The Constitution--Compact or Unitary Compulsion?
Al Benson, Jr, tackles the issue of whether a state can secede unilaterally -- an increasingly hot topic as more independence movements take wing. I was particularly interested in this point:
Considering what we have undergone in this country since 1865, with the resultant apotheosis of Abraham Lincoln, we might be tempted to ask--in Lincoln's mind was the Union "god" and was he (Lincoln) the Union? Lincoln lovers won't like that question but it should be considered in the ongoing public forum regarding Saint Abraham.
Where did Lincoln get his concept of the Union as "eternal?" Only Almighty God is eternal. All else will pass away in time and history. In fact, if America does not turn from her present ungodly direction, the least she can expect from the Almighty may be the reduction to the status of some third world entity.
I've often referred to war supporters as "state-worshippers," and Al's comment is illuminating. As the central government takes the place of God in our lives, it assumes all the characteristics associated with divinity -- including being all-powerful. I think this mindset is behind Americans' passive acceptance of government intrusions into our privacy. After all, who would've predicted that Americans would allow the Federal government to spy on them without just cause, or jail them without knowing the charges against them? All in the name of "protecting us" from Islamomeanies. But isn't a good Deity supposed to look after his worshippers?
posted by Michael Tuggle @ Tuesday, March 25, 2008
43 Comments
43 Comments:
..
You might find this link interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carceral_state
Glad to see you're back in gear, Mike..
csason
Mike:
Just wanted you to know that I liked this post and the one on immigration so much that I linked them to The Ohio Republic.
Keep up the good work...
The Constitution WAS and STILL IS a 'compact between the states.' Each state acceded unilaterally; each state has the right to secede unilaterally.
Where do you find it in the Constitution that each state has the right to secede?
.
I know that individuals have the right to leave the country and to go to any place that will have them any time they wish.
Pinky:
Technically, the right of secession is a legal gray area, since the Constitution does not explicitly permit a State to secede.
However, a reading of The Federalist (#33, I think), and of the ratification statements referenced in Al Benson, Jr.'s piece should make it clear that the Founding Fathers, at least, considered secession to be a right.
.
Well, let's see if any state can get authorization with in the frame work of its own Supreme Law to provide the vehicle for secession.
.
When that happens, I think the majority of the remaining states will vote to forcefully prevent such a process from being enacted.
.
It's a dream that will never play.
So, it probably is true that we have more viable things to put on the table regarding our differences.
Looking at the past in some epistemological search is such a waste of intelligent people's time and energy. It seems we would be far better off to fix our mind of a vision for the future.
.
There is much work to be done.
Pinky, you're right to say that secession would be met with forceful prevention. Since 1865, this "union" has been held together by increasing force. The federal government, as envisioned by Lincoln, can't handle competition, therefore it must squash all viable contenders.
Pinky:
"Looking at the past in some epistemological search is such a waste of intelligent people's time and energy. It seems we would be far better off to fix our mind of a vision for the future."
I agree with what you wrote, but this is a vision for the future: living in nations that are conceived not only in liberty, but with a sense of human scale -- where ordinary people find that they really can influence their government, and participate in their economy and culture.
Will it be met with forceful resistance? Maybe. Is it an ideal worth fighting for? If the experience of about a million Americans who died in wars to protect their nation and the ideals on which it was founded is any indication, -- definitely.
.
And, so it looks as though we should fix our minds on a sticking place in the future rather than fighting for any truth that may have existed in the grand narratives of the past.
Pinky:
You say, "Where do you find it in the Constitution that each state has the right to secede?"
Amendment 9 - Construction of the Constitution. 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'
The grammatical construct known as the Constitution cannot, by its own volition, "deny" or "disparage" other RIGHTS "retained by the people."
and...
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'
Separation from (or discontinuing your membership in) a voluntary union, league, or compact was an inherent right according to common law. Wisdom and common sense exercised by the authors/editors of the grammatical construct placed this inherent right in an implied context. The Jeffersonian/Madisonian Founders knew this (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions): as freely as each state came into the union, each state could just as freely leave. Although the Hamiltonian Founders knew this, they did not want to acknowledge it. This common knowledge of secession faded within a generation or two. But, look for a new generation to raise the banner once more...
