There are so many ways to look at this. There are so many ways to spin it. There are so many things people say that turn my hair grey. Many conservatives are saying this is the “end of America.” It stresses me out.
Stressors include the fact that nations rise and nations fall. In tragedy and loss of hope, nations morph into something that they were not before, and start down a road that is hard to come back from. I have to deal with this fact. That is the value of studying history. For many, this latest election evidences the beginning, middle, or end of this shift. The freedom we once aspired to may be soon traded for the supposed “stability” Big Brother can provide. And the more people become dependent on the government dole, the more difficult it will be to pull them away. I don’t think the majority of the country understands or cares about what it all means and by the time they do, it may be too late. But that is just my anxiety talking.
On the other side, I am hard pressed. You would think the above expresses the opinions of only the most conservative in America. You would think this is the Christian far right talking. But not really. Not even close. You see, there are some out there who are even more conservative. While those above fear the decline of Christendom (a nationality ruled by Christian principles and leaders), there are many Christians who believe that the fall of Christianity came when Christendom in the West began. They blame Constantine and the favor he gave toward Christianity for the fall of the church. They are continually trying to get back to a pre-Christendom state of affairs so that the church might be pure again. After all, the rise of Christendom facilitated the rise of the Holy Roman Empire (800) and the eventual corruption of the church and the Gospel. We had to have a “Great Reformation” to even begin to recover from this.
And you don’t even want me to start on those who are advocates of a theocracy, where God is the king and the government is run by a law informed only by the Mosaic system. These are so far to the right that they may have even looped back to the left. I just don’t know how to classify them.
The odd thing is that the Great Reformation dethroned much of Christendom. The Enlightenment replaced the Pope, teaching a new hope in man, science, and technology. The shortcomings in the church in the Papal Schism, the Plague, and the lack of Gospel preservation left a vacancy which was replaced by nationalism. We began to trust our nation to provide for us. Nationalism paved the way for the separation of church and state in a way that had yet to be seen in the Christianized West. Many feared what this could mean. No more pope? No more church-state collaboration? Who could run a country but God?
Ironically, America was founded during this turmoil. Those who fled to America wanted freedom from the tyranny of the church, believing that when any organized religious force had definitive political teeth, true faith was less accessible. “We are children no more.” It was time to graduate to something new: democracy. In this, neither the church nor the government had the power; the people did. Democracy is always a risk, but we had learned enough from the tyranny of the church and state to take them out of the driver’s seat of our lives.
I want neither the church nor the state running things. And, until Christ returns, sin makes a theocracy impossible (not to mention that God left that building a long time ago). I don’t want human dictatorships and I don’t want Christendom. But every time we break free from one, the other seems to step in. This is why I love the idea of America, even if we never fully achieve the ideals of America. America ran from both. America ran toward freedom.
Yet the election on Tuesday was evidence that the ideals of democracy are in full force, even if some seem to be voting against the very ideals that got them to the polling booth. Yes, we voted for the most liberal president in the history of the United States. Yes, we did so even after he presided over a failing economy. Yes, we did so even though he took a stand against traditional family values. But I am not sure what this evidences. You must remember that most of the same people who voted for Obama just lived under eight years of the presidency of George Bush, one of the most conservative (in many ways) presidents in recent history! These people are still alive. They still have some recollection of the idea of America, don’t they? Or did everyone just pull a philosophical 180? I just think the reasoning is simple: People like to give presidents a second chance even when they are not totally sold on many of his ideals. And Romney did not really bring anything to the table but “not Obama.” So people went with the second chance. But I don’t know if this amounts to a fundamental shift in America, much less an imminent collapse.
Let me talk about two major issues and the supposed downfall of the American ideal: health care and gay marriage. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would suppose that if Obama were not trying to nationalize health care and was not in support of gay marriage, we would think a lot differently about the “downfall of America.” Add to that the issue of abortion (which I cannot get into here). What if Obama were not in support of abortion? You say, “If all these things were true, he would be a Republican!” Not exactly, but that sentiment does express my point: these are the issues which scare us most. Right? Let me first begin with gay marriage and compare it to health care.
