Rss

  • youtube

Government is not the problem, however…

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 31, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Government

Recently, President Obama addressed the graduating class of Ohio State University. During his address he said:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

In this politically-charged national debate, we have President Obama and much of the left arguing for a greater role of government in the lives of people, and on the right the Tea Party and others are arguing for a smaller government. But, government is merely a framework for governing and not the actual science of government which determines its size and reach. We call the science of government politics.

Look in any modern dictionary and you will find the definition of politics given in a half-dozen or more explanations, many with unfavorable connotations. One pushes the dictionary aside with the thought that the soup contains the ingredients but not the flavor. To find the flavor, particularly to understand what the founding Americans thought of politics, we need to go back to Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828:

The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest … and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. (emphasis added)

We see that the early Americans believed that politics dealt with ethics (the moral code) and was to be concerned with the preservation and improvement of the morals of the citizenry. So politics is not the “heavy” as it is so often portrayed in modern times. Politics are necessary to govern a people, but that governance can range between being very good and very bad. And bad politics can result in a bloated, socialistic government or an austere, aloof, uncaring government. This distinction between government and politics is important and not just an exercise in academic hair-splitting.

With this understanding, two observations are necessary: government is ordained by God and man has a fallen nature. The problem is not bad government but bad politics caused by corruptible man who is not guided by the North Star of a biblical worldview resting on objective truth. Therefore, it is not government that is the issue as portrayed by President Obama. Rather, it is bad politics that is that separate, sinister entity that is the root of our problems. Bad politics is the tyranny that constantly lurks around the corner.

Once again, bad politics comes from ignoring the corruptible nature of man in the governance of a people. The Founders held a biblical worldview. They understood the truth of the fallen, corrupt nature of man, and designed the Constitution with separation of powers and other devices to control or mitigate that corrupt nature. But the modern liberals believe that man is inherently good, not fallen and in need of redemption.

The contrast between the beliefs of the Founders and those of President Obama and the humanist-liberal-progressive establishment could not be clearer. James Wilson, a signor of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, said, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine… Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

However, President Obama in a speech titled “Our Future and Vision for America”, said,

At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

For President Obama, it appears that human law must exclude divine law in the nation’s policy making. President Obama also says that we should reject those voices who say that “…our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.” I would submit that self-rule without the restraints of God’s law is the truly dangerous thing which can’t be trusted. Ultimately, self-rule without God is the source of bad politics.

Although the state has a proper role in God’s design of social systems, bad politics have allowed the state to dramatically usurp the authority of other spheres within God’s social system: family, church, labor and economics, education, man, and God Himself. In America, God and Christianity are being driven from the public square. As the social order is swept clean of God’s presence and influence, the lines between the spheres have blurred and opened the way for the state to appropriate to itself a presumed authority over all aspects of life. Such state authority ends in the tyranny of socialism or one of its various mutations which have been responsible for the greatest death, destruction, and misery in the history of the world. This is the sinister tyranny that Americans fear and which President Obama so blithely dismisses.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Washington Wire, “Transcript: Obama speech at Ohio State University,” The Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2013. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/06/transcript-obamas-commencement-speech-at-ohio-state/ (accessed May 16, 2013).

Noah Webster, “Politics,” American Dictionary of the English Language, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1995).

The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 104-106 as quoted from online source: http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/WilsonJames/quotes.html (accessed May 16, 2013).

Illinois State Senator Barak Obama, “Our Future and Vision for America”, About.com US Liberal Politics, June 28, 2006. http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaReligion_4.htm (accessed May 16, 2013).

Death of the American Constitution

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 24, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Constitution

A constitution will die if it does not fulfill the purpose for which it was enacted. Not being a living thing, its death takes the form of being ignored, trivialized, or corrupted. The purpose of any constitution is to reflect a set of fundamental principles by which to govern rational and social beings, that is, people. A constitution in a free society is a blueprint for constructing a government fitted to the people’s temper of mind, affections, or passions which I shall call the nation’s central cultural vision or collective worldview. Thus, we have three elements: the people, their central cultural vision, and their constitutional blueprint.

If a constitution is not functioning as intended, one of three things has happened or is happening. First, the constitution as drawn did not reflect the fundamental principles of the people. Second, the fundamental principles of that people changed over a period of time and now stand in contradiction to the principles upon which the constitutional blueprint was originally drawn. Third, the leaders of a society through craftiness and corruption have undermined the intent of the constitution in a manner contrary to the central cultural vision of the people.