You know where I stand on this.
Pinky,
We do agree on one thing, however, there is much work to be done. Perhaps our constructive dialogue now will make the world a better place for our children.
The states never surrendered their sovereignty to federal control. The Constitution was written in order to protect the sovereignty of each individual state. The Union was voluntary not compulsory. Our nation was founded on the principles found in Vindicae contra Tyrannos, Lex Rex, and the like. Could one really suppose that men such as Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. would envision a compulsory union in which grievances left unattended could not be addressed by separation? It's a no-brainer. The fact that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force the perpetuity of the Union should give us a clue as to the scope of the powers retained regarding a state vote on secession. I guess, though, that Kosovo has a written clause in their "constitution" allowing for self determination. The fact that there are detractors to Southern secession in America just chap's this country boy's arse. It's just plain ignorance. Three cheers for public school and the "Yankee myth."
Mr Thomas,
I would like to opine that the Constitution's lack of language on seccession (correct me if I am wrong) implies a right retained by the states as references in Article X of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would never have been ratified had the Bill of Rights and particularly Article X not been added. Not (as you know) because the original document did not safeguard said rights, but the people desired "explicit" safeguards, knowing the tendency of rulers. The Constitution explicitly refers to very few of the rights retained by the states or by people and yet, they exist at least before 1865 anyway.
It seems incomprehensible to me that the founders would have adopted a constitution that gave them no right to secede after only a few years before having had to fight to secede from the British Empire.
The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a secession document.
Some of the New England states entertained the question of secession at least three times before 1860 and no one bothered to castigate them for that. There was much talk of secession right around the time the War of Northern Aggression started, even in the North. The right of secession was not questioned. And the Constitution also does not forbid secession.
Al Benson Jr.
In response to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798-99), the scoundrel Alexander Hamilton, who at that time was involved in building up the army, suggested sending it into Virginia on some "obvious pretext." Measures would be taken, Hamilton hinted to an ally in Congress, "to act upon the laws and put Virginia to the test of resistance."
The resolutions were submitted to other states for approval but with no success. In some northern states, newspapers treated the resolutions as military threats and replied with sinister foreshadowings of civil war.
(above excerpts from Wikipedia)
There you have it. Even before the dawn of the 19th Century, the supposedly "united" States were already divided. Like it or not, the Constitution was and is a compact. The union? Agree and you're welcome to stay. Disagree and you're free to go. Brethren, I say it's time to separate... peacefully.
Praefor pacis, instruo pro bellum.
Let's accept the idea that the states are able to secede from the union and to do it legally according to the U.S. Constitution.
.
What that says to me is that the individual states retain their sovereignty in relation to the union. So, Alabama, Hawaii, or any other state is able to secede from the union.
.
Now what?
.
Do the remaining states have the right to prevent any individual state from such a secession? Or, better yet, do the people of each individual state have the right to stop their state from making such a choice? What kind of a question would appear on a ballot with which such an order could be made? Many questions dance around the idea.
.
Take California, perhaps the state in which the people would more than likely be able to entertain such a resolution. Would such a item on their ballot be successful?
.
I doubt it.
The question is not whether the people of a particular state would vote for secession or not, but rather is secession by a state legal. Obviously if people in a particular state would not vote for a secession resolution then that state would remain in the Union. But, what if they did vote for a secession resolution??? Would it be legal?
Author Burke Davis,(no relation to Jeff) in his book "The Long Surrender" noted a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, telling Edwin M. Stanton that "if you bring these leaders (Davis and his cabinet) to trial, it will condemn the North,for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."
A special court for Davis' trial was headed up by Judge Franz Lieber, and this court, after studying over 270,000 Confederate documents in an effort to find something to convict Jeff Davis of informed the War Dept. that "Davis will be found not guilty, and we shall be completely beaten." Are you surprised that none of this ever made it into our "history" books?
