Dispatches from the Culture Wars

But a president or executive is not really analogous to a king.

It is nowadays.

Posted by: Louis B. | July 9, 2009 12:41 PM

There's something quite spectacularly wrongheaded about interpreting a declaration of indepence from English rule (leaving aside the obvious fact that the DoI isn't the Constitution) by exclusive reference to an English commentator on English law.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 9, 2009 12:47 PM

So are they saying that John Adams and John Quincy Adams weren't legally president because they didn't take the oath of office on the Bible?

(well - they were both one termers so there maybe something there)

Posted by: yoshi | July 9, 2009 12:53 PM

I detailed the David Barton-Rev. Blair connection here:

http://tinyurl.com/lb9oo8

Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 9, 2009 1:05 PM

Actually, the Constitution gave to the President powers that were analogous to those exercised by European kings. They wanted a strong executive branch. In the Federalist, the executive is often compared to the king. They thought that a mixed constitution of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy was best - with the House representing democracy (and Commons), the Senate representing aristocracy (the Lords) and the President representing monarchy (King in the eighteenth century Westminster system).

But, yes, the Founders - especially Washington himself - would be aghast at the Caesar we've made of their presidency.

Posted by: Chuck | July 9, 2009 1:25 PM

DJ @11:

I tried to find the passage you referred to in #1 with no success*. Do you know where abouts it's from, by any chance?

Yep, Isaiah 33:22

I had the order of titles wrong, sorry.

The Lord will be our Mighty One.
He will be like a wide river of protection
that no enemy can cross,
that no enemy ship can sail upon.
For the Lord is our judge,
our lawgiver, and our king.
He will care for us and save us.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 9, 2009 2:02 PM

Show me which provisions in the Constitution were based on the Bible. Point to the specific provisions in the constitution and to the Biblical concept that is analogous to it. Good luck with that.

I once saw a fundie blog post where the person claimed that one of the ten commandments (have no god before me) was analogous to freedom of religion in the constitution. Yep, that's right, he explanation was not a very good one.

Posted by: frank | July 9, 2009 2:09 PM

According to Book One, Section Two of Blackstone's Commentaries on Law (which was THE AUTHORITY on English Law for several hundred years and where this phrase comes from) the "laws of nature and nature's God" mean the laws of God for his creation as is revealed in the Holy Scriptures (the Bible).

Well, that settles it! Muslims don't have anything resembling holy scriptures about an Abrahamic God who created and oversees the laws of nature, so this argument can't possibly be used by them.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 9, 2009 4:04 PM

"I know one common claim is that the OT quote, "The Lord is my king, the Lord is my lawgiver, the Lord is my judge," somehow was the basis of the three branches of our government."
The king vs president argument is moot. The quote says that all power is held by one person. This is a consolidation of powers, not a separation.

Posted by: wrpd | July 9, 2009 5:15 PM

wrpd@18:

The quote says that all power is held by one person. This is a consolidation of powers, not a separation.

Hey, don't you know about the Trinity? Each of God's persons could represent each branch. Separation of powers among the godhead. My guess would be....Judge= Holy Spirit, King = Jesus, Lawgiver= God the Father (he supposedly handed over the commandments after all).

And, of course, since puny humans only have one "person" each, you have to have different humans fulfill the different roles.

Makes perfect sense, don't you see! ;-)

OK, OK, this is a lame rationalization. But then, attempting to use a Bible quote that obviously had nothing to do with the separation of powers in a secular government to somehow claim the Bible inspired the Constitution is lame to start with.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 9, 2009 5:35 PM

Yeah, a lot of Traditionalist Catholics who reject Vatican II are very pro-monarchy. They believe it's the only God-ordained political system, since Israel had kings and a monarchy "mirrors" God's relationship with His creations.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 9, 2009 6:19 PM

steve s @ #7:

The first commandment: you can't have any other gods.
the first amendment: oh yes you can.
anybody with an IQ over room temperature can see a difference.

Hee heeee! Nicely noted and spoken. Well challenged. Please take the innertubes and my last three quatloos.

