions. And therefore, the authority to have even proposed the Constitution for ratification demonstrates a link to the solitary source of primal American authority only when understood to have been an effort to fulfill of those same original intentions. Recognizing the derivative nature of the authority distributed within the American government by the instrument known as the Constitution, one is therefore forced to recognize that the United States as a national body of sovereign authority, its Constitution and republican system of government all depend on the ideal principles of the Declaration of Independence as their sole and thus “primal” source of authority. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, by <i>“appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,”</i> the Founders established (quite brilliantly) that only <i>“the Supreme Judge of the world”</i> possessed sufficient authority to judge their assertions of truth, their motivations and actions. Having aligned their new system of human cooperation to respect the intentions of God, as the Founders understood those intentions from the Scriptures, all-powerful God theoretically underwrites the Peoples’ authority to carry out their ideal purposes, which by definition are God's purposes on earth. Thus, in summary, according to the Founders’ theory, the Creator underwrites the authority conveyed from the <i>“good People of the colonies,”</i> to their representatives, to carry out the ideal intentions announced in the Declaration of Independence. In this elevated sense, God underwrites those intentions because they are ideal. Those intentions are perfect in the eyes of God. Those intentions theoretically align with His intentions and therefore are not subject to debate by mere men. For this reason,<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<b>The Declaration of Independence, as the nation’s charter, is the superior state document of the United States of America. The pursuit of the People’s original ideal intentions as expressed or directly implied in the Declaration is the only legitimate source of primal authority for the American nation's government. The Union of States and Constitution were founded with and depend on that source of primal authority.</b></blockquote>
</div>
America is authorized by ideals, statements describing the perfect condition, perfect in the eyes of God. The Constitution is a practical mechanism meant to approximate those ideals in an imperfect world.<br />
<br />
Note that since its ratification, the Constitution has been changed 27 times. Therefore, in a certain sense, the American system of government has been changed 27 times. But each time, no matter what the circumstances or theme of the revision, the basic purpose of each amendment has been the same, and that is <i>“to form a more perfect union.”</i> The term,<i> 'perfect'</i> in the Constitution's preamble refers to the perfect description of human cooperation in the Declaration of Independence, perfect self-government, perfect in the eyes of God.<br />
<br />
Even the term, <i>'good,'</i> which in the Declaration describes the <i>'people of the colonies'</i> those who authorized their representatives to sign that document, expresses the notion of the ideal. The <i>'good people of the colonies' </i>were <i>'good'</i> only because they intended to fulfill God's will in declaring independence for their new nation under God. Christian Scriptures require that <i>'good'</i> is <i>'good'</i> only if God agrees that it is <i>'good.'</i> <i>'Good'</i> in God's eyes is nothing short of perfection. So the <i>'good people'</i> are <i>'good'</i> because they intended their new nation to pursue perfection in God's sight, fulfilling God's will on earth. <br />
<br />
But whereas the Constitution has changed many times, the Declaration of Independence never changes and it never will. The Declaration of Independence is the description of the founders’ perfect theoretical union in an ideal sense, one that the Constitution can only approximate in a practical sense. Whereas the Declaration is the vision, the Constitution is the vehicle. Whereas the Declaration shows the path, the Constitution makes the path. During such occasions that the Constitution may turn away from America’s founding principles, the Declaration is the shining light just over the hill that lets America understand when the Constitution has wandered astray. Without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution has little meaning. The Declaration is the meaning; the Constitution is the means. The Declaration of Independence is, in an ideal sense, what the Constitution is in a practical sense. Yet both documents have the same purpose. And that is the purpose of, in the end, creating a perfect union, perfect in the eyes of God.<br />
<br />
In the next installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, I will extend these remarks and contrast the American version of the perfect union with certain other unions which depend on authority from God.<br />
<br />
Thanks very much for your readership!<br />
<br />
-HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-45962357394474023792011-10-20T07:17:00.000-04:002013-08-14T07:21:24.971-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part VIII, the Product of Intelligent DesignFrom the previous installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, we understand Lincoln's position that the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the United States of America, derives its purpose and authority from the Declaration of Independence. According to Lincoln, one primary purpose of the Constitution is to provide the direct means by which the principles of the Declaration, which serve to authorize America as a nation, along with its government, are preserved. In this installment, we will look to verify what Lincoln proposes taking that position.<br />
<br />
As we understand from past installments, the means by which the Declaration of Independence declares sovereignty for America is by the use of a certain set of principles, crafted into a sequence, which constructs a rationale. Essentially, using this technique, the Founders 'reasoned' America was into existence. That America was born a nation among nations is not a simple declaration. It is a logical conclusion. The constructed rationale that reasons America into existence proposes various universal truths, ostensibly Laws of God, which if true, when applied to the circumstances at the time, results in the justufied right of the American people to declare independence, away from the authority of the King of England, and define a new source of authority, that source being the <i>'good people of the colonies.'</i> But to be clear, those people owned the authority to reclaim their sovereignty from the King of England ONLY by virtue of the particular supporting rationale documented within the Declaration of Independence, agreed and signed in 1776. Other than the reasons offered in the Declaration of Independence, there would be no reason, even today, for America to assume among the powers of the earth those powers to act as a nation among nations. <br />
<br />
Key to Lincoln's understanding in all of this is that the Constitution codifies the year 1776, of course implying July 4 of that year, as the date on which the United States of America became 'reasoned into existence.' That fact is on display in the Constitution's Article VII, which "date stamps" its proposed ratification on<br />
<blockquote>
<i>the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven <u>and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth </u>(which twelfth year directly references the year 1776, implying July 4).</i></blockquote>
Using this sort of date stamp, one which places its proposed ratification relative to July 4, 1776, the Constitution directly recognize that portion of the Declaration of Independence that serves the primary purpose of underwriting the sovereignty of the United States of America. And so for this reason, that the United States of America was founded in the year 1776, is codified as America's supreme law, just like any other provision of the Constitution. And in so doing, Article VII also accepts the conclusion of rightful American sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence, as Supreme Law as well, that recognition certified by reference. <br />
<br />
All that being the case, a meaningful question to consider would be whether any authoritative interpretation of the Constitution might “rightly” deny the <b>preceding </b>portions of the Declaration, the portions which serve collectively as the supporting rationale by which America’s “rightful” sovereignty was originally concluded. Asking this question more generally and with respect to principle, if one might accept the validity of any certain logical conclusion, as the Constitution does, knowing that such a conclusion is expressly dependent upon a particular supporting rationale, which it is, might one at the same time “rightly” deny the validity of the supporting rationale? No, the only legitimate means to “rightly” deny a supporting rationale upon which an accepted logical conclusion expressly depends, would be to discount that original rationale and offer another rationale, one that would as fairly support the same conclusion. <br />
<br />
So unless the Constitution offers a new and different rationale, one that would otherwise as fairly support its accepted conclusion of "rightful" American sovereignty, which it does not, the question before us specifically becomes to decide whether any justifiable interpretation of the Constitution may “rightfully” discount that one remaining rationale that serves as the only “rightful” basis for the conclusion of American sovereignty, that one remaining rationale which is offered within the expressions of the Declaration of Independence. The answer again, is simply, no. America must have a reason to exist. America does not exist on its own for no reason. And the only reason or reasons for America's existence are those offered within the Declaration of Independence. That being the case, understanding that the authority of the Constitution itself depends solely upon the “rightful” conclusion of American sovereignty underwritten by the rationale of the Declaration of Independence, any judicial interpretation of the Constitution, which by its terms discounts the Declaration’s rationale, (which incidentally requires among other things that God exists), coincidentally undermines the legitimate authority of the Constitution itself. And if the legitimate authority of the Constitution were undermined by such an interpretation, any constitutional interpretation built upon the premise of a that interpretation would be illegitimate and unauthoritative as well.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>And so because the very authority of the Constitution derives directly from the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, one major lesson we can understand is that the Constitution can only be correctly understood when interpreted in the light of that meaning. For this reason, any correct constitutional interpretation must respect, and therefore preserve, the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. <u>The Constitution therefore must preserve the Declaration of Independence</u>; or if it does not, it loses all legal authority. In Lincoln's terms, to preserve itself, the Constitution must preserve the Declaration of Independence, <i>"the apple of gold preserved in the picture of silver."</i></b></blockquote>
That the Constitution can be thought of conceptually as the frame around an apple of gold, is no vicarious result, no coincidental by-product of the American founding. No, this relationship is by design. The American Founders could have established their new nation on any particular construct of authority. They could have simply told the King of England that they were tired of his meddling in their affairs and established America as the result of a <i>coup d'état</i>. But they did not. And this intricately woven relationship that exists between the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, is the result of intelligent design. No doubt Thomas Jefferson's overwhelming intelligence and his thorough understanding of the principles at work in the Declaration of Independence were the reasons the Founders chose him to author such a landmark document. Lincoln understood Jefferson's importance, his intelligence and vision, at the 2nd Continental Congress. Of Jefferson, Lincoln wrote<br />
<blockquote>
<i>All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the <b>coolness</b>, <b>forecast</b>, and <b>capacity </b>to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.</i></blockquote>
Imagine a young man, such as Thomas Jefferson, being given the task of constructing a rationale that would yield the rightful overthrow of the British Monarchy. Such an individual would have to possess each of the traits to which Lincoln referred--<i>coolness</i>, to keep his head on straight as he labored, <i>forecast</i>, the vision to understand the future consequences of his work, and <i>capacity</i>, the intelligence to perform such a daunting task. So today, we can know that the resulting relationship inherent between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is not a vicarious result, not an accident. No, that relationship was anticipated, and is the product of intelligent design.<br />
<br />
Having demonstrated the validity of Lincoln's apple and picture analogy, in the next installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, we will delve further into the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and discuss in practical terms, what it means that our Constitution is no stand alone document, rather that it depends on the Declaration of Independence for its own theoretical, and even legal, validity and integrity. And when we are done we will discuss why it is so important that the principles put to pen in the Declaration of Independence be preserved.<br />
<br />
And once again, thank you for taking part in this series. Right here is one of the few places, perhaps even the only place, you might ever uncover this information. <br />
<br />
-HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-36689434397321426202011-10-15T10:28:00.000-04:002013-08-12T08:40:34.568-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part VII, The Apple of Gold and Picture of SilverIn our last installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, we
began to see how Lincoln not only understood the theory of the American
Founders, but also relied upon the precepts of that theory, the
assumptions of that theory, as he made the decisions that would
ultimately guide America through its most significant endurance trial,
the American Civil War.<br />
<br />
But the precepts and
assumptions that underwrite the meaning of America were not new to
Lincoln as he took office as president. No, in fact, it was Lincoln's
heartfelt regard for the meaning of America's founding that motivated
him to seek the presidency in the first place. Evidence of Lincoln's
knowledge of the meaning of America's founding is found in early records
of his pronouncements.<br />
<br />
In one such account, having
witnessed the repeal of the Missouri compromise in 1854, the future 16th
President displayed his understanding of the American Theory as he
echoed the earlier remarks of Washington and the other early presidents. He urged the adoption of
national harmony with the principles of the Declaration of
Independence. In so doing, Lincoln offered the result that millions of
free happy people shall be <i>“blessed to the latest generations.”</i> (And Who, of course, might be better equipped to bless that many people than God?)<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Let
us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and, with it, the
practices and policy which harmonize with it…If we do this, we shall not
only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it as to make and
to keep it forever worthy of saving. We shall have saved it that the
succeeding millions of free happy people. The world over, shall rise up
and call us blessed to the latest generations. </i></blockquote>
As the theory of America goes, leading up to its ultimate conclusion, the actual statement declaring independence for America, the Declaration of Independence lays out a train of rationale, incorporating certain of God's Laws, each derived from the New Testament, which entitled the American people to break the political bonds it had with Great Britain. The Founders theorized that a nation obeying these laws, and in so doing performing God's will for man and mankind, God would bless America, protecting it from the effects of a fallen world, by divine Providence. That was their theory, the Theory of America. In quotation above, Lincoln recognizes that theory for what it is and urges Americans to Re-adopt the precepts of the Declaration, and with it, <i>'the practices and policies which harmonize with it.'</i> Lincoln proposes that if that goal can be accomplished, happiness among the America would abound, and people all over the world would recognize God's Providence for what it is, and agree that America was blessed among the other nations of the world.<br />
<br />
In
1861, Lincoln jotted down one of the many notes he would keep in the
drawer of his desk for future use, perhaps in speeches. That was his
way of retaining certain thoughts he believed were important. Many of
these notes are available to us today. In this particular note below, Lincoln
refers to the principles offered to the world in the Declaration of
Independence, and the prosperity that he believes would not have
resulted without America's adherence to those principles:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>All
this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause.
Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the
result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great
prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more
closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of
"Liberty to all"—the principle that clears the path for all—gives hope
to all—and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The
expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was
most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could
have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we
could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent
prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers
did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of
masters.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The assertion of that
principle, at that time, was the word, "fitly spoken" which has proved
an "apple of gold" to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the
picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made,
not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The
picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger. </i></blockquote>
This
particular note, documenting Lincoln's thoughts, is ripe with meaning for us to
consider today. According to Lincoln, yes, the Constitution, and the
union of American states were vital in achieving the great prosperity of
America at the time. But according to Lincoln, the revered Constitution
and the nation to which it applies are NOT the primary reason for the
prosperity to which he refers. No, according to Lincoln, there is
something else, <i>'back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart.'</i> That 'something,' is the Declaration of Independence, and what it means, and the authority that <i>'principle'</i> conveys to America through its Constitution.<br />
<br />
Using
the Scriptures (Proverbs 25:11), according to Lincoln, the <i>assertion </i>into the world of
that particular principle (the Declaration of Independence) at that
particular time (1776) is a word <i>fitly spoken.</i> That word is golden
fruit, a golden apple, to us if we select it. In other words, the
Founders inserted a particular source of sovereign authority into the
world, inspired by God, the <i>'principle,'</i> at a particular time, 1776, which is a <i>'word fitly spoken.'</i>
According to Lincoln's interpretation of the proverb, a <i>word fitly</i>
spoken is therefore a word that not only expresses God's intentions for
the world, <u><b>but is also spoken into the world at the time God intends</b></u>.
So a <i>fitly spoken</i> word is one appropriate to God's intentions, and also spoken at a time appropriate to carry God's intentions forward. Because Lincoln derives this meaning directly from Biblical Scriptures, and he obviously understood the authoritative nature of thoseS criptures regarding Constitutional interpretations.<br />
<br />
In
1859, in a
letter written to a Mr. Henry L. Pierce, in response to Pierce's invitation
to speak at an occasion celebrating the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln illustrates this same Biblical principle, one of a <i>'word fitly spoken,'</i> into the world.
