Citizen Tom

There are various approaches to pamphleteering on the Internet.  Most of us are familiar with how bloggers spread their views.  A different approach, however, is by its nature more obscure.  That is the commenter who posts the same long and detailed comment everywhere he can.

The first time I saw such a comment I was sort of flattered and amazed.  Who would do so much work just to refute me?  Fortunately, my curiosity worked against such an ego trip.  Taking advantage of the wonders of Google I did a search.  Sure enough, I had no particular reason to feel so flattered.  

The last such pamphleteering comment on my little website came from Doug Indeap (see here) on this post, AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED .  Here is a list of some of the places Indeap has posted variations of or a portion of the same comment.

• Back to the Constitution provides a concise explanation of the origin of the the phrase: Separation Of Church And State
• Video: The Truth About “Separation of Church and State” provides a teenager’s point of view.
• In his version of the Separation of Church and State, Mr. Garner Goes To Washington very carefully explains what is wrong with the oft used phrase, “separation of church and state.”
• The Emerging Scholars Blog, on the other hand, asks an interesting — and the crucial — question:  Is God Relevant in the Public Square?

While Doug Indeap’s comment is carefully reasoned, it is not well reasoned.  What follows is an explanation of why I hold that opinion.

For starters, please take the time to read Is God Relevant in the Public Square? I think you will find this post well worth the effort. Is God Relevant in the Public Square? considers the alternative options we have for dealing with the subject of faith in the public square.  With Option #3, Is God Relevant in the Public Square? offers our nation’s traditional solution.

This third option is the one for which Guinness argues. In such a public square, all faiths (and non-faiths) are welcome. In such a public square, persuasion is used, not coercion.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this third option is what Doug Indeap advocates.  If you look at the video I posted on AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED , it is about a 75 year old cross.  Presumably Indeap viewed the video.  The cross he thinks violates his religious freedom is about as close to the middle of nowhere as you can get in the lower 48 states.  Nonetheless, Indeap still (albeit politely) takes exception to this so-called promotion of religion by government — even though veterans paid for this 75 year old cross.

Indeap either too much fears or reviles any evidence of God in the public square. Perhaps Indeap confuses secular government with the secularization of the public square.  There is a clear difference.

Because we are self-aware, we are inherently religious creatures.  Because we think, we wonder why.  How did we come to be?  Although our search is too often aimless, many of us live much of our lives in a quest to know the answer.  We debate, we argue, and sometimes we fight over our differing conclusions.

What history has too often demonstrated is that a politically powerful faction will often try to use government to enforce its religious views upon everyone else.  In spite of the 1st Amendment, the United States is no exception.  In our era, many, particularly many of our elites, have no use for religion.  Thus the citizenry must be vigilant against secularism.  To ensure each of us can practice our own particular religious beliefs (both in private and in public), we must stand up for each other’s right to practice religion.  As a People we must ensure our government leaders do not abuse their powers to either stifle one religion or to promote another.

Forced secularization of the public square is the stifling of religious belief. Look at Arlington Cemetery.  Would you have the Christian crosses and the Jewish stars expunged from the tombstones?  Would you have the crosses removed?  Would you deface the image of Christ?  Look at what the secularists demand.  The majority religion of the United States is Christianity; that the secularists would have us forget.  Christian belief is integral to our history, but the secularists say no way.  Christianity is at the foundation of both our culture and our method of government, but the secularists insist it never was.

Without Christianity, could the United States exist as we know it?  If you were educated only in the public schools, you may think the answer is yes.  However, without Christianity, we would not have religious freedom in the United States.  Look at at the Declaration of Independence.  God is where it all began.

To secularize the public square is to insist we deny and ignore the truth of our nation’s origins.   Secularization creates  an unsupportable fantasy.  What was the Founder’s objective?  Did they create a secular government to protect or to deny the practice of religious belief?

We cannot give into the secularization of the public square.  If we continue giving ground, not just our government, but we too, including our families and our children, must become more and more secularized.  Yet when he argues for the secularization of the public square, that is what Indeap risks advocating.

As Teri’s Tyrades notes here, President Barack Obama recently quoted Abraham Lincoln in a speech.  In response, I decided to borrow the following.

“The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.” –Barack Obama, quoting Abraham Lincoln

“[N]ot a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make [a pencil].” –Leonard Read, “I, Pencil”

Therefore, making pencils — and, by implication, everything else — is a legitimate object of government.

What’s wrong with this argument?  ( from here)

Here, by the way, is Obama’s quotation of Lincoln in context.

The Nature and Objects of Government, with Special Reference to Slavery. Fragmentary Notes. About July i, 1854.

Government is a combination of the people of a country to effect certain objects by joint effort. The best framed and best administered governments are necessarily expensive; while by errors in frame and maladministration most of them are more onerous than they need be, and some of them very oppressive. Why, then, should we have government? Why not each individual take to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without having any of it taxed away, in services, corn, or money? Why not take just so much land as he can cultivate with his own hands, without buying it of any one ?

The legitimate object of government is “to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves.” There are many such things – some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like ; providing for the helpless young and afflicted ; common schools ; and disposing of deceased men’s property, are instances.

But a far larger class of objects springs from the injustice of men. If one people will make war upon another, it is a necessity with, that other to unite and cooperate for defense. Hence the military department. If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or non-compliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it. Hence the criminal and civil departments.

