Category Archives: religion

Thomas Jefferson, the American Mind and the Cosmic System

By John W. Whitehead

On May 26, 1776, John Adams, who represented Massachusetts at the Second Continental Congress, wrote exultantly to his friend James Warren that “every post and every day rolls in upon us independence like a torrent.” Adams had reason for rejoicing, for this was what he and others had hoped and worked for almost since the Congress had convened in May of the previous year. It helped, to be sure, that George III had proclaimed the colonies in rebellion and this encouraged the Americans to take him at his word. Later, George Washington proceeded to drive General Howe out of Boston. This demonstrated that Americans need not stand on the defensive, but could vindicate themselves in military strategy quite as well as in political.

However exciting to some, America was going through the difficult process of being born. In any event, the stage of history was being set. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced three resolutions calling for independence, foreign alliances, and confederation. Some wanted unity and voted to postpone the final vote for three weeks. This allowed time for debate and for the hesitant and fainthearted to come over or step out. Meantime, Congress appointed a committee to prepare “a Declaration of Independence.” This committee consisted of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson had come to the Continental Congress the previous year, bringing with him a reputation for literature, science, and a talent for composition. His writings, said John Adams, “were remarkable for their peculiar felicity of expression.” In part because of his rhetorical gifts, in part because he already had a reputation of working quickly, in part because it was thought that Virginia, as the oldest, the largest, and the most deeply committed of the states, should take the lead, the committee unanimously turned to Jefferson to prepare a draft declaration.

We know a great deal about the composition of that draft. Jefferson wrote it standing at his desk (still preserved) in the second-floor parlor of a young German bricklayer named Graff, and he completed it in two weeks. We have his word for it that he “turned neither to book nor pamphlet” and that all the authority of the Declaration “rests on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.” We can accept Jefferson’s statement made fifty years later that the object of the Declaration was to be “an appeal to the tribunal of the world”–that “decent respect to the opinions of Mankind” invoked in the Declaration itself. However, in Jefferson’s words (as he wrote to James Madison in 1823), it certainly was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of; not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.”

The Declaration of Independence, then, was an expression of the American mind that was prevalent in the colonies of that time. As Jefferson stated, the Declaration contained no new ideas, nor was there any originality in it on his part. He merely articulated what people of that day were thinking.

The basic elements of the American mind are set forth in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration opens by stating:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The opening paragraph of the Declaration states that the colonists are impelled or required to separate from Great Britain for certain reasons:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This preamble sums up with lucidity, logic, and eloquence the philosophy which presided over the argument for the American Revolution, the creation of a new political system, and the vindication of the rights of man–all in less than two hundred words. Here we find expressed what is universal rather than parochial, what is permanent rather than transient, in the American Revolution. Where most of the body of the Declaration is retrospective, the preamble is prospective. In the years to come, it would be translated into the basic institutions of the American republic.

Consider the opening words of the Declaration: “When, in the Course of human events…” That places it, and the Revolution, at once in the appropriate setting, against the backdrop of not merely American or British but universal history. That connects it with the experience of people everywhere–not only at a moment in history, but in every era. This concept of the place of American history is underlined by successive phrases of the opening sentence. It points to a future of hope and optimism.

Thus, the new nation is to assume its place “among the powers of the earth.” It is not the laws of the British empire, or even of history, but of “Nature and of Nature’s God” which entitled Americans to an equal station. Moreover, it is “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” that requires this justification. No other political document of the eighteenth century proclaims so broad a purpose. No political document of our own day associates the United States so boldly with universal history in the cosmic system.

The American mind of the colonial period did not acknowledge a different order of truth, one for the lofty realms of mathematics, another for the more earthbound regions, and still another for society, politics, and the economy. While clearly discernible in the natural world, the cause of “Nature and of Nature’s God” applied equally to the world of politics and to the law. Benjamin Franklin, as a young man, said:

How exact and regular is everything in the natural World! How wisely in every part contriv’d. We cannot here find the least Defect. Those who have studied the mere animal and vegetable Creation demonstrate that nothing can be more harmonious and beautiful! All the heavenly bodies, the Stars and Planets, are regulated with the utmost Wisdom! And can we suppose less care to be taken in the Order of the Moral than in the natural System?