Secession was not illegal. It was not treasonous, and Lincoln sacrificed over 600,000 lives, North and South, either killed or maimed to preserve his Marxist version of the "eternal Union."
Was the South right to secede? Yes! Would the Feds try to stop a state from doing it today? Most definitely! That doesn't mean it is wrong or illegal, it just means that the Feds have more money and guns than the rest of us, just like they did in 1861.
Al Benson Jr.
Rightly said Mr. Benson and brilliant post.
In the real world, the question is not whether secession is legal or not.
.
The question is, What would the rest of the states do about it?
.
You gotta be living in lala land if you think the question is one of legality.
Pinky:
You are correct that the issue is political as well as legal. It is legal, because Americans (other than criminals) respect the rule of law, at least in principle. If secession were blatantly illegal, there would be less support for it than there is.
It is true that the unionist States could decide to use force to hold the USA together; but that decision is a political one that may be very risky for US foreign policy, given that the USA officially has backed Kosova's secession, Taiwanese de facto independence, and American public opinion probably greatly favoring Tibetan independence.
In other words, I suggest that such rank hypocrisy comes at a price, which just might prove to be more than even Washington is willing to pay.
If the unionists do decide to use force, they will risk committing cultural genocide (especially if against the South, Vermont, Texas, or Hawaii; all of which have distinct cultures). If the second war between the states becomes long and bloody; Americans might just decide that letting the seceding states go would make more sense.
Secessionists accept the use of force against them as a risk; but as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Liberty is a tree watered by the blood of patriots."
Mr. Thomas,
Good post and I wholeheartedly agree. Thomas Jefferson more accurately said...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
And, as I said before...
Praefor pacis. Instruo pro bellum.
(Pray for [invoke] peace. Prepare for war.)
As long as you want to talk about the law, turn the question around.
.
Supposing a 2/3 majority of the states voted to cut one or more states out of the union.
.
How would that grab yah?
.
Pinky,
The problem with your previous question is that it assumes that the federal government (Congress) is sovereign of the states. This is an incorrect assumption. The states entered into the union voluntarily of their own accord and by no force of other states or nation (the first time).
Also the question of legality must be established because of the profound ignorance imparted by the government schools about the subject of seccession, the Second War for American Independence (or the War of Northern Aggression) and the Constitution. The first thing that must occur is for folks to realize that the secesh states were fully justified in seperation and that Lincoln Caesar became America's greatest tyrant by exercising authority that he did not have in invading and occupying the Confederate States of America, not to mention the thousands of US and CS soldiers killed in the process.
Although, I agree that the fruit is yet unripe, I cannot say that the discussion is impractical, rather the discussion is paramount. We absolutely must understand the philosophical side of the political debate.
Further, if a state was to secede, you could bet other states would indeed follow the lead. With that said, we have a battle ahead of us alone in educating the masses. With the "conservative" party continually compromising and taking up last decade's liberal causes, some true conservatives are becoming disallusioned and it is opening the door for serious discussion. Over the past three general elections the Constitution Party has grown in number and votes because of this. Here in 2008, true conservatives voiced their dissapointments in the primaries by voting for Ron Paul. The numbers are growing and we need to be prepared to answer the critics and inform the others. That can only be done by "nailing down" the legal and political philosophies of Constitutional government as prescribed by our Framers.
In short, I would say that "in the real world," the legality and responsibility of states (in order to protect its citizens from tyranny) is the first question that needs to be addressed and answered with a unified voice. Without answering unequivocally this fundamental question, we are back to square one asking, "How can our grievances be redressed?"
.
This is in response to damoncrowe in his post just above.
.
Yupper, I can agree with you in much of what you've posted.
.
But, the larger question is that it's all rhetoric. Yet, it's good to get our thoughts--out and on the table--so we can see what effect they have on each other. I don't say you are right in your thinking and I don't say you are wrong.
.
But, you and others who think along those lines need to dialog with others like myself who think at least some of what you're positing is like a coon dog barking at the moon.
.
Pinky:
"But, you and others who think along those lines need to dialog with others like myself who think at least some of what you're positing is like a coon dog barking at the moon."
