Year / 2013

by Greg

Trust

in-god-we-trust

A while back, I was having a conversation with a friend about the centrality of trust to Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, and Scripture as a whole. It seems to be a foundational principal of Kingdom thinking.

We were discussing the various tenets of faith, and trust, and belief, and as we hashed it out together, I made the following observation at some point in the conversation:

Trust is in/on the other person (the one trusted) NOT in the one doing the trusting.

Interesting, huh?

I don’t believe that is how most of us view the concept of faith. Generally we view faith more intellectually—or, many might say non-intellectually—being a system of thought, doctrine, “beliefs” that one holds to, generally at the instruction of another. (Meaning, not generally a system that you have generated on your own.) And often “faith” is coupled with the word “blind” in that many view it as possible only through an irrational disconnection from logical thinking.

Examples of Faith, Belief, Trust from the Gospels

When Jesus woke up, he rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Silence! Be still!” Suddenly the wind stopped, and there was a great calm. Then he asked them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
—Mark 4:39-40

You are blessed because you believed that the Lord would do what he said.
—Luke 1:45

But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God.
—John 1:12

Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me.
—John 14:1

I like to boil the three words belief, faith, and trust down to that last one: trust. It seems to me to convey action, as well as reason for action. That appears more consistent with the faith Jesus speaks of throughout his recorded words.

If the power of trust is rooted in the ability of the one trusted, does that not shift the focus of who is to be credited with any gain? Does it not relieve us of any guilt or shame we might feel from our failures to live a life we deem in compliance with God’s standards and commands? If Jesus is emphasizing faith, or trust—not to mention showing time and time again that he welcomes those whom society then branded as outcast, sinner, worthless—then is he not emphasizing that he is the one doing the work, not us? (And that is reinforced in many more places throughout the New Testament.)

When you trust someone, you are actually ceding some amount (or total) control to them. You are no longer in control of at least some aspect you previously might have had more control over. (For now I’ll not get into how much of an illusion “control” is at its most basic levels anyway…)

This is essentially what I believe Jesus is asking us to do.

Such surrender takes both courage and complete trust of the person to whom we are submitting. We trust that person will make choices that will benefit, not harm us. We trust in the case of Father his inherent goodness and his supreme, unconditional love for us. And we trust our personal experiences with him as well. That serves to grow our trust over time.

And we are agreeing to willfully let go of our own will and choosing, making it subservient to his.

This journey is not for the faint-hearted.

Jesus said as much, too. He said if you want to follow him—if you want to experience life in the Kingdom of God—you must be willing to abandon everything you know and love, and “take up your cross” and follow him. (Note that his instruction is very clearly tied to him rather than a set of behaviors to model. We are called to simply listen to and follow after Jesus. Period.)

I do believe that the amount of faith or trust that we have in Father is directly proportionate to the fullness of life we will experience.

Trust is not a switch you can turn on and off. It grows through relationship—with a person. You can study about it, I suppose… but in the end, trust is earned by the one being trusted. That only happens through interaction. It must, at least in part be experienced. I think that’s precisely why Jesus simply said, “Follow me.”

And that’s where we still find Life today.

by Greg

It’s Raining Diamonds!

It Rains Diamonds on Neptune?One topic of study currently in the Campbell home is astronomy. Mom and most of the children are part of a home schoolers co-op that go through science curriculum together, and this year’s topic for the middle kids is the science of space.

(My favorite! Our kids had a leg up on everyone else as we have always watched space-related documentaries, and we subscribe to several NASA video podcast feeds as well. Yes, we are that awesome!)

This past week, one of the girls said something to me about learning that it rained diamonds on Neptune. My first response was a smile and a chuckle, and a silly, “Noooooo, it does not!” Little girls who are four, six, and eight can have a different way of hearing and passing along information, right? But she insisted that it was true, and her older siblings and Mom confirmed it.

What???

I had to look this one up, so I did.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

If experiments at the University of California, Berkeley, are any indication, future explorers of our solar system may well find diamonds hailing down through the atmospheres of Neptune and Uranus.
These planets contain a high proportion of methane, which UC Berkeley researchers have now shown can turn into diamond at the high temperatures and pressures found inside these planets.

“Once these diamonds form, they fall like raindrops or hailstones toward the center of the planet,” said Laura Robin Benedetti, a graduate student in physics at UC Berkeley.

Whoa! Neat! Are you kidding me?!

Space is just incredibly amazing. Our planet alone is amazing… then that God would create such diversity across the billions of light years of space. Holy moly.