From such a God-ordered system, certain truths are self-evident. To Jefferson, these self-evident truths formed a total reality. He listed seven of them:

1. That all men are created equal;
2. That human beings are endowed by their Creator with “unalienable” rights;
3. That these rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
4. That it is to secure these rights that government is instituted among men;
5. That governments are instituted to derive their powers from the consent of the governed;
6. That when a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it becomes illegitimate and a citizenry may alter or abolish it; and,
7. That people have the right, then, to institute new governments designed to effect their safety and happiness.
Continue reading

Changing the Language of Public Discourse: The I-ARI Institute

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Israel is trapped in the defeatist and self-effacing rhetoric of contemporary public discourse. I am happy to report, however, that with the help of some very talented and politically astute colleagues in Israel and America, I have founded the Israel-America Renaissance Institute, and one of its functions is to overcome this lethal character of contemporary public discourse. What’s wrong with it?

It’s boring, its weak, and it allows the enemy to set the terms and rules of engagement. Its rhetoric of “peace,” “security,” and “democracy” is self-effacing. The word “peace” appeals to the weak, people who fear violent death. Fear of violent death is most prominent in regimes that have forsaken their spiritual ideas and ideals—regimes steeped in materialism where the Mall and the sports arena have taken the place of the church.

The “peace” people seek in such regimes means nothing more than comfortable self-preservation­—security plus commodious living. Peace and security have become the shibboleths of the declining secular democratic state.

Israel’s government fixates on security. Its timid and pedestrian politicians emphasize security because there’s nothing controversial or distinctively Jewish about this mantra. Security is the legitimate concern of any country. You don’t have to think out of the box. But has Israel’s fixation on security made her more secure? Has it elevated and energized Israel’s morale—the first ingredient of a nation’s ability to defend itself? I don’t think so.

Security is not a defining national goal, one that distinguishes Israel from any other country. It’s not a positive goal that inspires people with national pride. It doesn’t strengthen our ancient faith and fighting spirit.

The one thing lacking in Israel is a goal that systematically invigorates the nation’s collective memory and political creativity, that enhances her identity as the world’s one and only Jewish commonwealth—the nation that gave mankind the Book of Books, the Torah. Yes, it was the Torah that liberated men and nations from idolatry and paganism. It was the Torah, by its lapidary sentence in Genesis that man is created in the Image of God that elevated humanity and proclaimed the moral unity of the human race denied by Islam. This should be Israel’s message, conveyed quietly, as on cat’s paws.

While Islam’s arrogant leaders trumpet Allah, Israel’s leaders should unpretentiously refer to God’s sacred Covenant with the Patriarchs and quote the benign teachings of Isaiah and other prophets. They should softly remind Jews and Gentiles of the centrality of Eretz Yisrael, both in God’s Covenant with the Patriarchs and in the teachings of the Prophets, and they should project a partnership of Jews and Gentiles in building the Jerusalem Temple. Nor is this all.

Israel’s leaders should speak and act in a manner that does justice to what Gentile scholars and statesmen have said about the Jewish People, for example by Harvard graduate John Adams, the second President of the United States and perhaps the most learned of America’s Founding Fathers, who fondly declared: “The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other Nation. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.”

Of course this praise should be said to Jews, but it will be heard abroad, and it will inspire Israel’s Christian friends and perhaps make Muslims stammer and stutter.

Further, Israel’s leaders should sometimes quote the presidents of America’s colonial colleges, such as Ezra Stiles of Yale and Samuel Langdon of Harvard, who were learned in Hebrew, conversed with Rabbis, and regarded the Hebraic Republic of antiquity as an excellent model of government. In fact, prominent Catholic and Protestant Hebraists in Europe praised the laws of the Hebraic Republic as the wisest and most just in history. The great English polymath and Hebraist John Sheldon proposed that Britain scrap its parliament and substitute the Sanhedrin!

Surely discreet references to such historical facts would enhance Jewish national pride on the one hand, and disconcert Israel’s enemies on the other. And it will also bolster Christians in America harassed by the politically-motivated atheism currently sweeping that country—with the encouragement of a post-American president whose left-wing supporters are undermining the American Constitution and trashing what Lincoln deemed the heart and soul of America—her theologically inspired Declaration of Independence.

