Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson

The letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association – with the phrase “separation between church & state” – is oft-mention in both historical and political discussions. The letter from the Danbury Baptists is not as well known. A transcription of it can be read at the National Archives online.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, [after 7 October 1801]

“…though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.”

Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction.”

Interestingly, there is also a Draft Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, showing how Jefferson started and then edited the letter to be more concise.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Peevish reactions to Dobbs v. Jackson WHO

Some guy named Billie Joe Armstrong is apparently an important rock star. (You couldn’t prove it by me.) While in London, he told concertgoers that he will protest the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision by renouncing his United States citizenship and moving to England. Good for him. Pray for England.

Another rock/pop star had plenty of cuss words for America (as did Billie Joe Armstrong). Pink told her fans who agree with the Supreme Court decision re Roe v. Wade to “never (cuss word deleted) listen to my music again.” Thanks, I will take you up on that, although the again part won’t be a problem for me! Perhaps she assumes a lot in thinking that pro-life folks actually listen to her music. She assumes more in thinking she gets to control who listens to her music.

We probably should praise these peevish reactions because (1) they are angry but not violent, and (2) they expose the underlying unthinking hypocrisy of many abortion proponents. The article I read says Armstrong is a native of California. Rather than controlling what Americans think, the Supreme Court decision pushes abortion laws back to the states. Armstrong’s state will have abortion freely available. Pink does not want the Court controlling her views and actions – yet she wants to control who can and cannot listen to her music! Pot meet kettle.

C’est la vie.

Sad Anniversary post removed

Sometimes I prepare posts ahead of time for a specific upcoming anniversaries, dates, events, and/or holidays. Today I removed a “Sad Anniversary” post I had scheduled for the 50th anniversary of the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court Decision. Six months before its fiftieth birthday, the Supreme Court aborted it with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

The vote was 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. However, though Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with that opinion, he held that the court should not have overturned Roe. The other three liberal justices opposed.

Biblically

• The Bible condemns murder – the taking of human life without justification.
• The Bible affirms the humanity of unborn children.
• Since the Bible establishes the humanity of the unborn child, then abortion is murder and cannot be morally permissible.

Legally

• The U. S. Constitution does not affirm abortion as a right.
• Murder should be regulated at the State rather than Federal level.
• The choice being made in abortion is the choice to take an innocent human life.

The current state of separation of church and state

As were our Baptist forefathers, so am I a proponent of the free exercise of religion – that is, in regard to state interference in it (we are not free from God). However, I think that oft times in the modern U.S., our first amendment has been stood on its end, making it an enemy of religion rather than a friend. This reason for this is that secularism often functions in the place of a state-adopted religion.

When secularism functions as the state religion, then it is given preference over religion under the guise of separation. That sends a message to all residents of the United States that non-religious secularism is better than religion. If you are not a religion, then we will give you this, and support you in that. If you are a religion, we will shut you out.

By not adopting a state religion, the United States has on the other hand developed a religion of state, a secular type of “religious non-religion” that functions as religion. There is no way our forefathers could have foreseen this. They set the constitutional idea of freedom of religion in place in a culture saturated with a Judeo-Christian ethic. In practice, Christianity often functioned beneath the surface as the de facto “state religion” without it being established as such – simply because of the large number of people who were Christians, at least functionally, or at least accepted the general principles found in the Bible as legitimate and good. We are no longer there.

Over the years, secularism has taken over as a de facto state religion with Christianity incrementally being rooted out of the public square. In our current applications of state religion, any “moral” philosophy that claims to arise from some source other than “religion” is given preference or ascendancy over any moral philosophy that rises from a religious base. Therefore, very truly the state functions in supporting one (yes, establishing secularism to function as religion) while opposing the other (actual religion).

I see the problem, but do not have the answer for it. Perhaps we are beyond implementing any answer even if we had one. Perhaps it will “solve itself” (and perhaps not in the way we might prefer). It seems likely that we have reached a time and place in the history and culture of the United States where there is going to be a separation of those who are heart Christians and those who are nominal Christians.

