Category: Warren Throckmorton

June 8, 1787
Summary: The delegates decided that all state laws were not subject to veto by the National Legislature.
In the debate over the Constitution, a major need was to balance state and national power and authority. Some delegates leaned toward making states weak in comparison to the federal government and others wanted a weaker federal authority. Rather than a self-conscious application of biblical principles as David Barton and other Christian nationalist propose, the Convention hashed over numerous contradicting ideas and philosophies of government on the way to a compromise.
Charles Pinckney moved to subordinate state laws to federal law.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved, “that the National Legislature should have authority to negative all laws which they should judge to be improper.” He urged that such a universality of the power was indispensably necessary to render it effectual; that the States must be kept in due subordination to the nation; that if the States were left to act of themselves in any case, it would be impossible to defend the national prerogatives, however extensive they might be, on paper; that the acts of Congress had been defeated by this means; nor had foreign treaties escaped repeated violations: that this universal negative was in fact the corner-stone of an efficient national Government; that under the British Government the negative of the Crown had been found beneficial, and the States are more one nation now, than the colonies were then.

While Britain has at times come up as a negative example, Pinckney here invoked the British Crown as a positive model. Madison seconded the motion and appealed to current experience with state governments as reason for this proposal. On this day, the delegates negated the proposal to negate.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)

June 7, 1787
Summary: The delegates focused on how to elect the Senate today. Eventually, they decided that state legislatures should do it.
As has been the pattern thus far, delegates relied on Britain and the ancient republics as inspiration.

Mr. DICKINSON had two reasons for his motion — first, because the sense of the States would be better collected through their Governments, than immediately from the people at large; secondly, because he wished the Senate to consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible; and he thought such characters more likely to be selected by the State Legislatures, than in any other mode. The greatness of the number was no objection with him. He hoped there would be eighty, and twice eighty of them. If their number should be small, the popular branch could not be balanced by them. The Legislature of a numerous people ought to be a numerous body.

Dickinson wanted the Senate to resemble the British House of Lords. Madison was informed by the example of Rome.

Mr. MADISON. If the motion (of Mr. DICKINSON) should be agreed to, we must either depart from the doctrine of proportional representation, or admit into the Senate a very large number of members. The first is inadmissible, being evidently unjust. The second is inexpedient. The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch. Enlarge their number, and you communicate to them the vices which they are meant to correct. He differed from Mr. DICKINSON, who thought that the additional number would give additional weight to the body. On the contrary, it appeared to him that their weight would be in an inverse ratio to their numbers. The example of the Roman tribunes was applicable. They lost their influence and power, in proportion as their number was augmented. The reason seemed to be obvious: they were appointed to take care of the popular interests and pretensions at Rome; because the people by reason of their numbers could not act in concert, and were liable to fall into factions among themselves, and to become a prey to their aristocratic adversaries. The more the representatives of the people, therefore, were multiplied, the more they partook of the infirmities of their constituents, the more liable they became to be divided among themselves, either from their own indiscretions or the artifices of the opposite faction, and of course the less capable of fulfilling their trust. When the weight of a set of men depends merely on their personal characters, the greater the number, the greater the weight. When it depends on the degree of political authority lodged in them, the smaller the number, the greater the weight. These considerations might perhaps be combined in the intended Senate; but the latter was the material one.

Dickinson also compared the proposed system to the solar system.\

He compared the proposed national system to the solar system, in which the States were the planets, and ought to be left to move freely in their proper orbits.

Delegate Wilson used the British government as a negative example.

Mr. WILSON. The subject, it must be owned, is surrounded with doubts and difficulties. But we must surmount them. The British Government cannot be our model. We have no materials for a similar one. Our manners, our laws, the abolition of entails and of primogeniture, the whole genius of the people, are opposed to it. He did not see the danger of the States being devoured by the National Government. On the contrary, he wished to keep them from devouring the National Government. He was not, however, for extinguishing these planets, as was supposed by Mr. DICKINSON; neither did he, on the other hand, believe that they would warm or enlighten the sun. Within their proper orbits they must still be suffered to act, for subordinate purposes, for which their existence is made essential by the great extent of our country. He could not comprehend in what manner the landed interest would be rendered less predominant in the Senate by an election through the medium of the Legislatures, than by the people themselves. If the Legislatures, as was now complained, sacrificed the commercial to the landed interest, what reason was there to expect such a choice from them as would defeat their own views? He was for an election by the people, in large districts, which would be most likely to obtain men of intelligence and uprightness; subdividing the districts only for the accommodation of voters.