Gay marriage is an interesting animal. Let me be very radical here and scare some of you. Let me go further to the right than you thought possible. Please understand, having performed so many marriage ceremonies and been involved with marital counseling throughout my time in ministry, I have thought about this for a long time. Here is my earth shattering statement: What hath the government to do with marriage? Seriously. What is the government doing in the marital business? When did we concede so much over to them? Why do they have the final and ultimate say on who is married and who is not? Who conceded such an important issue to the competency of the federal government? When did this happen and why wasn’t there an outcry? Ideally, the government does not have any say in who is married and who is not. Then who does? The people who are married. Did you know, in the Middle Ages, marriages were performed simply by the concept of the people getting married? “I marry you” was the agreement made between the two that “officially” wed them. Recognition of the marriage would happen within the church and/or religious system, but this recognition was subjective. Today we have big ceremonies. We have religious provisions and blessings. We have the vows and the rings. But none of this really matters. It all comes down to a government-issued piece of paper. Divorce is the same. The government, through the courts, tells whether someone is married or divorced. Can you believe it? Big government at its best, presiding over the most fundamental human relationship there is. Why do we tolerate this? What a silly question to ask the government without flinching: Can gays be married?
I know what you are saying. You are thinking about all the secondary issues. You are thinking like lawyers. You want to find a way to protect the “investment” of marriages, as they often go bad. You are thinking about things having to do with insurance and liability. And I understand. I am not really calling for us to dissolve this as a governmental function. Why? Because we are already here and we are already comfortable with this system. However, if the government was not involved in the marriage business (which it should not have ever been, liabilities or not), we would not be discussing whether or not it should allow for gay marriage. Society would deal with it and it would be subjective according to the society.
In fact (and I may get in trouble here), that is exactly how I will deal with it. Government-signed piece of paper or not, if a gay couple comes to me, shows it to me, and says they are married, I will say, “Yeah, right…” and go on refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the union, since it fails to meet the standard qualifications that such a union must theologically possess. I cannot do otherwise, God help me.
My point being: What do I think of the gay marriage issue? = What the heck is government doing in the marital business in the first place?
So, where does that leave us? Let’s talk about health care. Nationalized health care is not unlike nationalized marriage. Right? Think about it. The implications of nationalized health care are tremendous in an isolated sense. Yet are they more tremendous than the government being in control of marriage? Not to me. In fact, if we tolerated government-controlled marriage and divorce, why would it surprise me that we tolerate government-controlled health care? Both have implications that may or may not speak to the supposed downfall of America.
Yes, we are going to have nationalized health care. Yes, gay marriage will be the norm. Yes, half of the country is leaning further and further away from the idea of America. Get used to it. But the idea of America can tolerate and eventually survive these blows. The idea of America can tolerate Obama and ObamaCare. We have done it in the past and we will do it again in the future. It is a lot bigger than the issues of nationalized marriage or health care. We must believe this, especially if we hope to change it.
America is tweaking itself. Yes, the tweaks have implications. But I don’t think they are as far-reaching as many “doomsdayers” suppose. Yes, I wish the federal government would just build highways and protect us, then stay out of our business for the most part. Nevertheless, as of today, I believe the idea of America is still intact. This is not the end of America. It is bigger than both marriage and health care. The solution is in our history and in our future. I pray that education becomes the norm for conservative Americans—no, for all Americans, but conservatives are going to have to lead the charge. We need to be educated on the idea of America. People need to understand where we have come from so they have a compass to guide future generations. But without this education, only the grace of God will lead blind people in the right direction. Nations do fall, but I still have great hope for ours. And you know what? As wrong as I think Obama is about so many things, I don’t think he has thrown the idea of America in the toilet. He will veer from the path, but he has not pulled a 180. But we all need to be careful what we tolerate. I have hope. Let us continue to fight by educating people about our great family history. There is great hope there.
167 replies to "Is this the End of America?"
http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/olney.html
I have always thought of Obama as one of the most “Left” American Presidents, and certainly the one that has spent more money than any and all combined! Is this true?
@Fr Robert
“I have always thought of Obama as one of the most “Left” American Presidents, and certainly the one that has spent more money than any and all combined! Is this true?”
Bush is the one who blew out government spending. Obama just kept it about the same. Bush grew spending 8% per year. Obama grew it 1.4% per year, which is actually the slowest government spending growth since at least before Reagan. Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and II all grew it a lot more. Actually, adjusting for inflation, spending actually fell under Obama.
Funny again, I have heard it all different, that Bush was spending with both 9/11, and later the Iraq War? I am sure this is a debate!
@sam
“As far as original intent goes, it is not monolithic as how the conservatives claim it to be. So the question eventually becomes, whose original intent to go with?”
