‘The Post-Christian American Experiment’

 

Noah Webster of Connecticut, with not atypical New England Yankee arrogance, proclaimed in the preface to his spelling textbook (published in 1783), ‘Europe is grown old in folly, corruption and tyranny—in that country laws are perverted, manners are licentious, literature is declining and human nature debased.  . . . American glory begins to dawn at a favourable period, and under flattering circumstances.  . . . a durable and stately edifice can never be erected upon the mouldering pillars of antiquity’ (Merrill Jensen, The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation 1781-1789, Northeastern University Press, Boston, Mass., 1981, p. 105).  From the outset, the United States have had an inclination away from reverence for the past and tradition and toward innovation (the South being an interesting outlier as a defender of tradition, particularly before the tragic War of 1861-5; but that discussion is best left for another time).

This is obvious in the attitude of US leaders towards Christianity.  For them, redemption of the world from the Fall was not to be achieved by uniting man and the creation with the Holy Trinity once again via the Church, but primarily through the work of political theories and systems.  Three authors uncovered some striking material in this regard, from amongst which is this crucial paragraph:

‘This transference of religious fervor to national ideals became the heart of American civil religion.  Christians began to suggest, as the Congregationalist John Mellen did in 1797, “that the expansion of republican forms of government will accompany that spreading of the gospel . . . which the scripture prophecies represent as constituting the glory of the latter days.”  This shift greatly strengthened the American republic, endowing it with a new sense of lofty purpose.  The nation rather than the church easily emerged as the primary agent of God’s activity in history’ (Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, George Marsden, The Search for Christian America, Expanded Edition, Helmers & Howard, Colorado Springs, Col., 1989, p. 114; bolding added).

Despite their Christian exterior, United States citizens interiorly are remarkably post-Christian.  The Church has been debased, and the union of States, particularly its political system, exalted.  God is no longer a Person with Whom they seek communion, healing from the brokenness of the Fall, and so forth; he is more of an impersonal deity who interests them only insofar as he/it will ‘bless’ their enterprises:  ‘God Bless America,’ as the old song goes, though it resembles more a magical incantation (i.e., a command directed at God) than a traditional Christian song or hymn.  Such a god has a very strong resemblance to the pagan, philosophical Greek conception of the divine:  ‘Ancient Greek philosophy developed a highly systematic theology governed by logic.  Logic defined God’s existence as necessary, but his existence remained a theoretical hypothesis.  God is empirically inaccessible, but must exist because logic demands a first cause.  We conceive of this first cause as an abstract essence, as the sum of the attributes which the first cause must have to be truly divine’ (Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age, Chamberas and Russell, trans., Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline, Mass., 2006, p. 25).

Logic likewise makes some sort of deity necessary for the post-Christian American Experiment, and like the ancient Greeks, they have imbued it with the attributes they think it needs to have in order to be of use to them, attributes which have shifted over the years, from a cold, distant creator and governor found in the Declaration of Independence, to the pantheistic god of Thoreau and Emerson and the other Transcendentalists, to the god of retribution and judgment of Lincoln and Julia Ward Howe, to the indulgent god of Oprah and George W. Bush.

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.reckonin.com/walt-garlington/the-post-christian-american-experiment.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘A Taste of Riches’

 

Rich and gleaming,

Wealth unseemly,

Wales from Grace is falling.

 

Saxons raiding,

Many slaying,

Britons now bewailing.

 

Modern cities

Awfully gaudy –

Leprous sores are spreading.

 

***

 

Wise and holy Gildas,

Resting quietly in Rhuys,

The pure sea breezes blowing

Gently on the shores of Brittany

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.newenglishreview.org/articles/a-taste-of-riches/.

More about St Gildas is available here:

https://orthochristian.com/90338.html

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Federal Constitution’

 

Folks on the Right are irate over President Biden’s proposals to reshape the federal Supreme Court:

 

On Monday, July 29th, President Joe Biden proposed a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It would impose term limits on the justices and force them to abide by an “ethics code.” This sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? Well, it is anything but. It is the first salvo of an unabashed attempt by the Democratic Party to fundamentally alter the balance of power between the three branches of the United States government (The European Conservative).