...which is what I thought we were doing. You are witnessing a movement that is still very young (I think most would agree that the current secession movement began in 1991 with the discussion that took place as part of Vermont's Bicentennial). While our ideas are well established in American constitutional theory, we have a long struggle ahead to persuade the general public that it will benefit from decentralization.
Several posts in The Ohio Republic have commented on secessionists appearing too much to live in an ivory tower. While I believe that events will boost our cause, we need to continue developing our p.r. capabilities.
Yes (to use a Biblical analogy), ours are voices crying in the wilderness; but the day will come, very likely within the next decade, when those voices will be heard by the American people, and they will not sound so strange after all.
.
Before I answer you, I have to say that anyone who sports a beard like yours can't be all bad. I have one like that myself.
.
A movement?
.
You get there as a result of the conversations you have built up around the words you use. Try using someone else's words to see if your movement still stands.
.
I'm not knocking or mocking what you promote. I think it is valorous and quite a worthy pursuit; but, it isn't in synch with the times which are more post industrial than postbellam to say the least.
.
If we're going to pull the rabbit of Christianity out of the hat, we should be addressing such things as social justice.
.
Do you think?
My intention was not to "pull Christianity out of a hat", only that I thought the analogy was apt.
I also agree that we need to concentrate more on social justice; but that social justice will be more easily achieved within smaller communities, where all the parties concerned can work out the problems together; as opposed to a massive Federal government, which tends to attempt the resolution of one injustice by creating another.
Can I call you Harry?
.
Here's a problem for consideration when it comes to working out the problems at the local community level; which, in fact would be wonderful if it were possible.
.
But, the problem is more pervasive and brought about by post industrial society. And, if we like it or not has no bearing.
.
The facts are that technology has entered our society and we are~~once again~~involved in a world market. Communism has, more or less, disappeared. The Iron and Rice Curtains have fallen. Russia and China are wide open. Capitalism is on the grow like it has never been seen before.
.
Production comes with less work exactly at the time more work is needed for those idled by technological advances. There are NOT enough jobs to go around and~~especially~~not enough well paying jobs.
.
How will we gain social justice at the local level? Who will foot the bill?
.
I prefer Harold, stuffy as that may sound.
If you think about it, all economics is ultimately local. It all starts because you make a decision to spend your money on something you want. The "global economy" is made possible not only by the Internet, but by what used to be cheap oil that enabled the transportation of things from faraway places.
That era is coming to an end. There is too much competition for what is (allowing for some discoveries here and there) a fixed amount of oil. Consequently, the price of shipping imports from places like China will soon become prohibitive. This creates an opportunity to rebuild domestic manufacturing, and will create a need for real jobs (though not perhaps as soft or as much fun as we've been used to).
And you're right, the jobs will not be as well paying, and we will not (at least on the short run) maintain our standard of living. But we will survive and discover that there is more to life than material wealth. I'm not saying I'm for poverty -- I want to have food, clothing, and a warm home in the winter, along with a few less basic needs. But, we can structure society so my wife and I could need only one car instead of two (and maybe none!), we can learn to live without strawberries in March, and to wear clothes that last instead of throwing them out after one season.
It will be an adjustment, a harsh one for many; but one we will have to make if we want to get past oil, terrorism, funny money, Big Brother, and unsustainable lifestyles.
However, I don't think we will have to go as far as some Vermonters who are actually talking about going back to horses and subsistence farming. To expect to go to that extreme understimates our American ability to innovate.
As to social justice at the local level, it need not be costly. It is to return to old-fashioned charity. Neighbor giving neighbor a hand up, a job opportunity, some helpful advice.
The social welfare programs are a symptom of the problem of too much government at too high a level.
Well, Harold, l see where you are coming from.
.
Time will tell if you are correct.
.
Capitalism is out of the bottle and I don't think the big boys are going to accommodate your erstwhile dreams.
.
What you are facing at the local level~~unless~~there is a major change in America's approach toward things economic, is a feudal system that will be tantamount to the antebellam days of the South complete with a new type of indentured slavery.
.
