It's always fun seeing the Worldnutdaily weigh in on church and state issues. They can predictably be seen pushing the "Christian Nation" idea to their credulous readers. I've documented the false claims on this subject that regularly appear there. The latest bit of nonsense comes from columnist Kelly Hollowell. Here it is, in all its...glory:
The Founding Fathers of America understood this human tendency. It actually gave rise to and provided justification for the principle of separation of powers in the establishment of our republic. This, our system of checks and balances, is a fundamental trait of our current democracy. So where did the founders discover the principle of separation of powers?Before I tell you, you might want to send any ACLU supporters out of the room. That done, look up and read Isaiah 33:22. This chapter and verse makes clear that only God can be our lawgiver, judge and King. That means for man it might be best to divest these powers into three separate bodies. If you separate the three out you have the basis for a legislature, judiciary and executive branch - get it? And there you have it - separation of powers as a Judeo-Christian principle.
Naturally, I had to follow her advice and go read Isaiah 33:22. Here's what it says:
For the Lord [is] our judge, the Lord [is] our lawgiver, the Lord [is] our king; he will save us.
That's it. Her proof that the Founding Fathers got the idea of separation of powers from the bible is a single verse that in point of fact says that all three powers are invested in God. Boggles the mind, doesn't it? See, historical scholars look at the concept of separation of powers and trace it back to two men primarily, John Locke and Montesquieu. Locke, in his 1690 book Civil Government, advocated separating the powers of government between an executive and legislative branch. Montesquieu, in his 1748 book Spirit of the Laws, added a judicial branch to Locke. And surprise, surprise, those are the three that we have.
Even the strongly Christian conservative Claremont Institute says of Montesquieu, "His description of the separation of powers made him a crucial source for the Founders." Even the ardent Christian Nation advocate Russell Kirk has argued that, "At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, no man would be more frequently cited and quoted than Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu...All of Montesquieu's writings were eagerly read, in youth, by many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and drew up the Constitution of the United States; others absorbed Montesquieu's ideas at second hand through Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England."
Indeed, if one wants to know from where the founders got the idea of separation of powers, one might want to look at the Federalist Papers, the series of essays by Madison, Hamilton and Jay explaining and defending the new Constitution. Federalist #47, written by Madison, was on that very subject. To whom does Madison attribute the concept? Let's take a look:
The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject (separation of powers, ed.), is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying, and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavour in the first place to ascertain his meaning on this point.
Aww hell, what would Madison know about it? Who are you gonna believe, the Father of the Constitution, or Kelly Hollowell? Clearly, she has discovered the truth, that the real source of separation of powers is a bible verse that says the opposite. See, in order to find the Truth, you have to be in the secret compartment of the treehouse with decoder ring. Only then can you understand such esoteric connections, hidden even from those who wrote the document themselves. Her argument is, in fact, so stupid that I think perhaps it deserves an Idiot of the Month award, but since this is only the third day of the new month, I'll just say we'll place it up for consideration.
- Log in to post comments
As a christian who woudl describe himself as a fundamentalist ( i.e. i believe the bible is divinly inspired and that the accounts are true but put no credence in actual dates i.e. i dont believe the earth is only 6,000 yrs old )i find comment like those made by Hollowell to be incredibly stupid and in fact i believe such people actually in their arguments limit God and his powers . they should actually take the time to read and understand their bibles especially when trying to attribute earthly concepts like time , evolution with something that is well beyond the reason of this planet . it is almost laughable that they can make wild claims like our all knowing creator couldnt use things like evolution in his plan . such wild claims should be even more proof that we are no where nor ever will be a christian nation
I love your blog and agree wholeheartedly with your skewering of this nonsense. However, I do think you are misreading Hollowell's point. She is saying that ONLY god can handle these three powers together; god doesn't need the separation of powers. But we mere mortals recognize that we can't be god, that we are imperfect, that maybe we should divide the powers up to protect ourselves from ourselves. Thus I think she is saying that the concept of three different powers (legislative, executive and judicial) has its origin in this verse. No one would have ever thought of it if it hadn't been for good ole Isaiah. I agree with you that these statements are ridiculous, but I don't think it is correct to say that she is contradicting herself. Quite the opposite, she is frighteningly consistent!
Great blog! Keep up the intelligent and funny analysis.
I love your blog and agree wholeheartedly with your skewering of this nonsense. However, I do think you are misreading Hollowell's point. She is saying that ONLY god can handle these three powers together; god doesn't need the separation of powers. But we mere mortals recognize that we can't be god, that we are imperfect, that maybe we should divide the powers up to protect ourselves from ourselves.
I know that's what she is saying, but the verse doesn't say that. The verse just says God is all three things. It says absolutely nothing about separating those powers in the human sphere. Indeed, the bible goes into a lot of detail on the structure of government of ancient Israel, a government authorized by God himself, and there was no such separation of powers. Furthermore, it was a theocratic monarchy. Given that, trying to read this verse as supporting separation of powers in a democratic republic is at best wishful thinking and willful ignorance; at worst, it's downright delusional.
Hey Ed,
great entry. The absurdity of citing such a bible verse aside...
Obviosuly, by citing such a verse, Hollowell is trying to emphasize that the government should answer to God, and there should be no church/state separation. However, what is so funny about such arguments, is that she is arguing from a distinctly religious perspective- I mean, luthern-chritian, baptist-christian, etc.
So, say that we SHOULD all answer to God (which ever one that is)- who's interpretation should we follow?
No bible verse for that. If there was, we should only have one denomination of Christianity.
It's funny that people like Hollowell forget that.
I vote your rename this blog: "Twilight of the Oxygen Theives." It sounds almost hopeful.
The People are, indeed, a great beast.
E
Unbeliever. Next you'll be telling us that the Founders at Philadelphia didn't get the idea of a federal republic from the Iraquois nation.
This is nonsense. Everyone knows that the founding fathers of our great nation derived the idea of a tripartite government from the mystical properties of the Triforce.
G-Do: That's why the Third Amendment has an explicit prohibition against the quartering of Octoroks and Zolas in a time of peace.
In point of fact, the idea that Isaiah suggested "separation of powers" of human government is ludicrous. It should be obvious that Isaiah was saying that no human government was necessary--because their God (the judge, the lawgiver, the executive) was their government. Of course, the Pharisees would divine the will of God in any particular matter, but that was another issue. BTW, the Federalist Papers suggest that there was an issue regarding whether the Supreme Court should be a separate branch or a part of the Senate--as the supreme court in Britain was apparently a gremium of the House of Lords. This is discussed in FP 78 or so, where the issue of what came to be referred to as "judicial review" (reference, Marbury vs. Madison) was also discussed.
One thing that I have long wondered about the Hollowells among us--is their faith really so weak that they would resort to tactics like this? I guess it is.