A trend is apparent. The framers did not begin or end with prayer, they did not debate the theological or biblical basis for any of their decisions. Thus far, most examples, both positive and negative, have been from Britain, the states, and Rome/Greece.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

Country Mill Farms and legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom is suing the City of East Lansing with a claim of religious discrimination. According to the complaint, the City of East Lansing acted to exclude “a farmer whose family farm is twenty-two miles outside the City from participating in its city-run farmers market solely because the City dislikes the farmer’s profession of his religious beliefs about marriage on Facebook.” CMF claims that the policy “violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as state law that prohibits Michigan cities from regulating activities outside city boundaries.”
Read the Country Mill Farms complaint here.
I want to raise a legal question with this post. I do so because I think the CMF situation may have a broader application to how Christians think about sexual orientation discrimination.

Background of the Country Mill Farms Case

The City of East Lansing includes sexual orientation in their non-discrimination statement.

It is hereby declared to be contrary to the public policy of the City of East Lansing for any person to deny any other person the enjoyment of his/her civil rights or for any person to discriminate against any other person in the exercise of his/her civil rights or to harass any person because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, height, weight, disability, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, student status, or because of the use by an individual of adaptive devices or aids.

CMF operates a farm outside the city limits of East Lansing. They sell produce throughout mid-Michigan and host weddings on their farm. For years, CMF sold produce at a farm market in the city limits of East Lansing without incident. However, after CMF publicly declared their practice of referring gay couples to other vendors for weddings, the City of East Lansing changed their policy regarding approval of vendors for space to sell produce at their farm market. After the change, the city required that vendors operating at the farm market adhere to the non-discrimination code in their “business practices.” On this basis, East Lansing denied CMF space at the farm market.
The ADF complaint alleges that the City of East Lansing refused to allow CMF to sell at the market “solely because the City dislikes the farmer’s profession of his religious beliefs about marriage on Facebook.” Via the town’s Facebook page, I asked if the city took action based on the owners’ beliefs or their business practices. In reply, they said:

[I]t’s about their business practice, not their religious beliefs. The issue is that, as part of their business practice, they do not serve all couples.

According to the complaint, CMF referred at least one couple in the past to another farm and then issued this statement on their Facebook page in December 2016:

This past fall our family farm stopped booking future wedding ceremonies at our orchard until we could devote the appropriate time to review our policies and how we respectfully communicate and express our beliefs. The Country Mill engages in expressing its purpose and beliefs through the operation of its business and it intentionally communicates messages that promote its owners’ beliefs and declines to communicate messages that violate those beliefs. The Country Mill family and its staff have and will continue to participate in hosting the ceremonies held at our orchard. It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First Amendment Right to express and act upon its beliefs. For this reason, Country Mill reserves the right to deny a request for services that would require it to communicate, engage in, or host expression that violates the owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience. Furthermore, it remains our religious belief that all people should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their beliefs or background. We appreciate the tolerance offered to us specifically regarding our participation in hosting wedding ceremonies at our family farm.

A court will decide if the City of East Lansing is discriminating based on the owners’ religious beliefs.

What If CMF’s Religious Beliefs Opposed Biracial Marriage?*

In all of these religious liberty cases, I have been wondering if Christians would rally to the side of religious liberty if the religious belief involved was to oppose biracial marriage. I have asked Alliance Defending Freedom three times if ADF would defend plaintiffs who refused to provide services to vendors who declined to serve biracial couples for religious reasons. To date, they have failed to answer. I asked CMF a similar question via CMF’s Facebook page, and they responded:

Thank you for your message.
You can follow the case at www.ADFLegal.org
God bless you!
Steve & Bridget Tennes

There are people who oppose biracial marriages on religious grounds. League of the South members run businesses; what if one of those people called on ADF to represent them in their religious liberty struggle?
I would like to address this as a matter of law. In the East Lansing ordinance, sexual orientation is listed along with race. Presumably, referring a biracial couple to another wedding vendor would be considered racial discrimination, even if for religious reasons. As a matter of law, how is it different to refer a gay couple? What if the CMF Facebook post said the following — It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman of the same race and Country Mill has the First Amendment Right to express and act upon its beliefs? Would ADF defend them? Would Christian pundits write columns defending their religious liberties?
If the City of East Lansing is telling me the truth, CMF would be able to sell produce at the farm market if they served all couples, even if they expressed publicly their disapproval of gay marriage. In the public square, I submit that the image on the coin is Caesar’s and that Christians should give to Caesar what is his. However, belief can submit to no earthly authority as a matter of conscience. If Christians want to follow Jesus’ teaching regarding our public involvement in jurisdictions with anti-discrimination laws which include sexual orientation, I don’t know how we can offer our services to some and not to others. Believe what you need to believe, but serve everyone as required by law.
I still hope ADF will address this matter and provide their rationale for taking cases like CMF and Arlene’s Flowers if they won’t take the case of a League of the South member with religious beliefs opposing biracial marriages. Open discussion about these cases may take us closer to an ethical position which allows us to honor our religious loyalties while properly discharging our duties as citizens.
 
*Let me be absolutely clear. I do not believe CMF discriminates based on race, nor do I have any evidence that they would refuse to sell produce to anyone. I raise an analogy and seek opinions about why religious belief should trump anti-discrimination law for one class of persons but not for another.

This is the same news as I reported yesterday but with a twist. The organization which funnels money from all over the world to India — Gospel for Asia — is at the center of two racketeering and fraud lawsuits brought by former donors in Arkansas. The founder of GFA and Believers’ Church in India (the main recipient of GFA’s funds) — K.P. Yohannan — is a defendant in the lawsuits. So is his wife and son. One of those suits was cleared by a federal judge to proceed with discovery and to hold a jury trial slated for April 15, 2019.
This is actually bigger news in India than in the U.S.
Despite being the second largest mission organization in the nation, GFA isn’t well known in the U.S. However, in India, Yohannan is a rock star. He has met with the prime minister, regularly entertains politicians, and is the temporal and spiritual head of Believers’ Church, which owns billions of dollars in assets and claims over 2 million members. Think of the most famous religious figure in the U.S., and K.P. Yohannan is a comparable figure in India.
On church publications, Yohannan goes by His Eminence the Most Rev. Dr. K.P. Yohannan.

Yohannan’s religious empire includes over a dozen secondary schools, a medical school, an engineering school, a finance company, a soccer team, three hospitals, and a broadcasting company. Most of these ventures are for profit. Unless the parties settle out of court, Yohannan will no doubt be put on the witness stand in Arkansas and forced to answer questions about money smurfing American cash to India, a $20-million transfer from an Indian affiliate to complete construction of the American headquarters, funds not showing up in reports, board members being forced out in Canada and a host of other issues.

On the Educate for Life radio show, guest and self-styled historian David Barton agreed with host Kevin Conover that the public school Bible classes offered by the National Council of Bible Curriculum in Public Schools teaches Christianity. Watch:

Barton agrees when Conover says, “they’re offering not just a Bible as history class but it’s literally a full on Christian class.” Understandably, Conover seems surprised by this.
According to the president of the Council, the purpose of the course is not religious indoctrination.

The conversation between Conover and Barton suggests that Christianity is being taught by introduction of this Bible course. I realize that in most schools the course is an elective. Nonetheless, I don’t want public schools taking sides on religion. I doubt Barton would be fine with the scriptures of other religions being taught as religion, elective or not. Can you imagine the outrage if Conover had said, “it isn’t just the Qu’ran as history, it is a full on Muslim class”?
The Bible and religion may be studied in the same manner as other subjects. However, evangelism and sectarianism (which is happening) should be off limits.