I have virtually finished a book on the subject, showing that Christian Hebraism profoundly influenced America’s foundational documents, and I believe Israel owes it to America to help her restore her ancient faith. This is a major purpose of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI) mentioned earlier and which I am currently heading.

We shall have more to say about our Institute in future articles. But I want to reiterate one of its goals: to change the subversive language of contemporary public discourse, as we have begun to do in this article. We want to encourage Israel and America to go on the ideological offensive against the enemies of our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—immutable rights proclaimed in America’s Declaration of Independence whose authors were educated in colleges that emphasized Hebraic studies in order to better understand the Bible of Israel.

The Israel-American Renassaince Institute website is at http://i-ari.org.

Memorial Day, Remembering

By Daniel Downs

On this Memorial Day, the victories, tragedies and sacrifices of war remain fresh memories to many Americans. Each soldier who made it home alive and whole is certainly one victory celebrated by family and friends. Another was the Navy Seals accomplishment in executing justice to Osama bin Laden.

The tragedy of 9-11, of loved ones killed in battle, and even the collateral damage of a seemingly unjust military action in Iraq that led soldiers like Timothy McVey to perpetrate the Oklahoma City bombings are all remembered anew today.

Amidst the feelings of sorrow, the honorable sacrifices of those who willingly gave their lives to serve their country, their loved ones, their God, and the ideals of liberty, justice, and peace cannot be forgotten. For sacrificial service is the path to a better life.

America was founded by those who not only exemplified this kind of sacrificial service but they followed the one who made it possible for them to do so. God was their leader in the battle for liberty, justice, and peace. After the war for Independence has been won, General George Washington gave God the providential honors for the rag-tag militia’s final victory. That was also the reason why America celebrated the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution until after the Civil War era.

It is right that America honors all of those men and women who have devoted their lives to protecting and to serving us. Yet, it would not be right to regard their military service as the sole means of our collective protection. The war against injustice is waged by all of those involved in our system of justice whether police, intelligence services, lawyers, judges, and even private sector advocates. Just as George Washington confirmed our national covenant, the protection of a free nation such as ours ultimately is realized through God’s actions. It may also be said that by our collective honor of and obedience to God we become better equipped to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our nation.

American founders like Thomas Jefferson envisioned America as a kind of new Israel. Their model is found in the Bible. As depicted in the second book called Exodus, God may have delivered Israel from the enslaving power of the Egyptian government, but it was the liberated men of Israel, empowered by the presence of God, who defeated all of their enemies in Canaan; that is, when they were following the instructions and strategies revealed by God. The founders similarly viewed American liberty. They viewed the victory of the war for independence as God delivering them from the Pharisaic power of the enslaving British imperial military in the colonies. It was won through divinely empowered colonists who willingly sacrificed their lives to liberate and protect their families, communities, their colonial states.

Therefore, in the tradition of remembering those who devote their lives to the divinely ordained sacrificial service of liberty and justice, thanks is offered to God first and secondly to all of those men and women whose service honors that tradition.

And yet, in light of the expansion of America’s empire from 50 federated republican states to world dominance, can it be said of America that it is still the champion of life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness? More importantly, can it still be said that the tradition of sacrificial service to defend life and liberty is still honored while millions of unborn Americans are not allowed to live to enjoy the same? Does not this tragedy of our unabated cultural war cast a dark and heavy shadow over the past shining examples of liberty and justice, duty and honor?

Yes, a more fundamental and more important war has yet to be won. If won, life will be better and a greater measure of peace will be realized. The right to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness will no longer be threatened. For without the absolute right to life, all other rights and privileges are empty words in the mouths of tyrants.

Christian Pastor’s Free Speech Victory against City of Dearborn

The U. S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg has a free speech right to distribute religious literature on public sidewalks and evangelize Muslims during the Annual Arab International Festival held each year in Dearborn, Michigan.

For five years Saieg, who specifically ministers to Muslims, had been discussing his Christian faith and passing out literature on Dearborn’s sidewalks during the Festival without encountering any problems. Nevertheless, in 2009 police officials informed him he had to remain in a booth, prohibiting him from distributing his literature on the nearby sidewalks and public streets.

