Is the United States a Christian nation?

This is a subject I’ve thought long and hard about.  I’m considering running for the Washington State legislature at some point, so this is an issue which has a direct impact on me.  Here are my thoughts:

I believe this nation is a Christian nation, yet only to the degree that Christians take part in representative government.

To understand the significance of the United States in history, I like to go back to Samuel Rutherford.  Rutherford was Presbyterian minister from Scotland who lived during the 1600’s.  He wrote a book that is considered seminal in the development of constitutional rule and limited government.  The book was called Lex, Rex (or, “The Law is King”).  The basic premise of the book is that everyone, even the King, is subject to the Law of God (Deuteronomy 17:14-19).  Therefore, instead of Rex Lex (the King is Law) which had been the way governments had functioned for literally millennia, Rutherford was proposing that there was a higher law, the Law of God, and everyone, even the King, is subject to it.

Skip forward a hundred years to the American Revolution.  The founding fathers of our nation were faced with a Parliament and King who had grown tyrannical in their desire to exploit the colonies for monetary gain.

The idea that everyone is subject to the law (even the government itself) is clear in the Declaration of Independence:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…”

And -

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…”

Now as near as I can tell, the purpose of government according to the founders was to maximize happiness and individual freedom while safeguarding against tyranny and maladministration.  George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a prototype to the Declaration of Independence, spells this out:

“…of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration…”

Now, pure democracy (rule of the majority) is, apart from constitutional protection for the rights of minorities, Rex Lex (the King is Law); only instead of tyranny of the despot it is tyranny of the majority.  The best example of this is the French Revolution.  It was mob rule – democracy in it’s purest form.  On a side note, theocracies are no better because law becomes subject to what the leading teachers and clerics say it should be, and thus it becomes an oligarchy – tyranny of a select group of people.

Abraham Lincoln – who penned those famous words, “government of the people, for the people, and by the people,” in his Gettysburg Address – recognized the danger of pure democracy and of oligarchies.  He spoke about this in his first inaugural address:

“Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

On another side note, I have read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America from the time during the civil war.  When I read it I was absolutely struck by how identical it is to the real U.S. Constitution.  It’s basically the same document, with the Bill of Rights, reorganized a little bit and with a few small changes in some sections.  A couple of the changes were enumeration of sections which implied slavery in the original, but the others were things most conservatives would like to change in the Constitution today; namely elimination of the general welfare clause from Article 1, Section 8, and the inclusion of a Presidential line item veto.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes… (etc.)”

That clause, “collect Taxes…for the…general Welfare,” is one of the most hotly contested portions of the Constitution.  In those two words, “general Welfare,” resides the true power of self government for the people of the United States of America.  We can appoint legislators to represent us and they have the power to legislate for the common good of the people.  Many conservatives argue that the clause should be interpreted as meaning “what the founders intended to be the general Welfare,” or, “the general Welfare meaning those things listed below (i.e., to borrow money, regulate commerce, etc.)”  I used to hold to that interpretation myself but after reading extensively of documents from the founding period and reading the Constitution carefully I can find no such restriction.  I’ve come to the conclusion that the clause was intended by the founding fathers to give broad, discretionary power to congress in the interest of self government.

Getting back to the words from Lincoln’s inauguration, “A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people,” what struck me so much when I read the Constitution of the Confederacy is that it’s really no different from the Constitution of the government they’d just ceded from.  They didn’t really have a problem with constitutional self government, they just wanted it to be themselves who were in the majority.

That’s painful, because I believe that’s where much of the Christian conservative movement is today.  We were the majority about 30 years ago.  And now that the tide has begun to turn many of us want to rule as a minority through constitutional amendments, targeted legislation and narrow interpretations of the Constitution.

In reality, there is no substitute in American government for the influence and participation of common citizens.  All of the problems of government relate back to failure on the part of common citizens to know their legislators, follow what’s happening in the capitals, and voice their opinions to their leaders often and eloquently.  If a person is not doing this, they have no reason to complain about the lack of representation of their viewpoint in government.  And the schools.  And the colleges.  And the media.  And the arts.

In fact I believe that because God has blessed us Christians in the U.S. with the opportunity of living under a representative government, part of our ministry can and ought to be having influence in each of those areas, working with specific issues we care about, working with specific leaders (whoever happens to be in office); not working with a single party or following the interests of a narrow group, but each making up their mind, being fully convinced of what they stand for and where they can have the greatest influence for good.

