IRS Threatens Free Speech (Rep. Ron Paul)

The Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of “politics.” We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst072406.htm (click link to read entire article)

Constitutional Isogesis (PatriotPost )

Patriot No. 06-27 Digest | 07 July 2006
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” It’s notable that this text from the Bible has replaced John 3:16 as Americans’ favorite scriptural quotation—but what does it actually mean? Is this ageless admonition really a call to unmitigated tolerance over discernment between right and wrong? Is it really a biblical nod of the head to the virtues of postmodern morality and multicultural society?

Of course not. As Christ’s imperative against judgment appears in the Gospel accounts, a different picture emerges. With the Pharisees clearly in view, in the Sermon on the Mount account of Matthew 7, and again in Luke 6, “judge not” appears in the context of the proverbial man who perceives the speck that is in his brother’s eye, but not the log that is in his own. The context, then, suggests a warning against hypocrisy, not moral discernment. Indeed, the full imperative of the passage encourages righteous judgment: “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Then, in John 7:24, taking aim at the Pharisees once again, Jesus makes another extraordinary statement: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” So, does Jesus really call his followers to “judge not”? Not really. In the vocabulary of theologians, this practice of isolating and thereby misinterpreting a phrase or passage from its context is called isogesis.

Other common examples of isogesis—which we’ll leave to your own exegesis—include the imperative “care for orphans and widows” (James 1) to sanction a social, and thereby governmental, responsibility; “Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (I Corinthians 11) as an affirmation of male chauvinism; and “Love keeps no record of wrongs” (I Corinthians 13) as a get-out-of-jail-free card for habitual sin.

But what, you ask, does this Bible lesson have to do with the Constitution? In truth, the same fallacies that affect biblical interpretation also affect our interpretation of the Constitution.

The belief in a Constitution subject to the evolving interpretation of the judiciary has as its origin the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” All well and good if the courts would continue to interpret the law exegetically, but as history would soon show, constitutional isogesis was lurking just around the corner.

In fact, by the early 20th century the isogetical interpretation of the Constitution had been given a name, courtesy of Howard McBain’s 1927 book, The Living Constitution. In the decades that followed, this notion of a “living” Constitution, one subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, took hold in the federal courts. Judicial activists, who legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, or at the behest of like-minded special-interest constituencies, were nominated for the federal bench and confirmed in droves.

This degradation of law was codified by the Warren Court, under the influence of Justice William Brennan, Jr., in Trop v. Dulles (1958). In that ruling, the High Court noted that the Constitution should comport with “evolving standards…that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In other words, it had now become a fully pliable document—one that Jefferson had warned us would be a “mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

By 1987, living constitutionalism had become such the norm that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, “The Constitution: A Living Document,” in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted to the age in which it existed, given prevailing political, moral and cultural norms.

More recently, “living” jurist Anthony Kennedy and court jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens cited “national consensus” as a factor in last year’s Roper v. Simmons ruling. In doing so, they disregarded the Constitution’s prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy—and took us one step closer toward what every serious thinker since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.

Just as the problem of biblical and constitutional isogesis is essentially the same, so too is the solution. For centuries, a fundamental guiding principle has directed proper scriptural exegesis: Scripture interprets Scripture. That is to say, the primary lens for understanding a text is the text elsewhere in the Bible—thus, we interpret the Bible through what the Bible says.

With the Constitution, the concept is easily applied. The Separation Clause certainly calls Marbury into question, and the Tenth Amendment contradicts the Roper decision, not to mention Roe v. Wade and the illusory constitutional “right to privacy.” Further, the constitutional basis for Kelo is simply absent, as are our First Amendment rights under McCain-Feingold. And let’s not forget the myriad laws that infringe upon our rights guaranteed by the Second.

Just as the Bible’s New Testament may be said to interpret its Old Testament, so too is the Constitution accompanied by a binding interpretation, the Federalist Papers. Authored by Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution’s original intent, clearly define original intent in regard to constitutional interpretation. In Federalist No. 78 Hamilton writes, “[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.” In Federalist No. 81 Hamilton notes, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution…”

Today, more than two centuries later, Justice Antonin Scalia warns of such judicial activism: “As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.”

By contrast, the heart of the Constitution, and hence the heart of constitutional constructionism, is this: The federal government should be sovereign and strong in its constitutionally delimited competencies; in matters where the Constitution is silent, however, the states and the people, not the national government, are sovereign. This understanding transforms the debate between strong governance (the liberal position) and weak governance (the libertarian position) to one of constitutional governance (the conservative, constructionist position). In this way, the text itself—not its judicial caretakers—interprets the text. This is exegetical governance. Indeed, this is constitutional governance.

Separation of Church and State? Not According to our Founding Fathers

Here are some quotes that I believe obliterate the notion that our Founding Fathers intended a grand separation of church and state.