The power of the American Constitution to provide prescriptive rules, principles, and ordinances for the American people is waning. Something is amiss, and to determine which of the above reasons is the source of the decline, we must examine our history.

The central cultural vision held by the colonists down through the Founding era was the basis for the set of blueprints for building the American form and practice of government, our national house so to speak. Those blueprints had been drawn largely from the Judeo-Christian tradition and its reliance on a transcendent God, His eternal truths, and His revelation to the Hebrews and first century Christians. To these central elements were added the prescriptions of history, custom, convention, and tradition—in essence, our patrimony. After a number of years certain wings of the house were demolished (e.g., slavery) and rebuilt to better adhere to those original blueprints.

Most of the governance of the house in the intervening years since its construction dealt with routine maintenance, interior decorations, and arrangement of furniture within. But the house was of sound construction, and apart from occasional errors in modification which were readily corrected, the structure served its inhabitants well. The house was large and had many rooms, and many were welcomed to live therein, even those that did not like the architecture and the central vision of its culture—the over-arching banner of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

However, the Founders knew of the fallen nature of man and foresaw a time when men would attempt to change that which they had built on timeless truths. In their great wisdom, the Founders believed they should insure what they had built would not be changed capriciously by its inhabitants. So they drew the Constitutional blueprint to limit those changes so the house would continue to function within the time-tested guidelines, or as Thomas Jefferson said, to “…bind him down with the chains of the Constitution.”

True to the Founders’ prediction, several groups believed that the house should not be just maintained or periodically redecorated but be reconstructed in its entirety. They wished to tear down the structure and build a new house using a set of old blueprints based on the tenets of humanism (which the Founders had judged to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound).

For the humanists, the center of the cultural vision would have to be shifted, and the old overarching banner of the Judeo-Christian worldview would have to go. Their demolition efforts began in earnest in the nineteenth century and progressed rapidly throughout the twentieth century. The structural supports of the old house were identified as the first to be demolished—belief in a transcendent God, hierarchy, moral truths, right and wrong, the fallen nature of man, and the sanctity of life to name just a few.

However, the chains of the Founders’ Constitution slowed the humanists’ progress. So they took the Founders’ words and invented new definitions and meanings to attach to those words. Once the new meanings were defined, taught in our schools, and embedded in our media-saturated consciousness, the humanists insisted that the old Constitution was outdated and must be modified and modernized to fit the new progressive understanding of the world and its problems. The old structure still stands, but for how long we do not know. Its future depends on its inhabitants. In spite of humanist assaults, the great majority of the inhabitants still like the original plans but seem to not know how (or care enough to rise from their lethargy) to stop the demolition and rebuild the house as it once was.

Our analysis leads us to conclude that the decline of the American Constitution is primarily due to the third reason listed above—the leaders of the institutions of American life through craftiness or corruption over several decades have undermined the Constitution’s original intent which they now deem to be contrary to the central cultural vision of the people. But, there is also collateral damage from the humanist assault. Because of the unrelenting assault on the biblical worldview for three generations and a lack of truthful teaching in our schools about our Founding, America is seeing a shift by a growing segment of its citizens to a humanistic worldview devoid of belief in a transcendent God, objective truth, and the fallen nature of man. The consequences of such a shift in the American vision were foreseen by our Founding fathers.

“The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” [Benjamin Rush – Signor of the Declaration of Independence, attendee at the Continental Congress, physician and first Surgeon General]

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” [Charles Carroll – Signor of the Declaration of Independence, lawyer, member of the Continental Congress and first U.S. Senate]

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [John Adams – One of the drafters and a signor of the Declaration of Independence, 2nd President of the United States]

We have only to read the words of the Founders to understand why the power of the American Constitution to provide prescriptive rules, principles, and ordinances for the American people is waning. In summary, our Constitution won’t save America if it’s citizens abandon virtue, morality, and religion. Such abandonment leaves the Constitution powerless to guide the nation as it enters the turbulent waters of humanistic moral relativism. And the ultimate consequence is a loss of liberty.

Larry G. Johnson
Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 401-404.

Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical, (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 93. Online source: http://fromthisconservativesviewpoint.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-only-foundation-for-republic.html (accessed May 9, 2013)

“Letter of Charles Carroll to James McHenry,” dated November 4, 1800. Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907, 475.
Online source: Quoted by Dave Miller, Ph.D., Apologetics Press http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1508 (accessed May 9, 2013)

John Adams, “Letter to Zabdiel Adams, Philadelphia, 21 June 1776,” in The Works of John Adams – Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams, Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798, (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1854). Online Source: http://historicwords.com/american-history/john-adams/ (accessed May 9, 2013)

End of the Citizen-Soldier?