Although Lincoln declined the invitation, he wrote down certain thoughts
the invitation inspired him to consider. Among those thoughts, Lincoln
wrote, <br />
<blockquote>
<i>All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in
the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a
single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce
into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, <b>applicable to
all men and all times, and so to embalm it there</b>, that to-day, and in
all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very
harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.</i></blockquote>
The
importance Lincoln ascribed to the principles of the Declaration is an
overriding theme in many of his writings, but never more so than in these I
bring up today. According to Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson should be honored
because he had the <i>'coolness, forecast, and capacity'</i> to introduce into a <i><b>'merely </b>revolutionary document,' </i>an abstract truth applicable to all men and all times, the effect of which was to <i><b>embalm </b></i>these
principles, preserving them for all time. The content of these
principles, and how they might remain preserved, is the subject of
Lincoln's desk note above. According to that note, the union and
Constitution are the <i>'picture of silver'</i> which <i>'adorn and preserve'</i> the principles, the <i>'apple of gold.'</i><br />
<br />
Stay with me here. Lincoln thought deeply. And if you are to understand this, you must go where he went during certain quiet moments of contemplation. Here we go... <br />
<br />
In embalming the principles of the Declaration, by<i> 'fitly speaking'</i> that word of God, at the precise moment in history God intended, Jefferson's principles would forever provide <i>'a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.' </i>Vital though would be that the principles of the Jefferson <u>be preserved</u>. And
according to Lincoln, <b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Preserving the principles of the Declaration of Independence is the primary purpose of the
union and Constitution</b>.<br />
<br />
Lincoln writes, <i>"The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to
adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple
for the picture." </i>Lincoln states here his understanding that the Constitution is therefore made for the
Declaration of Independence, its primary purpose being to magnify and preserve its principles, and
not the other way around. In Lincoln's thinking, the Constitution can therefore only
be correctly understood as document subordinate to, and in service to, the Declaration of
Independence. And the Constitution's primary purpose is simply to
preserve the meaning of the Declaration for all time, the principles of which being <i>'applicable to all men and all times.'</i><br />
<br />
In our next installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>,
we will look further into the relationship between the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, and discover that the Constitution is
simply a <i>practical expression</i>, codifying the principles of the Declaration of Independence, an <i>idealistic expression</i>, into certain manageable, workable prescriptions of law.<br />
<br />
-Hank <br />
<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-43472215782984380262011-10-12T17:11:00.000-04:002013-08-09T05:50:25.657-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part VI, Lincoln Uses the American TheoryIn the last installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, we learned what various early American presidents had to say about the 'American Experiment,' and the theory that experiment is designed to test. We learned that our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, understood the theory behind America's founding and design, and that he spoke to that theory, and the ongoing American Experiment, in his famous remarks at Gettysburg in November of 1863.<br />
<br />
And we also learned that Lincoln's knowledge of the Founders' theory, and the true meaning of America, are laced throughout Lincoln's speeches and writings, over one million words in total, which are still accessible to us today. Because Lincoln's speeches and writings articulate his knowledge so well, and indeed because Lincoln used the Founders' theory while administering the American experiment during his time as president, Lincoln is a great resource for us to better understand the truth of these matters today. <br />
<br />
Even prior to his remarks at Gettysburg, in 1861, during a special address to Congress, Abraham Lincoln spoke of the theoretical nature of the American nation as he reckoned that the American Experiment had not yet been resolved:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled---the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains---its successful maintenance against a formidable [internal] attempt to overthrow it.</i></blockquote>
At the time Lincoln spoke, no one could have known that during that test of the Civil War, more than 650,000 Americans would lose their lives fighting for the ideologies they believed in. No one could have known that countless millions would be affected so deeply by that struggle between the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and their antithesis. Yet as Lincoln would ultimately understand, the experimental test trial of endurance, the Civil War, would end as a success. As he expressed hope in Gettysburg, in the end the nation would live. Obviously, Lincoln viewed the Civil War and the circumstances that led to it through the prism of the American Theory. It may sound strange to say, but viewed in that context, the American Civil War concluded with a successful outcome.<br />
<br />
Since America’s founding, in a certain sense the results of the American Experiment have been analyzed by every succeeding generation. Each day, politicians, business managers and common individuals weigh in their particular results. Those results take many forms. Politicians advocate their findings for as many as will lend an ear. Their motivation is to create a base of sympathizers from which to become elected to a position of political <b>power</b>. Business managers market to the public as they endeavor to create financial <b>wealth</b>. Individual Americans continually compare their conditions to those of their peers. They perform these comparisons, the purpose of which is to assess their own personal <b>success</b>. If one should isolate the American Experiment for the measurement and prediction of just four parameters—endurance, power, wealth and individual success, and then gauge them against the same parameters measured from any other nation since America's founding, or any other nation prior to America's founding, the data is consistent with the theory that God has indeed Provided for America’s protection and the advancement of the conditions of its inhabitants, relative to those same measurements gathered from other nations. <br />
<br />
Lincoln once acknowledged the success of the American Experiment, noting the increased rate of advancement of the human condition during his lifetime. When compared to the comparatively dismal rate of advancement prior to the experiment, he could only reasonably attribute that difference to divine intervention: <br />
<blockquote>
<i>Made so plain by our good father in Heaven, that all feel and understand it [the blessings of God over America], even down to brutes and creeping insects…We made the experiment and the fruit is before us. Look at it—think of it in its aggregate grandeur, of the extent of the country, and the numbers of population—of ship, and steamboat, and rail—</i> </blockquote>
Now whether the Founders, or Lincoln, are correct in their proposition or assessment that God would protect this new style of nation, <i>'or any nation so conceived and so dedicated,'</i> a nation therefore designed to perform God's will as expressed in the Bible and New Testament, is not anything that I might try to persuade here. It's just a theory. But it is also the fundamental assumption from which the American sovereign authority derives. And so any tool of American government, wielding American authority, must respect this proposition as truth. Lincoln operated in that mode. Lincoln possessed faith in the truth of the propositions in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln possessed faith that God would allow those propositions to live beyond the difficulties that he encountered. And primarily as a result of Lincoln's faith, and because Lincoln trusted God to provide protection for those who performed His will on earth, as the Founders theorizes He would, did Lincoln maintain the strength necessary to fulfill his divine destiny. At least that is how Lincoln obviously viewed these things. And of course the results speak for themselves. Through it all, America is still here and the world is a better place because of it.<br />
<br />
In the next installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, we are going to get down and dirty with the Theory of America and explore how these ideas interplay with our reading of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<br />
-Hank<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-10586827270862373322011-10-04T10:23:00.000-04:002011-10-04T10:23:42.200-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part V, The American Experiment at GettysburgIn the last installment of America IS A Christian Nation, we learned
the Founders' definition of the term, 'despotism.' And in that
vernacular despotism can be thought of as the <i>'unauthoritative use of the power of government.'</i>
Because American authority flows from God, directly to the people, in
the form of unalienable human rights, and because the people convey only
a portion of that authority to the government, then any use of
governmental power that restricts the rights retained by the people, and
therefore NOT conveyed to the government, is power devoid of authority
and is therefore what the Founders termed despotic or tyrannical power.<br />
<br />
And as a result, we learned that<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Because
American governmental authority is assumed from God, America's
government possesses no authority, the use of which effectively denies
that assumption.</b></div>
<br />
Which also means that<b> </b><br />
<blockquote>
<b>No
tool of government, which description includes the congress, the
president or the federal judiciary, nor any administrator or officer
under their authority, possesses the authority to question that God
exists, or that God is the source of authority for the Constitution and
all federal law, or to deny the conspicuous notice of those facts on
federal properties. </b></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The American Founders understood that, if they are to remain free, these principles are vital for the Americans to understand. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But
in the last installment we also further confirmed the truth that
America is designed as an actual experiment testing the theory that an
nation that obeys God's Laws, thus fulfilling God's will on earth, shall
be protected by divine Providence. We read from George Washington's
Farewell Address confirming his understanding of that theory, and the
experiment that remained ongoing even after his two terms as president,
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Thus, from the timing of Washington's remarks
we know that nothing about the Constitution changes the nature of
underlying theory of America, or the American Experiment designed to
test that theory.<br />
<br />
Elsewhere in Washington's Farewell address, the first president added<br />
<blockquote>
<i>We
are authorized to hope, that a proper organization of the whole, with
the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions,
will afford a happy issue to the experiment. <u><b>It is well worth a fair and full experiment.</b></u></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In
that statement, Washington offers the hope that government, if operated
in proper sync with its authoritative responsibilities, should afford a
happy result to the experiment. Conversely, if government might
operate beyond it's authorities, then the experiment would become
corrupted, yielding no usable data on which to pin a proper conclusion.
And as we will see below, whether a fair and full experiment would
complete would eventually come into question.<br />
<br />
The
experimental nature of America would not be lost to other early
statesmen. In keeping with an experiment designed to elicit the divine
Providence for their nation, in their document's first stanza the
authors of the Articles of Confederation spoke of the primary importance
of America to please God</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote>
<i>AND WHEREAS <u><b>it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World </b></u>to
incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in
congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles
of confederation and perpetual union. </i></blockquote>
</div>
Several
of America's early presidents offered their thoughts on the matter of
the ongoing American experiment. America’s Second President, John
Adams, spoke during his inaugural address of his great satisfaction with
the constitutional process associated with the American Experiment,
having witnessed it from abroad during the time of the constitutional
convention:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Employed in the service of my country
abroad during the whole course of these transactions [the constitutional
Convention], I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a
foreign country. Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no
public debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great
satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts, <u><b>as an experiment </b></u>better
adapted to the genius, character, situation, and relations of this
nation and country than any which had ever been proposed or suggested. </i></blockquote>
In
1801, America’s third President and author of the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson, during his first inaugural address,
spoke of the theoretical nature of the American Experiment, which as the
world’s best hope had thus far kept the new nation free:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>I
know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government
can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would
the honest patriot, <u><b>in the full tide of successful experiment</b></u>,
abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the
theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best
hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself?</i></blockquote>
Four
years later in his second inaugural address, Jefferson spoke of the
free-exchange of ideas allowed under this new experimental system of
government, and whether that free exchange would foster truth and
reason: <br />
<blockquote>
<i><u><b>Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made, </b></u>whether
freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the
propagation and protection of truth—whether a government conducting
itself in the true spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and
doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should
witness, can be written down by falsehood and defamation. <u><b>The experiment has been tried</b></u>;
you have witnessed the scene; our fellow-citizens looked on, cool and
collected; they saw the latent source from which these outrages
proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the
Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced
their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to
the friend of man who believes that he may be trusted with the control
of his own affairs.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>No inference
is here intended that the laws provided by the States against false and
defamatory publications should not be enforced; he who has time renders a
service to public morals and public tranquillity in reforming these
abuses by the salutary coercions of the law; <u><b>but the experiment is noted to prove that</b></u>,
since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false
opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs
no other legal restraint; the public judgment will correct false
reasoning and opinions on a full hearing of all parties; and no other
definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press
and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties
which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the
censorship of public opinion.</i></blockquote>
Next up, America’s
fifth President, James Monroe, spoke of the profound success of the
American Experiment and pointed to the efforts of Jefferson as having
been key to that success:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Of my immediate predecessor, <u><b>under whom so important a portion of this great and successful experiment has been made</b></u>,
I shall be pardoned for expressing my earnest wishes that he may long
enjoy in his retirement the affections of a grateful country, the best
reward of exalted talents and the most faithful and meritorious service.</i></blockquote>
As
well, President John Quincy Adams, in his inaugural address spoke of
the great results having been gleaned from the theoretical course of the
American Experiment based on the “theory of human rights:”<br />
<blockquote>
<i>It is a source of gratification and of encouragement to me to observe that the great result of <u><b>this experiment upon the theory of human rights</b></u>
has at the close of that generation by which it was formed been crowned
with success equal to the most sanguine expectations of its founders.</i></blockquote>
And
not to leave his thoughts undocumented, during his inaugural address
President Martin Van Buren expressed the gratitude he felt for the
American Experiment having conferred such happiness upon the nation:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The success that has thus attended <u><b>our great experiment</b></u>
is in itself a sufficient cause for gratitude, on account of the
happiness it has actually conferred and the example it has unanswerably
given.</i></blockquote>
That the American Experiment would yield
the result of 'happiness' is a direct reference to expressions of the
Declaration of Independence, and the prospect that God's Providence was
presently at work confirming the result.<br />
<br />
So all of
these men understood the experimental nature of America, that America is
designed as an experiment to test the theory that a nation respecting
God's Natural Laws, and therefore working to fulfill God's will on
earth, should receive God's protection, the protection of the divine
Providence.<br />
<br />
And knowledge of the American Experiment
was not lost to America's 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, a man who
during the years preceding his presidency had worked diligently to
understand the true meaning the American founders imparted to their new
nation. Evidence of Lincoln's understanding of the nature and meaning
of the American Experiment can be found in many of his speeches, not the
least of which is one of his most famous, <i>the Gettysburg Address</i>. On November 19,1863, Lincoln sent a message to all Americans, for all time, that the founding <br />
<blockquote>
<i>fathers brought forth…a new nation <b>conceived in liberty</b> and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. </i></blockquote>
Viewed
scientifically, a “proposition” is simply a hypothesis yet to be proved
or disproved by experimentation. On that November day, approximately
half of the way through the nation’s most cataclysmic test of endurance,
Lincoln affirmed and clarified his recognition of the experimental
nature of the American nation and his understanding of the Theory of
America. Lincoln continued:<br />
<br />
<i>Now we are engaged in a great civil war, <u><b>testing </b></u>whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. </i><br />
<br />
Now let's really look into what Lincoln tells us in his Gettysburg Address. He tells us that America is a nation <i>'conceived in liberty.'</i>
What better way to say it! According to the Declaration of
Independence, Liberty is a gift from God to men and mankind. And so
America is a nation conceived out of that gift. America is a product of
God's gift of freedom. And furthermore, America is an experiment that
will test whether a nation conceived out of God's gift of freedom can
long endure. That is precisely what Lincoln is telling us here.
Lincoln understood exactly what America's true meaning is. But as many
times as the Gettysburg Address has been read over the years since, and
taught in schools, very few who read it truly understand what Lincoln
is telling us in these lines.<br />
<br />
And as fate would have
it, Abraham Lincoln would live just long enough to recognize that the
test of the Civil War had been a success. That test of endurance for
the American nation was effectively over just days prior to his
assassination; Lincoln died knowing the hypothetical proposition that <i>“all men are created equal</i>” had at least been further substantiated.<br />
<br />
Of
course Lincoln's earthly fate would be decided by the act of a mad
man. But it should not escape us to consider that in a certain respect,
at the time of his death, Lincoln's job, Lincoln's role in the American
Experiment, was essentially complete. As president, Lincoln ensured that the American Experiment would not stop
short of, as Washington called it, <i>'a full and fair experiment.'</i>
His work complete, it is not far from this author's thoughts to
consider that if the Founders' theory is correct, Lincoln's earthly
demise would have been known to God from the beginning of the world.
That being the case, holding the Founder's Theory as true, Lincoln's
fate could not have been sealed without the hand of Providence. Well,
at least for some of us, that possibility is interesting to consider.<br />
<br />
In
our next installment, we will get a little more down and dirty with the
American Experiment, and discover for ourselves the theoretical
relationship that exists between the Declaration of Independence, and
the Constitution.<br />
<br />
See you soon,<br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-25855778242724313042011-09-28T23:29:00.000-04:002013-08-07T07:33:29.781-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part IV, Despotism and the Theory of AmericaIn the last installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, I
purposely doubled back to speak to one consideration that automatically
arises when the subject of God and country comes up, the idea that
anything that has to do with God is religion. No, that is not
necessarily the case. In America's case, God is an assumed TRUTH on
which America's sovereign authority depends. God is in the mix of
assumptions that lead to America's right to sovereignty. Because
according to the Declaration of Independence, that right is one of God's
Natural Laws, then without God, that law would not exists, and
therefore America's right to sovereignty would not exist, and therefore
of course, in the theoretical sense, America itself would not exist. So
in that same sense, America's very right of existence depends upon the
TRUTH of God.<br />
<br />
And as we have seen in previous
installments, God on which America's sovereignty exists is no deist god,
and certainly no god created in the minds of the Founders. No, each
colonial representative who signed the Declaration of Independence was
more than just a professed Christian at the time. According to the laws
of each of the 13 colonies, he was also <u><i><b>legally</b></i></u> a Christian. Therefore any reference to God in the DoI is <i><u><b>legally</b></u></i>
God of the Bible and New Testament. The colonial laws in place at the
time required that to be. So as the Treaty of Paris of 1783 proclaims
and certifies, that God of the New Testament is a necessary assumed
truth for America's existence, was no secret to anyone, any American, or
any citizen of the world at the time.<br />
<br />
So let's talk
about that assumption, that God is 'truth' and that God has imparted
certain natural laws that govern the universe and mankind. Because
these assumptions are necessary for America's sovereignty to exist, one
result should be apparent. And that result is very simply that<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>Because American governmental authority is assumed from God, America's government </b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>has no authority, the use of which effectively denies that assumption. </b></i></div>
<br />
I
hope you understand what I just wrote. This is very important.
Because all American government authority comes from God, no tool of
American government, using that authority, can effectively deny the
truth of God. This is a vital concept for anyone to truly understand
what America is all about. Any tool of American government which
attempts to even question the truth of God, God of the Bible and New
Testament, can only use rogue authority, someone's personal authority to
do so. Using 'personal authority,' I can say whatever I like and so
can you. But if I purport to carry the authority of the United States
Government, because that authority comes from God, I have no authority
within that capacity to even question whether God exists. To do so
would be to question the authority by which I might try. Therefore, any
tool of American government that questions God's existence, is
effectively NOT a tool of American government. For any purported tool
of American government to take steps to enforce its will in defiance of
the possibility of the truth of God, using the power of American government in
the process, that act would provide an example of what the Founders'
termed, 'despotism.' In the Founders' lexicon, the term, 'despotism,'
is the <i>'unauthoritative use of the power of government.'</i> <br />
<br />
The
practice of that kind of despotism is precisely the reason the Founders
justified the use of the terms, 'despot,' or 'tyrant,' to describe King
George. They used those terms applying the standard of God's Natural
Laws, assumed as truth and self-evident for their purposes. According to the Founders, because he used the power of British
government to enforce his personal will to suppress the colonists, King
George broke God's Laws, thereby losing any authority he may have had to
do so. Because even the king's authority comes from God, when a king
steps beyond God's authority, he becomes a despot using powers, but with
no requisite authority to do so.<br />
<br />
People commonly use the terms, <b><i>power </i></b>and <b><i>authority </i></b>almost
interchangeably. And as long as power is used along with the necessary
authority to do so, then these terms are at least very similar. But
when a tool of government uses power WITHOUT the requisite authority,
then that tool becomes despotic.<br />
<br />
None of what I
have written here changes the unavoidable fact that in anyone's mind, the truth of
God is encumbered by a certain amount of doubt. Even the most devout
Christian has doubts regarding the existence of an unseen, supernatural
realm in which the Creator of the Universe might reside. To many, that
prospect sounds perfectly absurd! But to the Founders, these men
believed it to the extent that they acted on that belief and brought
forth their new nation dependent upon that belief. In that respect, the
Founders created America as an <i><b>act of faith</b></i> in their belief of the Bible and New Testament scriptures.<br />
<br />
Still,
all the faith in the world does not prove the Founders' grand assumption of God, as fact, to folks who do not
share that faith. So the Founders knew that they could not, and should
not, portray unproven propositions as truth, expecting to get away with
it. For this reason, the Founders stated their assumptions in the
Declaration of Independence and created their new nation as something
more tangible than just assuming that God exists. Instead, they created
their nation as a very real, very tangible, scientific experiment, one
which would test their assumptions, those assumptions being that that<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>God exists</li>
<li>God has imparted certain natural laws to His creation</li>
<li> Men who obey these laws shall receive God's blessings</li>
<li>A nation that obeys God's Laws, fulfilling God's will on earth, shall be protected by divine Providence</li>
</ul>
And that is why the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence each endorsed that document <i>'with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.' </i>That is why each Founder pledged<i> 'his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.'</i>
In essence, each Founder who signed the Declaration of Independence
'bet the farm' that the Theory of America would be proven true over
time.<br />
<br />
Earlier in these series of articles, I quoted
from George Washington's Farewell Address, issued at the close of his
two terms as first President of the United States under the
Constitution. In that address, George Washington embalmed the truth of
the American founding for all future generations to discover, and to
utilize, possibly even as I am in this application. At the risk of
repeating, Washington wrote:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>It will be worthy
of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to
give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always
guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in
the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly
repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady
adherence to it? <u>Can it be, that Providence has not connected the
permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at
least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. </u></b></i></blockquote>
In
his farewell address, George Washington makes it clear for us that
America is an experiment designed to confirm whether God has connected a
nation's permanent felicity with its virtue, whether a nation guided by
the exalted justice and benevolence of God's Laws would be protected by
divine Providence. Washington left us this to find, if we as Americans
are so inclined to look for it, to use this information to our
advantage as secular forces attempt to either legislate God out of
existence in America, or utilize the courts to do so from the bench.