“So there was a division among the people because of him” [i.e., Jesus Christ]. John 7:43.

Who is wrong in abortion debate?

Today’s post is an expansion of a “Letter to the Editor” to the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper, Tallahassee, Florida. The letter is a response to “Both sides are wrong in abortion debate,” an opinion piece by retired psychologist Gary Whittenberger, published on December 6th. (If you cannot view it on their site, it is also available at Yahoo News.)

Dr. Whittenberger gets some things right and some things wrong. He rightly denounces the viability and privacy problems with the Roe v. Wade decision. Viability from that day and time (26 weeks) is now out the window. Lyla Stensrud was born in 2014 at 21 weeks.[i] Richard Hutchinson was born in 2020 at 21 weeks. Curtis Means of Alabama was recently certified as the “world’s most premature baby to survive,” his time of birth making his about 24 hours less than Richard’s time of birth. Whittenberger wisely knows that with advances in medical technology “viability will continue to go downward.” He further states, “nobody should have the right to hide an unethical or illegal act in private, and sometimes killing a fetus is like that.”

However, when he represents what is wrong on the pro-life side, he gets it wrong, writing:

The pro-lifers are wrong because they give an answer to the wrong question, i.e. “When does life begin?” That is totally irrelevant, and we already know that the zygote is alive. The relevant question is “When should the fetus be considered a person and assigned basic human rights?”

I suppose he does not intend to misrepresent the pro-life position. Nevertheless, in that statement he does so. Pro-lifers are not arguing that some unknown life form begins at the moment of conception – but that two humans create another human life, a person.  To pro-lifers “when does life begin” means “when does human life begin, including with it personhood and basic human rights.” Whittenberger is free to disagree with the pro-life position, but he should not misrepresent it, either knowingly or unknowingly. We are contending that at conception the life that begins at that time (which he admits is life) is a person, entitled to basic human rights, and that our laws should support and protect those rights.

Finally, Whittenberger disagrees with pro-lifers because he believes that a “human fetus cannot be a person until its brain matures to the point that it acquires the capacity for consciousness,” and that “this occurs at the end of the 24th week post-conception.” This agrees with a common scientific view that “the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.” (This disagrees with the living lives of Lyla Stensrud, Richard Hutchinson, Curtis Means, and others born before 24 weeks!)

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, consciousness is “an organism’s awareness of something either internal or external to itself.” This view proves to be a dangerous concept for determining personhood, not only for the children less than 24 weeks, but also for adults in comas.[ii] Are they no longer persons and entitled to basic human rights? Sadly, this is where we have arrived and what many people think. Snuff them out unceremoniously. They have not consciousness. They are not persons.

Biblically, humans – all humans – have value because God made us in his image (Genesis 1:27, Job 33:4, Psalm 119:73).[iii] We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), in ways beyond the comprehension of man’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Let us, if we err, “err” on the side of life.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

---

[i] Or less, according to some unofficial reports.
[ii] It is also dangerous because this is unsettled science, subjective and subject to change. “Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview.” – “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life” (Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260, 2009). How much better to walk into the unknown, uncertain, and unsettled with the old medical adage, primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Where you are unsure, “err” on the side of life, not death.
[iii] Often expressed in the theological terminology imago Dei (Latin for “image of God”). 

The Stench of 1973

News outlets yesterday reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” [This in reference to “what if” the Court overturned abortion rights as they currently stand interpreted.]

I find that statement intriguing in light of how the abortion right was created. I wonder how she views the “reading” of the Constitution and the “political act” of the Supreme Court in 1973 when the majority found the right to abortion which they were unable to read in the Constitution.

Electoral College

Last summer I addressed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an attempt to end around the Constitution. Another less radical attempt to overcome the state-focused nature of the U. S. Presidential Election and the Electoral College is proportionally-assigned electors.