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things, which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branches off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.

The first – that in relation to wrongs – embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.

From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government. (from here) (Note that the speech continues and refers to the subject of slavery.)

From Lincoln’s perpective, we have manage to invert things.  We have made what Lincoln called the “other” class the far larger class.

I was at work talking to an associate.  I have one post that has done extraordinarily well, PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: JOHN MCCAIN.   Since we were talking about politics and the Internet, I decided to brag a little bit and show my friend where the post ranked on Google.  I used the following word in the search expression:  John mccain pros cons.  Surprisingly, my post came up second in the list.  Wow!  That was even better than I expected.

I clicked on the post.  Then the Good Lord decided to punish me for my vanity.  There was an advertisement right under the title of my post.  See. 

What?!!!!  Since I don’t advertise anything, I was shocked.  What was that nonsense doing there?  So investigated, and I discovered Google is playing a trick on us bloggers. 

When I got home I tried to display the web page using the same search expression.  No luck.  Then I cleared all the temporary files, cookies and history and tried the search again.  BINGO!  Apparently, the ad displays only the first time the post is displayed.  So bloggers do not realize what is going on.  How tricky!

We are not web masters, but my friend and I decided to view the source.   Apparently, with a little help from a firm that knows how to advertise on blogs, Google has arranged a javascript that inserts unwelcomed content on the webpages of blog.  We provide the content, and Google and their greedy friends reap profits – even when we have no intention of advertising.

The profit, however, is not what bothers me.  With its search engine, I concede that Google provides a useful service.  What I don’t like is having Google alter the content of my webpage.  No blogger should appreciate having somebody else’s content inserted without their permission. 

Where does it stop?   If the big corporate Internet corporations can add stuff to our web pages, then they can also alter and delete stuff.  That is dangerous.

When I drive to work, I often listen to a religious broadcast, Thru The Bible.  Before he passed away, Dr. J. Vernon McGee broadcasted and recorded a five-year journey thru the chapters of the Bible.  So every five years his Bible commentary is heard anew in many languages around the world. 

Of late, with his pleasant Texas accent, Dr. McGee has been discussing The Book of Galatians.  What did he talk about today?

Galatians 5:22-26

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Dr. McGee explained that we do not live the Christian life on our own.  Imagine the serenity that comes from knowing you are loved by God.   This we can achieve by yielding to the Holy Spirit and letting His love indwell us.  Love results in the remaining fruit.   

• Love, joy, and peace is the fruit that strengthens us. 
• Patience, kindness, and goodness is the fruit we each bear in love to strengthen each other. 
• Faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control is the fruit we yield up in worship to God.

How do we learn to yield to the Holy Spirit?  Dr. McGee spoke of the Christian walk.  How did we each learn to walk?  We practiced.  We learned by trial and error.   In our eagerness to learn, we accepted the fact we would sometimes fall.  We knew that with our parents help we could pick ourselves up and try again.  The Christian walk is much the same.  We learn with His help and with His steadying hand. 

If we let ourselves be filled with the fruit of the Spirit, how would that affect our political debate?  Would we would start listening to each other in an effort to understand, or would we remain eager to condem those who disagree with us?  Instead of arguing and calling each other names, would we try speak to each other with mutual respect?   Why not?

Truth is not something any of us owns.  Only God knows the whole Truth.  Why should any of us be so conceited as to believe we have all the answers?  Why should we needlessly provoke our fellows with our own half-baked beliefs?

Consider the nature of American politics.  Our nation is composed of people from all over the world.  Have people across the world ever agreed on how a society should be run?  How much of what we believe has changed over the last 400 years?  Is there any reason to believe everything will remain the same?  Is the situation static?  Isn’t our nation an experiment?  Will the same answer always be the right answer?

Does not wisdom begin with the fear of the Lord?   Only God is God.   Only with God’s help can we succeed.  If we must debate, then let it be respectful and thoughtful debate between friends.  Perhaps then our discussions will yield from us something that approximates what He would have us do.

These days there is always a new blog.  Over the long haul, it appears that the more stable and informative blogs will be tend to be those associated with organizations.  Because the financial cost is low, individual bloggers will always crop up and write for awhile, but most fizzle.  Even if you have a talent for writing it takes a lot of time to keep your web site sufficiently active to maintain a cadre of interested readers. 

Nonetheless, that does not mean we will not have numerous blogs.  Blogs provide a new and easy way to reach local communities.  Here is the latest example, Your Piece of the Planet, brought to you by The Prince William Conservation Alliance.  This blog is written by a thoughtful and well organized group.  Unfortunately, like most thoughtful and well organized groups, they are also nosy people. 

In the email the The Prince William Conservation Alliance sent me to tell me about their new blog, they embedded a little trick to verify whether or not I visited their blog.  That is, the hyperlinks in their email did two things.  In addition to taking me to their blog, when I clicked on hyperlink referencing one of posts on their blog, that click also notified IContact that I had clicked on that hyperlink.

Why do I mention this?  My point is this.  Never assume anonymity on the web.  Do not even assume you have any right to be anonymous.  If you are dealing with an organized group, and they have any financial interest in gathering information about you and any way of legally getting that information, they will get it.

Other Views

For those who are interested, The Green Miles lists additional members of the “green” blogosphere (here).

Here is the The Prince William Conservation Alliance announcement of their blog on iContactCommunity.