This past week’s Sunday School lesson had to do with being a good citizen, regardless of what country you happen to reside. A friend of mine was teaching and directed
his first question towards me because, as he put it, I was into blogging and
would have something to say. He asked,
“What does your membership in the church have to do with being a good
citizen?”
My answer may have surprised him as he expected a
politically charged response; instead I said the two worked hand in hand. The rest of the lesson was spent explaining
the Church’s admonition to follow the laws of the land.
There was a brief commentary offered regarding
constitutionality of laws followed by a statement which floated without
discussion; that the final arbiter of constitutionality rested with the Supreme
Court and we were to follow all the laws of the land which had been deemed
constitutionally sound.
The rest of the lesson I spent holding my tongue, more
accurately, biting my tongue as we were presented a Utopian pipe dream of how
things ought to be. I saw no purpose in
turning the short lesson time into a confrontation, something which drives the
Spirit away; hardly the way the Lord would have differences of opinion
expressed so I looked at the floor until the time was spent.
When I said being a good citizen and member of the Church
were one and the same it was a true statement; but it requires a considerable
understanding of both the Gospel and government, specifically this place we
call the United States of
America.
I first acknowledge that I am a child of God and all other
humans on this planet have the same divine lineage; but here in America our
founders recorded this thought process, setting our nation apart from all the
monarchies in recorded history.
“We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.”
We have a constitutional republic, a marked difference from
democracies wherein a majority of citizens can trample over the rights of an
individual or group which finds itself in the minority. This idea doesn’t sit well with those in
power; but the law of the land holds that inalienable rights, rights which
sprang from God, cannot be infringed upon.
The principle of inalienable rights was expressed by Thomas
Jefferson as part of our Declaration of Independence; however, others before
him forged the pathway.
Frederick Bastiat, in The Law,
“explains that, if the privileged classes or socialists
use the government for “legalized plunder,” this will encourage the other
socio-economic class to also use “legal plunder,” and that the correct response
to both the socialists and the corporatists
is to cease all “legal plunder.” Bastiat
also explains in The Law why his position is that the law cannot defend
life, liberty, and property if it promotes socialist policies. When used to
obtain “legalized plunder” for any group, he says, the law is perverted and
turned against the only things (life, liberty, and property) it is supposed to
defend.” (as summarized in Wikipedia)
It isn’t my imagination or even a stretch for the shallowest
of observations; Bastiat regarded laws passed which violated inalienable
rights as null and void. Since the only real purpose of government is to insure
and protect individual inalienable rights from being trampled upon; hence his
use of the term “legal plunder” for wealth redistribution programs which should
more appropriately be called “theft” or “robbery” by government. Such “laws” are in fact violations of law, a
mockery of the constitutional contract.
Violations of the social contract between citizens by those
placed in positions of authority cannot be acknowledged as “constitutionally
sound”, not even by the Supreme Court which discounts the notion, as set forth
by many, that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in defining
constitutionality.
Jefferson recorded,
“governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed”. Not even
members of the Supreme Court can validate laws which are contrary to eternal
laws as set down by our Creator.
Getting back to the Sunday School lesson…
One of the reading assignments started in Doctrine and
Covenants 58: 21, reads:
“Let no man break the laws of the
land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the
land.”
The Utopian pipe dream presumes that all the laws of the
land conform to eternal laws approved by God and are interchangeable. I’m guessing Joseph Smith never in his
wildest imaginings would predict that one day the United States of America would see
marriage as anything other than a husband and wife become the law of the land
or foresee the Supreme Court putting their stamp of approval on abortion.
The next reading was Doctrine and Covenants 98: 4-10:
“And now, verily I say unto you
concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to
do all things whatsoever I command them.
And that law of
the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in
maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable
before me.”
Whoa! Stop right
there; in verse five the Lord, by way of his holy prophet clearly indicated we
should follow those laws which are “constitutional”, laws which conform with
protecting all individual inalienable rights, and finishes off with, “supporting
that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all
mankind, and is justifiable before me”.
It seems to me, a simple student of human experience rather
than a man of ‘letters’, we are not required to support or obey laws which run
contrary to God’s eternal laws; but the discussion in Sunday School came to a
different conclusion.
Our 12th Article of Faith explains:
“We believe in being subject to
kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining
the law.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a world
wide church and so the broadest of interpretations must be applied so as to
make it possible for individuals to be ‘good citizens’ and ‘good members of the
Church’ while living in countries which have fewer individual freedoms than
here in the United States of America.
Pardon me while I spit…
The people of Germany must be proud to have
followed the laws of the Fatherland, the laws of the Fuehrer; all legal and
approved by their final arbiters as their authorized government “legally
plundered” any and all property from Jews, to include the taking of millions of
lives, life being a form of property.
Thomas Jefferson asked:
“Can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the
minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)
Our founders understood God’s eternal laws and promoted a
form of government which would act in unison, man’s laws acting as a mirror to
reflect our desire to be obedient as a nation to our Creator.
It has taken over two hundred years for those in positions
of leadership to pervert the path upon which America drifts away from God’s
laws, to a point where certain portions of government are in outright contempt
of God.
Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a ‘declaration
of beliefs’ which starts off:
“We believe that governments were
instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for
their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for
the good and safety of society.”
Drop down to verse five which I’d label as an ‘escape
clause’:
“We believe that all men are bound
to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while
protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of
such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen
thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments
have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated
to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the
freedom of conscience.” (emphasis added)
I wrote about the use of ‘inherent and inalienable rights’ as placed next to each other in the same
sentence as an aside some time back.
“In a footnote in “The Declaration
of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” by Carl Lotus
Becker, published 1922, we learn:
“The Rough Draft reads “[inherent &] inalienable.” There is no indication that Congress changed “inalienable” to “unalienable”; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote “unalienable.” Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. “Unalienable” may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.”
“The Rough Draft reads “[inherent &] inalienable.” There is no indication that Congress changed “inalienable” to “unalienable”; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote “unalienable.” Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. “Unalienable” may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.”
If…, my goodness that’s a huge word for only having two
letters; If… governments protected the rights of all individual’s inherent and
inalienable rights (with equity) was followed by, “and that sedition and
rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected”.
That last part of the sentence was ignored during this past
Sunday School lesson. Our being good
citizens hinged on the presumption that government actually protected all
individual’s inalienable rights with equity and so, “…thus protected”
overshadowed the last two words of the sentence.
If your government is not upholding their end of the
constitutional contract then it would appear individual citizens are not bound
to uphold and support their government.
Going a step further, citizens would not be seen as seditious,
rebellious or unbecoming (in the eyes of the Lord or Church leaders) when their
government no longer provides a proper environment which supports inalienable
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I like to think our founders understood that our
constitution works much the same as any other contract.
Benjamin Franklin, had he been alive and present, probably
would have stood up in Sunday School and said a few things worth hearing; and
he’d have commanded the attention of everyone as he reminded them:
“Rebellion against tyrants is
obedience to God.”
I could go on and on; but to what purpose? The leaders of our Church, while acting in
the capacity of diplomats of the Church, have given general recommendations
pertaining to members conduct within the societies which they find
themselves.
It is my opinion as an individual rather than a statement
from one in authority, that each of us are individually accountable to the Lord
for our actions as well as our inactions while here in mortality. If that means standing against our
government, a government which has long abandoned any attempt to work in
concert with the Lord’s eternal laws, then count me in with Ben Franklin,
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”
No comments:
Post a Comment