The Bible In the Schools--A Letter by Dr. Ben Rush

Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) was one of the youngest signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
He was a distinguished physician and scientist who held the first chemistry professorship in America. He published the first American chemistry textbook, A Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Chemistry, in 1770. He also established the first free dispensary in America in 1786 and published in 1812 the first American work on mental disorders, Medical and Observations Upon the Diseases of the Mind. He also helped to found the first abolition society in America, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, in 1775, and was appointed by President John Adams as the Treasurer of the United States Mint in 1797, which he held until 1813. The following is taken from a personal letter written by Dr. Rush in the late 1700’s.

Dear Sir:
It is now several months since I promised to give you my reasons for preferring the Bible as a schoolbook to all other compositions. Before I state my arguments, I shall assume the five following propositions:

That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that is proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.
That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way.
That the Bible contains mare knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world.
That knowledge is most durable, and religious instruction most useful, when imparted in early life.
That the Bible, when not read in the schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life.
My arguments in favor of the use of the Bible as a schoolbook are founded,

I. In the constitution of the human mind.
1. The memory is the first faculty which opens in the minds of children. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to impress it with the great truths of Christianity, before it is preoccupied with less interesting subjects.
2. There is a peculiar aptitude in the minds of children for religious knowledge. I have constantly found them, in the first six or seven years of their fives, more inquisitive upon religious subjects than upon any others. And an ingenious instructor of youth has informed me that he has found young children more capable of receiving just ideas upon the most difficult tenets of religion than upon the most simple branches of human knowledge. It would be strange if it were otherwise, for God creates all His means to suit His ends. There must, of course, be fitness between the human mind and the truths which are essential to its happiness.
3. The influence of early impressions is very great upon subsequent life; and in a world where false prejudices do so much mischief, it would discover great weakness not to oppose them by such as are true. I grant that many men have rejected the impressions derived from the Bible; but how much soever these impressions may have been despised, I believe no man was ever early instructed in the truths of the Bible without having been made wiser or better by the early operation of these impressions upon his mind. Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire is borrowed from the Bible; and the morality of Deists, which has been so much admired and praised where is has existed, has been, I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.
4. We are subject, by general law of our natures, to what is called habit. Now, if the study of the Scriptures be necessary to our happiness at any time of our life, the sooner we begin to read them, the more we shall probably be attached to them; for it is peculiar to all the acts of habit, to become easy, strong, and agreeable by repetition.
5. It is a law in our natures that we remember longest the knowledge we acquire by the greatest number of our senses. Now, a knowledge of the contents of the Bible is acquired in school by the aid of the eye and the ear, for children, after getting their lessons, read or repeat them to their instructors in an audible voice; of course, there is a presumption that this knowledge will be retained much longer then if it had been acquired in any other way.
6. The interesting events and characters recorded and described in the Old and New Testaments are calculated, above all others, to seize upon all the faculties of the mind of children. The understanding, the memory, the imagination, the passions, and the moral powers are all occasionally addressed by carious incidents which are contained in those divine books, insomuch that not to be delighted with them is to be devoid of every principle of pleasure that exists in a sound mind.
7. There is in man a native preference of truth to fiction. Lord Shaftesbury says that "truth is so congenial to our mind that we love even the shadow of it:" and Horace, in his rules for composing an epic poem, established the same law in our natures by advising that "fictions in poetry should resemble truth." Noe, the Bible contains more truth than any other book in the world; so true is the testimony that it bears of God His works of creation, providence, and redemption that it is called truth itself, by way of preeminence above all earthly things that are acknowledged to be true. How forcibly are we struck above what we discover in the history of other nations. Where do we find a hero or an historian record is own faults or vices except in the Old Testament? Indeed, my friend, from some accounts which I have read of the American Revolution, I begin to grow skeptical to all history except that which is contained in the Bible. Now, if this book be known to contain nothing but what is materially true, the mind will naturally acquire a love for it from this circumstance; and from this affection for the truths of the Bible, it will acquire a discernment of truth in other books, and a preference of it in all the transactions of life.