Washington knew that, as God is held in the hearts of Americans, freedom
will reign. Washington also knew that as soon as God disappears from
American hearts, freedom would as well. So one practical lesson
Washington leaves us should be clear, and that is for all Americans to
know that<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>No tool of American government, a description that includes the congress, the president or the federal
judiciary, nor any administrator or officer under their authority,
possesses within his or her job description, </b><b>the authority to even question that God exists, or that
God is the source of authority for the Constitution and all federal
law, or to deny the conspicuous notice of those assertions on federal
properties. </b></i></blockquote>
In our next installment, we will
delve further into the Theory of America and see what some of our other
early statesmen may have had to say on the matter.<br />
<br />
Back before you know it!<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-25022583721612784422011-09-26T11:22:00.001-04:002013-08-06T08:35:50.110-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part III, All About Authority, Not ReligionIn the last installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, I offered answers to a few questions that were on the minds of some readers. I hope that my answers were sufficient. But if I left any part of a question unanswered, I hope that one of the questioners will pose it. Never will I purposely evade a question. But I may not fully understand the sense of a question, just like a reader may not fully understand the sense of what I write. Comments and questions are open for anyone. All I ask is that the one who comments or questions has read what I have written. Questions should be to clarify, not provide bulk information. The bulk will be right here, in each next installment.<br />
<br />
I do want to make one more pit stop before we resume with the next scheduled installment. I think it might be wise to drop back and clarify one other major point here, a clarification that may help readers to more fully understand what I have written up to this point. The purpose of this diversion is to drive home the point that<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">It Is All About Authority</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That's right. Human rights are all about <b>authority</b>. Consider the answers to these questions:</div>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Why is the President of the United States allowed to command the military? Answer: Authority. </li>
<li>Why are the courts allowed to incarcerate folks whom they determine deserve it? Answer: Authority. </li>
<li>What allows the IRS to seize one's bank account if it determines that taxes are due? Answer: Authority. </li>
<li>But what keeps any of these folks, even the government, from entering into our homes and taking what they want at random? Answer: Lack of authority. And that means that the government may possess authority for some actions, and none for others. Whereas Americans may have what seems an all-powerful government, that does not mean that every action of that government is authoritative. One of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence is that "Tyranny" is an unauthoritative use of the power, <b>power </b>without requisite <b>authority</b>.</li>
</ul>
So authority is a powerful commodity, is it not?<br />
<br />
Now consider a few of the complaints of the American British Colonies against actions the King. Among other complaints, according to the Declaration of Independence, the King George<br />
<ul>
<li>
<i>obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.</i></li>
<li><i>
made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.</i></li>
<li><i>
erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.</i></li>
<li><i>
kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.</i></li>
<li><i>affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. </i></li>
</ul>
Well look, you guys in Philadelphia back in 1776, your are talking about the King of England here. The King of England rules by divine right, divine authority, authority given to him directly from God. So how can the king ever be wrong??? The king can do anything he wants. He's the man, the guy who has authority over all in his domain, certainly over the colonies. So no matter what you might think or say, what the king says goes. So what makes you few fellows think that the King of England has to listen to anything you say? Answer very simply: <b>Authority</b>.<br />
<br />
Regardless what the British divine right system might require, the Declaration of Independence contends that God gives absolutely <b>NO </b>authority directly to an unelected king. According to America's founding document, authority from God does NOT first flow through a monarchy. Instead, all authority for men and nations endows directly to individuals, and then flows from individuals, as they elect, to a government of their choosing. And because the King of England is mere human, even the king has not sufficient authority to deny God's basic rights to other men. Yet according to the declaration's contentions, that is exactly what King George did. And therein lies the rub.<br />
<br />
So because King George conspicuously, and over a sufficient time frame, denied the colonists their basic rights, personal rights which if they are correct flow to them directly from God, then by default, the colonists possessed the God-given right to abolish the king's rule and institute a new government, authorizing it in any fashion on which they might agree. According to the Declaration of Independence, the divine right of kings model of human government is a violation of God's Natural Laws and thereby contradictory to God's charge of authority to mankind.<br />
<br />
Well that's all fine and good, but until that allegation is adjudicated by some source of common authority that is greater than men making it, one that even has jurisdiction over the King of England, and agreed as a common source of authority, then why should anyone, especially the King of England, respect what the colonists might have to say about the matter? Great question, one that can only therefore be answered by appealing to the common authority of the New Testament Scriptures, Scriptures to which <i><u><b>both </b></u></i>the American colonists <u><i><b>and </b></i></u>the King of England <u><i><b>legally</b></i></u><i><b> </b></i>submitted. Because both sides submitted to the authority of the New Testament Scriptures, the final determination of right and wrong is simply a matter of Scriptural interpretation. <br />
<br />
But to adjudicate that question sounds very much like going to court, does it not? And who might possess jurisdiction to settle a dispute over scriptural interpretation? Another good question! And the authors of the Declaration of Independence thought of that very question. According to the Declaration, the Founders were
content to leave it to God, the <i>'Supreme Judge of the World, to judge the rectitude of [their] intentions.' </i>So the American Founders recognized that their conflict with the king boiled down to a matter of Scriptural interpretation. That question regarded whether God deals directly with men as the colonists claim, or whether God deals with men, but first through an emissary such as a monarch, as the British divine right government contends. <br />
<br />
Regarding that question, certain authoritative references are found in various books of the Bible, one of which is the book of Matthew. In that book, Matthew relates that Jesus came into the temple and began teaching the people certain lessons He obviously wanted them to know. As you might imagine, that Jesus would bypass the presumed authority of the chief priest and elders, and take His teachings directly to the people, did not sit well with the priest and elders. So they interrupted Jesus asking Him, <br />
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? (Matthew21:23,KJV)</i></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i></i></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
That day in the temple, Jesus Christ demonstrated the Christian principles, held by the colonists, that no man is authorized to stand between another man and God, and that God desires a personal relationship with all men through His Son, Jesus Christ. According to the American colonists' interpretation, King George played much the part of the chief priest in the scriptures. And because Jesus, Son of God, God in the flesh, bypassed the established authorities, the priest and his elders, and took His teachings directly to the people, then that established the right of the people to deal directly with God. That being the case, the people are under no compulsion to respect any presumed authority, the use of which denies or crosses the personal relationship between man and his maker, as they allege King George did.<br />
<br />
Now I quote Matthew directly from the King James Version of the Bible, the same version adopted by the Church of England, scriptures of which King George was obviously aware. By English law, the Church of England was, and is, the established church of England, which church ordained King George, conferring English sovereign authority from God directly to George. So the standards against which the American British Colonists would cite crimes by King George were the very same standards that authorized the king's rule in the first place, placing the King and his government under a common jurisdiction. In citing these standards, these upstart American colonists placed the very idea of rule by divine right into question, using the king's source of authority against him. That move put King George in a precarious position. If the king assented to the demands of the colonists, then he would admit that the colonists were correctly interpreting the scriptures. And if that were true, then that fact, once understood by the British people, might even topple the British monarchy. <br />
<br />
So for that reason, and certainly others, King George found himself motivated by his own earthly desire to remain king, to enforce his will against the the colonies. As a result, the American Revolutionary War broke out. But that war was much more than simply a war for independence for a nation of folks who desired to be free from the rule of a certain king. That war was fought over a much larger question. <u>That war was fought over conflicting interpretations of the very Scriptures that authorized the rule of the British monarchy.</u> And in the end, according to the Treaty of Paris of 1783, both sides would just agree to disagree, each party to that agreement holding to their respective Scriptural interpretation, each party submitting to the authority of the Scriptures, which as they interpret them authorize each nation's sovereignty, and thereby each side publicly and obviously submitting to the authority of the Holy Trinity, simply under different interpretations of the same Scriptures.<br />
<br />
So this discussion is all about <b>authority</b>; and it <b>is <u>not</u> about religion</b> at all<b>.</b> According to the Declaration of Independence, the foundation of God's Natural Law that underwrites the sovereignty of the United States <u>is not any sort of religious belief</u>. No, that foundation is TRUTH, self-evident TRUTH. Remember, religions deal with beliefs, and faith in those beliefs, not truths. Now the foundation on which America's declared sovereignty rests is an ASSUMED truth, for sure. But the manner in which America's sovereignty is reasoned to exist depends on that assumed truth <u><i><b>actually being true!</b></i></u> The American Experiment, the discussion of which will resume in the next installment, is designed to prove the truth of that assumption, or disprove that assumption altogether.<br />
<br />
Something in the comments I recently received made me realize that I needed to backup and retrace these certain points before we went any further. So thanks again for your comments and questions. They really help me to understand what you are thinking and whether I am making sense. In the next Installment, we will resume discussing the American Experiment and the Theory of America.<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-27684846842333853202011-09-25T08:40:00.004-04:002011-09-25T08:40:58.523-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Time Out for Q&AI want to thank several individuals who have posted questions or comments elsewhere on Facebook. And I would like to take a little time to comment or answer several of them. I expect that these questions may be rolling around in the heads of others who have read the series as well.<br />
<br />
These questions and comments largely find basis in the poster's preconceptions regarding the relationship between God, country and man. In the Declaration of Independence, that relationship certainly does exists. But that relationship has nothing to do with religion. <br />
<br />
Here is the first question:<br />
<br />
<i>I am interested in knowing why is it important to you that America be identified as a Christian nation?</i><br />
<br />
Thank you for the question. Whether I think it is important that America be identified as a Christian nation does not affect the truth America IS a Christian nation, as defined as a nation that draws its sovereign authority from Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible and New Testament scriptures.<br />
<br />
Your question might better be asked, why I believe it is important to tell people about America being a Christian nation. The answer to that question is that I have a heartfelt interest in the truth of the matter. That interest has come upon me as fire comes to a match. First, I expect that this interest has always been there waiting for a spark, but when the spark lit, and the match of truth began to burn, understanding the forces at work in America and the world that are trying to extinguish that truth, it just seems my personality to keep the fire lit.<br />
<br />
So the importance I ascribe to broadcasting this message has nothing to do with my advocacy of any particular point of view on the truth. The importance I ascribe to this message is the importance I ascribe to being truthful.<br />
<br />
Regarding the truth of the matter, I have constructed the arguments in this series such that anyone who disagrees with any succeeding conclusion, can trace their disagreement back to a point at which his or her thinking diverged away from mine. So if someone disagrees with my conclusion, but agrees with all of the facts that build the conclusion, then their disagreement in the end can only find basis in something other than the facts, most likely a preconception brought through to them end despite the facts, or a personal preference of the truth that persists despite the facts, or a misunderstanding of the facts or the way that I portray them. Truth transcends anyone's beliefs or preconceptions.<br />
<br />
Next Comment:<br />
<br />
<i>I was wondering about the Native Americans who were there long before, the Christians, as far as I remember. It saddens me to think what they and my ancestors suffered at the hands of the 'Christians' who took over our lands. What indignities people have suffered in the name of such self-righteousness is there for anyone who remembers history to see.</i><br />
<br />
I understand, and agree. Yet the manner in which certain individuals or groups adopt religion in their lives, and practice that religion, imperfectly, does not change the facts of America's founding or source of authority. That source of authority is Jesus Christ of the Bible and New Testament. That individuals and groups, who refer to themselves as members of a Christian denomination or religion, do not live by the scriptures does not change the scriptures. That the American government may not act according to the scriptures does not change the scriptures. And nothing about the manner in which any religion, Christian or otherwise, finds roots within the American borders changes the fact that American sovereignty comes from Jesus Christ. Demonstrating the truth of that fact was the subject of the first series of articles, <i>Is American A Christian Nation</i>.<br />
<br />
I encourage you to remain reading the series. The basis of your comment will find a home in the discussion. What I am telling you, in these small bites, is what I learned only after lengthy and heartfelt analysis of the facts. But after considering the remarks of our Founders, and some of our enlightened early statesmen, such as Lincoln, the light bulb came on. This discussion centers only around America's authority as a nation. It does not center around religion practices within that nation. I hope that helps to further your understanding. Hang in there. If you do,and if you truly consider what I am telling you, I expect you to have a 'light bulb' moment as well.<br />
<br />
Next Comment:<br />
<br />
<i>Organised religion is just that, an organisation that strives to be supreme and claims to be supreme and run strategically. It will do what it takes to stake it's claim on the world. It was overt expression of power and might at one time and now it is quiet and insiduous. No religion can stake it's exclusive claim on being humanitarian. Christians have Christs, Muslims the prophet Mohammed, Buddhists have Buddha and so on. So every religion in America is going to quote the teachings of their Prophet/God and claim America to be REALLY a Muslim, Buddhist etc..nation?</i><br />
<br />
I find no fault with anything that you have written...surprise! Organized religion is largely of man. There is no official organized religion of America. In fact, to establish one would violate the Constitution's first amendment. No, to establish any particular religion in America was not the concern of the Founders who signed the declaration of Independence. Their concern was to establish a basis of personal authority for each of us to own ourselves and the product of our own hands, which government would have no unrestricted authority to affect. That authority over our lives is given to us personally by Jesus Christ. And that personal authority over our lives, our freedom to pursue happiness is our right <u><b>only </b></u>by virtue of endowment from Jesus Christ. That personal authority is our human right.<br />
<br />
All unalienable human rights come to us by this same means. We in turn have the right to use some of that authority to authorize and institute a government of our choosing. So because human rights come from God, to the people, on the way to the government, the government never owns sufficient authority to deny its people their basic rights. <br />
<br />
Prior to America's establishment, governmental deprivation of human rights was the rule, not the exception. And that rule once manifested as in one particularly egregious act against one man Who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it. That man was Jesus Christ. But because Jesus Christ survived the ultimate act denying Him His very human life, certainly His liberty and any earthly pursuit that He may have otherwise undertaken, as a result, according to the scriptures, Jesus Christ is given all authority over Heaven and earth. That is how Jesus came to own the authority sufficient to endow every man certain unalienable rights. That is the only basis for human rights that are truly unalienable. Any rights conveyed by man can be denied by man. But rights conveyed by God can only be denied by God.<br />
<br />
Next Comment:<br />
<br />
<i>I think if our nation was truly centered on Christ, it would look a lot different.</i><br />
<br />
Whoa! You said a mouthful! And that comment plays largely into the present discussion regarding America and the divine Providence. I agree with you 100%.<br />
<br />
Next Comment:<br />
<br />
<i>Why do we need a nation of organized religion? How would it be any different from Big Brother?</i><br />
<br />
I agree. America is not a theocracy, one guided and authorized by man's organized religion. That would be very dangerous, indeed, and would formulate an authoritative basis by which human rights could justifiably be denied the people. In fact, human rights are denied to people who live within theocracies as a rule, rather than exception. In a theocracy, authority is given to the government from a deity, and any rights for the people exist at the government's pleasure. Obviously, that is not the design of America. The flow of authority comes from God of the Bible and New Testament directly to the people, and any authority for the government exists at the people's pleasure.<br />
<br />
Last Comment:<br />
<br />
<i>I don't believe in theocracies. My earlier statement was me saying that if the majority of our country (as some claim our majority consists of Christians and thus that's why we are a "Christian nation") actually acted like Christ, than there would be definite changes and our country would look a lot different than it does now.</i><br />
<br />
Again, I agree with you 100%.<br />
<br />
OK, I believe that I have answered the questions and comments that have thus far come my way. So be on the look out for the next installment of <i>America IS a Christian Nation</i>. It will come your way soon. And if this subject matter interests you, I encourage you to click on the 'subscribe' button.<br />
<br />
I will be back again soon. And I thank all who have participated, either by reading or by commenting or asking questions.<br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />
Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-90382449030387883482011-09-24T09:31:00.003-04:002013-08-02T07:01:48.891-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part II, The American ExperimentIn the initial contribution to this new series, <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, I welcomed all who successfully concluded the last series entitled, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>. This new series is a sequel of sorts, and it's foundation is the answer derived in its prequel. So, because each new article, and indeed series of articles, builds from conclusions arrived in earlier articles and series, in Part I of this series I issued a fair warning that anyone who proceeds in this new series will miss out on much of the meaning that he or she will find, unless he or she has successfully completed the earlier series. That series demonstrates a proof of sorts, that America is indeed a Christian nation, as defined as a nation that receives its authority from Jesus Christ, who according to those scriptures of the Bible and New Testament is given all authority in Heaven and earth. That conclusion is derived by examining the paper evidence available from America's founding and early days, and understanding what that evidence accurately means.<br />
<br />
Notice that the conclusion, that America is a Christian Nation, depends <u>not</u> upon whether any American actually believes in Jesus Christ. No, truth does not depend on whether anyone believes it. Truth exists, on its own, mutually exclusive of anyone's opinion, world view, religious beliefs, political persuasions, or outlook toward life. The truth is what it is, and no man can change the truth.<br />
<br />
But men try to change the truth all the time. That is what 'spin rooms' are all about, shading the truth, shaping it into less bitter pills for some to swallow or portray. That's what courtrooms are about, discovering who is telling the truth, if anyone, and who is telling otherwise.<br />
<br />