BUT, as cool as that theory from last century is … (and I suppose it’s still possible, as most of what we know about those planets still falls under the “theory” category)

“Some scientists have claimed that diamonds may form inside both Uranus and Neptune, but I do not believe that is true since the methane is confined to the surface where the pressures are much less,” says Monash University astrophysicist Dr. Andrew Prentice. “I think that is wishful thinking. In any event, the ‘falling diamonds’ would hardly have any influence whatever on the internal heat budget of Neptune or Uranus.”

So says Mike Bessell, a professor at the Australian National University’s Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, via this article.

Party pooper.

I thought a theory from 1999 might be a tad outdated. Ah well. It was fun while it lasted.

And I’m still holding out a little hope that this is actually happening!

There are a lot of wild theories out there! I read recently that we think that the best way to divert “Killer Asteroids” from smashing into our planet might be to spray paint them.

Hmmm…

I think the diamond rain is cooler.

For further reading:

by Greg

I Don’t Ever Check The Weather

It is not uncommon that I am surprised by the weather. Whether it is a giant snow storm named after an animated fish, or a “heat wave” in January, or just an afternoon rain storm: I am often in the dark.

I don’t recall what specific weather recently alerted me to this pattern in my life, but when I did take notice, I realized it was a quite frequent occurrence.

What does this say about me? Why do I not care to know what weather is coming our way?

Sometimes I do, of course. You’ll recall that we have an ice rink in our back yard, so leading up to that I am frequently looking ahead for below-freezing temperatures. AND, sometimes in the summertime I will check ahead to see if there’s any relief on the way (heat and I do not enjoy each other’s company…)

Winter storm snow on treesBut in general, things like the snow dump named Nemo (that is still coming down as I type this) often come as a pleasant surprise to me.

What I think is, this matches my personality—or perhaps, a learned pattern of behavior?—in other areas as well.

I do not wear a watch. I do not really own a cell phone. If I am late, it’s often because I am engaged with someone else (or for someone else) prior to the appointment to which I have now become late.

There is at the core of my being, a desire to be here and now. Not in the next place, or in a previous place… now.

I don’t think that checking the weather for next week means you’re not living in the now, but my habit of not thinking about checking, or forgetting to… is consistent with a life philosophy of being where I’m at.

Various things in life keep reminding me that we are finite beings. We are located to a time and place. We are here. We are now. We are capable of thinking of the future and the past, but sometimes that makes us less. Not always, of course, but sometimes. Usually it’s when the not-here is clouded by some fear. Worry about the future, or regret/shame/guilt from the past.

Thinking ahead can also be dreaming, though. Dreaming is good. It spurs us on, forward. And memories of the past can warm our hearts and encourage us in the now, as well. I love history! It’s wonderful to remember the good things that have been, even “reliving” them again in our hearts and minds.

Yet I think we are made for the now. Right there where you are. Right now. There must be something in our nature that is uncomfortable with that, no? We are so easily distracted by what is coming next (and sometimes by what we’ve been through).

But, oh, to be surprised by the now! That’s the joy of not checking the weather, or the clock, or the phone. It’s here, where you are, who you’re with. That is the richest experience we can have, I believe.

So, I do sometimes check the weather widget on my Mac OS X Dashboard. (Sometimes I’ll learn of a coming storm through friends who do check the weather on Facebook, and post some pithy comments about the impending… fun.) But I’m glad to still be surprised by what comes next in life. And I don’t think that will change.

I mean, who doesn’t love surprises? 🙂

by Greg

Life Is In The Moments

emmas-lettersIt’s not uncommon to see some very cute things happening here in the Campbell household. There are, after all, several cute people, who often think of cute things to do. And so, there are many chances for cuteness!

Last night during dinner clean up, I happened to spot one.

Most times I might have corrected this, but somehow this time—lucky for me—I was able to see through the duty-shirking to the cuteness of the moment.

Emma is a “go-getter”. No way around that. She’s the one tugging on Mom to get her to practice reading with her. She picks up the pen, or the crayon—or the Sharpee® marker!—to practice writing her name. (And, being left-handed, as well as being three or four years old, she often has an interesting way of doing so. See below…)

emmas-personal-project

She had volunteered to help the “Clean Up Team” for the night, but shortly thereafter, a purple dry erase marker—her favorite color—caught her eye, and she knew just what she had to do.

I spotted her about half-way through the alphabet. Some letters were very well drawn, others were perfectly written—but backwards. (Commonplace for our little four-year-old beauty.) But there they were, painstakingly created with the greatest care for each stroke…

Upon the clean-up check list. 🙂

emma-toes

These are the fun moments, especially when I have the eyes of a Father more than a Task Master, when joy is free to be. The kitchen was still cleaned. Perhaps it was a tad slower minus the help of Emma’s tiny hands, but the task was still accomplished.

emmas-doodlesAnd Emma’s heart smiled at her accomplishment, and the joy of living in the moment.

