The Antitode to an Abuse of Freedom

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias posted this statement on his Facebook page on July 4: “Freedom can be destroyed, not just by its retraction, but also by its abuse.” That is a profound reminder for everyone who claims to be a lover of freedom. And if I may be so bold as to add to this statement, I would suggest that freedom is most likely to be abused when those who possess freedom fail to understand freedom–what it is and what it is not, where it comes from, how it is preserved and so on.

In the United States of America one way to gain a more complete understanding of freedom and what it means in the U.S. is to understand what the Founders were thinking and doing when they formed the framework of this nation following the accomplishment of independence from England. As a student of American history, I would suggest that one of the best ways to understand what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution is to read the eighty-five essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay that have come to be known as The Federalist Papers. These essays were originally published in newspapers between October 1787 and August 1788 in order to present the case for the ratification of the Constitution. The complete collection of essays was bound into two volumes in late 1788 and have been available in single or dual volumes ever since. For those who prefer to read on their computers or e-readers, the text of all eighty-five essays is also available (for free) on the Library of Congress web site as well as a number of other web sites. For more than two centuries they have been the authoritative source understanding the thinking and intentions of the Founders.

Historian Richard B. Morris said that The Federalist Papers form “an incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer.” Thomas Jefferson called them the best commentary ever written about the principles of government. The Federalist Papers website quotes James Madison as writing that “a people who mean to be their own governors must be armed with the power that knowledge gives.” Alexis de Tocqueville visited the young American nation and wrote in his book Democracy in America that Americans of that time were “far more knowledgeable about government and the issues of the day than their counterparts in Europe.”

Why bring all this up? Because, according to a recent article by Mindy Belz entitled “Against the Mental Grain,” The Federalist Papers are now being ignored by the most respectable institutions of higher learning in America, including its law schools. Belz quotes Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, as pointing out that Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley no longer require their students to read any of the Federalist essays, and these are the schools that “produce many of the nation’s leading members of the bar and bench.” Berkowtiz goes further and explains that not just the law schools, but the political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford do not even require undergraduate or graduate students to study The Federalist. Berkowitz writes, “The progressive ideology that dominates our universities teaches that The Federalist, like all books written before the day before yesterday, is antiquated and irrelevant,” and that by letting students acquire an education without studying such important writings as The Federalist Papers, “our universities also deprive the nation of a citizenry well-acquainted with our Constitution’s enduring principles.”

The Federalist Papers Project, whose web site I linked above, has this states purpose: “The mission of The Federalist Papers Project is to get people the history, government and economics lessons they never got in school and to motivate them to push back at the erosion of our liberties and restore constitutionally limited small government.” And to bring this discussion full circle, please note that “the erosion of our liberties” is but another way of saying, in the words of Zacharias, “an abuse of freedom.” Founding documents are important, whether the Ivy League schools think so or not. Let us, as Madison urged, arm ourselves with knowledge that we might defend against the abuse of our freedoms by those who have ignored the limits on government intended by our Founders.

National Day of Prayer

Today is the annual National Day of Prayer. Since 1952, when Congress mandated the event, there has been an annual day set aside to pray for our nation. In 1988 the law was amended, setting aside the first Thursday in May as the Day of Prayer. Long before it became a law, however, there were instances of national prayer, and presidential proclamations encouraging prayer. It is impossible to read the history of the United States or the original documents of the Founding Fathers are come to any conclusion other than the Founders’ belief that prayer is important and appropriate, and that national proclamations and days of prayer in no way violate any separation of church and state the Constitution may require.

The National Day of Prayer is most prominently observed by evangelical Christians, and the chair of the NDP has long been Shirley Dobson, the wife of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. The day is not reserved for Christians, however, and it is not an exclusively Christian event. President Obama, in his proclamation for this year’s NDP, said “… I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I call upon individuals of all faiths to pray for guidance, grace, and protection for our great Nation as we address the challenges of our time.”

While my faith directs me in a very definite way, and while I am one of those “intolerant” people who believes that biblical Christian faith is the only true faith, I also happen to respect the right of every individual to exercise his or her own faith, and I agree with the President that each person should give thanks and pray in accordance with their faith tradition.

In today’s Faith and Reason column on USAToday.com, Cathy Grossman writes, “The very conservative evangelicals who control the privately-run celebration will do their thing. The coalition led by Shirley Dobson allows only people who agree with a specific Christian expression of prayer to take the microphone at their events although all are welcome to attend and say amen.” It is clear from her tone that she does not approve. I cannot help but ask why? If the “celebration” (and I question the use of that word for the event) is privately run, why should the organizers not be free to set their own guidelines and limit the public prayer to those whose faith is consistent with their own? I would not expect any private event to do otherwise. If the organizers of a private event want to have an ecumenical event, or an event that includes many faiths, that’s great. If they want to have an event that adheres strictly to their own faith, equally great. If there happens to be a NDP event organized by Muslims I would not expect them to invite Christians to pray at their event.

The oh-so-tolerant organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has, of course, made their annual opposition known. Director Barry Lynn said, “Americans don’t need to be told when or whether to pray….” Agreed. Americans can and do pray all the time without being told or invited to do so. But there is also absolutely no problem with the President, the Congress, a governor or a mayor inviting and even encouraging people to pray. The only problem would come if any of those individuals were to mandate prayer, and no one is doing that.

Stephen Prothero, in his My Take blog on CNN.com, titled his entry today, “Dear God: How to Pray on National Day of Prayer?” He raises interesting points and questions in his blog. He seems to respect the right and desire of people of any faith to pray in a manner consistent with their faith, but he also asks questions about whether any one faith should become the “national voice” and whether we as a nation are guilty of using God rather than following Him. Good questions, and worthy of consideration and discussion.

Here’s where I come down. The theme selected by the NDP task force for this year is Psalm 33:12, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” I do not think the Lord is the God of the United States of America. By that I mean not that He is not sovereign over the U.S., because I believe that He is sovereign over everything. I mean that I do not believe that America, as a nation, has submitted itself to God, His ways and His will. As I have said here before, our nation is not a theocracy, and I am not sure that I think it should be. However, ours is a nation founded on religious freedom, and that freedom does, and should, include the right both of the President to call on the nation to pray, of the Congress to set aside a day to be known as the National Day of Prayer, and of the NDP Task Force to design its events for the day in ways consistent with its faith and belief, even when that includes disallowing those whose faiths and beliefs are not consistent with its own.

As for me, I put my faith in the God of the Bible. I believe that both the Old Testament and New Testament are the inspired, infallible Word of God, and I desire to be a follower of Christ. Accordingly, I will pray to the God of the Bible. Having accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on my behalf I have forgiveness of sins, and I have the right to go boldly before the throne of God and speak to Him directly (Hebrews 4:16). And that’s what I will do…today and everyday. I will continue to ask God to protect this nation, to give discernment to our leaders, to cause our nation to desire to turn to Him. And I will continue to thank God that I have that right.