The Ultimate Poli Sci Help Page

This page document was compiled by some of Geneva’s finest “A” and “B” students. This document is “worth the paper it is printed on”.

This document is designed ONLY as a help to your reading. It is understood that you are assigned a massive amount of reading material for this class, and many students simply do not possess the mental capacity and time to absorb and assimilate this large set of reading assignments. God has gifted each of us in different ways, so some may be better at education, physics, biology, or math, so this document is designed to help even out the playing field, giving everyone a chance to see how these readings can be interpreted into normal English using bulleted lists and outline style format.

You MUST still complete all readings assigned by Dr. Neikirk. In addition, you may NOT bring this document (or any other notes other than your own) to class, for doing so is considered CHEATING, and would further damage the discussion based lecture style of teaching Dr. Neikirk has set up. God is watching you, so don’t disappoint Him!!

Political Science Unit One Notes

● In the 7th century B.C., an Athenian named Draco established a code of laws which, rather than promoting stability and equality as expected, became known for their terrible severity. Even 2600 years later, we use the word Draconian when a punishment is considered overly severe.

● The Eigth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment by the civil government.

● A caveat is a warning.

­­­­­­­­­­____________________________________________________________________________

Empirical- questions or statements of “what is”; objective facts.

Normative- questions or statements of “what should be”; subjective values.

We debate empirically about “what is” based on our normative presuppositions about “what should be”. You can not evaluate a normative argument on empirical grounds, and vise versa.

Three fundamental questions:

1. Is there a God, and what is He like?

2. Are there ethical absolutes? Are there any transcendent moral values?

(Hobbes says no, the sovereign must decide these)

3. What are humans like?

(Liberals: inherently bad, need gov.)

(Conservatives: inherently bad but improvable, don’t need gov.)

Why should we have government? What should government do? Man is fallen in sin, that’s why.

Thomas Hobbes - The Leviathan

Hobbes lived in 17th century England.

A Leviathan is a big sea creature. The government should be as powerful as a leviathan.

Hobbes’ argument:

● Humans in the state of nature (no gov.) have essentially similar basic wants and desires.

● Unfortunately, humans have scarce resources.

● Thus, the first rule is to look out for oneself. Do only what is necessary to preserve oneself.

● Since humans are self-centered, force and fraud dominate.

● There is no room for agriculture and industry with this violence and theft (from force and fraud).

● This makes life very solitary, poor, brutish, and short.

● But fortunately, man is rational, realizing that we don’t agree on what’s ethical.

● So we create a sovereign to enforce and set rules.

Sovereign- the Sovereign is the ruling civil magistrate.

• has the power to take away life, liberty, and happiness.

• Brings order to society

• Protects us from each other and ourselves

Purpose of Government:

1. Government is needed to bring order to society and to protect us from each other and ourselves.

(e.g. Hobbes argument above, Government needs to be a leviathan).

2. Government provides for the common defense (from attacking foreigners).

3. Government provides goods and services that individuals (the private sector) and markets cannot sufficiently provide, such as:

• Public education

• Post offices and mail

• Roads and mass transportation

• Public utilities (electricity, water)

• Currency

• Police

But there is a problem with having government and a sovereign:

1. We may not all agree on all three goals of gov.

2. We may not all agree on how to ethically accomplish these goals.

3. We are in conflict over our priorities. (We can’t do everything because resources are exhaustible, so he must make priorities; we don’t agree on priorities b/c different people have different priorities but want no more taxes)

Neikerkien Definition of Politics & Government

Politics- the authoritative resolution of conflict through the allocation of values and resources

● resolution of conflict – decision has been made (even thought not everyone will agree with it)

● authoritative 1) it binds all of us (we must abide)

2. he gets to legitimately enforce it by the power of taking away life, liberty, and happiness (the ultimate sanctions)

● allocating the sources – can tell where the resources will be used shows what #1 priority is

● allocating the values – decides what he values to act (value judgement) (value judgements stand for all of us) e.g. abortion, adultery

• Does not mean: found the technically best solution; we’ll all agree; issue will never come up again

• Does mean: binds all of us even if we don’t agree; can enforce with ultimate sanctions (liberty and property); and may not be ethically correct

Government- a set of roles and offices that are established in a society to make these authoritative decisions

Offices: power is not in the individual, but the position

-- whoever holds the office has power

Roles: expected patterns of behavior

Ex: students must take notes; political parties are not in constitution

NOTE: The Constitution doesn’t talk about political parties!! It’s not a formal structure

Relationship between Government and Politics

If you want to understand the gods of a country, look at its laws

Is it possible to keep religion out of politics?

Ex: Russell Kirk believes that religion is basis of how people do things (politics)

-- We can’t function with basic values

-- societies can only function together if they hold same values

-- our laws reflect basic fundamental values

Reichley “The Religious Issue”

Religion is important to politics because they are intertwined and tied to a common cultural underpinning, the 7 value systems. Every society has a common value source for politics and religion (one of the seven).

7 Value Systems

1. monism- material is something to be avoided; seek only the spiritual. Physical needs should be put aside. Reject the apparent world of material reality in favor of a totally spiritualized view of existence.

2. secular egoism- reducing all value to the drives and appetites. Here, the individual’s needs and desires are the values. These values are not absolute, they can change based on the individual’s feelings. Good is defined by individuals acting out of self interest.

3. authoritarianism – What’s good in the group as a whole. Basing value entirely on the welfare of the group. Here, the values are that of the majority’s will. These values are not absolute, they can change.

4. idealism- Finding ethical values in context of a group. Finding the basic values of the group; something is always right and wrong. You cannot change these idealistic values, for they are tied to a belief in a higher being (transcendence). Transcendent values apply to all countries at all times.

5. personalism- Finding ethical values in the context of an individual. Transcendent values of personal experience through the individual – don’t need other Christians. These values apply to all people at all times.

6. civil humanism- What is good concerning the individual and the group. seeking balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the group. There is no transcendence in this view (no God).

7. theist humanism- Finding ethical values with the group & individual. Discovering transcendent significance in the related experience of the individual and group; is transcendent, is a mix b/t group and individual.

 society can function only when they decide on one value system

 doesn’t think a good stable society will last without transcendent values

4 possible models of how organized religion and politics relate:

18th and 19th centuries most conservative protestants were interventionalists:

1. eschatology – pertaining to end times

2. post millennial – world getting better and better; Christ’s kingship is now and people will increasingly recognize Christ as King (as opposed to pre millennial: reign of Christ is sometime in future)

3. used to have election day sermons

4. role of church seen differently: should protect itself

5. theological changes occurring in late 19th and early 20th centuries regarding end times (from post to pre millennial)

WHY??

• Immigration patterns – more immigration of Roman Catholics, Orthodox

More religions – can’t be interventionists b/c no religious consensus

• Shift away from Calvinism  dispensationalism (see other printout from my website on disp.)

• Eschatological views (eschatological- end times, contemplates Christ’s return)

-- tended to post-millenialism

● Christ’s kingdom is at hand!

● Christ return that is happening now

● Increasingly world will turn to Christ – including politics

-- thus church should be telling government if laws are biblical

-- Now pre-mellenialism

Christ return – an increase in Christianity is in future

-- now world won’t recognize Christ

-- no reason for church to be involved in politics

-- job of church – only to save people

• politics would only infect the church

Dawson “The Significance of Western Development”

Dawson wrote this in 1950.

(Dark Ages 500-1000 AD)

Ideology- the “way of life” of a people, reflected in their collectively held ideas and beliefs concerning the nature of the ideal:

• political system

• economic order

• social goals

• and moral values.

• A basically consistent set of beliefs about politics and economics and how they ought to operate.

The Western ideology was man-made and faith transcendent (belief in a God).

Dawson proposes the question, “Why did Western society develop differently from other countries?”

Answer: Western society developed differently due to its being highly influenced by Christianity.

● The Western religion (Christianity) has several key features that influenced the society’s development:

• Allows for change

• Missionary emphasis

• Not attached to one single structure

• Encourages reading and education

• The Christian values of Western society were based on moral values and faith.

● The religious views developed during the Dark ages (1000-1500 A.D.) and laid the foundations for the Renaissance and Reformation. (learning occurred in the monasteries during the Dark Ages)

● The church developed in the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance and Enlightenment built on that.

● The missionary character/emphasis allowed the transmission from one people to another in a continuous series of spiritual movements.

● Western religion was not tied to a specific government, economic, or social structure.

● The emphasis was on a book (the Bible), which was a means of emphasizing reading and education in the developing society.

● We don’t see the link between society and religion because we are very specialized (we have very narrow scopes of highly specialized knowledge in fields such as business, religion, or science only). We don’t realize the West is different because we are specialized (we’re academic, so we can’t look at the big picture because there is so much information).

Berman “The Religious Foundations of Western Law”

Berman wrote this in 1985.

Dawson wrote that Western society developed differently due to its being highly influenced by Christianity, and Berman picked up on Dawson’s thinking 35 years later with, “The Religious Foundations of Western Law.” Instead of writing about the development of Western society, he discusses the development of Western law & legal tradition.

Berman discusses the structure of the Western Legal Tradition as being formed by the dividion between:

1. Secular authorities – responsible for order and justice

2. Spiritual authorities – responsible for faith and morals

• Berman notes that Christianity gave us a sense of justice, and since then we have lost our moral consensus.

• Berman, much like Dawson, feels a chunk of our Western legal system is rooted in religion.

• Germanic tribal law gave the underpinnings that led to the structure of Western legal tradition.

• Christian underpinnings led to the ethics and normative foundation of Western legal tradition.

• When we took Christianity out of the legal system, we were left with mere legal formalisms.

• Because we took the ethical underpinnings out of our legal system, justice becomes the outcome of whatever happens. (that’s why lawyers refer to past cases, which were evidences of apparent “justice”, such as Roe Vs. Wade).

• The moral underpinnings of law deteriorates as Christianity loses influence.

• This crisis of the Western legal tradition is due to the disintegration of our religious foundations, all b/c we took out the ethical underpinnings:

The Crisis of Western Legal Tradition

1. Take religion out of the Legal system

2. Lose values

3. Left with only structural, legal formalisms

4. Inability to resolve crucial conflicts

5. Rules without values will not lead us to true justice!!

Wallis “Civil Religion”

Wallis wrote this in 1984.

Civil religion – defining what “religion” is in terms of the nation or government (it’s constitution or economics). E.g. Our nation is “godly”, so if we bomb CountryX, they must have been “evil”.

● We take the cultural concensus and call it “Christian”.

● Christianity gets hurt and changed by this. “What is Christian? Anything our nation does, b/c by definition we are Christian!” This is a tautology.

● We begin to rely on the actions of government to provide our morals and values. This weakens our faith.

● Our institutions (e.g. “in God we trust”) and history (e.g. Lincoln prayed a lot) have religious meaning and significance.

● Civil religion is bad because it allows political figures to manipulate religion.

● Civil religion attempts to Christianize secular social laws, instead of deriving laws from Christianity:

secular laws  “Christianity”

Christianity  true laws

● The role of the church in government is to challenge the government and be critical of the political system, but civil religion takes this ability away.

● Civil religion is a false religion because it is in contrast to the Kingdom of God.

● It is Biblically wrong to let social and political realms define religion.

Wallis was a pre-millenialist, so he wasn’t hopeful that Christ would be in government, actively reforming it.

Ideology- the “way of life” of a people, reflected in their collectively held ideas and beliefs concerning the nature of the ideal:

• political system

• economic order

• social goals

• and moral values.

• A basically consistent and reasonably constrained set of beliefs about politics and economics and how they ought to operate.

For the most part in the past 200-400 years, WESTERN thought based on Classical Liberalism.

“What are proper roles of government?”

since 17th century England – LIBERALISM (classical Liberalism)

6 major tenets of Classical Liberalism

(may not agree on meaning and how they fit together)

1. A belief in individualism.

We think of humans primarily as individuals (Sarah, Kim) and not as a group (Heathens).

2. A belief in private property.

Christians do, Native Americans didn’t

3. Society is based on contracts & rules of law.

Individuals relate to one another in contracts and laws, this is the way we should organize our relationships.

4. A belief in freedom & liberty.

Our ability to set goals and strive to reach them.

5. A belief in equality.

The same standards for everybody.

6. A belief that government ought to be democratic.

Democratic means that the gov. should be responsible to the people, a system in which the people have some say in the decisions that affect them.

4 major tenets of Classical Conservatism

Classical Conservatism

-- think as whole instead of individuals

-- no right to property

-- not democratic – kings word is final

-- Sovereign has complete control

LIBERALISM VS. CONSERVATISM (modern) debate is over what those 6 things mean and how they fit together within Classical Liberalism…b/c both start w/ Classical Liberalism)

-- debate: turns on what do we think the tenants of each mean and how they interact

EX: what does it mean to talk about equality?

Everyone should get same assignments; same grade; different assignments?

How does equality and right of property fit together?

Classical liberalism was a response to the classical conservatism ideology. Modern conservatism is much different than classical.

Modern Conservatism

Adam Smith “Wealth of Nations”

Era: 1776

England is dominant.

Height of the first Industrial Revolution – a movement away from agrarianism (slowly moving towards industrialization and urbanization).

The time of the American Revolution, Steam power, and Declaration of Independence.

“Wealth of Nations” (GPT II, pp. 107-117)

Basic pattern of all societies is division of labor

THEMES:

● Individualism

● Private property

● Weak government

● Man is motivated by self-interest

NOTIONS:

Economic efficiency was attained through:

● The “invisible hand” that guides the economy.