Some folks think the States should assign electoral votes proportionately. This is a consistent position for those who think the president should be elected by national popular vote. If every state divvied out electoral votes according to a percentage of their popular vote, it could effectively elect the presidential in accordance with the national popular vote (and without a constitutional amendment). So far as I know, it is within each state’s right to do that if they so choose. At least a couple of states already have some kind of proportional system. However, my understanding of the concept of and reason for the Electoral College is that STATES rather than individuals elect Presidents. The winner of our state popular vote gets all 35 of the electoral votes. I have no feeling of disenfranchisement. Why? Because the concept of the Electoral College is that the STATE votes for the president. In Texas we decide by popular vote for whom the STATE will vote. Everyone in Texas who wants to vote gets their say, and the majority popular vote decides. I do not consider myself disenfranchised by the system we have in Texas – even though I have not voted for the winner of the state’s popular vote (the collector of all our electoral votes) in the past 30 years so.

A little history lesson
No presidents of the United States have ever been elected by national popular vote. All have been selected by the Electoral College, except two Presidential elections which were decided in the House of Representatives (1800 and 1824). In 1800 there was no popular vote; the state legislatures appointed their electors. Due to a tie, the selection was made by the House of Representatives. Five times candidates have won the national popular vote and lost the presidential election. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote; neither he, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, nor William H. Crawford won a majority in the Electoral College, and the election was decided in favor of Adams in the House. In 1876 Samuel Tilden received the national popular vote, but lost to Rutherford B. Hayes. Likewise, in 1888 Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison), in 2000 Al Gore lost to George W. Bush, in 2016 Hillary Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump.

“Article II, Section 1. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.”

Founders Religion

The opinions writers to “Letters to the Editor” of the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel newspaper provide an ongoing source of entertainment, if not knowledge. On Sunday February 23,[i] correspondent Ron Hurst regaled us with the fact that the United States is not a theocracy, supported by half-truths such as:

• “Furthermore, not once is the word ‘god’ mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.”
• “The majority of our forefathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and James Monroe were not Christians. Most of them were deists or theistic rationalists.”

On Tuesday Robert Ault countered, telling us that “Nature’s God” and “Creator” are found in the Constitution. He felled the final blow – We know the founders were Christians based on their appearance in a vision to Mormon Apostle Wilford Woodruff.[ii] I am certain that non-Mormons of every stripe (religious and irreligious) were quite convinced!!

On Wednesday Hurst was back, picking Ault’s nits. Assuredly, “the words ‘to which the laws of nature and natures God entitle them’ and ‘that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’” were not in the Constitution. “They were in the Declaration of Independence instead.”[iii] True enough, though Hurst was not man enough to admit that he had it half-wrong on Sunday just as much as Ault was half-wrong on Tuesday!

The Declaration mentions God. The Constitution does not. The first document tells us why our founders separated from England. The second document establishes the laws of those who separated from England.

The United States is neither a theocracy nor an atheist-ocracy (which seems to be what some like Hurst want). The United States is a Constitutional Republic that guarantees freedom of religion.

The Founders’ religious beliefs are found in their writings. Their religious connections are found in their church affiliations or lack thereof. Read their writings. Look up their church memberships. These facts, found, will not support Hurst’s “most of them were deists or theistic rationalists” theory. The fact that “most of them were Christians” would not mean they started a theocracy. Baptist preachers, in fact, were some of the most avid opponents of anything that smelled like a theocracy. They did not, however, promote the popular nonsense of this day that Christians should sit inside their churches and shut up!

Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. On the other hand, most signers of the Declaration were active churchgoers, including at least one Christian minister![iv]Here is a quote from one of our founders, President George Washington, at his first inaugural address:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire…Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained…

Washington’s inaugural address is not quite the blatant rationalistic deism Hurst would have us accept! It is clear that George Washington believed in a Creator, in prayer, in God’s providential dealings in history, in eternal truth – and that he thought most of the citizenry shared his beliefs.