Understand that you will be quoted.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 9, 2009 7:38 PM

If I may weigh in here a bit.

Please note that Jefferson was NOT an authority on the common law. He could speak on it, like he could anything else, but in all honesty relying on Jeffersonian expertise in the area would be like relying on a kindergarten student to paint the Sistine Chapel. Please find a more reliable source of where the common law is from before you rely on Jefferson in future. He might have been a founding father, but 1) He knew next to nothing about the common law, and 2) He wasn't even on the same Continent when the Constitution was written. 3) Although Jefferson did help to author the Declaration of Independence he wasn't it's sole author by any means, and in fact stole many of the more poetic phrases from John Locke.

Unlike what you said in your article, Mr. Brayton, Blackstone does indeed play central role in American Jurisprudence, even today. His ideas on the common law are still highly respected, and taught, at least to my knowledge, in law schools around the country. There are even several recent cases in which the Supreme Court quotes Blackstone, although it should be noted (in all fairness) that Scalia is generally the one doing the quoting!

All of that aside, whether the Koran COULD be used to administer the oath of office is irrelevant to me. I doubt very seriously any of the Founding Fathers would have done anything like it, because like it or not at the time period in which the nation was made, almost everyone was at least a professing Christian. There were a few agnostics, Thomas Hobbes being one of the more famous but most everyone at least gave Christianity the nod in one form or the other. Many people speculate that Jefferson (and sometimes Franklin) were also agnostics but I have not read any serious scholarly works on that subject. Were I to take the oath of office, I wouldn't swear in on a Koran, but at the same time I don't know if there are any who seriously would. It is an irrational fear that some far right conservatives held out toward Obama and, like so many fears, proved to be groundless.

Regardless of what book the President's hand rests on, I think it is more important to note a little known portion of the Constitution allows for the President to either "swear or affirm" the oath [U.S. Const. Art.1 Section 2 Para 8]. This "or affirm" was placed in the document as a concession to those (Quakers) who believed it against their religion to take any oath (hence why the Adams duo did not put their hands on the Bible). If there is a need for more evidence pointing to the spirit of the oath being not religiously based, it is it. The importance of placing ones hand on the sacred book and taking the solemn oath harks back to the ancient Saxon Christian tradition of placing ones hand on relics before taking oaths. It is a manner in which to ensure that the speaker is INDEED telling the truth and will do what they swear. To speak falsely in that sort of context would not only bring about the strictest legal penalties, but would also haunt the oath taker with the Wrath of God. We might laugh now at such a notion, but to the early makers of common law, as well as to our Founding Fathers, this was a deadly serious business. It is were we get the doctrine of perjury from.

Unfortunately, to quote one of my favorite authors Terry Pratchett "A lie can get around the world before the truth can put it's boots on." And if enough people believe it, even if it is false, it becomes true from the perspective of one must defend against, and to some extent refute it.

Long winded though this be, thank you Mr. Brayton for your article, and all of the enlightening posts following.

Posted by: John | July 9, 2009 10:58 PM

John - interesting post but I believe you missed the larger point. The people Ed refers to are making an argument tying their understanding of the DofI to Blackstone where the primary author of the DofI clearly would do no such thing. Blackstone is therefore moot when it comes to this argument.

Jefferson, while part of a drafting committee and in possession of numerous previous declarations of rights coupled to numerous Adams' speeches at this congress, was the primary author of the DofI. We have his original draft so we can discern the differences.

Jefferson's understanding of Blackstone tied to the words he wrote and which were approved by the drafting committee do matter greatly - Ed's reference to him is not only justified, but mandated if he's going to make a cogent argument. The only question really left begging is whether Jefferson in retrospect after the passion of the time faded preferred the corrected "self-evident" to his original "sacred" when claiming our rights in the DofI. I refer to passion because Jefferson was annoyed the committee didn't accept his unrealistic first draft without edit (which blamed the king for slavery); so much so he continued to distribute that copy. However, I believe "self-evident" is also more characteristic of Jefferson than "sacred", which is why I ask the question - we should remember Jefferson was a young man when he wrote the DofI and was in constant adaptation of his beliefs, where they became more liberal.

