Positive Liberty

One of the talking points of the wingnuts is America is a republic not a democracy. Although a few folks I respect have said such (notably Walter Williams), most folks who parrot this line don’t know what they are talking about. America is and was founded to be a democracy, a liberal democracy in fact. “Democracy” simply means “voting” — if there are legitimate elections, then there is “democracy.” (If the elections are a sham, then it’s a “banana republic” so to speak.) America’s Constitution provides for elections, ergo America is a democracy. The term small l “liberal” simply means there are individual rights that majorities cannot abridge. So that’s liberal democracy in a nutshell. Elections by the majority with individual rights that the majority cannot abridge. Continue Reading »

For the moment….

Google has digitized the entire volume of Bird Wilson’s “Memoir of the Life of the Right Reverend William White.” White was an Episcopal Bishop and presided over the church in Philadelphia George Washington attended as President. He gives key eyewitness testimony that Washington systematically avoided communion in his church. He also testifies that Washington didn’t kneel when praying and kept his mouth shut on his religious specifics. His assessment is fair and balanced; he doesn’t as did the minister in that church, Dr. James Abercrombie, claim this meant Washington was a Deist or not a “real Christian.” But he doesn’t make excuses for Washington either. Pages 188-200 reveal a number of his letters on the matter.

I was at a Convention to elect the President. It was a tight race and apparently electors had to decide. Obama, Clinton, or McCain (I seem to remember a few others) were virtually tied and one super-delegate held enough votes to decide the election. And then he (I think it might have been Bill Clinton) gave the votes to me and said you decide. I walked up to John McCain and said, “Thank you for what you did for your country, Mr. President.” I expected to be interviewed on the media afterwards.

After that I remember hanging around Morrisville, PA (originally owned by Founder Robert Morris), next to where I live in Yardley, where the town all of a sudden had working class, Philadelphia like, row-homes (they don’t) which magically transformed into a long stretch for miles of an indoor like apartment building with hallways where the uniqueness and privacy of the row-home was still preserved. I can’t remember whether I was walking or driving through the hallways.

I’m still planning to vote Libertarian by the way. Rather, I see this as a prophecy.

Dr. Benjamin Rush was one of the earliest notable American opponents of the Death Penalty. As will be seen, his anti-capital punishment position was derived from his understanding of the Bible. Regarding his theology, Rush described it as “a compound of the orthodoxy and heterodoxy of most of our Christian churches.” Basically, formerly a Calvinist, he converted to Arminianism, remained orthodox on matters of original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and atonement, but believed in universal salvation through Christ’s universal atonement. In short, he was a liberal Trinitarian Christian Universalist.

You can read the primary source on googlebooks, indeed a book so old that the “s’s” still look like “f’s.” He notes the case of the woman about to be stoned to death for adultery — a capital crime in Old Testament times — where Jesus forbade her execution. Though Rush doesn’t explicate it, the literal meaning of Jesus’ words “Let he who is WITHOUT sin,” suggests that only God (or if Jesus were not God, a uniquely sinless human like him) is qualified to implement capital punishment. WITHOUT Sin. Not “you may have problems of your own, you hypocrite,” but WITHOUT Sin.

Here is a short passage from Rush’s writings. By all means, read the entire context.

[W]hile I am able to place a finger, upon this text of scripture, I will not believe an angel from heaven, should he declare that the punishment of death, for any crime, was inculcated, or permitted by the spirit of the gospel.

It’s the same theologically liberal hermeneutic of, instead of appealing to specific “proof texts,” abstracting general principles from the “spirit” of scripture to reach specific conclusions not mentioned therein, that also made the Christian case against slavery. The Bible nowhere specifically abolishes slavery; to the contrary many specific texts recognize its validity. It’s only by taking the principle that because all men are created in God’s image, they are equal, and then applying that to slavery, that the “spirit” of the Bible likewise can be said to be anti-slavery as it is anti-death penalty.

The death penalty and slavery are good examples of social issues where the Bible gives no clear cut answer and texts can be offered on both sides. (On slavery, I’m inclined to argue the Bible is a pro-slavery book, or at least one utterly unconcerned with its abolition.) History, not hermeneutics, answers the question. History has answered the question with slavery; it’s still out on the death penalty.

You can always count on WorldNetDaily to express such an unreal understanding on homosexuality. WND produces two articles about an antigay administrator at the University of Toledo who was suspended for writing an antigay column. Time permits me to discuss only a few points.

First, whatever the legal or constitutional issues involved (whether this is a private school not bound by the First Amendment or a state school that is), it was lame to punish this woman for writing the column. There is plenty wrong with what this woman wrote; and the best way to counter that is to criticize her with more speech, exactly what I’m doing.