● Supply and demand

● Specialization

● Division of labor

“invisible hand”

-- humans want to get as much for themselves as they can

-- naturally there will be a specialization b/c people do what they are best at

-- we don’t waste time; focus efforts on one thing – won’t waste resources

-- assumes humans are selfish

-- operate so you are at advantage…will benefit society

-- there are certain goals and services that everyone wants

• use resources efficiently

• most goods and services produces

• invisible hand – voluntary decisions by individuals – not sovereign

Smith’s role of government  doesn’t think government need to provide goods & services b/c it will just mess up society; government should just protect and enforce contracts

If government enforces trade and barter it will just result in a waste of resources

1. will mess up distribution of optimal goods and services

2. will use resources for sovereign’s good (statues, wars, etc.)

3. must assume that sovereign knows better than us and we can trust him if we let him distribute goods and services

4. Government takes productive resources (in tax) to use in unproductive activities –page 112

works best if government is as little as possible

(Civil Government to provide defense)

Herbert Spencer “Adapt or die”

Era: Late 1800’s

Charles Darwin’s era, Civil War, 2nd Industrial Revolution, Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto), urbanization were also prevalent during this time also

-- starts with Biology – survival of the fittest

strongest get to mate, best genes live, weak genes die

“Adapt or Die” (GPT II, pp. 254-257 and 257-267)

Adapting to your environment requires surviving long enough to fulfill the following things:

1. Be able to find your niche (food & shelter).

2. Attract a mate and successfully reproduce.

Biblically, this means “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” - II Thes. 3:10

limited view of government

-- if government distributed goods, I will make pencils for his grant

-- waste of time, resources, weak

-- limit government, only strong will survive, best for society

-- no government intervention b/c when it does, it takes away the adaptation mechanism

worst if government accepts; best if adapt or die b/c society over run by people not contributing

government does accept by paying farmers not to farm (tax $ wasted)

Government should not: manage economy or train workers but should: defend and enforce contracts

Biblical Support for Modern Conservatism

Smith and Spencer weren’t trying to make Biblical points, but they generally reflected Biblical patterns. Their arguments are consistent with Scripture. This is a form of general revelation of Scripture. Smith and Spencer don’t start with Biblical points – but they do end with arguments that agree with the Bible.

Government never set wages, but stresses private property and individualism (Israel divided)

 Old Testament – each family gets own property (private)

Numbers 27 Deuteronomy 17

 how were poor dealt with – GLEANING LAWS – poor laws – poor can come eat after harvest

government didn’t provide welfare….Leviticus 14 and Deuteronomy 24

1 Samuel 8:10-18 Israel wants a king

Smith uses: government has coercive power and may squander nations wealth for gov’t

Uses Naboth’s vineyard

 New Testament (Smith)

Matthew 20:1-16

● Parable of employees and dif. hours “first last, last first.”

Matthew 20 parable: kingdom of heaven is like a land owner

--used contracts between each other

--individual has right to do what he wants with own property

II Thes. 3:10

• If a man will not work, he will not eat.

• Spencer’s concept of “adapt or die” (survival of the fittest).

Numbers 27

Deuteronomy 17

Leviticus 14

Deuteronomy 24

I Samuel 8:10-18

Matthew 20

II Thessalonians 3:10

Scott Monsma “Critique of Conservatism”

1974

-- small groups take over; common problems may never be solved by individual

-- People are self serving – not innately good

-- Does not believe everyone pursuing their self interests will lead to common good

-- If government is weak, people with many resources will discriminate against weak

-- may be common problems that may not be able to be addressed individually (ex. pollution)

-- conservatives believe humans are good (not Smith and Wallis)

-- humans aren’t inherently good

-- Conservatism don’t have standard of justice – only oppose liberals if we go after our own self interest; doesn’t always give to society

 weak government can’t do its good things either

Modern Liberalism

T.H.Green “Liberal Legislation & Freedom of Contract”

Era: 1881, The era of the 2nd Industrial Revolution. During this time, the conservative Spencer was also writing.

Goal: to attain freedom (what Smith had wanted)

Definition of freedom is different than conservatism

Smith – freedom from government doing bad things

Green – freedom to develop our end to benefit society

To Smith, property comes from labor (individual)

Green, property comes from government (collective)

Ex: clean office for an “A”; delegate others (they can’t go develop their skills to give to goal of society)

Rents dirty apartment  government must step in to health regulations

Government is responsible to make sure the kids have basic skills to fully develop to his potential for

Individual and for society wants this to happen on its own, but humans are bad, but improvable; until

This happens there is a need for government

Government is ultimately responsible and needs to set stipulations (health care, minimum wage)

Government should step in even if a contract is voluntarily made

Sometimes people will use goods and services just to better themselves

Green says all society is impoverished and not able to make a contribution to society

ESSAY EXAMPLE: The following is an actual essay answer I used on my exam #1. I got a perfect score for this answer, so memorize it!! Notice that only 3 sentences are needed, and five typed lines of text are sufficient to make Dr. Neikirk happy (this is less than 1 page in a blue book).

“T.H. Green wrote, “Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract”, and in this work Green displayed that he was a liberalist in his views on legislation and government contracts. He stated that government was necessary to enforce and uphold contracts and agreements, for this would help those individuals under the contracts to maximize their benefit to society. Green felt that government was responsible for providing freedom to the group (rather than to the individual to benefit society).

The Politics of Affluence Galbraith (liberal) 1968

Government must provide some level of good management

Countervailing power: union  government fostered

 worker safety laws: I can be just the government

In modern society, invisible hand does not work because:

1. 20th century  big business – concentration of power (monopolies); causes imperfect competition

which causes concept of invisible hand to not work b/c there is no longer an even playing field

2. Great Depression

   1. With rise of big industry we don’t have choices of the free market

Solution – labor unions

Without government try to form union – will get fired, killed ----- allows weak to survive

Smith can’t work in modernism

Labor laws; Wagner Act fosters the idea of unions which is an example of countervailing powers

Countervailing power necessary – power to balance out power that big business has – concentrations of wealth ex: minimum wage laws, safety laws, child labor laws

- government does this by allowing unions to form and act

2. Depression

Galbraith says business power will always work its way to full employment equilibrium; may not always be true

Economics: government must provide some level of management alone; free market doesn’t work

Keynes – wrote concerning the depression – will reach equilibrium with 30% unemployment rate

Demand Side

View—demand is lower

Less work – fires people

Can’t buy – demand continues to lower

Sovereign can stimulate demand by lowering taxes, building things to create jobs, start a

War, government can buy up excess

Fiscal Policy – increased demand by government running a deficit

Galbraith deals with inflation:

-- if higher demand, we will pay more, prices will rise

-- pay for employee may increase, cost of making product will rise

-- causes instability – wages and prices always changing

-- people with fixed incomes get the bad end of the deal

Government: can control wages and prices (price freezes, don’t work, just adds pressure)

Government raises taxes so people don’t have too much money

Higher interest rates (on credit cards) discourages spending

Lower spending – government stops buying surplus

 Have surplus – fiscal

 monetary – make money worth more – harder to spend

Government can manage economic cycles

Automatic Fixes

Progressive Tax Structures:

-- more you make, higher the tax rate is

first 1000 0%

second 1000 1%

third 1000 2%

fourth 1000 3%

-- if take pay cut, taxes will go down; if fixed income – no change

1970 Economic conditions

Oper oil crisis

Baby-boomers hit job market

Women began working

This is why we need government  liberalism

Alternative to liberalism – economics

Leffer

Supply side view

No one will work if 100% taxes, no revenue

-- if raise taxes, government won’t get more money

-- won’t work harder if they will just get that extra money taken in taxes

-- government needs to get out of way of incentives to work and produce

Capital Gain taxes – taxes on anything valuable held over a long period of time

Biblical Support for Modern Liberalism

Jubilee – debts were forgiven

Property returned to original family

Takes away concentrations of power

Government was involved

Gleaning Laws – government enforced them

Deuteronomy 14:28-29 Every third year – tithe and year’s produce bring it together

It will be distributed among poor, etc.

Joseph – government distributed food

Psalm 82:1-4 defend unjust, weak, poor, needy

Show justice to all: Green and Galbraith

Scott Monsma “Critique of Liberalism”

1974

Liberals underestimate problems and don’t recognize difference between charity and justice

Charity (no good reason, just need)

Men in office aren’t honest or better than anyone else

 just because you are in government doesn’t mean you are not looking out for his own good, may not be trustworthy; infected with self love

 confuse charity and justice

 problems and solutions aren’t as easy as they suggest

all this may foster inefficiency

Biblical Implications of Politics

Genesis 1

1. there is a God

we live in a created world

thrones and rulers (opposite of Hobbes)

are there ethical absolutes that apply to all people at all times?

since God created, he determines how they work—implications for ethics

Colossians 1:15-17 God as creator; everything works by his command – rulers and authorities

Genesis 1:26-2

2. Humans are made in image of God

4 Aspects of Image of God – J.R. Packer

1. we are rational—ability to draw conclusions

2. we are subcreators—take what God made to make new things (art, building)

form follows function or function follows form

3. we are called to be stewards and care for the creation

4. righteous – ability to do what God commands and avoid what God forbids

we have ability to make moral choices

we are morally culpable – animals are not

5. (Neikirk) made with need to interact with others (Godhead)

humans don’t develop by themselves

3. Image bearing is marred by sin (Genesis 3 )

-- we are still rational, but we have suppressed the truth 2 Timothy 3:16 (Romans 1:18)…even after fall humans were rational

-- foolishness to acknowledge God

-- we are still subcreators and stewards….environmental issue debate

-- we are no longer righteous

 result: we don’t get along very well (Adam blamed Eve)

Romans – sounds like Hobbes….state of nature was brutish

4. God responds to the fall:

--God sends Jesus as mediator – reconcile

-- God provides us with Bible

make clear to us ethical principles that we suppress

-- God sends Holy Spirit to help us understand Scripture and to sanctify – being renewed in the image of God; to begin process of sanctification Colossians 3:10

-- God provides a series of institutions to bring order out of the chaos that resulted from the fall and to do some things that we aren’t to do ourselves

Romans 12-13 12:17 individuals and institutions have different responsibilities

To be transformed  repay evil with good

Romans 13 – Civil Government -- government is there to punish the evildoer

Not our job to punish – job of government

Example: parents punish – not kids – not their job

(Like Hobbes—but Hobbes said man invented government out of need for order in society)

What Old Testament Scripture has to say about Civil Government

Not said when exactly government was created

Exodus 18: Moses has so many disputes that he has to solve

Jethro is concerned and tells Moses to pick men to rule over lots of people

-- lower judges – the tough cases were brought to Moses

-- like our judicial system – pick judges – those who FEAR GOD

-- Moses is to stand before God for the people – Moses wasn’t the priest

-- Moses is to teach the people the law – to live morally

-- Does OT Israel apply today?

Deuteronomy 17:14 Qualifications for King all tied to character

-- must know law – write copy of law (books of Moses…..Pentatude (Genesis – Deuteronomy) so he knows it w/o excuse, read from it daily

-- must be an Israelite

-- not too much wealth, wives, army b/c start to rely on these more than God

-- people were to have some say in choosing a king

Does OT law apply today?

Differentiation between civil (Moses) and ecclesiastical (Aaron)

I Samuel 13 example: Saul offers sacrifices for Samuel – Saul was punished

II Chronicles 26 – Uzziah – good king but he offered incense in temple  came out a lepper

Leviticus – foreigners must abide by same law

Leviticus 19:33-34 could not take part in religious ceremonies (Passover)

24:22 differentiates between Civil and Ecclesiastical (division of church and state)

very different from cultures around Israel

king was limited by a higher law – need of religious base

Psalm 82 – roles of government in OT

Citizens toward Civil Government

Exodus 22:28 do not blaspheme ruler – punished with death

Deuteronomy 17:12 if don’t obey the priest or judge – die

1. people need to treat government with respect

2. obey civil government

Ezra 7;26

Exodus 1

• pharaoh decreed the midwives to kill Israelite boys so Israelites won’t multiply

• midwives told Pharoah that the babies were born before they got there

• midwives were blessed

Daniel 3 – King Nebuchadnezzar and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

• blessed for disobeying the commands of the King

• the soldiers were killed

Daniel 6 – King Darius passes a decree not to pray – Daniel and Lions’ Den

• men who accused Daniel were eaten by lions

• Daniel was blessed

***Limit to the principle of obeying government – Can we disobey??

When is it appropriate to disobey government? 5 Theories:

1. We have ethical duty to disobey when it calls us to sin

2. When the law is itself sinful Psalm 82:4

Even when it does not cause us to directly sin

Example: law that says you get $50,000 to kill your kids

You disobey to save kids

3. if law that exceeds the proper authority of government, we don’t have to obey

ex: you can only pray to king; kill your children

4. We can disobey laws of any pagan ruler

5. We can disobey any law we don’t like

BASIC DEFINITIONS FROM UNIT ONE:

Ideology- the “way of life” of a people, reflected in their collectively held ideas and beliefs concerning the nature of the ideal:

• political system

• economic order

• social goals

• and moral values.

• A basically consistent set of beliefs about politics and economics and how they ought to operate.

