DADI.org

OpinioNet Contributed Commentary - Steve Farrell <Cyours76@hotmail.com>

Topic:  Constitutional and/or Judaeo-Christian Issues

Dated:  January 5, 2000
Author:  Steve Farrell

This past year, at the height of the controversy over the reintroduction of the Ten Commandments into the public schools, a still unresolved debate, several public school teachers (friends of mine) briefly debated the issue over lunch.

Their rapid and rash one-sided consensus was that teaching the Ten Commandments had little or no value in the classroom. They did, however, find much to chuckle about.

One young lady, who described herself as a Christian, bluntly and flippantly stated, "I can see the value of teaching some of the commandments, like 'thou shalt not steal' or 'thou shalt not kill,' but come on, 'thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart and him only thou shalt serve.' That's absurd! What's the point?"

Everyone readily ‘amen'-ed her conclusion with smug nods and snickers. They shouldn't have.

The Founding Fathers knew exactly what the point was and we owe at least two basic principles of Constitutional law to their understanding and convictions regarding the first great commandment. They are: 1. Our rejection of kings. 2. Our belief in equality before the law (as one of many inalienable rights).

America's Rejection of Kings

One of the most powerful arguments used by an American Founder to renounce kings and their unchecked power was found in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," the booklet that rallied the colonists to independence from the Crown.

Paine's rejection of king's and kingly prerogatives was based on an appeal to scripture, reason, and history, but primarily scripture. He noted, "The Almighty hath here (in the Bible) entered his protest against monarchial government."

In the Bible we learned, he continued: "Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. [Before] then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases) was a kind of republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes [who were freely elected]. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts."

"Government by kings," said Paine, was not the invention of God, as skeptics contend today, but "was first introduced into the world by the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom."

Israel first dabbled with the idea of kings when they solicited the great general Gideon for such a post. "Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son." But Gideon, a type and a shadow of another great general, Washington, rigorously refused this tempting offer; said he, "[only] the Lord shall rule over you." Gideon, not only "declined the offer," but he "denied their right to give it, " for absolute power in the hands of any man was an affront to God.

The Jews followed Gideon's advice and example, like America followed Washington's, for "one hundred and thirty years." However, the democratic voice of the Jewish people inevitably arrived at the moment when they deemed it wise to "be like all the other nations."

Samuel, the prophet at that later date was angered, and echoed Gideon's warning, but to no avail. The Lord then instructed Samuel to allow the people to exercise their agency unto their own destruction. Said he to Samuel: "Hearken unto the voice of the people...howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king[s] that shall rule over them."

And what does a king do?

"He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots and he will appoint captains over thousands and captains over fifty.... to make instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots."

War, a mandatory draft, the creation of a manufacturing war machine (which would include forcing women into the work force to support their warring husbands), and an income tax (an oppressive 1/10th) would result. And it all happened. Additionally, Israel soon split into two nations due to a revolt over those income taxes; entangled themselves in 'security' alliances (Against prophetic counsel - God was to be their protector); involved themselves in endless wars; lost their independence to a string of conquerors; and were finally sacked all together by the Romans.

This biblical lesson, powerfully elucidated by Thomas Paine, was capped off with this bold notice to the Crown: ""But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain.

Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute government the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

It was the belief that God and the law of God were Supreme, which repudiated monarchy and inspired the colonists to believe that no man or group of men should ever be trusted with unchecked power. It taught the colonists a principle, students need to know today, that even good men (the kings of Israel were handpicked by God) are corrupted by untrammeled centralized power and the results of such blind trust are catastrophic!

Equality Before the Law

Yet, recognition of God as Our Father and the only King in the Universe roused another political leap for man - or we may say with equal ardor, as did Jefferson - affected a return to ancient principles. One of them: "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

This was no inconsequential improvement, and Jefferson did not happen upon it alone. It was a principle deeply rooted in the religious theology and history of a very religiously minded group of colonists. The extension of this belief into the American Bill of Rights changed the world.

It's connection to the First Commandment? A 1762 election sermon by Boston Reverend Abraham Williams spells it out: "Men [are] naturally equal, [having] descended from a common parent (who is God)." This widely held belief was built also upon the apostle Peter's affirmation that: "God is no respecter of persons but hath made of one blood all nations under Heaven."

Thus, in America where common men were permitted to read the Bible (it was forbidden throughout Europe) and discover for themselves that even kings were common. Blue blood was soon out and equality in.

And what was this equality? Not an equality of ends. Not at all. "Men are not equally industrious and frugal," reasoned Reverend Williams; further, such involuntary, government imposed schemes "would tempt the idle and imprudent to seize what they had not laboured for; which must put the industrious and honest upon methods of self defense, and dispose them to unite in societies for mutual security, against the assaults of rapacious men." Or in other words, this was not equality at all, but an attempt to destroy the equal right to private property, contrary to biblical commands against stealing and coveting - a scheme also, which would divide, not unite classes of men.

Equality as understood in the Judeo-Christian sense of the founders was divided into two parts. First, equal rights. The Ten Commandments laid out a plan for civil society that forbade men and governments from shedding innocent blood (the right to life), from prohibiting worship of God (the right to liberty), and from stealing or coveting other's goods (the right to private property). Therefore, all men and women possessed an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.

The second type of equality was equality before the law. As all men would one day stand before the bar of Heaven to be judged according to their works," so on Earth it must logically be the same. The Bible, quoted more in the political writings of the Revolutionary period than any other source (35 percent of all political quotation during this period came directly from the Bible), demanded specific and equal punishments for broken laws. There were no special immunities, no privileged political or religious classes and no right for any individual or group of individuals to obstruct justice or to bear false witness in a court of law.

All of them lessons for today!

If students of this and previous generations, had understood and believed in equality from the Founders perspective, that all were equal before the law as children of God, how might things be different today?

The widely held belief in the value of the first great commandment inspired our forefathers to unfetter themselves from kingly governments, and liberate man as equal before the law and in the enjoyment of his God given rights. So in answer to the question of my friends query: What's the point of teaching "Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart and him only thou shalt serve," in the classroom? The answer is: "Think again!"

Steve Farrell is the former managing editor of Right Magazine, a senior writer at Enter Stage Right and Ether Zone, and a widely published research writer. His projects include his upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party.

Please send your comments or media requests to Steve at Cyours76@hotmail.com

Back to DA*DI's Home