And my heart was gladdened by it, too.

I hope that by posting it here, yours is also.

Look for these moments in your life. Whether you’re the one who spots the grand opportunity of a dry erase marker in your favorite color—and the perfect spot to put it to use—or you’re the one who gets to watch the joy of the moment unfold. (Or, maybe you’re the one who tells the tale to share the joy with others?)

Life is in the moments.

I’m so glad I didn’t miss this one last night.

by Greg

Growing Up

Campbells long agoWe here at the Campbell home are experiencing the winds of change. I think perhaps we have been for quite a while now, but I’ve been noticing it again lately.

Life moves quickly. In some ways, too quickly.

For everything there is a season,
a time for every activity under heaven.
—Ecclesiastes 3:1

Yeah. That’s the other thing that keeps coming up: Seasons.

We live in a climate where the weather reminds us of the benefit of the cycle of seasons. From the snows that bury all of life in a fluffy blanket of white powder, to the beauty of spring in all its colorful splendor, to the heat of summer that produces a bounty of edible sunshine, to the more subdued colorful beauty of fall where we enjoy the harvest, the cooler days, and well… pretty much everything about fall! (Yes, that is my favorite!)

And just like there is beauty in every season of weather and the repeating cycles that are evidence of our never-ending annual circuit around the sun, there is beauty in every season of life in our home.

Campbells nowThe scene above was from another time. Those boys are fourteen and eleven and a half years old now. A decade of life has been lived. I’d have to call it a full decade, though I know that we could not possibly have lived more life than anyone else. But since I am the one who lived it, I have all the memories. I know all that has passed here in those years.

I know of the lives gained. (Do you see all those amazing people in the second picture here?) I know of the losses. I know of the successes and failures. I know of the dreams that were not realized, and the ones that were. (Including ones we didn’t initiate.)

As I pondered the current seasons I saw under our roof, I also thought ahead to the seasons that are now not too far off.

Ian, our oldest, is definitely in a different season—and so, then, are we with him—and in less than two years, he’ll be sixteen years old. He’s already developing his own strengths, and likes, and even goals and dreams for his life. He’s begun the transition toward his own adult life, to be sure. With aspirations of God bringing him a wife, and buying a home, and raising a family… I considered that all of that could quite feasibly occur even in the next decade.

That’s astounding!

I was then time-shifted a decade ahead, pondering that somewhat distant season. Cam, the youngest, would be a teenager. Thirteen years old, and the youngest of four teenagers.

Wait. Let’s let that sink in.

Is it still sinking? Go ahead… I’ll give you a moment. Yes, four teenagers. At one time. Under one roof.

Alright. Moving on …

At the same time, Alex will be about to turn twenty-one years old; a significant age in our culture. (Though we Campbells are not very much bound to any cultural expectations or limitations attached to chronological age. But that’s for another post…)

And Ian? He’ll be twenty-four years old.

When I was twenty-four, I was becoming a father. To Ian. (My dad became a father to me when he was twenty-four.)

So, when Ian has children… that means I will be Grandpa! Wowee!

At this point in my fancying the future, I decided I should slow down and return to the current season. It was getting a little too wacky! Time to return to the present and enjoy the current season!

But that’s just it. That’s the greatest thing about the seasons: we’re not really in one place for too long.

It’s been a (full) short decade since the two tiny boys were the only ones scurrying around our home. (And around the country at that point!) So much life was fit into that short time span. So much more will be lived in the years to come.

And who’s to say what that next decade will bring?

I can dream of what will be, but I can not know it. I don’t know what will happen to us or in us over the next season of life, nor do I even know if we will remain in this world. There’s never any guarantee of that.

So we fondly remember and relive the seasons we’ve come through, and we can even dream of seasons that may be, but with no assurance of what will come, the best place we can be is right here, right now; living fully in the season(s) of life right now.

I feel like this is an ever-present theme in my life, and so on this blog. Don’t you?

Perhaps it’s just the season I am in.

I don’t know what the future will hold, but as I approach the completion of four decades of life on this planet, I do know that it goes fast, and it’s full of really good and also really hard things.

And through it all, Father is with us.

That is our hope, and the one constant we have through all of these seasons.

I actually don’t mind getting older. It’s so amazing to watch life unfold before me. First my own, and all that Jesus wants me to know along my own path. Then in my marriage to Jen, watching him work in her, and in us. And after that to watch the seasons of life develop in our six children. What a privilege to be part of it, and to watch, encourage, train, and cheer on those young and growing lives.