---

[i] “Founders views on religion,” Ron Hurst, The Daily Sentinel, Sunday, February 23, 2020, page 5B.

[ii] “The Founding Fathers told us their views on religion,” Robert Ault, The Daily Sentinel, Tuesday, February 25, 2020, page 5A.

[iii] “More on church and state,” Ron Hurst, The Daily Sentinel, Wednesday, February 26, 2020, page 6A.

[iv] Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon. Benjamin Rush was co-founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society. Many other such religious connections can be easily discovered by those willing to do so. A good list of the church affiliations of the signers of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and the U. S. Constitution can be found at Adherents.com.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

According to Wikipedia, “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U. S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

The idea is the brainchild of those who oppose of the Constitutional process of electing U. S. Presidents by electoral vote but rather desire them to be elected by a majority popular vote. The NPVIC therefore aims to make an end-run around the Constitution – rather than changing it head-on with an amendment. It would “ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president.”

I had heard of this concept and its movement before, but had not paid much attention to it. However (again according to Wikipedia), “As of June 2019, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College and 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.” Commenters both pro and con say that this initiative is (1) designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and (2) that a state’s electoral process change would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. [emp. mine]

According to its proponents, this measure is constitutional because Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” Their point, then, is that the appointment of electors falls under the purview of the States. Detractors, however, note that the power of the state is to choose electors, but they cannot tell him for whom to vote. Some also believe it violates the Constitution’s compact clause by states entering into a compact to change the outcome of the presidential election. The initiative is not merely a state changing its electoral process but multiple states entering into a compact one with another to accomplish a designed result.

Here are two quotes from a report by the Congressional Research Service on National Popular Vote. First from the “Summary” (unpaged) of “The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact”:

The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative proposes an agreement among the states, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution’s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1 to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....” Any state that joins the NPV compact pledges to award all its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of who wins in that particular state. The number of electoral votes won by the national popular vote winners would depend on the number of electoral votes controlled by NPV member states. The compact would, however, come into effect only if its success has been assured; that is, only if states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) join the compact. [bold mine]

Second, from page 20:

Whether the NPV initiative requires congressional consent under the Compact Clause first requires a determination as to whether NPV even constitutes an interstate compact. At times, its supporters have resisted framing the initiative as an interstate compact, arguably out of concern for running afoul of the Compact Clause’s provisions. For example, Professor Akhil Amar has argued that because the initiative does not create a “new interstate governmental apparatus,” the NPV should not be considered an interstate compact, as NPV compact signatory states are merely exercising power collectively that each state could exercise on its own. It is unclear, however, whether the creation of a new interstate governmental entity formed out of an agreement between two or more states is necessary, as opposed to sufficient, in order to deem an agreement as being an interstate compact subject to the Compact Clause.

The Congressional Research Service finds that it is unclear whether this National Popular Vote Compact is “subject to the Compact Clause.” This is mainly where the debate will be and where the compact will be challenged in court. When I first heard the idea of a state allocating their electoral votes to the “popular-vote-getter,” it did not seem to me that it would be unconstitutional – since states already determine how they allocate their electoral votes. For example, states already decide whether the winner in their states get all the electoral votes, or whether to parcel them out.[i] I had not considered a possible violation of the Compact Clause or that states were colluding one with another. However, it is worth considering the fact that states are compacting (from a positive viewpoint) or conspiring (from a negative viewpoint) to effect a change in the Constitution without going through the process of amending it.

Whether or not it is constitutional, I do not like the idea. First, I think the present Electoral College system works and has served us well from the beginning of our Republic. Part of the initiative seems like sour grapes. Democrats have recently lost twice under the rules, so now they want to change the rules.[ii] Secondly, under this compact a state overrides the intent of the popular vote of its own citizens! How weird and arrogant would want to throw away the votes of their own people. If enough American citizens want to elect the President of the United States by nationwide popular vote, let them do it through their representatives presenting a constitutional amendment rather than states working around the Constitution. If so, let it be a true popular vote, rather than a mongrel system – one that hangs on to the Electoral College while not reflecting the will of the people who voted for their electors.

