Archive for September, 2012

Somebody once defined an oxymoron as “someone who forgets to breathe.”  There are some really funny oxymorons out there:  military intelligence, government worker, government organization, and pretty ugly, among many others.

That last one describes Paul Ryan’s lastest decision to a tee.  In a brilliant political move, calculated to appease the GOP’s restless Christian conservative base, Paul Ryan yesterday announced his support for Obama’s new policy of open acceptance of homosexuals in the military.

There is no word in the English language to describe that last statement.  Facetious doesn’t even come close.  But the decision was so politically obtuse, irony is perhaps the best way to communicate its absurdity.  And it illustrates another great oxymoron that is not quite so funny, namely, “Christian conservative.”

Many evangelicals who think both candidates are totally unqualified to be President of the United States, have nonetheless been teetering on the edge of casting a vote for Mitt Romney.  Arguments that a refusal to vote is a vote for Obama and all the Bible really requires in the political realm is a peaceful environment for the spread of the gospel had begun to make traction.

Timothy calls on Christians to pray for political leaders so that, ” …we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.  This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” (I Tim. 2:2).

Enter Paul Ryan as reported by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.  Ryan’s oxymoron is not only a slap in the face to Christians, but it puts a big nail in the coffin of an old myth that has lingered for decades in the Christian right.

Myth:  Social Conservatism and Christianity have the same political objectives and a vote for one is identical to a vote for the other.

Far more dangerous, Ryan’s decision is a slap in the face to God, and we’ll get back to that in a minute.  His decision is a classic example that Conservatism is nothing more than a commitment to something that has been around for a while.  We’ve always done it that way and it’s worked in the past for most of us, so why rock the boat.   This is our time-honored tradition.  But times change and if a majority comes to agree that there is a better way to live with the changing times, so be it.  This is a species of “historicism.”  What is, is right.

We’re just not “early adopters.”  We peer cautiously into the future.  We’ll resist the change for a while, but when the consensus starts to shift you can count on us to go along with the crowd.   “Let’s move on” is our motto.  On to the next round of heel-dragging, accommodation, and eventual defeat.

***************

Another Great Oxymoron is

Government Education

If You’re Looking For The Real Thing

Check Out King’s Way Classical Academy

Only $500 Annual Tuition!

***************

No one has stated this more clearly than Rev. Robert L. Dabney, field chaplain to General Stonewall Jackson during the Civil War.  But, lest you immediately dismiss Rev. Dabney as a hopeless bigot, let me point out that there was a theological reason behind his opposition to women’s suffrage.  Prior to that time Christians in general believed that God deals governmentally with the husband as representative of the family, as when he spoke with Adam not Eve immediately after the Fall.   Although it is lengthy we quote it here in its entirety:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance.

“The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

A moment ago we noted that the biggest danger in this decision lies in the offense that it gives to Yahweh God.  For that we will let Him speak for Himself.

  •  “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).
  •  “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, both of them shall surely be put to death; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev. 20:13). 
  • “And although they know the ordinance of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rmn. 1: 32).

Case Closed:  Although the issues and agenda of conservatism and Christianity may at times coincide, there is a world of difference between the two.  Conservatism is based on the shifting sand of human tradition, which is subject to constant change.  Christianity is based on the unshakeable foundation of God’s holy word, which is unchangeable.

Hence the oxymoron, Christian conservative.  Habitual use of the oxymoron Christian conservative is a bit like trying to mix oil and water.

MythBusters Rating:  Blue Flag to Americans For Truth About Homosexuality for their courage in standing against the tide of popular media opinion regarding homosexual “marriage.”  Don’t miss the oxymoron, popular opinion.

The growing list of some 250 sheriff’s around the country willing to resist the illegal Federal crackdown on private ownership of firearms is heartening. The problem is there is not much foundation for this resistance based on the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it.  The Oath Keepers’ motto is ‘Not On Our Watch.”  And their stated objective is to resist those actions taken by the U.S. Government that overstep Constitutional boundaries.

That entire paragraph is a direct quote from the Oath Keepers website.  MythBusters is grateful for the work of Oath Keepers and wish them success in mobilizing resistance to the encroaching Federal tyranny.    The appeal for passive resistance is the first line of defense.

Anything more than that at present could get you in big trouble under the Constitution.  MythBusters initial reaction was that Oath Keepers’ appeal to the U.S. Constitution could ultimately be turned against them.  This is because the Constitution handed over almost all defense-related powers — including the militia — to the Federal government.