In addition, Ed did not dismiss Blackstone in entirety. Indeed, he makes the point that the Constitution clearly eradicates that portion of Blackstone's writings that tie church to state.

I would be interested in your take on Madison and Blackstone.

Are you a regular visitor here? Ed writes regularly about constitutional law and our founding so I hope you stick around and we see more illuminative posts from you.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 9, 2009 11:18 PM

Mr. Heath,

In response to your last, I have not been a frequent visitor of this particular blog, but was directed here from a good friends Twitter posting earlier today. I have now bookmarked it and will probably become a more regular reader. If a somewhat longwinded one!

In response. I think your statements that I missed the larger point somewhat valid. My preliminary response was to defend the superiority of Blackstone to Jefferson in terms of their legal expertise, knowledge and importance to the common law, and posterity in American Jurisprudence. The difficulty in finding a truly definite position on either man is a testament not only to their (Blackstone and Jefferson) relevance, but to their timeless ideals which have carried far further then they could have forseen.

It is fascinating to see how ideas of a single man, such as Jefferson, can be used to justify both the more left or liberal interpretation of the Constitution (in relation to, in particular, the separation of church and state etc.) and also the more right or conservative in terms of individual liberties, and the supremacy of states over federal rights. [And yes, I realize that was all one sentence ;) ] Such diversity in a singular personage of the Founding Fathers, has lead to more disputes then could possibly be imagined.

My understanding of Jefferson at the time the Declaration was written was that he was a young man who, under any other circumstances, would have been precluded from authoring so important a document, but given his singular talents as a writer and an expressionist of ideas, he was asked to pen the document under the supervision of older and (by some thought to be) wiser politicians. Which would explain why his original draft would have been modified.

More on the topic of common law, however, it is vital to note what it IS exactly. Common law, in it's simplest form is "judge made" law. Beginning with the Anglo-Saxons, and mingling with the Roman Tradition under Alfred the Great, much of the common law was in place before William the Conqueror took control of the island. That being said it is meant to be ever shifting, ever changing to meet the needs of the times. In the time of Jefferson, the common law almost certainly included aspects of the Bible in it. And these were absolutely tied with the English version, and were brought over to this country in much the same manner. Early American justices had the common law, which the colonies had used, as the basis for their decisions and included most English cases from before the Revolution, and most English statutes to 1800 (roughly speaking). This English law was used to make our own. But we did not act out of whole cloth as some would say.
Since that time the common law has again changed to include far less of the of the Bible, but there are certain elements that have echoes of Christian virtues. But one could make the argument that these are ideals of all virtuous people, and not the basis of one religion or the other.

The important distinction, however, between the far right, and Mr. Bayton's article is that the Founding Fathers, most of them Christians, had the incredible genius to do something that never before had been attempted. To establish a civil government outside of religion. Socrates was one who probably could be cited as the initiator of this ideal, but the Founding Fathers were the first to implement it. It is very important to note that this does NOT mean that the Founding Fathers did not use Christian principles in their reasoning for the Constitution, the Declaration and other important documents. They simply decided it was easier (and wiser) to avoid having a state religion, such as the Anglican Church, which caused so many problems in England.

This decision on their part has been the foundation on which the nation has grown for the last 233 years. Not without struggle but with toleration for the beliefs of others. At least in theory.

Once again I have managed to respond in an overly lengthy post. ;)

Posted by: John | July 10, 2009 12:06 AM

In splitting the difference between Michael and John, The Common Law by Holmes relies heavily upon Blackstone, although he is just one among many authorities cited. In addition, until Erie, the assumption was that there was a Federal Common Law. After 1938, this was no longer an option. So the folks here are only 70 years behind the times. Not bad by wingnut standards.

Posted by: kehrsam | July 10, 2009 1:09 AM

@John #30:

More on the topic of common law, however, it is vital to note what it IS exactly. Common law, in it's simplest form is "judge made" law. Beginning with the Anglo-Saxons, and mingling with the Roman Tradition under Alfred the Great, much of the common law was in place before William the Conqueror took control of the island.

