Faith for All of Life Mar/Apr 2007 Editorials 2 from the Founder
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Faith for All of Life Mar/Apr 2007 Publisher & Chalcedon President Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony Chalcedon Vice-President Editorials Features Martin Selbrede 2 From the Founder 7 Historical Revisionism: Editor Religious Liberty Why All the Fuss? Rev. Christopher J. Ortiz Roger Schultz From the President Managing Editor 5 Susan Burns The Government 16 The Emperor’s Continued Christian Reconstruction Seeks Nudity: Jeff Sharlet’s Critique Contributing Editors of Historiography Examined Columns Lee Duigon Martin G. Selbrede Kathy Leonard 12 The Dollar’s Decline 22 Rape or Sexual Abuse Chalcedon Founder and American Prosperity and the Victim’s Rev. R. J. Rushdoony Timothy D. Terrell (1916-2001) Sexual Purity was the founder of Chalcedon 29 Community Education: Derek Carlsen and a leading theologian, church/ How to Impact Your Town Products state expert, and author of numer- with Christian Education ous works on the application of Paul Michael Raymond 33 Catalog Insert Biblical Law to society. Book Review Receiving Faith for All of Life: This magazine will be sent to those who 26 Review of American Fascists: request it. At least once a year we ask The Christian Right and the that you return a response card if you War on America wish to remain on the mailing list. Contributors are kept on our mailing Lee Duigon list. Suggested Donation: $35 per year ($45 for all foreign — U.S. funds only). Tax-deductible contributions may be made out to Chalcedon and mailed to P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251 USA. Chalcedon may want to contact its readers quickly by means of e-mail. Faith for All of Life, published bi-monthly by Chalcedon, a tax-exempt Christian foundation, is sent to all who request If you have an e-mail address, please it. All editorial correspondence should be sent to the managing editor, P.O. Box 569, Cedar Bluff, VA 24609-0569. send an e-mail message including Laser-print hard copy and electronic disk submissions firmly encouraged. All submissions subject to editorial your full postal address to our office: revision. Email: [email protected]. The editors are not responsible for the return of unsolicited manuscripts [email protected]. which become the property of Chalcedon unless other arrangements are made. Opinions expressed in this magazine do not necessarily reflect the views of Chalcedon. It provides a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active, historic Christianity, though those views may on occasion differ somewhat from Chalcedon’s and from each For circulation and data other. Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers, and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible. ©2006 management contact Rebecca Chalcedon. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint granted on written request only. Editorial Board: Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony, President/Editor-in-Chief; Chris Ortiz, Editor; Susan Burns, Managing Editor and Executive Assistant. Rouse at (209) 736-4365 ext. 10 Chalcedon, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251, Telephone Circulation (9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m., Pacific): (209) 736-4365 or or [email protected] Fax (209) 736-0536; email: [email protected]; www.chalcedon.edu; Circulation:Rebecca Rouse. From the Founder Religious Liberty By R.J. Rushdoony (Reprinted from Roots of Reconstruction [Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991], 51-55). ne of the great The protection, however, went both amendment was added at the insistence Omoments of histo- ways. In a letter of 1522, cited by Eugen of the clergy. The amendment reads: ry occurred at the time Rosenstock-Huessy, in Out of Revolu- “Congress shall make no law respect- of the Reformation, but tion: Autobiography of Western Man, ing an establishment of religion, or its significance was too Luther at a critical point, offered the prohibiting the free exercise thereof; little appreciated then, Elector his protection. He wrote: or abridging the freedom of speech, or and its implications were not developed. This is written to Your Grace that Your of the press; or the right of the people Frederick III, or Frederick the Wise Grace may know I am coming to Wit- peaceably to assemble, and to petition (1463–155), was Elector of Saxony tenberg under a much higher protec- for a redress of grievances.” We miss the (1486–155). He founded the univer- tion than the Prince-Elector’s. I have no point of this law if we fail to note that sity, Wittenberg, where both Martin mind to ask for Your Grace’s protection; each of the original ten amendments, as Luther and Melanchthon taught. Luther nay, I hold that I could protect Your well as subsequent ones, is a single body Grace more than he could protect