So, is the U.S. a Christian nation?  That depends on what each of us in the U.S. who are Christians do with the rest of our day today.  And on what we do with our tomorrows.  Get involved.  Write your representatives about the specific bills on the table right now at the state and federal level.  If you live close enough, drive to your state capital and meet your legislators.  Join a school board.  Get a job as a broadcaster.  Adopt a child.  Those are the things you can do to impact this nation for Christ right now.

_________________________________________

After thought:  When as conservatives we make it our goal to de facto limit government without regard to whether it is good or justified (yes, some government is good and justifiable!) then what we really seek to limit is the people, because this is government of the people, by the people and for the people.  It amounts to a tacit admission that instead of representative republic, we’d rather see theocracy (tyranny of the religious leader’s interpretation) or oligarchy (tyranny of the minority) be the law of the land.

Viable Conservative Alternatives to Help Stop a Spiraling Economy

1.  Eliminate the Federal Reserve and restore Congress’ constitutional role of regulating money.
2.  Deal with AIG and the trading houses from an antitrust perspective instead of nationalization; break them up into smaller entities.
3.  Illegalize, monitor and penalize naked short selling.
4.  To lower government’s burden, immediately privatize the NEA, NEH, ED, USDA and DHHS, except for FDA.
5.  With the money saved, immediately eliminate all estate and payroll taxes.
6.  Legally change Social Security from being an entitlement to being a real insurance so it can’t be raided.
7.  Pledge to systematically reduce the amount of business regulation law on the books by 50% in volume within the next four years, starting with OSHA.
8.  Immediate deportation of all illegal aliens and completion of the Mexico border fence.  That’s not harshness; that’s respect for the rule of law and fairness for legal citizens.
9.  Initiate limited, “no strings attached” stimulus spending, including some FDR style “make work” programs, some investments in national infrastructure and limited TARP funds for companies created by antitrust enforcement.
10.  Fireside Chats (they worked).
11.  Remove speech and political activity restrictions on religious 501(c)(3)s.  This would do more to get ordinary people involved with politics than any other action we could take as a nation; The reason 501(c)(3) prohibitions arose in the first place was to discourage average citizens from being involved with politics.
12.  Drill baby, drill!

I don’t care if anyone says we can’t get all of these things, or that they might raise the ire of the other side of the aisle.  The fact is, if we can get any of these items they would be viable alternatives to help stop a spiraling economy.

President Obama – Taking his queues from Hugo Chavez?

The latest update on what the Obama Administration has planned for businesses:

 

Obama is calling for, “increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies…”

 

Marx’s class struggle at it’s purest.  And effective government seizure of privately owned companies going on to boot.  Not to mention plans for extensive use of the military inside of the nation’s borders.

So at this point the basic difference between President Obama and Hugo Chavez is…?

Alternative Marriage: A violation of Right to Privacy

Addendum added 4-6-09

The Supreme Court case which established Right to Privacy as a legal principle was 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut.  The plaintiff was Connecticut Planned Parenthood executive director Estelle Griswold, and she won an argument that Connecticut’s laws against birth control violated the citizens’ rights to privacy.  The Supreme Court agreed with her because they felt that Connecticut’s laws violated the right to privacy implicit in the sacred and inviolate institution of marriage.

Justice Douglas’ opinion from the case:

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights–older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Justice Goldberg’s opinion from the case, in which he is quoting an earlier opinion in Olmstead v. United States by Justice Brandeis:

“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone–the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”

The sanctity and inviolate nature of marriage was used as the legal, bedrock example of where a Right to Privacy exists for citizens.  By coming in and trying to force upon private citizens a new definition of marriage, the State of Washington is in effect declaring our Right to Privacy to be null and void.

Furthermore, if the State of Washington has the right to redefine what marriage is and force that definition on private citizens and institutions, then the State of Connecticut should have had the right in 1965 to prohibit birth control. 

On the other hand, if marriage is sacred and inviolate, and therefore protected by the constitutional Right to Privacy, then in 1973 Texas should have been able – human life itself being sacred and inviolate – to continue prohibiting abortion based upon the same constitutional Right for the unborn.

