The Bench - 1
Submitted by VirtualJustice (edited January 11)
Democracy or Republic ~ America on Trial
The goal of this discussion is an attempt to help “reach a consensus of our founding fathers' intentions for governmental powers and determine whether those powers are a responsibility and therefore a right, or a privilege granted by the American public's ignorance or acceptance.” (www.JudgeRight.vox.com)
I have chosen to focus on the spiritual aspect of this issue, Christian-based, because it is fundamental to the future life of our country. Please know that my writings here assume that we can do something for our future. Should it be time for the Father to bring His word to pass, nothing we do can or will change our circumstances.
My research over the past year has led me to a strong belief that the original Founding Fathers who wrote the Articles of Confederation, one being Alexander Hamilton, had a difference of intentions than those of the ones who wrote our present Constitution.
Based on the history behind the development of our US Constitution, combined with a study of the First and Second Great Awakenings, it is clear that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution itself were founded upon biblical principles. In the original documents, rights and privileges were "a given" and were not enumerated separately. The purpose our Founding Fathers had for the United States of America was to establish a Christian nation for a Christian people, based on the right to live in freedom, specifically religious freedom.
From "Basic Concepts About the First Great Awakening" (http://www.great-awakening.com/concepts.htm)
Through the Awakening, the Colonists realized that religious power resided in their own hands, rather than in the hands of the Church of England, or any other religious authority. After a generation or two passed with this kind of mindset, the Colonists came to realize that political power did not reside in the hands of the English monarch, but in their own will for self-governance (consider the wording of the Declaration of Independence). By 1775, even though the Colonists did not all share the same theological beliefs, they did share a common vision of freedom from British control. Thus, the Great Awakening brought about a climate which made the American Revolution possible.
"...their own will for self-governance." These men who wrote the Articles of Confederation, each one unquestionably Christian, devised a government that was committed to revere God the Father...one that would function biblically so citizens could enjoy their freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion, as is translated today. The citizens of that time were being influenced by waves of religious revival that swept through the colonies. So, this is what I believe was the purpose/intention/vision of the original Founding Fathers:
People → God (Creator) ← Government
The Bill of Rights, fathered by James Madison, came after the Articles of Confederation and spelled out the "assumed" rights/privileges. To remain Christian-based, these rights had to include the free will given us by our Creator. These same rights, when exercised by non-Christians, are the vehicle that furnishes the unrighteous with the ability to legally walk all over the authority of the righteous.
[NOTE: Fret not thyself because of evil doers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity ~ Psalm 37:1)
When translated without a Christian foundation, these living documents tend to take on a different translation. Two examples:
1) To a bible-loving Christian, the term “unalienable rights” represents vast freedom; but a God-fearing Christian knows this freedom comes with a price and carries with it the responsibility to be personally accountable for everything concerning oneself and family. “Unalienable rights” for the average, non-Christian American often translates to mean unlimited privileges owed them that don't cost a dime, primarily because they paid their "dues" (taxes).
2) The right to freely speak: though we have the right to speak anything we choose, as a Christian, our tongue will (or should) be God-honoring, whereby fulfilling the responsibility of being accountable for self toward others. Of course, the opposite is true for the non-Christian, as can be clearly seen in today's culture.
Thus, our rights are also a privilege and our Founding Fathers intended that we contend to uphold them. Had the Christian aspect remained intact and mutually revered between citizens and government, I believe we would not be in the straits we now find ourselves. Our citizens would have continued living their lives exercising personal accountability, and our government would have functioned with that same sense of accountability.
Taking Back Our Nation
As stated above, I have chosen to focus on the spiritual (Christian) aspect of this issue because it is fundamental to the future life of our country. To see this more clearly, let's take a look at the example of Christmas.
Up until the past few decades, Christmas was widely celebrated as a Christian holy-day. Even with pagan roots, the traditions and decorations were Christ-centered...even Santa was Christ-centered...and Thanksgiving was celebrated as a major Christian-based holiday, not just Turkey-Day melded in with “Season's Greetings”.
In these past few decades, we've seen an increased focus on commercialism and greed along with a decreased focus of Christ-centered traditions/decorations/activities; and Black Friday gets more attention than Thanksgiving. Specifically within the past few years, there have been petitions led by the American Family Association to various retailers, contending to keep Christ in Christmas. Even as many as 20 years ago, we wore buttons and sent cards that said “Jesus is the Reason for the Season”.