As a legal document, always the plain meaning of the words takes precedence over suppositions about original intent. But where there is doubt or questions about original intent, it’s standard procedure of judges to look at intent. When judges are not sure just from the words what some legalese means, they will look at what debate look place around the legislation and what the government was saying about the legislation at the time it was enacted. To do it for the constitution would not be different than for any other legislation.
Btw, let me share this great Cowper Hymn… I think this fits into American Christianiity also, as Christianity proper, in the doctrine of God! Often times hymnology is the best theology!
LXIII. Light Shining out of Darkness
God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.
Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill,
He treasures up His bright designs,
And works His sovereign will.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.
Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan His work in vain:
God is His own interpreter,
And he will make it plain
I would have to do more research, but I don’t think that the growth in spending under Obama has been dramatically greater than it was under Bush or Clinton. Much of that growth was the result of bailing out the financial system, which was just a continuation of the policies of the prior administration. So I don’t think that there is any way that he has spent more than all his predecessors combined.
Debt has increased dramatically on Obama’s watch, but once again that was the result of the financial crisis. It is not the result of the kind of new liberal social programs that were seen under Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. It is hard to believe that any Republican president wouldn’t have continued the bailouts that began under Bush.
Obama’s health care reform usually gets him labeled as a socialist, but nationalized health care was once upon a time a perfectly respectable thing for moderate Republicans to support so it is hard for me to see how that could make him one of the farthest left,
It is difficult to put all forty-four presidents on the same left/right scale, but going back one hundred years, I would say Roosevelt and Johnson were the most liberal. Truman and Carter come behind them and I would group Obama, Clinton, and Kennedy behind them. So I’m not sure he’s even in the top third for leftiness of presidents in the last century.
I am not a fan of Bush but this is just pure propaganda. Did you get that from George Soro’s Media Matters or Ctr American Progress.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
Just stick to the facts. The bottom line is Obame increased spending by $535B in his first year from $2.9T to $3.5T while rev dropped $419B which is what created the $1.4T deficit. Obama has been running over a $1.2T deficit every year since while rev only increase a little over $100B/yr. If you want to spend money we don’t have fine. If you want to tell the American people you want to raise another $1.2T in new taxes, fine. But cut the propaganda of 1.4%. The campaign is over.
@teleologist
“Did you get that from George Soro’s Media Matters or Ctr American Progress.”
Forbes said that, and Forbes is a mainstream financial source.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
There are other sources for this. e.g.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767/obama-budget-chart/?mobile=nc
http://www.policymic.com/articles/9069/has-obama-spent-more-than-any-other-u-s-president-in-history-yes-and-no
Teleologist,
I saw the 1.4% number on the MarketWatch website and I think it was reached by blaming Bush for some portion of the 2009 bailout spending. I wouldn’t call it pure propaganda since an argument might legitimately be made about who was responsible for that increased spending, but objectively it occurred on Obama’s watch. The spending during every administration is effected by events outside the president’s control as well as decisions made during prior adminstrations, but the numbers are still the numbers.
The Obama campaign was pushing this 1.4% propaganda prior to the election. I say propaganda because you can selectively compare any subset of figures from the budget to get a number that is favorable to your argument. You can create all sorts of reason why Obama got his hands caught in the cookie jaw but at the end of the day his hands are in the cookie jaw for over $1.2T/yr and according the CBO it will continue to be over $1T/yr long after Obama leaves office. So it doesn’t matter where or how you got the 1.4%. It is completely irrelevant when you are running that kind of deficit.
I just knew there was a further debate here! 😉 After seeing 2016, Obama is a bummer, without a doubt!
Teleology,
I have no major disagreement. I only consider it somewhat less than pure propaganda in that the original source of the number was not necessarily partisan. The way the number was used by the campaign is another story all together.
You know i have kept up with all the comments, and although there are good reasons, many of which I agree with, on why America has gone wrong, including the last election, the bottom line is : Are we going to roll over and die because of it, or are we going to believe in the ordinary people who make up our country and have survived no matter what? I’m certainly not happy with the way the country has been going in the last few elections either, yet neither am I willing to bow to the doomsday sayers. So I have to agree with Michael on this.
We have Christ for heavens sake. who says we win in the end and so we Christians. even if we are in the minority, should as least try to act like winners for a change, and take it as an opportunity instead to compare the gospel of the Good News instead of crying in our beer over all the negative stuff.