It goes further back than that. I can't lay my hands on the (30 year old) copy of "History of the English legal system" that I used at university for cites, but the common law also incorporates pre-Roman customary law, as well as some elements of Roman law.

This is because much of English law was local law administered locally; one of the great innovations of the Normans (particularly Henry II) was synthesising a truly common law from the patchwork that existed before; the institution of circuit courts, regularising and facilitating access to the King's Courts is but one example.

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 10, 2009 4:32 AM

John, your scholarship is unconvincing and your apostrophe unreliable. And the 'truth gets its boots on' quote is not Pratchett but someone a fair bit older who would have been sadly amused at the association but not the error.

Jefferson is in bad odor with the christianists these days, though they still cite him when they think they can get away with it. They find him hard to understand and liable to slip into foreign tongues, and so they're working overtime trying to minimize the damage his correspondence has caused to their ridiculous interpretations of the Documents. You're going that way too, though politely (so far).

The paper-cutout version of the founders you push is unpersuasive. It feels to me like a noble attempt to bring your hopes and fears into alignment with the basic tenets of our government. Or, perhaps, bring the basic tenets of our government into alignment with your hopes and fears. These days biblicals seem to spend more time parsing Adams and Washington than they do the Old Testament. We hear that they were tame heroes, timidly innovative but really cautious; slightly unorthodox christians who still anticipated every nuance of batshit Oklahomans' jesus gyrations...but were otherwise just trying to disguise their sycophantic adherence to the English Way. Despite despising it in every other possible application.

Jefferson was a kindergartner in relation to...anything? He made a pretty persuasive brief in the letter, doing the whole French thing, getting his apostrophes right. You, not so much.

I don't believe Jefferson spoke for all of them, and politics played a part in this word and that freedom, but there it is in writing, clear as day. I can take my Occam's razor to the Constitution the way Jefferson took his to the bible and see in a moment that the founders agreed that the nation was secular, and secular it must be--unless the founders are rejected. You can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want religious tests, oaths on the Gutenberg Bible but only those covered in sheep vellum, prayer in school, and Sally Kern on a stamp, well, Red Rover, you're going to have to send Jefferson on over.
'The blanks are so many, the prizes so few!'

ice9

Posted by: ice9 | July 10, 2009 6:19 AM

Oops, forgot to properly quote democommie @25:

Citation, please.

I grew up Cath-O-Lick and was, eventually, cured; however in 59 years I have never met ANY Cath-O-Licks (and I know quite a few pretty nutty ones) who voiced support for a monarch to lead the U.S. government.

is the entire quote I was responding to.

And of course, just because YOU didn't meet Catholics who voiced support for monarchy doesn't mean they aren't out there. Note I didn't limit what I said about Traditional Catholicism to just American Traditional Catholics, either.

Look up "Carlism" in wikipedia, for instance.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 7:35 AM

James Hanley @29:
LOL. And after berating her mere days ago, I have to give Adrienne huge props today.

Gotta love this blog its commenters. You fight bitterly on one thread, you cheer each other on in another.

Although, as traditionally Jesus seems to be neither king nor lawgiver..

Answering from the Catholic viewpoint, since that's the one I'm most familiar with, there is precedent in that religion for revering Christ as a King (King of Kings, even).

My Opus Dei education included having us pray to Jesus the King and Mary the Queen of Heaven. Jesus didn't claim kingship for himself, but supposedly had royal blood through being related to King David. So goes the Christian mythos, anyway.

The wacko Traditionalist Catholics (to which Mel Gibson and his father belong) love to blabber on about "the Social Reign of Christ the King". As far as I can tell, this basically means having the very opposite of separation of Church and State, with the Church having power over what the State does.

DJ @31:
*Or worshippers of the Three Stooges, for that matter ;)

LOL. I wouldn't want to be around them when the Three Stoogeists started to argue theological details. Probably would get a bit rough, with bopping each other over the head and whatnot.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 9:02 AM

Answering from the Catholic viewpoint, since that's the one I'm most familiar with, there is precedent in that religion for revering Christ as a King (King of Kings, even).