To visualize this:
1960 ............................................. 2008
C H R J I E S S T U M S A S
C H R R E I T S A T I M L A S
Turning now toward our nation in general...
Just as there is a slow-fade of Christ-centered Christmas (widely speaking), there is a slow-fade of nationwide reverence for genuine Christianity. This slow-fade reveals “loopholes” in the Constitution where increasing evil exploits freedom (bad is good; good is bad)...by “loopholes”, I mean places where accountability gave way to irresponsibility.
According to the online review of Joseph Farah's Taking America Back, it states:
It is time to choose the kind of country in which we want to live, whether we want to live under the rule of law or under the rule of judicial government and a constitution that is a "living document," which for all practical purposes means living without a constitution. According to Farah, "The choice is simple: the world of standards and morality, of marriage, order, the rule of law, and accountability to God or the world of anything goes, aberrant behavior, do-your-own-thing lifestyles, and moral codes that change with the speed of the latest public opinion polls."
How can Americans take back their nation? The author says the only way we can reestablish our freedom—our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—is to break the hammerlock of statism and the notion that moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior.
I'm going to disagree with stating a need to abandon the idea that “moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior”, and ask that we retain it as a lesson learned. Anyone who has seen the movie "Happy Feet" should be able to attest to the ending where the penguins dance. This dancing is forbidden by the elders, portrayed to represent the type of leadership that forces legalism on everyone, but functions to break the barrier between the species and the humans. The elders treat it as rebellion and their authority is overthrown.
This scenario should sound familiar. Does it not describe, and even represent, what has happened in our country since the sexual revolution of the 60's? So, what we've learned is that we can't legislate morality. And the lesson should teach us that Farah's idealogical scenario in the first paragraph cannot be realized without:
People → God (Creator) ← Government
The reason I believe “moral relativism” functioned to hold the answer to people's behavior is because it was the only way to enforce non-Christians to abide by Christian rule while in a democracy. Moral relativism CANNOT work because of how it violates free will; morality cannot be legislated. So if we want to live in Christian freedom instead of socialism/communism, we DO have to try something else.
Should the existing Constitution with its loopholes remain in any form via democracy, however, it will merely give place to evil again and history will repeat itself.
More Thoughts on Forming of a More Perfect Union
This brings us back around to assessing the Founding Father's intentions for the Constitution, "to form a more perfect union". The following is the beginning of a discussion that will review some aspects of the Constitution and its history. The idea here is to examine whatever relevant information we can find about what comprised the Constitution. For example, a comparison of the Constitution to the original Articles of Confederation will show how the federal government is provided with more power via the Constitution. Another example is our Bill of Rights, fathered by James Madison and designed to protect. The question is: protect what? who? The Articles of Confederation never had a separate Bill of Rights because rights and privileges were considered by Federalists to be automatically inclusive.
After doing more research and studying, it seems the Bill of Rights are at the heart of our issue and might even be causing all the commotion. The Federalists did not want them, positing that inherent rights were already at the heart of the Constitution. Something must have happened in the mindset of people occurring between the First and Second Great Awakenings that brought about the perceived need for rights to be enumerated. So, why the need for the Bill of Rights?
Highlights from "Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights"
Americans have been concerned with their rights for hundreds of years. The right to practice religion however they wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England. The right of representation and self-determination was one of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The right for all persons to be free was one of the reasons the Civil War was fought.
What is interesting to note is that when the Constitutional Convention finished its work, it did not find it necessary to include a bill of rights in the final version. Several members, notably George Mason, were very disappointed by this decision and refused to sign the document over the issue. The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.
Of all the issues that the Anti-Federalists gave for rejecting the new constitution, the lack of a bill of rights was the most compelling for many people.
The Federalists were opposed to adding a bill of rights, expounding on the reasons why in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84. Among the reasons listed was a list of the personal protections the new constitution did contain, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the inviolate habeas corpus, prohibition of a religious test to hold office, and restrictions on a conviction of treason.
[James] Madison tried to get the debate moving, but debate on tariffs and other pressing issues always pushed the debate on a bill of rights to the back burner. Madison finally had enough and on June 8, 1789, he presented his draft of a bill of rights to get the discussion moving.