8. There is wonderful property in the memory which enables it in old age to recover the knowledge acquired in early life after it had been apparently forgotten for forty or fifty years. Of how much consequence, then, must it be to fill the mind with that species of knowledge in childhood and youth which, when recalled in the decline of like, will support the soul under the infirmities of age and smooth the avenues of approaching death. The Bible is the only book which is capable of affording this support to old age; and it is for this reason that we find it resorted to with so much diligence and pleasure by such old people as have read it in early life. I can recollect many instances of this kind of attachment to the Bible in the meridian of their days, who have, notwithstanding, spent the evening of life in reading no other book. The late Sir John Pringle, physician to the queen of Great Britain, after passing a long like in camps and at court, closed it by studying the Scriptures. So anxious was he to increase his knowledge in them that he wrote to Dr. Michaelis, a learned professor of divinity in Germany, for an explanation of a difficult text of Scripture a short time before his death.






II. My second argument in favor of the use of the Bible in schools is founded upon an implied command of God and upon the practice of several of the wisest nations of the world.




In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, we find the following words, which are directly to my purpose: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach then diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when tho liest down, and when thou risest. up."



It appears, moreover, form the history of the Jews, that they flourished as a nation in proportion as they honored and read the books of Moses, which contained the only revelation that God had made to the world. The law was not only neglected, but lost, during the general profligacy of manner which accompanied the long and wicked reign of Manasseh. But the discovery of it amid the rubbish of the temple by Josiah and its subsequent general use were followed by a return of national virtue and prosperity. We read further of the wonderful; effects which the reading of the law by Ezra, after his return in Babylon, had upon the Jews. They hung upon his lips with tears, and showed the sincerity of their repentance by their general Reformation.



The learning of the Jews, for many years, consisted in a knowledge of the Scriptures. These were the textbooks of all the instruction that was given in the schools of their Prophets. It was by means of this general knowledge of their law that those Jews who wandered from Judea into other countries carried with them and propagated certain ideas of the true God among all the civilized nations upon the face of the earth. And it was form the attachment they retained to the Old Testament that they procured a translation of it into the Greek language, after they had lost the Hebrew tongue by their long absence from their native country. The utility of this translation, commonly called the Septuagint, in facilitating the progress of the Gospel is well known to all who are acquainted with the history of the first age of the Christian church.



But the benefits of an early and general acquaintance with the Bible were not confined to the Jewish nation; they have appeared in many countries in Europe since the Reformation. The industry and habits of order which distinguish many of the German nations are derived from their early instruction in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a school book, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe.



I wish to be excused from repeating here that if the Bible did not convey a single direction for the attainment of future happiness, it should read in our schools in preference to all other books, from, its containing the greatest portion of that kind which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.





We err not only in human affairs, but in religion likewise, only because "we do not know the Scriptures." The opposite systems of the numerous sects of Christianity arise chiefly from their being more instructed in catechism, creeds, and confessions of faith, than in the scriptures. Immense truths, I believe, are concealed in them. The time, I have no doubt, will come, when prosperity will view and pity our ignorance of these truths, as much as we do the ignorance of the disciples of our Savior, who knew nothing of the meaning of those plain messages in the Old Testament which were daily fulfilling before their eyes.



But further, we err, not only in religion but in philosophy likewise, because we "do not know or believe the Scriptures." The sciences have been compared to a circle, of which religion composes a part. To understand any one of them perfectly, it is necessary to have some knowledge of them all. Bacon, Boyle, and Newton included the Scriptures in the inquires to which their universal geniuses disposed them, and their philosophy was aided by their knowledge in them. A striking agreement has been lately discovered between the history of certain events recorded in the Bible and some of the operations and production of nature, particularly those which are related in Whitehurst's observation on the deluge, In Smith's account of the origin of the variety of color in the human species, and in Bruce's travels. It remains yet to be shown how many other events related in the Bible accord with some late important discoveries in the principles of medicine. The events and the principles alluded to mutually establish the truth of each other.

I know it is said that the familiar use of the Bible in our schools has a tendency to lesson our due reverence for it. But this objection, by proving too much, proves nothing. If familiarity lessens respect for divine thins, then all those precepts for divine things, them all those precepts of our religion which enjoin the daily or weekly worship of the Deity are improper. The Bible was not intended to represent the Jewish ark; and it is an anti-Christian idea to suppose that is can be profaned by being carried into a schoolhouse, or by being handled by children.



