The following is a response to Joe Bakanovic (black3actual) who blogs at The Rio Norte Line Line and The Road to Concord. Because a lot of ground was covered in his response to "Church, State, and Anarchism," the following will be a bit out of order and incomplete. There is a lot more I'd like to address, but those issues would be better left to their own post. Here, I just want to focus on the state in general and the Constitution.
[T]he Constitution is only the "how" of our government. The Declaration of Independence is the "what" and the "why" of this nation, and it is most certainly not a 'secular' document. Everything about the Declaration can be traced back to Christian philosophy …
Every attempt I have heard or read that seeks to explain our constitution in any other way inevitably creates contradictions in the historic record …
What does 'secular' mean?
late 13c., "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"
That alone should put this to rest.
I come from a long line of "high church" German Lutherans. I went to parochial school. Because of this I can't even comprehend why anyone would find it even remotely controversial to say the Constitution is a secular document that establishes a secular government. Same goes for the Declaration of Independence. I'd go so far as to say that claiming it as anything other than secular is blasphemy.
If you believe otherwise, we have a difference in theology (the study of God and of God's relation to the world), or more specifically, religious doctrine, not of historical interpretation.
Worldly Kingdoms
I know that Satan was given lordship over this world. But there is a difference between having authority over something and having ownership of it. Ultimately, God has control over this world because He has authority over Satan. Besides, if God does not have the ultimate authority over this world, He couldn’t have given Satan authority in the first place. So, for these reasons, I object to your claim as to 'ownership' of this world.
I didn't claim Satan's ownership of this world. I quoted Matthew 4:8-9, which says Satan "sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."
If "all the kingdoms" did not belong to Satan, there would be no point to the story. Because if Satan couldn't deliver, there was no temptation for Jesus to overcome. So the kingdoms had to be his (and still are today) to deliver. And what are these kingdoms other than earthly (secular) states?
Related: Render Unto Caesar.
1 Samuel 8
[W]hen I mentioned that the Israelites received a King because they demanded one, this is true. If we read the books of Moses as a story first – before we start picking at individual verses and even words – we will see that we are told this by scripture. This demand does not change God's reaction. So, yes, God could call it a punishment – and I agree with you that it was just that. But it was in response to Israel's demand.
Well, we're arguing over a non-argument (maybe). To begin with, I did start my paragraph with the words: "In response to the Israelites demand for a king." Second, did you (or anyone for that matter) really need (or expect) me to quote the whole thing? Of course not. For a more detailed analysis, see this post from a couple years ago: Conservative, Libertarian, Christian.
Here's where we may disagree. To the fact that the Israelites demanded a king, I say "so what?" God gave His answer, "they have forsaken me, and served other gods." The earthly king was a rejection of the heavenly King. That's quite an indictment if you ask me. That they demanded it changes nothing.
The Constitution
I would offer one observation. Under the original understanding of our Constitution, every individual is a sovereign and the State is merely the concentration of every individual's natural right to self defense. I contend that - had we maintained this understanding in our society - many of the issues we face as a nation today would have never been created and there would be no need for so many laws and regulations.
A government bound "down from mischief by the chains of the constitution" would certainly be an improvement over what we have now. Amazingly so. But let's not kid ourselves about what we have now (and I'm not saying you are).
Not only is the majority of what the federal government does today clearly not authorized by the Constitution, but more importantly, the original form of government did not even survive. Congress arbitrarily stopped increasing the size of the people's House, Senators no longer represent their individual states, we are taxed far beyond anything imaginable by our Founders, the president wields powers far greater than did King George III himself, and this is merely a short list of things that dramatically changed the form of the U.S. federal government and its relation to the people.
So, we're all adults here, what's so great about the Constitution? Seriously. The U.S. federal government is the largest, most powerful, most expensive government the world has ever known. Talk about fail.
There's Always More Than One Side To A Story
Prior to the Revolution, the British colonists total level of taxation was only about 1% of their earnings. The Tea Tax which set things off amounted to mere pennies. Colonial governments were debt-free. Revolutions, however, cost money. So just like the government funds itself today, the Revolution was financed via debt and fiat money. And as we're witnessing today, this type of financing has severe consequences. At the end of the war, the individual states were up to their eyeballs in debt.
Operating under the Articles of Confederation, Congress authorized a convention to suggest a few revisions. Behind closed doors and hidden from public view, the delegates to the convention instead set about devising an entirely new, consolidated union, with vast centralized powers instead. It was a deliberate dereliction of the duties assigned them by Congress. Interestingly, most of the great Revolutionaries were absent. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine were in Europe. Sam Adams, John Hancock, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and Richard Henry Lee weren't there. Of the convention, Patrick Henry famously declared "I smell a rat!"
So let's no deceive ourselves about this event or the document it produced. It was not divine. The convention was not a Biblical event. Nor was it free. It was financed by special interests. Cui bono?
It is well known that Hamilton promoted the notion that "a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a public blessing." It is also well known that he advocated a central government more powerful than the one birthed at the convention. Hamilton also wrought the central bank. As is known to students of economic history, Hamilton was not a fan of free trade. Hamilton advocated a system of mercantilism: universal taxation, public debt, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, and of course, a central bank issuing fiat currency. Crony capitalism. Needless to say, heck, look around, Hamilton and his cronies won.
Banksters and Wall Street financiers loved Hamilton's idea for the same reasons they still do today - privatized profits with socialized losses. Sure enough, the new government took care of Wall Street and the banksters by nationalizing the states' debt. The federal government has grown ever since.
The Anti-federalists were right all along. From day one, the Constitution (which was drafted under false pretenses) was an instrument to centralize power, expand power, and employ the political means to advance the (special) interests of some over others. There is nothing divine, holy, or religious about it. Granted, the Constitution doesn't specifically prescribe the government we have today, it none the less did nothing to stop it. Men are fallible. Power corrupts. The Leviathan we have now is its logical outcome.
Now, it should be obvious that I haven't tried to provide a complete history. Entire books have been written about this. I have only a single blog post. I'm just pointing out that the Constitution isn't sacrosanct. Nor is it necessarily what it seems.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. -- Lysander Spooner
State v. Society
In his famous economic treatise, Human Action, Mises described the antagonism between society and state.
It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
I put my faith in God, not men. I put my faith in the Bible, not the constitution. I put my faith in liberty, not coercion. The state truly is the "great fiction," an unnecessary beast.
The Secular Constitution is a post from: Classic Liberal Blog