Myth:   Local jurisdictions, especially the county sheriff, are authorized by the Constitution to organize armed resistance against the Federal government.

This myth showed up last week in our mail box in a letter from the Council On Revival.   COR is a group devoted to the noble goal of a 24-year Master Plan For Rebuilding America.  Unfortunately, they also are attempting to build on the sandy foundation of the United States Constitution.  This sentence caught our eye:

“Hopefully such confrontations will not arise, but the probability of a tyrannical, socialistic government (if it degenerates to that) attacking citizens in any county would be GREATLY REDUCED if even 60% of all U.S. counties had their own “well regulated militia” armed and ready to fight to the death if necessary for their God-given, constitutional rights.”

MythBusters began this investigation with a careful reading of Article I of the United States Constitution.  We came away with several key observations.  First, only Congress, not the states is authorized “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”  Later Article I says that “No State shall, without the consent of Congress … keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace…or engage in war, unless actually invaded….”

***************

Is Public Education Really Worth The Price?

You Get What You Pay For It — Nothing!

Your Child Deserves the Best

At A Price You Can Afford

King’s Way Classical Academy

For Only $500 Annual tuition!!

***************

The only thing the states can do is 1) appoint the officers and 2) train the militia as specified by Congress.   This seemed to confirm our initial hunch that the plan outlined in the previous paragraph may not be legal under the United States Constitution.

But we decided to dig deeper.  Here’s a little project for you.  Read through Article I of the U.S. Constitution and write down all the powers related to defense that the states gave away to Congress.  Never mind, MythBusters did it for you.  Here’s the list of supposedly “limited powers” related to defense that “we the people” turned over to the national government in 1788.

Congress has authority to:

  • To lay & collect taxes…for the common defense
  • To declare war….
  • To raise & support armies
  • To provide & maintain a navy
  • To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
  • To provide for the calling forth the militia

1)      to execute the laws of the Union

2)      to suppress insurrections

3)      to repel invasions

  • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia
  • To provide for governing such part of them  [the militia] as may be employed in the service of the United States
  • To make all laws which shall be necessary & proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States

States have authority to:

  • Appointment of the officers [of the militia]
  • Training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

States are specifically forbidden to:

  • … keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace
  • …engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The central government has 13 positive powers related to “defense,” compared to the states two positives and two negatives.  Do the algebra and that is 13 to zero in favor of the central government.  They are no doubt smirking, “All of the power related to the militia belongs to us, but we’ll let you do all the heavy lifting of training them for us.”   What a deal!

According to the Constitution the states can’t even defend themselves without permission from the Federal Congress.  It would appear that anybody relying on the United States Constitution for defense against Federal tyranny needs to readjust their thinking cap.

The Bill of Rights never repealed the above powers.  Does the 2nd Amendment’s call for a well-regulated militia, overturn the power delegated to Congress in Article I for “organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia…”?   We don’t think so.

Conservatives like to boast that these are part of the “limited, delegated powers” that were granted to the Federal government in Article I.  Everything not listed here is reserved to the states or to the people.  Very comforting.  The big question is, what is not listed here?   Certainly not the right to regulate the militia.

Try this test:  you have 1 minute to write down 1 legitimate, Biblical power of government that is not included on the list in Article I.  OK, time’s up………Maybe you need more than a minute?

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t allow for the well-regulated militia to be “organized legally under one’s own county sheriff or state governor,” as COR would like to believe. This is one of the main reasons that Patrick Henry so adamantly opposed the Constitution in the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

As he stated on June 9, 1788: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?…. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of Congress….”

Case Closed:  Oath Keepers and COR are asking former government officials to honor their oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  They could get what they ask for:  Under the Constitution they themselves might be declared domestic enemies for trying to mobilize and encourage the states to “keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace.”

This is why Patrick Henry said of the proposed Constitution, “I despise and abhor it.”   Better to appeal to the “higher law” of God in the Bible.   We can only conclude that God’s judgment is descending on this nation precisely because this covenant-breaking Constitution has rejected that very law.  MythBusters Rating:  Yellow Flag (caution) to Oath Keepers and COR for their dangerous reliance on the U.S. Constitution.

The media uproar over Mitt Romney’s hapless comment that the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax will vote for Obama is close to the heart of what really ails America.