Sad to say.
.
.
Pinky:
I imagine that's what a few people said in 1776, too. The question is, are we brave enough and committed enough to ensure that the system you envision does not occur?
Or will we just say "Oh, the capitalist élites are too much for us, there's nothing we can do" and accept the indentured servitude like sheep? In which case, we will get exactly what we deserve.
/
Harold wrote, Or will we just say "Oh, the capitalist élites are too much for us, there's nothing we can do" and accept the indentured servitude like sheep?
.
Not me! I'll fight the bastards to my death.
.
But, back to charity. I think we can manage charity as a society. I know a lot of so-called conservatives will balk; but, social justice requires we do more than give lower classes a hand out. They need health care, education, and discipline training. It is a societal responsibility.
.
Some people call it socialism. I call it investing in America's future.
.
Also, we need to implement make work programs. I think a Civilian Conservation Corps is in order. And, the draft sounds pretty good to me as well. We could teach an entire generation some discipline.
.
Of course, that will require an increase in our taxes; but, I would rather pay my taxes to the government than I would to the oil cartels and the giant multinational corporations and credit card companies. Or don't you think the profits they make amount to a tax?
.
You just can shut dialog down on these points. We MUST have open discourse or else, we will be taken down.
In my last post, I wrote, You just can shut dialog down on these points.
.
THAT was in error.
.
It should have read, You just can NOT shut dialog down on these points..
.
Sorry about that.
Pinky and Harold,
I am loving the dialogue on this issue. This is what we need and I think what you are referring to Pinky. The one thing that needs to be addressed at this point is the social justice issue that Pinky brought up.
Pinky, what you seem to be referring to is indeed socialism and God Almighty does not give that authority to the state. That is given to the church and the individual and can only be accomplished in communities. I hate to use a non-voting culture such as the anabaptists (Mennonites and Amish) to illustrate the point, but they care for their neighbors and not just the Christian neighbors. Before the government became soooooo involved in healthcare, you could find charity hospitals particularly by denominations. Now those same hospitals carry the same denominational name, but are so over regulated that they are unable to operate their services.
Education is the biggy...Education is neccessarily indoctrination. When given to the hands of the state, it neccessarily becomes statist. Before all of this centralization of healthcare and education, the churches were reaching out to the neglected. There was a time when the "down-trodden" lined up at the church and got the gospel as they got the welfare. Now they line up at the government offices and then go and vote for the candidate that promises the "mostest to the mostest." Further, the church would refuse to give hand-outs to the slothful, the sodomites, whoremongers, or those generally "living" in sin refusing to repent of said sin.
As far as investing in the future, one only need to look at early America and its missionary endeavors with the Indians and poverty stricken. One only need to do some serious research on this subject to see that it worked much better than the government system of welfare.
So to summarize, not only is privatized welfare more practical, it is Biblical. One more example could be the Katrina catastrophe in which if the DHS had gotten the he!! out of the way, help would have been able to get through the numerous barricades and given aid to those who truly needed it in mercy, not in messianic government promises that never come to pass. Sorry to seem hard on your opinions, but, although I am yet aged, I identify with Old Presbyterian theology that rediscovered liberty, secession, and God's law. I do believe that your position is one of compromise and again, I mean no antagonism in saying so. I do hope this dialogue continues for as you have said, it is very useful and needed.
.
Heh heh heh
.
Socialism, eh?
.
You have pulled the rabbit out of the hat and you expect me~~and others~~to applaud you with resounding amens and halleluyahs.
.
Some will, I won't.
.
My position is more to the point of what is going on in the real world today.
.
You are propounding a sectarian view of reality just like what is going on in the world of Islam only with a different twist. They~~too~~see charity as a responsibility laid on them from God. The problem with that in our~~secular~~society is that it is the system we already have. Geedubya pulled another one of his perverted liberal tricks on us with his "Faith Based Initiatives". Patooey!!
.
You must have forgotten the Robber Barons and the others in America's history that raped and pillaged the land in their quest to leave charity up to the "church" to which you say God gave the authority to look out for the poor.
.