Dearborn is one of the most densely populated Muslim communities in the United States.  It has the largest Mosque in North America.  In the past few years Dearborn has gained national attention for taking a pro-Muslim stance and for the arrest and intimidation of Christian evangelists for engaging in protected speech activity.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national conservative Christian public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of Pastor Saieg in 2009, naming the City of Dearborn and its police chief, Ronald Haddad, as defendants.  The case was handled by TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Rob Muise.

In ruling for Saieg, the court recognized the problem Saieg had with booth-based evangelizing: “the penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death, ” which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publically “labeled as … Christian.”

Source: Thomas More Law Center, May 25, 2011.

Easter’s Glory is God’s Image R’ Us

By Daniel Downs

Over the past five years, a number of people claim seeing Jesus or an image of Jesus. It is believed that the Shroud of Turin (Jesus burial cloth) bears the image of Jesus. Photos of the image reveals a facial image. In 2008, people in Kingsville Texas saw an image on a water tower that looked like the face of Jesus. The local news report not only interviews those who saw “Jesus” but also shows pictures of it. Recently, Sun News, a U.K. newspaper, reported the discovery of an image of Jesus located somewhere in Eastern Hungary. His image was captured by the Google Earth satellite. More interesting is a report by the U.K. newspaper, Daily Mail Online, in which a sonogram reveals an image of Jesus. The young pregnant nurse was so amazed that she and her husband gave their son the biblical name Joshua.

What do all of these and many other reports like them mean?

For many like the young nurse who was experiencing a difficult pregnancy, the image of Jesus gives reassurance that God is present. These images of Jesus are a sign of God’s present. The images of Jesus offers people hope that during difficult times things will work out. The appearances of Jesus’ images reminds people of God’s grace through the one who not only died to redeem them from the consequences of their sins but who is alive today helping them live God’s way in the present.

Yet, the Bible teaches some deeper than this. It teaches that the image God wants to see is not in shrouds, in fine paintings, in fields, and not even in sonograms. He wants to see the image of Jesus in all of us. The image of Jesus is the original. It is the image and likeness of Himself created to be reflected by us. We do bear the physical representation of His image. The problem is the lack of His likeness lived by us. We fall short of the glory of God because we all have or do act in godless ways. Violence, war, envy, hate, greed, manipulation, selfishness, perversion, lying, deceiving, stealing, cursing, and the like are the daily behavior of human beings. Jesus is the opposite picture. The image of Jesus is the likeness that God seeks in us.

Easter is a celebration of Jesus’ willingness to be made the source of our renewal in the image and likeness of God. Jesus had to die in order for God to acquit us of our moral crimes, and his resurrection was necessary for our renewal. For it is the power of the resurrection by the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead at work in our lives that empowers to live God’s way. Through this same Sprit of Christ, we will be renewed to the image and likeness of God, and that is our glory.

Good Friday, Saving Humanity or the Environment

By Alexander Mason

There is increasing pressure on Christians to embrace worldly causes like environmentalism. Some susceptible believers have even renamed the cause “creation care” in order to make the idea more church-friendly. Joining the environmental movement is also seen by many Christians as necessary to gain credibility among unbelievers and therefore afford more opportunities to preach the Gospel. However, such efforts come dangerously close to what the Apostle Paul called worshiping the created things over the Creator (Rom. 1:25).

Paul became all things to all men in order that some might be saved (I Cor. 9:22b), but he never did so outside of the limits placed on him by Scripture. While there is a danger in undervaluing the work of creation, there is a greater danger in overvaluing what God has created (Rom. 1:25). Without a doubt, secular environmentalists worship creation while rejecting the Creator. This constitutes idolatry, which Christians must avoid, regardless of the intended result.

Environmentalists often claim catastrophic events in nature like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and tsunamis are caused by humans. In one sense, they are correct. All human suffering is a consequence of human sin, both individually and collectively all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Through Adam, sin was ushered into the world. Because of his sin and ours, God cursed His creation, and much of its former glory is gone.

Evangelicals who embrace environmentalism seem to believe humans can reverse, or at least limit, the effects of God’s curse on the earth. But it is not our job to reconcile creation to God. We cannot restore Eden. Creation is groaning under the bondage of sin (Rom. 8:22) and it is looking and longing for redemption by Jesus Christ, not us. It is eagerly awaiting the day when He will deliver creation from the burden brought by Adam’s fall and our sin (Rom. 8:19). An implicit truth in this passage is that we, as part of creation, cannot save creation from God’s curse. This is a special work of Christ, who exists outside of His creation (Col. 1:16-17). It is He who makes all things new.