Although Mitt Romney didn’t carry it this far, we are approaching that point in the Hegelian dialectic where Democracy self-destructs.  Ann Coulter, writing in World Net Daily, drew the obvious conclusions:

“Thanks to the myopia of our one-party media, most journalists are firmly convinced that voters will be appalled by Romney’s description of 47 percent of Americans as supporting Obama because they pay no income tax.

But the only people shocked by Romney’s statement of fact are those who would never vote Republican under any circumstances. Everyone else is saying, “Is it really as high as 47 percent?” – as the media impotently shouts, “No, you idiot! That’s not the point!”

There’s going to come a time, in the not-distant future, when it’s 51 percent paying no income tax. And when that happens, the party of big government will never lose another election. “

In spite of this logical fact of political life, many Christian conservatives continue to insist that America was established as a republic.  As usual, the discrepancy between the mythical past, and present poor performance is held to be an alleged departure from the original intent of the founding founders.  The latter have attained near demi-god status in the eyes of most Christian conservatives.

Myth:  Because the founding fathers established America as a republic, it is incorrect to refer to American government as a democracy

The initial step in this MythBusters’ investigation was some historical reflection.  We first noticed that Mitt Romney’s observation was nothing more than a restatement of a famous quotation, over 200 years old.

The Evils of Democracy

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”  Alexander Tytler, a Scottish born British attorney.

It is true that the Founding Fathers did claim to “guarantee every state in this union a republican form of government” (Art. IV).  But we noticed that the guarantee does not explicitly include the national government itself.

The Constitution gives the impression – on the surface at least – that its structure is designed to impose republican limits on government power. The three branches are said to check and balance each others’ powers.  And the federal form is supposed to give Congress limited, delegated powers, with all others reserved to the states.  Legislators are elected to represent their constituents, which is the key feature of a republic

***************

Still Looking For A Low Cost
Alternative to the Public School System?

Look No More!

King’s Way Classical Academy Offers
High Quality Classical Christian Education

For Only $500 Annual tuition!!

***************

Moreover, other statements of the founding fathers indicate a clear distaste for democracy.  For example,

  • “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” — John Adams
  • “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” — Benjamin Franklin
  • “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”  — Thomas Jefferson
  • James Madison called democracy the “tyranny of the majority”

Added to this is the testimony of scripture when Korah issued a democratic challenge to Moses:  “…You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (Num. 16:3).

God was less than impressed by this Democratic argument.  In fact, He was barely restrained from destroying the entire congregation, but instead opened the earth to swallow Korah alive and all that was his.

Republican Skeleton, Democratic Heart

Nonetheless, whether the founders intended it or not, MythBusters research found that  government created by the United States Constitution is democratic at its core.  Democracy is by definition “a system of government of the whole population” (Oxford American Dictionary).   In a pure democracy the people vote on every issue and the government draws its authority from the body of the people rather than from God.

By contrast, a Biblical government would acknowledge its authority to be from God alone.  “…For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Rmn. 13:1).

The founders  relied heavily on John Locke and Locke denied the verity of the above verse in his chapter “On the Beginnings of Political Societies” in the “Second Treatise of Government.”  Locke asserted “…that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society.  And this is that, and that only which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.”

Locke calls this the social compact or social contract.  Notice that it is founded exclusively on the consent of the majority — “that and that only.”  As noted above this is the essence of Democracy.

The preamble of the U. S. Constitution matches this template exactly when it affirms that “we the people…do ordain and establish this Constitution….”  Democracy is affirmed, God is thereby rejected, and all the trappings of Republicanism in the end come to nothing.

Case Closed:  While the Constitution may have the skeleton of a republic it has the heart of a democracy.  It is the heart that controls.  It is a heart not governed or limited by the law of God.  Every republican restraint will be undermined and evaded until all that is left is the individual against the raw power of the state, embodied  in the majority.

Mitt Romney is faced with this stark  reality.  History MythBusters concludes that the myth America was established as a republic is a half truth at best.  The only escape from the inevitable “followed by a dictatorship” is to humble ourselves as a nation under the mighty hand of God and return to his law in our system of justice.