Politics – the authoritative resolution of conflict through the allocation of values and resources

Government – the set of roles and offices established in a society to make those authoritative decisions

Ideology – the way people live which is reflected in their collectively held ideas and beliefs concerning the ideal political system, economic order, social goals, and moral values

Conservative – opposed to:

Government regulation of economy

Heavy government spending

Civil Rights legislation

Believes:

Government hinders the operation of the market system

Favors state over federal action

Favors decreased government spending

Liberals –

Try to change the political, economic, or status quo to foster the development and well being Of individuals; they want to change the shortcomings of society through government

Political Science Unit Two Notes

Matthew 22:15-22

• Here the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus.

• States, “give to Caesar (civil) what is his and to God (ecclesiastical) what is His.”

• This passage implies that we are to obey civil government, but also that gov. is limited, for Caesar doesn’t have authority over what is God’s.

• Obey civil even if Caesar didn’t meet the requirements of an Israelite ruler.

• This shows that civil government does have a place in society and that we aren’t simply to separate ourselves from it and live in the church

Romans 13

• The gov. is God’s servant, an agent to bring just punishment.

• Government is appointed by God (we didn’t invent it)

• God has established the governing authorities, so submit to them.

• The gov. is God’s servant, an agent to bring just punishment.

• Civil magistrate is God’s minister

• Submit = respect with willingness.

• Rebelling against government = rebelling against God

• Submit for the sake of your conscience (obedience to God)

• Submit because you fear the punishment

• Obey even though the Roman gov. is pagan (just like Clinton).

• Submit = your actions and attitude are submissive, not simply your actions (i.e. cleaning your room with a good attitude vs. a poor one)

• if resist authority, you resist God

• Praise what is good, punish what is evil

ROMANS 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

I Peter 2:13

● Submit to authority even if persecuted

• Gov. has supreme authority over civil matters

• Gov. sent by God to punish wrongdoers and commend the good.

• This was written to the persecuted Christians and those suffering under Diaspora

1PETER 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Acts 5:17-32

• The high priest and the Sadducees arrested the apostles and put them in jail.

• The angel of the LORD freed Peter and John from the jail.

• The apostles disobeyed the civil magistrate and continued to preach.

• “We must obey God rather than men.”

• We have the right to disobey the government if its law goes against God’s Word.

I Timothy 2

• we are to pray for government because that will bring peace and stability

Acts 4:1-20 and 5:17-32

• In both of these passages, apostles of Jesus are arrested for performing miracles in the name of Jesus

• The men are released from prison and then rebuked to not proclaim the name of Jesus

• They told the Pharisees to decide what they feel is right, but they must obey God over man

The role of biblical values in government: GOULD, BAHNSEN, & SPYKMAN:

• All three are from a Reformed perspective

• All say that the Bible has something to say about government

1. Gould “National Confession Primer” 1997

National Confessionalism’s Main Principles:

• Preamble should have explicit confession that Christ is King

  • By stating that He is sovereign, then the people are removed from that position

• Christ should be recognized as King and ruler of everything

• Collected moral culpability – nations judged as nations

  • If all people are kings, all people are responsible for the nation’s sins

  • Nebuchadnezzar is an example of a non-Israelite king that did not recognize Christ as ultimately over the nation (see his demise in Daniel 3)

  • Consider how the Egypt was punished, as a nation, for the enslavement of the Israelites

Other Points:

• If the Constitution were to be amended, then the nation as a whole, not individuals, would acknowledge Christ’s sovereignty

  • This would cause the laws to examine their alignment with the Bible, eventually reducing the secular tendencies, while increasing the Christian influences

• Wants to amend the Constitution to recognize God as king over all – not enforcing a particular denomination

  • Establishment (this is the church…worship there) vs. National confession (Just recognize that Christ is King)

  • He is not saying that establishment is wrong, but is not suggesting it for America

• This change to the Constitution would not infringe upon the freedom of religion

  • Would tolerate people not giving allegiance due to other religious reasons

• Not all confessionalists are Theonomists

Biblical Support:

• Psalm 2: kings are to embrace and obey God

  • In a Republic Democracy: the people are the king, therefore the people as a nation need to confess His sovereignty

• Matthew 28: all power (Heavenly and Earthly) is Christ’s and comes from Him

• Romans 13: government is from God

• Philippians 2: all knees will bow to Him

Answers to Questions:

Role of government:

• to declare the sovereignty of Christ

• to aid true religion by having a Biblical basis for the laws

Role of Christians:

• to be involved with the government

• to preach, teach, and rebuke to the kings

• to evangelize and persuade all Christians to agree with the National Confession

Role of Christ:

• He is to be our leader, our higher law to which we are accountable

• He is to be our Sovereign, we are to base our laws off of Him, not the people

2. Bahnsen “The Theonomic Position” 1989

Main topic: Theonomy

• Literally: God’s law

• Reject secular force and therefore the sacred/secular dichotomy

• Transformation in all areas of life, including political, according to His Word

Other Points:

• When looking at the government, we should use the Bible as our starting point, since it holds the ultimate truth and He is the origin of government

• We are to assume that all laws of the OT are valid unless contradicted in the NT

• There are three types of laws to be aware of:

  • Ceremonial: this law is no longer valid because it has been fulfilled by Christ (see Matthew 5 and the book of Hebrews)

  • Moral: this should be the basis of our current law, it includes the 10 Commandments

  • Civil: this is the law from the government, it should not be applied directly to our current law due to cultural changes, but rather be an influence

    • There used to be a law that you must put a fence around your roof tops (because they were flat and people used them as we use porches)—since our roofs are pointed, this is no longer valid—but we are required to put fences around in ground pools

• However, Bahnsen believes that the government is limited by what the Bible says it can do

  • If a government role is stated, we must obey it

  • If a government is directed not to do something, then we cannot do it

  • If it is a topic not mentioned within the Bible, then we cannot do it either

• The Bible only gives examples of the government being involved with criminal law, therefore its authority does not extend over social ethics

  • Criminal law: beating your wife

  • Social ethics: verbally abusing your wife, brushing your teeth

• Idolatry shouldn’t be allowed

• America should become a Christian nation

• God created the concept of gov’t after the Fall in order to protect us

View on Education:

• There is no clear involvement of the government within education in the Bible, therefore there should be no public education, since that is government funded

Biblical Support:

• Psalm 2: rulers are to embrace the Lord and His law

• Matthew 5:17: God is the only law giver, therefore only He can change it

  • Ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ, thus it is no longer valid

  • OT laws that are repeated in the NT are still valid

  • OT laws not contradicted in NT are still valid

Answers to Questions:

Role of government:

• To do as the Bible says and nothing more

• To bring justice

• To not step outside of limited authority and overrun other structures

Role of Christians:

• To recognize Christ as Sovereign

• To engage in political change (i.e. through lobbying)

Role of Christ:

• To be the origin and basis for our government

3. Spykman “The Principled Pluralist Position” 1989

Main topic: Principled Pluralists

• This is the belief that men were created to live in a network of relationships

• Therefore, government should honor these different divinely created structures, and allow them to function with cooperation but not controlled all by one structure

• He also believes that government was thus created at the Creation and is instituted to help the poor by bringing justice to them

View of the State – Spykman presents three views of the state within society:

• Individualist – the basic unit of society is the individual

• Collectivist – society is based upon one encompassing institution: the state

• Pluralist – society is based on relationships, thus it should respect both individualists and collectivists

Types of Pluralism views – Pluralism itself is divided into two types:

• Structural pluralism – this means that there are different structures, made by God

  • Structures are institutions such as government, families, church

• Confessional pluralism – this means that there are different faiths and thus accompanying different societies

  • This is due to the fall

Two types of government:

• Sphere sovereignty – each society should be controlled by its own because they come with their own authorities, thus not one should dominate

• Sphere universality – each sphere carries out its own function, but they cooperate with each other

View on Education:

• Government is not to enforce religion, therefore public schools should based upon the region so religious differences are honored

• The choice of removing students from one school and placing them elsewhere should be evident, as this allows for different religions

• Since government is to provide for the poor, they must also provide vouchers

Biblical Support:

• Matthew 13: The parable of the seeds and weeds

  • Jesus tells this story about the kingdom of Heaven

  • Seeds are planted, the enemy comes along and throws weeds among the seeds; when they start to grow, the farmer informs the helpers not to cut the weeds for they might cut the proper plants as well, but rather to wait until harvest time, and then they can be separated without damage to the plants

  • This supports sphere sovereignty (allow the farmer and the enemy to both work besides each other without control)

Answers to Questions:

Role of government:

• To care for the poor

• Not for criminal justice

• To not enforce religion

• To encourage collectivism and individualism

• To fund education

Role of Christians:

• To reclaim the spheres in which we live, because then they will be reformed in Christ and thus He will again be Sovereign

Role of Christ:

• To be our Sovereign

• He is allowing us to pluralistic

Agrees and Disagrees

• All start with the Bible as the authority and the derision of their governmental system

• All believe that Christians should be involved in evangelizing so the world can be reformed for Christ

• Gould and Bahnsen believe this should be in government itself

• Spykman believes that this should be in the individual spheres and not on national levels

- Gould and Bahnsen believe that the nation should be acknowledging Christ as our Sovereign and only using His Word to shape our government

-Spykman believes that God is sovereign, but that other religions should allow

themselves to propel their religion or have an influence

-we are called to obey our government

-not all Scriptures are currently valid

-disagree on the state’s role:

-Bahnsen and Gould say that government should actively found the system on the Word

-Spykman says that the government should not propel a particular religion, whether it be

Christianity or not

-Bahnsen believes that government derived after the fall in order to protect us, therefore it can not reflect God’s justice

-Spykman believes that government was created with the rest of Creation, thus it should reflect God’s justice

4A: Political Philosophers

1. thought government should be Christian

2. intent was to answer questions of people

AUGUSTINE (413)

• not writing primarily as a political theorist

• Rome had a long tradition of Polytheism

• Citizens were to say that their highest allegiance was to Rome

• Christians emphasized their “body” : Roman unity was being destroyed because of Christians and this upset the Romans

• Christians were blamed for the fall of Rome; Christians principle of love caused the fall

• Traditionalist view that Christians caused Rome’s defeat:

1. Christians have weakened b/c of always peace and love

2. Wouldn’t ultimately give loyalty to Caesar; Christians were questioning loyalty owed because loyalty was to God

3. Christians were seen as intolerant and exclusive

4. In adherence to God, they made other gods mad

Questions of Christians:

1. To what extent do we have to obey Caesar if he is an unjust ruler?

2. Do we have any business serving in the military?

Augustine says:

1. Justice can only come with Christ as King

2. Rome fell apart because they never established JUSTICE and so could never develop as a civil society; justice can exist in a society if based on Christ

• 313 – Constantine ends persecution of Christians; Christianity becomes religion

• 100 years later Rome was sacked by Germans – who is to blame?

Blamed Christians b/c 1. Turned Rome into a nation of wimps

Traditionalist View 2. no unity (not “all for Rome”)

3. made other gods mad (reason they were sacked)

Augustine writes in response:

• Civil society is an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgement of common right and community of interest (humans are social and must interact)

• A community is only a community if they recognize that there is one justice

• Must have justice/Christian principles

1. only thing that separates civil kingdoms from robbers

2. is reflective of Christ being King

3. most famous presidents ruled during/fought a big war (Lincoln, Washington, Wilson, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt)

- Rome fell apart b/c never figured out justice system (no structure)

• Page 155: Government has responsibility from God (different from robbers taking our money)

• Leaders of government operate out of justice

• Page 155: unless government is operating out of JUSTICE, it is no different than any other robber

• JUSTICE – found only on basis of God’s laws

• Problem: Rome never really ruled out of Justice

• 2 Cities – 2 types of people

1. Heavenly – primary allegiance to God’s desires

2. Earthly – primary allegiance to their own desires

• These are not geographic, but they both exist

• Earthly and Heavenly cities are distinguished by what motivates them

• Earthly man needs civil government but so do people in the heavenly city because they live with non Christians

• Page 153

• Both heavenly and earthly need civil magistrate

1. heavenly need it for Romans 13 for conscience sake; live with people from earthly city

2. earthly need it for protection

3. City of God is motivated by love for God and city of man is motivated by love for self

4. City of God needs civil magistrate b/c 1) aren’t perfect; 2) protection from outsiders; 3) to teach to recognize sin

5. Heavenly City must obey laws of earthly city for earthly AND heavenly peace; only don’t obey when it hinders our ability to worship

• Cities exist and are different and have civil magistrates although for different reasons

• Everyone must obey civil government (Romans 13) EXCEPT when government tells people how & who to worship  of 5 submit theories, Augustine would only go to #1

• 2 Responsibilities:

1. rulers pass just laws

2. citizens must obey regardless of structure

Page 154 LIMITS

QUESTION: CAN WE ETHICALLY FIGHT IN A WAR?