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 17, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Culture Wars

Topical moments in media and culture are often of great debate and concern but are largely forgotten within a short time. Such moments command headlines and sound bites repeatedly play during the 24-hour news cycle. Yet, it is by the accumulation of such topical moments we give a face and direction to the culture in which we live. However, there are singular occurrences, often unrecognized or thought of as only a momentary concern, which starkly define the reasons for “why we fight” in the raging culture wars. One such singular occurrence happened within the last couple of weeks.

George Washington once said, “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” But if the Pentagon has its way, we may see an end to our nation’s historical admiration and respect for the citizen-soldier as the wedge of state is driven between the two. The Pentagon has proposed a policy to prosecute military personnel for promoting their faith. Specifically, the Pentagon stated that, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…” For all military personnel the end result would be to virtually eliminate all expressions of faith, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends or merely social acquaintances. And for all practical purposes the military chaplaincy would cease to function.

It appears that the source of the anti-proselytizing agenda is former ambassador Joe Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Michael Weinstein, the head of the private Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The three men recently met with several generals to discuss religious issues. Wilkerson equates religious proselytizing to sexual assault, both of “which are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.” So what did the generals also hear from Mr. Weinstein? Perhaps it was something like what he wrote for the Huff Post:

I founded the civil rights fighting organization the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military. Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces… If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Well! Mr. Weinstein’s rant does tend to leave one breathless. But, let’s let one of our nation’s former citizen-soldiers who also knew a little about the Constitution speak for the opposition. On July 4, 1775, General George Washington issued the following order from his Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters:

The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for government of the Army which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness. And in like manner he requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

A year later and five days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Continental Congress authorized the provision of chaplains for every regiment in the newly constituted army headed by General Washington. On that same day Washington issued his first general order to his troops:

The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.

In another general order issued at Valley Forge on May 2, 1778, General Washington implored his troops:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.

Unlike Wilkerson and Weinstein, Washington knew the real source of that which forged those bonds that keep soldiers together. That source was religion and in particular the Christian religion. However, if the Pentagon’s civilians and military brass have their way and General Washington was alive today, he would be court-marshaled for (paraphrasing Weinstein) forcing his weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon his helpless subordinates in the Continental Army in sharing his religious views.

Some will argue that we no longer have a military of citizen-soldiers but a professional army with no need of religious influences. Not so. Many are reservists and members of the National Guard. And those full-time members of the military didn’t leave their faith behind at the induction centers. More importantly, whether a professional army or citizen-soldiers, our nation’s Armed Forces without the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion will deteriorate into a palace guard loyal only to their masters and not to the Constitution or the people.

The Pentagon’s anti-proselyting regulation is the culmination of dozens of anti-Christian regulations and initiates in the military that have arisen during the Obama administration (See “I’m so shamed!” CultureWarrior.net – May 2, 2013). But it is this Pentagon regulation that is a singular occurrence which lays the ax to the root of our religious freedom of sharing one’s faith. This marginalization of religious freedom reaches far beyond the Armed Forces. The agenda of the Obama administration to fundamentally change America encompasses every segment of the public square and is the culmination of decades of humanistic infiltration of American culture.

Those of the humanistic worldview have risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed on a nation whose citizens that still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is the cause of culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews. Christians who ignore or disengage from the battle place religious freedom and our nation at peril.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Ken Klukowski, “Pentagon may court marshal solders who share Christian faith,” Breitbart News, May 1, 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith (accessed May 7, 2001)

Sally Quinn, “U.S. military should put religious freedom at the front,” The Washington Post, April 26, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_print.html
(accessed May 3, 2013).

Michael Weinstein, “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters: Papa’s Got A Brand New Bag,” HuffPost, April 16, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html?view=print&comm_ref=false (accessed May 3, 2013).

William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), pp. 638, 639, 643.

Oh!? It’s a matter of sanitation and not murder.