“Creation care” distracts the Church from its one, true mission. Satan delights in all endeavors that are deviations from Christ’s preeminent message of God’s righteousness, our sin, and His redemption. Every Christian’s primary duty should be to glorify God by repudiating sin and proclaiming Christ’s sacrificial atonement on the cross. The Great Commission remains the same: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Regardless of the temperature of the earth or the level of the seas, we know God is sovereign over the dryness of desolate wastelands (Job 38:25-26) and the boundaries of the waters (Job 38:8-11). As Creator, He upholds our existence by a mere word of His power. The most inconvenient truth that Christians must proclaim is the consequence of sin in the lives of men, along with the only hope of redemption through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jesus did not come to reduce our carbon footprint. He came to pay the price for our redemption so we may glorify Him. Under the righteous wrath of a holy God, Jesus offered His blood as payment for our guilt, if we will only turn from our sin and follow Him. His message to us is not to recycle, but rather to repent and believe. Our message to others should be no different.

It is not a little ironic that this year Earth Day falls on Good Friday, the day reserved by Christians to remember the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ as payment for our sin. Such a coincidence appropriately highlights the stark contrast between a worship of creation and the worship of the One through whom all things were created.

Using Good Friday to focus attention on creation undermines the critical message of man’s sin and Christ’s atonement that we should be proclaiming on this day. The secular observance known as Earth Day usurps Christ’s role of reconciling creation. More importantly, it distract Christians from their most important duty, which is to carry out the Great Commission on His behalf.

Choose this day what or Whom you will serve: the creation or Creator.

First published as Earth Day/Good Friday 2011: Worship the Creator – Not His Creation by Family Policy Network on April 22, 2011.

The goal of Easter is a life of fully satisfied justice

By Daniel Downs

While Jews celebrate the freedom from oppression from tyrants like Pharaoh and Haman, they do not forget the holocaust. I have read that many Jews forsook God because of this horrific event. Yet, the senseless death of millions of Zion’s children proved to be more like birth pangs. It was a bloody birth but Israel was reborn in 1948.

Israel was birth through the bloody confrontation between God and Egypt. Even though enslaved Jews in ancient were as worthy of God’s justice for their own sins, God passed over their lives during that confrontation. Why? Because he saw the blood of sinless souls. The sacrificed life of those morally inculpable souls God deemed sufficient to satisfy justice’s demands.

Easter is the season during which Christians also celebrate God’s Passover. No, it is not the same as the Passover observed by Jews. Rather, it is a celebration of the blessings of God promised Abraham. Christians enter into covenant blessings of Zion through the Jew Jesus.

Many focus on death Jesus during this season and rightly so. The moral changes of life experienced as a result of a developing relationship with God through Christ testifies to the divine acceptance of the only sinless sacrifice capable of fully and eternally satisfying God’s justice.

From a philosophical perspective, the moral crimes of humanity cannot be fully satisfied by inculpable souls i.e. animals. For the death of an animal as punishment for human sin, this substitute must be without sin for the soul that sin dies. A soul dead in sin could hardly be acceptable. Yet, animals cannot commit moral crimes as far as we know; only human are capable and culpable of such crimes. That is why the death of animals could never cease flowing on behalf of humanity: the death of animals is not fully sufficient to atone for human sin.

As previously mentioned, only a sinless human being could fully satisfy the demands of divine justice for all time for all people. That is reason why the one apostle who saw Jesus after his resurrection and ascension to heaven, Paul, said all who accept Jesus death and Lordship as covenant with God are justified, which mean both acquitted of all charges of moral crime and regarded as righteous by God. Notice, justification is sealed by Jesus’ resurrection. Paul, a Pharisee who was confronted by the resurrected Jesus and not the intellectual myth claimed by liberalism, realized the law of redemption is completed by Christ. The moral law of God inherent the covenants of God never ceased, only the never-ending need for animals to bear the punishment for human crimes against that law of God.

Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus because he is their representative before God. His suffering, punishment and death is their suffering, rightful punishment and death. His resurrection represents their future. Hence, Christians enjoy the benefits of covenanted salvation because it is of the Jews. Jesus is the one sinless Jew who was the progeny on many Jews going back beyond King David and Jacob to Abraham. As Adam was federal head of sinful humanity, Jesus reigns as Lord over a new age of people renewed to the glory of God as those seeking to live holy lives this world now that is not yet fully His kingdom.

