I think the German Reformed Tradition is often over looked. This is a fact that few can ignore. When it is remembered, it is almost always remembered incorrectly. People too often associate the German Reformed Tradition with Mercersburg Theology. They do this because people want to define a tradition by the great scholars of the day from that tradition. In America, Mercersburg Seminary was the German Reformed Church’s seminary, and their main scholars put for the Mercersburg Theology. But, that theology was never fully accepted by the German Reformed Church because it was a departure from the German Reformed Tradition. I hope in the some future posts to flesh out what the German Reformed Tradition is and how off Mercersburg was from it, but I will give a brief view of what I believe is the German Reformed Tradition now.
1. Reformed Pietism. Pietism has bad connotations for many, but the German Reformed Tradition is one of Reformed Pietism. It really resisted the Reformed Scholasticism movement of the latter Reformation. Although there is a unique blend of Scholasticism and Pietism in the Heidelberg Catechism. Ursinus was a Scholastic. Olevianus was much more pietistic. Yet, they came together to make the Heidelberg. Note the Heidelberg is written in 1st and 2nd person rather than the usual 3rd person such as the Westminster. The governing principle of the catechism is our comfort in life and death. This is part of the reason that the German Reformed Tradition did not produce grand systematic theologians nor had a seminary of their own until the middle of the 19th century. The church emphasized piety more than scholarship.
2. High Calvinism. The German Reformed Church has always held to a high and strict Calvinism. If one looks at Ursinus’s Major Catechism it does not take long to see the importance placed on election and double predestination. The German delegates at the Synod of Dort were insistent on Limited Atonement. Even the founders of the German Reformed Church in America were very strict. Rev. Boehm rejected the idea of union with the American Presbyterians because they did not specifically hold to the Canons of Dort, and he feared their Calvinism defective. Rev. Schlatter, the architect of the German Reformed Church in America, was well known for his High Calvinism and even later men like Dr. Samuel Hellfinstien, who trained men from the ministry from his house, taught and held to a vigorous High Calvinism.
3. Anti-Revivalism. This was not something that started with Nevin’s critique of the Second Great Awakening. While it is true that during the Second Great Awakening some of their methods had made inroads, it was not all pervasive. Nevin’s book won him a great following because the church as a whole was already not revivalistic. During the First Great Awakening while the other major churches were all suffering splits between pro and anti revival groups, the German Reformed Church lost only one church and one minister. And the church came back. Remember this was also done in the face of Count Zinzendorf who came to America with his Moravian/Revivalistic theology trying to unite all the German Protestant churches. It should also be noted that when the German Reformed Church sought out help from the Presbyterians, they talked to the Old Side/Anti-Revival Synod of Philadelphia.
4. Covenant Theology. This is often over looked when people discuss the Covenant Theologians they go to the Dutch or some other famous seminary professor. But, Olevianus is often considered one of the first Covenant Theologians. Ursinus organized his Major Catechism (before the Heidelberg) around the principle of the covenant. These two men were the fathers of the German Reformed Tradition.
There are other things that can be mentioned as distinctive teachings of German Reformed. It should be noted that the German Reformed did not have the exclusive psalmody history that some of the other branches begin with. It is in Germany that hymnody took hold in the church, and not just with Luther. The Reformed did their share as well.
It should also be noted that the German Reformed Tradition is one of the only ones not to be hampered by Erastianism. At some point the Dutch let the State mingle with the church. The Westminster mingled the church and state. Not so much with the Germans. The Heidelberg Catechism makes it quite clear that the power of the keys rest with the church. It is the church who will do the discipline, not the state. This would have been a clear difference with the Dutch.
I hope to come back to some of this in future posts, but I hope this is a primer for many of you.