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 10, 2013
0

Category: Abortion, Archives

You may have followed the information (if you were able to find it in main stream media) flowing from the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion clinic operator accused of murdering a woman and seven babies born alive. I wrote about Gosnell and Planned Parenthood on April 12, 2013 (See Archives: “Postcard from Hell. In that article I referred to the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist, regarding a bill before the Florida legislature that would require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion. In response to being asked what would Planned Parenthood do if a live baby were born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” With regard to her callus comment I said that, “Apart from lack of sanitation and improper licensing, Planned Parenthood would have little to no issues with Dr. Gosnell’s methods and decision-making process with regard to killing a live baby.”

Referring to the heart-breaking and disturbing facts that occurred at the Philadelphia abortion clinic, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) attempted to have the Senate pass a sense of the Senate resolution that would have condemned illegal abortion practices. The resolution stated:

Congress has the responsibility to investigate and conduct hearings on abortions performed near, at, or after viability in the United States, public policies regarding such, and evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve violations of the natural right to life of infants who are born alive or are capable of being born alive, and therefore are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Given the facts coming out of the Philadelphia trial, it would appear that no reasonable person could object to Senator Lee’s resolution. However, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have found a way. A favorite ploy of Congressional Democrats is to resort to obfuscation in blocking solutions for problems when those solutions are in conflict with their interests and agenda and those of their allies. The issue is effectively muddled by enlarging the problem and then seeking “comprehensive” solutions instead of addressing the pressing issue of the moment. One example of this Democratic obfuscation is illegal immigration in which securing America’s borders is ignored or marginalized in favor of making it a part of a larger solution in dealing with “undocumented immigrants.”

Senator Blumenthal employed this tactic to defeat Senator Lee’s resolution and proposed his own resolution which states that all “incidents of abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices should be condemned and prevented and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Senator Lee sees clearly that the problem is immediate and of such compelling nature as to require Congressional action…it is about murdering born alive babies. But Notice Blumenthal’s subtle footwork. For the Senator, it is not about murder but “abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices.” Yes, murder is abusive and illegal, but it can never be labeled a health care practice. It appears that Congressional Democrats, like their ally Planned Parenthood, cannot distinguish between abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices and murder of born alive babies. While Congressional Democrats obfuscate and dither, little human beings are being killed.

Triage is a medical term. It means the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims to reflect the urgency of the patient’s need in order to maximize the number of survivors. The culture wars rage and both born and unborn babies are battle victims dying in America’s abortion mills. Senator Lee’s proposal pointed to the urgency of the need in order to maximize the number of survivors. But for Congressional Democrats, murdering born alive babies does not rise to the level requiring triage. It is part of a larger health care problem that must be investigated, mulled, discussed, considered…ad infinitum. Meanwhile, millions of little babies will never see their first birthday.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, “Postcard from Hell,” CultureWarrior.net, April 12, 2013. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/04/12/postcard-from-hell/ (accessed May 10, 2013).

Dr. Susan Berry, “Sen. Mike Lee resolves to address “Gosnell-type” abortion crime,” Brietbart News, May 6, 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/06/Sen-Mike-Lee-Resolves-To-Address-Gosnell-Type-Abortion-Crime (accessed May 10, 2013).

“Blumenthal Delivers Floor Speech Objecting To Senator Lee’s Abortion Resolution, Introduces Broader Resolution Condemning Criminal Acts And Malpractice In All Health Care Settings” Richard Blumenthal, United States Senator – Connecticut, May 8, 2013 http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-delivers-floor-speech-objecting-to-senator-lees-abortion-resolution-introduces-broader-resolution-condemning-criminal-acts-and-malpractice-in-all-health-care-settings (accessed May 10, 2013).

Our Play-Doh® Constitution

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : May 7, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Constitution

Pliable like Play-Doh®? Elasticized? Stretchable? No, liberals prefer to use the term, “Living Constitution.” Irrespective of the singular success of the American Constitution in the history of the world and in spite of the intent of the Founders when writing the Constitution, the popular liberal mantra for most of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century is that the Constitution is a “living document” that must be modified or bent to address the modern age and problems never foreseen by the Founders. By living document, the Constitutional liberals believe that its meaning and intent should be an instrument for enlightened social change to meet the needs of the hour.

Now most liberals have difficulty understanding the difference between life and non-life. For the liberal, an unborn baby is merely a “fetus” or “potentiality for life.” Yet, for the inanimate paper and ink document we call the Constitution, the liberals now wish to infuse it with life from which we are to infer that it must continually grow and change. What they mean is that it ought to be elastic or malleable but prefer the euphemistic “living Constitution” which sounds ever so much more dignified, even sacred.

