Lieberman, Beck, and Inalienable Rights

Sandy Levinson's post at Balkinization brings to light the need for a national debate on the meaning of Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the wake of the "Times Square Bomber." It brings up two very interesting questions:

1. Should the rights of citizens be stripped for joining enemy forces?
2. Do only U.S. citizens accused of acts of terror have a right to a fair trial?

Levinson cites of the opposing positions of Glen Beck and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman says yes to number 1. Beck says no to number 1 and yes to number 2. This is where the Declaration and Bill of Rights come into play. The Declaration says that the rights to life, liberty, and property are God given and thus inalienable. In other words, they cannot be taken away. To some the Bill of Rights only pertains to "We the People" and thus only to citizens. Lieberman and Beck are involved in an interesting debate. Nonetheless, I think something important is being overlooked in this post. 

Lets Stay On Topic

I appreciate all that Jon Rowe wrote in response to my last post but I think much of it is getting us off topic. The topic is whether the Declaration of Independence was a document of interpositon or not. Jon Rowe stated his case that it was not and called his main witness, John Calvin. My last post clearly shows that Calvin is not a reliable witness in this case because his own words contradict themselves.


Jon's response to this was:

"KOI claims the Othniel example a contradiction in Calvin's writings. Personally, I don't see it. Calvin teaches God sometimes raises up individuals to deliver from tyranny. AND that sometimes the means those individuals use is righteous, sometimes sinful. Likewise, this accords with Gregg Frazer's understanding that, yes, it was God's will that the American Revolution resulted as it did. But that George Washington et al. used SINFUL MEANS to accomplish that end. Indeed, Frazer and Calvin both teach God sometimes uses the sinful means of man to accomplish his will. I can't tell from Calvin's context whether he thought Othniel was one righteously raised up or rather God using "the fury of [a man] who ha[d] other thoughts and other aims," to accomplish His ends. But in any event, there is no apparent contradiction."

Calvin, Interposition, and "the Problem of Othniel"

With all the talk about the Arizona law and state protests against healthcare reform it is important to trace where many of the arguments for interposition originated:

A while back, Jon Rowe replied to my post that claimed that the Declaration of Independence was a document of interposition by stating: "The DOI is NOT a Document of Interposition." He lays out the heart of his and Dr. Gregg Frazer's case for Christianity "properly understood" with the following:

"To Calvin, the Bible categorically forbids revolt. No exceptions. Calvin did discuss the ability of intermediate magistrates to interpose and remove a tyrannical King; but he stressed it must be done pursuant to some positive legal mechanism, like the Congress impeaching the President pursuant to the provisions in the US Constitution. Again, revolt is still forbidden. Therefore if the Continental Congress could make the argument, which they seemingly did in parts of the DOI, that King George and Parliament were violating British law AND if there were some recognized legal method under British law for declaring independence, perhaps what the FFs did could "fit" with such a notion of "interposition."

The problem with this argument is the, "AND if there were some recognized legal method under British law for declaring independence, perhaps what the FF's did could fit with such a notion as interposition." This quote is grounded in John Calvin's narrow view of what qualifies as a valid form of interposition. The problem is that Calvin is not a reliable source on this topic because his own words on resistance to tyranny contradict themselves.

My Response To An Irresponsible Comment At Daily Paul

This is my response to this post at Daily Paul:

The principle of federalism is what we are fighting to restore not "states rights" and certainly not the Confederacy. Madison spoke plainly in Federalist 28 that both state and national government can usurp individual rights. Thus, one was to balance the other. State sovereinty in not and was never absolute. It was a check put into the system to protect individual liberty.

Statements such as the following puke all over an otherwise exciting post:

"Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again."

The Christian Nation Debate- Circa 1788

By KOI, With Editorial Suggestions by J. Rowe

I carefully followed the recent posts about federalism, religious tests, and the "Godless Constitution." So what follows hits on this general theme, and also fits with the "Big Tent" theme of my previous posts.

John Fea noted a story on a religious test oath in North Carolina:

This morning I was reading an old news story about a newly elected councilman in Asheville, North Carolina who refused to say "so help me God" or place his hand on the Bible during his swearing in ceremony. The man in question--Cecil Bothwell--is an atheist. Unfortunately for him, the North Carolina constitution (written in 1868) disqualifies from public office "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." As you might imagine, conservative Christians are invoking this clause to remove Bothwell from office.

This seems the perfect showdown for the latest "Christian Nationalists" v. "Secular Nationalists" culture war battle.

Frazer's Hermeneutic And the History of Orthodox Christian Political Theology

With Editorial Suggestions by Jonathan Rowe

My last few posts argued American Founding era political theology created a "Big Tent of Diverse Interests" that allowed various Christian factions of the country to put aside the doctrinal differences that privately divided them and embrace political ideas that publiclyunited them.

This post continues in that vein.

I stressed that two God terms in the Declaration of Independence were added by the Continental Congress to appeal to Calvinists. This, I think, strengthened the connection between the political-theology of the DOI and Calvinistic notions of interposition.

Then, to better inform myself on the matter, I just carefully read the exchange between Jim Babka and Gregg Frazer that was part of "Romans 13 round 1." You will see Babka and I, for the most part, agree on Romans 13 & Christian history. We stress how Dr. Frazer downplays the later Calvinists (not necessarily Calvin himself) like Rutherford whose teachings on "interposition" transition into those of the Declaration of Independence.

The Coldest Day of the Year

After hearing on the reports on the news about how today was going to be the "coldest day of the year" I girded myself up to brave the elements to go and buy myself a Subway sub.  It was frightening but I made it out.  When I got to Subway it was packed to I decided to brave the conditions and walk another block and found "Vesuvios Pizza" and decided to go in.  I settled on a sub and watched all about Jim Zorn being fired from my precious Redskins while the guy made it.

Shortly, after I walked outside and encountered the weather from "the coldest day of the year" again.  I remember thinking that I should have brought my I-Pod so I could listen to Alicia Keys sing about New York.  Then I finished up the first half of my half decent sub.  I started to think about how dumb I probably looked walking down Taimiami Trail with socks, flip flops, and shorts on.  I then suddenly dropped the other half of my sub.

This normally would have bothered me when I lived up North.  But us Florida people do not let things like that bother us as long as all we have to do is put a pair of socks on to wear with our flip-flops and shorts on the "coldest day of the year"  Alicia Keys can have New York.  I am happy here!