It is also said that a great part of the Old Testament is no way interesting to mankind under the present dispensation of the Gospel. But I deny that any of the books of the Old Testament are not interesting to mankind under the Gospel dispensation. Most of the characters, events, and ceremonies mentioned in them are personal, providential, or instituted types of the Messiah, all of which have been, or remain yet, to be full filled by Him. It is from ignorance or neglect of these types that we ave so many Deists in Christendom, for so irrefragably of they prove the truth of Christianity that I am sure a young man who had been regularly instructed in their meaning could never doubt afterward of the truth of any principles. If any obscurity appears in these principles. If any obscurity appears in these principles, it is only to use the words of the poet, because they are dark with excessive brightness.

I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than out Maker. If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary. He came to promulgate a system of doctrines, as will as a system of morals. The perfect morality of the Gospel tests upon a doctrine which, though often controverted, has never been refuted; I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God. This sublime and ineffable doctrine delivers us from the absurd hypothesis of modern philosophers concerning the foundation of moral obligation, and fixes it upon the eternal and self-moving principle of LOVE. It concentrates a whole system of ethics in a single text of Scripture: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have love you." By with-holding the knowledge of this doctrine from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds. We do more; we furnish an argument for withholding from them a knowledge of the morality of the Gospel likewise; for this, in many instances, is a supernatural, and therefore as liable to be controverted, as any of the doctrines or miracles which are mentioned in the New Testament. The miraculous conception of the Savior of the world by a virgin is not more opposed to the ordinary course of natural events, not is the doctrine of atonement more above human reason, than those moral precepts which command us to love our enemies or to die for our friends.

I cannot bu suspect that the present fashionable practice of rejecting the Bible from our schools has originated with Deists. And they discover great ingenuity in this new mode of attacking Christianity. If they proceed in it, they will do more in half a century in extirpating our religion than Bolingbroke or Voltaire could have effected in a thousand years.

But passing by all other considerations, and contemplating merely the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of governments; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this divine book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues which constitute the soul of republicanism.

Perhaps an apology may be necessary for my having presumed to write upon a subject so much above my ordinary studies. My excuse for it is that I thought a single mite from a member of a profession which has been frequently charged with skepticism in religion might attract the notice of persons who had often over looked the more ample contributions, upon this subject, of gentlemen in other professions.

With great respect, I am, etc.

Benjamin Rush

Maine Takes A Stand Against Homosexuals...Yippee!