AUGUSTINE’S JUST WAR THEORY (Important through Middle Ages)

• Just and unjust are distinguished by motive and there are just and unjust causes for war

• Argues that we can only fight for a just cause (distinguished by motive)

• Argues that the RULER is morally culpable for an unjust war

• Leader decides if it is a just war, citizens must submit

1. What is a just war?…………………Good motive and good method

2. Do I ever have the right to say no?

3. Sovereign is judged for calling unjust war; soldiers have ethical responsibility to obey

• Difference between civil and ecclesiastical – very unique at that time

• Some higher law that limits what government can do – these limits can’t be changed by people

• Justice exists only when Christ is ruler – Biblical nation

• Citizens have obligation to obey government

Reasons are different from other nations – Romans 13 for conscience sake

• NUHMBERG TRIALS – following orders of superiors; so they are not morally culpable

• DRESDEN, GERMANY; HIROSHIMA, JAPAN

• Augustine thought that there was a limit to what government can do; there is a higher power

• Augustine influenced many political systems

• Once Rome falls, the church is the only institution to bring order

POPE GELASIUS I (492)

• 2 Swords symbol of authority

• Government is like 2 swords: priest (ecclesiastical) and king (secular)

• In Christ they are combined priest and King

• No one else is perfect so God separated them so no one will have ultimate power in society – recognizes sin

• Both come from God who separated them b/c of our sin. no one has right to try to put them together

• Christ being perfect can exercise both civil and ecclesiastical power, but since humans aren’t they need to be delegated

• Luke 22:38 From the Last Supper “The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Christ is reminding his disciples that when he leaves, there will be 2 swords: ecclesiastical and civil

• God gives both civil and ecclesiastical their power and each has its own sphere of

Authority

Civil  responsible for City of Man

Ecclesiastical  responsible for City of God

• Civil has certain authority; Ecclesiastical has other certain authorities and neither has the right to tell the other what to do but both are responsible to each other

• How do we know which power falls where (civil and ecclesiastical)?

Gelasius thinks it is obvious….In rare circumstances where the 2 have to dispute, the PRIEST should win and give advice to the civil magistrate

• In medieval times this 2 sword theory is the dominant view for civil and ecclesiastical at least into the Reformation

• How do we know what responsibilities belong to which?

Sometimes they claim the same responsibilities

• How do we decide who resides over the responsibilities?

In this case Gelasius says church would win b/c priest gives answer for soul of prince

• Over time, the tension between the 2 swords grows and 2 Models grow out of the tension.

• As we move through the Middle Ages, the hope of Gelasius is unrealized. In Response:

PAPAL SUPREMACY MODEL

• when civil and ecclesiastical don’t agree, church wins

• Matthew 28 – All authority is given to Christ – Great Commission  all authority of heaven and earth is given to me (Christ)

• Matthew 16:13-19 Christ delegates civil and ecclesiastical power to Peter who passes it on to popes (not just in ecclesiastical realm but both); Peter became bishop of Rome

• Therefore Pope has final authority over everything

• Christ has given all authority to the church and the church turns around and gives authority to civil magistrate; civil magistrate gets its sword from the church

• GOD (CHRIST)  ECCLESIASTICAL (PETER)  CIVIL

• If a king goes against the church, he is setting his dignity above God

• If you prefer the things of man above the things of God you are no longer a legitimate ruler

• Church had 2 swords

• Christ talks to Peter as church as a whole (Matthew 28 – Matthew 16 – Apostolic Succession)

• Example of Papal Supremacy Model

Pope Gregory and civil leader argue about where priests go

Gregory excommunicates Henry IV – church triumphs

People don’t want to obey Henry anymore – Henry begs for 3 days for forgiveness

1. God gives both swords to church and church gives sword (right to give and right to take away)

2. Asserting again that there is a law above the king

King is under God and it is the responsibility of the church to tell the king if he gets out of line

Limits government

JOHN OF SALISBURY -- Papal Supremacy (110 AD)

In England when civil and ecclesiastical are at odds

Associate of Beckett

Writes “The Stateman’s Book” (recognizes need for civil and ecclesiastical gov’t)

• Builds on Pope Gelasius; making a Biblical argument

• King gets power from God

• Thinks of civil society as a body:

1. Prince is head;

2. Priest (church) is soul b/c its responsible for all that happens w/in body, especially morals and conscious b/c that is what’s judged and seat of moral reason

Soul is accountable for everything the body does; priest is responsible for what sovereign does; church is responsible for what government does therefore church will be superior and responsible to civil

• GOD  CHURCH  CIVIL

• Civil is independent and has equal power, but church is held accountable

• The priest is ultimately responsible for society but that doesn’t mean the soul (priest) should do everything

• Civil does jobs not worthy of priesthood (ex. wars, punishing)

• Responsibility of civil magistrate to rule according to God’s law

• God has given both swords to ecclesiastical and they delegate to civil (doesn’t mean church rules, but has authority to say something is wrong)

• Implications of civil subject to church:

1. church has right to take it away

2. civil’s law is null and void if disagree; civil magistrate power is limited (some things are unworthy of priesthood)….similar to today’s judicial review

• Can’t enforce laws that go against Bible

(Supreme Court can void laws b/c it goes against higher law)

higher law – has changed

Supreme Court may not be priests

• John of Salisbury wants to distinguish between a prince and a tyrant

1. Prince – fights for rights of people; rules according to God’s laws

2. Tyrant – wicked refuses to follow God’s law – should be killed

The church is the only one that can determine whether the civil has rule over domains that he shouldn’t

• John of Salisbury provides answer to “Do I have to submit to sovereign that makes me kill my children?” Romans 13 doesn’t apply anymore if ruler is a tyrant

Not saying individuals can disobey; is saying church can rid of law

• Irony – separation of church and state comes from this Christian view

• This view is strong in the 13th century

• Summarized in 1302 – Papal Bull – Unam Sanctum by Pope Boniface

(bull – authoritative pronouncement)

the church is ultimately responsible

the Papal Bull states what John of Salisbury writes

princes and kings were unhappy because they had no power

• Papal Supremacy Model – many felt the church had become corrupted b/c church had all power; many thought it was not a good idea

DANTE (1265-1321) – “De Monarchia”

- Disagrees with John of Salisbury; ERASTANISM

• Humans have 2 ends (goals)…more 2 swords than John of Salisbury

1. spiritual through faith/church

2. earthly through reason/government

God gave us both…like Gelasius GOD  1. CHURCH 2. STATE 2 SWORDS

• Therefore we need 2 different guides

Civil not good for heavenly :neither can interfere with other

Sovereign gets power directly from God

• Crucial Issue: is faith and reason separate (not necessarily saying they’re incompatible)

We can’t intermingle the two

Lets courts say schools can teach evolution b/c it is science – reason

Can’t teach creation b/c it is faith based – job of church

• saying pi is 3.0 could cost some lives

MACHIAVELLI (1469-15__) “The Prince”

• Writes The Prince as he is under house arrest and tells the prince what he should be like

• 1st empirical political scientist???

• Developed lessons from empirical (study of the past)

• POINT OF MACHIEVELLI: What is good and ethical behavior for a sovereign is very different than for the average citizen

• The 1st thing that has to motivate the prince is what is the best for the state and what is necessary for the state to survive

• A prince has to look very differently @ ethics than do regular citizens

• If the sovereign doesn’t do what is necessary to defend the citizens, the sovereign is acting unethically

• If you must choose, it is better to be FEARED than loved b/c love may change but fear probably won’t

• If Machievelli is right, the sovereign may have to do things internally that we wouldn’t agree with

• What benefits the state is what prince has to ask which means he is not asking what is ethical

• Accused of arguing there is no morality in state craft

But he really argues there is a different morality in state politics

- The civil law is to reflect “Love your Neighbor, etc.”

• Ultimate authority rests with state

• In the Renaissance; The Prince

• At one level, he probably gets a bad rap b/c some feel he has no ethics  untrue

• Explains two heads of government

• Different set of ethics in politics

Disaster if rules by loving enemies: interpersonal ethics can’t be ethics of politics

• Fundamentally, he has to ask what is good for the state (job of sovereign is to protect interests of state)

• Makes people think they have absolute authority

• Civil wins if conflicts with church

• Civil magistrate – highest method is reason of state; if try to rule by preaching the Bible, people will be taken advantage of

• Love your neighbor is fine interpersonally

• Different morality for king – priest is not proper advisory for king

• Commended kings in Bible often fought against nations instead of saying, “I will love my enemy”

• Loyalty to king must be fostered (Pledge of Allegience, etc.)

• EXAMPLE from class: church in center of marathon and worshippers can’t go to worship whether it is important or not is @ the discretion of the civil

JAMES I OF ENGLAND (JAMES VI OF SCOTLAND) (EARLY 1600s, AFTER REFORMATION)

• Skipping to Reformation to see final development over the debate of 2 Swords

• Jumping out of history: 1600s; sponsored KJV 1st and permanent English settlement (Jamestown)

• Church not over king because God has given authority (Psalm 82)

PS 82:1 God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the "gods":

PS 82:2 "How long will youn defend the unjust

and show partiality to the wicked?

Selah

PS 82:3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

• James is reacting to other theories when says his power is directly from God therefore, disobedience to king is blasphemy.

• Not arguing that king can do whatever he wants (is responsible to God’s law)

• James says king has right to tell how to worship (decides temporal law)

• Called ERASTIANISM (GODKINGCHURCH)

• Sees kings as:

1. gods (Psalm 82) – civil magistrate

2. fathers as head of family

3. head of the body

John of Salisbury also said kings are heads

James sees  part of reason

John of Salisbury  governing part of the body

• James – kings get power from God: DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS

• Would James argue kings can do anything they wish? NO…b/c kings are under god’s law

• James is clearly saying the responsibility to obey God is the limit to kings; people can’t tell king what to do b/c he is under God. If they do, it is considered blasphemy

CONTRAST: John of Salisbury says people CAN go to king

• Swords diagram for 2 swords for James is similar to Gelasius but civil wins over church

• What made English Reformation unique?

Henry VIII was king – king was head of Church of England (reflects idea of Erastianism)

MARSIGLIO OF PADUA (Italy) 1500s – during Renaissance

• back to Renaissance

• How to determine good law (is a higher law)

1. John of Salisbury: church

2. James: God

3. Marsiglio: weightier part of people: 1. Good of people & 2. Will of people

• argues the good ruler rules for common benefit in accordance w/ the benefit of people

• Bottom of page 188-189 “…The best law is that which is made for the common benefit of the citizens…the truth of anything is more certainly judged and its common utility more diligently studied, when the whole corporation of citizens directs upon it its intellect and desire.”

Even true with less educated, but should put majority on educated

• Ruler should decide based on:

1. what is good for people

2. what people themselves think

- First person in the post New Testament to “go down this road”

• good government is tied to the will of the people and good of people

• key may not be what the law is but how we got there

• Implications w/o Marsiglio’s qualify:

1. doesn’t seem as open to saying some law from God which limits

2. process as or more important than content (are there ethical norms for everyone?

   1. process is crucial (one of first to point towards a democracy

   2. natural law for right now ethical absolutes for all people

• Implications of Marsiglio (not Marsiglio’s terms)

1. Natural Law – there are ethical absolutes that apply to all people at all times; process is the key; belief that there are fundamental ethical principles that apply to all people at all times

(John of Salisbury; James I)

many argue Marsiglio was beginning of:

2. Positive Law – good and ethical vary in time and place (distinction between no absolute ethical truths and ignoring ethical truths)

belief there are not ethical absolutes

What is good for people will differ from culture to culture

Society today – determine ethical laws by voting

Belief that ethical norms fary from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture (distinction between no absolute ethical truths and ignoring ethical truths)

• debate is about what is morally true, not necessarily if we recognize it

• Ex: walking on air (not recognizing gravity)

• Is the same thing true for ethics?

• Conclude: cannibalism is wrong and we refuse to recognize

Whether or not cannibalism is right turns on society (different)

• If Marsiglio is right and the weightier part of a society should rule, each society would have very different standards

• If the good of the people is defined by will of the people, once we go very far down Marsiglio’s road then the only factor determining if something is right is if we used a proper process to reach the conclusion

• QUESTION: Did you use the right process OR Did you get the right answer?

• ABORTION: centered on “did the administration allow enough time for comment before they made the final ruling” NOT whether it is ethical or not

Anabaptists – Switzerland, Germany

• Argue that state is from God; a divine creation

• No matter how evil the government is all come from god and have divine sanction

• All citizens have responsibility to obey God (civil accountable to God’s law)

• Civil government comes from God

• Civil magistrate only has implications for non believers and purely secular things

• Christians may not serve in government if responsibility and power are for secular things and it relies on coercive power

• Christians ought not make use of civil magistrate for ANYTHING (court, financial assistance)

• Need government b/c we are sinful

• Must obey evil rulers b/c he’s from God

• Must obey sovereign

• Must recognize that government authority is limited to secular

• Unethical for Christians to use court

• Christians have no right to serve in government

• Says government is merely a tool to punish

• Ex: Amish, Mennonite, Quakers

• Force is never justified

• Won’t take an oath; may affirm to tell truth but not take oath

• Do pay taxes and obey law; police protection is OK b/c that is protection

• Non believers still need government; for believers gov’t is just to protect from evil

• Strongly stress separation of church and state

• Separationism (Reichley)

• Keep anabaptist and national confessionalist straight!