At least, for this season.

And maybe a few more.

by Greg

Backyard Ice Rink: Update 2013

Backyard ice rinkIt was the best of times, it was the worst of times…

Well, actually, this year it has not been the worst of times. Sure, we’ve had our travails, but nothing like last year.

This year’s version of the backyard ice rink has been much more successful thanks to wisdom gained from past experience (read: failures) and thanks in larger part to the weather actually cooperating this winter!

(Ice rinks will always fail when the temperature is rarely below freezing.)

In that we’ve had a much more normal winter, temperature-wise, we’ve been able to actually use our rink, and I think learn a bit more for next year, too. For example, we’ve been able to experiment with resurfacing the ice, keeping it cleaned off, and even learned that snow blowers are NOT an ice rink’s friend.

If you’ll recall, last year we (meaning, I) forgot to re-measure the rink dimensions after we extended it… leaving us very short with the pre-measured plastic! Oh boy! Then there was the 14-inch plus difference from one end of the rink to the other, leaving us with no water in one end of the rink.

Wow. We had plenty of issues last year.

There were some things we learned and improved this year, though.

hockey02

What Worked Well

We had plenty of lumber, a three-year supply of good quality plastic liner, and we moved the rink to a flatter section of our back yard. (Unfortunately that flatter section is a little smaller, so the rink measures roughly 20′ x 34′ this year. Last year it was more like 30′ x 42′, I believe.)

We were able to fill the flatter, smaller rink in less than a day (much shorter than last time) and we got it filled just before a string of sub-freezing days. And so, as you can see, we’ve been able to use our back yard ice rink this year! Fantastic!

ice

What Has NOT Worked…

Like last year, we’ve had our share of failures—though thankfully smaller. Failures are of course the best way to learn, so we’re reminding ourselves of the proverbial silver lining. In this case, I do believe it’s working. (Already looking forward to version 3.0 next winter!)

One thing we’ve learned is that, thought the flatter ground was great, it also happens to be under several trees. This is not a good idea. Throughout the winter so far, leaves and branches have regularly fallen down into the rink. The leaves are certainly unattractive; they are also trouble when they freeze into the ice near the surface. That leaves rough spots at least, and even cracked spots or bumps. Not good.

Also, when the rink was initally freezing, we got nearly two feet of snow dumped on us, all at once. This was good, except that the snow blower had to throw the snow somewhere …

You don’t want to throw it on your rink!!!

We had bumpy ice there for a month! Couldn’t get the ice smoothed out on the side where the snowblower had blown its snow. Definitely be careful with your snow blowing!

Lastly, when first setting up the rink, we have been using the plastic as a sort of “binding” for all the boards. This works fine once the water is in, but then you just have a strange, shallow pool in your backyard until the temperature gets below freezing. (And this allows for more leaves and sticks to collect on the bottom of your strange, shallow pool.) For some reason, I never considered not putting the plastic liner down until it was time to fill the rink! (Which can be done even after the temperature drops below freezing. (Might even be better that way?)

We have been able to use the hose to add layers of water, smoothing out the used and/or bumpy ice surface. That part is good… the bad part is when the hose gets left outside in sub-zero temperatures! Oops! We recovered the hose at the next thaw, but it was lost for a few weeks there.

girls-ice-skating

Live (Do) and Learn

That’s a funny phrase, “Live and learn” … it’s not actually true unless your “living” includes doing. So, we’ve been “doing” for a couple years now, and we have a fun winter of ice-capades to show for it, and several noggins full of backyard-ice-rink knowledge to put to good use next winter. We should have a fantastic rink in year three! Look out!

A quick check of the 10-day forecast shows plenty of lows in the 20s, so there should be some more ice rink fun in our near future. Nice!

If you like ice sports … we Campbells highly recommend you try this project in your own back yard!

hockey01

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: We’ve Got It All Wrong!

Bill of RightsOK, I admit. That’s just a fun, “grab-your-attention” kind of headline.

But it’s not far from the real truth. At least for many of us U. S. Americans.

The first amendment protection of free speech, and more specifically the part about freedom of religion was the central part of an interesting discussion the other day.

It began innocently enough with me overhearing a conversation about how the Constitution might be applied in a case regarding State versus Federal powers. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal government’s power over the People, and also over the individual States’ governments.

That’s not very well understood today, by my reckoning.