I guess that depends on what you mean by win. Does Christ winning mean that America will not descend into irrelevance like all the other empires before it? If we think from history that we’ve always risen out of bad times, history also tell us empires do fall. Does Christ winning mean that Christians will not be persecuted? I don’t think so. I believe persecution on Christians will increase. America will continue to decline morally and in significance. That is alright, because the Lord has warned us of this, even with eschatology aside. No we are not to cry over some warm beer but we are to continue to work until He comes or until we are taken home. I am fine with that. Still I would pray that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life.
I didn’t see it coming, but it seems that America truly is coming to an end:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-petition-secede-reaches-threshold-obama-comment/story?id=17701519#.UKJxX2fbw14
This reminds me of the issue with Quebec sovereignty, which sought (and will seek) to secede from Canada, during which some in Montreal asked to secede from Quebec. 🙂
@Tel, Indeed if America gets much more like the UK and Great Britain, the secularism will press people into madness! And only the Spirit of God can save and change people! But the Gospel is becoming so unknown today, that when it is really preached, the secular ears just cannot hear it, much less believe it! Note, St. Paul’s Last Will & Testament, 2 Timothy, especially chapters 2-3-4! Indeed this is a “spiritual” condition, i.e. humanities sinful being! It is collective in the First Adam, Rom. 3:23 ; 5: 12-14, but we have (thanks be to God), the Last Adam, verse 15, etc.
Btw, just an amazing stat, but it appears that Romney lost by more than 2 million votes compared to John McCain’s run. Indeed the American voting demographics have surely changed! One wonders if the GOP can win again? And the British HAVE their Conservative Party in! But there are such major differences in the British idea of “conservative”!
Just a question, but who feels (on the conservative side) that Obama Care is a good thing in the long run? I mean the Brit’s have had social health care for many, many years! (And just a futher note too, but we, my wife and I came here (USA), for the health care for her – we pay for it – and the weather in S. Calif.) She has chronic COPD. Oh those years of her smoking, don’t smoke! I don’t, and she hasn’t now for over ten years.
[…] Is this the end of America? – Here is a helpful article in light of the recent election by our friends over at the Credo House. […]
@Fr Robert
” it appears that Romney lost by more than 2 million votes compared to John McCain’s run. Indeed the American voting demographics have surely changed!”
Mightn’t it be because Romney is a clown? Maybe when they find a candidate without so many liabilities, they will win again.
@ Fr. Robert, I am no expert in Europe but even I can see the secularization is a fait accompli. America lags Europe but it is has been a long time in coming. IMO, it began with the social gospel of the 1800s when a Christ center gospel has less priority than the worldly needs of the unsaved. The seed that was plant back then has morphed into the monster we have today typified in the emergents and to a lesser degree in many of our Christian psyche. Biblical and social conservative like myself are walking dinosaurs that is sure to go extinct if the Lord tarries.
As to your question on Obamacare, how can it possibly be good accept for those who are already eligible for free healthcare. Some CBO estimates that there are over $2T of hidden cost in Obamacare that is not accounted for. We will have to wait and see. Every entitlement we have is a ponzi scheme that normally is illegal unless it is instituted by the gov’t. Every entitlement is headed for financial armageddon. Like dependent drug addicts we can’t quit but now we can get another helping with Obamacare.
I pay for my own healthcare and the only way I’ve managed last years increase is to increase my deductible. Call me cynical but I don’t think there are any good players in this game, not the insurance company, not the doctors, not the government and not even the patients. Just from my personal experience.
@ teleologist
“your question on Obamacare, how can it possibly be good”
Err… I think enquiring minds want more detail about why health care wouldn’t be good.
“Every entitlement is headed for financial armageddon. Like dependent drug addicts we can’t quit but now we can get another helping with Obamacare.”
But… health care is a fairly inelastic consumable. Or at least… it should be. If you need it, you pretty much need it. And its got to be paid for. You can’t substitute it for anything else. If it costs 1T or 2T or 10T, well, its got to be paid for. Whether you pay it out of your pocket, or via a private health firm, or your employer pays it, or the government pays it, sooner or later, directly or indirectly, you will pay it and society will pay it.
I don’t see why Britain can afford it and be running a successful economy, and Australia can pay for it and run a successful economy, but the US can’t pay for it. Those countries like it, and it isn’t even a controversy. There is NOBODY crying out about how it should be gotten rid of. NOBODY.