From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list. Rights were enumerated, removed, modified, tweaked. Eventually, both houses agreed on twelve articles of amendment and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 1791, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the text, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel).
From The Federalist Papers #84, Hamilton writes:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
...
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
...
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.
Some interesting webpages:
US Constitution Online
The Great Awakening
Below is a link to a picture with a scenario we've grown familiar with: a picture of a political leader on huge posters being burned.
After viewing this picture and considering its subject, I ask: Who is it that's been hated? Bush? or America?
The media has spent the past 7 years convincing the world that it's Bush the world hates.
But wait: everyone makes mistakes...especially those who have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders.
Later in the day, I viewed an article by Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post; I left the above question as a comment, along with another question: if it had been Bush posters being burned, would the copy have read "hardline demonstrators" (depicting a group of extremists) OR just "Iranians" (lending the impression that the whole country hated Bush)???
They snuffed out my comment.
I toned it down and resubmitted...they didn't print it.
I submitted one more comment, stating that the Fairness Doctrine was alive and well...they didn't print that one, either.
And then it occurred to me that in the picture, we don't even see who is doing the protesting.
America is hated because of her support of Israel.
Israel is God's chosen people/nation, and everyone hates her. America follows suit because she is the Gentile nation, born to support Israel; as such, she is hated.
Hardline demonstrators burn posters of U.S. President-elect ... - Yahoo! News Photos
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/President-elect-Barack-Obama/photo//090113/ids_photos_wl/r1645453159.jpg/
Submitted by VirtualJustice (edited January 11)
Democracy or Republic ~ America on Trial
The goal of this discussion is an attempt to help “reach a consensus of our founding fathers' intentions for governmental powers and determine whether those powers are a responsibility and therefore a right, or a privilege granted by the American public's ignorance or acceptance.” (www.JudgeRight.vox.com)
I have chosen to focus on the spiritual aspect of this issue, Christian-based, because it is fundamental to the future life of our country. Please know that my writings here assume that we can do something for our future. Should it be time for the Father to bring His word to pass, nothing we do can or will change our circumstances.
My research over the past year has led me to a strong belief that the original Founding Fathers who wrote the Articles of Confederation, one being Alexander Hamilton, had a difference of intentions than those of the ones who wrote our present Constitution.
Based on the history behind the development of our US Constitution, combined with a study of the First and Second Great Awakenings, it is clear that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution itself were founded upon biblical principles. In the original documents, rights and privileges were "a given" and were not enumerated separately. The purpose our Founding Fathers had for the United States of America was to establish a Christian nation for a Christian people, based on the right to live in freedom, specifically religious freedom.
From "Basic Concepts About the First Great Awakening" (http://www.great-awakening.com/concepts.htm)
Through the Awakening, the Colonists realized that religious power resided in their own hands, rather than in the hands of the Church of England, or any other religious authority. After a generation or two passed with this kind of mindset, the Colonists came to realize that political power did not reside in the hands of the English monarch, but in their own will for self-governance (consider the wording of the Declaration of Independence). By 1775, even though the Colonists did not all share the same theological beliefs, they did share a common vision of freedom from British control. Thus, the Great Awakening brought about a climate which made the American Revolution possible.
"...their own will for self-governance." These men who wrote the Articles of Confederation, each one unquestionably Christian, devised a government that was committed to revere God the Father...one that would function biblically so citizens could enjoy their freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion, as is translated today. The citizens of that time were being influenced by waves of religious revival that swept through the colonies. So, this is what I believe was the purpose/intention/vision of the original Founding Fathers:
People → God (Creator) ← Government
The Bill of Rights, fathered by James Madison, came after the Articles of Confederation and spelled out the "assumed" rights/privileges. To remain Christian-based, these rights had to include the free will given us by our Creator. These same rights, when exercised by non-Christians, are the vehicle that furnishes the unrighteous with the ability to legally walk all over the authority of the righteous.