Back to the scenario that was unfolding. One party was trying to suppose what outlandish bill might be passed by a state legislation, which, in context might have had something to do with religious activities, perhaps in schools. The other party suggested that perhaps the bill might try to instate mandatory school prayer. At this, the first party scoffed, rigidly stating that the Constitution would clearly prohibit such a thing. To which the second party responded—though backing off, slightly—that it might be possible at the state level. Party One maintained his unyielding stance that it was a definite violation of the Constitution to require prayer in a public school.

So, I thought, Actually, the second guy is kind of right—though, no state would ever require such a thing—that the states are free to pass such bills and laws, if they so choose. The federal government can not interfere with this if a state would choose to do so.

This is where I decided to join the conversation.

At first, Party One stuck to the, uh, “party line” of zero allowance for anything which could be seen as religious being mandated by the states, because the Constitution prohibits such a possibility. I maintained that while I thought that was an awful idea that would never even be attempted, it was not unconstitutional.

Let’s examine the First Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The only other mention of religion in the Constitution is that there would be no “religious test” for becoming a congressman.

Today we interpret that one sentence above to mean that any public institution, office, official, or representative—any entity with any connection to any level of government—can not in any way espouse, promote, endorse, or engage in any activity which might be construed as “religious”.

But that’s not what it says at all, really.

I’m getting off track here. We can revisit the First Amendment in tomorrow’s post. Let’s stick to the topic: Federal vs. State powers.

Specifically, can the Federal government overrule a State government’s law or proclamation, or any such legislation intended for its citizens?

Thomas Jefferson is an interesting example here. When he was Governor of the State of Virginia, he called for a day of thanksgiving and prayer on December 9, 1779, saying:

“I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th of December next, a day of publick and solemn Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending that all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the day for those said purposes… (signed) Thomas Jefferson” [ref]

But as the third President of the United States, he said the following on the same (similar) subject:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. …But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from…civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” [ref]

Fascinating, huh? Doesn’t this seem to be two different ideas? Was Jefferson under duress when, as Governor, he wrote and signed that very religious-sounding proclamation of a day of Thanksgiving and Prayer for his state (the Commonwealth of Virginia)? Or did he just change his mind? I should think not the latter because he was the author of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, which is one of the three lifetime achievements he wanted inscribed on his gravestone at Monticello. (A list which conspicuously does not include being President of the United States.)

Well, as it turns out, that’s not all there was to it.

I dug a bit more, and read a bit more, and found the full text for that response to Samuel Miller, quoted incompletely on the Monticello website (and above). It would seem that context would give us a much more clear picture of why Mr. Jefferson did not think it was his place (nor that of the “General Government”) to be “intermeddling with religious institutions”.

I know this is a bit long already, but I’d really like for you to read the following in its entirety.

Washington, Jan. 23, 08
Sir,

—I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect. (Emphasis mine.)

Jefferson very clearly stated that (1) religious freedom, and the power to hold that, belonged with the people (and religious institutions) and the Constitution “deposited it” there, (2) that states “might” have the right to declare a public day of thanksgiving and prayer, but that (3) the general (federal) government, most certainly does not. So says the Constitution. (As well as one of the most ardent supporters of religious liberty.)

The main point for this first installment of Constitutionally Speaking is that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government supreme power. That is not and never was the intent. The intent of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to grant some limited power to a federal governement that represented all the individual States as the United States of America. It was a compact created by the People, and the authority remained with the People and their State governments and representatives.

We have lost that today, in my opinion. It seems more that we view the power residing in Washington, and doled out as those in charge from there see fit.

That’s not how our government is supposed to function, however:

James Madison said as much in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [ref]

That does not sound like a government over the People, does it?

No. And that’s where we came from, and who we still are.

It’s essential that we have a proper understanding of our founding documents, but too often we just think we do. It is more common to find that someone has a second- or third-hand understanding of American governement, learned through a long-ago high school history course, or perhaps (and far worse) learned from some partisan commentator on talk radio or the internet. (And even worse than that… on TV!)

Original sources are the only way we can truly know history. Thankfully, we have those original sources very readily available to us. It may take more time and effort, but it’s definitely worth it, and will preserve the freedoms we have going forward, generation to generation.

Tomorrow I want to explore the First Amendment more in-depth. I hope you’ll join me! And please do add your thoughts in the comments below.

AND, lastly, and paramount: please find, purchase, own, and read the original documents! (Many of them are free in digital version!)

See you here tomorrow!

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: Freedom of Religion (not FROM religion)

Freedom From Religion? Or, Freedom OF ReligionToday we often think of the First Amendment as restricting all forms of any religion in the public forum; it being essential to our freedom of religion—that all may worship, or not worship, as they see fit, without being forced to do so by any government hand.