In an April 23rd press conference, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg wholeheartedly agreed with the concept of a living Constitution. Speaking of the loss of privacy through the use of an extensive surveillance camera system in New York City and the possible use of drones fitted with cameras, Bloomberg said:

The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry…But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Now Mayor Bloomberg may have skipped his Constitutional government class the day when Article V was taught. If he had been there he would have learned that Article V outlines the procedures to amend the Constitution. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). But Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t want to mess with that long and laborious process. Let’s just interpret the Constitution the way we want. Times are ‘a changing” and problems are pressing. Furthermore, liberals know what’s best even if the people don’t. That’s because “We live in a complex world where you are going to have to…”

We do agree that judicial interpretation of laws and the Constitution is the courts’ proper role. However, because of decades of significant judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature, thoughtful judicial interpretation of the law is thrown aside in favor of passion and expediency that are employed to make law. Thus, human nature, through its passions, appetites, and desires of the moment, is released from the prescriptions of history, custom, convention, and tradition.

However, this was not the intent of the Founders. Sherwood Eddy wrote that Jefferson “…stood for a strict interpretation of the conservative Constitution to prevent ever-threatened encroachments upon the rights of the people, the legislature, and the states.” Russell Kirk confirms Eddy’s view of Jefferson’s opinion of the Constitution, “Thomas Jefferson, rationalist though he was, declared that in matters of political power, one must not trust the alleged goodness of man, but (in Jefferson’s words) ‘bind him down with the chains of the Constitution’.”

We have established that the Founders preferred a strict interpretation of the Constitution and made it difficult to change based on the whims of the moment. Why did the Founders opt for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and why do liberals so emphatically disagree?

Jefferson’s remark regarding the Constitution gives us a hint. Ultimately, the disagreement stems from the differences in understanding of the fundamental nature of man. The Founders understood the truth of the fallen, corrupt nature of man and designed the Constitution with separation of powers and other devices to control or mitigate that corrupt nature. The liberals believe that man is inherently good, not fallen and in need of redemption. They also believe man is perfectible, a process whereby he will become progressively better and better. Therefore, as man is perfected and society changes over time, we must update our Constitution accordingly.

As citizens turn from the Christian worldview as held by the Founders, they are unable to guide themselves internally with regard to ethical and moral issues and slide into moral relativism in which there is no right or wrong. Benjamin Franklin recognized the folly of this course when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Perhaps Major Bloomberg sees Americans as no longer being virtuous and capable of guiding themselves internally and therefore are in need of more masters and more laws to address the failings of their human nature.

Mayor Bloomberg and the liberals of this world do not stop with diminishing your privacy. Ever the good liberal, Bloomberg is famous for a number of other restrictions of freedom we had back in the “olden days.” Regarding the loss of freedom, his intent could not be clearer when he said, “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.” This statement was in response to a question about his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in New York City and his intentions to go forth in spite of the court’s rejection of his plan. In other words, when Joe Citizen can no longer make good decisions, the Mayor and his fellow elites will make them for him.

The modern humanist-liberal-progressive imbues (reads into or interprets) the Constitution with new rights, laws, and doctrines as well as restricting those old-fashioned rights the Founders thought important so that the modernists can conform man and society to the changes required by a modern world. Thereafter, modernists assure us that the greatest good for the greatest number will be dispensed, all under wisdom of the elites of a socialistic system and blessed by a Play-Doh® Constitution.

However, the modernists travel the same slippery path as those of the French Revolution when they base their societal changes on the ethereal, imaginary, or invented “rights of man” as well as imposing more and more laws to address the failings of human nature. In spite of the French Revolution’s high-minded chorus of “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!”, the French reality was “monarchy, anarchy, dictatorship” all occurring in a little over a decade.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Cheryl K. Chumley, “N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Constitution ‘must change’ to give government more power,” The Washington Times, April 23, 2013 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/ny-mayor-michael-bloomberg-constitution-must-chang/ (accessed April 27, 2013).

James E. Person, Jr., Russell Kirk, A Critical Biography of a Conservative Mind, (Latham, Maryland: Madison Books, 1999), p. 105, quoted by Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 136.

Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), p. 124, quoted by Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods…, p. 136.

Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 29, quoted by Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods…, p. 136.

William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), p. 247.

Cheryl K. Chumley, “NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Government Has Right To ‘Infringe On Your Freedom’,” The Washington Times, March 25, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-government-has-right-infringe-/ (accessed April 27, 2013).