Best yet, let’s leave it alone!

Here are two links on the topic

Text of the National Popular Vote Compact Bill

How to Defeat the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

---

[i] 48 states have a winner-take-all system – the winner of the majority of the votes of the citizens of the state will receive all of the state’s electoral votes. Two states – Maine and Nebraska – divide their electoral votes proportionately by congressional district, instead of giving all the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.

[ii] Both George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, thereby becoming president. In addition, the following men lost the popular vote but won the presidency – Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and John Quincy Adams in 1824. Harrison and Hayes won by electoral vote. In the case of Adams (the first year the popular vote was even recorded) no candidate had enough electoral votes and the House of Representatives decided the outcome of the election.

Thoughts on three Facebook “conversations”

In the wake of the Valentine’s Day shooting at a Parkland, Florida high school, Facebook lit up with the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment. It brought some interesting, unusual and often angry posts. Here I comment on three.

18 school shootings already in 2018?

One of the first that I saw was that by February 14th there had already 18 school shootings in 2018. That number was so that one of my Facebook friends lamented that even the liberal news media had grown callous and stopped reporting on school shootings! That, until he understood that the number was highly inflated based on what the average person would think of as a school shooting. According to Washington Post, No, there haven’t been 18 school shootings in 2018. That number is flat wrong. That number made the rounds, coming from a site called Everytown for Gun Safety, which “has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are not really school shootings. Take, for example, what it counted as the year’s first: On the afternoon of Jan. 3, a 31-year-old man who had parked outside a Michigan elementary school called police to say he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he killed himself. The school, however, had been closed for seven months. There were no teachers. There were no students.” These kinds of numbers do not help the cause of safety for school children, more than likely a “little boy who cried wolf” eye-rolling response – whose lesson is that if you always tell tales, eventually people will stop listening to what you say.

The right to keep and bear a single-shot musket

A video about what guns were like when the 2nd Amendment was written was making the rounds on Facebook. It is entertaining and seems to make a point, but...

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee “the right to keep and bear a single-shot musket...” The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It binds the federal government in regards to the rights of citizens. “Arms” means “weapons and ammunition; armaments.” Not only does the amendment not say “keep and bear a single-shot musket” – the single-shot musket was not the only “arms” available in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was passed. Further, the SCOTUS in ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ clarified that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...” It does not just guarantee guns for militia service, as some claim.[i] The Second Amendment “is what it is” and it is not going anywhere (does anyone seriously think they can get 38 states to vote to amend or repeal this?). Rather than a shrill argument over what’s wrong with the Second Amendment and how to get rid of it – an argument that never goes anywhere – perhaps both sides might try to see what things they could agree on. Under the Second Amendment as it exists and has been interpreted, how can we work together to curb violence in our country? It is a societal problem – and I would say spiritual problem – much bigger than guns or mental illness. Without guns, using diesel fuel and fertilizer, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier killed 168 people (19 of whom were children) and injured more than 500 people!

Repeal the right to keep and drive cars?

Briefly on Sunday morning I noticed a meme about the number of deaths from drunk-driving accidents circulating. Later when I went back to check this I couldn’t find a one! (I always have trouble finding things on Facebook when I go back to look for them. What’s up with that??) My concern was to check whether these figures about drunk-driving were accurate, or just “fake news” like some of the “Everyday” school shootings numbers. I went to an official site – the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (Drunk driving). According to their site, “Every day, almost 29 people in the United States die in alcohol-impaired vehicle crashes—that’s one person every 50 minutes in 2016.” Or, stated another way, there were 10,497 deaths in the year 2016 from alcohol-impaired related driving accidents.