A simple reading of the actual amendment will clearly show that this was not its intent; rather it was included in the founding documents to allow unrestricted practice of any and all religion. So, the federal government can not say you can’t pray in schools. That’s the part we have backwards… it’s meant to allow greater freedom, not provide more restriction.

Let’s look at the Amendment again, focusing on the first sentence:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, to the point of yesterday’s initial question: while a state would almost certainly never propose a bill mandating prayer in schools, a local, smaller community might? And the First Amendment protects them in that, at least, as I read it.

The words, “Congress shall establish no religion” do not prevent any religious symbol or words or ceremony from being present in any federal or state (or local) government event or edifice. So much the opposite. If the People want to express a religious belief or sentiment, they are protected in doing so by this First Amendment.

The biggest thing that so many of us have completely backwards in our general opinion of government today is where the power rests: with the People.

The federal government is granted very specific and limited powers by the Constitution. When the framers of the Constitution were determining the structure of our government, it was entirely without any “rights” specifically assigned to the People. That’s because, the government can not grant rights to the people.

Some argued that putting any rights in such a document implies that they do originate with the government, but in the end, the majority wanted to ensure that they were present in our foundational documents. The first ten amendments were added in 1791—two years after the ratification of the original Constitution in 1789. [ref]

James Madison warned against the idea of including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution thusly:

It has been accurately noted that bills of rights began as an agreement between a king and his subjects that limited the king’s powers in favor of privileges of his subjects; or in other words, they were a defense of the rights which had not been surrendered to the prince…

In this country the People surrender nothing, and since they retain everything, they have no need for a Bill of Rights. ‘We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America’: this is a better recognition of popular rights than all the many truths which represent the bulk of our state bills of rights… Federalist No. 84

Again, the Constitution which established the US Federal government can not grant rights to its citizens, since it is the People in the first place who hold the rights, and grant any power at all to their federal representatives.

Each state and local community should be free to establish their own laws (or, to have fewer laws) without the federal constitution limiting that.

It is really very interesting—so fascinating—how our thinking about government has changed over the two hundred plus years since our founding, and yet, the Constitution is still in place, and still holds us together; protecting all of our rights, at least for now.

We’ve all heard and seen the stories about guns. One side wants to eliminate senseless killing by removing the weapon (through legislation and even, in some cases, by government force), while another fights to protect a right which was spelled out by these amendments. (Maybe the framers were on to something with this hesitation to list specific rights?) Often the anti-gun people will allow for gun ownership for hunting, but the Second Amendment was written—as was most all of the entire Constitution—to greatly limit the powers granted to the Federal government, and ensure that it remained with the People.

That really can’t be stated too often, nor too strongly.

An interesting side note here involves a post-Civil War amendment to the constitution, which has been the grounds for many Supreme Court ruling which would seem to reverse the initial intent of Madison and the other framers of the Constitution. I will discuss more of the States vs. Federal powers application tomorrow, including how much of that was greatly—perhaps “officially”—shifted following the Civil War.

It is essential to remember that the Bill of Rights does not establish rights of the People; rather, it calls out some specific rights which are not to be abridged, abrogated, or breached. The emphasis was and must always be on the rights being inherent to We the People, not granted by any government or authority other than our Creator.

Also, proper context is always important. From our modern perspective, we must reconsider the definition of “religion”.

Today we hear that word and think of world religions like Christianity (in all of its forms, as one), Islam, Buddhism, etc. However, at the time of its writing, the first amendment was speaking more toward the various Christian denominations present in the individual States of the Union. (Though, not to the exclusion of any religions other than Christianity.) The amendment states that Congress (federal) was prohibited from establishing any one religion, thereby restricting in any way the “free exercise” of religion by the peoples of the States, whom were of many different “religions”; meaning, denominations.

Today we are quick to sound the alarm if any government representative does or suggests anything that smells like religion. However, it’s probably more of an affront to the Constitution to restrict such things, including prayer in schools.

Mandating is definitely a step beyond allowing, and, fourteenth amendment precedent would probably rule in favor of individual States not having the authority to mandate school prayer on the grounds that it might appear to be “establishing” one “religion” over any others.

Such was not the original intent of the Constitution.

Tomorrow will conclude this series, looking more in-depth at the separation of powers between State and Federal governments, and how it has changed over the two centuries of our existence. It’s quite a striking contrast, and very interesting to see what factors have pushed us more toward a centralized, more powerful federal government, and one that grants rights to People, rather than the other way around, and how that affects the way we view and interact with our government today.

