Incorporate this!

It seems like every news program and radio station is talking about this ground zero mosque non-stop. I have heard a number of arguments on all fronts and I think it’s worthy of expressing some of my thoughts on it. First of all is this an issue of property rights and the right of association? Is this a 1st amendment issue of religious freedom, sensitivity, Islamaphobia? Regardless of how you come down on the issue, it seems as if people are very emotional in the arguments for and against the building of this mosque. First of all we look to the constitution and through the 1st and 10th amendments we can plainly see the federal government has no say whatsoever in whether a church, synagogue, or mosque gets built in any city. The 1st amendment bans the federal government from being involved in any way and this is an issue for State and local governments, in this case NY City.


What about the supremacy clause and the incorporation doctrine? This to me is the bigger issue here more than anything else. For years now we have people from the political right and left rely on this concept that federal law is supreme over local laws (in violation of the 10th amendment) In an attempt to create national policy on everything from marriage to gun control. As an example; people on the left say the 4th amendment guarantees a “right to privacy” which is the primary justification for abortion and they have already succeeded to enshrine this into our laws. Conservatives on the other hand shouted and rejoiced over the recent Chicago gun ban overturned by the Supreme Court, which was done with the justification that the 2nd amendment is “incorporated” and “supreme” to any local law or ordinance that placed restrictions on gun ownership. Both conservatives and liberals are wrong on these issues, because these decisions are not consistent with a republican form of government guaranteed by the constitution. In plain words, we don’t get to run to the federal government every time our State and local governments pass a law we don’t like. The little “r” republican solution is that we petition our local governments to change the law, vote for different people, and in a worst case scenario we move to a different city or state. If we continue to turn over the power to make those decisions to the federal government we have to live with whatever they enshrine into law. If they make really bad policy there is no escape unless you leave the country completely.

Common sense tells us that a State or City government has a right to prohibit guns in some places (like a court house) and can place restrictions on who may own guns (mentally disabled and violent criminals). Common sense would also tell us that not everything that happens in”private” is free from prosecution. In the case of this mosque, it would be perfectly acceptable for any city government to create zoning ordinances and allow or disallow the construction of any religious building in places they deem appropriate. I can’t walk into Fenton city hall and demand that I have a 1st amendment right to build a mega church any place within the city limits that I want. This mosque issue is not a 1st amendment issue and the people asking that the developers reconsider the site are not necessarily islamaphobes. NY City has made their decision and the 9/11 families and other New Yorkers are making their opinions heard. As long as the issue stays within this realm, it sounds perfectly acceptable and constitutional to me. I’m afraid at some point this type of case will end up before the Supreme Court to consider 1st amendment issues and in that day, I fear, a little more of our liberty will be taken from us. Living within a republican form of government is not always easy because we don’t get to scapegoat some “higher authority” like the federal government, but we have to actually go out and talk to our neighbors that work as city councilmen and State representatives. Having the form of government envisioned by our founders does not guarantee perfection, it only protects against an out of control central authority.

fides quaerens intellectum

libido Dominandi

The term power corrupts is so overused that I think the term has lost any real significance it might have once had.  I believe people have literally become numb to the notion that once a person gains a position of authority that they immediately use that power to domineer over others.  It is most significant in civics where an endless parade of politicians shower us with platitudes and slogans about giving power back to the people, fighting special interests, and my personal favorite “I’m going to fight for you”.  I’m more likely to witness an alien abduction than a politician fight to limit their own authority.  Just in case you think this is a new phenomenon, it’s not because throughout human history every society eventually ends up with government that rules with dominance over its citizens. This was even true among our nations very own founding fathers.  Many of the same men that vociferously argued during the ratification debates that federal authority was to be limited to the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 and who codified the bill of rights, began to seize authority not granted by our constitution.  How on earth could the alien and sedition acts signed by John Adams square with the 1^st amendment right to free speech?

 1,600 years ago, around the time of the collapse of the old Roman Empire, many of those still practicing polytheism and worshipping the “old gods” blamed the fall of the empire on Christianity. The problem in their view was that Christians did not adhere to the superiority of the state.  Saint Augustine wrote a brilliant defense of Christianity in a series of books called the City of God where he contrasts the City of Heaven and the City of The World. Augustine pointed out to the Romans that even Plato taught that mankind does not owe his allegiance to the societies of this world.  He challenged the Romans that mankind had to choose which society they wanted to be a part of.  In Augustine's view being a citizen of the kingdom of heaven is where ones true allegiance should lie, because only then can man live peaceably together under God’s authority.  He explains that living in the city of man, would subject humankind to live under man’s rules and domination or as he put it “it is itself ruled by the lust of rule”. In the Latin this concept is translated as Libido Dominandi or the lust to dominate.  Starting in the book of Genesis we see that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience and when that occurred, the natural order of the world was thrown into chaos.  God’s plan was for man to have dominion (where we get the root word dominate)over all of the earth and that mankind himself was different in that we were made in the image of God and  that people were not to be ruled by other people.  We could even make the argument that in today’s society we are encouraged to give up our right to dominion over the earth and at the same time we are to submit our own authority to other people in the form of human government (backwards from God’s design).  The lust to dominate is no different than any other kind of lust. You ask “how could that guy I voted for go back on his promises and force something like that on us?”  Politicians are no different than a man that means his vows of marriage when he makes them but ends up cheating with another woman. He was overtaken by lust.  