 

Stepman noted that the court is one institution that Democrats and other leftists have yet to establish control over, and interestingly, it wasn't a problem until the court "shifted to the right." "It's a fairly ironclad rule in American politics that any institution the Left doesn't control it will ultimately seek to destroy. So it goes with the modern Supreme Court," he said. The court, in fact, now "represents a potential roadblock to their absolute power over American government." So they are demanding to remove justices with whom they disagree, and install some of their own ideological compatriots (WND).

Their analysis is correct as far as it goes, yet they are overlooking the key point about the federal constitution itself:  It was written precisely to concentrate as much power as possible in the federal government.  The separation of powers was simply a neat ploy to divert attention away from that goal of the nationalists/centralizers, to calm the fears of the localists who were fearful of throwing out the Articles of Confederation.  The historian Merrill Jensen offers some insights that are often ignored in political discussions today:

 

Politically the dominating fact of the Confederation Period was the struggle between two groups of leaders to shape the character of the state and central governments.  The revolutionary constitutions of the states placed final power in the legislatures and made the executive and judicial branches subservient to them.  The members of the colonial aristocracy who became Patriots, and new men who gained economic power during the Revolution deplored this fact, but they were unable to alter the state constitutions during the 1780’s.  Meanwhile they tried persistently to strengthen the central government.  These men were the nationalists of the 1780’s.

 

On the other hand the men who were the true federalists believed that the greatest gain of the Revolution was the independence of the several states and the creation of a central government subservient to them.  The leaders of this group . . . were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, . . . and a host of less well known but no less important men in each of the States.  Most of these men believed, as a result of their experience with Great Britain before 1776 and of their reading of history, that the states could be best governed without the intervention of a powerful central government.  . . . the best of them agreed that the central government needed more power, but they wanted that power given so as not to alter the basic character of the Articles of Confederation.  Here is where they were in fundamental disagreement with the nationalists who wanted to remove the central government from the control of the state legislatures.

 

The nationalist leaders . . . were men like Robert Morris, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, . . . George Washington, James Madison, and many lesser men.  Most of these men were by temperament or economic interest believers in executive and judicial rather than legislative control of state and central governments, in the rigorous collection of taxes, and, as creditors, in the strict payment of the public and private debts.  They declared that national honor and prestige could be maintained only by a powerful central government.  . . .  The nationalists frankly disliked the political heritage of the Revolution.  They deplored the fact there was no check upon the actions of majorities in state legislatures; that there was no central government to which minorities could appeal from the decisions of such majorities, as they had done before the Revolution.

 

 . . . Outside the Convention [of 1787 in Philadelphia that drafted the current federal constitution—W.G.] General Knox was saying that a “mad democracy sweeps away every moral trait from the human character” and that the Convention would “clip the wings of a mad democracy” (The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation 1781-1789, Northeastern University Press, Boston, Mass., 1981, pgs. 424-5, 426).

We are living with the repercussions of this debate still today.  When the Red States of the South and beyond pass laws in their State legislatures to ban puberty blockers for kids, limit access for children to social media, define marriage as between one man and one woman, teach the Biblical account of creation in public schools, etc., the nationalists pronounce this an ‘excess of democracy’ whose wings must be clipped by the federal government, often by the same Supreme Court conservatives are attempting to defend at this present moment.

Conservatives/Revivalists are not wrong in wanting to maintain the integrity of the judiciary, but instead of intense and myopic focus on the federal courts, they need to broaden their view to include the State judiciaries as well.  There they will find some overlooked tools to keep big government centralizers, whether Republicans or Democrats, from dominating politically.  We will get to that momentarily.