A straightforward reading of the First Amendment should lead one to conclude only one thing: it exists to preserve the extant, natural rights of the People; rights that were never, and are never to be breached by the government established by the Constitution: the US Federal Government.

Note: The modernized version of the quote from Federalist No. 84 was taken from The Original Argument: The Federalists’ Case for the Constitution Adapted for the 21st Century., a book we highly recommend!

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: The States Have It (as do the People)

Thomas JeffersonIf you are a fan of history, and perhaps also an American citizen—both of which I am—then I hope you’ve enjoyed this look at our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as seen through the eyes, words, and actions of the people who constructed it. It’s very interesting to see where we’ve come from, how it began, and even the direction we are going.

I am certainly no authority on this subject, but I’ve spent a good amount of time (even as I wrote these articles) studying original sources and commentaries upon those. I would definitely encourage you to do the same if you are made curious by what I’ve written, or find that you wholeheartedly disagree!

Regarding the pursuit of truth, even in regards to theology and religion, Thomas Jefferson advised:

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

It’s up to each of us to learn what we believe, and why we believe it. And never be afraid to question it.

In this series, we’ve looked at the initial question—whether or not the federal government has the authority to limit what laws an individual State can or can not pass—as well, we have considered whether the Bill of Rights grants rights, or protects them.

And now we come to the conclusion.

The central point to the current Constitutionally Speaking series (I, II, III) has been to understand the original intent of the Constitution. When it was written, the framers hoped to grant very limited powers to the federal government, while the states would each retain “numerous and indefinite” powers.

James Madison said as much in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [ref]

In the first part of this series, I quoted Thomas Jefferson several times as I feel that he was a great example of this strong conviction that the Federal government should not have powers over the States, other than any specifically granted to it. Jefferson was an anti-federalist: he was opposed to a strong central government. The Federalists were the framers of the Constitution (thus the Federalist Papers, explaining the reasoning behind the Constitution) but one of the hallmarks of the document was that all members of the Constitutional Convention made every effort to come to complete agreement—Federalist and Anti-Federalist alike; consensus, rather than just a majority vote. Thus was born a limited, central (Federal, general) government, designed to function as the representative of all the states in four areas: common defense, preservation of peace (domestic and foreign), regulation of domestic (interstate) and foreign commerce, and diplomacy with other nations. [ref]

In this last edition of this series, I have one last Jefferson quote for you. This one is from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, when Kentucky successfully brought a grievance against the General Government for overstepping its authority:

That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. [ref]

And all of that is to say: the States, and the People, still hold ultimate, final, and also primary power.

The Constitution was written to bring together several autonomous states under one “general government”. It’s purpose was to spell out the compact between those states, and those people, to be one entity—one people.

Somewhere along the way (many places, actually) we moved from a place where we were many states joined as one (e pluribis unum?) to one very large “state”, commanding and governing from the central head: Washington.

That’s not what we were designed to be. The Constitution allows for, or more accurately, attempts to preserve a government closer to the people. Local and state governments, comprised of neighbors. True representatives. (We are not a democracy. The United States federal government is a federal republic. It is a group of representatives from other states/entities.)

This was fundamentally lost during the Civil War. It was, in fact, the primary cause and reason for the Civil War. The south, as wrong as they were about slavery, believed strongly in states rights and autonomy. The north believed more closely what the Federalists believed: a strong central government was essential to a strong Union. The north was victorious (which was good for preserving our union, and of course for finally abolishing slavery) and thus was cemented the United States of America in its current form.

Prior the the Civil War, the country was refered to in the plural: “The United States are…” Following the War, that phrase became, “The United States is…” [ref] Hear the difference? We are no longer one from many, we are just one.

When one examines the way our country was first established, and the intended separation of powers, it’s rather fascinating to see how much we’ve changed over time. It seems now rather commonplace to think that Washington or the federal government is our supreme authority. As we’ve seen, power was originally supposed to be remain more with the state and local governments—and of course, the People. This allows for a much more diverse—and free?—people overall.

But, as the saying goes, “Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”

When we first saw the need as a nation to cede some of our autonomy to a central government in order to exist and survive as a society or a nation, we allowed for the possibility of ceding more and more power to that created entity. Our Constitution provides amazing checks and balances, and separations of power, and multiple devices for ensuring, as best as possible, that the power remains first with the People. And yet today, the People generally operate as though the government has primary power and authority, which it then grants to the People (generally bypassing the States entirely).

This has occurred, in my opinion, simply as a result of that first “foot in the door” of drafting and ratifying the Constitution—great as that document may be. But it has progressed thanks to the desire within Man’s spirit to be led, to have a King. (See here, and here for more on that.)