That’s not quite the way Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) put it in the heart of the Great Depression of 1933.  As I recall it was more like “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

And fear is a natural reaction to an event like the bloody terrorist attack on the American embassy in Libya last week.  Fear evokes in us a self-preservation response just as it did in the days of FDR.  For example, Damian Campbell of Survival Products, LLC did not hesitate to put that fear to practical use in a recent email communique:

I am going to make this short and sweet.  Recently 4 of our fellow American’s were killed at the Libyan Embassy.  These deaths were senseless, tragic, and did not have to occur.  I want to share with you a new resource that I have discovered that might have saved these 4 American Lives.   Nearly 5,000 concerned citizens recently pulled together to contribute their very best “survival tips” for a disaster scenario.

Shameless profiteering?  Not necessarily wrong; prudent preparation for approaching disaster is a virtue.  But if we’re not careful, it can mask a more profound message the event is intended to convey.  Even FDR missed it.

MYTH:  The events of history are random with no discernible meaning.

MythBusters accepted this case and found a plethora of clues in the book of II Kings in the Bible.   This book describes the incredible life of King Solomon of Israel.  Once the wisest man who ever lived, he fell from Grace when he rejected the law of God and worshiped the false gods of his foreign wives.  At that point he became one of the most foolish men who ever lived.  The Bible puts it like this:

And Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the Lord fully,as David his father had done.  Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon (I Kg 11:6,7)

Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded. (v 9,10)

Likewise, modern America rejected the law of God when she ratified the United States Constitution in 1788  (cf. Case#16).   This presumptuous document makes itself and all its manmade laws “the supreme law of the land” rather than the Bible.  Christians have embraced this document and confirmed it in their teaching that the Old Testament law is no longer applicable.

God’s Rod of Discipline

 In response to this rebellion, God raised up three adversaries to Solomon, all described in the eleventh chapter of I Kings.  They were Hadad of the royal line in Edom, Rezon who reigned in Damascus, and Jeroboam whom Solomon appointed to manage his slave labor.

Some adversaries like Rezon are external and provide marauding harassment such as occurred in Libya on 9/11/2012 and in New York City on 9/11/2001.  Others, like Jeroboam are internal and serve to weaken and divide the nation such as Barack Obama.  Obama like the Babylonians is nothing more than God’s rod of discipline and will be disposed of by God when he has served His purpose.

 Then the Lord raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal line in Edom (I Kg 11:14)… God also raised up another adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah. And he gathered men        to himself and became leader of a marauding band, …. (v. 23,24)  Then Jeroboam the     son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow, also rebelled against the king. (v 26)

The reason for this adversarial harassment was Solomon’s failure to keep God’s covenant and his statutes.(I Kg. 11:11) and His ordinances (I Kg. 11:33)   God turned up the heat in hopes that Solomon would again see the light.

 Because they have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the sons of Ammon; and they have not walked in My ways, doing what is right in My sight and observing My statutes and My ordinances, as his father David did (v 33)

The Proper Response to God’s Rod of Discipline

Unfortunately, Solomon missed the point because in I Kings 11:40 we are told that “Solomon sought therefore to put Jeroboam to death…”  In striking back at Jeroboam Solomon was striking back at God.

The proper response is not to resist or shelter ourselves from God’s rod of discipline, but rather to yield in obedience so that we may eventually receive His blessing.  “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in due time.  Casting all your care upon Him, for He careth for you” (I Pet. 5:6,7).

So how does that apply to 21st Century America?  I used to think that our modern idols were more sophisticated than the carved statues described in the Old Testament.  Many of them are.  Among other things, they include the many government programs that FDR ushered in during the Great Depression.  To this very day people look to the programs of FDR for their secular salvation.  Thus, FDR himself has become an American idol.

But it is now common knowledge that the worship of Ashteroth has been literally revived in the Bohemian Grove conclave of Northern California, where world leaders gather every summer.  Moreover, the pagan owl appears on the obverse of the dollar bill, introduced during the FDR era and detectable with a magnifying glass.  And there is much pagan symbolism in the architecture and street layout of Washington D.C.

At any point somebody in the chain of command can stop the downward spiral by “listening and observing my statutes and my commandments” (I Kg. 11:38).  God told even Jeroboam:

“Then it will be, that if you listen to all that I command you and walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight by observing My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did, then I will be with you and build you an enduring house as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you.

Case Closed:  In the fear and scramble for survival that is generated by a tragedy like the Great Depression  in the days of FDR and the Libya massacre today, let us not miss the deeper message in the event.   America rejected God and his law with ratification of the godless United States Constitution of 1788.  For over 200 years God in mercy postponed or moderated the judgment that is now being fully manifested.