The reason men attempt to change the truth into something that it is not, or submit new truth in its place, has its foundation in one major characteristic of the natural world in which we live. <u>The natural world is an environment of limited resources</u>. Just think about it; if everyone always had all that they wanted, needed or desired, there would be no reason to lie, cheat, steal, covet, murder, and on and on...But scarcity of desired worldly resources adds a 'stresser' to the system. Because there is only so much to go around, and because receiving these desired resources requires work, to circumvent scarcity and the requirement to work, the nature of men is to consider committing all of those acts I mention. Some actually follow through on that consideration.<br />
<br />
Political rhetoric is one means that men commonly use to mold and shape desired impressions of the truth. Because the fruits of political victories only accrue to the relative few number of winners of popular elections, political fruits are no less a scarcity than certain more tangible or material ones. That is why any particular political season yields an abundance of candidates ready and willing to say whatever they need to say in order to receive the prize of being elected. <br />
<br />
But none of this changes the real truth. Real truth does not depend upon whether it is believed, only that it is. Truth therefore transcends any worldly systems of beliefs. Moral relativists contend that, regardless whether folks understand and act on the same truth, everyone owns and espouses the truth. According to the relativist, truth is therefore relative to the observer. If that is true, then what is true for me can be entirely different than what is true for you, forming a contradiction, yet we can both be right. Disproving that assertion is no more difficult than shooting fish in a barrel, yet <u>folks do believe it</u>!<br />
<br />
An early philosopher and all-around doer-of-a-guy, Avicenna, may have said it best. He contended that the truth is always consistent from individual to individual. He disputed that the truth can contradict other truth simply according to one's viewpoint and opinions. He called it the <i>Law of Non-Contradiction</i>. He illustrated that law contending<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is <u>not</u> the same as <u>not</u> to be beaten, and to be burned is <u>not</u> the same as <u>not</u> to be burned.</i></blockquote>
I think Avicenna's contention stands on its own and illustrates well the 'true' nature of truth. <br />
<br />
But truth only relates to human beings. Animals have no truth, at least as opposed to falsehood. They only have what is and how they feel. If an animal depends upon a false assumption, it never knows it and it likely dies. So there in only one way for animals, and everything is true. Everything the animal senses is an affirmation of truth. There being nothing false therefore, all is true, which means that, to the animal, whether something is true is meaningless to consider. Falsehood is not in the animal's imagination.<br />
<br />
Regarding human beings though, truth is real, and falsehood is just as real, and both are absolute. But because truth is absolutely true and falsehood is absolutely false, then consider the truth of God. God is either truth, or He is not. God is not 'true for some' but 'false for others.' If that were 'true' then not being burned would be the same as being burned, which anyone caught in that situation would know without question that it is not. And so, <u><b>if God exists for one man, God exists for all men</b></u>. If God exists for one man then God is a universal truth. Believing the universal truth of God, and that truth itself therefore derives from God, is precisely the point at which the American Founding Fathers stood as they considered the rationale documented in the Declaration of Independence. <br />
<br />
Those enlightened men had all previously considered the evidence of natural creation and none could reconcile that natural <i>creation </i>sprang from natural <i>nothing</i>. Now these men had not the first inkling of Einstein, or the theory of relativity, or atoms and molecules, or of all of the other building blocks on which natural creation seems to depend. But they knew, in fact they were born knowing in their hearts, that God is truth, that God created the natural world and therefore all that is true about the natural world derives from God. The Founders had faith in that belief, so much faith in fact that these men relied upon that belief and termed that truth "self-evident."<br />
<br />
The New Testament scriptures support that God is truth and that all truth derives from God. Jesus Christ states this conclusion directly, <i>"I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:6)</i> Christian men, both in fact, and also in law, as the law of each colony required at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, these men had faith in the truth of the Bible and New Testament scriptures. One major tenet of Christianity is that God gives all men free will. Free will derives from love, God's love, infinite love. Love cannot be forced. Love can only manifest if man is free to love. According to Jesus Christ, the greatest commandment is to love God and to love others as we love ourselves. Yes, that is a commandment. But men are free to adopt it and live by it, or not. Men therefore have free will to obey Jesus, or not.<br />
<br />
The Founders, all professed Christian men, believed the Christian scriptures and understood that Jesus is indeed 'the truth.' In fact, they understood that same truth to be self-evident to all men, given to them from God at conception, that all men are created equal and are deserved of love equal to the love of self. They understood that God gives men full liberty, free will to live according to their own determinations. And the Founders understood that God desires to bless men who choose to live according to His commands.<br />
<br />
The scriptures teach that all good blessings come from God. God's blessings are therefore the fruit of faith in God. True happiness can therefore only derive from receiving God's blessings. The Founders understood that God gives every man the right and free will to pursue true happiness, in any way he might imagine, but knowing that true happiness is only a result of faith.<br />
<br />
So the enumerated foundation of self-evident truths the Founders offer in the Declaration of Independence derive directly from the Bible including the Christian Scriptures. But also from those same scriptures, God promises to provide for men of faith. Chapter 6 of the Book of Matthew is plain on God's desire to provide for mankind who trusts in Him, Jesus telling His disciples <br />
<blockquote>
<i>25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?<br /><br /> 26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?<br /><br /> 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?<br /><br /> 28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:<br /><br /> 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.<br /><br /> 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?<br /><br /> 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?<br /><br /> 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.<br /><br /> 33<u><b>But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. </b></u></i></blockquote>
Verse 33 indicates that men who seek God's righteousness, by performing God's will on earth, those men shall receive the Providence of God, <i>the divine Providence</i>. As a condition of their authority to represent each American colonist, the American Founders professed their belief in these scriptures. The scriptures tell us that <i>faith without works is dead</i>, no faith at all. So if they were truly faithful, these men had no choice. If they were to live as Christians, their Christian faith had to be reflected in the works they performed. Therefore, the Christian faith of our Founders is reflected in the Founding of America. That Christian faith is on display as each Founder signed the document which affirms , <br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<i>"With a firm reliance on the divine Providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."</i> </blockquote>
</div>
The Founders' reliance on the divine Providence is nothing but a work of faith in keeping with the Founder's Christian beliefs. <br />
<br />
Still, faith is only faith. Faith is not based upon proof. It cannot be. That is the nature of faith and removing that nature destroys faith. And faith must be demonstrated. Faith requires action, works. To demonstrate the Christian faith of the American people, the Founders decided to put that faith to work in their design of the American nation. In so doing, the new nation created under the expressions of the Declaration would be an experiment of sorts. If the scriptures are correct, and if an earthly nation would design its use of God-given authority to fulfill God's will on earth, then that nation is promised God's blessing, the divine Providence. That is the Founders' theory, in any event, the <u><b>Theory of America</b></u>. The United States of America is a nation created to test that theory. America is an experiment, the <u><b>American Experiment.</b></u> And that is exactly why in his inaugural address, John F. Kennedy proclaimed, <br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<i>'here on earth God's work must truly be our own.' </i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
God's work must truly be our own for the American experiment to continue toward its final determination. Unless America works to fulfill God's will on earth, then the experiment is over and the final outcome is never determined. John Kennedy understood the authoritative nature of the United States of America, and under his watch, this proclamation indicates that he would not allow the experiment to end.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
</div>
<br />
In the next installment of <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>, using the expressions of several early American statesmen, including some of the Founder's themselves, we will certify that America is indeed a nation designed as an experiment, and a nation solely authorized to fulfill God's will on earth, nothing more, and in so doing, receive the favor and blessings associated with the divine Providence. <br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-31211763698598229722011-09-22T07:57:00.002-04:002013-08-01T08:43:54.399-04:00America IS A Christian Nation, Part I, An Angel Rides the Whirlwind<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3wQuG0ftSnDO2C0Ic1KUnsT-5Vs_GUmlbNafF0jo2jcz5HMyCx77SyGUqaFV3TSBrnJI1YqUecYhyphenhyphenJdzGa3P01jgQ9jI6Hikx-3Mjnfk0GUrFzlwDkZy8H-VV0zfFZzyv4GVoMNZ-fyc/s1600/Flag+cross.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3wQuG0ftSnDO2C0Ic1KUnsT-5Vs_GUmlbNafF0jo2jcz5HMyCx77SyGUqaFV3TSBrnJI1YqUecYhyphenhyphenJdzGa3P01jgQ9jI6Hikx-3Mjnfk0GUrFzlwDkZy8H-VV0zfFZzyv4GVoMNZ-fyc/s1600/Flag+cross.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In the previous series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, that question found its justifiable answer. That answer affirms that the United States of America is in fact a Christian Nation, as defined most simply as a nation which draws its authority from Jesus Christ of the Bible. Because the proof of that statement is exhaustively demonstrated in the previous series, I will not tread that ground again here. So if any new reader just happens to have walked in to this discussion wondering, <i>'Wha' tha' heck is he talkin' about?' </i>then please, if you are interested in the subject of the founding of America, and if you truly want to understand what America is all about, then do yourself a favor and do not begin reading here. That would be like everyone's worst nightmare, walking into a class for the first time, on the last day of school, and trying to understand what is going on. For ease of navigating, the first article in the series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, can be found<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://hank-sullivan.blogspot.com/2011/08/treaty-of-paris-of-1783-is-america.html">Here</a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Assuming that anyone who remains has already 'passed the prerequisite,' then to you I extend GREETINGS! I also extend hearty CONGRATULATIONS! Congratulations because as a result of reading and even somewhat understanding the series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, you can be counted in an elite number of individuals who understand what you now know about the founding of the United States of America, what America truly stands for, and how that came to be. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yes, now you can be counted in the same room with the Founders as they stood in line to sign the Declaration of Independence. You now think some of the very same thoughts that they thought. In that room, you stand knowing that the rights of man, endowed from God, have a place to be planted, nurtured, and grow in this world.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And for that matter, you stand right in the front row at Gettysburg, in July of 1863, as Lincoln just finished his hallowed remarks, ushering a <i>'new birth of freedom for this nation, under God.'</i> And as Lincoln put his speech away and made his way off the platform, you might even detect that he made eye contact with you and gave you a 'knowing glance.' </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
You are counted in the inauguration crowd in January of 1961, as John F. Kennedy's voice echoed across the world, directing the truth that <i>'here on earth God's work must truly be our own.' </i>Because of the work you are undertaking, to read and understand these articles, President Kennedy's concluding remark likely means much more to you now than at anytime you may have heard it before.<br />
<br />
And now you more adequately understand President George W. Bush's first inaugural remarks, among which he offered the nation:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: ``We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think <b>an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm</b>?''<br /><br />Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.<br /><br /><b>We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose.</b> Yet <b>his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.</b><br /><br />Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.<br /><br />This work continues. This story goes on. And <b>an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.</b><br /><br />God bless you all, and <b>God bless America</b>.</i></blockquote>
Just the simple and oft expressed prayer, 'God bless America,' ought to now begin to mean something new to you. And what is George Bush saying here as he repeats a quote from John Page first put to pen in 1776, <i>'an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs its storm?'</i><br />
<br />
While I doubt it has come fully together in your mind yet, just exactly what these American statesmen are trying to convey, having gotten this far into the present discussion, I dare say that you now stand at the door of understanding what these men obviously understood, but which is not given to us in obvious fashion, but is instead woven together deftly within America's founding documents, such as exquisite fibers are woven within the fabric of a fine tapestry.<br />
<br />
And the Bible scriptures are the same way. The meaning of those scriptures is meant to be understood, not through speed reading, not by being 'clocked' over the head by what is conspicuously evident, but only through quiet contemplation, communing in spirit with the author who wrote them, and understanding the circumstances prevailing which made them relevant and necessary to deliver to the world.<br />
<br />
So here we stand to go forward, knowing that God is America's true Founding Father, knowing that authority flows toward America through one common source, and that source is His Son, Jesus Christ, Who according to the New Testament scriptures, owns all authority in Heaven and earth. Since authority is His, it is also His to dispense any way He decides. How Jesus Christ decided to dispense authority to the world, is much the overriding subject matter of the Declaration of Independence. <br />
<br />
Well all that is fine and good, but in a practical sense, what does all this really mean to us as Americans today? How do we use this new information, that God is the true sovereign over the United States of America, through Jesus Christ His Son, to affect any real meaning in our lives? And can this knowledge help Americans to understand how to make better national decisions, decisions that might facilitate better lives for American citizens and even world citizens? The answers to those questions are what our new series, <i>America IS a Christian Nation</i>, is all about. And what readers will discover in this series is the same information Lincoln uncovered, that Kennedy uncovered, and GW Bush no doubt understood, that many of America's great statesmen have known, and which the Founders knew without question, but which has over time been written over, sought hidden by dark powers in high places, and by those who prefer that the truth be other than the facts tell us.<br />
<br />
During the War of 1812, on August 25, 1814, the British army arrived in Washington DC. They were directed to burn the city. The flames began in such places as the Library of Congress, and worked their way through town. Earlier, the first lady, Dolly Madison, had the presence of mind to secure America's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and she personally handed them to an army officer with the assignment to protect those documents with his life and to proceed to Maryland and stow them in a safe place. Shortly after that was done, the British army took charge of America's nation's capital. Things looked dark for America and any cause that might have been behind the efforts of America's founders.<br />
<br />
But when things looked their darkest, after the American army had been decimated, and after all practical hope was lost for the fledgling American republic, something incredible occurred. The British were driven out of Washington, their forces destroyed, the fires quenched in extraordinary efficiency--but not by anything the Americans did. No, America had hardly a fighting force remaining.<br />
<br />
The force that drove the British out of America's nation's capital was, you may have guessed, a mighty whirlwind, a hurricane, a tornado of sufficient magnitude that it sacked the British army, unleashed their hold on Washington DC, ran them out of town, and set them up for an ultimate defeat by the remaining American forces. A mighty whirlwind defeated the British, not the Americans, all in keeping with the theory of the American Founders, a theory woven almost as scriptures into the expressions of the Declaration of Independence. That theory, the Theory of America, will be the first subject of discussion in this, our new series, <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>.<br />
<br />
I will be back soon.<br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-86461682796299479972011-09-20T08:30:00.001-04:002013-08-01T08:35:58.814-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part XVII, The End of the Beginning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLSBcOhZ021VG2R4IXi6LHXaNqWi5M0xMkRZ-irb6DAcyeQTMCdpTpXfLnRKr0mzEYLo-PCK_83o7t9BwVGrgE_r0mphelXje52DDF_-kTRLiO0I2qrtoPWhyIs_cr4GAP3gVWG-uUH2U/s1600/Flag+cross.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLSBcOhZ021VG2R4IXi6LHXaNqWi5M0xMkRZ-irb6DAcyeQTMCdpTpXfLnRKr0mzEYLo-PCK_83o7t9BwVGrgE_r0mphelXje52DDF_-kTRLiO0I2qrtoPWhyIs_cr4GAP3gVWG-uUH2U/s1600/Flag+cross.jpg" /></a></div>
This series began noting that America entered into the Treaty of Paris of 1783, officially ending the American Revolutionary War, and in the process dutifully submitting to the authority of the Holy Trinity. That was several installments ago. And when you first read that, I imagine that you may have taken consummate note of that singular fact, however might not have viewed it as conclusive, in and of itself, to the answer to the question, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>. I understand that. And that is why I have since surrounded that singular fact with the background and foreground necessary to demonstrate the truth that America is indeed a Christian Nation, as I define that term.<br />
<br />
So by now, after understanding the supporting history of God's involvement in the founding of America, as evidenced by each of our founding documents leading up to that treaty, and since, not knowing any better, I would expect that any self-proclaimed open-minded reader, who professes to seek only truth, would rightfully conclude, as I do, that America is in fact a Christian Nation, one defined as a nation which derives its sovereign authority directly from the Bible scriptures, including those scriptures of the entire New Testament, and therefore from Jesus Christ, Who according to those scriptures, owns all authority in Heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).<br />
<br />
But I do know better.<br />
<br />
If you have read this far into the series, and still do not agree, even to the very possibility that America is a Christian Nation under the definition I offer, then frankly, I expect that you will never believe it. And I expect that you will never believe it because you <u>choose </u>not to believe it, and you have chosen against believing that truth from the outset. I do not mean to insult, only to inform. Abraham Lincoln once wrote of this phenomenon in men, who effectively decide to believe what they prefer believe, despite overwhelming evidence against what they believe. Lincoln wrote:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<i>One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms.</i></blockquote>
</div>
I have started with great confidence that I might convince any sane individual that under the definitions I have offered, America is a Christian Nation. Yet I have known from the outset that I will fail, utterly, with anyone who chooses to deny the definition of a Christian nation, and the axioms that prove it. I have given the naysayer all opportunity to arrive at the truth. I have written this series such that any individual who disagrees and who wishes to challenge the facts as I offer them, either directly with me, or challenge them against his or her own preconceived sense of the truth, might trace any disagreement against my final conclusion back to the moment that we departed thoughts, and analyze that point. As one commenter put it, I have made this analysis 'bullet proof.' And I am delighted to address any question or a disagreement with the material and conclusions I have offered, provided of course that the person who questions or disagrees has first actually read what I have written.<br />
<br />
The unvarnished truth is that most folks who are interested enough to even disagree with the final conclusion of the series will not understand what I have written, and will likely not even read what I have written. And that will not be because they are incapable of understanding or reading, not because what I present is not the truth, but because, as Lincoln noted, it is their personal preference to deny the definitions and axioms. It is always easier to steer our beliefs away from certain truths that defy our personal preferences, than to accept them and therefore submit to them. If we merely close our eyes to truth, then we can better shape truth to fit our liking. <br />