@John: I would never call Romney or Ryan “clowns” nor should you mate! Disagree on the political, but not ad hom, etc. But, I would call Obama very close to being “evil”, at least on the level of ideology, etc., but of course that’s my opinion, and I am a Brit., but an old military one, to degree. And as I have said, I served as an RMC with/attached to the American Marine 3rd Force Recon (years ago). But on health care, I would agree somewhat, but perhaps it would have been better to have some kind of agreement with the GOP and the full American people, before they pressed it thru! Not one vote from the GOP, this was not good! Note my Irish younger brother is now an American citizen, and he was an American Marine. And he is a Republican.
And btw, one of my best friends in the Nam, was an American Marine Recon guy who was a Mormon. I remember him telling me he loved Jesus Christ as his Savior. He was later killed in action. I always hope he RIP!
@Tel, I would think it would take years really for the American people to get to some kind of general agreement on health-care, Dem’s, GOP, Independents, etc., but now its going to be done in one quick hit with Obama Care? Indeed does not sound so good! I wonder what many of the American doctors are gonna do? But again, I am Brit, but a conservative one.
@Fr Robert
Romney being a Mormon doesn’t influence me much, but… it only takes a few percent of the population to swing the election, and there were even atheists out there commenting that Mormonism is so ridiculous, compared to mainline Christianity, that they had to doubt the intelligence of anyone subscribing to it. That’s without even talking about Christians who have issues with it.
If we’re not going to call Romney a clown, then let’s just say it was a very condescending campaign in my view, from the Etch a Sketch comments to the 47% comments, to the attempts to downplay people’s need for health care, and policy to reduce deficit via reducing taxes. I’m the sort of person who would be inclined to vote Republican if I were American, and if they ran a good campaign.
@John, I have learned that the so-called existential side of the Faith, exists even within poor or bad doctrine. As much as I love the Reformed faith and theology itself, we can never make any litmus test in faith, save perhaps the essence of the Incarnation and something of the Work of Christ. I would agree that Momonism has some deep errors here also. But some call Christ as their Savior! And being raised in something is always a great challenge. I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in the 50’s and 60’s, and it took for some heavy work, mentally and even emotionally, to get free of Roman Catholicism! (But even as a Catholic, I first touched Augustine and the Augustinian faith). I was even an Anglo-Catholic for several years, before the Reformational and the Reformed doctrine/doctrines of grace took hold of my heart & mind. But I have learned with Luther that the “theologia crucis” (the doctrine of the cross), is really the doctrine of St. Paul! (1 Cor. 2: 1-5) And Paul was and is Christ’s chosen vessel in and for this Gospel, (Acts 9: 15-16 / 1 Tim. 1: 11-16). But then this is pretty “theological”, and I thank God for it! And Paul does talk about proper “knowledge” (ginosko)…2 Cor. 8: 9, as “In Christ”. But this is also always profoundly mystical in faith too! And we are as Peter said to “grow in grace, and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 3: 18) But once again this is not just intellectual activity, but by the Holy Spirit. In the end, it is always toward the Doctrine of God, that we are drawn by Christ, in the Spirit (Eph. 2: 18). How’s that for a mental run of faith! 😉
Yes, if were an American, I would be inclined too towards the Republican party. It seems the best form of seeing the American Constitution, etc. Funny though Lincoln was the first “Republican”, and he really pressed the Federal Union, and perhaps overly so? Btw, look at all the States that want to get away from the Federal goverment, now. Quite…
@Fr. Robert, I doubt there will be enough votes even in those states that petitioned to secede. But if there were enough votes I doubt Obama and the liberals would allow it, which makes me wonder why? If you are a liberal and you have this following mindset of people like me, why would you want to be in the same union as I am?
My suspicion on why they won’t let us secede is because everything we have belongs to them. I think they would be fine with people seceding if they just leave the country with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Liberal are the most kind and tolerant bunch as long as you don’t disagree with them.
@John, I am not trying to ignore you but I am just in no mood to re-debate Obamacare. If you don’t know the problems with it by now I doubt you will see it now.
@Teleologist,
It’s not that the possessions of conservatives belong to liberals. It’s that the states belong to the United States.
I don’t see where the idea comes from that a minority of people should be able to claim some portion of the United States as their own personal possession and set up an independent government just because they didn’t get their way in the most recent election.