Posted by: James Hanley | July 10, 2009 9:16 AM

Wallace Turner @43:
Always wondered why they don't just get the copy of the constitution from the National Archive and get the President to put his hand on that. After all, that's what document he's swearing to uphold.

Splendid idea, IMHO.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 9:29 AM

I wanted to echo James Hanley, I am rather impressed by how old the idea is that judge, lawgiver, and king are three seperate roles.

Posted by: Drekab | July 10, 2009 10:18 AM

DC @47:
Page not found.

Link had an extra comma.

http://integralcatholicsocialteachings.blogspot.com/2009/06/monarchy-political-solution.html

No google search turned up "monarchy"

Then you don't know how to search properly.

I just tried on Angelqueen, got lots of hits. First hit links to a post called: "Monarchy, Democracy, and Catholic views"

Fisheaters had similar hits.

There are more pro-monarchists on Fisheaters than on Angelqueen, but both have them. I know because I used to hang out on both places to be sort of a "Devil's Advocate". Got kicked off of AQ, probably would have gotten kicked out of Fisheaters had I stayed around longer.

Fisheaters and Tradition in Action are by far the most bizarre. The lady who runs Fisheaters is particularly anti-Semitic. Lots of holocaust deniers in both places too.

You said "lots" of Cath-O-Licks.

Learn how to read more carefully, please. I said "lots of *Traditionalist* Catholics", which are by definition a splinter group. They are part of the Religious Right fringe, except they hate fellow fringers who are Protestant "heretics". And actually, I'd wager to say that the majority of Traditionalist Catholics are pro-monarchy.

I don't know the number of Traditionalist Catholics worldwide. I would guess in the thousands, though. Maybe there are a couple thousand in the US? At least several hundred at the bare minimum, I'd guess.

There's a book about them I read a while back that probably gives more concrete numbers. I'll have to look on my bookshelf to see if I can find it.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 11:22 AM

I saw Jerry Boykin speak once. Although he didn't show us that famous picture of the devil in Somalia, he did tell us a story about how he prayed one of his buddies back to life after the man was hit by a mortar(which seems to imply that he deliberately let everyone who ever died around him perish.) At the same event, I also heard a speech by Tim LaHaye, who looks and sounds exactly like Howdy Doody's insane, evil twin. Good times.

Posted by: Awesome McCool | July 10, 2009 11:24 AM

Michael Heath @49:
I'm not sure this is being both correctly translated and properly understood in this forum. My RSV version, which I've always found to be more accurate, translates to judge, ruler, and king.

The two translations I found online, one of which was a Christian site (probably using KJV) and the other was the skepticsannotatedbible.com, do translate it as "lawgiver" rather than "ruler". But I do agree with the following conclusion you made:

I also think we may be reading too much into the aforementioned translation of the text by allowing our modern-day paradigm to filter our reading of this text.

The RR's attempt to retrofit the separation of powers concept to the Bible is just one of many examples of them doing this.

I've read attempts to retrofit a biblical reference to rivers in the ocean as proof of the Bible's scientific understanding of ocean currents. There's another Bible quote too that supposedly "proves" that the Bible speaks of a round Earth.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 11:31 AM

DC @53:

So, I can take that to mean a few lunatics?

A few thousand in the US, probably in the tens of thousands worldwide. Again, I'd have to go back to that book to get the real numbers. I will say, though, Traditionalist Catholics like to have *lots* of kids. Remember that Mel Gibson had seven himself and has an eighth on the way. They are trying to grow their numbers through reproduction.

Like I said, nobody I've ever talked to--and I've talked to thousands and thousands of people in this life--Cath-O-Lick or any other faith has ever told me that a monarchy would be a suitable form of government for the U.S.

Who cares? Your experiences aren't germane to the existence of Traditionalist Catholics or their beliefs.

So, I'll ask you again; "What's a "lot" of, in this case, a splinter group of pissed off schismatic fisheaters?