<br />
But for those who find interest in this subject, and find interest to understand the truth no matter which way the truth may fall, rejoice! This is not the end! No, Heavens no. We stand at the beginning! Now that we have demonstrated that America is a Christian Nation, as we have defined that animal, next we will embark on a course that will help us to understand what that really means! <br />
<br />
And so the title of the next series will just rearrange a couple of the terms. Rather than <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, the new series will be entitled, <i>America IS A Christian Nation</i>. And in each successive article we will analyze what it really means for Americans to understand that America is a Christian Nation. And I well imagine that the answers are not what you presently expect.<br />
<br />
And thank you again, any of the good folks who have read, and who continue to read these articles. Once you begin to fully grasp what I present here, I dare say that you will be in an elite class of Americans who are truly beginning to understand what their nation is all about. But here is a fair warning:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The truth will change you.</b></div>
<br />
I'll be back soon.<br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-53278854408411373172011-09-19T09:48:00.000-04:002013-07-30T07:45:20.202-04:00Is America a Christian Nation, Part XVI, Authority Flows to the ConstitutionIn the last installment of our series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, within the expressions of the <i>Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union</i> we discovered in America's first constitution how boldly the representatives of the states comprising the <i>United States of America</i> proclaimed America to be a Christian nation. In that document, the American people, via their authorized representatives, agreed and proclaimed that <br />
<ul>
<li>God governs the world;</li>
<li>God 'inclined the hearts' of the representatives to approve the Articles of Confederation;</li>
<li>God authorized the representatives of the people of the United States to approve and ratify the Articles of Confederation;</li>
<li>The representatives of the American people proposed this agreement for ratification by the states in the year 1778, that year referenced directly as 'in the year of our Lord,' indicating that Jesus Christ is the Lord over the nation about which this agreement was drawn, approved, and subsequently ratified.</li>
</ul>
Five undeniable conclusions are certified from these statements. According to the representatives of the American people:<br />
<ol>
<li>Because God governs the World, God governs all nations of the World, including the United States of America. Therefore, the American people submit to the authority of God. America is one nation under God;</li>
<li>God is no deist god, no other god except God of the Bible including the New Testament, referencing the date of the agreement to the birth of Jesus Christ.</li>
<li>Because in this document, the 'Great Governor of the World' is God of the Bible including the New Testament, the representatives of the people directly imply to be influenced by the Holy Spirit, which 'inclined their hearts' to approve and ratify the agreement. That conclusion is directly implied because, according to the scriptures, the Holy Spirit is sent to to indwell in the hearts of believers in Jesus Christ. That Spirit works to 'incline the heart' of the believer to fulfill God's will on earth. Therefore the American people, via their representatives, are believers in Jesus Christ, endeavoring to fulfill God's will on earth by their actions approving and ratifying this agreement.</li>
<li>America is a Christian nation, one that submits to Jesus Christ, the Great Governor of the World, Who according to the scriptures owns all authority on earth.</li>
<li>And stated as its own conclusion, <u><b>as a Christian nation, America's primary purpose is to fulfill God's will on earth</b></u>.</li>
</ol>
But one last conclusion is also noticeable, and that is the importance the American people, through their representatives, ascribe to pleasing God. According to the AoC, it <i>'pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures.'</i> As we venture still deeper into this discussion, the meaning behind the importance these men attached to pleasing God will become apparent.<br />
<br />
But for now we have one final step to take to finish our proof of sorts, that America is truly a Christian Nation, as I have defined that term, and that is to look directly at the Constitution and determine if by its terms, it either follows through, citing itself as a the Supreme Law for a Christian nation, or whether it abandons that truth, or even disputes that truth.<br />
<br />
To make that determination, we will start in the Preamble, which begins with the following familiar terms<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<i>We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i></blockquote>
</div>
Notice that the Constitution does not define the 'United States of America.' It makes no declaration establishing a nation. That is for a good reason. The nation for which it applies was already established, with an identifiable source of sovereign authority, and therefore that agreement did not have to state any of that again. And at the time that the Constitution was proposed, those who did so acted solely under the authority that flowed to them from the Articles of Confederation, which was the supreme law in force during the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention. The Articles of Confederation defines the nation to which it applies as the 'United States of America,' no coincidence the same name referred in the Constitution. And previous to the AoC, the Declaration of Independence declared the basis under which that same nation, the <i>United States of America </i>would become authorized. And so because the only basis of authority in existence during the time the Constitution was that reasoned to exist under the Declaration of Independence, which authority also served to underwrite the Articles of Confederation, and because the Constitution's terms do not terminate either previous agreement, which agreements otherwise survive in perpetuity, then unless there are two earthly nations known as the 'United States of America,' the Constitution refers directly to the same nation that existed under the Articles and Declaration of Independence.<br />
<br />
The Constitution's Article VII certifies the previous conclusion, and declares it to be the Supreme Law of the Land, stating that the date the Constitution was proposed for ratification, which proposal could only have been authorized under the Articles of Confederation, occurred 'in the 12th year of the independence of the United States of America.'<br />
<br />
But Article VII also offers us one more item to consider, and that is that the 12th year of the independence of the United States of America, was also<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<i><b><u>the Year of our Lord</u> one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven </b></i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That date stamp directly references the birth of Jesus Christ and therefore declares and certifies that Jesus Christ is Lord. And that statement therefore certifies that Lord over 'We the People of the United States,' is also none other than Jesus Christ. And for this reason, we can now ultimately conclude, without reservation, that the United States of America is a Christian Nation, as defined as a nation which draws its authority from God of the Bible including the New Testament, which scriptures require that America's authority flows directly from Jesus Christ, Who according to those scriptures owns all authority in Heaven and earth. What else need we say? It is finished, the proof.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But now that we have fully established that America is A Christian nation under the terms we have defined, in the next installment we will begin to understand just exactly what that really means. So stand by and come back. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
All that has been written heretofore is prologue... </div>
</div>
Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-43636254093486724312011-09-17T10:52:00.001-04:002011-11-14T07:42:16.034-05:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part XV, How the Articles of Confederation Transfer God's Authority to the ConstitutionIn the last installment of <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>,
using the expressions of the Declaration of Independence we learned how
authority flows from the principles of that agreement to each successive
agreement. For authority to convey from those principles, the actions
of the people of the United States of America must follow those
principles without exception. For example, because principle #4 cited
previously offers the universal truth that government derives it powers
from the consent of the people, then by consent of those same people, an
American government receives authority. That is how American authority
conveys. <br />
<br />
Consent to unified government first
presented in 1781 as the original 13 states ratified the Articles of
Confederation, offered for ratification in 1777. That agreement conveyed
certain basic authority to a unified government. One argued power of
that government was to ensure that the union remain intact in
perpetuity. That fact is certified in the following stanza, proclaiming
the agreement to a <b>perpetual union</b> and who agreed to reside in that union:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Articles of Confederation <b>and perpetual Union</b> between the States of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.</i></blockquote>
A
perpetual union is one that does not contemplate its own end. An
agreement in perpetuity is an agreement that therefore does not end.
Even an agreement to end the agreement must be a part of the agreement
in the first place And this is why the Articles of Confederation is
still in force today. But by certain provisions in that agreement,
certain of the principles agreed and ratified in 1781 have simply
changed. But the changes are indeed authorized in the Articles of
Confederation, which changes demonstrate that the articles are still in
force. If the Articles are not in force, then any authority that might
have been used to authorize the change that came in the form of the
Constitution died at the same time the Articles of Confederation died.
Fortunately, that has not happened. <br />
<br />
But getting back
to the matter at hand, determining without question whether America is a
Christian Nation, authorized therefore by the scriptures of the Bible
including the New Testament, and therefore indeed Jesus Christ, whereas
having to 'back in' to that conclusion in our study of the Declaration
of Independence, the Articles of Confederation state the only
conclusions available to draw, and that agreement states these
conclusions boldly and without equivocation, offering <br />
<blockquote>
<i>Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did <u>on the fifteenth day of November <b>in the Year of our Lord</b> One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the <b>Second Year of the Independence of America,</b>
agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between
the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia, in the words following, viz:</u></i></blockquote>
In the
passage above, two conclusions are apparent. The first conclusion is
that the Articles of Confederation, offered for ratification in 1777,
concern the same nation reasoned into existence under the Declaration of
Independence in 1776. That being the case, as we have seen previously
in this series, the nation under the Declaration of Independence did
not, and could not have morphed into any other sovereign animal than the
one described in that document. And by Article I of the new agreement,
the sovereign nation under the Declaration of Independence retained its
same title, the article offering<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."</i></blockquote>
And
Article II of the confederation agreement certifies that each party to
the agreement delegated certain authority to the new government, which
authority could not be rescinded, except as provided in some provision
of that same agreement, offering<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, <b>which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled</b>.</i></blockquote>
Because
perpetuity was expressly delegated to the confederation government,
that aspect of the agreement could not be altered unless specifically
provided elsewhere in the agreement. For this reason, and really this
reason only, because perpetuity was never removed, eventually Lincoln
would find the authority necessary to take steps to save the union under
the Constitution.<br />
<br />
Next though, toward the end of the
agreement we find the bold provision that the Unites States of America
is indeed under the authority of God, offering<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>And </b><b>Whereas it hath pleased the <u>Great Governor of the World </u>to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, <u>and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union</u>. </b>Know
Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and
authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the
name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely
ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation
and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein
contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of
our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations
of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by
the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles
thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively
represent, <u><b>and that the union shall be perpetual.</b></u></i></blockquote>
<br />
Compared
to some of the previous discussions in this series, the Founders made
this so plain that it is unequivocal, that the World has a Great
Governor, God, and that God authorizes the people of the United States,
through their representatives, to ratify this agreement known as the
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. And to leave no doubt as
to their intentions, the people agreed once again that <i><u><b>the union shall be perpetual</b></u><b>. </b></i>So
each state, boldly proclaimed its agreement that the union referred
under its terms shall not end. Because each party agreed to that
stipulation, then that term of the agreement is enforceable by all other
parties.<br />
<br />
And notice that God is not a passive god
here. According to the men who authored and endorsed this agreement,
God 'inclined their hearts' to approve the Articles of Confederation.
That God would incline one's heart is a Christian concept. Because
Christians offer their hearts to God through Jesus Christ, they are
given the gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling with their given spirits.
Among the works of the Holy Spirit, He guides the Christian toward
fulfilling the will of God. So in offering that the Great Governor of
the World inclined their hearts, the legislature representing the
American people certified that they were Christians under the influence
of the Holy Spirit. <br />
<br />
And to further solidify that the
Great Governor of the World was no deist god, no god of any other
thinking than God of the Bible and New Testament, the people of the
United States of America, by their authorized representatives, agreed
that the date of the agreement in question is relative to the date of
the birth of Jesus Christ, "our Lord," offering<br />
<blockquote>
<i>In
Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at
Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July <b>in the Year of our Lord</b> one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.</i></blockquote>
Because
the America people agreed that the 'Great Governor of the World'
influenced and authorized their actions in agreeing to the Articles of
Confederation, and because within that same document those people also
agreed that their Lord is Jesus Christ, then it is not arguable against
the conclusion that according to this document, Jesus Christ is the
Great Governor of the World, which conclusion requires that Jesus Christ
owns all authority on earth, once again agreeing with the scriptures of
the New Testament. So in this agreement, our Founders made it easy for
us to understand that the United States of America is indeed one nation
under God, which draws its authority from Jesus Christ, and is
therefore a Christian nation under that definition.<br />
<br />
In the next installment in this series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>,
we will finally take a look at America's Constitution, and determine
whether it either ratifies, or denies, the heretofore demonstrated
conclusion that America is a Christian Nation authorized by the
Scriptures of the New Testament, and therefore Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
So
stay on the lookout and check in for the next contribution. If you
would like a reminder of each successive article in this series and
beyond, simply click on the 'subscribe' button on the page and you will
receive notifications. Thank you for your readership!<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-67501869943847617652011-09-15T11:36:00.000-04:002011-09-15T14:18:41.649-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part XIV, Transferring Ideal AuthorityIn the last installment in the series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, standing atop the conclusions realized in earlier installments, we pointed out that the Declaration of Independence does not specifically stipulate that the authority for America comes from God of the Bible, including the New Testament. But because the laws in each colony/state-to-be required any representative of the people to profess faith as a Christian, any reference to God endorsed in the Declaration these men signed as representatives of the people, can only have been God of the Bible and New Testament. For this reason, the expressions of the Declaration of Independence support that American sovereign authority derives from God, the Holy Trinity, through Jesus Christ, who according to New Testament scriptures is given all authority in Heaven and earth. Because Jesus Christ owns all authority, any authority for a nation, must pass through Him on the way.<br />
<br />
Following that train of reason, according to the Declaration, based upon certain New Testament scriptures, Jesus Christ endows all men with certain authority, certain human rights, and does so equally, all men being equal in the eyes of God. There are numerous scriptures from which this principle derives, perhaps notably, Matthew 22:37-39, where Jesus is quoted to say<br />
<blockquote>
<i><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23910">37</sup> Jesus replied: <span class="woj">“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href="#fen-NIV-23910a" title="See footnote a">a</a>]"></sup></span> <span class="woj"><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23911">38</sup> This is the first and greatest commandment.</span> </i><span class="woj"><i><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23912">39</sup> And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’</i></span></blockquote>
That Jesus commands men to love others as they love themselves, that command requires men to respect that all men are created equal in the eyes of God. If that were not true, then God would understand loving certain individuals, perhaps even one's self, more than others. <br />
<br />
There are many other New Testament scriptures from which the principle that <i>'all men are created equal'</i> derives. The Golden Rule is certainly one. Another is John 15:13 where Jesus is quoted, saying<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.</i></blockquote>
That one might voluntarily lay down life for a friend, necessarily implies that the life of one's friend is of equal value to that of one's self, the equity of the exchange allowing one to sacrifice for another freely. But this scripture also specifically implies that a friend's <i>right to life</i> is equal to one's own claim on the same, here again requiring believers in Jesus Christ to respect each man's equal right to life.<br />
<br />
These are just of few of New Testament scriptures that help to demonstrate that the Natural Laws of God cited in the expressions of the Declaration of Independence, derive from the New Testament. <br />
<br />
And before we go further, I think it is important to realize that, during the period encompassing 1776 and 1781, the United States of America was a nation governed solely by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, governed solely by <i>ideals</i>. Wow! Imagine that, a nation governed solely by just a few simple ideals! But think about it; that is the exactly the way that Jesus Christ describes Christian life, self-government by ideals, government of men, by men, whose laws are few but who each respect the rights of others. This demonstrates yet another way in which American sovereignty derives from the scriptures.<br />
<br />
Now this next point is very important going forward, so I hope you get this if you don't get anything else from this series. And that point is that those few simple ideal principles, stated clearly in the American Declaration of Independence, <u><b>are still authoritative</b></u>. Every law in the land, every statute, every regulation, each individual act of every tool of government, finds its source of authority in those few principles in the Declaration of Independence. There is no other source of authority for American national government. So what does that really mean???<br />
<br />
It means that any governmental intention that violates the intentions of those principles, is unauthoritative, null, void before it is enacted into law or before it is acted upon by a tool of government. Because the entire nation of the United States of America draws its authority from these few principles, these ideals, ordered as they are in the form of a rational reason for that authority to exist, then any American authority to act, in theory, is restricted to those actions, the intentions of which are in support of and consistent with those principles. And THAT was Jefferson's brilliance. And THAT is the importance today of the Declaration of Independence. Even the very principle that authorizes men to institute a national government derives from the authority that flows from one of the principles, the Natural Laws of God, in the Declaration of Independence. Just for example, let's see how that works.<br />
<br />
Remember in the previous installment XII, I wrote, '<u>Principle # 4 is the Natural Law that authorizes government to exist.'</u> That law states the following: <br />
<blockquote>
<i>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;</i> </blockquote>