  • Anabaptist – by definition gov’t is something Christians shouldn’t be involved in

  • Confessionalist – particular gov’t flawed for failure of confessing Christ

The Main Three Reformational Thinkers: CALVIN, LUTHER, AND BRUTUS

(beliefs in common)

1. Higher Law limits what government can do – done by lower magistrates instead of church

2. Separation of Church and State – neither have right to interfere but council

3. end of 2 swords theory – church isn’t higher power

church has no swords but not that religion has no place in politics

4. Separation of powers (esp. Calvin and Brutus) : power is divided within government  checks and balances

power divided horizontally and vertically

5. Government based on covenants – people have some say who will be in office

6. Civil magistrate has responsibility under God’s law

7. Covenants (government est. by) (especially Calvin & Brutus)

1. Luther GPT 1 pp. 235-249

1483-1546

2. Calvin Institues of the Christian Religion: GPT 1 pp. 249-262

1509-1564

2. Brutus GPT 1 pp. 263-272

1579

LUTHER & CALVIN

1. agreed on a lot more than they disagreed

2. didn’t set out to be political scientists

3. don’t believe any views by Reformation

4. both argue Romans 13 & I Peter 2 need to be focused on

5. neither of them are 2 swords theorists (church has no sword  coercive power)

LUTHER (Reformation)

- Romans 13 tells us papal supremacy can’t be right: authority comes from God; neither does church come from civil magistrate

• all views before him are wrong Biblically b/c they developed theory and then plug them in  didn’t buy any views

• church and state are separate and ordained by God (has problem w/ Erastianism)

• begin with Romans 13 and I Peter 2 – state is established by God

1. we must obey it b/c God established it

2. it is not evil (State is God’s minister to you for GOOD)

• government comes directly from God – not church

• TWO KINGDOMS  Earthly and Heavenly (like Augustine)

Both come from God and have their own function and responsibilities

Neither has right to take over others duties (may sound like Dante)

HEAVENLY – law written on hearts and disputes are settled in church (Matt. 18)

Need civil to live with and protect from non Christians

We are sinful; civil gov’t should help us recognize sin & avoid it

Example – Jethro sees Moses

Government helps us see what sin is – teach people God’s law

EARTHLY – civil magistrate is minister of God, not church

For protection and responsible to teach sin (Rom. 13 and Exodus….Moses to teach)

• civil and ecclesiastical are separate organizations but should not have a huge separation between them; not arguing for neutrality

• church has some responsibilities over civil gov’t

• Psalm 82

King has responsibility to care for poor and needy

God judges among gods

To rebuke rulers is not sedicious

• Luther doesn’t think the church can take away sword from civil gov’t

• Believes duty to preach God’s word to magistrate and by extension that must mean that ethically the sovereign should listen

• Both civil and ecclesiastical is from God, but there is only 1 sword in the civil magistrate—limited; disagrees with Gelasius b/c church has no sword: only 1 sword

• The church has word – limited

• Addresses whole Anabaptist position and other views : NEITHER GOV’T OR CHURCH SET EACH OTHER UP

• State had some responsibility to protect

• Page 247 ________________________

• Rebuking rulers isn’t rebellious: Psalm 82:1-2 (James I thinks it is)

• Wants an institutional separation but wants each to interact

• If one goes into the other’s realm there is disaster Page 240 @ bottom _____________

Government – sword – don’t convert by force

Ecclesiastical – Word – don’t go fight with use of Bible

• “Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved” by Luther

*If you are a soldier you are in the government

*civil and church gets power directly from God

*Anabaptists would say soldiers can’t be saved

*Luther sees separation of institutions and functions but civil magistrate must be right with God and seek to do God’s will

*Church has responsibility to honor the state

Psalm 82 – church is to go to civil magistrate to keep them accountable to God

Rebuke can only come by church – can’t change laws, etc.

*civil magistrate has some responsibility to care for church

*Luther’s government preference is MONARCHY but it is not mandated by the Bible

that’s the one God gives to Israel; can’t reason with a mob; more protected this way; only one person to hold accountable; better to suffer from one tyrant than unnumbered tyrants; easier to persuade one person (king) than to persuade a mob of people

• Obligations of monarchy (a rep. Form of government)

Obey civil magistrate

Serve civil magistrate…..page 242; if you have a gift gov’t needs, go serve

• Human nature is not good

• Too much democracy – framers of Constitution tried to avoid

• German Nationalism grows from Luther

• Citizen’s Obligations  obey civil government and participate in government

• Page 242-243 -- form of mission service to serve in gov’t

Even to unjust rulers

• Times to NOT obey government:

1. when it calls us to sin (like Augustine)

2. when it calls us to fight in unjust war (Augustine says we must fight even if it is unjust)

3. when it calls you to unjustice (More broad than Augustine; taking up arms against civil magistrate is wrong; only exception is if God takes up a “Samson”

- Almost never do you have the right to take up arms b/c placed by God (only if God raises a Samson)

CALVIN Luther and Calvin agree a lot “Institutes of Christian Religion”

• more optimistic about government than Luther (government is a means to encourage us towards good rather than necessary evil)

• sees church and state as 2 separate institutions

• only one sword

• government is necessary for maintaining order

• Page 255 in box _____________________

Sees responsibility to civil magistrate to enforce religion

• Page 256 civil magistrate is God’s minister and should seek to rule to God’s glory

• Page 249 civil magistrate a minister of God (Ps 13) even heather writers recognize that religion and gov’t are intertwined – Nebuchadnezzar

• Page 255 what gov’t should do (gov’t necessary b/c man depraved and chaotic)

• civil government is good; comes from God (Romans 13)

• need it like bread, water, light and air

• civil and ecclesiastical need to be kept separate; both get power from God – no 2 swords

• government still must reflect God’s law

1. encourage people to worship God

2. defend doctrine of church

3. establish peace and tranquility

(#1-3 are from page 255)

• page 258 2 Tables – 10 commandments on 2 tablets – sum of the law

duty to God first 4

duty to humans last 6

• 2nd commandment is moral law

• if government enforced 3rd commandment, the movie industry would be out of business

• today much of what is sanctioned is physical

• enforce those that may bring harm

• government is to regulate manifestations of our thinking

can punish for murder but not hate; gov’t can limit the murder not the thought of murder

• says civil government should enforce both tablets of law

ex: worshipping idols; keeping Sabbath holy

• Calvin’s gov’t preference is ARISTOCRACY – representative government; not necessarily mandated by God

New Testament church ruled by group of leaders that people choose; vote on person most gifted to rule (who we think God wants) (less likely that any one person can go and abuse subjects); believes power in the hands of one person (namely a fallen person) is dangerous)

• Agrees with Luther that gov’t should obey civil magistrates

• Calvin is narrower than Luther b/c only disobey if gov’t calls to sin

• If humans are bad the power should not be in one person’s hands

• CITIZENS RESPOND TO GOVERNMENT

• must obey (Romans 13); even civil government provide good for people

• only time to disobey government is when it calls you to sin

• king will be judged on how he rules by God not people

with tyrannical rulers – lower magistrate can tell sovereign that it is a bad thing; if sovereign says no, magistrate can take up arms against sovereign; magistrate has power to bear sword just like prince

• Page 261-262 Response to Erastianism

• Only command give to us is obey and suffer

• If there are lower magistrates that see sovereign abusing us, they can take up arms

• DOCTRINE OF INTERPOSITION -- Lower Magistrate can take up arms against sovereign when citizens can’t – lower magistrate comes between sovereign and citizens

• biblical base: Rehoboam is more tough; Jeroboam is lower magistrate takes up arms (I Kings 12)

• Jeroboam went to Rehoboam, on behalf of the people, to lighten the load upon the people

• Cause of civil war : south argued interposition

(South in Civil War – argue they were justified b/c interposition)

better than 1776 – b/c Civil War was led by lower gov’t 1861

1776 – led by citizens

- Ideas springing from CALVIN: 1. Separation of powers, federalism, openness to monarchy

BRUTUS “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” (1579 – pen name)

• more political than Luther and Calvin

• felt it necessary to make every point with scripture

- 3rd Reformational Thinker

• massacre of Protestants, Huguenots

asked, “Do we have to take this?”

• Brutus responds!!

• Was very much Puritan and uses Biblical evidence

• Starting point – II Kings 11

Ahab – king in Israel; not real godly

Jehu – starts punishing him

Ahab ruler and Jehu starts punishing him

People choose him as king (Athelia rules as sovereign even though real king is hidden in temple)

Civil government is being reformed on Israel

Based on 2 covenants: (every legitimate government based on)

1. between God and King & people – God protect people – I will be your God; you will be my people

2. between King and people – rule justly and people promise to obey

covenants are tied together; 2nd covenant from 1st

is a law higher than king – king was bound by covenant

people had choice for king – picked kid to be king

kings get their power ultimately from God

king is to be trustee from God

focus on ruling for God’s justice and to benefit the people

(like Marsiglio, but God’s law drives the King with Brutus instead of needs of people)

• king gets power from God, but people above king b/c they choose BUT majority rule can’t overturn king

• Doesn’t believe kings can do anything they want

• For Brutus, the law comes before the king

• Brutus wants to distinguish between tyrants and princes

• TYRANNY – 3 types of tyranny (more important how they rule not how they came to power)

1. Illegitimate kingship, but rules justly by God’s law (best)

2. come to throne legitimately, doesn’t rule justly

concerned about how they rule rather than their qualifications or how they get the throne

3. come to throne illegitimately, doesn’t rule by God’s law (worst); broke 2nd covenant: didn’t rule justly; Example: Athelia

Brutus said the double tyrant – tyrannical rule breaks both covenants can be killed

Can’t disobey b/c we don’t like it, but his rule of injustice causes us to be unjust and we break the first contract w/ God

- Romans 13 and I Peter 2 applies to all magistrates

• II KINGS - Athelia – came to throne unjustly, ruled unjustly; people rose up and established new government

Interposition – private citizens can’t take action (must be by lower magistrate)

- Page 266 at bottom 

• don’t have right to jump up and kill (average citizens)  only magistrates if king tyrannical; when rulers rule illegitimately, they choose to become tyrants (no longer fit rulers); middle gov’t does (interposition) and then average citizens can follow

• ideas that grow out of this:

1. ethical base for American revolution

2. once a covenant between king and people, it should be written out (Constitutions)

• John Adams argued that Brutus’ piece was heart of American Revolution

• was there interposition

• how did king of England break those covenant

• Implications of Brutus:

1. power of king is limited

2. some laws are higher than the king

3. kings get power from God

4. whole body and people above king but majority rule can’t overcome king

Idea of 2 swords ends with Reformation especially when speaking of church having coercive power; stress on limited gov’t and higher law

CALVIN, LUTHER, AND BRUTUS (IN COMMON)….REFORMATIONAL THINKERS

8. Higher Law limits what government can do – done by lower magistrates instead of church

9. Separation of Church and State – neither have right to interfere but council

10. end of 2 swords theory – church isn’t higher power

church has no swords but not that religion has no place in politics

11. Separation of powers (esp. Calvin and Brutus) : power is divided within government  checks and balances

power divided horizontally and vertically

12. Government based on covenants – people have some say who will be in office

13. Civil magistrate has responsibility under God’s law

14. Covenants (government est. by) (especially Calvin & Brutus)

If much of our political thought is shaped by Reformation, how exportable is it?

RENAISSANCE = government needed to have power but not willing to say higher laws to limit government

REFORMATION = more now that say higher laws are over government

HOBBES AND LOCKE Historical Setting….ENGLAND….17th century (1600s)

• 1603 – the last of the Elizabethan monarchy is over

• During 1500s in Tutor period, the English Reformation happened under Henry VIII

• James I of England (formerly James VI of Scotland) is king and this starts the Stewart period

• James I (1603-1625) a few years after Brutus

• Jamestown – first colonization

• Virginia – named after Elizabeth (virgin queen)

• 1603 – James I – begins Stewart Dynasty (James I – James VI)

kings are like gods

• 1620 – Pilgrims

• When James dies, Charles I (1625-1649) comes to power

• 1640s – Puritan Revolution (Oliver Cromwell) (English Civil War)

• English Civil War—2 forces:

1. Parliament  says king is PART of gov’t and can only do things with support of parliament

2. King  says that he rules by divine right

Puritans didn’t like king telling them how to act

Supporters of Parliament seem to be connected with Puritans

Supporters of king seem to be connected with Church of England

● Also in the 1640’s the Westminster Assembly is meeting. They derive the Westminster Confession of Faith (which was written partially in response to the civil war), which is approved by Parliament. The Westminster Catechism is also written.

● The assembly was being affected by politics and politics was affecting the assembly

● Westminster Assembly called by Parliament to try to figure out theological basis to guide the nation.

● Westminster Assembly influences political debate

● Biggest debate at Westminster Assembly was over church government:

3 views of church government:

1. Hierarchical view

2. Presbyterian View (different churches would send representatives to church)

3. Independent View (each local church was an entity to itself)

● Westminster Assemble concluded that hierarchical model was wrong in the church

● Church government view that does prevail is the Presbyterian view

● Recognized theological implications will lead to political implications

● Wanted to dispose of bishops  lead to disposing of kings

Who wins English Civil War?  Parliament

Charles I was tried and executed

1660-85 Charles II

1685-88 James II

Oliver Cromwell ruled (but he was not a king)

1660 monarchy restored, Charles II the James II

typical rulers (not good); maybe bring England under France

people grew very unhappy

*1668 Glorious Revolution (non-violence) – William of Orange and Mary were important in the development of American political thought

Parliament passes the “Declaration of Right” which spelled out James’ abuses (abused power, violated fundamental laws, and abdicated throne by his flight)

A number of political leaders in 1770s and 80s were saying they’re not Revolutionaries, just trying to hold on to what ‘s been promised

Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings in the 1700s were responses to all this.

● Hobbes does most of his writing in early to middle part

● Locke does most of his writing in middle to late part

Hobbes Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651.

Hobbes lived from 1588-1679.

READ: GPT 1, pages 326-349

Main themes from the readings:

• The Nature of Man

• The State of Nature

• The Social Contract

• Laws of Nature

• Political Power

• Liberty and Law

• The Sovereign Power

1. Unimportant background

● After Civil War, England needs order.