@Vinny, you have it exactly the opposite. I think these 2 articles from Walter Williams will answer your questions.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/03/25/states_rebellion_pending/page/full/
Personally I am not suggesting we should secede. I am just forwarding the argument why people might want to secede. The problem is not just over a single election. It is over the increasing polarization of the country. The question is will it get to the point of the 1776 Revolution or the Civil War level. In its simplest cause these wars were because people finally came to the point where an amicable solution could not be reached between two diametrically opposing values.
@Teleological,
Do you really think that two articles from a man who does not appear to have any qualifications as a constitutional scholar really answer any questions? Moreover, the people who want to secede because of the increasing polarization seem to me to be the very same people who are responsible for that increase. If we acknowledge the right to secede, doesn’t that just provide motivation for further polarization rather than compromise?
Wow.. Its not hard to see the great divide here with ideology in the American political! But as we watch the American Obama since the election, it appears he thinks he is a prince or king, rather than a president! What was it Lincoln said, ‘A Nation divided against itself shall not stand.’
I am not a constitutional scholar but I am not yet ready to bend my knees and give obedience to whatever a constitutional scholar tells me is right. Although Williams might not be a lawyer I would submit that he is a scholar of the constitution among his many degrees he holds a Doctor of Laws.
Credentials aside, whether you agree or not, the secessionists sees justification for secession in the 9th and 10th Amendments and the quotes Williams gave from Virginia and Jefferson punctuate the strength of his argument. Although you can argue the interpretation and application of the Bill of Rights but it is a fact that both the federalists and anti-federalists were cognizant of the danger of a overpowering national government and that states does have sovereignty. That was the reason for the Bill of Rights to protect the states from the federal government.
Whether secession is feasible is one thing but your claim that the states belong to the “United States” is incorrect. On the contrary the federal government received its authority from the states.
@Fr. Robert, you are exactly right Obama has acted above the law but the media and a large portion of the public is fine with that. And that is another reason why the secession talk continues.
@Teleologist,
I did not mean to suggest that the states belong to the United States in the sense that the United States holds legal title to them, but rather, that they are a part and no longer have the status of free and independent entities. The Federal government did receive its power from the states, but that doesn’t mean that any state can get the power back without the agreement of all the others. The issue of secession is far too complex to be answered by quote-mining a few founders.
It is no doubt true that many people at the time of ratification thought that the states would be able secede if they decided to do so, but I don’t really see how that’s relevant today. Lots of people had different ideas about what the various clauses of the Constitution meant and how they would be applied in the future. No one thought that they could anticipate everything the country would ever have to deal with and they understood that they were creating a Constitution that was sufficiently flexible that the country would be able to respond to changing times and circumstances.
For better or for worse, the country went in the direction of a stronger central government and weaker states. Many people at the time of ratification might have expected the states to remain stronger, but not all did. Moreover, had the balance not shifted in favor of the central government, the United States likely would not be the most powerful country in the world today and would not exist in its present form.
@Vinny, I will agree with you in this way. I can’t imagine it is possible to have a bloodless secession and for this reason I pray that it will never happen.
@Tel, Just my opinion, but the major channels of American journalism appear to be ‘in the tank’ for Obama, of course save FOX. And this simply helped get Obama elected again. But too, the dumbing down of the American people is all too apparent, as has been my own British people also. The loss of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and the authority of the Holy Scripture in the life of the Free World is now just generational! Sad, very sad! But, we see this in the Bible don’t we, i.e., since the Last Days of the NT itself! Even St. Paul saw the beginning of this great Apostasy, in 2 Thes. 2, though I am sure he did not see about two-thousand years of the church on earth! Yes, some of this is Apocalyptic, depicting symbolically the ultimate destruction of evil and triumph of good, but only and finally with “Christ Jesus”, Himself Lord, and His Lordship on and over the earth, at His Visible Second Coming! And I myself, see the Nation and People of National Israel, central here in the final Eschatology, and the New Creation on Earth! But the Church, sitting with Christ above and over all the earth… of course I am Historic Pre-Mill. And we shall see won’t we? 🙂
@Fr. Robert, amen. 🙂
@Fr. Robert, To the question of Obamacare being good or not my sense is no. What I found most distressing was that no one read the bill before it was passed and given the number of pages involved, who had the time? If you remember, then Speaker Pelosi said we had to pass it if we wanted to know what was in it. If that does not raise red flags I don’t know what will. Not quite the transparency the president had promised in my mind. I’m sure there will be more and more coming out as this is rolled out over the next few years so we will find out just how good this is. I hope it does not drive private insurers out of the market.