Because that Natural Law of God is 'truth,' self-evident 'truth,' that principle carries authority. That is because <i>authority </i>derives from <i>truth</i>. Truth is authoritative because one can always count on truth. One cannot count on falsehood. So truth can be used to construct authoritative agreements. Agreements without truth are agreements based in falsehood, bad faith, bad intentions which are null and void and thereby unenforceable. Agreements made in good faith, truthful intentions, are enforceable using the authority of the agreement. So efforts carried forth which are intended to fulfill the principle #4 above, or any of the principles of the Declaration, are authorized. Those efforts and the fruits of those efforts therefore carry authority, the authority that derives from <i>Truth</i>. Now <i>truth </i>itself derives from <i>love</i>, but that is a topic for another time.<br />
<br />
Carrying this discussion a smidge further, as long as the representatives of the people of the United States design a government, the intentions of which are in keeping with principle #4 above, and do not violate any other of the Declaration's principles, the results of their efforts carry authority. And that is exactly what the people's representatives did in constructing America's first 'constitution.' And that is why that document, the Articles of Confederation, carry authority. That is the only reason. Had principle #4 above been left out of the Declaration, and had the founders enacted some other rationale to justify independence from Great Britain, one that did not authorize an institution of government, then any government that may have sprung from those efforts would not have carried authority. <br />
<br />
So in keeping with the authority that flows from principle #4 of the Declaration, America's first effort to institute a national government was that government described under the agreement ratified in 1781, the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>. Understanding now how that document came to its authority, in our next installment we will return to the matter at hand. We will look at America's 'first constitution' and understand what it might have to say which will aid us to fully and completely answer the question, <i>Is America a Christian Nation</i>.<br />
<br />
And I have a suggestion for you. If these articles have sparked a certain interest in the topic I am covering, click on the box above and subscribe. Don't be shy! With each new contribution, you will be notified by an email. I'm not counting heads, but I think the topic is so important that I hate for anyone who is interested to miss anything for the lack of a notification.<br />
<br />
Have a great day and I'll be back for more soon.<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-43647117115859099022011-09-14T08:00:00.000-04:002013-07-25T07:25:59.692-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part XIII, the Declaration ContinuedIn the previous installment of <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, within the expressions of the Declaration of Independence, we identified the source of all American sovereign authority. And that source is God. That authority flows from God, to men, and from men to a government of their choosing. That's what the Declaration says. But knowing that "God" the Creator, is the source of all American authority really does not fully answer the question at hand, which is to determine whether, in all respects, America is a Christian Nation. After all, the followers of Islam believe in God, or Allah.. Other religions have their gods as well.<br />
<br />
Another possibility is that the Declaration refers to a deist god, one who created the world and universe, set it in motion, and then took a long coffee break, allowing men and nations to settle their own issues toward a conclusion, the nature of which God chooses not to affect. Could it be that Founders were deists?<br />
<br />
The point I make here is that, the analysis we pursued in the very previous installment, while it demonstrates conclusively that American sovereign authority comes from God, that analysis
did not necessarily demonstrate or prove that God, the Creator referred in the Declaration of Independence, is God of the New Testament. Hey, as they say, Rome wasn't built in a day! I have to leave a few things to talk about each next time! That's what keeps you coming back!<br />
<br />
So let's talk about all that. <br />
<br />
To gain a foothold on whether, indeed, the Declaration of Independence is a Christian document, written by Christians, referring only to God of the Bible and New Testament, let's look at that document's last stanza, which proclaims:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, <u>appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions</u>, 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. And for the support of this Declaration, with a <u>firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence</u>, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.</i></blockquote>
So where is Jesus in all of that?? Good question, friends. Nothing within these expressions says anything about Jesus, Christ, the Holy Trinity, the New Testament, or gives any indication at all that the 'Supreme Judge of the world' is in fact God of the Bible and New Testament. So I guess I'm stuck here, right?...WRONG! We just have to dig a little deeper to discern the truth.<br />
<br />
Because the Declaration of Independence does not specifically refer to the Bible, or Christ, or the Trinity, or the New Testament, to draw any conclusion beyond that which is stated plainly, we will have to go back to the authority given the representatives of the 'good People of these Colonies.' We will have to discern just what any of them were authorized to do, given their charge of authority by those they represented, while engaged at the proceedings during which those men ended up signing the Declaration of Independence.<br />
<br />
During the time in question, a period which spans July 4, 1776, each of the American British Colonies, which would become declared 'free and independent states' on that date, had codified a legal requirement, either by charter, or by charter and newly constructed state constitution, that individuals who represented the people of those colonies/states, <u>were Christian, men who either swore an oath that they were Christian, or who otherwise professed faith in Jesus Christ</u>. And indeed, when the various state constitutions were completed, each state constitution either established a specific Christian denomination as its state religion, or specified that those who represented the people professed to be Christian, believing in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the New Testament. Here is a good reference for anyone to verify what I write here <a href="http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69">http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69</a>.<br />
<br />
So unless the men who convened in Philadelphia were not only Christian, each professing a belief in God of the New Testament as a condition of their appointment in the first place, they would not have been authorized to represent the people of the colonies/states they represented. And if they were not authorized to represent the 'good People of the Colonies,' then the Declaration of Independence was an unauthorized agreement and the good People never declared independence! So either the Declaration of Independence is a Christian declaration, or it is NO declaration at all! There are no other viable choices here. Not only were the men who represented each American-British Colonist PROFESSED Christians, they were also LEGALLY Christians. So those who contend that America is not a Christian nation, in so doing also contend that America does not exist, thereby nullifying their very contention. I describe this result in the same way I describe division by zero. One cannot even speak of something that does not exist. It is a meaningless waste of time. The men who represented the 'good People of the Colonies,' as a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of that position, professed faith in Jesus Christ. That was the law. <u><b>So as a matter of law, any reference to God in the Declaration is also a reference to God of the Bible including the New Testament.</b></u><br />
<br />
So if we rightfully conclude that the United States of America of today, did in fact begin on July 4, 1776, as in previous installments in this series we have demonstrated beyond any substantial objection, then the Declaration of Independence must be a Christian declaration, announced and endorsed by Christians, men who represented a Christian nation, as defined as a nation whose sovereignty is authorized by the scriptures of the New Testament, which scriptures contend that all authority in Heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ. And because the Declaration of Independence speaks in terms of universal, natural laws, that document professes that any real authority for men and nations, which includes the United States of America, must derive from Jesus Christ as well. All other semblance of authority is therefore either false, despotic, brought either by force, or by pure agreement among men.<br />
<br />
In the next installment in our series <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, we will investigate further this notion of Christian God in the American founding documents. And we will delve into America's first constitution of sorts, the Articles of Confederation, looking for any discrepancy, any reason whatsoever to question the conclusions drawn so far, and discover whether that document either disputes, or ratifies the conclusion that the Declaration of Independence is a Christian document. So come back soon and find out.<br />
<br />
Thanks again for your support and readership! <br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-34520718016267934502011-09-12T19:28:00.001-04:002013-07-24T07:18:59.278-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part XII, Authority From the Declaration of IndependenceIn our previous installment in the series <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>,
citing evidence already in play we demonstrated that the Supreme Law of
the Land in the United States of America actually incorporates the
expressions of three documents, not just the Constitution. That is
because the authority that passes to the Constitution originally derives
within the expressions of the Declaration of Independence, and then passes
through the Articles of Confederation before taking residence in the
Constitution. Because this is true, any conditions placed upon the use
of that authority under either the Declaration of Independence, or the
Articles of Confederation, must remain satisfied, even today. That is how
these documents are written.<br />
<br />
In this installment, using
the terms of the first in this series of documents, the Declaration of Independence, we will identify the very source of American sovereign authority. We are going to understand just exactly what that document's author, Thomas Jefferson, had in mind
when he constructed the rationale that concluded with the rightful
sovereign authority for a new nation, the United States States of
America. And we will also begin to understand how Jefferson's reasoning might affect any rightful use of that authority today, over two and
one-quarter centuries later. So let's get to it!<br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence presents a simple rationale beginning with the following principle:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>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 <u>Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them</u>, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.</i></blockquote>
That
principle indicates that a rationale shall follow declaring the causes
impelling one people, the American British colonists, to dissolve the
political bands with another, the subjects of the King of England. According to that principle, it was certain of God's Natural Laws which entitled the colonists to severe ties with the king. According to the Declaration, the truth of these Natural Laws is self-evident, therefore requiring no particular proof. The Declaration then asserts the truth of five of those Natural Laws. Those laws are: <br />
<ol>
<li><blockquote>
<i>that all men are created equal;</i></blockquote>
</li>
<li><blockquote>
<i>that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;</i></blockquote>
</li>
<li><blockquote>
<i>that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</i></blockquote>
</li>
<li><blockquote>
<i>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;</i></blockquote>
</li>
<li><blockquote>
<i>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.</i></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
Using these Natural Laws as the foundation of their justification, the Founders assert that human rights, one of which is the authority for men
to act on their own behalf, is a gift that flows from God to each
person individually, and equally, all men being equal in the eyes of
God. <br />
<br />
Having
documented the basic flow of divine authority to men, the truth of
which is self-evident, the founders cite two more specific Natural Laws. Because God gives rights to all men equally, and because the
tendency of men is to violate the rights of other men, it naturally
follows that God authorizes men to institute certain means of protecting
their God-given rights. <u>Principle # 4 is the Natural Law that authorizes government to exist in the first place.</u> That principle of Natural Law defines the basic and universal role of government as “to secure these (human) rights.”<br />
<br />
After
documenting the basic purpose of institutional
government, the founders enumerate one more endowed right. And
that right may be thought of as a trigger mechanism of sorts.
Principle #5 states that when any government destroys the basic rights
endowed by the Creator, rather than secure them as required by natural
law #4, men have the God-given right to abolish that government and
establish a new one more “likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.”<br />
<br />
Springing forward on the expressions
of principle #5, the Declaration cites evidence that the King of
England had violated God's Law, “becoming destructive” of God's endowed rights to the
colonists. After listing evidence of the king's infractions, violating God's law, the document concludes with
the signers declaring, <i>“<u><b>therefore</b></u>…these United Colonies are, <u><b>and of Right ought to be</b></u></i> <i>Free and Independent States.”</i> The use of the term, <i>“therefore”</i>
indicates that a legal conclusion of sorts is being drawn from the
previous assertions of law and fact, the law of course being God's Natural Law,
and the facts being those the Founders assert as evidence against the
king for violating God's Law. <br />
<br />
That conclusion declaring "rightful" independence is the “conclusion of sovereignty” for the
United States of America. America depends on that rightful conclusion even
today. Without that conclusion, one justified solely from the
preceding foundation of reason in the Declaration of Independence, there
would be no rational source of authority by which the United States of
America could claim its independence from Great Britain, even today. That is because, as we have proven together in previous installments in
this series, the America of today is the very same America it was on July 4,
1776. Nothing has been established that changes or alters the flow of
authority reasoned into existence in the Declaration of Independence. Today, our Constitution depends completely upon the authority reasoned to exist from applying natural laws #4 and 5 above to the facts as they saw them. Without those natural laws, and
without the rationale offered in the expressions of the Declaration, no
authority could be or would be in place for any subsequent congress to eventually convene
and authorize the Constitution. <br />
<br />
Question: Why did the Founders go to so much trouble to come up with this extraordinary "rationale" to break ties with the king?<br />
<br />
Answer: Otherwise, they had no justification to do what they did. Without
Jefferson's reasoning, the American nation would have had no legitimate “right” to claim its sovereignty from the King. The genius of
Thomas Jefferson understood that the thirteen colonies could not
“rightly” walk away from Great Britain simply because they wanted to.
An action of that kind would be an act of vigilantism. Jefferson
understood vigilantism to be nothing less than group despotism. And
despotism was the root cause against which the conclusion of sovereignty
in the Declaration was drawn in the first place. In walking away, America would be just as bad as the king. So Jefferson had to
give a legitimate reason for the colonists to reject the king's
authority, claiming authority of their own in the process, quite an assignment given young Jefferson at the 2nd Continental Congress. The bottom line is that, in agreeing with the rationale offered by Jefferson to the 2nd Continental Congress, as each stood in line to endorse the Declaration of Independence, representing each of the "good people of the colonies," <u><b>the Founders claimed authority given to them from God</b></u>. <br />
<br />
Now this is not to say that Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers did not believe that what each endorsed with their signature as the truth. We have every reason to expect that in fact they did believe it.<br />
<br />
But regardless of any facts one might suppose to the contrary, the undeniable fact is that the conclusion of sovereignty for the
United States of America depends completely on one fundamental
precept at its core. And that precept is that God exists. If God does
not exist, then human rights do not exist. If human rights do not exist, men have no authority to declare sovereignty and convey that sovereignty to the state. So it is unavoidable to conclude that, according to America's founding document, <b><u>if God does not exist, then America itself does not exist.</u></b> <br />
<br />
And for this reason, for some to argue that God has no place in the fabric of the national and patriotic institutions of America, they must also effectively disavow their own claim to unalienable rights. Jefferson's logic is circular. Either Americans have unalienable rights endowed by God or they have only those rights that flow from an agreement among them, namely, the government formed under such an agreement. To accept a position as authoritative that denies the existence of God in America is therefore to claim no unalienable right to have done so. To maintain that position, is to argue that the very foundation on which the American society and its primal source of authority are founded was a grave error. To do so is to argue that men possess no rights that cannot, rightfully, be taken away by a simple act of the majority of force mustered within any particular segment of human society. And so the lesson to convey in this installment is that<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>The sovereign authority of the United States of America, as it is designed and defined by the Founders, requires the absolute practical certainty of the existence of God. </b></i></div>
<br />
<br />
In the next installment, we will pick up at this juncture. And thank you <u>very much</u> for participating!<br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-13801001428968375902011-09-08T23:03:00.000-04:002013-07-23T06:41:16.108-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part XI, The Evidence of the Dred Scott DecisionIn the previous installments in this series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation,</i> the case is building that the Constitution is not a standalone document. The Constitution is the final of a series of <u><b>three</b></u> documents, which together currently convey authority to the government of the United States. The Constitution tells us this, holding in its Article VII that the congress of the United States of America, proposed the new Constitution for ratification in the 12th year of the existence of the nation known as the United States of America. Arithmetic settles any question that the year in which the nation for which the Constitution came to be supreme law began with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in the year 1776. Because this is true, then all of the assumed truths laid out in the Declaration, which originally formulated the rationale resulting in the independence of those United States, are also assumed into the Constitution. And for this reason as well, all national commitments and agreements occurring between 1776 and 1789, prior to the Constitution's ratification, remain commitments and agreements which must be honored under the Constitution.<br />
<br />
One such committed agreement is the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which officially ended the American Revolutionary War. Under that agreement, both nations, the United States and Great Britain, acknowledge and submit to the authority of the Holy Trinity, God of the Bible including the New Testament. That reference to the authority of the Holy Trinity therefore recognizes the New Testament in its entirety, holds the New Testament as truly the Word of God, and holds one truth in particular, that being that all authority on Heaven and Earth is given to Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18), as the New Testament plainly attests. Since <b><u>all </u></b>authority is given to Jesus Christ, then any authority for men and nations, if it is true authority, must first flow through Jesus Christ, and then from Jesus to men. As we will discover, that flow of authority is the same flow described in the Declaration of Independence. But we will speak more on that later in the series.<br />
<br />
In part X of this series, we uncovered that Abraham Lincoln, America's revered 16th president, and George Washington, America's universally admired first president, both understood that the Constitution receives its authority from the agreements which precede it, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. But Lincoln and Washington are certainly not alone in that understanding. References to the principles of the Declaration of Independence abound, not only in the political rhetoric of the day, but also in constitutional questions coming about during the times these men lived.<br />
<br />
And in this installment in the series, I believe it is particularly instructive to look at one such constitutional case, one ruled by the United States Supreme Court, a case that helps to demonstrate that the Constitution is not supreme law in and of itself, but a document that can only be successfully interpreted when viewed in the light of the conditional authority that it receives from the Declaration of Independence, as conveyed through the Articles of Confederation. The case that I cite here may seem a strange one to try to use to bolster a case that the Constitution receives its authority from certain ideals laid out in the declaration. That is because the ruling ultimately defied those ideals. But in the justice's rationale, the Declaration's authority over the question before the court is undeniable. The<i> </i>case in question is the <i>Dred Scott Decision</i>.<br />
<br />
In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger Taney authored the U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens. The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, and that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process. <br />
<br />