Here is one of the offending paragraphs, illustrating her poor argumentation:

“As a black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.

Continue Reading »

Alexander Hamilton’s “The Farmer Refuted” is a classic piece of American literature justifying rebellion against Great Britain. Less well known is the fact that Hamilton was replying to Tory loyalist, the Reverend Samuel Seabury, the first American Episcopal bishop. This page collects the pieces of literature to which Hamilton was responding. I’m fairly certain it was the third one down, this one, to which Hamilton specifically responded.

Regarding the theological implications of the letters, I’ve already conceded traditional Christianity to be compatible with both sides. When Hamilton wrote “The Farmer Refuted” in 1775 he didn’t have any kind of established record as an orthodox Christian, while Seabury, as an Anglican minister, certainly did.

The content of “The Farmer Refuted” certainly has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity but rather relies on theistic naturalism and rationalism to advance its claims. In short, it is an Enlightenment, not a Christian document. Here are some highlights: Continue Reading »

Rev. John MacArthur is sort of a poster boy for traditional, Calvinistic, fundamentalist Christian theology. He also commands the highest respected within those circles. When notable evangelicals and Catholics signed a statement forming a socially conservative political alliance, he was one of the first to caution against the potential blurring of their profound theological differences. And he has chastised Billy Graham (and the Pope) for intimating that non-Christians perhaps will be saved. He also teaches literal 6-day creation. In short, he is the antithesis of a theological liberal. And this theology is not my cup of tea, at all.

As I’ve noted before, one thing I admire about MacArthur is the way he keeps his faith pure from political whoring, the consequences be damned. His understanding of Romans 13 demands concluding that the American Revolution was conceived in sin, that the Declaration of Independence is an anti-biblical document. I will charitably conceded alternate literal interpretations of Romans 13; I just want the other side to understand the strong biblical grounds for MacArthur’s view and the longstanding tradition it has in orthodox hermeneutics. Continue Reading »

Read my interview at Fearful Symmetries. I spent quite a few hours working on this; but that was only because the questions were so outstanding.

Today is the National Day of Prayer. Here is the groups website, complete with the mythical picture of George Washington, on his knees praying at Valley Forge (Washington was a man of prayer, but didn’t pray on his knees; the reason why I say it’s mythical is because scholars have debunked that the incident ever occurred). I don’t know much about this group. To the extent that it is a private organization I don’t care about what it does or how it prays. However to the extent that this group is endorsed by government, it should be praying in generic monotheistic prayers only because that, not Christian theology, is what America is founded on.

The first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln never publicly prayed in Jesus’ name (neither do we have records in their private writings doing so). Further, they believed in natural religion, which holds all good men of all religions (regardless of whether they are “Judeo-Christian”) worship the same God. It was this natural religion that gave “all good men” access to the Deity that was key to forming America’s public theology.

In his column Roy Moore recognizes that generic prayers are not consistent with orthodox Christian theology.

Sadly, too many judges today like to call prayer and other civil acknowledgments of God mere “ceremonial deism,” a historic relic that has no “religious” significance. In fact, in cases involving public prayer in courts and legislative bodies, only those traditions that have decades or more of history behind them tend to survive legal challenge. Unfortunately, that means that only empty, generic references to God are allowed.

Jesus called such lip service “hypocrisy” when the Pharisees exalted their man-made traditions above the true worship of God.

“Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (Isaiah) prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt. 15:7-9)”

Accordingly, Moore is in a state of denial or ignorance about America’s Founders’ actual political theology. “The founders prayed because they believed in a real God who could actually meet their needs.” Moore cites George Washington, Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln as figures to support his thesis. Presumably he believes they invoked the “real God.” As mentioned none of them publicly (or do the records show privately) prayed in Jesus name. All systematically used generic philosophical titles for God. Moore is confused by the fact that they could also use biblical allusion when speaking to Christian audiences. As Moore recounted:

Benjamin Franklin, remembering these daily prayers, reminded the Constitutional Convention 13 years later of the need for “imploring the assistance of heaven” lest their proceedings fare “no better than the Builders of Babel.”

The problem is Moore and the Christian America crowd interpret the use of biblical allusion such as Franklin’s to mean they believed in the one true Biblical God, whose way is exclusive. Wrong. Franklin was, like the other key Founders, a theological unitarian who believed all good men worshipped the same God. As such they could speak in biblical allusion one minute and then turn around and speak as if Muslims and unconverted Native Americans worshipped the same God they did. This may not be “ceremonial deism” as the secularists articulate it. But it arguably nonetheless qualifies as the kind of generic religion that the Bible criticizes. And it is what America’s public institutions are founded on, like it or not.