========================================

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Patrick Henry.

---

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.John Quincy Adams.

---

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of Supreme Court: One of the three men most responsible for the Constitution.

---

Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.

---

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 the sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892. The Court cited 87 precedents.

---

The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith–the Bible.Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 1844.

---

Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government.People v. Ruggles, 1811: 2 decades after the 1st Amendment.

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.First Amendment.

---

By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing.Runkel v. Winemiller, 1796.

---

The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.

---

Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle…At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect…in this age there can be no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents…the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.House Judiciary Committee Report, March 27, 1854 after a one year study brought about by a suit to force the separation of church and state.

---

Challenges to the Constitutionality of the government being run by Christian principles continued throughout the late 1800’s until finally these challenges arrived at the Supreme Court. In the case of Reynolds v. United States, 1878, the court pulled out Jefferson’s speech in its entirety and confirmed that Jefferson also said that Christian principles were never to be separated from government. The Supreme Court used Jefferson’s speech for the next 15 years to make sure that Christian principles stayed part of government. It remained this way until 1947, when, in the first time in the Supreme Court’s history, the court used only 8 words out of Jefferson’s speech.Unknown

========================================

[Please notice the change in the 1960s and the quotes found therein.]

========================================

The first separation of religious principles from public education. This is the case that removed school prayer. There were no precedents cited. The court did not quote previous legal cases or historical incidents. A new direction in the legal system – no longer constitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, June 25, 1962.

---

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.”

The 22 word prayer was declared to be unconstitutional and led to the removal of all prayer from public schools in the case Engel v. Vitale. This little prayer acknowledges God only one time. The Declaration of Independence itself acknowledges God 4 times.

Within 12 months of Engel v. Vitale, in two more cases called Abington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, the court had completely removed Bible reading, religious classes/instruction. This was a radical reversal of law – and all without precedental justification or Constitutional basis. The Court’s justification for removing Bible reading from public schools. The Court at this time declared that only 3% of the nation professed no belief in religion, no belief in God. Although this prayer was consistent with 97% of the beliefs of the people of the United States, the Court decided for the 3% against the majority.

Unknown.

---

If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.

Abington v. Schempp, June 17, 1963.

---

It is unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud.

Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.

---

The Court declared a 4 line nursery rhyme unconstitutional because, although it did not contain the word “God”, it might cause someone to think it was talking about God.

DeCalv v. Espain, 1967.

---

If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon and to perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments; this is not a permissible objective. Stone v. Gramm, 1980, challenging the right of students to “see” the 10 Commandments on the wall of a school. The Court defined the posting of the document as a “passive” display, meaning someone would have to stop and look on their own volition.

Stone v. Gramm, 1980.

[Quotes provided by Sermon Illustrations.]

Nothing “Gay” About It (from the Patriot Post)

From The Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us)

It's that time of year again, when many unsuspecting American families travel to one of the nation's favorite family-theme parks only to find themselves at the epicenter of cultural degradation. This week, hordes of extroverted homosexuals congregated in Orlando at Disney's Pleasure Island for the annual exercise in societal entropy they call "Gay Days at Disney." Fortunately, the gaudy and lurid displays of sexual deviance at Disney are not typical of the public etiquette maintained by most homosexuals.

Our forefathers understood "gay" to mean "licentious, lacking moral restraints, leading a debauched or dissolute life." The "Gay '90s," for example, was a decade the sagacious Mark Twain dubbed "The Gilded Age" —an era of unmitigated opulence and unrestrained immorality exercised by a subculture of the elite. Now, in the current vernacular of the fashionably PC, "gay" alludes to "homosexual" and therefore evokes the words of that inimitable American philosopher Yogi Berra: "This is like deja vu all over again."

They may call it "gay," but it's not. Indeed, today's "gay" culture is equally dissolute, and its agenda is anathema to the bedrock institution of our past, present and future—the American family.

Homosexuality is not the most insidious of social trends that undermine the continuity of the traditional family.

Of course, homosexuality is not the most insidious of social trends that undermine the continuity of the traditional family—the essential governing unit and innate building block of natural society. That unfortunate distinction is reserved for those who divorce—particularly men who abandon their responsibility as husbands and fathers.

Concerns about divorce and its consequential degradation of social and moral order are not new. As Founding Father John Adams wrote, "The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families… How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?"

What is new is the vast number of fatherless children in America, kids who have been largely abandoned by their biological fathers, and the incalculable burden that places on them and society. One deleterious outcome associated with some of these broken and dysfunctional families, in addition to the life sentence they serve trying to sort out the rejection issues, is the absence of a healthy sexual identity—particularly in boys who have not been fathered properly. This identity void can result in lifetime pursuit of homosexual approval.