This is my personal blog. The main topic shall be theology, but since theology informs every area of life, one can expect a wide range of topics. I hope that all who visit find something they like. I welcome comment and discussion.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Doug Wilson and His General Associations
This is just too much for me to lay off. The RPCNA has just come out with a few short statements rejecting the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul. Doug Wilson has attacked this statement to no one’s surprise. Now notice his response is an attack on the idea that the RPCNA stated they rejected "the theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as "the New Perspective(s) on Paul" and the "Federal Vision"." His entire post is rhetorical flourish attacking this one line. Of course he drives it to absurd conclusions, but that is what Rev. Wilson does best: be absurd.
Let us examine exactly why the RPCNA said ‘generally associated’ with the Federal Vision. You may remember those early denunciations of the FV. They did not use ‘generally associated’ and of course the FV proponents jumped all of it. Notice the lines saying the Federal Vision is not a monolithic movement in Joseph Minich’s paper saying that they are not movements but ‘impulses’. That paper is found on the site dedicated to setting the record straight about the Federal Vision. This was of course one of the ways they rejected the attacks on the Federal Vision. Of course if that is not enough proof see Rev. Steve Wilkins’s response to the Mississippi Valley Report. It is his second reason why the report is flawed when it criticizes the Federal Vision. You remember Rev. Wilkins, right? He is the guy who just escaped discipline by fleeing to Doug Wilson’s Confederation. And just in case you did not believe me, we have the joint Federal Vision Statement itself, which I think Doug signed or wrote. It specifically states that the Federal Vision is not a ‘monolithic movement’ and is more accurately called ‘a conversation’, ‘a broad school of thought’, ‘a series of similar questions’ and so on.
So knowing the tendency of Federal Vision advocates to get cranky when lumped together it seems quite reasonable to condemn those ideas generally associated with the FV. If Doug’s complaint is like Mark Horne’s who does not want to condemn innocents by using such a broad brush, they need look no further than the second and third point of their statement. One requires the belief in several things including imputation of active obedience and justification by faith alone, and the other directs people to several other church and seminary papers further defining what they mean in their general denunciation that Doug Wilson finds so broad. Perhaps he should have kept reading.
Let me tell you why this makes me so angry. At best this is Doug Wilson trying to have his cake and eat it too by criticizing either method of attacking the FV. At worst this is Doug being completely disingenuous by taking the opposite side of what he had been doing for so long. However, I could look past both of these things. It was the last lines that made me so upset. After quoting Dr. Scott Clark’s listing of all the denominations that have rejected the FV, he makes this quip.
That's the problem with men like Athanasius. No good at math. Don't know how to count. Can read pretty good though.
Really? So, let me get this analogy straight. Doug Wilson is the persecuted champion of the Trinity. That makes all of those who disagree with him Arians and heretics. Well, at least we can all dispense with the niceties. It is clear that the Federal Vision (and those who associate with it but prefer to call themselves a conversation) is another gospel. They teach another gospel. Finally, Doug is honest, and he rejects the traditional Reformation doctrine of salvation by faith alone as like that of the Arians: heresy.
I hope no one is left who misunderstands exactly where Rev. Wilson stands on the playing field. He is not in the middle, on the side line or in the stands. And he is clearly not on the team of salvation by faith alone.
Let us examine exactly why the RPCNA said ‘generally associated’ with the Federal Vision. You may remember those early denunciations of the FV. They did not use ‘generally associated’ and of course the FV proponents jumped all of it. Notice the lines saying the Federal Vision is not a monolithic movement in Joseph Minich’s paper saying that they are not movements but ‘impulses’. That paper is found on the site dedicated to setting the record straight about the Federal Vision. This was of course one of the ways they rejected the attacks on the Federal Vision. Of course if that is not enough proof see Rev. Steve Wilkins’s response to the Mississippi Valley Report. It is his second reason why the report is flawed when it criticizes the Federal Vision. You remember Rev. Wilkins, right? He is the guy who just escaped discipline by fleeing to Doug Wilson’s Confederation. And just in case you did not believe me, we have the joint Federal Vision Statement itself, which I think Doug signed or wrote. It specifically states that the Federal Vision is not a ‘monolithic movement’ and is more accurately called ‘a conversation’, ‘a broad school of thought’, ‘a series of similar questions’ and so on.