Also helping us toward a view of our federal government as the more centralized authority are several Supreme Court decisions as well as constitutional amendments throughout the generations.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution has often been interpreted to grant primacy to Federal law (power) when any conflict with State law might exist. The First Amendment has often triggered the use of this Clause to determine where the authority lies, as far back as cases in 1803. Subsequent cases and rulings [example], as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, followed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal [ref], have all led us to a place where we see the Federal government as supreme, and continue to move it towards greater power, primacy and supremacy.

At some point we might discover that we have ceded too much power.

For now, we Americans are definitely one of the most free people and civilizations of all time. Our Constitution is still the basis for preserving and protecting that freedom. We are a people governed by Rule of Law, not a privileged class or other type of nobility. This ensures the opportunity of fairness and equal justice for all.

Many attempts are made to undermine that. (Lust for power is a strong force, as is the desire for comfort and safety.) Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well Doctor what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” His reply? “A republic, if you can keep it.” He is also credited with saying, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Freedom is our God-given right; unalienable. However, to coexist with others as a nation, as a republic—the United States of America—we must work to preserve that freedom. Knowledge of the original intent is essential, as well as a foundation in the understanding that neither we nor any government, whether of our own construct or forced upon us are ultimately in authority over us. God the Creator is our supreme authority, and one reason that our republic has survived is that He and the ways of his Kingdom were central to the worldview of the Framers.

But that’s for another series… 🙂

I encourage you to find the original sources mentioned or linked here. Own a copy if possible. Read, understand, and pass along.

And in that way, you can be part of perserving our liberties, from generation to generation.

by Greg

End Of The Lindy Line

Lindy Ruff of the Buffalo SabresThe Buffalo Sabres announced today that they have “relieved Lindy Ruff of his coaching duties”.

That is the “nice” way of saying, “We fired him.”

It’s been asked for, begged for, longed for, pined for, and even fully expected for a few seasons now. Sabres fans (and players?) have felt the need for change due to the teams year after year being appropriately labeled “Underachievers”.

Actually, it is only because of loyalty to the man who has spent 25 years of his life with the Sabres organization, both as a player (1979-1989) and as its head coach (1997-2013) that he was still employed by the team.

Strange. Writing that closing date for Ruff’s coaching career felt a bit like an obituary just now.

Prior to today’s announcement, Ruff had been the second-longest tenured coach in American pro sports. Now the silver medal would currently go to Barry Trotz of the Nashville Predators. (This could be the proverbial writing on the wall for Mr. Trotz…)

I actually remember the day, as a long-time Sabres fan, when the team went through coaches as fast as their Buffalo pro-sports counterpart have in the last decade and a half, or so. Rick Dudley, John Muckler, Ted Nolan… all fine coaches, actually. But they all only lasted a few years, then they were “let go”.

Lindy Ruff 1998But not Ruff. His record at his departure: 571-432-162. That’s one thousand, one hundred and sixty-five games. That, folks, is rather impressive. Even if you’re not a fan of his coaching of late (or ever) you’d have to give at least a slight tip of the hat to his incredible longevity. (And a winning percentage of .560 over that span, as well.)

Only three coaches in NHL history have coached more than a thousand games with the same team.

The Sabres have replaced Ruff with Ron Rolston, who was the head coach for their farm club, the Rochester Americans, up until about 5pm ET today.

And thus begins a new era.

I’m not really sure what to expect. I am an eternal optimist, and even I have been saying for a few weeks now, “I guess it’s time they fire Ruff!” The players have been lackluster (by many accounts) in several of their games this season. The 2013 season began well, with two straight wins, but since then the Sabres are 4-10-1.

Some of their wins have been fantastic. A 7-4 win in Boston, scoring four goals in the third, and overcoming a 3-1 second-period deficit as well. They’ve even looked pretty good in at least a couple of the losses: this past Sunday 4-3 to Pittsburgh, and a loss to the Ottawa Senators by the same score a couple weeks prior.

Were the players purposely not playing their best or their hardest to force management’s hand? Did they hope to see Ruff’s tenure severed?

No one can know that but the players.

We will now test that theory beginning tomorrow. The Rolston era will begin in Buffalo.

Boy, that sounds weird.

I look forward to seeing a new and different Sabres team. It can only get better, right?

And I wish the man, Lindy Ruff, who has lived for a while now in one of my home towns (Clarence, NY) only the best. Whether he coaches somewhere else or not—the affirmative being most likely—he will be forever admired and loved by the Buffalo community.

He’s a bit of an icon.

And now he’s gone. May he rest in peace.

Well, at least, his longest tenured coach bit.