I don’t want to juxtapose drunk-driving deaths against mass shooting deaths in order to de-emphasize the latter. Mass shootings and school shootings are very real problems with which Americans need to grapple. Nevertheless, it seems we have decided to complacently live with a much greater problem in terms of actual deaths. In the same period as above, 2016, there were possibly 477 mass shootings in the U.S., which resulted in up to 606 deaths. Some of this info is hard to find, as far as totals, and some hard to trust. I have chosen to use the high-end numbers for comparison purposes,[ii] derived from the Mass Shooting Tracker.[iii] 10,497 deaths in 2016 from drunk driving. Possibly 606 deaths in 2016 from mass shootings. One every 50 seconds from drunk driving; 1.66 every day from mass shootings (even using some of the highest numbers reported). What does this mean? Have we become complacent about drunk-driving fatalities? Will we become complacent about mass shooting fatalities? Is our outrage selective? Will we trade it for a new style of outrage when the next new problem comes along? And finally, if banning guns to citizens is the right solution to stop mass shootings, why wouldn’t banning cars and alcohol be the right solution to stop drunk-driving fatalities? Why, there are not even constitutional bills of rights for those activities!

---

[i] But “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...”

[ii] In contrast to Mass Shooting Tracker, Mother Jones (clearly not a conservative pro-NRA site) lists only 6 mass shootings in 2016 – Cascade Mall shooting, Burlington, Washington; Baton Rouge police shooting, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Dallas police shooting, Dallas, Texas; Orlando nightclub massacre, Orlando, Florida; Excel Industries mass shooting, Hesston, Kansas; and Kalamazoo shooting spree, Kalamazoo County, Michigan – with 71 deaths and 73 injuries. Mother Jones uses a different definition of “mass shooting” than Mass Shooting Tracker. The average person hearing “school shooting” thinks Columbine, Sandy Hook, and now Parkland – not about some guy shooting himself after school hours near a school that was not even open! That person hearing “mass shooting” thinks Orlando, Las Vegas, and Sutherland Springs – not about four drug dealers who shot each other in a turf war! While we should not ignore other forms of murder and violence, conflating other crimes with the ever-growing problem of shootings like the one at Parkland confuses both the issue and the understanding of it.

[iii] Part of the problem for comparison purposes is that there is no standard definition of a “mass shooting.” Mass Shooting Tracker writes, “Our definition is this: a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot in a single shooting spree.” The FBI defines a mass murder as one event, in one location, when three or more victims are killed and the offender is not included in the victim count. When Congress enacted the “Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012,” they indicated “the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident.” The Congressional Research Service calls a “mass shooting” one in which a gunman kills four or more people, selects victims randomly, and attacks in a public place. Also problems arise in that data used by sites like “Everyday” and “Mass Shooting Tracker” comes from media accounts rather than official records.

The Johnson Amendment

About the Johnson Amendment - "Repealing the Johnson Amendment will have no impact upon what my church (or most churches) do. It is an empty gesture."

The so-called Johnson Amendment originated with Lyndon Johnson, as a senator. He believed that a tax-exempt foundation financially supported his opponent in a tough election. After he was elected, Johnson proposed an amendment to the bill which eventually became the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. That amendment provides that 501(c)(3) organizations may "not participate in, or intervene in ...any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

Title 26 U.S. Code § 2522 (a) 2 - Charitable and similar gifts:

(2) a corporation, or trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), including the encouragement of art and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;

HERE is an IRS bulletin opinion on it, from 2007:

There has been much said and written about the so-called Johnson Amendment, from the first time Donald Trump promised he would "destroy it". It generated a lot of talk and a lot of heat, but in the end Bart Barber is probably right. Nevertheless, I favor getting rid of the Johnson Amendment. Trump didn't quite do what he promised. Section 2 of his Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty addresses it.

"Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit."

I have two thoughts about the government penalizing political speech in churches.

• Biblically, churches should not endorse candidates. We have a higher calling, and are to be partisans for the kingdom of heaven rather than political parties.
• Legally, it is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion should be nobody's business whether or not a church does it. The government should butt out.