Already answered. Again, learn how to read comments in their entirety before shooting off responses that make you look dumb.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 11:42 AM

And actually, going back to Taz's comment @21 and the Pat Buchanan quote, I have to say I'm not surprised.

Buchanan is not overtly a Traditionalist Catholic, but he clearly is very sympathetic to many of their beliefs, especially the anti-Semitism and the belief that the Latin Mass is far superior to the "Novus Ordo" Mass.

I'm not surprised at all to find out that Buchanan is pro-monarchy.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 11:51 AM

Robin @57:

No, please, tread away. Thank you.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 12:56 PM

And of the Vatican's estimate, how many are monarchists? And of that number, how many are U.S. citizens?

Since this thread was originally about the theorgy of the necessity of using a bible for the oath taking of elected officials in the U.S., the number of "I don't like no church where they don't speak a language not in common use (except amongst the clergy and the highly educated) for nearly 500 years." who are U.S. citizens is, marginally germane. Since the folks who Ed's original post made fun of are, most likely, evangelical fundamentalists then the adherents to the "Whore of Babylon" are probably not terribly welcome around their bonfires.

If, say, 10% of those TMLRC (Traditionalist Monarch Lovin' Roman Catholics) ARE U.S. Citizens (a number that is probably wildly off the mark--sinc I've never heard of them on any blog that I've visited) then that would mean 6-700,000 or so. This website (http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm) pegs the numbrer of U.S. Catholics at > 64,000,000. If we go with the high end of a very generous estimate of how many TMLRC are U.S. Citizens (you say that you think they probably number around "A few thousand" in the U.S.) we're at around, lemmee see (democommie paws ground repeatedly to do long multiplication and division) something

Posted by: democommie | July 10, 2009 3:28 PM

DC, you completely missed the point of what I said on the subject. Neither I nor anyone else claimed that Traditionalist Roman Catholic monarchists were a threat to the US government. My original post was just pointing out that 1) anti-democratic Catholic monarchists do exist in the US and elsewhere and that 2) It's not surprising Pat Buchanan is one of them.

Again, don't forget not only to read the comments in full, but actually try *understanding* them for once.

sinc I've never heard of them on any blog that I've visited)

So you only judge the truth of things by your own experiences? Then why bother reading a site called "Scienceblogs" at all? Obviously, if you've never seen it/heard of it/read it on a blog, it can't be real, right?

You know, there's a saying around here that you should take to heart: "The plural of anecdote is not data".

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 3:55 PM

DC, you are so perenially clueless.

@63

You did not choose to do so, instead sending me some links that did not really answer the question.

My guess is that "a lot" of Traditionalist Catholics is probably in the neighborhood of 60%. That's my sense of it, having spent a few years hanging out and reading TC Web sites. The idea of "Catholic monarchy and its virtues" comes up quite a bit, and gets discussed quite a bit. There are some TCs who argue in favor of democracy, and while they are not an insignificant bunch, the monarchists definitely have the edge in terms of numbers.

If you learned how to search properly and found the large numbers of articles and posts on these Web sites that discuss and promote monarchy, you'd have some idea of what I'm talking about.

You've told me, twice now, that my experience is immaterial to the situation at hand

Because you don't have any experience. And in your mind, no direct experience with something apparently means that it doesn't exist.

...that my experience is trumped by your, what exactly is it of yours that trumps my experience? Your recollection of a book that you don't have near at hand? Your many years of research on the subject?

Yes and yes. I do have several years of experience in the subject. I was educated by Opus Dei at the secondary level, and they definitely have a strong pro-Spanish monarchy streak even though they are not TC.

And, yes, I have actually spent a few years hanging out on and reading TC message boards and Web sites and then blogs. Because of my Opus Dei and Catholic background, I had some perverse interest in this subject.

I believe I joined Angelqueen in 2003 or 2004 and wasn't kicked off until the Fall of 2008. I spent at least two years on Fisheaters too, until I finally reached my limit of disgust and interest and left.

I can't come up with absolute numbers, but it's logical to assume that if an idea is popular among a certain group, then that you'll see that idea promoted in that group's literature and frequently touted and discussed by that group's adherents.