Though divorce, unlike homosexuality, lacks a well funded and well organized advocacy movement attempting to normalize it (divorce lawyers notwithstanding), it isn't difficult to connect the dots between dysfunctional families and homosexuality.

It isn't difficult to connect the dots between dysfunctional families and homosexuality.

To understand fully the homosexual subculture and its aggressive social agenda, then, one must gain some rational insight into the pathology of homosexual behavior. Unfortunately, there are few comprehensive treatises on the subject that inspire rational discourse—as opposed to emotive rants.

A few years ago, the most learned debates over the ordination of a homosexual cleric as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire revealed that not only the Episcopal clergy and laity needed assistance understanding this issue, but the Christian Church as a whole needed clarity. Indeed our whole society needs a better, and in some cases more compassionate, understanding of homosexual pathology.

Consequently, The Patriot has just published The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response on line, a comprehensive yet concise review of gender-disorientation pathology. It's an essay that anyone, inside or outside the Church, making a psychological, theological or social argument concerning homosexuality, should read.

The real value of this landmark report's substance is not measured in the accolades from conservatives around the world who have reviewed it, but in the unguarded praise it has received from homosexuals (including some activists), who responded that, for the first time, they have been able to comprehend, with the help of this analysis, both the Christian theological and conservative social perspective and objections, without feeling personally attacked.

American families are under assault from many quarters.

Every American family is under assault from many quarters, one of the most menacing being the challenge to traditional sexual morality. The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response, provides context for understanding sexual deviancy and addresses the familial origins and pathology of such deviance, the political, cultural and social "normalization" agenda of homosexual practitioners, the conflict this agenda has created within the Christian Church, and an appropriate Christian response.

High on the homosexual political agenda list is same-sex marriage. President Bush announced this week his support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. While we would support such an amendment, we believe that if the President is going to use what is left of his political capital to mobilize a national movement to amend our Constitution, there are much more important amendments to consider, starting with one mandating a balanced federal budget (just as most states require a balanced state budget).

That debate aside, if you're interested in healthy marriages and families, the consequences of broken families and the potential implications of a largely unabated homosexual agenda on the next generation of our children, take a few minutes to read The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response—regardless of your theological orientation.

George Mason: More Than a Team in the Final Four (BP)

As I write this, George Mason University just lost in the Final Four to the University of Florida 73-58, ending an improbable run in the NCAA Tournament.  One of the great contributions this made is helping us recall one of the great Founding Fathers and the author of our Bill of Rights.  His name?  Yup… George Mason.

Read this Baptist Press article about this titanic, but forgotten, figure in American history. 

Christmas, the Schools, and the Constitution

Sent November 28, 2005
by John W. Whitehead

“I think there’s something wrong with me. I just don’t understand Christmas. I like getting presents, sending cards, decorating trees and all that. But instead of feeling happy, I feel sort of let down.”

–Charlie Brown, A Charlie Brown Christmas, 1965

When I was a child in the 1950s, my parents didn’t have much money to spend at Christmastime. I remember one Christmas when I wanted a cowboy gun and holster from Santa Claus. I got the toy pistol, but Santa, it seems, couldn’t afford a holster. So my dad made one for me out of one of my mother’s old leather purses. It didn’t look like the ones on TV, but it worked pretty well. And it made me feel good that my dad cared enough to do what he could to make a little boy’s Christmas dream come true.

Being poor didn’t really matter all that much because there was magic in the air. And the magic of Christmas was promoted in the schools. We sang Christmas carols in the classroom. There were cutouts of the Nativity scene on the bulletin board, along with the smiling, chubby face of Santa and Rudolph. We were all acutely aware that Christmas was more than a season to receive—it was a special time to give as well.

But times have changed. Violence and turmoil surround our schools. Police officers walk the hallways, and embattled teachers act more like wardens than instructors. Sadly, the timeless celebration of Christmas seems to have been lost in the mix as well. Schools across the country avoid anything that alludes to the true meaning of Christmas—such as angels, the baby Jesus, stables and shepherds. For example, a member of a parent/teacher organization at a Connecticut elementary school was in charge of decorating a large display case in the school’s entrance. For the upcoming December holidays, she was planning to put up a display called “Festival of Lights” and feature a display with a crèche for Christmas and a Menorah and Star of David for Hanukkah, along with a document that explains the histories of both events. However, she was told by school officials that no religious objects could be used in the display.

A kindergarten teacher in a Texas public school was informed that he could not mention the word “Christmas” or tell the historical Nativity story because someone in the district might sue. All other secular customs of the “winter holiday” were deemed to be okay, just not the religious symbols of Christianity. According to the school principal: “We cannot tie candy canes, trees, wreaths, Santa Claus, etc, as a religious symbol. What we can teach is the secular side of holidays. We can have the tree, candy cane, wreath, Santa Claus, etc, anything that is secular. No religious words can be attached. We cannot read aloud to the students any book pertaining to religious beliefs or happenings brought by you [the teacher] or the students. The student who brings a book can read/look at the book silently.”