Maine Voters Reject Same-Sex "Marriage" Law
By Kathleen GilbertAUGUSTA, Maine, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Maine voters handed traditional marriage supporters a major victory Tuesday night after rejecting a same-sex "marriage" law that the state government approved six months ago.Though signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, the law never went into effect, and remained in limbo after the success of the ballot initiative calling for a people's vote.Had the law been upheld, Maine would have been the sixth U.S. state to allow homosexual "marriage," after Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.As of early Wednesday, the law was defeated 53% to 47%, despite polling data leading up to the vote showing the race in a dead heat. A similar scenario played out last year in California, where a neck-and-neck battle ended with 52% of voters rejecting same-sex "marriage." A national survey of marriage initiatives by ProtectMarriage.com last September showed that polling data underestimated voter support for true marriage on election day by an average of 7 percentage points.The Stand for Marriage Maine campaign celebrated its victory at a Portland rally beginning at midnight Wednesday. "We've struggled, we've worked against tremendous odds, as we've all known," said campaign manager Marc Mutty. "We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight."Maine's same-sex "marriage" activists on the other hand, who had banked on the state's left-leaning electorate to push the new definition of marriage through, vowed to continue the fight. "We're not short timers. We're in for the long haul,'' said No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly early this morning. Connolly's campaign has yet to officially concede the vote, and ABC News reports that the Protect Maine Equality campaign is likely to call for a statewide recount, which could take several weeks to conclude.Same-sex "marriage" has now lost in all 31 states in which the question has been put to a popular vote. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), pointed out: "Every time Americans vote on marriage, traditional marriage wins. As people become aware of the true homosexual agenda, that it is not about equality but indoctrinating children and discriminating against Christians, they shore up protections against it."Maine's vote marks the third time citizens have rejected same-sex "marriage" in response to action by the state government. One year ago today, 52% of California voters also upheld traditional marriage, striking down a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual "marriage" in May. In 1998, Hawaii became the first state with a constitutional amendment dealing with homosexual "marriage" in response to a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hawaiian voters then passed Amendment 2, which gave the legislature the power to reserve marriage to unions of man and woman.Though outspent two to one, the traditional marriage campaign received a boost from Portland Bishop Richard Malone, whose advocacy for true marriage helped solidify the response of Maine's Catholics. Catholics constitute 37% of the Maine population. "The Catholic Church led the fight in Maine against those seeking to reinvent marriage, and won," said Catholic League president Bill Donohue Wednesday.Maine's victory was not the only one for marriage Tuesday night: the losses suffered by pro-same-sex "marriage" Democrats in Virginia's and New Jersey's gubernatorial races pose a significant hurdle to homosexualist advocates. The victory of New Jersey Republican Chris Christie was particularly significant, as same-sex "marriage" supporters now only have until January to push through their legislation in time for lame duck Gov. Jon Corzine to sign it. Christie has vowed to veto any legislation legalizing same-sex "marriage.""Gov. Corzine said gay marriage was 'on the ballot' with him in New Jersey this year. Today, New Jersey voted 'No' on both of them," said Len Deo, President of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.Washington, D.C.'s city council is also preparing to approve a same-sex "marriage" law. Conservative D.C. activists are gathering support for a referendum to protect traditional marriage.

Yet Another Violation of a Religeous Practice--Crucifixes in the Classroom

European Court of Human Rights Bans Crucifixes in Italian Schools
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
STRASBOURG/ROME, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that displaying crucifixes in Italian classrooms violates parents' rights to secular education for their children.The Strasbourg court found that, "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities ... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions.""The presence of the crucifix ... could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion," the court said in a statement, adding the presence of such symbols could be "disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists."The seven judges ruling on the case added that crucifixes in the classroom also restricted the "right of children to believe or not to believe," according to the statement quoted by AFP news agency.The case was brought to the Human Rights Court by Soile Lautsi, a mother of two from Abano Terme, near Padua, on the grounds that her children were being influenced by having to attend a school that had crucifixes in every room.Ruling that this contradicted the separation of Church and state in Italy the court awarded her 5,000 euros (7,400 dollars) in damages.The court did not, however, order the Italian authorities to remove the crucifixes, and the Italian Government said that it would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber, according to the ANSA news agency.The ruling has sparked an uproar throughout the country, with religious leaders and politicians condemning the ruling using words such as "abhorrent," "offensive," "pagan," and "spineless.""This is an abhorrent ruling," said Rocco Buttiglione, a former culture minister."It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said.Mariastella Gelmini, the Minister for Education, said that the ruling was "an offence against our traditions.""The presence of a crucifix in the classroom does not signify adherence to Roman Catholicism, rather it is a symbol of our tradition," Gelmini told the ANSA news agency. She pointed out that, "The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves. No one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity.""It is not by eliminating the traditions of individual countries that a united Europe is built," Gelmini stated.Mario Baccini, a senator in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, said the European Court of Human Rights had "gone adrift in paganism," while Pierferdinando Casini of the opposition Union of Christian Democrats party said the ruling showed that the European Union's institutions were "spineless" in their failure to acknowledge the continent's Christian roots.Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he wanted to see the ruling and the reasons behind it before commenting, whereas the Italian Bishops Conference said that the verdict was "one sided and ideological," and "evokes sadness and bewilderment."

