Some Protestant and Catholic lawyers, professors and writers have come together to suggest a basis for a Christian approach to law. I have skimmed it and came away thinking that they didn’t really come together. But I intend to review it in more depth. Here is the link, let’s discuss…
Begin reading at page two.
Hat tip to Sarah Jones for her article on the document.
Category: Religion
Institute on the Constitution: Notes on Session 10 – War Between the States and Women's Suffrage Dilutes the Franchise
I have been watching the Institute on the Constitution course on the National Religious Broadcasters network on Thursday nights. Last night was session 10 and covered amendments 11 through 27. I have raised numerous issues with the course over the first nine sessions, and session 10 only added to my negative reaction.
At this point, I am just going to supply some observations about the course from memory. I may do a more detailed follow up next week.
Discussing the 13th Amendment, Peroutka disparaged the Emancipation Proclamation as a political ploy on Lincoln’s part. In his discussion of the 13th Amendment, Peroutka correctly said that the amendment freed the slaves but then added that subsequent actions made us all slaves. He compared the military draft and income tax to the enslavement of blacks. To me, this comparison crudely minimizes the awfulness of slavery.
He had little good to say about the 14th Amendment. Consistent with his status of board member of the League of the South, he make the Confederate case that the amendment was never legally ratified.
Throughout his discussion of the Reconstruction amendments (13-15), Peroutka referred to the Civil War as “The War Between the States.” When David Whitney came forward to discuss his view that the 16th Amendment did not actually authorize a federal income tax, he called the Civil War, “The War for Southern Independence.” These designations are consistent with Peroutka’s view that the wrong side won the Civil War.
Probably the oddest position taken was opposition to the 19th Amendment. Peroutka complained that a woman’s right to vote “dilutes the franchise.” He said he often gets strong reaction to his position (I wonder why) but he explained that a married female voting may cancel out the vote of her husband. He painted a picture of the family being represented at the voting booth by the husband. If a woman has no husband then she could vote, but otherwise he believes women should be represented by their husbands at the polls.
How about that ladies?
There were other things that raised my eyebrows but I need to do a bit more research before I write about them.
Politico on David Barton: What Will Evangelicals Do, Part Two
Yesterday’s Politico article by Stephanie Simon on evangelical support for David Barton could have been subtitled: Evangelicals Choose Pragmatism Over Truth.
In the last year, over 70 scholars (over 700 if you count the 650 votes The Jefferson Lies received for Least Credible History Book in Print) have expressed concerns about David Barton’s history. Most of those 70 scholars teach history or social science at conservative Christian colleges.* Yet, the Politico article reveals an approach to historical scholarship that is disturbing.
Stephanie Simon told the tale. Although I have some skepticism about Barton’s sunny disposition, he says he is back and better than ever. Evangelical Senator, and probable contender for the GOP presidential nomination, Ted Cruz said he was not in a position to opine on academic disputes. However, there is really no dispute about which to opine. The verdict has been in for some time. Thomas Nelson delivered it just over a year ago. As noted, multitudes of scholars have united to send the same message. Where are the scholars defending The Jefferson Lies, or the claim that Congress printed the first English Bible, or that the Constitution quotes the Bible “verbatim?” We don’t need Mr. Cruz to opine on a dispute, we need him to open his mind to reality. About Barton’s lessons, Cruz said:
David’s historical research has helped millions rediscover the founding principles of our nation and the incredible sacrifices that men and women of faith made to bequeath to us the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.
Doesn’t it matter that much of Mr. Barton’s “historical research” has been deemed to be off the mark? Mr. Cruz, aren’t you concerned in the least that these millions are now seriously misinformed? The same questions can be posed to Christian right organizations which use Barton’s work even though they know it is off the mark.
There is not even a question about the accuracy issue any longer. To their credit, the Family Research Council acknowledged that they removed the Capitol Hill video due to errors. And Focus on the Family felt the need to stealthily edit error-filled portions of Barton’s speeches. There are other aspects of the Focus broadcast (of which they are aware) that are incorrect; those remain a part of the broadcast.
Instead of integrity, accuracy, correction and stewardship, evangelical groups are openly discussing the value of content and consultants in utilitarian terms. If Mr. Barton can deliver a certain segment of evangelicals then the standards will be different for him. Mr. Barton gets a pass because he has a big audience and is perceived to be helpful politically.
In February of this year, I reflected on World magazine’s coverage of the Barton controversy and asked how evangelicals might respond. Now, I rephrase slightly.
World MagazinePolitico has now put these matters on the front burner. My question is what will evangelicals do about it?
*Many more than 70 scholars have expressed concerns but some did not want to sign a letter or write an essay. Some were told not to do so by their college or university administration; others said they did not believe Christian political groups would listen. Perhaps they were right.
Institute on the Constitution: The American View or the Confederate View?
The website for the Institute on the Constitution is called The American View. As a result of taking his Constitution course, director Michael Peroutka claims that
students will become familiar with “The American View of Law and Government”:
-
There is a God, the God of the Bible
-
Our rights come from Him
-
The purpose of civil government is to secure our God-given rights
Ed Sebesta at Anti-Neo-Confederate reminds us that the National Religious Broadcasters are offering IOTC’s Constitution course via their website and network (Liberty University also). He also asserts that the IOTC takes more of a Confederate view than an American one.
Some Christians may resonate with the IOTC declaration that the American view is that the founders deliberately sought to create a Biblical foundation for law and government. However, one must ignore many events and statements during the early days of the nation to hold that belief. For instance, theologically orthodox president of Yale, Timothy Dwight, certainly did not describe the Constitution in Peroutka’s terms when he spoke to Yale students in 1812.
Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such, as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgment of God ; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God. I wish I could say, that a disposition to render him the reverence, due to his great Name, and the gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public, visible, uniform, and fervent.
In his treatment of the founders’ religious beliefs during the IOTC course, Peroutka cherry picks quotes from founders to make them all sound orthodox. Like David Barton, Peroutka portrays the founders as orthodox in order to tie the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to “the God of the Bible.” Most founders were theistic, but that doesn’t mean they all believed in “the God of the Bible” in the evangelical sense or that they deliberately set out to create a Biblical government. What is remarkable is how infrequently religion is mentioned in the founding documents.
Historical problems aside, Peroutka espouses positions that are more acceptable at the League of the South than in a course on “the American view.” For instance, his position on nullification and interposition is much more in line with the Confederate view than the American view. Various defenders of slavery (e.g., John C. Calhoun) and segregation (e.g., Ross Barnett) tried the nullification argument and eventually failed.
Peroutka’s organization, the League of the South (he is a board member and has pledged the resources of the constitution course to the League), is the embodiment of the Confederate view. They can’t stand Abraham Lincoln and disparage Martin Luther King, Jr. They (from the LoS blog) disdain the United States, calling it the “USSA” and the “Evil Empire.” (see also “doomed evil empire” and an “organized criminal enterprise“), and don’t consider themselves American. They promote Southern secession in order to form an “Anglo-celtic” (i.e., white) Christian nation with a constitution that looks like the Constitution of 1788 (sans slavery amendments) and the Confederate Constitution of 1861. They don’t fly the American flag at their conferences, preferring instead the Confederate battle flag. At their upcoming anti-immigration reform rally in Uvalda, GA, the League plans to fly “The Georgia Secession Flag (left) and the Southern Nationalist Activism Flag (right) will be flown by participants at the upcoming demonstration.”
In June of this year, Peroutka told those in attendance at the League of the South conference that the League taught him most of what he knows. At 4:00 minutes into the video, Peroutka told the crowd:
Thank you for your kindness. I always have the difficulty when it comes to the League of the South since I actually learned most of what I know from y’all. There’s always the difficulty of what I’m going to tell you that you don’t already know.
Does it seem likely that the League of the South would teach Peroutka an American view? Does it seem likely that the League would endorse something called the American View if the leaders did not think it was friendly to the Confederate view? At one League conference, Peroutka urged the League to use his course as compatible with League goals, and at least one state branch has done so:
Former Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka co-founded the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), the program that will run at the Middle Georgia Chapter’s Hedge School in April (see right). According to Chapter Chairman Ben Davis, it is an excellent resource which lends itself very easily to the League message. Davis encourages fellow chapter leaders to host IOTC in their localities. For more information, go to www.iotconline.com.
In my opinion, when the League says a resource “lends itself very easily to the League message,” I suspect they mean it. Which view does it appear they endorse?
Does the Church Have a League of the South Problem?
When the Washington Free Beacon revealed that an important member of Sen. Rand Paul’s staff, Jack Hunter (aka “The Southern Avenger”), had at one time been a member of the League of the South, pressure came quickly for Paul and Hunter to distance themselves from the League’s neo-Confederate views. Eventually, Hunter resigned from Paul’s staff.
Pundits on the left and right questioned Paul’s judgment and views on race. Paul has been on the defensive and if he chooses to run for president, he likely will be asked again about his reasons for hiring a neo-Confederate sympathizer.
With the emergence of the Institute on the Constitution as an accepted organization within the Christian right, I submit the evangelical church now has a League of the South problem. As I have pointed out on the blog, the IOTC’s director and lead teachers are leaders in the League of the South. Founder and director Michael Peroutka is a member of the board of directors for the League and senior teacher David Whitney is the chaplain of the League’s MD branch. Peroutka has stated to a League of the South audience that his reasons for teaching the Constitution are not to reform the current government but to prepare for Southern secession or some form of governmental collapse. He has also pledged the resources of the IOTC to the achievement of the League’s objectives.
As I noted recently, the National Religious Broadcasting network is now showing the 12-part Constitution course with Peroutka and Whitney teaching. This course is also being shown simultaneously on Liberty University’s television network. The far right Sons of Liberty of Bradlee Dean is also offering the IOTC course. Peroutka is a regular on Steve Deace’s talk show. If not for parents’ protests, the Springboro School Board would have evaluated the course as a potential offering in their school district. The teacher of the course then moved it into a local church. Many mainstream churches, especially in Ohio, have hosted the course over the past several years.
Before the series started on the NRB network, I alerted the NRB about the connection between the League and IOTC. And yet, the series continues.
Is there a problem here? I may be wrong, I believe there is a brewing problem. Many in the nation are having important conversations about race and racism. Historically, the church has been divided over issues of race. The League fancies itself a Christian oriented organization with an objective to promote Southern secession to form a white, Christian nation. Will the evangelical church let these objectives enter the mainstream?
To my mind, the emergence of the IOTC raises significant questions. Is the situation I am describing here helping or hurting racial reconciliation? Can a League of the South board member simultaneously be a leader in the evangelical world? Does the stated aims of the course and organization matter if the content of the course serves Christian right political objectives?* Association with the League in the political world is enough to cause significant alarm; should the same be true in the church? Are there important differences between the political and religious worlds that make association with the League a problem in one place but not the other?
Does the conservative Christian church have a League of the South problem?
*A related issue relates to the accuracy of the course information. There are many problems with the IOTC programs I have seen (e.g., see this post) but this is also true of Christian nationalist programs without questionable ties to neo-Confederate organizations.