Before the Johnson amendment, churches were both free in their speech and tax exempt. It's not like the Johnson amendment first created the idea of tax exemption for churches. The decision should be an internal issue for churches, and the government should stay out of it. Political and religious speech is just the kind of speech the First Amendment is intended to protect, and the government has not been beckoned to intercede when the lines of political and religious speech are blurred. Let a church rather than the government determine who to endorse or whether to endorse. Let that church reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of its choice. 

It is amusing to me that many religiously-minded who are on the left politically rail against politics in the pulpit, while plastering it all over their social media.  On his blog of Pastor Wade Burleson of Emmanuel BC, Enid, Oklahoma cleverly captured the irony of it all: "In our day of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms, a pastor would have to be blind and deaf not to know the preferences and personal biases of church members, whether it be about politics, entertainment or religion." What he says regarding the pastor knowing the preferences and biases of the church members is also true of the church members knowing about the pastor's. While "carefully guarding" the pulpit from endorsing politicians, many are not all that careful otherwise!

Churches having their own voices independent from the government's oversight -- whether I like that voice or not, and whether or not they use it wisely -- is more important than the tax issue.

Linked below is a "middle view" on the Johnson Amendment: "We should limit political activity by churches—but not speech from the pulpit...repeal the Johnson Amendment with respect to things that cost no money, and leave it in place for the things that do."

Don't repeal the Johnson Amendment, fix it

Crockett on Charitable Donations

Crockett on the Power to Make Charitable Donations -- from an 1884 biography by Edward Sylvester Ellis, The Life of Colonel David Crockett

"We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Supreme Court nominee

A lot of energy has been expended jawing about filling the vacancy in the Supreme Court left by the death of Antonin Scalia (some of which began when his body was barely turning cold). The chief issue is whether a lame duck president should nominate a replacement (both theoretically and really). I heard someone on the radio today complain because the people don't get to choose the nominee (i.e., by the election process). Fact is, we do get to choose in the way the Constitution specifies -- we choose the President and Senate who choose the Supreme Justice. Some have used the rhetoric "let the people decide" in referring to letting the next elected president nominate a justice. The other side complains that it is the current president's right to nominate a justice. Both are right. The currently seated president has the constitutional right to set forth his candidate. But the Senate also has the constitutional right to "advise and consent" -- which included the right to not consent. 

I personally believe is it wise to wait. But whichever side we come down on, it is US who elected (or will elect) the officials who will nominate and confirm the next Supreme Court justice. Like it or not, we are part of the process.

Constitutional Cruz control *

Laurence H. Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, writes an interesting piece about his former student and presidential candidate, Ted Cruz. In it, his surmises that under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House. I think he makes a valid point, but while cruising around looking for trouble he might perhaps drink a little of his own tonic. The rich irony extends to not only Cruz's position, but Tribe's as well. Tribe "believes that the Constitution’s meaning evolves with the perceived needs of the time and longstanding practice." Surely he should not object to a little evolution in Cruz's constitutional interpretations. Ultimately, this is just one more political hack piece taking to task of someone whose politics one doesn't like. 


Take the following link to read what Thomas Sowell says about Messing With the Constitution.

* Titled "Constitutional Cruz control" when I first read it Tuesday morning

Carson's commotion

Recently presidential candidate Ben Carson stirred up a stink. On Meet the Press Carson said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." Trying to clarify or backtrack (according to which way you look at it) he later said that he could support a Muslim politician if that person would "clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion." 

First, I understand where Carson is coming from, considering the amount of opposition and terrorism our country and others suffer from radical Muslims. But his "clarification" goes too far to suit me -- at least it is not something I could swear. While I am a law-abiding citizen and believe in obedience to authority, I could not swear to place our Constitution above my church, or my government above my God."