Sucession--Secede TX!

by Walter Block
The law of free association is a crucially important implication of the rights of private property (in physical material, and in our own bodies). For if we cannot freely associate with others on a mutually voluntary basis, our property rights are to that extent abrogated.
The most serious denigration of property rights in persons and thus in free association is, of course, murder. No one favors such behavior (killing in self-defense is entirely another matter) so this is not at all controversial. Another grave violation of the libertarian code of non-aggression against non-aggressors and their property is slavery (or kidnapping, which is short-term slavery). This, too, is non-debatable.
There are, however, many institutions, actually favored by "respectable" commentators on political economy, which partake of slavery to a greater or lesser extent. All laws against "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will. Another instance is forced unionism. Our labor legislation forces employers to "bargain fairly" with those they would prefer to avoid entirely.
Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a "scab," then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession.
Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.
Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people.
Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort. Certainly not as libertarians.
Thus, it is nothing short of amazing to find that there are commentators who actually call themselves libertarians and yet oppose the rights of secession. Were these people to remain consistent with this view, they would be logically forced, also, to give their imprimatur to union and anti-discrimination legislation, surely a reduction of absurdum.
One of the grounds upon which so called libertarians oppose secession, the right to be left alone politically speaking, is that those who wish to secede might be less than fully perfect in various ways. For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law.
Let us assume away the awkward historical fact that this "curious institution" was operational in the north, too. After all, we are making a philosophical point, not a historical one. Let us posit, arguendo, that the north came to its confrontation with the south with totally clean hands as far as slave holding, or, indeed, any other deviation from libertarian law is concerned (e.g., tariffs, high taxes, etc.). That is, the north is a totally libertarian entity, the south a morally evil one. (I know, I know; I’m only talking here for argument’s sake).
Would that premise be a valid rationale for the north to in effect enslave the south, and thus violate its rights of free association? It would not.
If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other.
Let us move from the realm of the macro to that of the micro. If groups of imperfect people are not justified in seceding from groups of perfect people, what about individuals? If we rigorously apply the principle on the basis of which confederate secession was opposed to the individual level, again we run into all sorts of counter-intuitive results.
For example, divorce. Under this "logic" no spouse could leave another if the departing one were less than perfect.
In the words of Clyde Wilson: "If the right of secession of one part of a political community is subject to the moral approval of another, then there really is no right of secession." Either you have the right of free association and secession, or you do not.
If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?
Under libertarian free market anarchism, it would be permissible for a private defense agency to invade private property if a crime is occurring there (if a mistake is made in this regard, libertarian punishment theory, the topic for another day, kicks into gear; in this type of society, even the police are not above the law). If A is about to murder B in A’s house, A may not properly object when the police kick in his door to forestall this dastardly act. Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves, but once this was done, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no further interaction. The south (or India in the case of suttee) would then be allowed to go its own way.
Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.
There would be no "reconstruction." There would be no "indivisible" U.S.A. Rather, there would now be two totally separate countries. The U.S.A. and the Confederacy. Again, once slavery was ended, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. On the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
Written July 9, 2002

The Government's Violation of Rights over We the People

This excellent article is by W.N. (Bill) Fangio.

Just Power's?
In our declaration of independence we find these words:

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's. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--

I wonder how many of us believe that our central government derives their just powers from We the People? And, of we the people are not the source of the powers exercised by our central government then who or what is?

Laying that question aside for the moment consider the meaning of the word "just." According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, "Just" means morally right or good. And "power" means possession of control, authority, or influence over others.

I don't think anyone would argue that the central government does not have power over us. Through various forms of taxation and inflation of the currency they covert the fruits of our labor to their account by means of force. And they exercise control and authority over their lives through law and regulation also by means of force. Further, they influence our lives through propaganda dispensed in our institutions.

Are these powers just? Are they morally right and good? It is right to take a man's money and spend it on that of which he disapproves? Jefferson called that the highest form of tyranny. Do I want my money going to Planned Parenthood to support abortion? Is it right for the central government to engage in undeclared war and kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children? Is it right for the central government to meddle in the business of other nations including assassination? Is it right for the central government to arrogate powers to itself not enumerated in the Constitution to the hurt of the States and the people? Is it right for the central government to continually deplete our civil liberties? These questions could go on endlessly and the answer to all of them would be a resounding NO! The majority of the powers exercised by the central government are not just, and they are not morally right and good!

No matter how noble its origins, every government devolves into a similar final configuration. That is, that the government's sole function is to extract their wealth and power from the productive sector of the population. They will employ euphemisms to cast their activities in a high sounding and favorable light to leave a positive impression with the people. Such expressions may be used as "pay your fair share" in the hopes that we never look below the surface and question why we assumed the burden in the first place. They will talk about investing money in various projects, when any clear thinking person would know that government can only invest (read spend) what they take away from me and you. Further, government foes nothing will. There is no incentive for government to do well.