[NOTE: Fret not thyself because of evil doers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity ~ Psalm 37:1)
When translated without a Christian foundation, these living documents tend to take on a different translation. Two examples:
1) To a bible-loving Christian, the term “unalienable rights” represents vast freedom; but a God-fearing Christian knows this freedom comes with a price and carries with it the responsibility to be personally accountable for everything concerning oneself and family. “Unalienable rights” for the average, non-Christian American often translates to mean unlimited privileges owed them that don't cost a dime, primarily because they paid their "dues" (taxes).
2) The right to freely speak: though we have the right to speak anything we choose, as a Christian, our tongue will (or should) be God-honoring, whereby fulfilling the responsibility of being accountable for self toward others. Of course, the opposite is true for the non-Christian, as can be clearly seen in today's culture.
Thus, our rights are also a privilege and our Founding Fathers intended that we contend to uphold them. Had the Christian aspect remained intact and mutually revered between citizens and government, I believe we would not be in the straits we now find ourselves. Our citizens would have continued living their lives exercising personal accountability, and our government would have functioned with that same sense of accountability.
Taking Back Our Nation
As stated above, I have chosen to focus on the spiritual (Christian) aspect of this issue because it is fundamental to the future life of our country. To see this more clearly, let's take a look at the example of Christmas.
Up until the past few decades, Christmas was widely celebrated as a Christian holy-day. Even with pagan roots, the traditions and decorations were Christ-centered...even Santa was Christ-centered...and Thanksgiving was celebrated as a major Christian-based holiday, not just Turkey-Day melded in with “Season's Greetings”.
In these past few decades, we've seen an increased focus on commercialism and greed along with a decreased focus of Christ-centered traditions/decorations/activities; and Black Friday gets more attention than Thanksgiving. Specifically within the past few years, there have been petitions led by the American Family Association to various retailers, contending to keep Christ in Christmas. Even as many as 20 years ago, we wore buttons and sent cards that said “Jesus is the Reason for the Season”.
To visualize this:
1960 ............................................. 2008
C H R J I E S S T U M S A S
C H R R E I T S A T I M L A S
Turning now toward our nation in general...
Just as there is a slow-fade of Christ-centered Christmas (widely speaking), there is a slow-fade of nationwide reverence for genuine Christianity. This slow-fade reveals “loopholes” in the Constitution where increasing evil exploits freedom (bad is good; good is bad)...by “loopholes”, I mean places where accountability gave way to irresponsibility.
According to the online review of Joseph Farah's Taking America Back, it states:
It is time to choose the kind of country in which we want to live, whether we want to live under the rule of law or under the rule of judicial government and a constitution that is a "living document," which for all practical purposes means living without a constitution. According to Farah, "The choice is simple: the world of standards and morality, of marriage, order, the rule of law, and accountability to God or the world of anything goes, aberrant behavior, do-your-own-thing lifestyles, and moral codes that change with the speed of the latest public opinion polls."
How can Americans take back their nation? The author says the only way we can reestablish our freedom—our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—is to break the hammerlock of statism and the notion that moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior.
I'm going to disagree with stating a need to abandon the idea that “moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior”, and ask that we retain it as a lesson learned. Anyone who has seen the movie "Happy Feet" should be able to attest to the ending where the penguins dance. This dancing is forbidden by the elders, portrayed to represent the type of leadership that forces legalism on everyone, but functions to break the barrier between the species and the humans. The elders treat it as rebellion and their authority is overthrown.
This scenario should sound familiar. Does it not describe, and even represent, what has happened in our country since the sexual revolution of the 60's? So, what we've learned is that we can't legislate morality. And the lesson should teach us that Farah's idealogical scenario in the first paragraph cannot be realized without:
People → God (Creator) ← Government
The reason I believe “moral relativism” functioned to hold the answer to people's behavior is because it was the only way to enforce non-Christians to abide by Christian rule while in a democracy. Moral relativism CANNOT work because of how it violates free will; morality cannot be legislated. So if we want to live in Christian freedom instead of socialism/communism, we DO have to try something else.
Should the existing Constitution with its loopholes remain in any form via democracy, however, it will merely give place to evil again and history will repeat itself.
More Thoughts on Forming of a More Perfect Union
This brings us back around to assessing the Founding Father's intentions for the Constitution, "to form a more perfect union". The following is the beginning of a discussion that will review some aspects of the Constitution and its history. The idea here is to examine whatever relevant information we can find about what comprised the Constitution. For example, a comparison of the Constitution to the original Articles of Confederation will show how the federal government is provided with more power via the Constitution. Another example is our Bill of Rights, fathered by James Madison and designed to protect. The question is: protect what? who? The Articles of Confederation never had a separate Bill of Rights because rights and privileges were considered by Federalists to be automatically inclusive.