First, however, it must be noted that arguing over separation of powers within the federal government at this point is simply arguing over who will be the main director of the despotism the States live under, the seeds of which, sown in the Philadelphia constitution, came to full fruition when Lincoln launched his war of conquest against the Southern States, which transformed a voluntary union into an involuntary empire.  The distinguished Southern historian Dr Clyde Wilson of South Carolina describes very well the conditions that folks have experienced under those opposite systems:

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2024/08/garlington-a-fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-federal-constitution/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘Dereliction of Duty at the Louisiana Legislature’

 

(Things are not much different in 2025 as in 2024--W.G.)

There is a lot of instability in the world today, and the US are experiencing their share of it as well:  a presidential candidate facing assassination, inflation roaring, the economy faltering, wars flaring.  This being the case, one would expect the political leadership in Louisiana to do everything possible to shield our State from the threatening disorders.  And to their credit, they did some good things in the last session to that end.  Affirming gold and silver as legal tender will offer some protection against a weakening dollar; legislation making illegal immigration a State crime should help with physical safety; the pro-Ten Commandments and anti-trans legislation will help us spiritually; etc.

But inexplicably, they are doing the opposite vis-à-vis one of the most vital spheres of State life.  Instead of making a bit of sacrifice by holding one more special session in 2024 to get Louisiana’s economy on a secure footing, they are folding their hands, propping up their feet, and waiting until next year while the world burns all around us and while Louisiana’s people suffer unnecessarily.  Both chambers are complicit (via KATC):

“Since adjourning in June, talks have continued with Revenue Secretary Richard Nelson and others to discuss what comprehensive tax reform would look like in Louisiana,” said President Cameron Henry. “We’ve made a lot of progress, but it’s a very complicated issue that requires continued discussion. The public deserves time to see our plans and understand the implications for their families and their businesses. We want to get this right.”

 

“The House is committed to tackling tax reform and plans to meet in the interim as often as it can on a number of issues including insurance, transportation, and several others to keep a spotlight on the needs of the state and develop solutions that can be brought forward next session,” said Speaker DeVillier. “We have a group of legislators this term who know we have to think differently if we’re going to make Louisiana more competitive and prosperous, and we are committed to reaching that goal in due time.”

‘In due time.’  That’s a gut-punch to the plainfolk throughout Louisiana who are struggling right now and will probably be struggling even more in early 2025 while Mr DeVillier, Mr Henry, et al., bump their gums in their calm, stress-free discussion groups.

It is not as though solutions and plans don’t already exist.  The Pelican Institute, Paul Hurd, and others have put forward plans on tax reform.  It would be a simple matter for the Legislature to analyze and adopt one of them.  But they stubbornly refuse to do so.

Good shepherds they are not:  ‘I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.  . . .  The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep’ (St John’s Gospel 10:11, 13).

The contrast with real self-sacrifice for others couldn’t be more depressing.  To remind everyone, including Louisiana’s legislators, what it looks like, we turn to an unsung, heroic missionary of the Orthodox Church to the Native Americans in Alaska in the 19^th century, St Jacob Netsvetov:

The new assignment for the newly-ordained Father Jacob would also prove to be quite a challenge. The Atka “parish” comprised a territory stretching for nearly 2,000 miles and included Amchitka, Attu, Copper, Bering and Kurile Islands. But this did not deter the godly young priest, for when he was clothed in the garments of the Priesthood, he was found to be “clad with zeal as a cloak’ (Is. 59:17), and so he threw himself wholly into his sacred ministry. His deep love for God and for his flock was evident in everything that he did. Both in Atka and in the distant villages and settlements which he visited, Father Jacob offered himself as a “living sacrifice” (Rom 12:1). Having “no worry about his life” (Mt. 6:25 ff), the holy one endured manifold tortures of cold, wet, wind, illness, hunger and exhaustion, for to him life was Christ (Phil 1:21).

Where, we wonder, is the zeal of our legislators to make themselves ‘living sacrifices’ for the sake of bettering the lives of Louisianans?

His labors were diverse, and he was always active in serving others:

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2024/07/garlington-dereliction-of-duty-at-the-louisiana-legislature/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!