me. and the Elector may never have met. of thought and law, a unified whole, a Moreover, if I knew that your Grace Although Frederick gradually came to could and would protect me, I would single subject. We are not talking about accept certain Lutheran doctrines, he re- not come. In this, no sword can direct three, four, or five things here (freedom mained a Catholic to the end. His long nor help; God alone must act in this of religion, speech, press, assembly, or protection of Luther was not motivated matter, without all care and seeking. petition), nor one (freedom). After all, by agreement. What were his motives? Therefore he who believes most will other amendments deal with freedom At this distance, it is not easy to say. protect most; and because I feel that as well, and, if freedom were the key Certainly, if we limit it to self-interest, Your Grace is still weak in the faith, legal concept, the first five amendments we are distorting history. True, there I cannot by any means think of Your could have been made one amendment. were problems of jurisdiction. The Grace as the man who could protect or The unifying fact in the First Elector’s area, Thuringia and Saxony, save me. Amendment is a man’s immunity in was a domain one-ninth the size of “Protection” was thus made a theo- his faith and beliefs: the freedom to England. In it were a hundred different logical fact. In terms of Deuteronomy express his beliefs in religious worship, monasteries, and parts of six different 8, it was grounded in God’s blessing in speech, press, assembly, and petition. bishoprics. Five of the bishops lived out- on faith and obedience. As Rosenstock- This law was framed by colonial men side the Elector’s realm. Thus, a differ- Huessy noted so incisively, “Thomas for whom these things were matters of ent law prevailed for these ecclesiastical Paine offering George Washington his faith and principle. There was therefore domains. It would be easy to conclude protection would seem ridiculous.” for them a necessary unity in this state- that self-interest led Frederick the Wise Both the protection and the freedom ment: instead of five rights they saw one to defend Luther: he could then control which concerned Frederick III and fact. Their separation today means their the church as easily as the state if his Luther had become theological facts. diminution. It means also the steady were a unified realm. A Catholic prince and a Protestant decline of freedom in every aspect of the Such a conclusion presupposes a reformer had come together to establish First Amendment. desire by Frederick to control Luther, an important Christian relationship, Thus, the purpose of the First something he did not do. Luther was one with deep Biblical roots, and long Amendment was to bar the state from more ready for a magisterial power in strands in church history, which estab- entrance into, or powers over, the prin- the church than was Frederick. Freder- lished a fact too little appreciated in the cipled or religious stand and expressions ick protected Luther; he did not seek to days that followed. of law-abiding men in worship, instruc- control him. This point is all the more In the United States, the First tion, speech, publication, assembly, and important when we recognize their Amendment to the Constitution repre- petition. When Protestant Luther said religious differences. sents a development of this faith. This to Catholic Elector-Prince Frederick III Faith for All of Life | March/April 007 www.chalcedon.edu Faith for All of Life that he, Luther, was Frederick’s protec- provide a legitimate recourse against not been a federal grant but a religious tion in his (Luther’s) free and indepen- the evil misuse of freedom. Attempts principle. The change of its status is dent move and expression of faith, and to restrain pornography and libel have due to a shift in faith. Frederick accepted that fact, and acted had minimal results; the law-breaker is If man’s faith is in the state, then the on it, a major step was taken. Freedom a specialist in circumventing the law, state is the protector of man’s freedom, of religion was then not a privilege cre- whereas the legitimate publication feels and the author thereof. Then, in every ated and granted by the state, but rather the restraints which the law-breaker is area, we are dependent upon the state: something radically different. It meant impervious to. the state giveth, and the state taketh rather the protection of the state by the Moreover, laws seldom are limited away: blessed be the name of the state! freedom of faith. The stronger and more to the purpose of the legislators. As The national favorite of the United faithful that free exercise of faith, the Charles Curtis noted in A Better Theory States, “America,” still celebrates in greater the protection of the state. As of Legal Interpretation, “Language, at song an older and theocratic faith.