 

Addendum 4/6/09 – From personal correspondence with my friend Erik Engstrom:

Justice Douglas’ determination in Griswold v. Connecticut cited the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments as creating a zone of privacy.  Forcing private organizations to legally recognize Gay Marriage violates the 1st – right of association - and the 9th – rights retained by the people; because it pits the secular humanist pursuit of happiness against the Judeo Christian pursuit of happiness and legally allows the former to impose their viewpoint over the latter. 

“Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’”

Note that the status quo does not impose the Judeo Christian viewpoint over the secular humanist one; secular humanists already have a legal right to develop and form associations as they please and to petition for legal acknowledgement of any new type of union they want to institute.  And they could easily do this without trying to impose their viewpoint over an existing institution. 

The reason the GBLT Lobby and liberal Democrats are pushing for Washington State SB 5688 is that they actively want legal power to force their religious views on people who hold traditional Judeo Christian beliefs.  Representative Simpson’s letter to Barbara in Black Diamond amounts to a tacit admission of this (please click on the link and read the letter if you’ve never heard of this).

Therefore this legislation is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state, because the intent of the legislation is to legally define and promulgate one establishment of religion over another.

Saving the Republican Party

I believe when the annals of this nation’s history are completed some people will hold to the belief that the Republican party of this era did more to push the country towards socialism, compell it on a path to larger government and jeopardize the personal freedoms of it’s citizens than any other entity.

Not only have we threatened personal freedom through the Patriot Act, increased the national debt.  Our poor communication and leadership during the war on terror and the market crash have also contributed strongly towards ushering in a Democratic congress and a President Elect who are talking openly of moving our nation towards socialism.  We have deliverd the nation into their hands.  And as often as not when one of us speaks publicly to try to counter this tide we find ourselves trying to defend practices like wire tapping, water boarding, suspension of habeas corpus and creation of sweeping government agencies that have the ability to do Orwellian monitoring of private citizens.

How did we get to this point?

I recently asked myself that as I was pondering my own political journey this election season. 

As a 20 year supporter of the Republican party I had defended the Bush administration and its actions in the war on terror for most of the past five years.  It was only when the Republican presidential candidates started campaigning that I started to, for the first time in years, take a cold hard look at what the people in my party were saying and doing.  None of them were truly conservative fiscally and socially.  None shared a clear vision of where the party and the country should be lead in the future. 

The experience left me so disillusioned and confused I started taking a look at the Democratic candidates to see what they stood for.  The one who displayed the most conviction in his ideals, and the eloquence to relate them clearly as a leader, was the man who is now our President Elect - Barack Obama.  At one point I even considered voting for Obama because of his stance on lobbying ethics, pork barrel spending and stimulating the economy.  But that idea got dropped quickly when I learned of his role in blocking the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois.  A leader who could support leaving a living child to die of neglect in a dark and dirty hospital closet is a leader who has neither the moral compass nor the sound judgement to make decisions about human life at a national level, however brilliant he may be in other areas.

It was only recently in the midst of this confusion that I happened to hear a speech being played on the Mark Levin radio show.  It turned out to be Ronald Reagan’s famous message, “A Time to Choose”, which he delivered at the 1964 Republican National Convention.  As I listened, I started to see again with clarity the reason why I became a Republican as a young man, and the reason why as Republicans we need desperately to return to our core values.

Right now the European style of socialism is becoming a popular idea in our nation.  Nothing could be further from the vision of our founding fathers.  America was intended to be the land of the free, and there can’t be freedom when the government is controlling all of its nation’s checkbooks and businesses. 

The following clips of Reagan speaking are long (40 minutes combined) and they perfectly describe what our nation is faced with today.  As you listen to them I hope that you will see what I see:  That a return to the conservative values of personal freedom and limited government is the only way of truly reconsolidating – and saving – the Republican party.

Week 18 Ultrasound: It’s a girl!

Beautiful profile shot of our little one.  18 weeks.  8 ounces.  She was moving all around, sucking her thumb, placing her hands over her ears.  A little bundle of life.  A small person.  Every finger in place.  Little toes.  Wrists.  Ribs.  A beating heart.  A miracle.

Did I mention she was sucking her thumb?

This is the miracle shot.  It’s the most amazing ultrasound image I’ve ever seen in my life.  This is the face of my daughter at 18 weeks.  How could anyone say she’s just a tissue mass?  She moves.  She reacts.  Her heart beats.  I’m not saying if someone has had an abortion they should be judged or there isn’t grace for them.  I’m just saying they should stop and realize this is a life, a person.  The choice was made four months ago.  The child is a blessing.  Always.  Period.