So knowing the tendency of Federal Vision advocates to get cranky when lumped together it seems quite reasonable to condemn those ideas generally associated with the FV. If Doug’s complaint is like Mark Horne’s who does not want to condemn innocents by using such a broad brush, they need look no further than the second and third point of their statement. One requires the belief in several things including imputation of active obedience and justification by faith alone, and the other directs people to several other church and seminary papers further defining what they mean in their general denunciation that Doug Wilson finds so broad. Perhaps he should have kept reading.
Let me tell you why this makes me so angry. At best this is Doug Wilson trying to have his cake and eat it too by criticizing either method of attacking the FV. At worst this is Doug being completely disingenuous by taking the opposite side of what he had been doing for so long. However, I could look past both of these things. It was the last lines that made me so upset. After quoting Dr. Scott Clark’s listing of all the denominations that have rejected the FV, he makes this quip.
That's the problem with men like Athanasius. No good at math. Don't know how to count. Can read pretty good though.
Really? So, let me get this analogy straight. Doug Wilson is the persecuted champion of the Trinity. That makes all of those who disagree with him Arians and heretics. Well, at least we can all dispense with the niceties. It is clear that the Federal Vision (and those who associate with it but prefer to call themselves a conversation) is another gospel. They teach another gospel. Finally, Doug is honest, and he rejects the traditional Reformation doctrine of salvation by faith alone as like that of the Arians: heresy.
I hope no one is left who misunderstands exactly where Rev. Wilson stands on the playing field. He is not in the middle, on the side line or in the stands. And he is clearly not on the team of salvation by faith alone.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Baptism and the Covenant
I wanted to blog about this post by Mark Horne over at Biblical Horizons. I know it is a post from long ago, but it was interesting and I thought deserving of a response no matter how late.
The question he is dealing with is whether or not baptism admits one into the covenant or confirms that one is already there. He does some quoting from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and makes his argument that baptism admits one into the covenant. With this I disagree. I shall not deal with Westminster quotes or argumentation because I do not hold to the Westminster and thus shall just let someone else argue about it. However, I should point out that this might be a difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg Catechism. The HC specifically states about infant baptism, "Yes [infants are to be baptized], for since they, as well as their parents belong to the covenant and people of God," (Q.74). Thus, the reason given for infant baptism by the Heidelberg is that the infants already belong to the covenant of God. It should also be noted that the Heidelberg is explicit that sacraments are for assurance and confirmation not for conveying (see Q.65 and 67). The Westminster is less clear.
Rev. Horne does nice work in examining OT passages regarding the Passover, special feasts and circumcision. He has some ideas about why women were unclean after birth and whether or not that makes babies unclean and why that puts circumcision on the 8th day. I do believe he drifts into some speculation such as making the argument that children in utero were partaking of the Passover. He even goes so far as to make this an argument for paedocommunion. This makes the sacrament more about the act of eating than anything else. I find little support for the idea that babies getting nourishment through an umbilical cord is seen biblically as participating in the feasts of the OT. But I digress. Rev. Horne does deal with many Psalms that indicate a special saving relationship between God and the unborn (8.2; 22.9-10; 71.5-6, 17). He also mentions else where Samson and one could add John the Baptist as well. His answer is that is because the child is "in" the mother or "covered by the mother". He gives his defense from the ceremonial law. It makes for interesting reading.