You obviously don't know nearly as much about Catholicism as you claim, given that you had never heard of monarchists among Roman Catholics. Carlism has been around for a long, long time. And the fact that you had no idea that there are Traditionalist Catholic groups and blogs out there also speaks to your general cluelessness about Catholicism. I was aware of the TCs back in high school, when Marcel LeFebvre of SSPX fame was excommunicated. He was a staunch monarchist as well:

It is well-known that Lefebvre's movement has the solid backing of the European Monarchists who are still disgruntled at what they see as the 'betrayal' of Europe's monarchical 'tradition' by Pope Paul VI through his support for the implementation of the decrees of Vatican II.

(from http://jloughnan.tripod.com/lefebann.htm)

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2009 7:52 PM

My apologies for not replying earlier but my busy schedule has kept me from doing so

kehrsam @ 32 - Yes, absolutely there was the assumption that there was Federal Common Law up to the 1930’s but I’m not sure that that is germane in relation to whether at the time of Jefferson the Bible was part of the common law. It is highly relevant in how recent the wackos are though and your point is very well put. I must say I’m surprised that they are that up to date!

Nils Ross @ 33 - If you are looking for principles of life on which Christianity can claim to be solely theirs there are very few if any. Most of the principles expounded are found elsewhere as well, especially if one looks at Judaism. I would look to the Apostle’s Creed etc. if one seeks to find something inherently “Christian”. Or, at the expense of possibly offending Adrienne, to the Heidelberg Catechism. I think it not necessarily dispositive that the principles of 1) self governance, 2) the fallibility of man, 3) that a person has, and ought to have the right to some individual freedoms, are not exclusively Christian. I don’t think they have to be to still be considered “Christian virtues”. They ARE however principles which stood behind the creation of the nation along the lines of reasoning that says “If no one person is infallible, then we need to create a system of governance in which no one group has absolute power.” The entire idea of a ‘balance of power’ is arguably a Christian one. Although, as you point out, it isn’t necessarily one. Which is what makes the “Save Oklahoma” crowd so very wrong.

Robin Levett @ 34 - Well said! I am pretty sure I included something about Roman Tradition being part of the common law in my earlier post but I’m not sure there is any actual disagreement. I appreciate the exposition/clarification!

ice9 @ 36 - Yours is probably the saddest post to read, in the sense that you seem to have missed the point. It is true, as Pierce R. Butler mentions @ 59 that the quote can be attributed to Twain, but it can also be attributed to Winston Churchill, and Mark Twain with variations being attributed to Shakespeare, Charles Spurgeon, and Will Rogers. If you object to Pratchett saying it as well, I would direct your attention to his book “The Truth”. I doubt if many of the other ‘authors’ would be offended as much as, it seems, you were.
I would argue that Jefferson, at the time of the Declaration was a young, up and coming politician. He had less experience on the ‘national’ stage (if one can call it that) up to that point then Obama had when he came to the Presidency. His usefulness as a critic of the common law, and a dispositive authority for that purpose is limited at best. He was a child of the Enlightenment. Simply put he was better discussing philosophy then he was determining what was and was not common law. If you were arguing for his being one of the more eloquent, thoughtful and inclined toward philosophical leanings of the Founders I should have no disagreement whatsoever. As a critic of what is and what is not common law, however, even early American common law, I would far more readily side with Blackstone. And as one who can at least understand the foreign languages he used, I am much less inclined to be impressed by it.

You forget that our Founders did not despise the English tradition, as you say. It would be far more correct to say that they sought the reformation of it. If they despised the English tradition, this would be a far less democratic, jury led, Congressionally controlled land we would live in.

I am uncertain that the placement of ones apostrophe is particularly proportional to the correctness of one’s argument.

James Hanley @ 39 - I am not sure that what you said in this particular post disagrees so much with what I previously commented, as it clarifies it. I would only add that another reason (that I am aware of) Jefferson being the ‘author’ of the Declaration, was his position from a Southern state (which didn’t necessarily agree with Adams’ ‘radical’ Massachusetts beliefs.’