● Hobbes was under a self imposed exile

● To save himself, he went to France

2. More important info about Leviathan

• Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651

• His #1 concern was the preservation of order

• There was a lack of order in England at that time, and Hobbes blamed this on Parliament and the King of England

• Hobbes described a “State of nature”

• “State of Nature”

  • All men have basic wants and desires

  • Man is evil by nature

  • Man must fulfill certain needs to stay alive

• Due to this evil “State of Nature” of man, a ruler is needed, a sovereign.

• In order to create a sovereign, we need to establish a Social Contract (a contract is a form of compact)

3. The need for a Social Contract

• Hobbes emphasizes that we need to make a social contract so we can create a sovereign so we can control ourselves and our evil state of nature.

• We know we are supposed to establish a social contract because we are rational and we reason to it, as I have done in the previous sentence.

• But how do we bring order out of chaos?

We give up our individual power and give it to the sovereign or assembly of men-he likes monarchy better), the people agree that what sovereign does they do. As Hobbes said, (Page 340 of GPT 1) “The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to won, and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person, shall act, or cause to be acted.” “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.”

4. Hobbes’s definition of civil government

• Civil government- the king acting on the behalf of all of us

• Our liberty comes from our obedience to the king.

• Submission is required for liberty!

• Exception: We can only disobey the king when he doesn’t protect life, liberty, or when he refuses to defend us.

• Hobbes believed there was no higher law that limits the sovereign.

5. Hobbe’s and “Good Law”

• What is “good law”?

• “Good law” is the concept that no law can be unjust. By definition, Hobbes says that every law is just. Whatever the king says is just.

• Hobbes is tied to Macchiavelli—both supported the following:

  • the protection of the state as a body,

  • there is a need to bring order to society

  • you must not disobey government

  • if you don’t agree with gov’t, leave the country

6. Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651).

READ: GPT 1, pages 326-349

• begins with humans in an evil state of nature: solitary, brutish, short

• law in the state of nature: do what you have to do to survive  look to one self; Therefore, CHAOS

• no room for industry and agriculture in state of nature

• page 340 Hobbes’ preference is a MONARCHY (all based on rationality); When sovereign acts, all citizens act b/c they have given the sovereign power

• page 344 Hobbes says liberty is submission to sovereign; liberty comes in submission b/c we abide in the social contract; when he acts, we act; liberty same as submission

• page 348 By definition all laws are just so we can’t complain about justice; there can’t be injustice; a good law is understandable (by definition, no law the sovereign makes can be unjust)

• Doesn’t think you can take arms against Government

• Government a leviathan isn’t a bad thing; must have lots of authority and must define laws

• Whatever Leviathan does is just b/c we gave him power (no right to disobey gov’t)

• Hobbes not willing to presuppose higher law, which others have

• Magistrate must step in religious dispute

• Although Hobbes says individual can substitute group  majority rules

• Preservation of Order is his #1 concern  need leviathan for this

• Lack of order in England at that time – blames parliament and king

• State of nature – we both have basic wants and desires

• SO…create a sovereign…HOW?

Hobbes’ Method for Creating a Sovereign

1. Establish a social contract (contract emphasizes that we made it)

   • We give up our individual power and give it to the sovereign or assembly of men (he likes MONARCHY better)

   • Higher power doesn’t come up in Hobbes; it is only if we establish it in our contract

2. defines civil government – king acts for all of us

   • our liberty comes from submission to him

   • can only disobey when he doesn’t protect life, liberty (refuses to defend us)

   • no higher law that limits the sovereign

3. What is good law? No law can be unjust

   • If we need it, good of people, and understandable sovereign decides this

   • Can’t interpose and take away sovereign b/c we created him

NO LAW CAN BE UNJUST  LIKE IF PLAY BY RULES  JUST GAME

WHATEVER KING SAYS IS JUST INCLUDING OUTWARD ACTS OF WORSHIP

Tied to Machievelli – protection of state as body

Order to society

Can’t disobey gov’t – our only choice is to leave the country

Warning: the next six pages are all focused on Locke!!

LOCKE

GPT 1, pp. 357-360, 372-389

And “Letter Concerning Toleration” (R)

1. Background

● Locke was a transitional thinker who displayed modern political thought

• He was known as a deist recently and also a rationalist

• Locke is writing at about the time of the Glorious Revolution

• Locke published a lot of his writings anonymously.

• He wrote while in Netherlands in response to Filmer:

  • Locke wrote about God’s law, saying that God demands a monarch.

  • Locke’s response was that law comes from God

  • Locke says laws are known through reason and that there are different penalties.

Page 372 in box:

. . .The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consent in that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker. . .

Recall that Hobbes’ view of “state of nature” was that man was to do what needed to be done, determined by reason.

Some say Locke starts at the same place as Hobbes.

But notice the difference:

● Hobbes: reason is what one invents;

● Locke says reason uncovers fundamental laws

Locke is not a deist b/c God to him does more than just set life in motion!

• Similar to Romans 1 and 2 however, doesn’t believe in original sin.

• Two things to keep in mind:

What does Locke mean by state of nature and law of nature?

1. State of Nature – not a state of strife (like Hobbes) but was based on law, reason, and equality!

2. Law of Nature – the ordering of divine will (unlike Hobbes’ view that law of nature was a dictate of reason)

Ex: some human using reason to make a podium – atoms have always existed but we have to use our reason to understand.

-Law of Nature vs. Positive Divine Law:

-Law of Nature- use reason to make something vs. used to discover, purpose of reason is to discover

-Positive Divine Law- reason makes ethical principles, proper understanding, we are servants of god in the world for His purpose, we live by His decrees.

-Two meanings of property

1. Possessions-all we have and all we are (talents, mind, etc.)

2. Physical property

-Have right to claim it as mine b/c I put work into it

-We put something into it to make it property

-Limit-anything waste (don’t care for it) don’t have right to claim it

-Can only claim what we can use

-Can’t be huge variations of wealth

-We have created more “property” through creation of money, thus begins hoarding

-Tie b/t liberty and possessions:

-Money- makes exchange factor easier, store of value

-Why? Different amounts of money

1. Different motivation, motivated to make money or just motivated to live life simple

2. One is more talented

-Property I have is a reflection of who I am or was created to be

-If take away property we take away who I am –liberal (classical liberalism)

-Equality-right to natural freedom w/o being subjected to the authority of another man, right to make choice and fill them out, not equal in talents, age and interests

-Law-to protects you and ensures your freedom

-Law is necessary for freedom-no law=no freedom

-Laws should be there to preserve freedom

-Problem is in enforcing the law was and punishments

-In law of nature we know the law and punishments but it may not be strong enough to punish or may overact and never punish.

-Civil society-set up authority to solve the problem with enforcement

-Natural power to punish offenders is given up and given to the sovereign.

-Government is like an umpire-doesn’t make the rules, it only applies rules that are already there

-The reasons we need government:

1. We may misunderstand requirements of law, and punishment for them

2. People are biased

3. Person may not be strong enough

-Hobbes believed that government made the rules, so no law can be unjust

-Filmer wrote a treatise arguing kings have divine right

-Locke argues Filmer view is wrong!

• Locke believes that transcendent values are already there and reason is what we use to understand them and that Scripture is a subset to the law of nature

Whereas Hobbes isn’t willing to begin @ transcendent values, only that man must do whatever he has to survive

Locke “Two Treatises of Civil Gov’t”

John Locke wrote “A Letter Concerning Toleration” in 1689 (R)

John Locke wrote “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” in 1690 (GPT 1)

John Locke wrote “Two Treatises of Civil Gov’t” in 1690 (GPT 1)

READ: GPT 1, pages 357-360 and 372-389

• “The Second Treatise of Civil Government”

● written 1679-81 written while in exile to Netherlands during English Glorious Revolution

● In response to Filmer’s Patriarch

Supports Divine Right of Kings; Filmer tries to say Erastianism is right and Locke tries to show through scripture why Filmer is wrong

Some argued that Locke was outside the bounds of orthodoxy; they were all from Church of England

Locke is in exile during restoration – goes to Netherlands

Page 372 says why something other than monarchy is good

State of nature and law (have heard from Hobbes) but are different!!

• Written to limit what king can do

• Maybe Locke was not even trying to respond to Hobbes

• A lot of Locke sounds like Romans 1 and 2

• Locke: law of nature, state of nature, est. transcendent moral values that are uncovered through reason

• STATE OF NATURE – different than Hobbes – there are laws that we already know

● We know some things are wrong

● We know what is required of us

● We know what are just penalties

Romans 1 and 2

Page 374-375 Life, liberty, and property is what state of nature is based on

Sometimes just possessions but most of the time  all that we have and all that we are

• Review: Law of Nature of HOBBES:

Do what you need to survive; reason is how we invent

• LAW OF NATURE: LOCKE

• already have a set of ethical principles to govern us and just penalties

• all of us understand these

• Law of Nature: “ordering to the divine will knowable to the light of nature”

• Basic ethical principles – we don’t invent them (different than Hobbes)

• We use reason to discover and understand what is already there

• Tied to precepts of God’s will

• Sounds like Romans 1 and 2

Humans have truth yet suppress it

We are still accountable for it

• FIRST TREATISE written in response to Filmer (Patriarchia)

Civil society should be governed by kings (Patriarchia)

The First Treatise said Filmer wrong – gives biblical support

Never was responding to Hobbes b/c starting points were so different

• Life, liberty and property

2 Meanings of Property – possessions

1. all we have and all we are (talents, mind, etc.)

ex: clay lump vs. it made into vase

have right to claim as mine b/c I put work into it

land mine b/c I work the land

reason we have the right to claim things is if we put something into it to make it property

LIMIT: anything waste (don’t care for it) – don’t have right to claim it;

can only claim what we can use productively

can’t be huge variations of wealth

there is a limit to how much wealth can be accumulated

Money – makes exchange factor easier – store of value

Once we are willing to grant money, we have a store of value that doesn’t spoil in the long term

Why different amounts of money (why am I so rich and you are so poor?):

1. Different motivations – motivated to make $ or just motivated to live life simple…what is liberty than the right to set goals and reach them?

2. one is more talented

Differences in possessions are reflected in the person we have been created to be

POSSESSIONS: who we are; what our talents are; what we have been created to be

SO:::: property should be protected (Modern Liberalism)

Property I have is a reflection of who I am (or was created to be)

If take away property we take away who I am – liberty (Classical Liberalism)

Page 375…Gov’t can’t come along and say what you can and cannot do or can and cannot own

Equality to Locke – right to natural freedom without being subjected to the authority of another man; right to make choices and fill them out; not equal in talents, age, interests,; all have equal chance to set goals and achieve them

Law –

• To protect you and ensure your freedom

• I will not have freedom if he steals my pencils

• Law is necessary to freedom

• No law = no freedom

Freedom to Locke: (Speaking of Law of Nature)

Page 376 “where there is no law there is no freedom”

● The point of the law is not to limit our freedom; it is to make sure we can exercise it.

● Only time we have the right to harm another’s life, liberty, and property is to protect ourselves

● Problem is in enforcing the laws and punishments; Locke thinks we need gov’t to enforce..we don’t need an authority to set them up..they are already there (fundamental ethical principles)

In law of nature, we know the laws and punishments, but may not be strong enough to punish or may overreact and over punish

-Law of Nature –trust law, as we understand law through reason

-Trustee can be removed if he does not abide by the trust document

-The government and people do not have equal right in Social Contract

-Government limited by a higher law and people

• Nature of government as Locke develops it:

1. Laws need to be written down so we all know what they are

2. Power divided within government

3. Opposite of Hobbes b/c he didn’t even have standards; Locke an umpire

• Civil society – set up authority to solve the problem with enforcement

• Natural power to punish offenders is given up and given to the sovereign

• Page 377 Government is like an umpire (doesn’t make the rules) who applies rules that are already there whereas Hobbes – gov’t made the rules and no law can be unjust

Neutrally apply laws that already exist: umpire implies something very different than LEVIATHAN

• Hobbes: whatever gov’t does is just; Locke: just if people agree

• As part of civil society, people give up their right to judge themselves and give it to magistrate; magistrate enforces rules already there

• For Locke, gov’t is much more limited than Hobbes

• Are moral rights and wrongs

• Problem is that we have enforce and judge law

We might not understand

Not neutral

May not be strong enough to enforce standards

Opposite of Hobbes b/c he didn’t even have standards; Locke an umpire

Page 378

Happens through social compact or covenant (similar to Hobbes & Brutus) much more limited for Locke than Hobbes

• Individual gives up the right to judge to government in the contract

• The Social Contract to LOCKE

Locke’s Fiduciary Trust

Fiduciary Trust

-3 parts to trust fund:

1. Trustor has rights limited by trust laws (people) law of nature

2. Trustee does what trustor says, no rights has obligations (sovereign) settled standing law

3. Beneficiary receives the money, has rights (people)

● There are 3 parts to the TRUST FUND:

1. TRUSTOR – sets up trust; has rights limited by trust laws; people people’s rights precede government

2. TRUSTEE - does what trustor says; no rights; has obligations; manages fund; government; government has no rights

3. BENEFICIARY – people; has rights once set up to expect $

According to Locke, in political systems:

1. People are trustors/RIGHTS while trustor has rights, there are limits

2. Government is trustee/OBLIGATIONS

3. People are beneficiaries

Locke doesn’t believe people and gov’t are equal

Hobbes  gov’t having rights

Locke  doesn’t buy that

Trust law bind all trusts – law of nature

Trust document – establishes individual trust (Constitution)