The rationale behind Taney's opinion finds basis in the chief justice's interpretation, <u>not of the Constitution</u>, but of all things, the Declaration of Independence! That's right, the Dred Scott case, which held that Negroes were NOT equal to whites, finds its deciding rationale in a document that extols the basic truth that <i>'All men are created equal." </i> In the high court's opinion, Taney judges the facts of the case, and the law, in the light of the Declaration, ultimately finding that Negroes were <i>“so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”</i> Here are some excerpts from Taney’s opinion:<br />
<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
1) In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.<br /><br /><br />2) The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: It begins by declaring that, '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 nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'<br /><br /><br />It then proceeds to say: '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 them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'<br /><br /><br />The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.<br /><br /><br />Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men high in literary acquirements high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />3) What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since, the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word 'citizen' and the word 'people.'</blockquote>
<br />In each of these three paragraphs of Taney's opinion, the chief justice repeatedly invokes the principles of the Declaration of Independence. He even invokes the language of the Articles of Confederation. Plain from these excerpts is that, in order to faithfully interpret the Constitution, Chief Justice Taney felt the need to reconcile his Dred Scott rationale, not only against the relatively low standards of the Constitution, but also against the much higher standards of the Declaration of Independence, and even the general language of the Articles of Confederation! But if the theory that the Constitution is a standalone document is correct, the Declaration of Independence speaks to an entirely different nation than the one who’s supreme law is the Constitution. And the Articles of Confederation pertains solely to a 'multi-lateral treaty organization' that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the United States of America, a nation under the Constitution. That being the case, knowing that there is no flow of authority between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Taney would have had no reason to justify his opinion against the principles of the Declaration of Independence, much less invoke the Articles of Confederation. In so doing, Taney went miles out of his way and made his job exceedingly more difficult. <br />
<br />
There is only one explanation regarding the reason Chief Justice Taney chose to justify his Dred Scott decision against the principles of the Declaration of Independence rather than simply the language of the Constitution. And that is that the without the Declaration of Independence serving as its source of authority and its guide for interpretation, the Constitution is a relatively meaningless document, rules without reasons. Taney understood the authoritative nature of the declaration. He understood that anything less than justifying his opinion in the light of the Declaration would be questionably authoritative. As poorly as he interpreted those documents, Taney’s Dred Scott decision plainly demonstrates that Chief Justice Taney understood that the Constitution derives its authority from a rationale of principles, expressed as they are, in the Declaration of Independence. <br />
<br />
Ironically, only by citing the Declaration of Independence, and bastardizing its meaning, did Taney feel he could overrule what that document plainly states.<br />
<br />
So even a bastardization of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence helps to shine the light of truth on that same meaning. That is the nature of truth. Truth cannot be hidden by falsehood. And the truth is that the Constitution of the United States draws its authority from the Declaration of Independence, through the Articles of Confederation. So if it can be conclusively demonstrated that those earlier documents derive their authority from God of the Bible including the New Testament, then it is unavoidable that even today, the Unites States of America is truly one nation under God, and draws its authority from none other than Jesus Christ, Who as the New Testament proclaims, owns all authority in Heaven and earth.<br />
<br />
This installment ran just a bit long. But it had to all be laid out. In the next installment, knowing what we now know about the flow of sovereign authority from the Declaration of Independence through to the Constitution, we will begin to explore the declaration and find out just how the authority for the United States of America came to be.<br />
<br />
Don't touch that dial!<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-70381908237724796542011-09-07T09:34:00.002-04:002013-07-22T06:48:13.950-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part X, What George Washington Tells Us TodayFrom the last installment in our series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation,</i> we understand Lincoln's opinion that all rights of secession for the individual states that comprise the United States of America were relinquished under the Articles of Confederation, the supreme law of the land at the time, which was ratified in 1781. With Lincoln's help, we understand the validity of the proposition that those rights could not be restored under the Constitution unless the conditions under which they were relinquished in the Articles were satisfied, namely, that all states comprising the union must agree for a state to secede.<br />
<br />
The main principle that we bring forward here is that, according to Lincoln, and according to the reasoning we have employed in the previous installments, the Constitution is not a standalone document. The Constitution is a document subject to certain preexisting conditions laid out in the state documents which preceded it. The point of that argument is that, since the authority of the Constitution is subject to the conditions set forth in its precursors, and since operating under its immediate precursor, the Congress of the United States of America ratified a treaty subjecting itself to the authority of the Holy Trinity, that fact would place any sovereign authority conveyed from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, under that same source of authority, namely, the authority of God of the Bible, including the new Testament.<br />
<br />
But why should we take Lincoln's word for it? And why should we believe ourselves in any of this. We are mere laymen, not Constitutional scholars, right? Perhaps our own reasoning is faulty in a manner that we cannot yet see. And no man is without error. Lincoln was mortal. We are mortal. So to really conclude that Lincoln was right, and that we are reading these documents as they ought to be read, it does seem proper that we should seek other authoritative opinions on the matter, from individuals whose authority springs from first hand knowledge of these circumstances and events, and whose reputation is considered impeccable by virtually anyone with whom we may confer. So to fill that authoritative role in our discussion here, one such individual we might consider would be George Washington, the individual universally admired as the father of our country, and investigate what he might have left for us to consider today. <br />
<br />
Fortunately for these purposes, in <i>Washington's Farewell Address</i>, an address offered as he was leaving office as the first president under the United States Constitution, George Washington stated plainly his understanding of the meaning of the United States of America. In that address, this individual who understood like few others what the American Revolution was all about, a man who, knowing the meaning of the revolution, <u>and also signed the Constitution</u>, offers us the following:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people <u>always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence</u>. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? <u>Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature</u>. </i></blockquote>
So according to George Washington, as he was leaving office after two terms as the first president <u>under the Constitution</u>, America in his mind is an “experiment” designed to test whether Providence has connected the “permanent felicity” of a nation with that nation’s “virtue.” That statement says volumes. George Washington contends that the United States is more than just a nation among nations. Washington tells us today that America is truly an experiment designed to determine whether a virtuous nation, in God's eyes, could elicit God's protection, protection by the divine Providence. Washington tells us that this experiment is underway; it is not concluded by any measure, but that the <i>"experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature."</i> <br />
<br />
Of course, this aspect of the divine Providence, Washington understood, is a direct reference to the terms of Declaration of Independence. In future installments in this series we will look at that document, the Declaration of Independence, and explore its true meaning. But for our purposes here, it is sufficient that in his farewell address, after serving two terms under the Constitution, George Washington understood that God held a vital role in the founding of America. And by his statement, Washington demonstrates his understanding that God's role was not simply to authorize America going forward and then sit back and watch. No, Washington understood that God's role was one practically identical to the role of God in Old Testament, God Who led the Israel out of Egypt and Who provided protection for Israel, that is, as long as Israel obeyed His commands and respected His authority. Washington therefore offers for us to consider that only a nation who obeys the commands of a <i>just </i>and <i>benevolent </i>God, can be a nation <i>"guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."</i><br />
<br />
Now an exhaustive reading of the terms of the Constitution cannot yield support George Washington's conclusion. There is nothing within the terms of the Constitution that even remotely refers to the divine Providence, nor any source of guidance such as <i>"exalted justice and benevolence."</i> The Constitution is self-proclaimed a product of men. Men are fallible. Men make mistakes in conferring justice. Men are questionably benevolent. And the Constitution offers no particular source of guidance that might incline the hearts of men to understand and utilize <i>exalted justice </i>or <i>benevolence</i> in their decisions, only their own opinions and personal preferences. Because this is true, in making such a statement in his farewell address, Washington could only have been referring to standards of human behavior that are set in place <u><b>outside </b></u>of the Constitution, <u><b>prior </b></u>to the Constitution, but which standards serve as necessary conditions that <u><b>authorize </b></u>the Constitution. <br />
<br />
And so, without even yet considering the profound meaning behind the excerpt of George Washington's farewell address we bring forward, as is the case in Lincoln's special address to congress of July 4, 1861, it is unavoidable to conclude that both of these men understood the same thing, and that is that the Constitution is not a standalone document. Both of these men understood that the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States of America truly consists of three documents, the Declaration of Independence, which among other principles invokes the concept of the divine Providence, the Articles of Confederation which established the first formal government and made the union perpetual, and the terms of which authorize the Constitution, and the Constitution itself, a document that relies on certain authority having been conveyed from each of the first two. <br />
<br />
In our next installment in the series, <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, we will travel from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the principles of "exalted justice and benevolence" to the principles of men whose intentions are to bastardize those very principles, changing their meaning, attempting to establish new meanings for their own transient purposes. But in doing so, we will discover that the truth cannot be hidden; that placing a veil of falsehood over the truth only more convincingly contrasts the truth from all else, and that the truths established under the Declaration of Independence unavoidably serve as authority for our Constitution today. In our next installment, we will consider the <i>Dred Scott Decision</i> and how that affront to justice and benevolence, shines the light of truth on the Constitution today.<br />
<br />
I'll be back soon..<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-86286583483258340152011-09-05T18:54:00.000-04:002011-09-05T18:54:08.011-04:00Feet Off the Desk, Mr. President!I remember quite a few years ago, when I was working as a superintendent for an independent
builder, I sat down in my field office chair and placed my
feet, boots and all, on top of my old wooden, retread of a desk, and I
commenced to make my morning phone calls. The desk wasn't expensive, even when it was new. And you could tell that it had seen
action in many construction offices over the years. So there I was,
feet up on the desk, phone in hand, when my immediate boss came in. That he was not happy is an understatement. I'd not been
spoken to like that for as long as I could say, told how I was disrespectful of the
company owner's property. He told me how it made me look lazy, how I probably was
lazy, and how I needed to show the company's owner more respect than to be
found in such an lackadaisical pose while supposedly working.<br />
<br />
I was pretty stunned. I really couldn't believe this guy. I was doing my job,
making calls, scheduling the work. I was doing all those things that I
was hired to do...or was I? No, I was not. Although my boss thoroughly offended my every sensibility, he
was exactly right. I WAS disrespectful. No one has the right to come to work for another, be paid by the other, and disrespect the other's possessions.<br />
<br />
So with that memory somewhere in my dim recesses, today I see this photo<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1KKgYAYYhqSVJB1lWNNA7GHxVqTjBuJurnNEFHvix6g6E3KT_a3ByTJDE8nSVOWE5GSzoPbM0G5qDMHTEQ-1fN5xfGsc5mFqrsUd84TwkxSyTDUZVPChOWOl3zwHj1EDpGa89RHs5TRA/s1600/Presidential+Disrespect.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1KKgYAYYhqSVJB1lWNNA7GHxVqTjBuJurnNEFHvix6g6E3KT_a3ByTJDE8nSVOWE5GSzoPbM0G5qDMHTEQ-1fN5xfGsc5mFqrsUd84TwkxSyTDUZVPChOWOl3zwHj1EDpGa89RHs5TRA/s320/Presidential+Disrespect.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Now according to Wikipedia, that the desk Mr. Obama uses as a footstool is one given to the American people by<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Queen Victoria during the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and was built from the timbers of the British Arctic Exploration ship </i><i><b>Resolute</b>. Many presidents since Hayes have used the desk at various locations in the White House, but it was Jackie Kennedy who first brought the desk into the Oval Office in 1961 for President John F. Kennedy.
It was removed from the White House for only one time, and this was
after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, when President
Johnson allowed the desk to go on a traveling exhibition with the
Kennedy Presidential Library. After this it was on display in the Smithsonian Institute. President Jimmy Carter brought the desk back to the Oval Office, where President Ronald Reagan, President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, and now President Barack Obama have used it in this, its most famous location.</i></blockquote>
Regardless of the value of the desk, the principle is the same. And the response from the boss ought to be the same too, <i>"Mr. President, get
your feet off of that desk. You look lazy, probably are lazy, and you
need to show some respect for the property owned by your boss, in this
case, the American people." </i> Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-77871044867822493092011-08-31T21:44:00.000-04:002013-07-17T07:38:27.406-04:00Is America a Christian Nation, Part IX, The 'Right' of SecessionIn this installment of <i>Is America A Christian Nation</i>, we will look at the issue of secession, and whether that is a state's right under the <i>Constitution</i>. And we do this to establish the principle, once and for all, that the <i>US Constitution</i>, as the United States Supreme Law, is more than just one document, and that it is three documents, the <i>Constitution </i>by definition, and the <i>Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union</i>, as well as the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>, by specific reference. As we explore the facts, we will understand that, by that same evidence, not only the is right to secede given up by the states, but we will also confirm that the rights of the people are not established under the <i>Constitution</i>, but rather under the<i> Declaration of Independence</i>, and that the <i>Constitution </i>acknowledges that fact. That being the case, that means by which the people receive their rights in the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> is codified as Supreme Law, every bit as any specific prescription written into the <i>Constitution</i>. Let's begin.<br />
<br />
The argument for a state's right of secession rests in the notion that the Constitution is silent on that right, and according to the 10th amendment, any rights not<br />
<blockquote>
<i>delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.</i></blockquote>
The argument for the right of secession cites that, since there exists no specific language within the text of the <i>Constitution</i>, language by which terms the states specifically delegated their rights of secession to be governed by the the federal government, then those who are of the mind, use that fact to claim that the states retained the right of secession under the <i>Constitution</i>.<br />
<br />
But as we have learned in the previous installments in this series, the authority of the <i>Constitution </i>is limited not only by its own terms, but also by principles previously agreed and which served as given conditions under which the <i>Constitution </i>originally receive its authority. Because there is a flow of 'conditional authority' that runs from the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>, to the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, that now terminates to presently reside within the <i>Constitution</i>, any conditions placed upon the use of that authority, which may have restricted the parties to the first two agreements, and which have never been removed according to the prescribed manners that the first two documents allow, those conditions still remain alive today, even under the <i>Constitution</i>.<br />
<br />
So if the states gave up the right to secede under either of the two agreements which preceded the <i>Constitution</i>, and which serve as the source of authority for the <i>Constitution</i>, those agreements being the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> or the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, that right is forever forsaken UNLESS some provision of the agreement under which that right was originally surrendered allows it to be restored. <br />
<br />
In our last installment, we learned that the union of<i> 'free and independent states,'</i> which union came into being under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> in 1776, became a <u><b>perpetual </b></u>union of states, as agreed under the <i>Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union</i>, ratified in 1781, which agreement removed the right of secession, agreed unanimously among the states who were parties to the agreement, its Article XIII stipulating<br />
<blockquote>
Every State shall abide by the
determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions
which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this
confederation <u><b>shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall
be perpetual;</b></u> nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of
them; <u><b>unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States,
and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.</b></u> </blockquote>
So according to the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, the terms of which when fulfilled serve as the source of authority for the Constitution, those terms do not allow the states to secede from the union. And so, if the union which existed under the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, is the same union that now exists under the <i>Constitution</i>, then that stipulation in Article XIII of the AoC must remain fulfilled, even today. Because one state agreeing to that stipulation served as an inducement for every other state to agree to it as well, which in effect changed the course of history for each other state, each state has the right to enforce that stipulation on every other state. That is the most basic tenet of contract law. For this reason, even today, every state in the union is bound to it. The union which came into being as <i>'free and independent states'</i> under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>, contingent on their own abiding preference to remain in the union, however unbound to do so, became <i>'perpetual,'</i> under the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, indicating that this union, comprised as it was, shall have no end. In agreeing to that stipulation, the states in the union no longer remained, <i>'free and independent.'</i> That being the case, no state would possess the right to end it by seceding, that is, unless as the AoC states, agreed <b> "</b><u><b>in a congress of the united States,
and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.</b></u><b>" </b><br />
<br />
These principles became the focal point of the debate which raged leading up to the presidential election of 1860. In March of 1861, before Abraham Lincoln would even take the oath of office as America's 16th president, seven states declared secession from the union, and claimed authority under the <i>Constitution </i>to do so. Lincoln had some decisions to make. And whatever decisions he made he would have to support to the new congress, a congress that would not even be seated for several months. So without an act of congress to back him up, and understanding that 'principle' has its moment before it becomes obsolete, Lincoln acted to save the union. He commanded a military response to the attack on Fort Sumter. He authorized the war department to begin raising an army. And he suspended the writ of habeas corpus.<br />
<br />
On July 4, 1861, Lincoln addressed a special session of congress. And using the argument I give you above, he justified his actions to save the union. In Lincoln's language, here is an excerpt from that <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1861lincoln-special.asp">speech</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in
the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.