So the central government has power but the powers are not just. How did we star so well and wind up where we are today as servants to a leviathan government? Were we just not paying attention? Perhaps.

Some things take a long time and our current problems can be traced to the year 1913 and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Ask your neighbors or friends who owns the Federal Reserve and they will invariably tell you it is the government. OF course that is exactly what the bankers wanted us to believe by adding the word "Federal" to the title. And, it has worked. But in fact the Federal Reserve is a private institution beyond the reach of any branch of the central government. In passing the Federal Reserve Act a majority of congress sold out the American People by abdicating their constitutional responsibility to coin money and regulate the value thereof and gave that authority to a private banking cartel.

This meant that the money supply and interest rates are now managed by private persons. (I wonder whose interests they really have at heart?) Son, instead of a free market we have had a managed market for nearly 100 years. Interest rates and artificially lowered, lending increases and mal-investment results.

Add government interference in the economy and you have the situation we are faced with today. Over the last few decades certain member of congress wanted everyone to have a house whether they could afford it or not. Fueled by low interest rates, mortgages were being exponentially. Everyone was having a good time and the mortgages were being traded on Wall Street further compounding the problem. But, guess what? The folks that were encouraged to buy what they could not afford stated to default on the mortgages in droves. And, who do you think was left holding the bag? The bankers? The financial institution? The insurance companies? Not at all. Thanks to our supposedly benevolent government they made sure it would be the people who will be paying for generation to come.

It is invariably the case that government creates the problem and then proposes to fix the problem. Just as the Depression of 1929 was protracted due to government interference by Hoover and Roosevelt this one will be protracted by a new round of government interference with the passage of the latest stimulus and pork bill. Of course it will not work. The correct solution would be for the central government to reduce spending and taxes and curb inflation. Then allow the mal-investment to flush out.

So back to the original question. What is the source to power for the central government? It is in our wallet. It is the Federal Reserve Note coupled with legal tender laws. It gives the central government the power to pursue all of their adventures without having to come to the States or the people for funding. They just print what they need and leave you and I pay the bill through taxation and inflation.

Fangio 2009

More on Abortion--the Government's Perfect Tool for cutting down the population

Beggars Versus Giants: More Quotes to Consider
See previous Part 1 and Part 2 of this series
Compiled by Steve Jalsevac
October 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The following are additional quotes from prominent individuals emphasizing why abortion and its related anti-life evils must be given a very high priority:
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide." Ronald Reagan ­ Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
"everything collapses without respect for life." Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, the head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican City, Oct. 3, 2000"The abortion law has a common denominator with the spirit of the Nazis and of communism: We may kill.." Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg Andreas Laun in an interview with the Austrian magazine News
"Some will say that the defense of innocent life is only one issue among many, that it is important but not fundamental. They are wrong. In the natural moral law, the good of life is the most fundamental good and the condition for the enjoyment of all other goods." Archbishop Raymond Burke Jan. 2004
"Defense of human life is the only foundation on which all else must be built, or else, all else is eventually going to collapse. .." Bishop William Murphy, Archdiocese of Boston in Pilot Column
"The taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue." Bishop James Timlin, D.D., Bishop of Scranton, "The Ballot and the Right to Life" Fall 2000
"...we have a most grave obligation to defend all human life from the moment of conception until natural death. God help us if we fail in this most fundamental obligation." Archbishop John Myers of Newark, New Jersey - May 4, 2004
"A new 'ideology of evil' is threatening society and it includes gay 'marriage,' and abortion" Pope John Paul II in his book, "Memory and Identity." about his experiences with 20th-century totalitarianism
[T]he failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics" (1998), "Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill's shortest and most memorable commencement speech of all time at his alma mater during World War I as quoted by Peter Kreeft in his book How to Win the Culture War

Note: You may have noticed a lot of these quotes are from Catholic backgrounds--I am not Catholic--but these are great quotes posted by Life Site News, which is a Catholic news site.