Posts Tagged ‘Founders’

Immigration and Slavery

January 25th, 2010

 

A huge debate in Congress about whether people who have come to our country illegally should have the right to purchase health care insurance has prompted me to offer my two cents worth.

The growth and success of the United States has been driven by people who have immigrated to America, most all of them were seeking a better way of life, it’s true that some came to our shores against their will, but even those people, for the most part, found a better life than they experienced in their homeland.

Irish, German, Italian, Norwegians, Swedes and many other Europeans along with slaves from countries in Africa were early immigrants to our shores, they provided labor for the demands of a country that was booming because of opportunities provided by the foresight of our founding fathers, those early settlers who had the vision to realize the power of people to succeed when they are provided opportunity.

Some of the early settlers in America were indentured slaves; they were bound by a contract for a period of time to a master who, in essence, owned them.  America has dealt in slavery from its beginning but few Americans realize that slavery still exists here.  Slavery was not condoned by the founders that fashioned our constitution but compromises involving greedy special interests allowed slavery to continue for many years.  Special interests and their influence on Congress allow defacto slavery to continue even today.

The issue of illegal immigrants in America is being perpetuated by those special interests who want to keep illegal people in bondage in order to profit from low wages.  Nothing has really changed since the writing of our constitution and nothing will change until we close our borders and enforce the law.

Slavery is defined as “bondage to a master or household” so the majority of the early immigrants to our country could be considered slaves since most had little choice but to work as slaves, or be employed by slave masters in companies seeking people who would work for low wages, much the same as today when illegal immigrants come to our country seeking a better life.

Chinese people immigrated to America during the time the country was expanding to the west and many were employed building railroads. Chinese immigrants were treated much the same as black slaves, the only difference was that they made a choice to come here.

The success of the American experiment was due largely to labor provided by people immigrating to our shores, but more than that it provided opportunity for many of those same people to elevate themselves from slavery by becoming entrepreneurs, or what some might consider modern day slave masters.

Many changes have occurred through the evolution of the United States and, other than the illegal immigrants from Mexico and other South American countries, few people are enslaved by their employer (though many may feel they are).  The biggest change we have seen in recent years is the destruction of opportunity for those who would like to lift themselves up from a perceived sense of slavery.  The view of many, who want to junk the capitalist free enterprise system in favor of central government solutions, is mostly responsible for the killing of opportunity in America.

The big question Americans must ask themselves is this, would you rather be enslaved by your employer who you can tell to “take this job and shove it”, or enslaved by your government, with no options except to find another country.

Back to the original question, whether illegal immigrants should be able to purchase health insurance, it does make sense economically because the more people who participate to spread the risk the cheaper insurance rates are.  However, the United States has laws and unless enforced they have no worth, when anyone who breaks the law is rewarded for doing so, what message does that send to future law breakers.

Because of bad government policy since the early 20th century, which has resulted in productive companies with better paying jobs leaving America, the United States doesn’t need immigration for low paid, low skilled jobs, it has plenty of people in the labor pool to fill those jobs, but most are unwilling because of a feeling of entitlement that has been created by politicians attempting to maintain a very prized position on their throne.

A recent news story about the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, that showed her connection to a slave, five generations ago, should fill all Americans with a feeling of pride about how America has dealt with the black slavery issue, but America still has people enslaved because of pure politics and greed.

As soon as we get rid of our guilt feeling about race and slavery and realize that all people perceive themselves as a slave at some point in their lives, and if we bond together to fix our income tax system that allows politicians to keep some people in bondage, and make government accountable to the people, we can restore the lost opportunity for all people in America.

This opinion article was written by Geezil, the Headmaster of the GeezilSchool.  Http://geezilschool.net




By: Keith Brandon

How to Identify the Wall of Separation Between God and State in the U.s. Constitution

August 28th, 2009

“Original Intent” is a book by David Barton about Supreme Court rulings that have stripped the Constitution of the founders’ original meaning.  It was published in 2000 by WallBuilders of Alemedo, Texas.

David Barton Argues Against


Separation of Church and State


The book emphasizes religious aspects of the Constitution, especially the doctrine of separation of church and state.  Mr. Barton attempts to show this was not part of the original intent of the founding fathers.  

The author discusses eight Supreme Court landmark religious liberty cases which followed the 1947 Everson case.  The latter introduced the “wall of separation” terminology.  In these he claims the Supreme Court rewrote the original intent of the founders. 

Later chapters demonstrate how the new subjective standard of judicial opinion is altering the Constitution and Constitutional law in fundamental ways. The law is in a state of flux because the Constitution has become whatever the justices say it is. This new era of positivistic law began in the 1930s and 1940s.

Thesis Is Flawed

The problem with the book is a flawed thesis. The founders did in fact intend to separate the new government from the authority of biblical law.  Surprisingly, David Barton actually applauds this.

David Barton states that “there is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Founders intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson…” (p.179).  The actual words, “wall of separation” do not appear, but the wall is nonetheless set in place by Article VI, Section 3.

This provision disestablishes Christianity as the “coin of the realm” so to speak.  When the Constitution says that “no religious test shall ever be required for any office…,” it makes it illegal to require an officeholder to swear to govern by the Bible.  It thus established the U.S. Constitution as a pluralistic and secular document.  This is clearly a “wall of separation,” divorcing the legal system from its religious foundation.

David Barton alludes to Article VI, but praises its effect. He asserts that, “…it was therefore not within the federal government’s authority to examine the religious beliefs of any candidate” (p.34). He adds with approval that “The Founders believed that the investigation of the religious views of a candidate should not be conducted by the federal government, but rather by the voters in each state.”

That is the heart of our problem. A declaration of religious neutrality by the Federal government. This would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and declaring that he wasn’t going to favor any particular religion, but would leave it to the tribes.

On the contrary, it is the primary duty of government to require that its officials are committed to Christ and the Christian religion.  It is cultural suicide to neglect this duty.  The law of God is the only source of justice, and God expects the officeholder to swear to uphold it.  David Barton fails to grasp this most basic biblical principle of civil government.

Innocuous Civil Religion

David Barton and the founders prefer a milquetoast civil religion, rather than undiluted Christianity.  To quote the author, “I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth… — Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law: ‘not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets’ …(p.70)”

“The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as ‘enlightened,’ by John Quincy Adams as ‘civilized,’ and by John Adams as ‘rational.’” (p.127).  As long as Christianity remains a toothless, feel-good religion, devoid of doctrine, David Barton and the founding fathers are apparently happy with it.

And this leads to another root problem.  David Barton virtually always refers to civil government in terms of what it must not do respecting separation of church and state.  He ignores the responsibility government has to govern pro-actively in submission to Biblical law.  As noted above, his Christianity is toothless when it comes to obligations for the civil magistrate.

This rejection of God and Biblical law as the basis for the new government leads inevitably to disregard for the Constitution we see today.  When they rejected the absolute standard, the founders guaranteed that their posterity would end up adrift in a sea of subjectivity and oppression.

In the end, Mr. Barton calls for a return to the “original intent” of the founders to create a limited government based on Christian principles. But the flaw in his thesis makes this impossible.

Departure from the original intent of the Constitution is not our problem. Rather, our problem lies in the seeds of humanism and religious neutrality that were planted originally in the Constitution and are bearing their evil fruit today.




By: Dennis Woods