In relation to specific examples of Christian principles being used, I would point to those examples previously mentioned to @ 33. I think it important to note that Madison, also knew the importance of keeping religion and government separate (something I agree with to extent that it can be done). “Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;” [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt] is a prime example.

“Christian principles” are not necessarily indicative, however of a desire to put religion into government. Nor, to put government into religion. Both are equally distastefully to me and, I think to the Founders of our nation. The phrase however can be used to demonstrate that the Founders, at least the majority of them were indeed followers of the ‘Christian religion’ and as such, incorporated at least a part of those traditions into what they did. A prime example is the tradition of prayers in the Senate which we keep to this day. These are not indicative of the Founders endorsement of any particular religion, but rather speak to the fact that the Founders HAD a religion, but respected those of others as well.

That being said I think it highly important to say, once again, that the wrongness of the Reclaim Oklahoma crowd is not their quotes, it is their interpretation of them, and their placing an unfounded ideal behind what even Blackstone said. A fairly competent person can make any Holy Writ say whatever they want it to by taking it out of context and giving it a strange bent. The same thing is being done with the words of our Founders, and that is the real tragedy.

Taz @ 45 - I don’t think saying Jefferson ‘helped’ with the Declaration is either poorly written or deceptive. Jefferson certainly claimed the title of author to the Declaration, after it was safe to do so, but Adams was more accurately the man who had the ideas and the principles behind it.

DingoJack @ 55 - I think this is what you are looking for: כב כִּי יְהוָה שֹׁפְטֵנוּ, יְהוָה מְחֹקְקֵנוּ; יְהוָה מַלְכֵּנוּ, הוּא יוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ . I believe it is read from right to left, and I have no idea how it is pronounced.

Pierce R. Butler @ 59 - Indeed Hobbes was dead and gone but his philosophy was not. And Jefferson would have been almost certainly familiar with it, as he was familiar with that of John Locke. And Hobbes WAS one of the more famous agnostic/atheists of that particular time. As for being a geologist, no, sadly, I am not.

Not wanting to enter into the land of the Catholicism debate, I shall end here.

Posted by: John | July 10, 2009 11:51 PM

I am directing that question at a Rabbi of my acquaintance. I will get back to you on it.

Posted by: John | July 11, 2009 1:14 AM

Adrienne:

Ah, the other shoe drops.

You were one of those folks. My apologies for doubting your deep and sustained knowledge of their asshattery. You are of course correct. I don't have, nor could I obtain, the experience of hanging out with a bunch of morons like that for two days, let alone several years. I'm not sure whether to congratulate you for coming to your senses or wonder why it took so long.

But, you still haven't told me what a lot is, numerically or in percentage terms.

You're right in saying that I don't know a LOT about catholics, I just know a LOT of catholics.

Posted by: democommie | July 11, 2009 7:26 AM

@democommie # 70:

You were one of those folks.

To be fair to Adrienne, she did say that 30 posts before yours.

As for your #60; there are only roughly twice as many Jews worldwide as there are Traditionalist Catholics - albeit more than half of them are in North America.

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 11, 2009 11:59 AM

@John #73:

The Blackstone cite is indeed clear - but not in favour of your view. Please identify a specifically Christian principle enforced by the common law of his time.

(By the way - it took until the 19th century for the distinctions between the courts of equity and law to blur).

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 11, 2009 4:34 PM

@democommie # 75:

Adrienne did not say that she was "one of those". She said she was educated by Opus Dei at the secondary level. Until I re-read it I did not make that connection.

I'm not a former Catholic; I made the connection immediately I read the post (although she says she wasn't "one of those", the connection would give her an insight into the movement's thoughts).

One of Adrienne's points has been that you haven't been reading her posts carefully enough...

As for there only being several million jews in the U.S., I'm not sure what that is supposed to lead me to think.

You brought up the numbers adhering to a religion as being relevant to the point; I was pointing out that TC is on the same scale - certainly of the same order of magnitude - as Judaism. I wouldn't dismiss Judaism as trivial and unimportant...

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 13, 2009 8:56 AM