If I vote with the majority in a democratic election to extend free public education through to a four year college level, then I know it will be reality. If I leave it up to some "church" to extend education, I have an idea the students will be~~indoctrinated~~into some form of sectarian belief or another--hopefully nothing too radical.
.
Socialism has come to be a dirty word in the mouth of capitalists; because of why? Can you answer that?
.
Pinky,
I expect no applause from you or anyone. That is a straw man. You first used the term "socialism" in an earlier post. I want to try to address what you have said without attacking you. I am attempting to critique your political philosophy and that's all. In doing so, I should point out that you seem to keep referring to "the real world” and “reality." I am not really sure how to respond to it, but it seems that it is...transcendent to your philosophy? I am not sure and perhaps you can elaborate.
I do not deny that I advocate a sectarian view, but I am unaware of how that is inferior to a “secular view.” If you vote for expansion of government schooling, you are voting to take money away from me to fund it. Robin Hood was no hero. He was a THIEF! Furthermore, government schooling has been a huge disaster, so even pragmatically it is a bad deal.
You are correct to assume that "church schools" will indoctrinate its pupils. Education is necessarily indoctrination. What kind of education taught us that the War of Northern Aggression was a war about slavery and teaches children how wonderful “Ol' Honest Abe" was and that he freed the slaves? In the same way that you may not want to fund radical Islamic indoctrination, I despise funding statist, humanistic, agnostic indoctrination. I will not ever vote for the government to force you to fund my child’s Calvinistic education, but you would vote to force me to fund an education that I oppose. I am not sure how that could make your political philosophy morally superior or conducive to true liberty. In fact, one major advantage of secession would be the casting off of the bureaucratic black hole that we call “public education.”
As for why socialism has become a "dirty word," one reason is because those of us who employ ourselves and work HARD for our money are tired of providing welfare to those who are too lazy or "too good" for menial employment. Further, liberty cannot survive in a socialistic society and it produces the “least common denominator” culture.
As far as Bush's "faith-based initiative," it was pandering to evangelicals ignorant of Biblical and Constitutional government. It was an unconstitutional "act" that never did receive the funding promised. Bush made great promises to the evangelicals to get elected (like most politicians do for some group), then put the whole initiative in a closet on a top shelf. Why not? Who will know and he gets to look pious! As a Christian, I despised this piece of legislation, not because it was "faith based," but because it was more "rob from the rich and give to the poor" thievery wrapped up in bad Christian doctrine.
I will not address the part about the raping and pillaging by the “Robber Barons,” because you are taking an example of abuse and implying that the whole system is wrong. One could do the same thing with nearly anything. For example, marriage is evil because abusive men beat their wives. Education is bad because so many graduates are functionally illiterate. I believe this is a “converse accident” fallacy. Again, I have no interest in attacking you as we may get along fine otherwise.
In response to damoncrowe.
.
I think you are zeroed in on the appropriate issues.
.
If you think I don't agree with you, think again.
.
We get so wrapped up in finding fault and fixing blame that we often ignore the causes of our problem filled times.
.
The very idea that we associate conservatism with the Republican Party and liberalism with the Democratic Party shows that we don't think below the surface.
.
As far as taking money from you to fund my ideas of what education should be like, well, there's not a lot can be said as we do have a democratic form of government. That's the way things are and we have to live with them until we change them.
.
Except for this. We need dialog and a LOT of it.
.
But, when we vote for machine driven political leaders like the Clintons and so many others at the national, state, and local levels, we give up our personal responsibility to figure things out. I heard someone talking on C-span this morning who said, "We could figure out the answer to our Social Security problems in a good four hour discussion", or something very close to that. And we could, except for the hassles our politicians get from the private interest groups.
.
So, I am in agreement with much that you write. I wouldn't want to see a socialist run government any more than I like seeing the multinationals taking the reins of government away from us for their greedy purposes.
.
Maybe we could talk about ways we can overcome the problems with which we are faced rather than just "kicking against the barbs"?
.
Ya think?
.