Another incident that highlights this extreme Christmas phobia involves a Michigan elementary school, where the principal issued a directive specifically forbidding references to God, Christianity or the birth of Jesus Christ. This is censorship, pure and simple.

I have yet to understand how anyone can discuss the true—or even historical—meaning of Christmas without at least a reference to Christ. Surely something has gone wrong when America’s children are encouraged to celebrate the fictional Rudolph but are refused the opportunity to even mention Jesus, who was an actual, historical person. To claim that Christmas is something other than it is—a holiday with a religious foundation—is both dishonest and historically unsound.

Indeed, Christmas (Old English Cristes Moesse, “the Mass of Christ”) was instituted, and for centuries kept, as a religious holiday (as in “holy day”). Originally, Christmas included festivities, but its primary purpose was to provide a time for spiritual renewal.

Unfortunately, far too many parents, students and teachers erroneously believe they cannot celebrate the religious nature of Christmas in the public schools. Whether through ignorance or fear, Americans are painfully misguided about the recognition of religious holidays. Ironically, the most targeted religious holiday for exclusion is Christmas—also the most popular in American culture. Are our schoolchildren to be forbidden from learning about one of the most culturally significant events because it has religious overtones?

There are constitutional ways to celebrate Christmas in the public schools without violating the United States Constitution. These are succinctly set forth in The Rutherford Institute’s “Twelve Rules of Christmas.” While it is true that public school teachers, as agents of the state, may not advance religion, they are allowed to discuss the role of religion in all aspects of American culture and its history. And this includes the religious aspects of the Christmas holiday.

Indeed, teachers can use Christmas art, music, literature and drama in their classrooms, as long as they illustrate the cultural heritage from which the holiday has developed. Religious symbols, such as a Nativity scene, can be used in this context as well. Of course, any holiday observance should occur in an educational setting, rather than in a devotional atmosphere. Teachers should also remember to offer students and their parents the school district’s opt-out policy as an alternative to the teaching about any particular religion.

While our Constitution does not give carte blanche to promote religion in the public schools, neither does it dictate a cleansing of Christmas from the classroom. Students may enjoy the same freedom of religious expression that is allowed any other time of the year—in or out of the classroom. This means that students can freely distribute Christmas or Hanukkah cards to their friends and teachers, just as they would a birthday card. Such cards can even mention the words God and Jesus Christ.

The trend toward erasing traditional Christmas practices from our daily life is discouraging and disheartening. In a society already known for its selfishness and consumerism, it seems that a religious holiday would be an opportunity to celebrate something more essential, something wholesome and good and also something that would remind us of our nation’s history—one that is dominated with a spiritual and religious heritage.

In fact, rather than making Christmas the height of the selling season, why can’t the focus be on celebrating family and friendship, camaraderie and memories? Why can’t it be a time to reflect and celebrate our freedoms? Why can’t it be a season of extending a helping hand to the less fortunate? Why can’t it be a time to step back and meditate on the original meaning behind the Christmas holiday? And why can’t these important traditions be taught in our schools?

It has been 40 years since Charlie Brown, as he puzzled over the glitz and commercialism of the modern age, asked, “Doesn’t anyone know the true meaning of Christmas?” Linus responded by telling the story of Jesus Christ’s birth, as recounted in Luke 2:7-14, to his friends and classmates. What Charles Schulz’ beloved 1965 cartoon did not capture, however, was the growing aversion on the part of many school officials and public figures to anything remotely related to the true Christmas story. Hopefully, as our children ponder what Christmas is all about—a subject that almost certainly arises in the classroom—our teachers at least will realize that they have the right to truthfully answer the question. If so, our children will have the opportunity to experience the richness of our traditions and culture. And what better time than Christmas?

—-

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. Information about the Twelve Rules of Christmas and The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Want to read more? Visit The Rutherford Institute website!

——————————————————————————–

The Rutherford Institute 1440 Sachem Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: 434-978-3888/ FAX: 434- 978-1789/ website: http://www.rutherford.org

City moves to condemn SBC church using eminent domain (BP)

It’s finally happened.

LONG BEACH, Calif. (BP)–City leaders in Long Beach, Calif., have classified the Filipino Baptist Fellowship’s building as a blighted area and are forcing the congregation out in order to make way for condominiums.

The path for the case was laid when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last summer in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut that a city’s use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another may qualify as a “public use” protected by the Constitution.

John Eastman, director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence who is defending the church, said the case -– the first involving a Baptist church — may play a key role in reversing the high court’s eminent domain decision.

(Click on the blog title to read the entire article.)