Trust document can’t violate trust law

If trust document is violated, trustee (gov’t) can be removed either voluntarily or by force

Law of Nature = trust laws

• Trustee can be removed if he does not abide by the trust document (constitution)

• If he doesn’t go, we have right to remove by force (not for every small mismanaged affair, but a long train of abuses)

• Good thing to divide power and government

• The government and the people do not have = rights in Social Contract

• The government is limited by a higher law and people

• If not happy, people can rebel and set up new gov’t

Locke and the Role of Religion:

Wrote 4 letters concerning toleration

• series of responses dealing with toleration of religion

• government’s right to interfere with religion is limited

• doesn’t believe in converting by force

• makes some of his arguments on the basis of Scripture and toleration

• Higher law that tells us that some things are always right and always wrong

• There are limits that Locke puts on this idea of toleration (not saying anything done on idea of religion is OK

• Page 36 “…no opinions contrary to human society…”

• Argument will only work if an expert says what is good or bad for society

• Locke – he tolerates different Christian views but its not clear what he is saying about tolerating completely different religions

• Locke – against establishment of religion but not National Confessionism (2 of Gould’s ideas)

• not talking about neutrality between religion and non religion

• Locke is making an argument similar to Puritans

• Don’t take away civil rights of people against religion, but these people should not expect government to support them

• Spykman takes this beyond the realms of Christianity and Locke is not willing to do this

• Locke may not be opposed to saying this is a Christian nation based on important Christian beliefs

• to the extent that Locke has an influence in development of America:

• Locke’s views on toleration underpins the 1st Amendment

Locke “A Letter Concerning Toleration”

John Locke wrote “A Letter Concerning Toleration” in 1689 (R)

John Locke wrote “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” in 1690 (GPT 1)

John Locke wrote “Two Treatises of Civil Gov’t” in 1690 (GPT 1)

READ: (R), pages 33-39

• argues from scripture

• true Christianity won’t be achieved by force

• government’s job to enforce religion – would lead to tyranny (power would combine)

• not clear how far Locke intends to extend

ex: not to atheists

don’t take civil rights away on basis of religion

*** all this rests on higher law.

“AMERICA: CHRISTIAN OR SECULAR?” BY HERBERT

• Was America founded on Christianity?

Both would like to see more Christian influence in the political system today.

This debate is important when we try to interpret the Constitution

Civil Religion:

• This gives religious loyalty to the gov’t

• It uses religious language to justify political goals

• It is a sense of social salvation (the gov’t is Christian therefore follow it and you will be following the Bible)

• This sees gov’t as perfect thus equating it with God when it is fallen

This is important in this discussion because Noll and his gang believe that to call the foundation laid by the Founding Fathers Christian is to propel civil religion. Due to the non-Christian influences it would be damaging to Christianity to return to that foundation, as it would not be Christian. To avoid civil religion but still change policies, we must apply the Bible to current gov’t instead of returning to the old foundation.

THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT (before Locke) 1620

1. Unimportant Background

• Pilgrims landed in Plymouth but meant to land in VA

• They set up this as the first constitution in the New World

• The Mayflower Compact set up a gov’t by these pilgrims (1620)

• It was named after their ship, the Mayflower.

2. Biblical Basis for the Mayflower Compact

• This compact has a Christian base to it – for the Glory of God

• Christian/religious speech

• Goals – wanted advancement of Christian faith

• Create laws to carry it out

3. Details of the Mayflower Compact

• The language of the compact sounds like a social contract

• Yet Locke hadn’t written yet! (he wrote The Social Contract)

• established a government by pilgrims in 1620

• Maybe influenced by Brutus

• Supports Schaeffer

FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT (1638-1639)

• people from MA

• is social compact language

• religious peace

• Word of God requires government

• Before Locke

• begins with God

• civil and ecclesiastical are separate, but…

• civil laws are responsible to a higher law and to protect religion

• God requires them to establish government

Fundamental Orders of Connecticut 1638-39

-People came from Massachusetts to Connecticut to make this

-Social Contract language (sounds like Brutus and Locke)

-Some form of Biblical base

-Begins with God

-Wanted gov’t to be esta. with God in mind

-Will not tolerate all relations

-Got need for gov’t idea from word of God

-Civil and Ecclesiastical are separate, but…

-Civil laws are responsible to a higher law and to protect religion

-God requires them to establish gov’t

-Supports Schaeffer

THE MASSACHUSETTS BODY OF LIBERTIES 1641 without law, no liberty

• like Locke, no laws no freedom

• MA Bay Colony founded by Puritans

• Is religious toleration; is social compact language

• Christian base – laws follow 10 Commandments

• Supports Schaeffer

• Doesn’t support Toleration

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties 1641

-Christian based/law follow 10 commandments

-Without law there will be no liberty

-Support Schaeffer

-Doesn’t support toleration

VIRGINIA BILL OF RIGHTS 1776

• Others talk about people gathering; this talks about reps gathering

• A lot of Locke language

• Similar to Bill of Rights

• Nolls, Marsden, and Hatch side

• Religious toleration (strong in sec. 16)

• Almost a direct quote from Locke’s toleration

• doesn’t clearly state God like the others

• Social Contract – like Locke sec 1,2 talks about magistrates coming together

• Many things talk about our Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence

• Free exercise of religion – toleration

• Difference between Virginia Bill of Rights and other three

WHY?

1. Geography – 1st 3 from New England which emphasized economic; Virginia …this one from Virginia

Virginia settled by different people for different reasons

2. Time (Nolls, Marsden, Hatch clear Christian emphasis is gone by now)

3. Different purpose of 1st 3 documents (Schaeffer)

 1st three set up government from scratch

 In Virginia in 1776 government is already established

 not underlying shift in philosophy

4. fundamental shift in philosophy

still have contract language but w/o religion or is Christianity already assumed in Virginia Bill of Rights?

The answer helps to interpret The Constitution

Virginia Bills of Rights 1776

-Doesn’t clearly state God like the others

-Social Contract-like Locke sec. 1, 2

-Many things talked about in our Bill of Rights and Dec. of Independence

-Sect. 16-Free Exercise of Religion-toleration

-Difference b/t Bill of Rights and others: not necessarily so much for Xian

1. geography-1st three from New England-this one from VA. VA settled by diff people-diff reasons

2. time

3. diff purpose of 1st three documents

4. fundamental shift in philosophy

   1. still have contract language but w/out religion or is Xianity already assumed in VA Bill of Rights

   2. answer helps to interpret constitution

Declaration Of Independence

a. Structured like a legal brief

b. Language like Brutus and Locke b/c compact can be broken

c. Laws of nature and nature’s God

1. Locke

2. English: Sir Edward Coke

1. Junst

2. Precedes Hobbes and Locke

3. Common law – systemized body of precedents

4. Realized judges had to rule where no pre-existing law

   1. Statute – law passed by legislature

   2. Ex: frozen fertilized eggs

5. gathered pre-existing law and codified them (Coke codifies common law)

6. Schaeffer

7. Argued that common law superior to parliament/king’s law

   1. B/c common law based on nature, scripture, and Magna Carta

8. Calvin’s case in 1610 (James I in England)

9. Written by finger on law of heart

   1. First murder in Genesis 4, which is before Exodus 20

   2. I agree with Coke

   3. People sometimes suppress this knowledge (Romans)

6 points of Declaration of Independence

1. laws of nature and nature’s god are to regulate the behavior of the individual

2. laws of nature because all humans are equal and have unalienable rights

3. point of gov’t is to secure these rights

4. gov’t came about by way of compact among the people and that compact is based on the promise that gov't will only exercise just power

5. when gov’t exceeds power and abuses rights the people are free to alter and abolish gov’t

6. it has abused right (England) and we are to abolish gov’t

Francis Shaffer would support this more than Marsden

Marsden problem with law of nature is that we are limited by the fall and so we don’t know the law of nature

Truths are self-evident

1. self evident tends to mean able to be proved: WRONG; means we should know (ex. don’t kill and steal)

2. all men are created equal

3. unalienable (can’t be taken away) rights

4. life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness

   1. doesn’t say we’re entitled to happiness

   2. back to Blakstone

      1. tied to obeying moral law (happiness is)

      2. happiness from Latin root “beautus”: Beatitudes  blessedness and contentment, not hedonism

5. rights came before government

   1. closer to Locke than Hobbes

   2. gov’t is to secure rights and we may alter/abolish if doesn’t

argument is there are Biblical limits and we have right to alter/abolish since have violated

not a strong statement for interposition

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – Set up like a court case

• structured like a legal brief

• language like Brutus and locke b/c compact can be broken

• Laws of nature and nature’s God

• Lawyers were involved in writing the Dec. of Independence

• Responsible for idea of common law.

• Sometimes judges have to rule wehre there are no clear statutes.

● Locke

● English: Sir Edward Coke

precedes Hobbes and Locke

common law: systemized body of precedents

realized judges had to rule where no pre-existing law

statute  law passed by legislature

gathered pre-existing law and codified them ; Coke codifies common law)

Schaeffer

Argued that common law superior to parliament/king’s law b/c common law based on nature, sripture, and Magna Carta

Calvin’s case in 1610 (James I in England)

Written by finger on law of heart

Declaration of Independence

-Social Contract-can establish and dissolve political bonds

-Laws of Nature:

-Sir Edward Coke

-Common Law-Schaeffer

-Based judgments on (where legislature doesn’t have a rule)

1. law of nature infused in people’s hearts

2. 10 commandments-come from god

3. Magna Carta 1215-limited power of king

-court case will set a precedent

-codifies the precedents (puts them together by subject)

-Common Law-superior to anything king and Parliament can do

• (Brutus & Locke) Social Contract – can establish and dissolve political bands

• (Locke & Hobbes) Laws of Nature

Sir Edward Cook – common law

Based judgments on where legislature doesn’t have a rule – no statute law

1. law of nature from God infused in people’s hearts

2. 10 Commandments come from God; we all know the law but he writes it down so we can’t miss it

3. Magna Carta (1215) limited power of king

• Court case will set a prescedent

• Codifies the precedents (puts them together by subject)

= COMMON LAW – superior to anything king and parliament can do

Schaeffer had common law origins…………………..

Blackstone 1765

-“Commentaries of the Laws of England”

-lawyer

-Laws of Nature: will of our maker, law of God (bible)

-both come from God, Laws of God are part of Laws of Nature

-Law of Nature written on heart

**all human laws grow out of law of nature and law of god**

1. took England colonies by storm with Commentaries

2. more copies sold in colonies than in England

3. law of nature comes from God

   1. common term in theology, legal, and political (not a new term)

      1. Rutherford, a Scottish, Lex Rex re. Why people could rebel against king

      2. Meant basic law, fundamental moral precepts to direct humans (except Hobbes)

      3. Romans 1 and 2

Samuel Rutherford

-Wrote “Rex Lex”

-Gov’t is bound by God’s law

-Law of Nature=Law of God

-We hold these truths to be self-evident-were to direct humans how to live

-Self-evident-deductive logic-today that’s what we think (provable)

-we can’t all figure them out the same way

-we are there because we’re made in the image of God

-written on our hearts

-all men are created equal (self-evident proofs)

-all have unalienable rights-can’t take away life, liberty, and happiness (like Locke)

-sounds like hedonism (right to what makes you feel good)

-like Blackstone-“happiness ties to obeying moral law”

-Declaration of Independence says we have unalienable right to pursue happiness

-happiness defined as coming from following the law

-later Beatus means happy (Beatitudes)

-Beatitudes don’t sound happy-state of well-being

-Help you develop character

-Blessedness of contentment

-Gov’t protects rights that are already there

-Doesn’t create determine rights-Hobbes

-Bill of Rights-are these fundamental unalienable rights

-Compact language (like Brutus or Locke)

Peter 2: Rutherford says that humans establish particulars of gov’t, not esta. gov’t itself

-Francis Schaeffer would support this more than Marsden

-Marsden-problem with law of nature is that we are limited by the fall and we don’t know the law of nature

James Madison: Memorial and remonstrance against religious assessments

-Remonstrance: expression of a strong objective

-Remonstrance-about establishing Christian teachers in VA

-Implies: civil gov’t should tell us how to worship

(James I, Hobbes)

-establishment clause

Constitution

-Preamble-Social Compact Language

-Compact-who are parties-people

-nature of Social Compact

Possibilities:

1. compact among the people –citizens (individuals)

2. compact between states-delegates came from states

-why it makes a difference

1. if b/t people-we should have same rights no matter where we live

2. if compact among the states-state can leave from US no longer want to be part of the union (same as individ. can leave the US if they don’t like it here) Doctorate of Interposition

-why isn’t there any mention of God in Constitutions

1. Assumed everyone knew gov’t had to be based on God

2. If compact was formed among state-recognized fundamental principles then it rests in the state

3. The framers thought Dec. of Independence was statement of philosophy and constitution was just basic principles

4. It was the framer’s intent-b/c they didn’t want God in constitution-they didn’t want any religious underpinnings

Constitutional background

-framers thought national government would have set of power (article I, Sec. 8)

-10th Amendment-National Gov’t gets powers

-everything else is left to the states

-what do we do when we have conflicting interests of constitutional power

-someone has to interpret it for us

-Marbury v. Madison (1805)

-Doctrine of Judicial Review: rights of the courts to interpret and strike down any laws that violate the Constitution

-The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution in three ways...