But, I disagree because of a verse that Rev. Horne did not discuss. Genesis 17:7 speaks of the covenant and who it is with. Note the language. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here we see the covenant is with God and Abraham, but also with his seed. At this time of course Abraham has no seed, but the covenant is still with them. They are not yet in their mother so the idea of the mother covering them cannot be used in this example. They are already parties to the covenant. The seed of Abraham are already made parties to the covenant here in Genesis 17. Rev. Horne does deal with Genesis 17:14 where the uncircumcised male child shall be cut off for breaking the covenant. Rev. Horne believes this only applies to the adult, but admits that language like this is used and the line is hazy. However, I think that Genesis 17 fits nicely with the Psalms mentioned above by us both that God is in covenant relationship with them already, prior to baptism.
It should also be noted that both the Belgic and the Heidelberg list as reasons for baptism of infants the fact that the promise of salvation is to them. Of course the Matthew passage of let the little children come to me is listed (19:14). And the Belgic makes reference to Leviticus 12:6-8 where the command is given to sacrifice for a child born either male or female. Females of course did not have circumcision, but they had the promise of redemption as seen in the sacrifice, thus they should be baptized. And the fact that the promise of redemption was for these children, it implies that they are a part of the covenant by birth. Rev. Horne fails to deal with this difficulty as well. If circumcision admitted one into the covenant rather than serving as a sign of it or confirmation of it, were women in the covenant? If so, how did they get in? Their birth alone cannot be the reason or all of the argumentation is undone. It would be helpful for Rev. Horne to address this problem in his argument.
The article is interesting and his admonition to deal with the book of Leviticus and OT typology is well taken. This book cannot be ignored. However, in the end, I find his argument wanting, and I must take the opposite position. I believe, along with the Three Forms of Unity, that baptism does not admit one into the covenant, but rather confirms one as already in it.
The question he is dealing with is whether or not baptism admits one into the covenant or confirms that one is already there. He does some quoting from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and makes his argument that baptism admits one into the covenant. With this I disagree. I shall not deal with Westminster quotes or argumentation because I do not hold to the Westminster and thus shall just let someone else argue about it. However, I should point out that this might be a difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg Catechism. The HC specifically states about infant baptism, "Yes [infants are to be baptized], for since they, as well as their parents belong to the covenant and people of God," (Q.74). Thus, the reason given for infant baptism by the Heidelberg is that the infants already belong to the covenant of God. It should also be noted that the Heidelberg is explicit that sacraments are for assurance and confirmation not for conveying (see Q.65 and 67). The Westminster is less clear.
Rev. Horne does nice work in examining OT passages regarding the Passover, special feasts and circumcision. He has some ideas about why women were unclean after birth and whether or not that makes babies unclean and why that puts circumcision on the 8th day. I do believe he drifts into some speculation such as making the argument that children in utero were partaking of the Passover. He even goes so far as to make this an argument for paedocommunion. This makes the sacrament more about the act of eating than anything else. I find little support for the idea that babies getting nourishment through an umbilical cord is seen biblically as participating in the feasts of the OT. But I digress. Rev. Horne does deal with many Psalms that indicate a special saving relationship between God and the unborn (8.2; 22.9-10; 71.5-6, 17). He also mentions else where Samson and one could add John the Baptist as well. His answer is that is because the child is "in" the mother or "covered by the mother". He gives his defense from the ceremonial law. It makes for interesting reading.
But, I disagree because of a verse that Rev. Horne did not discuss. Genesis 17:7 speaks of the covenant and who it is with. Note the language. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here we see the covenant is with God and Abraham, but also with his seed. At this time of course Abraham has no seed, but the covenant is still with them. They are not yet in their mother so the idea of the mother covering them cannot be used in this example. They are already parties to the covenant. The seed of Abraham are already made parties to the covenant here in Genesis 17. Rev. Horne does deal with Genesis 17:14 where the uncircumcised male child shall be cut off for breaking the covenant. Rev. Horne believes this only applies to the adult, but admits that language like this is used and the line is hazy. However, I think that Genesis 17 fits nicely with the Psalms mentioned above by us both that God is in covenant relationship with them already, prior to baptism.