After doing more research and studying, it seems the Bill of Rights are at the heart of our issue and might even be causing all the commotion. The Federalists did not want them, positing that inherent rights were already at the heart of the Constitution. Something must have happened in the mindset of people occurring between the First and Second Great Awakenings that brought about the perceived need for rights to be enumerated. So, why the need for the Bill of Rights?
Highlights from "Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights"
Americans have been concerned with their rights for hundreds of years. The right to practice religion however they wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England. The right of representation and self-determination was one of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The right for all persons to be free was one of the reasons the Civil War was fought.
What is interesting to note is that when the Constitutional Convention finished its work, it did not find it necessary to include a bill of rights in the final version. Several members, notably George Mason, were very disappointed by this decision and refused to sign the document over the issue. The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.
Of all the issues that the Anti-Federalists gave for rejecting the new constitution, the lack of a bill of rights was the most compelling for many people.
The Federalists were opposed to adding a bill of rights, expounding on the reasons why in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84. Among the reasons listed was a list of the personal protections the new constitution did contain, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the inviolate habeas corpus, prohibition of a religious test to hold office, and restrictions on a conviction of treason.
[James] Madison tried to get the debate moving, but debate on tariffs and other pressing issues always pushed the debate on a bill of rights to the back burner. Madison finally had enough and on June 8, 1789, he presented his draft of a bill of rights to get the discussion moving.
From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list. Rights were enumerated, removed, modified, tweaked. Eventually, both houses agreed on twelve articles of amendment and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 1791, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the text, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel).
From The Federalist Papers #84, Hamilton writes:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
...
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
...
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.
Some interesting webpages:
US Constitution Online
The Great Awakening
James Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
------------------------
A great article about this is on a friend's post entitled "Staying True". http://lexann.vox.com/library/post/staying-true.html
Last year when gay marriage became an issue in CA, I learned that there
truly was nothing in the Constitution that would forbid it. I also
learned that the Constitution was written in such a way that it could
be interpreted from both a Christian AND a secular viewpoint.
Between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and before
the Bill of Rights were passed, Alexander Hamilton wrote this:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the
extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the
proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain
various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account,
would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For
why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to
do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press
shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions
may be imposed?"
"...exceptions to powers not granted..."
Why declare free speech as an unalienable right when the power to keep it under moral restrictions isn't likewise granted?
It
appears that (at least some of) the original forefathers recognized
that some powers were higher than human hands could be responsible for
or in control of; hence Hamilton's opposition.
And today, don't we see a blatant disrespect of our rights which can't
be controlled without restrictions imposed? And if restrictions are
imposed on freedoms (free speech, for example), then the
who-what-when-where-why-how's have to be answered. And who's going to
do either the defining or the imposing?
---------------------------------------------
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6)Below is a link to a picture with a scenario we've grown familiar with: a picture of a political leader on huge posters being burned.
After viewing this picture and considering its subject, I ask: Who is it that's been hated? Bush? or America?
The media has spent the past 7 years convincing the world that it's Bush the world hates.
But wait: everyone makes mistakes...especially those who have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders.
Later in the day, I viewed an article by Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post; I left the above question as a comment, along with another question: if it had been Bush posters being burned, would the copy have read "hardline demonstrators" (depicting a group of extremists) OR just "Iranians" (lending the impression that the whole country hated Bush)???
They snuffed out my comment.
I toned it down and resubmitted...they didn't print it.
I submitted one more comment, stating that the Fairness Doctrine was alive and well...they didn't print that one, either.
And then it occurred to me that in the picture, we don't even see who is doing the protesting.
America is hated because of her support of Israel.
Israel is God's chosen people/nation, and everyone hates her. America follows suit because she is the Gentile nation, born to support Israel; as such, she is hated.
Hardline demonstrators burn posters of U.S. President-elect ... - Yahoo! News Photos
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/President-elect-Barack-Obama/photo//090113/ids_photos_wl/r1645453159.jpg/