On the other hand, his original comment inflamed silly sophists who cannot find the facts. Some shouted that our Constitution "expressly prohibits a religious test for office." Of course it does, you numbskulls, but our Constitution prohibits the government from setting a religious test -- it DOES NOT prohibit a voting citizen from setting a religious test for office. Any voters can set any test for any politician who is plying for their votes!

A Christian nation?

I wrote the following letter to the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel newspaper. Letters to the editor can only be 350 words, so I had to edit it severely. I am posting the original letter here. It may lack context itself, without access to the letter it addresses. There are a number of people who argue about whether the United States is or ever was a Christian, and pick select quotes that will prove their point. 

In a letter to the editor on the April 22nd "Opinion Page" of the Daily Sentinel (p. 4a), Robert Martin writes to support Tom Rorie's debunking of America as a "Christian nation". I cannot comment on Rorie's writing, as I did not see it. But Mr. Martin does your readers a disservice by giving out of context quotes to prove his point. (Those interested in reviewing the context of any of these historical quotes may find them with simple Google searches.) Such selective quoting is part and parcel of the work of partisans on both sides of the "Christian nation"/"not a Christian nation" issue. 

His first quote by Washington is mis-referenced. This is from a letter to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May of 1789. Washington applauds their stand for religious liberty and appeals to them for the prayers. Immediately after what Mr. Martin quotes, Washington writes, "For you doubtless remember, that I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." He concludes saying, "In the mean time be assured, Gentlemen, that I entertain a proper sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and eternal happiness."

When Adams writes "It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven" the rest of the sentence is "...any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." While Adams believes those who developed the American systems of government were no more directly inspired than those who work on ships or houses, he went to indicate that he himself believed the system of government was founded on the basic Christian religion: "The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians."

Adams did write that "the best of all possible worlds [would have] no religion in it." But this was an exasperated Adams who thought it but then could not endorse it. The quote is from a letter written by John Adams on April 19, 1817 to Thomas Jefferson, which with context provides a better understanding. "The Parson [Parish Priest Lemuel Bryant] and the Pedagogue [Adams's Latin School Master Joseph Cleverly] lived much together, but were eternally disputing about Government and Religion. One day, when the Schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical, and declared "if he were a Monark, He would have but one Religion in his Dominions" The Parson coolly replied "Cleverly! You would be the best Man in the World, if You had no Religion." Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company--I mean Hell."

In these examples I think we can see that Washington and Adams were not saying in the excerpts what might be assumed by the casual reader. As for Jefferson and Franklin, surely most understand that they were not "card-carrying" evangelical Christians. Yet they were not entirely antagonistic to some of the benefits of the religion, either. Franklin may have been one of the most unusual and eccentric of the Founding Fathers, and somewhat antagonist to organized religion. Yet it is apparently accurate that he concluded his Thursday, June 28, 1787, speech to the Constitutional Convention moving, "I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service." [This was reported by James Madison, and according to his report the Convention did not pass the motion.]

My point? Whether or not the United States of America was founded as a "Christian nation" is not a simple debate and will not be decided by quote-picking, whether done by Robert Martin or David Barton. There were many opinions among the founders about both politics and religion. But what we do know is this -- the United States of America was founded on the principle of the free exercise of all religions, or the free choice to not exercise any at all. Baptist minister John Leland advised, "Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."

For those interested in reading the the contexts, most of this information can be found by searching the internet.

Religious expression

Judge rules against religious expression

Butte High senior's civil rights not violated by order to remove religion from graduation talk

No unlimited submission

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which includes:

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force..."

[Adding an interesting quote: "Politicians are the only people in world who create problems and then campaign against them." -- Charlie Reese]

Constitution town hall

Hillsdale College is involved in educating Americans about the Constitution. Their Hillsdale College Constitution Town Hall looks like an interesting possibility for those who would like to learn more. It will be held Saturday, January 30, 2010, 9:00 am - 3:00 pm EST. Though the in-person event is full, you can register to see it free online.