The Mainstream Media is now going to work, gonna do it's job- the Presidential Campaign cycle is gearing up, and it's time to vet the candidates. You recall how rigorously reporters vetted the candidates in the '08 campaign, or at least Palin. Digging through trash, seeking out the political enemies to get the real dirt. And McCain, who after all had released only 1200 pages of documents, whereas Obama had released over 1 (2, apparently, a Doctor's statement and a short form birth certificate). It would be racist to ask for more from a liberal communist activist who is black, you know.
Of course, it would still be racist to ask for any background records from Mr. Obama, and probably superfluous, since by his performance "Jimmy" Obama has made obvious the extent of his ability to fulfill the duties of the Presidency.
Anyway, over at CNN, one of their columnists has made a startling discovery. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have ties to Dominionism! Most likely, you will have to look that up, too, and there is a definition on Wikipedia. The short definition from Wikipedia: "Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States." Evidently, there is a liberal label to demonize any type of conservative activity.
First, the definition of Dominionism is nonsense. Christian belief holds that God has influence over all parts of the life of a Christian. Either a Christian must deny a tenet of the faith, or be denied a fundamental freedom and obligation to participate in the political process on the grounds that religion will influence the person's vote and thus influence the political process.
Second, whether civil government is "secular" depends partly upon the definition of secular. If secular means "not a religious organization," that's fine. If it means secular as found in the Humanist Manifesto and as often used in the media, then no. Secular Humanism is a self-declared and legally recognized religion, based on faith in humanity and rejection of any idea of God.
"Secular" cannot mean the right to exclude any religious viewpoint from the public square, either. That raises some serious First Amendment concerns about chilling both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Finally, and most importantly, whether American civil government is, or was intended to be, "secular" also must be determined from a historical view. Quoting President Adams,"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Doesn't sound like he thought secular would work in America, but what would he know?
What about President Washington, remembered by earlier generations as the Father of our Country. Take a page from his farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Sounds like a Dominionist to me- perhaps he was just confused.
Perhaps we need a better source, so we will go to the top. The United States Supreme Court. In an 1892 case, it reviewed the history of the United States and said the following: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." (emphasis added) The Court also noted that, "[w]hile because of a general recognition of this truth that question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph vs. the Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law...." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 et. seq. (1892). The Courts call "common law" that body of law which consists of all the decisions of the Courts.
No, Adams was not confused, nor was Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that this country was never intended as what we now call a "secular" nation. Our founders and our courts would have been called Dominionist by Americans of today, because we have thrown over our roots and denied our heritage.
Even in those cases starting in the 60's where the more recent Courts removed the Bible from America's schools and imposed "separation of church and state," they acknowledged that it was without precedent. History does not support what has been done and taught in America today. And please do not bother citing the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli-"whereas" recitals in a document do not really have binding legal authority, and, yes, Jefferson did write a letter referring to separation of church and state- not only was the letter not a legal document, but Jefferson said the principle protected the church, not the state.
To paraphrase President Reagan, it's not that liberals don't know anything, it's that they know so much that isn't so. And they have been busy since the 1960's teaching much of America's public a lot that isn't so. Liberals want, it seems, a New Amerika, where the little people must ride low-polluting bikes and mass transit to do their benevolent master's bidding while their elite overseeing masters fly pollution-spewing private jumbo jets from luxury hotel to luxury hotel and are pampered by large entourages.
In the coming campaign, there will likely be many articles like this CNN commentary, and readers would be well advised to not only test stories for veracity, but to test the assumptions and conclusions against historic American principles. Anyone not willing to do that risks giving the liberals their New Amerika, and that will prove to be a high price indeed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment