Christmas: 1914

Laurence Vance has written an excellent piece on the Christmas truce of 1914 between the Central and Allied powers. Here's a sample:

"As Christmas Day approached, some German troops put up small Christmas trees on the parapets of their trenches. On Christmas Eve they began to sing Stille Nacht ("Silent Night"). Placards with Christmas greetings were set up by both sides. On Christmas Day, both sides buried their dead who had been lying in "No Man’s Land." They chatted, exchanged souvenirs, shook hands, ate and drank together, played football, had joint religious services, and smoked each other’s tobacco."

This brief outbreak of sanity would be overshadowed by nearly four more years of war.

The United States, under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, entered the conflagration in the spring of 1917 pledging to "make the world safe for democracy" and to "fight a war without hate". Wilson's lofty rhetoric and idealism notwithstanding, the war made the world safe for Bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism. With the latter's development spurred on by the vengeful peace imposed upon Germany at Versailles.

Merry Christmas

With all the talk about the secularist assault on Christmas (and I have no doubt that such an assault is very real), let us not forget the reason for the season. That nearly two millennia ago in a stable in the little town of Bethlehem, the Word became flesh. That God gave mankind the greatest gift - a gift available to all who believe:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Falwell's 'heroes' are men of the Historic Left

Rev. Jerry Falwell - the Baptist preacher and chancellor of Liberty University - who earlier this year called President Bush "the personfication of the ideal conservative" - the same President who has overseen some of the largest fiscal deficits in US history, greatly expanded the size and scope of the federal government, and proposed an amnesty program for illegal aliens among many other thoroughly unconservative programs - is at it again. This time instead of proclaiming his "devotion" to Bush or the Republican Party he aims at honoring some of our nation's most prominent historical Christian leaders who were "champions of freedom".

Who does the Reverend include in his list of "heroes of Thanksgiving"? Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. Heroes of whom exactly? Certainly not of the historic American Right which sought to conserve the principles enunciated in the Constitution - a federal government with limited and enumerated powers with all powers not explicitly granted to the central government belonging to individuals and their respective states via the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Although it is hard to imagine when one is inundated with what passes for conservative punditry on Fox News or commentary on talk radio - from the incessant backing of initiatives pouring out of the White House to apologias for a steady erosion of our Bill of Rights by legislation like the Patriot Act in the name of "security" - conservatives, from a historic perspective, used to be skeptical of government power. These conservatives were men like Robert Taft, John T. Flynn, and Barry Goldwater (perhaps Rev. Falwell should consult some of their writings to determine what a conservative actually is). Amongst the talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and publications like the National Review and The Weekly Standard their voices seem to be slowly fading from the national conscioussness.

Alas, Lincoln was no friend of the Constitution - the Great Emanciptator revoked habeas corpus by executive fiat and jailed thousands of Northern dissidents during the War Between the States. Woodrow Wilson would repeat history as America "made the world safe for democracy" in World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt would jail thousands of Italian, German, and Japanese-Americans during World War II in a blatant assault on the Bill of Rights while overseeing some of the largest and most unconstitutional promulgations of the federal state in American history.

These men are "heroes" Rev. Falwell? To the members of the historic left who defended their actions in publications like The Nation perhaps, but not in the hearts and minds of those on the Old Right who rose up in opposition against them then and will continue to do so now - for the Constitution and preservation of American liberty.

My letter to the Technician

Since the Technician understandably shortened my letter to the editor concerning Emily Duncan's column regarding church-state relations and President Bush's reelection here it is in its entirety:

From the New York Times to the Washington Post, columnists in some of our nation’s most respected newspapers have been in an uproar – particularly with regards to the threat posed to American civil society by the so-called “religious right” which has been emboldened by George W. Bush’s reelection. Emily Duncan’s column is representative of many of the objections being raised by the likes of Maureen Dowd and E.J. Dionne – conservative Christians, under the leadership of President Bush, have “taken over American politics” and plan to wage a religious war – or in Dowd’s case a “jihad” – in order to impose their moral values on America. This development, the argument runs, poses a fundamental challenge to the integrity of our system - eliminating our nation's historic respect for church-state separation - as the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans plan an assault on our nation's moral "progress" over the past century - particularly in the realm of abortion rights and Roe v. Wade.

A major problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes President Bush aims at overturning Roe in the first place. If Bush plans on doing so there is little evidence from the past four years to corroborate the idea. Funding for Title X – which includes appropriations for Planned Parenthood – is higher than it was under the Clinton Administration. Federal funding of surgical abortions under Title XIX of Medicare has continued – with the consent of a Republican Congress – under Bush’s leadership. If this not convincing enough consider the President’s endorsement of incumbent Senator Arlen Specter over conservativechallenger Congressman Pat Toomey in a tight race in the Pennsylvania Senate primary earlier this year. Specter, a Republican Senator who champions human cloning, abortion rights, and played an instrumental role in keeping conservative Robert Bork off of the Supreme Court in the late 1980s, is in line to become the chairman of the powerful Senate judiciary committee – an entity that plays an instrumental role in judicialconfirmations. If Bush is interested in appointing judges that will overturn Roe why did he actively campaign for Specter? Answer: I’m afraid, as neoconservative columnist William Safire suggested on a recent edition of NBC’s Meet the Press: “There’s no turning back on Roe v. Wade” – particularly under the leadership of the present administration.

A second issue is the consistent misrepresentation of the Constitution and its relationship to religion in American life – misconceptions that were perpetuated by Ms. Duncan. Ms. Duncan writes that the separation of church and state is “one of the most essential and importantconstitutional liberties that protects Americans from tyranny” – one would think then, that the phrase, taken from a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, would actually be in our Constitution. Alas, it is nowhere to be found in the text of our founding document.

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The term “Congress” referring explicitly to the national legislature. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments gave all powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution to the states. This granted individual states power to conduct their own religious affairs. Thomas Jefferson recognized this fact explicitly in a letter written in 1808: “Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise […] has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.” Upon this thoroughly Constitutional foundation several states – Massachusetts and Vermont among them – maintained established churches into the 19th century.

Federalism would largely reign on religious questions up until 1947 when Justice Hugo Black brought “separation of church and state” into the national consciousness in a majority opinion written in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. Black’s opinion is a truly remarkable one in that he developed a distorted history with regards to the original intent of the First Amendment in order to give weight to his legal reasoning. Black’s history has largely become the conventional wisdom both in academia and media (Ms. Duncan’s column being another example) but it is as wrong today as it was over fifty years ago.

The original intent then of the First Amendment was not to separate church and state it was to build a wall of separation between the federal government and the states so a centralized power could not meddle in local jurisdictions.

James Lawrence

Sophomore

Biomedical Engineering