For those with ears to hear, the voice of God is clearly detected in the events of history, for blessing or for cursing in response to our obedience or disobedience.  In God’s promise to Jeroboam we learn that it is never too late to claim the blessing by returning to the statutes and ordinances of His law.   But the time for action has arrived.

 

An impressive voter packet mobilizing opposition to Barack Obama recently arrived in the mailbox of Christian Conservatives nationwide.

Sent out by Faith & Freedom Coalition – the new face of the old Christian Coalition – it pitted “Obama vs The Constitution” in a bid “to restore constitutional government to America.”

The eight-page letter said nothing about national repentance to God or a return to the law of God, but had much to say about a return to the U. S. Constitution.  For example, the goal of the “November 6th Project” is to prove “that restoring Constitutional government is both a winning political strategy and America’s only real hope for survival as ‘the land of the free.'”

Notice that “our only real hope for survival” is “restoring Constitutional government“, but nothing is said about restoring America’s broken covenant with God and His law.  The solution to our dilemma is framed in exclusively political rather than spiritual terms.  The goal is presented in terms of American freedom, not God’s glory and offended justice.

The letter portrays Christian conservatives as innocent victims, not as co-belligerents  with liberals against the authority of the law of God.  When Daniel prayed for restoration of the nation he started with an acknowledgment that “we have sinned…even turning aside from Thy commandments and ordinances…therefore the Lord has kept the calamity in store….” (Dan. 9:5,14).  He didn’t distinguish between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in the nation because there really were no “good guys.”

The letter said nothing about Christian conservative neglect of God’s ordinances (Ex. 21-23), but had a lot to say about President Obama’s offenses against the Constitution and the American people.  “Barack Obama’s hostility toward America’s Constitution is just as intense as his hostility to Christianity.  And he’s open about it.  He has called our Constitution ‘deeply flawed.’  So Obama has made it clear that he REJECTS  the Constitution and really doesn’t care what the law is.” 

According to Faith & Freedom the choice before the voters in 2012 should be this:

 “Do you stand with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James      Madison,  America’s Founding Fathers, and the U.S. Constitution?

 Or do you stand with Obama, who does not believe in liberty, and who has no respect for our constitution?”

Myth:  A return to the United States Constitution is equivalent to a return to the law of God

To assist our investigation of this myth, History MythBusters turned to a new book by Pastor Ted Weiland, entitled, “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.”  Many theologians have pointed out various Biblical inconsistencies in the U. S. Constitution.   But to our knowledge, this book is the first attempt to analyze the Constitution paragraph-by- paragraph according to the Bible.  Our research found the U. S. Constitution to be Biblically deficient on almost every point of law.  Here are a few examples.

  • The Constitution derives its governing authority from “we the people,” whereas the Bible says all governing authority is derived from God (Rmn 12:1).
  •  The Constitution requires that runaway slaves be returned to their masters, whereas the Bible forbids returning runaway slaves to their masters (Dt. 23:15).
  •  The Constitution allows for unlimited offensive war, whereas the Bible prohibits offensive warfare (Dt. 17:16; II Chr. 35:21-24).
  • The Constitution outlaws Biblical character requirements for public office” (Art. VI), whereas the Bible requires such qualifications (Dt. 1:13, Ex 18:21)
  • The Constitution allowed slave trading for 20 years, whereas the Bible requires the death penalty for kidnapping.
  •  The Constitution states all manmade laws and treaties are the “supreme law of the land (Art. VI),” whereas the Bible insists its law is supreme.  (I Tim. 1:8-11)
  • The Constitution protects public worship of false gods (1st Am), whereas the Bible forbids the public worship of false gods (Ex. 20:3)
  • The Constitution requires a census every ten years, whereas the Bible forbids the census (II Kgs 20:12,13; 24:1-4)
  • The Constitution has no limit on taxation above the 10% which the Bible calls slavery (I Samuel 8)

Case Closed:  Remarkably almost every paragraph of the United States Constitution was found to be in violation of the law of God.  MythBusters counted at least 75 violations of the Bible in the U.S. Constitution.  Thus, those who claim that the Constitution is a Christian document are either ignorant of the Constitution , ignorant of the Bible, or both.