fides quaerens intellectum

Black Helicopters and Tin Foil Hats

My reason for discussing the paradox of value in my last entry was to set up a discussion of the bigger picture; “the system”. Whenever you start talking about a big grand conspiracy occurring right under our noses, you immediately get folks wary of tin foil hats and looking out windows for unmarked black helicopters. We’ve all probably heard enough crazy conspiracy theories to keep us entertained for days, but the reality is we are living in perilous times and many of us are suffering under the weight of our “benevolent” government masters.  Gone are the days of hard work and rugged individualism, as government dependency and mediocrity rule the day. Bit by bit, the liberties that allowed our ancestors the ability to choose their own paths has been eaten away and we are all herded like sheep into the lives chosen for us by government as opposed to the life we are called to by our creator. If you happen to survive 13 years in the government controlled school system you will likely graduate with a completely distorted view of history, and although the distortions might vary a little it will no doubt reinforce what the government wants us all to believe, that government is good and liberty is bad.  From the time we are born our names are immediately entered into the government database and we are assigned an (I get to pay taxes) number.  Kids these days are told they must go to college and get a degree no matter how much debt they accumulate to do it. While they are racking up this monstrous burden they are told “don’t worry your degree is golden, you will be entitled to a high paying job”.  If these twentysomethings happen to land a job, they are then told “you need to buy a house because it’s a great investment and they never go down in value”.  From the minute you enter the work force, you are conscripted to pay into the bankrupt government controlled retirement and medical plans in an attempt to get you vested in the concept of an expansive federal government. The central banks control the monetary system, manipulating the ability to accumulate real wealth while they pump up bubble after bubble. While you soldier on like a good little drone, the government colludes with certain elements of big business and big banking to enrich themselves at your expense. “But it’s okay, the government will protect us”.  Let me remind you of the ominous words of Vladimir Lennon: "The best way to destroy the Capitalist System is to debauch the currency and the way to crush the Bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation".

 I am not fatalistic when it comes to our current state of affairs, after all Jesus told us that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). As Christians we are told to live in God’s kingdom and not the world system.  Paul went on to tell us not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by renewing our minds (Romans 12:2). I believe it is high time for Christians to shake off the bonds of government imposed slavery and begin to live the life that God has called them to.  Perhaps the system will move forward unabated, and we as believers will have to live under God’s authority. Maybe we can take back some of the power and change it through political activism (I really don’t know).  I would like to think a wave of independence will rush over the citizens of our great nation and we would begin to humble ourselves and look to God as the one who gives us everything we have and reject this government idolatry. This will entail tough choices, choices that I am frankly not sure people will make. However we get there it will only start one way, and that is with you. 

fides quaerens intellectum

Diamonds And Water

Value is a difficult concept to gauge. We regularly find ourselves at ballgames, theme parks, and movie theaters and we say openly “I would never pay those kinds of prices” and yet we still end up purchasing the $7 popcorn, $6 hotdog, and the $4 bottled water. The truth is that value is a completely subjective term, depending on the individual desires of people with differing value systems. Adam Smith who is known to many as the father of capitalism wrote in his famous work the Wealth of Nations about the paradox of diamonds and water. Water is very useful, in fact necessary for life or as economists explain, it has a high degree of utility. Although water is incredibly necessary it has a very low cost. Diamonds on the other hand are only used for adornment, are not necessary for life at all and yet they have a very high price. Why would this be? In the nineteenth century, Austrian economist such as, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk developed the theories regarding the law of diminishing marginal utility to explain this paradox or rather clarified that it is a natural law, based on human action. He explains the law this way. A frontiersman has 5 sacks of grain and with the first sack he will make bread to survive. With the 2nd sack he will make bread to get strong so he can work. With the 3rd sack he will feed his livestock, with the 4th he will make whisky, and with the 5th sack he will feed the pigeons. If somebody steals one of the sacks of grain, the farmer does not reduce all his activities by one fifth to adjust, but rather he stops worrying about feeding the pigeons. If he loses two sacks, he’ll stop distilling whisky. It actually has nothing to do with the utility of the item, but rather the relative value of a unit of water vs a unit of diamonds. This explanation relies on the basic concepts of supply and demand. If you have something that is rare or in very limited supply it costs much more than something that is in abundant supply, regardless of its usefulness or importance. Everybody makes value judgments about what is most important and these decisions are always made on the margins. The 1st sack of grain is the most valuable to the farmer, because it is literally equal to the value of his life.



So you may be asking yourself, why the economics lesson? Most people don’t tend to think about the decisions they make in terms of value as these determinations are merely a gut feeling. Nobody likes to think of themselves like a commodity along the lines of a bushel of green beans or a barrel of oil. Anything we as humans produce is also subject to the laws of supply and demand including our labor. In a market economy nobody is really “given” a job but instead a trade takes place, just like anything that is purchased. An employer is trading money for labor and both parties value what they receive from each other greater than what they give up. If an employer is making the dollars for labor trade, he is going to pay for that labor according to its market value which is determined just like diamonds and water according to its abundance or scarcity. Two important lessons should be derived from this: First of all your usefulness and importance cannot be measured by the market value of your labor. Sure the major league pitcher is paid incredible sums of money to play a game. The question is; how many people are capable of throwing strikes at 95 miles per hour? Not many, which is why his labor comes at such a high price. That same major league pitcher may be cheating on his wife, abusing his children, and refusing to tip his waitress. His worth as a person cannot be judged by his salary. Conversely, just because a person does not earn a high salary does not mean they are of low value, but rather the skills of his labor are in great abundance (society needs people willing to do low paying tasks). If you want to earn more, offer something that is not commonly available or use your time of low pay to develop the skills that make your labor less common and thus more valuable. If you earn a wage that is not to your liking, understand this is a condition of market forces not a statement of your worth as a person. A better way to think of your employment is to envision yourself as an independent contractor with one full time client. An entrepreneur will endure many successes and failures on his way but he doesn't give up if he loses one client, he goes out and finds the next one.


fides quaerens intellectum