Guitar connoisseur Billy Beck inspires this post where he leaves a comment discussing his past work with the late Stevie Ray Vaughn. Most of us have never been so lucky. Vaughn was a blues guitar virtuoso. He wasn’t one of those shredders who played scale like licks and patterns until he was faster than anyone else, but his playing could be just as challenging and virtuostic. Many of the electric guitar virtuosos play relatively thin gauge strings, much easier on your tendons than acoustic guitar strings; many of them can’t razzle or dazzle playing acoustic. Some fusion guitarists like John McLaughlin, Al Dimeola and Steve Morse have outstanding acoustic chops as well. Vaughn apparently played with really heavy gauge electric strings (for the tone), very muscular. His physical power over the instrument shows in this 12 string acoustic version of Pride and Joy. And be sure to check out this one as well.

Tom Van Dyke leaves a thoughtful comment on whether the God of the American Founding is the God of Abraham:

I’m not aware of any other monotheistic, providential Creator God that can be remotely construed to endow man with certain unalienable rights.

All this talk of syncretism must acknowledge that the syncresis took place within a very narrow milieu of a Judeo-Christian European culture with, admittedly, the acknowledged philosophical influence of the Enlightenment and the Greeks [with a dash of the Romans thrown in].

But there is no new God of the Enlightenment except perhaps for man himself, and the gods of the Romans and Greeks are nowhere to be found here except on the edges, and only rhetorically.

The God of the Founding is not a new one, fabricated from whole cloth. He may not be Abraham’s, strictly speaking, but He is none other, either.

I see his point — that though America’s Founders pretended the Native Americans with their “Great Spirit,” the Hindus, the pagan-Greco-Romans, and other non-Judeo-Christian faiths worshipped a common “Providence,” carefully examining the attributes of these non-Judeo-Christian deities belies such a notion. Michael Novak makes a similar point that an active, personal, intervening monotheistic God is uniquely characteristic of Judaism and Christianity (he doesn’t add Islam, but I will). Continue Reading »

My buddy Jay informs me that Kenneth Keith Kallenbach has died at 39.

A member of Stern’s “Wack Pack”, he was like a real life Beavis and Butthead, and is interesting only to folks who are amused by the modern-day “carnival” like atmosphere of the Stern show. Here is the first time Kallenbach was on the Stern show.

Libertarians might be familiar with Kallenbach. While Stern ran for governor of New York under the Libertarian Party ticket, Kallenbach seconded Stern’s nomination at the convention after Fred the Elephant Boy. As Nick Gillespie recounted the event:

Kallenbach seemed less interested in the nominating process per se than in sharing personal thoughts with the crowd. After nominating Stern, he produced a large rubber phallus and repeatedly asked the incredulous audience, “Hey, who wants to see my dildo, who wants to see my dildo?”

May he rest in peace.

Here is the first chapter from John Dilulio’s “Godly Republic.”

I agree that his centrist-civil religion approach is consistent with America’s Founding (that America’s public institution’s presuppose a Supreme Being, and therefore supplications to such ought to be constitutional). However, I think the scholarly case made by such figures as Steven Waldman and Jon Meacham is more accurate. Here is Dilulio’s thesis:

The truth, however, is that present-day America is blessed to be in religious terms pretty much what Madison and most of the other framers intended it to be. It is a godly republic with governmental institutions that (as Justice Douglas phrased it) “presuppose” monotheistic belief in the “Supreme Being” known to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as the God of Abraham. It is a godly republic that affords a special civic status to nondenominational and interfaith (God-centered) religious expression. It is a godly republic that respects, promotes, and protects religious pluralism: Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, and all other faiths are welcome. It is a godly republic in which both the Constitution and federal laws prohibit government from discriminating against citizens who profess no faith at all (atheists have the same constitutional standing as Anglicans) or who are actively, but peacefully, hostile to all religion or to all church-state collaboration (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is no more or less entitled to tax-exempt nonprofit status than the National Association of Evangelicals).

Continue Reading »

A commenter named hupur inspired this. He commented on a post featuring Gary Moore’s cover of Roy Buchanan’s “The Messiah Will Come Again.” Reading their opinions in the comments, I don’t get the how Sandefur, Brayton and Matt Kuznicki don’t “get” Gary Moore’s authentic bluesiness.

Well here is another try. The following is a truly beautiful song Gary Moore did with the late Phil Lynott while they were in Thin Lizzy - “Parisienne Walkways.” This was taken from Moore’s solo tour after Thin Lizzy disbanded and shortly before Lynott died (this may be one of Lynott’s last recorded performances). Moore’s playing/phrasing is obviously inspired by Buchanan here as well.