It should also be noted that both the Belgic and the Heidelberg list as reasons for baptism of infants the fact that the promise of salvation is to them. Of course the Matthew passage of let the little children come to me is listed (19:14). And the Belgic makes reference to Leviticus 12:6-8 where the command is given to sacrifice for a child born either male or female. Females of course did not have circumcision, but they had the promise of redemption as seen in the sacrifice, thus they should be baptized. And the fact that the promise of redemption was for these children, it implies that they are a part of the covenant by birth. Rev. Horne fails to deal with this difficulty as well. If circumcision admitted one into the covenant rather than serving as a sign of it or confirmation of it, were women in the covenant? If so, how did they get in? Their birth alone cannot be the reason or all of the argumentation is undone. It would be helpful for Rev. Horne to address this problem in his argument.
The article is interesting and his admonition to deal with the book of Leviticus and OT typology is well taken. This book cannot be ignored. However, in the end, I find his argument wanting, and I must take the opposite position. I believe, along with the Three Forms of Unity, that baptism does not admit one into the covenant, but rather confirms one as already in it.
Supreme Court Failing on Habeas Corpus
I was extremely disappointed in the court’s ruling the other day about the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Not that I disagree with the outcome. I just thought that the reasoning of both the majority and the minority were wrong. I do agree with Justice Scalia that the majority opinion is based on a judicial power grab. That is fairly plain and simple to see. He does a nice job of exposing that in his dissent. What Justice Scalia fails to do is convince me that people can be held forever without charges (his dissent begins on pg. 110).
First, let us just remember that the right of Habeas Corpus, the right not to be held without trial, is a fundamental right. It is not established or given to us by the Constitution, or even by English Common Law, but rather it is ours by Natural Law. This is clearly set forward in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given to us by our Creator. He and He alone is the source of these rights. Such truths are self-evident.
Now I have to admit that I was extremely disappointed the four conservative justices voted against this. It is telling in my opinion that the led of the dissent is not a legal argument but circumstances of our danger. The closing line is also not a legal argument but a statement of our danger. It seems to me that this may have been the motivating factor in the decision.
His legal arguments appear to be that the Constitution does not extend to Guantanamo Bay since it is “located within the sovereign territory of Cuba” (pg. 116). However, does this mean the Cubans run the base? No. That is not the case. Being within the territory of Cuba is not the same as being under Cuban authority. If the Cubans were to attack Guantanamo, would we consider it an attack on American soil or an attack on our sovereignty? I think we would, and rightly so in my opinion. Embassies are considered foreign soil. Our American embassies are considered under American authority despite the fact that they are within the sovereign territories of other countries. I see no reason military bases do have the same standard applied to them. So his reasoning there seems lacking.
Scalia goes onto his main point that the writ of Habeas Corpus does not extend to foreigners. The clause in the Constitution that allows Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of “rebellion or invasion” makes it clear that the writ discussed is only that of American citizens. I agree with that. Although it should be noted that neither exists in this case. Scalia points to Prisoners of War and a few cases regarding the lack of Habeas Corpus for those captured during war. Again, I agree with the situation of POW’s. However, this is not what is going on now. Prisoners of War are kept during war until the end of war when they are returned. Yet, Congress has not declared war. We are not at war. If you look at the Presidential symbol the eagle’s head is still pointed toward the olive branches. We are not at war. Yet, Scalia refers to these detainees as enemy combatants. They are prisoners of the War on Terror. This undeclared War on Terror then makes these people enemy combatants. Such logic elludes me. When is the war on Terror over? On page 111 (page 2 of the dissent) Scalia states that “America is at war with Islamists”. Really? All of them? We have not yet fired at shot at Hamas or Hezbollah. Surely they count as radical Islamists. What about Yemen or Saudia Arabia. They have many radicals. Are we at war with them as well? Would we have the right to swoop in and hold the leader of Iran (I am not even going to try and spell his name) for six years or more simply because he is a radical Islamist? I think not. What is more, what about Minneapolis, Minnesota. That city has some radical Islamists, can we take them to Guantanamo and hold them forever? No, I think not. Again we have never declared war on radical Islam.