Politics: Was leaning toward’s Mike Huckabee but he lost me

I was leaning towards supporting Mike Huckabee as the Republican Presidential nominee, but he’s lost me over the course of the past couple of weeks and I’ve swung toward’s Fred Thompson, as you’ve probably noticed if you’ve seen my facebook profile.

Here are the two things I’ve noticed about Huckabee that should scare every Evangelical:

 1.  Huckabee, when confronted with his positions, evades by telling jokes and giving very general statements which seem good but don’t have much substance.

2.  Huckabee’s campaign has been doing some really diabolical things.  First there were random calls made in South Carolina spreading an untruth that Fred Thompson supports partial birth abortion, and Huckabee himself responded in effect that, sorry, I can’t tell my supporters not to do that.  Then there was Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s campaign manager, telling the Washington Post that Thompson is just trying to take away votes from Huckabee so that he can bow out and give the votes to McCain.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011703440_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008011800105)

 Yikes!  This is such a dismissive and disrespectful falsehood that it makes me think Rollins is also probably behind the deceptive calls in South Carolina.

OK, Here’s what I believe:  As a man’s administration is run, so is the man’s character.  There is no way Huckabee can be an on the level guy and have a campaign that is so devious.

 Do this.  Go to the different candidates’ web sites and read the white papers on thier positions, if they even have them.  I know Fred Thompson is the one that aligns most closely with what I believe.  You can come to your own conclusions.

But for goodness’ sake, look beyond the surface!

New House and a Baby on the Way!

Jalene and I bought a house in Covington, WA!

We closed on it on November 31st, a Friday, and got the keys.  We spent the next day cleaning the house and when we got home I immediately hopped on the computer.  I was there for about 10 minutes when Jalene came by and plopped a tee-shirt down in front of me and said, “Here, it’s an early Christmas present.”  My immediate thought was, great, I left one of my tee-shirts laying around and she wants me to put it away.  But I shook it out and it said, “Mariners – Number One Dad”.  I immediately started going, “Are you serious?  No way!  That is so cool!”  She showed me the test with the two lines.  So we bought our first house on a Friday and the next day we found out Jalene is pregnant!

 We thought we’d have to wait until the middle of January to move in, but the week between Christmas and New Year’s I got a call from Home Depot:  “You’re carpet is here.  And oh, by the way, we can install it tomorrow.”  So I left work and spent 13 hours painting that day, until 3:00 in the morning, and was then up at 7:30 the next day to watch them install the carpet.

About halfway through the carpet install I got a call, “Ted, this is Millie with US Bank, and your wife just got robbed.  She’s talking to the Police and FBI.  Can you stop by in a half hour to pick her up?”  I called a friend, Don Tilly, to come watch them finish installing the carpet, and then I called another friend, Pat Ellis, who is the Kent Police Chaplain.  Jalene is a merchant teller with US Bank, and the bank robber picked her window to pass the note to.  Jalene and Pat and I went out to lunch and Pat did a great job of explainign to Jalene the physical and mental stresses she was going through being robbed, and everything would be OK, etc.  Wow.

The next day we loaded most of what we own in boxes and the day after that I rented a U-Haul and we moved.  Just like that.  Three weeks later we’re still putting stuff away and recovering!

The Weather in Seattle

This is an actual, unaltered image from a local news station showing the weather forecast for Seattle.  You’ll notice that it’s sunny all days of the week except for two- Saturday and Sunday.  This is so typical for Seattle.  When I saw the forecast I laughed.

Wasp Control: Simple Green

So I had to take care of my mom’s animals for three days while she was in Alaska.  She has two dogs, two goats, two ducks, a cat, and a myriad of neighborhood wild squirrels and wild birds which she feeds on a regular basis.

While I was feeding the goats I noticed that the entryway to the small barn she owns was infested with paper wasps.  There had to have been 15 or 20 small nests around.

Not many people know this but the best way to take out a wasp’s nest is with Simple Green household cleaner.

  

Simply wait until late evening or early morning when the wasps are all nested up and then spray down the whole thing (no matter how large) with a strong solution of Simple Green out of a regular spray bottle.  As soon as the simple green contacts them they loose the ability to fly and fall to the ground where you can stomp on them.  The solution ruins thier nest and they generally don’t come back.  They never even get a chance to swarm.  It’s so cool and easy.