The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial
dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of
dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never
designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the
Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of
Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and
independent States"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare their
independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual
pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show. <b>The
express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of
Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive.</b>
Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence
this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to
lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the
States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any
of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of
the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a
political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a
sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act
she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the
United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the
land. <b>The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If
they break from us, they can only do so against law and by revolution. </b>The Union, and not
themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or
purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The
Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally
some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their old
dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a
State constitution independent of the Union. Of course it is not forgotten that all the
new States framed their constitutions before they entered the Union, nevertheless
dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.</i></blockquote>
So although we seemed to have made a slight side trip, varying from the matter at hand, which is of course to decide whether America is Christian Nation, that side trip has been for a good reason. And that reason is that, if Lincoln is correct, <b>then the conditions stipulated in the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> and in <i>Articles of Confederation</i> modify the meaning of the <i>Constitution </i>in such a manner that fulfilling the conditions of each of the first two agreements, is a necessary conditions for the third. </b>And because Lincoln is universally admired, and the authority of his pronouncements as president are practically universally accepted, I have chosen here to invoke his words and his experiences during the most crucial moments since America's founding.<br />
<br />
But in the next installment, as I promised earlier in the series, we will examine what George Washington, the universally admired father of the America nation, had to say on the subject of God, and Christianity, in the context treated by this series of articles. And then, just to set the stage, we will investigate just what our founding fathers had in mind as they stood in line to endorse the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>. So please come back as you have time and once again I thank you for taking the time to read and understand the information I present in these articles.<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-82396768364967848792011-08-30T08:04:00.004-04:002013-07-15T06:38:27.256-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part VIII, Dispelling the Supporting Arguments Against God In America's National and Governmental Institutions Under the ConstitutionAs if we did not know this before, in the last installment we demonstrated conclusively that, according to the Constitution (ratified 1789), and indeed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (ratified 1781), the United States of America, a nation among nations, has been in continuous operation, under the same national identity, since the year 1776, presumably July 4th of that year, the date the Declaration of Independence took effect. Supporting that conclusion is the <i>Constitution</i>, which in Article VII indicates that the ratification of that document was proposed<br />
<blockquote>
the Seventeenth Day of September<span style="color: red;"> in the Year of our Lord</span> one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven <u><i><b>and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth</b></i></u>. </blockquote>
And serving as the supreme law governing the United States of America while the Constitutional convention occurred, and which indeed authorized that convention, and thus conveying sovereign authority to the Constitution, even to this day, is the <i>Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union</i>, which according to it's terms was proposed for ratification<br />
<blockquote>
the ninth Day of July <span style="color: red;">in the Year of our Lord</span> one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and <u><i><b>in the Third Year of the independence of America</b></i></u>.</blockquote>
So it is conclusive that each of these documents, both codified as 'Supreme Law,' indicate that the nation for which they applied, began operation in the year 1776. It therefore is a small leap to understand that both documents refer to the certain sovereign authority reasoned into being under the terms of the Declaration of Independence as their own respective sources of authority.<br />
<br />
But today there are certain highly respected legal scholars, who occupy elevated positions within the 'contemporary' American constitutional law community, scholars who dispute the direct implications contained in these documents, and instead offer that the nation that existed once the Constitution became ratified, is not the same nation at all that existed under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>, or the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>. And so at this point in the series, we are looking at those arguments, and examining their veracity. And the reason that this issue is important is that the answer to the question before us, whether America is a Christian nation, hinges, at least partly, upon the truth of these matters.<br />
<br />
Stepping once again within the pages of the book, <i>America's Constitution: A Biography</i>, authored by esteemed Yale constitutional law professor, Akhil Reed Amar, let's dispel a few more of the author's supporting arguments. On page 9 Professor Amar attempts to destroy the credibility of the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> itself, as an imperfect tool to fulfill its stated objectives, writing<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Yet the Declaration only imperfectly acted out its bold script. Its fifty-six acclaimed signers never put the document to any sort of popular vote.</i> </blockquote>
In a similar reference on that same page, Professor Amar indicts the credibility of <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, maintaining that<br />
<blockquote>
<i>T</i><i>his document was then sent out to be ratified by the thirteen state legislatures, none of which asked the citizens themselves to vote in any special way on the matter. </i></blockquote>
Now Professor Amar draws no specific conclusions from those statements. Even so, viewed in his context, the author attempts to plant the implication that, by some unnamed standard, a vote of popular opinion was necessary in order to ratify each those documents. And according to that theory, because these documents were not put to a democratic vote among all the citizens of the colonies or states represented, he questions the validity of any authority that sprang from each.<br />
<br />
But both of these documents plainly state that ratification by the people by popular vote was not necessary, and that the individuals who signed those documents did so with authority. In the case of the Declaration, that document plainly states its source of authority, each signer acting with the <i>“authority of the good People of the Colonies.”</i> Today, we must assume that those people the signers represented duly authorized their representatives to do what they did in July of 1776. If that were not the case, then of course the independence of the United States of America never happened and America is still under the authority of the crown of England. And according to the <i>AoC</i>, the signers who affixed their names to that document claimed to be, <i>"the undersigned Delegates of the States."</i> There is no evidence to the contrary, and only evidence supporting, that those signers were duly authorized to act for their respective states. And each state legislature, representing every state citizen, acted to ratify the signatures on both documents. Therefore, any statement implying that as a result of a presumed lack of standing of its signers, the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>, or the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, were not fully legitimate, necessarily draws on standards that do not apply to those documents. Both documents indicate that the respective peoples represented at these proceedings authorized their representatives to act in their place, which is exactly what they did. And in neither instance is there any supporting evidence which indicates that representation of the people was not fully authorized. And indeed, no question ever was, or ever has been, called on the authority if these documents, which question, answered in the author's favor, might place the truth on the side of Professor Amar's position.<br />
<br />
Delving further into Professor Amar's supporting arguments, on page 12, regarding the Constitution he states,<br />
<blockquote>
<i>In deed as well as word, the Preamble stood for ongoing popular sovereignty…Even more dramatically, the Preamble by its very deed implicitly affirmed that the People’s right to amend ultimately required only a simple majority vote.</i></blockquote>
Very simply, that statement is unsupported. No reasonable and unbiased person reading the Preamble of the Constitution would necessarily draw that inference.<br />
<br />
And on page 12, Professor Amar attempts to make the case that the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> only sanctions <i>“the Right of the People to alter or abolish a government”</i> if that government had <i>“grossly abused their powers.”</i> A plain reading of the terms of the declaration demonstrates that this assertion is not true. Under the Declaration, the People have the endowed right, from God, to <i>“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.”</i> Under that principle, the People’s <i>“Safety and Happiness”</i> is a primary concern for government to consider. Therefore, any government that is destructive of the People’s safety or happiness can justifiably be <i>“altered or abolished”</i> as well. In the particular case before them, merely because the founders only cited instances in which the King’s government had grossly abused its powers, thus becoming tyrannical, the founders in no manner ruled out the People’s Right to alter governments for lesser offenses. Therefore, Dr. Amar's statement in the next paragraph, <i>“Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution did not purport to show—because it did not need to show—that the regime it was amending was tyrannical,”</i> follows a false premise. And for that reason, any and all of his arguments that build on that remark are left unsupported.<br />
<br />
A final argument against a continuity of America's national identity that we will explore is Professor Amar's notion that the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> was NOT a constitution of sorts, but was instead a treaty among sovereign states. If it can be shown that the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> was a treaty, rather than a constitution, then that information would support the claim that the United States of America rebooted as a new and different nation than any that had ever existed, noting that it would have sprang forth from a non-nation and become a new nation under the terms of the <i>Constitution</i>.<br />
<br />
To dispute any notion that the AoC was a treaty document, one only needs to read the document. A treaty document would state that it is a treaty. The <i>Articles of Confederation</i> makes no such statement. The term, 'treaty' cannot be found within its terms.<br />
<br />
And secondly, to save us from even inferring that the AoC was a de facto treaty, although not directly stated, is the requirement that a treaty be enacted between or among sovereign states, states which are free and independent to act, to form alliances, to enact treaties, and thus also <u><b>to remove themselves from treaties enacted</b></u>. However, under the terms of the AoC, agreed among all of the thirteen states, those states forever left behind the sovereignty that they possessed <i>prior </i>to that time. Under the terms of that document, the union formed under the Declaration of Independence, became "perpetual," each state forever plighting troth to all others in the union. Article XIII confirms that the states which came together under the AoC no longer were fully sovereign states, free and independent to go their own ways, stating the following:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and <u><b>the union shall be perpetual</b></u>; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; <u><b>unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State</b></u>.</i></blockquote>
<br />
Article XIII of the <i>AoC </i>confirms that the union existing under its terms <u><b>could not be broken</b></u>; it would live in perpetuity, and no state would in the future would possess the authority necessary to leave that union, <b><u><i>unless </i></u></b>it first received permission by the sitting congress, which permission must then be confirmed by the legislatures <u><b>of every other state in the union</b></u>. Because, as we have learned in this series of articles, the authority of the <i>Constitution </i>depends upon authority conveyed to it from the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, those articles must be fulfilled, even today. If that were not to occur, a breach of contract would manifest, and the union would dissolve as a result. But because ultimately, the <i>Constitution </i>WAS ratified unanimously, as the <i>AoC </i>required, and because no state that has come into the union has ever successfully left without permission, there has never been a breach of the terms of the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, and the union today is the same union, under the same national identity, as it was since 1776.<br />
<br />
And because the states which entered into the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> lost certain of their sovereignty in the process, and agreed to become subject to the authority of each and every other state within that union, that fact disqualifies the notion that the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> was a treaty document. That fact leaves us with the understanding that the union that existed under the terms of the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> could not have been a <i>multilateral treaty organization.</i> And that fact disproves Professor Amar's most significant and straight-forward argument that a breach of contract occurred as the <i>Constitution </i>became ratified, which if so would have lead to a discontinuity in national identity under the new <i>Constitution</i>.<br />
<br />
And incidentally, it was the language of Article XIII of the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> on which President Lincoln would at least partially rely when he assumed authority to save the union after hostilities broke out, which hostilities ramped into the American Civil War. President Lincoln explains that theory to congress, in special session, on July 4, 1861. That address, the validity of which supports the conclusion of continuous national identity for the United States America since 1776, will be the subject of our next installment.<br />
<br />
Are we learning anything folks?<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-53996808148763218032011-08-28T16:31:00.006-04:002013-07-15T06:51:37.538-04:00Is America A Christian Nation, Part VII, Analysis of the Case Against God In America's National and Governmental Institutions Under the ConstitutionTo understand your place in the discussion here, please refer to the segments previously published in this series, and then review the segment entitled Part VI, the summary to date. This present segment assumes that the reader is brought up to date on the information that lays its foundation.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Analysis of the Thesis, that America was Born-Again, Without God, Under the Constitution</b></u><br />
<br />
This segment of the series which asks the question, whether America is a Christian nation, will refute the arguments cited previously that America essentially "rebooted" as a new and different nation under the <i>Constitution</i>, than it was under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> and <i>Articles of Confederation</i>. To demonstrate the false nature of the thesis in question, all one really needs is the language of the <i>Articles of Confederation</i> and <i>Constitution</i>, which conclusively denies that argument directly, and which also directly supports the conclusion that the United States of America today, is the same United States which existed under the <i>AoC</i>, and which existed under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>. Furthermore, the <i>Constitution </i>certifies that conclusion and adopts it as the Supreme Law of the Land. <br />
<br />
The argument that America rebooted its national sovereignty under the <i>Constitution </i>is grounded upon assertions concerning the transformational “process” by which a nation was born in 1776, and by which that nation subsequently worked to craft an enduring national governmental structure. Dr. Amar's evaluation of the events and circumstances surrounding this “process” only deals with the “process” itself, as it progressed, rather than understanding in retrospect what the authors of the <i>Constitution </i>plainly intended, and documented as the outcome of the “process,” an outcome to which the affected parties in question would ultimately agree unanimously. Those parties documented their agreement to the final product of the “process” in <i><b>Article VI</b>I</i> of the <i>Constitution</i> itself, thus codifying the outcome as <i>“supreme Law,”</i> regardless of any particular “process” through which that outcome was determined. <br />
<br />
Dr. Amar's entire thesis finds specific basis in the notion that the “process,” what he refers as the “process of ordainment” by which the goal of crafting an enduring government was ultimately accomplished (and agreed leaving no grieved parties), was not as “smooth” (my term) as required for this “final” emerging nation to have maintained its original national identity all the while this “process” was ongoing. And because the “process” was not as smooth as required by the standards he attaches to his analysis, then all of the meaning and historical significance that underwrites the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> is necessarily lost to the <i>Constitution</i>, relegated to remain forever as prose from a bygone era, passé expressions of idealism from an extinct nation, possibly no more significant to us today than the the nations of the Incas or Mayas. <br />
<br />
But in his book, <i>America's Constitution: A Biography,</i> taking the approach that Dr. Amar does, neither does he judge the overall results of this transformational “process,” nor does he judge the actual stated intentions of the <i><a href="http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/articles/text.html">Articles of Confederation</a></i>, nor the intentions as stated and codified in the Preamble and in Article VII of the <i>Constitution</i>. But conceding for the sake of argument, as Dr. Amar's analysis would require, that the authors of the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, simply <b>forgot </b>to dissolve the nation created under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>; and conceding, as his analysis would require, that the authors of the <i>Constitution</i>, neglected to mention, or therefore even possibly notice, that this “new” forming union would completely expunge the "old" union, and even conceding the remote possibility that these founders actually meant to void the agreement which begot the union already in place as the <i>Constitution </i>moved toward ratification, this much we know for certain: As of the date of the <i>AoC's</i> proposed ratification, those Articles express that the <i>"United States of America,"</i> a nation (Amar admits), was in its <i>“third year.”</i> Carried with that expression, is a necessary implication that after the <i>AoC's</i> ratification, that nation would continue with the same national identity that existed since July 4, 1776. The Constitution’s Article VII certifies the presence of that implication, allowing that by 1787, as the authors of the <i>Constitution </i>moved to ratify that document, the same national body of sovereign authority known as the <i>"United States of America" </i>had been <b><u>in continuous operation</u></b> well into its "twelfth year," thus bridging the entire period of transition and governmental transformation between the dates of the <i>Declaration of Independence </i>and the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>. And because the authors of the <i>Constitution </i>employed that very same time convention as the authors of the <i>Article's of Confederation</i>, the Constitution's Article VII necessarily implies an identical conveyance of a continuous national identity straight through the period of the <i>Constitution</i>, a document that boasts being proposed in the "twelfth year" of the<i> </i>"United States of America." Because both the <i>AoC </i>and the <i>Constitution </i>use the very same time convention to document the respective dates of their proposed ratification, that language certifies that the nation existing under the <i>Declaration of Independence</i>, that same nation that carried over to the time period of the <i>Articles of Confederation</i>, would necessarily continue to operate under the <i>Constitution </i>and could in no authoritative manner morph into a “new” and different nation than had ever before existed.<br />
<br />
But just to make sure that we give his position and fair chance, let's test Dr. Amar's theory against the language of the <i>Constitution</i>. According to this test, if his language is consistent with the <i>Constitution</i>, then it is a possible interpretation. If not, then it is not. If, upon its ratification, the Constitution’s authors had meant for America’s sovereign identity to die or to transform into some new animal, then why did they feel it necessary to state that the <i>Constitution </i>of this “new” nation was proposed in the “twelfth year” of some organized entity that, if Professor Amar's theory is correct, had not existed for nearly nine years? Think about that. Because that theory does not make any sense with the clear terms of the <i>Constitution</i>, Dr. Amar's theory, and any assertion that finds basis in that theory, cannot be correct.<br />
<br />
In the next segment we will look at some very specific arguments used to bolster the case that America 'rebooted' under the <i>Constitution</i>, and demonstrate the errors in each. And then a little further into the discussion we will explore what some early statesmen, George Washington for one, had to say about all this at the time. After all, George should know.<br />
<br />
So we will talk again soon...<br />
<br />
Hank<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Hank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3215603753968383271.post-38423416396522749452011-08-27T08:20:00.004-04:002013-07-12T07:53:46.188-04:00Is America a Christian Nation, Part VI, A Summary of the Issue to This PointThis series on American history asks the question, whether America is a Christian nation. To summarize the series to date, so far we have learned that the treaty which ended the American Revolutionary War,known as the Treaty of Paris of 1783, lists both countries agreeing to its terms, as subject to the authority of the <i>"most holy and undivided Trinity."</i> So in that respect, it is conclusive to assume that both of these parties, Great Britain and specifically the United States of America, as they existed in 1783, were Christian nations, under the authority of God of the Bible including the New Testament. If that were not true, then the sitting congress of the US, representing each citizen of every state, could not have ratified that treaty as written. And if that might be the case, then officially, the American revolutionary war never concluded.<br />
<br />
But in the succeeding segments of this series we have learned that there is a major question posed within the community of contemporary United States Constitutional Law scholars. That question is whether the nation whose representatives signed that treaty in 1783, and whose sitting congress ratified the same, was in reality a nation in the first place, but rather a treaty organization, and whether the nation known as the "United States of America," living under the US Constitution ratified in 1789, is truly that same nation, or organization, that agreed to the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and whether as a result the present nation, in effect, "rebooted" its sovereignty upon ratifying that Constitution, and for that reason became an entirely different nation, one which owes its sovereignty to an completely different set of reasons than any nation, or organization, that may have existed with the same name prior to that time, a brand new nation that was, and is, not beholden to the Treaty of Paris of 1783, nor beholden to any agreements previously agreed among the states, states which prior to 1789, agreed among themselves to be known collectively as the "United States of America." (I know that was a long sentence.)<br />
<br />
Now the issue here is apparent. If the United States of America, agreed a nation today, is (1) the same nation that came into being under the Declaration of Independence in 1776, under the reasons cited and agreed in that document, and (2) subsequently agreed to form a "perpetual union" of states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, ratified in 1781, and (3) in 1783 also agreed to the terms of the Treaty of Paris of that year, agreeing to <b>all </b>of the terms of that treaty, then <b>regardless </b>of any terms that have been written since, into any successive Constitutions, or amendments to the same, the <b>conditions </b>which existed and which underwrote the authority of the sitting congress to construct and ratify that new Constitution, are the same <b>conditions </b>which authorize that agreement today. (Another long sentence, I know, stay with me) And if that is the case, then one condition that still authorizes the Constitution today is the condition that the "United States of America" remains a nation under the authority of the <i>"most holy and undivided Trinity."</i> So if America (meaning the United States of America) today, is the same America which has existed since 1776, and therefore since 1783, then in that major respect, America is a "Christian nation," a term defined as a nation that owes its sovereign authority to an endowment from God, the same God of the Bible and New Testament.<br />
<br />
However, if the facts demonstrate that America is no longer the same "America" that existed prior to the Constitution's ratification, and instead came into being as a brand new nation under the terms of that document, then the present United States of America owes it's sovereignty <b>only </b>to that authority that is implied between and among parties who agree to abide by a certain contract, that contract being the Constitution, a contract instituted and agreed by the duly-authorized representative of the group of individuals cited within that document's terms as, <i>"We the people of the United States."</i> If that might be the case, that the American sovereignty arises purely out of <u><b>agreement </b></u>among men, rather than <u><b>endowment </b></u>from God, then America is NOT a Christian nation, by any respect, but instead a republic whose only sovereign authority arose out of certain democratic efforts exerted by its people, resulting in a contract among those same people, regardless of the circumstances and conditions that brought those people to that point.<br />
<br />
The issues of this series being summarized above, in the next installment we will begin to uncover which scenario depicted above is true, and which is false. So please be looking for the next installment, which will be coming online soon...<br />
<br />
HankHank Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15768713288162953642noreply@blogger.com1