The point being that the War on Terror or the War on Radical Islamists are idealistic wars, not actual wars. Thus, I do not think that POW’s can be used as an example. The War on Terror may never end. Surely Justice Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas, would not say that we could scoop up poor people in Mexico and hold them at the US Embassy in Mexico City because we are currently in a War on Poverty. Surely they would not think that we could kidnap Columbian drug lords and hold them at military bases around the globe forever because we are in a War on Drugs.
Another point can be made here and should be. If I agree that the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution is only talking of American citizens, does that mean that foreigners have no rights? Of course not. If we want to find out what the original intent of the Constitution was, then we would understand that we were never to detain foreigners even if they were fighting America. That is a power not granted to the government in the Constitution. Yes, the clause on the writ does not apply to them, but the Constitution does not enumerate a power that allows detention of foreigners either. This can be illustrated by the commonality of prisoner exchanges in actual wars like the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and so on. Even during actual wars the government did not keep prisoners forever. Occassionally prisoners were just released on their honor to go home and not fight anymore as if they were still prisoners. Do you think that people obeyed such things? Well, let us just say General Winfield Scott, presidential candidate in 1856, broke his vow after being captured in the War of 1812. This would cut down Scalia’s argument that people return to fight on the battlefield when let go. The founders thought this an insufficient reason to hold enemies. When Grant stopped prisoner exchanges during the Civil War it was a huge scandal. Such things were not done. One could even sight Andrew Jackson who hung two English citizens in a military tribunal after capturing them in Spanish Florida for aiding Indians in their fight against America. This caused a huge controversy. England almost declared war except that America apologized for its behavior.
The main point I want to make is that people have the right to liberty, and our government cannot take it away. Justice Scalia is right. Many of these terrorists might go back and do something stupid like fight us again. However, that does not give us the right to imprison them without charges. It does not give us the right to hold them until we deem the days of terror over. He has a right to be free simply because he is made in the image of God even if he is going to do something sinful and stupid with that right. If he has committed a crime then he should be charged and tried like everybody else.
Thus, I was disappointed with both sides in this decision. I long for a day when the court stops playing politics, stops following Positivism, and stops playing games with the Constitution and the Natural law upon which it was founded.
First, let us just remember that the right of Habeas Corpus, the right not to be held without trial, is a fundamental right. It is not established or given to us by the Constitution, or even by English Common Law, but rather it is ours by Natural Law. This is clearly set forward in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given to us by our Creator. He and He alone is the source of these rights. Such truths are self-evident.
Now I have to admit that I was extremely disappointed the four conservative justices voted against this. It is telling in my opinion that the led of the dissent is not a legal argument but circumstances of our danger. The closing line is also not a legal argument but a statement of our danger. It seems to me that this may have been the motivating factor in the decision.
His legal arguments appear to be that the Constitution does not extend to Guantanamo Bay since it is “located within the sovereign territory of Cuba” (pg. 116). However, does this mean the Cubans run the base? No. That is not the case. Being within the territory of Cuba is not the same as being under Cuban authority. If the Cubans were to attack Guantanamo, would we consider it an attack on American soil or an attack on our sovereignty? I think we would, and rightly so in my opinion. Embassies are considered foreign soil. Our American embassies are considered under American authority despite the fact that they are within the sovereign territories of other countries. I see no reason military bases do have the same standard applied to them. So his reasoning there seems lacking.