Crucifying Jesus: Killing a Radical

By John W. Whitehead

“[Jesus] was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His ‘turn the other cheek’ anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called ‘Atheists for Jesus’ (and was delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend).”—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006)

For those who profess to be Christians, the week leading up to Easter is the most sacred time of the year, commemorating as it does the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet while Jesus is a revered religious figure, he was also, as atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes, a radical in his own right whose life and teachings changed the course of history.

Too often today radicalism is equated with terrorism, extremism and other violent acts of resistance. Yet true radicalism, the kind embodied by such revolutionary figures as Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, actually involves speaking truth to power through peaceful, nonviolent means. Separated by time and distance, Christ, King and Gandhi were viewed as dangerous by their respective governments because they challenged the oppressive status quo of their day.

Jesus, in particular, undermined the political and religious establishment of his day through his teachings. For example, when Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” exhorting his followers to turn the other cheek and give freely, he was telling us that active peacemaking is the way to end war. Indeed, if everything Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount is true—a message that King, to his peril, adopted in protest of the Vietnam War—there’d be no need for wars, war budgets or military industrial complexes. Imagine that.

Unfortunately, as the gruesome torture and crucifixion of Jesus make clear, there is always a price to pay for standing up to one’s oppressors. While the New Testament Gospels are the primary source for accounts of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion and death, his ordeal at the hands of Roman soldiers has been the topic of scholarly research for years. Indeed, as Time magazine reports, the latest topic of academic scrutiny involves claims by an Israeli television journalist that he may have uncovered the crucifixion nails used on Jesus—“smallish iron spikes with the tips hammered to one side.”

Certainly, the torture Jesus endured was agonizing. Yet what was it about him that caused the Romans to view him as enough of a threat to make an example of him and have him crucified?

In the time of Jesus, religious preachers and self-proclaimed prophets were not summarily arrested and executed. Nor were nonviolent protesters. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors in Jerusalem would normally allow a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, government authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that even appeared to threaten the Roman Empire.

The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King as Messiah of Israel (the gravest charge, for which Jesus was ultimately crucified, as inscribed on the cross: “The King of the Jews”)—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion. Crucifixion itself, usually reserved for slaves, non-Romans, radicals, revolutionaries and the worst criminals, was not only a common method for execution by Romans but was also the most feared.

The Gospels recount how, after Jesus’ arrest, temple guards brought him to the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, who declared him guilty of blasphemy. He was then ushered before the Sanhedrin, a Jewish council, which sought permission from the Romans to execute him. Whether an actual “trial” took place before Jesus was handed over to the Romans is uncertain. But more than likely, as he was moved from place to place, he was spat upon and beaten.

It is telling that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who alone had the authority to execute Jesus, focused on his political identity: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Matthew 27:11). This seems to be primarily what mattered to Pilate, whose job it was to uphold the religious, as well as the temporal, power of the deified Caesars.

Jesus does not deny the allegation which, if true, will lead to his death. He answers: “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37).

In other words, Jesus told Pilate—the one person who held Jesus’ life in his hands—to stick it. The cruel torture and killing of Jesus were certain to follow after that. The fact that Jesus was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews was not an afterthought pinned on the cross above his head. The Roman soldiers commissioned to prepare him for execution knew this was the issue. That is why they gave him the burlesque of coronation, clothing him in royal purple with a mock crown and scepter. Then they abased themselves and called out, “Hail, king of the Jews!” (John 19:3). Afterward, they beat Jesus.

The mob must have played a key role in Jesus’ condemnation, although there is little extensive historical evidence to support the scene played out in films and movies in which Pontius Pilate asks the crowd to choose between Barabbas the robber and Jesus. Most likely the pressure to appease the masses would have forced the Romans to act. As author A. N. Wilson writes, “If the crowds could be pacified by the release of Barabbas, they could perhaps be cowed into submission by a cruel public display of what happens to Jews who use words like ‘kingdom’…to the Roman governor.” Surrendering to the people’s will, Pilate granted an execution by crucifixion.