Pinky,
I think we are at the point to dialogue right now and I am relieved that you do not deal harshly with "me." Thank you. I do like what you said about conservatism as related to the two parties. I have researched this and I in fact see that originally the Democratic Party advocated liberty, while the Republican Party looked to centralization. It is funny that I live in a very conservative region that generally tends to vote Democratic. Despite almost 150 years of "peace," there is still a familial despise of the Radical Republicans even though at one point in history, they changed their platforms. I tremble at the implication that Lincoln (the first Republican president) embodies Conservativism. What I also quiver at, though, is the election of the "neo" Democrat.
It is a farce to believe that either party is a supporter of individual or state liberty. This is the problem with the monopolistic two party system that we have to deal with.
As far as "your" vote about education...aside from politics as they are, that comes down to principle. I, knowing that the civil magistrate cannot TAKE money from me to indoctrinate other's children, would not even vote to have such done even if available for my own beliefs. Judging from what you have said previously, I think when faced with the decision, you would not actually vote to force me to fund humanistic, statist education just because a rogue government gives you that "viable" option. From some of the things you have said, I think you are better than that. If we are a completely democratic society, then give us 100 more years and see what the masses will institute. If 100% of a Muslim populace that totals 33% of the total population votes for exclusively Islamic "welfare," there is a real possibility of real legislation regarding that. My point is that despite being a democratic Republic, in out "new" democracy, it is the voice of the mob that rules even if it is contradictory to our covenant with government.
I appreciate your comments very much and I look forward to more dialogue. I will say in closing that, although we may have a democratic "FORM" of government (democratic republic actually), the actual actions the government may take are indeed restricted by the Constitution. Education is not one of them and it would compromise your position to imply otherwise. If indeed, federal education is legislated by the majority, then what is your redress when crazy christians, tree hugging atheists, or fundamentalist Muslims make up the majority of five or six voting "cultures?" I do think you are more principled than to argue for limitless democracy.
Once again, thank you for taking time to respond to my long-windedness and being candid.
...
Maybe the most obvious thing here is that we live in postmodern times.
Which is to say that the times--they are a changing--and there's not a lot either of us is going to do about it.
Except we can talk.
Maybe we need some new words and maybe we should open our minds to what it is that each other is trying to say.
I want to understand your position which seems so right; but, at the same time, opposed to what cannot be stopped.
Events fill our every day. Some of the greatest jerks of all time have ascended to the highest positions of power and authority in the world. GeeDubYa is an outstanding example of some cowboy out of the postbellum nineteenth century trying to get as many notches in the stock of his rifle as possible.
There is more than enough mischief for a jerk like that to get into. He is the ultimate existentialist looking for his final breath in some dry gulch of the wild west--a damn fool gunslinger.
But, we are real people and our experience is as real as it can get.
Our children and grand children are living and breathing and they suffer from inadequate opportunities to enjoy what little time there is. What? Some 80 years or so more or less? And it should be filled with the kind of argumentation we find at every turn?
Why should anyone want to return to the antebellum South when what we really want is to have happy relationships in our own time.
Can we just have a good time? Cook steaks on the grill in our own back yard--invite the neighbors over? I don't want to join a bunch of night riders to get back at someone who got back at me from getting back at them when I was just trying to get back at them and on and on and on.
I want to build.
I think the apostle Paul is one of the most important philosophers of Western Civilization.
.
And, one of the most undervalued of all time.
.
He represents a particular type of thinking that allows us to see ourselves in a most unusual way--that of change agent--you and me--the reader and the author.
.
The apostle Paul took what had been and turned it around to be something new. Yes, he promoted his views as they came to him through the messages put out by Jesus--no doubt. I agree with that. But, the Pauline Gospel is specific and it is different from what might have been had it not been for his philosophy on life which has to do with transcendence, i.e., getting beyond where oneself finds himself.
.
Postmodernism offers us the opportunity to do just that. Instead, we have so many of us kicking against the barbs just like Paul did early on.
.
Postmodernism has~~within it~~opportunities to help each one of us be change agents.
.
There are ideas in postmodernism that just don't exist in modernism.
Post a Comment
<< Home