Scalia goes onto his main point that the writ of Habeas Corpus does not extend to foreigners. The clause in the Constitution that allows Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of “rebellion or invasion” makes it clear that the writ discussed is only that of American citizens. I agree with that. Although it should be noted that neither exists in this case. Scalia points to Prisoners of War and a few cases regarding the lack of Habeas Corpus for those captured during war. Again, I agree with the situation of POW’s. However, this is not what is going on now. Prisoners of War are kept during war until the end of war when they are returned. Yet, Congress has not declared war. We are not at war. If you look at the Presidential symbol the eagle’s head is still pointed toward the olive branches. We are not at war. Yet, Scalia refers to these detainees as enemy combatants. They are prisoners of the War on Terror. This undeclared War on Terror then makes these people enemy combatants. Such logic elludes me. When is the war on Terror over? On page 111 (page 2 of the dissent) Scalia states that “America is at war with Islamists”. Really? All of them? We have not yet fired at shot at Hamas or Hezbollah. Surely they count as radical Islamists. What about Yemen or Saudia Arabia. They have many radicals. Are we at war with them as well? Would we have the right to swoop in and hold the leader of Iran (I am not even going to try and spell his name) for six years or more simply because he is a radical Islamist? I think not. What is more, what about Minneapolis, Minnesota. That city has some radical Islamists, can we take them to Guantanamo and hold them forever? No, I think not. Again we have never declared war on radical Islam.
The point being that the War on Terror or the War on Radical Islamists are idealistic wars, not actual wars. Thus, I do not think that POW’s can be used as an example. The War on Terror may never end. Surely Justice Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas, would not say that we could scoop up poor people in Mexico and hold them at the US Embassy in Mexico City because we are currently in a War on Poverty. Surely they would not think that we could kidnap Columbian drug lords and hold them at military bases around the globe forever because we are in a War on Drugs.
Another point can be made here and should be. If I agree that the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution is only talking of American citizens, does that mean that foreigners have no rights? Of course not. If we want to find out what the original intent of the Constitution was, then we would understand that we were never to detain foreigners even if they were fighting America. That is a power not granted to the government in the Constitution. Yes, the clause on the writ does not apply to them, but the Constitution does not enumerate a power that allows detention of foreigners either. This can be illustrated by the commonality of prisoner exchanges in actual wars like the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and so on. Even during actual wars the government did not keep prisoners forever. Occassionally prisoners were just released on their honor to go home and not fight anymore as if they were still prisoners. Do you think that people obeyed such things? Well, let us just say General Winfield Scott, presidential candidate in 1856, broke his vow after being captured in the War of 1812. This would cut down Scalia’s argument that people return to fight on the battlefield when let go. The founders thought this an insufficient reason to hold enemies. When Grant stopped prisoner exchanges during the Civil War it was a huge scandal. Such things were not done. One could even sight Andrew Jackson who hung two English citizens in a military tribunal after capturing them in Spanish Florida for aiding Indians in their fight against America. This caused a huge controversy. England almost declared war except that America apologized for its behavior.
The main point I want to make is that people have the right to liberty, and our government cannot take it away. Justice Scalia is right. Many of these terrorists might go back and do something stupid like fight us again. However, that does not give us the right to imprison them without charges. It does not give us the right to hold them until we deem the days of terror over. He has a right to be free simply because he is made in the image of God even if he is going to do something sinful and stupid with that right. If he has committed a crime then he should be charged and tried like everybody else.
Thus, I was disappointed with both sides in this decision. I long for a day when the court stops playing politics, stops following Positivism, and stops playing games with the Constitution and the Natural law upon which it was founded.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
I expect apologies
HA! I was right! I was right! I was right! The NBA did rig games and they used the refs to do it. I was right!
I have had that theory since I was young. I used to tell my family that I could predict who would win a playoff game after watching the first 5 minutes based on foul calls. I had an extermely high success rate. My family never believed me and mocked me ruthlessly. Today's revelation was not one to me. Just confirmation of a long known fact. I cannot believe that this is not getting more notice. The consipiracy theorists that have been mocked by their families and by ESPN, I might add, deserve apologies.
I hope the NBA goes away never to return.