Matthew 27:26 indicates that Jesus was severely whipped in accordance with a Roman requirement that there be a scourging before each execution (except for those involving women, Roman senators or soldiers). A Roman flagrum, a leather whip consisting of three thongs, each ending with two lead balls designed to tear flesh, was the weapon of choice for inflicting scourgings. The Romans may have even used a similar instrument, a flagellum, in which small rocks or bone fragments were also attached on the end of the thongs. This instrument was typically used to tenderize a piece of meat.

Mayo Clinic scholars note that repeated floggings to the upper and lower back with iron balls that cut deeply into his flesh would have caused Jesus to nearly go into shock from blood loss: “As the Roman soldiers repeatedly struck the victim’s back with full force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross.”

In addition to the scourging, Jesus was also crowned with thorns. Scholars have observed that the thorns digging into his scalp probably severely irritated major nerves in his head, causing increasing and excruciating pain for hours.

Medical experts speculate that the iron spikes used to nail Jesus to the cross measured from 5 to 7 inches long (the size of railroad spikes). The spikes were driven through his wrists (between the radius and the ulna and the carpals in his forearms), not his palms, and between the second and third metatarsal bones of his feet in order to support his body weight. Though the spikes were not nailed through major blood vessels, they were designed to sever major nerves, rupturing other veins and creating great pain. Added to this, hanging on the cross would have made it agonizingly difficult to breathe.

Doctors generally conclude that a combination of factors contributed to Jesus’ death on the cross: He had already lost an incredible amount of blood. He was exhausted from the beatings and from carrying his cross. Because he could only attempt to breathe by pushing his body upward with his knees and legs (often, Roman soldiers would break their victims’ legs with clubs), death by asphyxiation was inevitable. However, their most critical observation is that Jesus was already dead when Roman soldiers thrust the spear into his side.

Within a religious context, Jesus’ death was a sacrificial act of atonement for the sins of the world. In a historical context, his crucifixion sent a chilling warning to all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. As Mark Lewis Taylor, the Maxwell M. Upson Professor of Theology and Culture at Princeton Theological Seminary, observed in an interview with OldSpeak, “The cross within Roman politics and culture was a marker of shame, of being a criminal. If you were put to the cross, you were marked as shameful, as criminal, but especially as subversive. And there were thousands of people put to the cross. The cross was actually positioned at many crossroads, and, as New Testament scholar Paula Fredricksen has reminded us, it served as kind of a public service announcement that said, ‘Act like this person did, and this is how you will end up.’”

Unlike the modern church that drowns in materialism and supports the military empire, Jesus advocated love, peace and harmony. As it did in his day, this message when adhered to undermines the ruling establishment. Unfortunately, it is rare for the church today to challenge the status quo—a failing that Martin Luther King Jr. recognized in his famous “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” when he castigated the modern-day church for being “so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.”

Written on April 16, 1963, while King was serving a jail sentence for participating in civil rights demonstrations, the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” was a response to eight prominent white Alabama clergymen who had called on African-Americans to cease their civil disobedience and let the courts handle the problem of desegregation. King’s words reminded Americans that the early church—the church established by Jesus’ followers—would never have been content to remain silent while injustice and persecution ruled the land:

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”…. They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

It is unfortunate that the radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, has been largely forgotten today, replaced by a congenial, smiling Jesus trotted out for religious holidays but otherwise rendered mute when it comes to matters of war, power and politics. “Christianity today often resembles an egg into which someone has poked a hole and sucked out all its contents,” writes author Richard Smoley in Forbidden Faith (2006), “and then taken the shell, encrusted it with gold and jewels, and set it up as an object of veneration. In many ways, it remains a beautiful shell, but more and more people are finding that it no longer offers any nourishment. If they complain, they’re usually told that they just need to have more faith—which is of course no answer at all.”

Yet for those who truly study the life and teachings of Jesus, the resounding theme is one of outright resistance to war, materialism and empire. As Mark Lewis Taylor notes, “The power of Jesus is one that enables us to critique the nation and the empire. Unfortunately, that gospel is being sacrificed and squandered by Christians who have cozied up to power and wealth.” Ultimately, this is the contradiction that must be resolved if the radical Jesus—the one who stood up to the Roman Empire and was crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be—is to be remembered.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Lawsuit Against National Day of Prayer Dismissed

On April 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) lawsuit attacking the federal government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, ruling that the atheists do not have legal standing to bring the suit. Liberty Institute and Family Research Council (FRC) filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Dr. James Dobson, Citizenlink (formerly Focus on the Family Action), the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), Let Freedom Ring, and Liberty Counsel, along with 28 state family policy councils arguing that FFRF lacks standing and that government observances of prayer are not only constitutional but modeled by our forefathers.