It was ratification of the U. S.  Constitution in 1788 that provoked the wrath of God against America.  That wrath long restrained in mercy is now being unleashed.  To call for a return to the very document that caused the offense is the height of folly and can only aggravate the wound.

And so the assumption that a return to the “original intent” of the United States Constitution is equivalent to returning to the law of God is a myth.  MythBusters Rating:  Red Flag to Faith & Freedom Coalition for perpetuating this dangerous myth.  Christians should analyze the writings and pronouncements of this group with great caution.

Christian conservatives are fond of telling us that America’s federal form of government means that power was originally decentralized under the Constitution.

Or at least it was divided more or less equally between the three levels of government – Federal, state and local.   According to Christian conservatives, somehow today power has accumulated in the Federal government and we need to get back to the founders original intent of state’s rights.  For example, a recent article on Political Outcast asks the rhetorical question, “Since When Are We the United State of America?”

“The original plan for this country was a federal, not Federalist plan.  It emphasized local government as the most important government for the individual.  That plan took a slight detour with the Declaration and the Constitution, both of which included populist language ( as if the national government could or should interface directly with ‘the  people’), but, in effect, civil government even then was generally decentralized – local.”

Myth:  the federal government established by the founding fathers in 1788 was designed to reserve most of the power for state and local levels of government.

The first sentence in the quote above is a bit enigmatic since the plan was in fact written and approved by what soon became known as the Federalist  Party.  But the key issue in our MythBusters investigation appears in the last sentence, “…in effect, civil government even then was generally decentralized – local.”

Most Christian conservatives at the time of ratification didn’t see it that way.  Patrick Henry estimated that nine tenths among the Virginia “yeomanry” were against the proposed Constitution.    Among the leadership, the anti-Federalist Party quickly arose to challenge the assertion that power was decentralized under the new government.

Patrick Henry emerged as a key anti-Federalist leader.  MythBusters examined the 24 speeches that he delivered at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in opposition to the proposed United States Constitution.  Henry presented many cogent arguments to support the thesis that the states were delivering unprecedented power to the national government.

In response to the question, “Since When Are We the United State of America,” Patrick Henry would emphatically tell you, “Since ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788!”

National, Not Federal Form of Government

Michael Minkoff states that “now we live under a national government that dictates to the local governments what they will and will not do and even taxes individuals directly….”  Notice it is stated as if this were some startling new development.

All of the evils that Mr. Minkoff complains of in the Political Outcast article were predicted by the anti-Federalists during the ratification debates.   Nationalism is inherent in the “we the people” formula of the Preamble.

Patrick Henry argued that “the people” were not the fit instruments for creating a government, this is the province of states.   But since “the people” as a mass were invoked, the government they created is of necessity a consolidated, national government.   The state legislatures were illegally bypassed, above the indignant, even anguished  protests of the elected state representatives.

The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations,” said Henry, “they are not the proper agents for this purpose.  States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government (June 5, 1788).

Patrick Henry recognized the national character of the U S Constitution from the beginning, unlike today’s Christian conservatives.  “But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire.”

Contrived Crisis Creates Change

 Henry complained that an imaginary crisis had been contrived to transfer all of the substantial powers of government to the national level.  In particular, the power of the purse and the power of the sword.  He drew a contrast with England where “the sword and purse are not united…in the same hands as in this system.” (June 14).   The surrender of the militia to an all-powerful central government left the states defenseless.

Unlike today’s Christian conservatives, Patrick Henry expressed a literal hatred for the proposed constitution and every one of his dire predictions if it were ratified has come to pass, including two levels of oppressive taxation, an imperial supreme court, a bloody civil war within 100 years and an incredibly dangerous treaty clause.   The elastic clause and the general welfare clause give the feds everything else.

That’s not to mention the spiritual problems with the document. “We the people” replace God as the ordaining authority in the preamble. The stipulation that the Constitution itself and all subsequent human laws shall be the supreme law of the land, not the law of God. The rejection of any spiritual qualifications for holding public office. Tyranny is by definition rule apart from the law of God — the “perfect law of liberty” (james 1:25).

Case Closed:   The mere presence of the federal structure (multi-tier) does not guarantee freedom at the local level.  The structure of a federal form of government may be in place and all the power still be concentrated at the national level.  That is precisely what happened to America with adoption of the Constitution of 1788.

The Christian conservatives assertion that any substantial power was retained at the local level is a myth.  It is a bromide held out to the masses to create in them the illusion of liberty.