1. Doctrine of Original Intent

-on basis of the original intent of the framers

-Look at speeches and writing of framers

-If this doesn’t happen, the meaning of the Constitution will keep changing

2. Higher Law View

-recognizes the constitution is fallible

-interpret in light of higher law (i.e. Scriptures, Law of Nature, laws from other nations, by the law of the United Nations)

-Cooke argued this with Common Law

3. Doctrine of Evolving Standards

-recognize Constitution needs to change with times

-interpret the Constitution based on current cultural context

Example: 8th Amendment- no cruel and unusual punishment

-is the death penalty considered cruel and unusual

1. Based on Original Intent: the Founding Fathers were not trying to eliminate the death penalty; we see this in how they did not repeal it after the Constitution was written

2. Based on Higher Law: it is okay when Scripture commends the death penalty, and unethical in situations the Bible does not support

3. Based on Evolving Standards: we are no longer an “eye for an eye” nation, thus it is cruel and unusual...

U.S. Constitution

Compact-who are parties-people, all voting males or lower magistrates

Brutus-people are law magistrate

1. Ratified state by state-not people-reps of people, means right may be different from state to state (edu, abortion, drinking laws)

2. If constitution is compact among state, then state has right to say, we no longer want to be part of union and leave as well as individuals can leave

Roles of government-establish justice

Doesn’t mention any religious base

4 theories:

1. Assumed everybody knew that gov. was Christain, that everyone knew who God was.

2. Compact among the states, they thought it was the state’s responsibility to put forth the religious underpinnings of the constitution (state const.). Do mention religious base).

3. Declaration of Independence was the statement of philosophy (19th century), so it wasn’t needed in the U.S. Constitution as well.

4. They didn’t want to build on religious base: base = reason or unspecified, people have the highest rule

Bill of Rights: 1st Ten Amendments of Constitution

Created because of 3 complaints against the Constitution at its creation

1. too much power to nat’l gov’t

2. too much power to president

3. no statements of rights-except for few at end

   1. how will rights be protected if there are none

   2. thought they would miss some rights

Important Amendments—

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or

prohibiting the practice, thereof;

--basic definitions of the clauses within this amendment, see later notes for

more detail...

-Establishment Clause: gov’t cannot establish a religion

-Free Exercise Clause: gov’t cannot limit the exercise of a religion

10th : see below

14th : see below

The Bill of Rights, however, only applied to the national government

-The 10th Amendment declared that anything not outlined for federal gov’t in the Constitution and Bill of Rights was left to the state

The 14th Amendment reconsiders the Bill of Rights and its relationship with the states:

• no state may deprive any one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

• There are three ways to interpret the 14th Amendment:

1. it simply guaranteed the rights listed in the Bill of Rights to ex-slaves

2. Doctrine of Absorption: states must ensure the first nine amendments; it absorbs the responsibilities of the Bill of Rights and must apply them at a state level

3. Doctrine of Selective Incorporation: the states must carry out the “fundamental rights” and no other rights of the Bill of Rights (the courts decide what is a “fundamental right”)

   • Supreme Court has decided the right to council (guaranteed within the 6th Amendment) is a fundamental right to be guaranteed by the state

Adversarial system of justice

-truth will emerge when two interested parties make the most of their case and present their opponent’s flaws

-Judge is neutral arbitration

-Courts do not allow hypothetical situations

-Must be able to demonstrate “standing”-meaningful personal interest in case (i.e. injury)

-this is not evident in most of the world

-reflects the necessity of the 6th amendment (the right to council)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court Cases:

Supreme Court Cases determining the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the practice, thereof;

-Free Exercise Clause: gov’t cannot limit the exercise of a religion

Mormon Case (late 1800s)

-Congress outlawed bigamy and polygamy in any territory of the US

-Because it is territorial (doesn’t have to detail with 14th amendment)

-Mormons say their religion mandates bigamy and polygamy

-Therefore this law prohibits the free exercise of their religion

-Ruling: Supreme Court ruled that Mormons could not practice bigamy and polygamy

-Congress cannot limit BELIEFS but can limit actions, if they cross the concept of social duty

Cantwell vs. Connecticut (1940)

-The Cantwells, who are Jehovah Witnesses, went to a Roman Catholic neighborhood and protested against Catholicism

-They are charged with disturbance of the peace by the police

-The state imprisons the Cantwells

-They believe this is a limit on their right to freely exercise their religion

-Ruling: the Cantwells have the right to express their religious views, no matter how offensive they were

-Congress cannot limit BELIEFS or SPEECH but can limit actions

Sherbert vs. Verner (1963)

-Sherbert was a member of a 7th day Adventist church

-as a member she could not work on the Sabbath, which is a Saturday

-this is a major tenet of their beliefs

-she was fired for being unavailable to work on Saturday

-she was unable to gain work at other locations, for the same reason

-she was not eligible for unemployment benefits, for the following reasons:

-lack of “good cause” not to work on Saturday

-SC was protecting state from unemployment fraud

-this was a general law, not created to restrict a religion

-believed this was a violation of her free exercise rights

-Ruling: Sherbert’s rights were violated as the state has no right to make her choose between her religion and work/welfare

-Congress cannot limit BELIEFS, SPEECH, or ACTIONS

-In this case: SC’s state interest was protection against unemployment fraud

however, there is a less restrictive way to protect against such fraud without excluding religious reasons as a “good cause”

-This becomes a major court case in “Free Exercise Jurisprudence”—their definition of compelling interest broadens over the years

-Dissentors: they basically believed that the “Free Exercise Clause” should be interpreted to mean that you cannot aim a law at religions (however, this does not protect minor religions)

-Dissenters (Harlan and White):

-she was not available for work-not issue of religion

-standard-if government is pointing to certain religion the violate, but government -did not do this therefore we cannot violate law already in place.

-We can’t aim a law for or against a particular religion

-Didn’t work on Saturday because of personal reasons

-Law is ok if it is not geared to one religion or aimed at religion

-Can’t limit ones actions but not beliefs.

-Concurrers:

-Douglas

-Takes away right of free exercise of religion

-Law reflects values of majority, thus discriminates the minority relgion-2nd class citizens

-He thinks a law can’t be religiously neutral

-Stewart

-2 clauses are at conflict with each other

-do Amish need to pay social security? Compelling state of interest?

Employment Division vs. Smith (1990)

-two Native Americans were fired from their drug rehab counseling positions due to their use of peyote

-peyote is a stimulant drug used as a part of their religion, it compares to our communion

-they could not receive unemployment due to their drug use, which is a criminal action

-Ruling: Oregon can refrain from giving benefits because a criminal law was broken

-Dissenters:

-Use test of compelling interest

-Found no compelling interest

-Concurrers:

-Thinks there’s a compelling interest that the law to stop drug use is needed

Smith Vs. Sherbert Tests

-Compelling interest test-limits gov’t more

-Law is neutral and applicable

-Which is the better test:

-Smith: Hobbes, James I, Marsiglio

-Sherbert: Locke, John of Salisbury

-Religious liberties tried to overturn Smith Test

-Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

-Sherbert’s is the better test and court needs to use it

-Smith’s test allows religious freedom would be trampled

-Borney-supreme court didn’t follow congress and decided the church who wanted to expand in historical district couldn’t (Smith test)

Religious Restoration Act-defend Sherbert Test-supreme court shut down

Establishment Clause-congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Supreme Court Cases determining the meaning of the Establishment Clause

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the practice, thereof;

-Establishment Clause: gov’t cannot establish a religion

Everson vs. Board of Education (1947)

-NJ transportation to private schools (catholic)

-Everson does not aggress. Standing interest in case

-State decided it is okay for indirect aid only for interest of public safety

-Dissenter used wall of separation but thought this was breached

-Release time program

-Religion/moral base of schools

-Children released to choice of religious institution not provided by school

-Standing:

-He is a tax payer and doesn’t like that his money is going toward this and rising because of it

-Supreme Court:

-Upholds payments to parents

-Decided to allow sending kids to school

-Needs to be a separation between church and state

-Jefferson said there needs to be a wall between church and state-refused to declare thanks to God

-Court argued that it was a neutral provision-for safety

-Like state would try to put school fire out

] -aid to parents and children-not to the school

-Dissenters:

-Jackson

-If money is given, aids their religion

-Agree there needs to be a wall of separation

-Rugledge

-Says this breaks down wall of separation

-They don’t fight over meaning of establishment clasue, but if it breaks the wall of separation

Engel Vs. Vitale

-prayer read-for moral basis

-board of regents want to write specific prayer-neutral pears

-student do not need to participate

-again picking on each other-stigmatized

-standing:

-children who do not say the prayer get ridiculed

-Supreme Court:

-Decides against the prayer-breaches wall of separation

-Decision is UN-unanimous

-Dissenter:

-Justice Steward-says kids can pary because we have been praying in schools

-Concurrence:

-Justice Douglas-should gov’t finance activity?

-Places where there is still prayer he wants them abolish.

-Take on nation under god from pledge

-Teachers paid to lead prayer-public money

-Says GI bills shouldn’t be used to go to private, religious schools

-Shouldn’t we use federal loans to go to sectarian schools

Abington School District Vs. Schemp and Murray Vs. Curlett

-Wanted to keep moral teaching in schools

-Just read Bible-no discussion

-Kids don’t have to participate

Standing:

-People sue because kids are teased

-Teachers tend to advance to a particular religion

-Supreme Court:

-School can’t mandate it

-2 tests

1. if intent of law is to advance religion

2. if effect of law is to advance religion

-said both were broken-if one was broken, it still needs to be our of the school

-court can’t inhibit or advance religion

Lemon Vs. Kurtzman and Early Vs. DiCenso

-Teachers get reimbursed by state to religious schools-books, teachers, etc. for secular materials only for schools

-Strong Roman Catholic populations-help lower costs for parochial education

-Supreme Court:

-Struck down programs-would violate wall of separation

-3 prong test

1. must have a secular legislative purpose

2. must neither inhibit or advance religion

3. must not foster “an excessive gov’t entanglement with religion”

-Supreme court says 3rd is being broken

-Teachers must not teach anything religious

-Impossible for state to check up on this

Tilton Vs. Richardson

-Federal aid for building for secular purposes

-Christian colleges want some of this money

-Doesn’t it violate law

-Supreme Court:

-Decides this is constitutional (provided at least a 20 year limit to building to be used only for secular purposes)

-Argues college primary purpose is not to have purpose of proclaiming like primary school.

-Gov’t grant is generic-just for building, not for certain subjects.

-Lemon Test: Courts used to interpret the establishment clause

Wallace Vs. Jaffree (1985)

-School had to give one minute period of silence for meditation

-Schools had to give one minute period of silence for voluntary prayer or meditation

-Schools had to give one minute period of silence to Almighty God

-Kids did not have to do this

Supreme Court:

-Against violation of First Prong of Lemon Test

-It must have a secular legislative purpose

Rosenberger Vs. Rector (1995)

-Religious publication put out that got funds from gov’t by student aid fund (like student activity fee at Geneva)

-Promoting publication-this is what case is against

-Supreme Court:

-Decides University was unconstitutional when saying it would not fund a particular activity because it violates free speech, is hostile toward religion, and is not neutral (it prohibits religion)

Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris (2002)

-public schools desired to send students to a private school if their parents could not afford it

-Result: this is religiously neutral because the decision is based upon income and social-economic status

-Dissenting: creates a religious based conflict, previous courts have ruled that creating equal opportunity is not a valid reason to support religion; religion should be private, makes the religious disagreement more visible (less moderate)

SUMMARY OF CASES:

McCollum Vs. Board of Education (1948)-it is a violation of the establishment clause for Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant religious leaders to lead optional/voluntary religious instruction in public school buildings

Engel Vs. Vitale (1962)-the daily recitation of prayer in public schools is unconstitutional

Abington School District Vs. Schempp (1963)-daily school-directed reading o the Bible (without comment), and daily recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, violates the Establishment Clause when performed in public schools

Lemon Vs. Kurtzman (1971)-creation of the 3-part “lemon test” for determining violations of the establishment clauses. To avoid a violation, an activity must meet the following criteria: 1/ have a secular purpose; 2. not advance or inhibit religion (in principle or primary effect); 3. not foster excessive entanglement between the government and religion.

Wallace Vs. Jaffree (1985)-a state law requiring a moment of “mediation or voluntary prayer” was struck down as an establishment of religion because the intent of the legislature was deemed to be religious rather than secular.

Video Tape

1. one question deals with defending a guilty party

2. raises the question of suppressing evidence on basis of violation of Miranda Rights Violation

Utilitarism

1. greatest good for the greatest number

2. Galbrith, Marsiglio, Msith have utilitarian view

3. ethics may change from time to time and place to place

4. are all goods equal?

   1. How do you choose which pleasure is greater

5. how do you find the greatest good for greatest number

   1. use experts or use majority

Mill

John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873 On Liberty

Full text of available at: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m645o/index.html

-Doesn’t believe that all pleasure is good

1. developing in the mind is the number one pleasure

2. need freedom to think

3. why everyone should be able to speak

   1. might be right

   2. need to be able to respond

   3. might have some truth

4. there is a limit to action:

   1. very direct physical harm-suicide or drugs are okay as long as another is not harmed

Rousseau

-no trasncendant values

-majoritarianism

1. man in a state of nature is a hateful, spiteful being

2. because of state of nature man must form a social contract

3. this social contract makes us more force

4. give up the natural liberty and replace it with civil and moral liberty