I have had that theory since I was young. I used to tell my family that I could predict who would win a playoff game after watching the first 5 minutes based on foul calls. I had an extermely high success rate. My family never believed me and mocked me ruthlessly. Today's revelation was not one to me. Just confirmation of a long known fact. I cannot believe that this is not getting more notice. The consipiracy theorists that have been mocked by their families and by ESPN, I might add, deserve apologies.
I hope the NBA goes away never to return.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Another Tyler Biography
I promise to get back to my look at apologetics soon. However, I feel compelled to write a book review of John Tyler: Champion of the Old South. Do not let the sub title fool you. This is simply a biography of John Tyler and a very fair one at that. It is much better than the previous Tyler biography I read and reviewed. This biography defends Tyler from the charges of inconsistency and does so very well. He endeavors to defend why Tyler went over to the Whig party and how Tyler still remained true to his beliefs at the same time. Although he does not mind criticizing Tyler as he makes it clear that it was a political mistake for Tyler to do it; however, it was not political inconsistency.
That is what makes this book so great. You follow Tyler through his entire life, not just his presidency or his years in the Senate. The writer, Oliver Perry Chitwood, is very insightful. Of course he is critical of the slavery issue with Tyler, but it is not the main focus of the book as the sub title might imply. As you travel through Tyler’s life and one learns of all the things Tyler did you get the occasional aside from Chitwood that examines Tyler’s actions. One that was particularly fascinating was when Tyler and other famous Virginians responded to the call to revamp the State Constitution. Most of the calls of unfairness in the old Constitution came from present day West Virginia, then still a part of Virginia. Yet Tyler and the rest of the leaders of the state came from the East and depended upon the famous families for support who all lived in the East. Thus, while the Constitution was updated some, it did not address they carefully avoided dealing with the real complaints of the westerners. This kept the people on the other side of the mountains furious, underrepresented in Virginia politics, and created a bitter feeling of being cheated by the leaders of Virginia. Chitwood believes that this failure to bind the west to the east in Virginia as South Carolina had done when she rewrote her Constitution directly cost the South the Civil War. Western Virginia was loyal to the North and made Lee have to fight that area of Virginia rather than have it as a base for the South. West Virginia was soon created and the North had a new ally against the Old Dominion. It was an interesting hypothesis that makes you stop and think. That is happened a lot during this very good biography.
Do not expect Chitwood to be a story telling biographer like a David McCullough, but he is a thought provoking biographer and that to me is more important. If you are interested in John Tyler this is the biography you should read.
That is what makes this book so great. You follow Tyler through his entire life, not just his presidency or his years in the Senate. The writer, Oliver Perry Chitwood, is very insightful. Of course he is critical of the slavery issue with Tyler, but it is not the main focus of the book as the sub title might imply. As you travel through Tyler’s life and one learns of all the things Tyler did you get the occasional aside from Chitwood that examines Tyler’s actions. One that was particularly fascinating was when Tyler and other famous Virginians responded to the call to revamp the State Constitution. Most of the calls of unfairness in the old Constitution came from present day West Virginia, then still a part of Virginia. Yet Tyler and the rest of the leaders of the state came from the East and depended upon the famous families for support who all lived in the East. Thus, while the Constitution was updated some, it did not address they carefully avoided dealing with the real complaints of the westerners. This kept the people on the other side of the mountains furious, underrepresented in Virginia politics, and created a bitter feeling of being cheated by the leaders of Virginia. Chitwood believes that this failure to bind the west to the east in Virginia as South Carolina had done when she rewrote her Constitution directly cost the South the Civil War. Western Virginia was loyal to the North and made Lee have to fight that area of Virginia rather than have it as a base for the South. West Virginia was soon created and the North had a new ally against the Old Dominion. It was an interesting hypothesis that makes you stop and think. That is happened a lot during this very good biography.
Do not expect Chitwood to be a story telling biographer like a David McCullough, but he is a thought provoking biographer and that to me is more important. If you are interested in John Tyler this is the biography you should read.