The Supernaturalist Gambit
I have a major problem with supernaturalism. If it was one thing and one thing only, everybody would agree and there would be no conflict as to what it was. Now everybody does NOT agree as to what supernaturalism is; what its intent is; what its name is.... so we have conflict.
None of this would matter as long as supernaturalism was kept out of the ruling preeminence of our government.
As long as supernaturalism stays out of government it can be whatever anyone wants it to be as long as it does not break the law of the land; the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, which is the United States Constitution. This is what the founding fathers intended; not to rule out principles of supernaturalism guiding our government but to keep out dogmas about supernaturalism that differ from one person to another; one group to another; dogmas that serve not to guide but to DICTATE government law and policy.
Supernaturalism, by remaining hidden can never declare itself. That is at once, its strength and its danger. Once one brand of supernaturalism is allowed to dictate government policy we have the beginning of theocracy which has counteracted democracy everywhere it has appeared throughout human history. Our founding fathers knew this and that is AGAIN, why the U.S. Constitution declares itself, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Any supernatural hierarchical order which is allowed to prevail within government, will, by its own nature, prioritize itself as the supreme law over and above the Constitution. It is inherent in supernaturalist thought, that the Divine though unseen, prevails over all things seen and human.
The move of reactionary politics in this election season, which is set out to create an issue with a falsely perceived, illusory “War against God” on the part of the Obama Administration, is an opening gambit in a war against the Constitution itself. Having run out of viable points to score against the incumbent president, the GOP, a la Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and to a lesser degree, the closet moderate, Mitt Romney (who knows his Mormonism would take a hit for its peripheral position in the context of standardized American Christianity), is now out to make the president’s perceived absence of supernaturalist conformity, a plank to be removed in the election of November, 2012.
Appealing to God-fearing, God-Worshipping, Christian voters across the land, these ruthless brandishers of the sword of indiscernible truth are presenting much more than a challenge to Barack Obama. By persistently trumpeting the message of the founding fathers, they are out to destroy the most precious part of their legacy, which is religious freedom. If Barack Obama is espousing a false theology, as Rick Santorum charges, it should be his right to believe in a theology that is different from the theology of Mr. Santorum or Mr Gingrich, or even the Mormon, Mr Mitt Romney.
For what it is worth, the Anglican Church of England represented the official standard of Christianity throughout the British Empire against which the Founding Fathers fought a bloody revolution to separate this nation from. It wasn’t supernaturalism that the founding fathers took issue with. It was the BRAND of supernaturalism promoting itself over and above any other kind of supernaturalism or absence of such. It was Anglicanism moving beyond supernaturalism to declare itself the sole arbiter of the kind of law and dispensation of judgment that should prevail throughout the empire which, at the time, included the unrepresented American Colonies of the New World.
It is very interesting that these self-righteous, new-age theocrats fail to even cite Article Six which lies not in the amended body of the Constitution, but within the main body itself, indicating it resonated with the original thought and intent of the signers of the Constitution:
“...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
NO RELIGIOUS TEST MEANS NO RELIGIOUS TEST.
Therefore, no politician running for office in the United States should be making an issue about an incumbent president’s THEOLOGY, particularly in the implied sense that his theology is “incorrect”, as though a “correct” theology could be adequately discerned when it involves supernaturalism, which, by its very nature, is indiscernible.
Back to Article Six:
“...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Now detractors could argue that the word “supreme” was meant to contrast the law of the Constitution from any Law of a State or such jurisdiction as should have a law, which may compete with the Constitution. One may rightly argue that Article Six mandates a supremacy of Federalism, and sets the foundation for the Federal Government which mostly conservative politicians and voters seem to have a problem with now that Barack Obama is the head of this government.
Whatever the argument may be, “supreme” is a word over which there can be no higher authority. As grievous as this may sound to most supernaturalists, it is, rather, a platform guarantor of the very religious freedom which allows for a personal choice in the matter of embracing supernaturalism or not embracing it at all.
Thus, it should be a cautionary defensiveness with which concerned Americans meet the current fusillade against the incumbent president’s choice of religious belief or willingness to put aside dogma in favor of the religious freedom which the Constitution, by restricting supernaturalist tests, actually serves to protect.
A secular government is the best venue for a free-fall interpretation of supernaturalism within the confines of the institutions and their schools which represent the various characterizations, forms, and dogmas which present our rich culture of religious diversity and open dialog, which includes the right not to believe anything at all, that cannot be singularly discerned or empirically evaluated.
Lest we remain unceasingly vigilant and unfailingly cautionary when confronted with these less-than-oblique entreaties against our most guarded of freedoms, the clock may be set as in the film about the fictitious Benjamin Button, to begin ticking backwards to a time when anybody espousing a difference of interpretation as to supernaturalism or failing to espouse one at all, might find their head on a chopping block; their lives in danger; or their place in the world one of permanent banishment.
Let’s all pray that this never happens in America.
RWH 2/27/2012
As long as supernaturalism stays out of government it can be whatever anyone wants it to be as long as it does not break the law of the land; the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, which is the United States Constitution. This is what the founding fathers intended; not to rule out principles of supernaturalism guiding our government but to keep out dogmas about supernaturalism that differ from one person to another; one group to another; dogmas that serve not to guide but to DICTATE government law and policy.
