29 February 2012

Two Flaws

Chuck Norris, on what presidential candidate the Founding Fathers would vote for:
No wonder John Jay -- the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington himself -- wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
First off, it doesn’t matter what opinion any founding father had about government.  What matters is what the constitution says, because the constitution trumps personal opinion when it comes to government.  This is how rule of law functions.

Second, “Christian nation” is not the same as “Christian government.”  The government of a nation is a subset of a nation.  Regardless of you define members of the US government (I refer solely to federal employees, but including eligible voters strikes me as a reasonable metric as well), the number of people who are a part of the government is always smaller than the number of citizens.  As such, it is simply ludicrous to think that claiming that America is “a Christian nation” is somehow proof that the US government should be a theocracy.  The fact of the matter is that America is a Christian nation with a secular federal government.  As such, religion has no official role in the federal government (hence the whole “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).

While Christians would hopefully have a better grasp of natural law and rule of law than non-Christians, it is not imperative that they be elected, especially if they are elected solely on their merits of claiming to believe in God.  The Founding Fathers, then, would vote for someone who understood rule of law and had respect for the constitution.  We all know who he is.  (Hint for Chuck Norris:  It’s not Rick Santorum.)


  1. I don't think Ron Paul ever really thought he would be president; what is more critical to understanding his campaign is that his message was widely disseminated and that it drew in young people in greater numbers with each day, week, and year.

    I am eager to see who will take up his torch. Rand seems promising but perhaps not ready to abandon his Congressional district yet. I would vote for either Paul, or anyone who espoused their principles.

    Another excellent analysis of the cart-before-the-horse mentality that pervades both sides of the political sphere.

  2. @Cranberry- I don't know who will take up Ron Paul's torch. I'd imagine at this point that he's inspired a large number of young people to take up the cause of liberty, but time will tell if this is the case.