Grace and Truth….
@Teleologist, I fear that attacks on the legitimacy of the government may inspire acts of domestic terrorism in the Oklahoma City vein, but I don’t think that serious attempts at secession are likely.
I love America and Americans! Here it appears is the last stand for freedom and any sense of the Judeo-Christian (save too for Israel). I lived and taught in Israel for several years mid to late 90’s. They are the only real democracy in the Middle East! But they cannot hold-out or stand forever, as we know from Zech. 13: 8-9 ; 14: 1-2, etc. If I were a younger man, even as a Christian (and presbyter) I would be in and stand with Israel! The great question is, will America still?
@Vinny, I hope you are not trying to equate the people who petition for secession with McVeigh. McVeigh was a neo-Nazi with a lust for violence. I have not seen any indication let alone evidence that any of the petitioners for secession has any inclination for violence. In fact most of the hate and violence have come from the left. e.g. MSNBC talk hosts, tweet attacks on pro-Romney actresses, occupy wall street, environmental terrorists.
@Fr R, the answer to your question is NO. Just look at the response from the Obama administration with rocket attacks on Israel for the whole last month.
@Tel.. Sadly I have to agree! Even old Jimmy Carter would not have sat and done nothing! Not that I am a Carter fan, for he has proven to be against Israel, really. Obama simply acts like Israel does not exist! How in the world any Jewish American could vote for Obama is a mystery to me?
@Teleologist,
The secessionists of 1861 all understood that the necessary result of their actions would be armed conflict with the government of the United States if that government was inclined to oppose separation. Some might have thought it possible that peaceful separation would be allowed, but none could have pursued the course of secession without believing that violent resistance to the federal government was justified.
So while I do not equate someone who signs a petition with someone who commits an act of violence, I find it very hard not to view secessionists as explicitly challenging the legitimacy of the government of the United States and implicitly sanctioning armed resistance. Unlike in 1861, no one today can rationally believe that peaceful separation is a possibility. Also unlike in 1861, no state or combination of states is capable of fielding an army that can challenge the forces of the United States on the battlefield. That leaves domestic terrorism as the only option for someone who is not content with signing petitions.
Amen, brother. I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of things, esp the marriage piece. Thanks for the thoughtful, truly conservative, word.
I agree that a big part of what we need is more education about our past and about the implications of true liberty. This article sounded a powerful note and is only more evidence that there is a swath of people out there who still believe in our founding vision. The Liberty movement is alive and well in this nation (esp among the younger generation, like my own) thanks to the ramaining vestiges of liberty that we still have. May God help it grow.
@Teleologist,
The secessionists of 1861 all understood that the necessary result of their actions would be armed conflict with the government of the United States if that government was inclined to oppose separation. Some might have thought it possible that peaceful separation would be allowed, but none could have pursued the course of secession without believing that violent resistance to the federal government was justified.
So while I do not equate someone who signs a petition with someone who commits an act of violence, I find it very hard not to view secessionists as explicitly challenging the legitimacy of the government of the United States and implicitly sanctioning armed resistance. Unlike in 1861, no one today can rationally believe that peaceful separation is a possibility. Also unlike in 1861, no state or combination of states is capable of fielding an army that can challenge the forces of the United States on the battlefield. That leaves domestic terrorism as the only option for someone who is not content with signing petitions.
“Also unlike in 1861, no state or combination of states is capable of fielding an army that can challenge the forces of the United States on the battlefield.”
Well… Any state that contains nukes could challenge, if they could take control of them.
And any combination of states? Really? At last count 40 states have filed petitions to secede. Are you sure the other 10 could win?
@John,
If there were actually forty states that could muster a majority of their citizens for secession, Obama wouldn’t have won the election.
I think that seizing control of nuclear weapons would fall in the category of domestic terrorism.
“I think that seizing control of nuclear weapons would fall in the category of domestic terrorism.”
I guess the American revolution was an act of domestic terrorism. But the victors will write history.
@Vinny, you can speculate all you want but again, there is no indication from any of the secessionist movement that they would even contemplate a violent secession. I saw an interview from one of the secession organizer and he reason for the petition was more of a protest on issues rather than actually seceding.
I would agree if there is an actual secession, it would be hard to imagine there would not be bloodshed. And whoever draws the first blood would be irrelevant at that point.