In response to Court’s ruling, Kelly Shackelford, President of Liberty Institute, said,

“We applaud the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of this desperate attempt to erase our country’s rich history of calling for prayer. Sadly, some are determined to censor religious expression in the public arena. As long as Liberty Institute exists and the Constitution is in place, we will do everything in our power to ensure that never happens.”
The Court’s ruling, which strongly rejects FFRF’s opposition to government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, says that being excluded or “hurt feelings differ from legal injury.”

Last year, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the federal government’s observation of prayer was unconstitutional, despite numerous rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that protect long-standing traditions of religious invocations. When Congress passed a statute in 1952 calling for the President to issue a proclamation designating the National Day of Prayer, it memorialized the virtually unbroken tradition of Presidents from Washington to Obama who designated a day of prayer.

“The 7th Circuit’s decision in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama once again affirms what the vast majority of Americans know intuitively: that we should not and indeed cannot separate our nation’s history from the influence of religion on its founders,” said Brad Miller, director of family policy councils for Citizenlink. “Even Americans with a decidedly agnostic view of religion cannot refute the important role religious tradition has played throughout the history of this great nation. The President’s proclamation is simply a continuation of a long and deep tradition of urging and acknowledging prayer as a fundamental part of a healthy society. We applaud this decision and the great work of our allies at the Liberty Institute for their work on behalf of religious freedom.”

This year, National Day of Prayer is set for May 5.

Source: Liberty Institute, April 14, 2011.

Into the Darkness: Where Constitutional Illiteracy Is Leading Us

By John W. Whitehead

“Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable. You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”—Richard Dreyfuss

When Newsweek recently asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29% of respondents couldn’t name the current vice president of the United States. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why America fought the Cold War. More critically, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6% couldn’t even circle Independence Day (the Fourth of July) on a calendar.

Of course, civic and constitutional ignorance are nothing new with Americans. In fact, it is something that the public education system has been fostering for a long time. For example, a study in Arizona found that only 3.5% of public high school students would be able to pass the U.S. Immigration Services’ citizenship exam, a figure not significantly exceeded by the passing rates of charter and private school students, at 7% and 14%, respectively.

A survey of American adults by the American Civic Literacy Program resulted in some equally disheartening findings. Seventy-one percent failed the test. Moreover, having a college education does very little to increase civic knowledge, as demonstrated by the abysmal 32% pass rate of people holding not just a bachelor’s degree but some sort of graduate-level degree.

It is little wonder that a 2006 survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that fewer than one percent of adults who responded to a national poll could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment—freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the government. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpson television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

In a culture infatuated with celebrity and consumed with entertainment, it should come as no surprise that the American people know virtually nothing about their rights. They are constitutionally illiterate. “There was a depth of confusion that we weren’t expecting,” noted Dave Anderson, executive director of the museum. “I think people take their freedoms for granted. Bottom line.”

But it gets worse. Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment. Think about this for a moment. How could James Madison, who depended on horses for transportation in his day, have placed the “right to drive a car” in the First Amendment?

Educators do not fare much better in understanding and implementing the Constitution in the classroom. Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

Those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that all citizens had rights that no government could violate—such as the right to free speech, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents, the right to an attorney, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments, etc. And if any of these rights were violated, the Founders believed that the American people had the right and the authority to resist government encroachment of their rights. Abraham Lincoln’s famous declaration in the Emancipation Proclamation that we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” means exactly what it says. The government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

So what’s the solution?

Instead of forcing children to become part of the machinery of society by an excessive emphasis on math and science in the schools, they should be prepared to experience the beauty of becoming responsible citizens. This will mean teaching them their rights and urging them to exercise their freedoms to the fullest.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, I agree with Richard Dreyfuss that the miracle that was America will become a “fable.” And the darkness of an authoritarian government will be inevitable. In fact, we have already travelled far down that road.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.