Supernaturalism, by remaining hidden can never declare itself. That is at once, its strength and its danger. Once one brand of supernaturalism is allowed to dictate government policy we have the beginning of theocracy which has counteracted democracy everywhere it has appeared throughout human history. Our founding fathers knew this and that is AGAIN, why the U.S. Constitution declares itself, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Any supernatural hierarchical order which is allowed to prevail within government, will, by its own nature, prioritize itself as the supreme law over and above the Constitution. It is inherent in supernaturalist thought, that the Divine though unseen, prevails over all things seen and human.
The move of reactionary politics in this election season, which is set out to create an issue with a falsely perceived, illusory “War against God” on the part of the Obama Administration, is an opening gambit in a war against the Constitution itself. Having run out of viable points to score against the incumbent president, the GOP, a la Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and to a lesser degree, the closet moderate, Mitt Romney (who knows his Mormonism would take a hit for its peripheral position in the context of standardized American Christianity), is now out to make the president’s perceived absence of supernaturalist conformity, a plank to be removed in the election of November, 2012.
Appealing to God-fearing, God-Worshipping, Christian voters across the land, these ruthless brandishers of the sword of indiscernible truth are presenting much more than a challenge to Barack Obama. By persistently trumpeting the message of the founding fathers, they are out to destroy the most precious part of their legacy, which is religious freedom. If Barack Obama is espousing a false theology, as Rick Santorum charges, it should be his right to believe in a theology that is different from the theology of Mr. Santorum or Mr Gingrich, or even the Mormon, Mr Mitt Romney.
For what it is worth, the Anglican Church of England represented the official standard of Christianity throughout the British Empire against which the Founding Fathers fought a bloody revolution to separate this nation from. It wasn’t supernaturalism that the founding fathers took issue with. It was the BRAND of supernaturalism promoting itself over and above any other kind of supernaturalism or absence of such. It was Anglicanism moving beyond supernaturalism to declare itself the sole arbiter of the kind of law and dispensation of judgment that should prevail throughout the empire which, at the time, included the unrepresented American Colonies of the New World.
It is very interesting that these self-righteous, new-age theocrats fail to even cite Article Six which lies not in the amended body of the Constitution, but within the main body itself, indicating it resonated with the original thought and intent of the signers of the Constitution:
“...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
NO RELIGIOUS TEST MEANS NO RELIGIOUS TEST.
Therefore, no politician running for office in the United States should be making an issue about an incumbent president’s THEOLOGY, particularly in the implied sense that his theology is “incorrect”, as though a “correct” theology could be adequately discerned when it involves supernaturalism, which, by its very nature, is indiscernible.
Back to Article Six:
“...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Now detractors could argue that the word “supreme” was meant to contrast the law of the Constitution from any Law of a State or such jurisdiction as should have a law, which may compete with the Constitution. One may rightly argue that Article Six mandates a supremacy of Federalism, and sets the foundation for the Federal Government which mostly conservative politicians and voters seem to have a problem with now that Barack Obama is the head of this government.
Whatever the argument may be, “supreme” is a word over which there can be no higher authority. As grievous as this may sound to most supernaturalists, it is, rather, a platform guarantor of the very religious freedom which allows for a personal choice in the matter of embracing supernaturalism or not embracing it at all.
Thus, it should be a cautionary defensiveness with which concerned Americans meet the current fusillade against the incumbent president’s choice of religious belief or willingness to put aside dogma in favor of the religious freedom which the Constitution, by restricting supernaturalist tests, actually serves to protect.
A secular government is the best venue for a free-fall interpretation of supernaturalism within the confines of the institutions and their schools which represent the various characterizations, forms, and dogmas which present our rich culture of religious diversity and open dialog, which includes the right not to believe anything at all, that cannot be singularly discerned or empirically evaluated.
Lest we remain unceasingly vigilant and unfailingly cautionary when confronted with these less-than-oblique entreaties against our most guarded of freedoms, the clock may be set as in the film about the fictitious Benjamin Button, to begin ticking backwards to a time when anybody espousing a difference of interpretation as to supernaturalism or failing to espouse one at all, might find their head on a chopping block; their lives in danger; or their place in the world one of permanent banishment.
Let’s all pray that this never happens in America.
RWH 2/27/2012
Labels: article six, belief, election, gambit, gingrich, God, government, obama, politics, president, religious freedom, santorum, supernaturalism
posted by hamilrob at 12:37 AM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
A government that spends money it does not have and has no hope of ever having in order to seem god-like to its citizens, is a government that is defectively involved in the supernaturalist gambit.
I support wholeheartedly the opinions expressed by Mr. Hamilton. Any group such as Latter-Day Saints, or Christians living in the Middle East, that has experienced religious persecution will be much more in tune to protecting a society's privilege to be governed by powers whose decision making is not overruled by the supernatural. One has to be afraid, however, when politicians begin to make big government into a religion of its own and the need to protect big government becomes greater than protecting the liberties of the governed.
Post a Comment
<< Home