“A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.” (Proverbs 17:10)
When
Jesus famously stood silent at his trial (Mt. 27:12-13, Mark 15:5, and Luke
23:9), the two parties present included not only himself as the passive and sinless[1]
Son of God, but also his naive and impertinent antagonists. Jesus’ purpose there was not to challenge
their verdict or rail against their conduct; but instead to, through their
verdict, bear the sins of the entire world on the very cross that was being
prepared for him. It is this
distinction that sets Jesus apart from every person in our current
philosophical and political climate who, for whatever reason, evades answering
their critics. While it is true that
Jesus himself didn’t answer the crowds, the reason was because he was
accountable instead to the purposes of His Father as represented in the covenantal[2] love that Yahweh expresses
(Isaiah 43:25).[3]
By stark contrast, the present Democrat Party
exudes utter self-centered (humanistic) abandon.
According
to our U.S. Constitution, any view that the authority of elected and appointed Offi-cials
permits ruling by their private insights and whims is entirely alien
to the purposes of our founders.
Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence states, “All
men are created equal…and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights…[In order to] secure these rights, governments [derive]
their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In addition, the Preamble to our
Constitution begins, “We the people of the United States…do
ordain to establish a more perfect Union…”
Also, “four score and seven years” later, Abraham Lincoln closed
his Gettysburg Address with these words; “this nation, under God,
shall have a new birth of freedom—and that the government of the people,
by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”[4] For these reasons, it is impossible to
deny that Democrats are trashing one profoundly fundament aspect of our
Constitutional form of government.
I wish
to be clear that this transgression, as grave as I argue it to be, is not
limited to technical disputes over methods of governance. A chronic refusal to answer critics which is rooted
in a pretense of claiming “superiority” over all challengers, contradicts the
principles of rational deliberation in gen-eral.[5] This is especially so when certain indicators
are in place, including firstly verified and specific factual evidence that
contradicts the assertions of the witness in question; secondly, when there is a
refusal by the same witness to both inform him/herself of the relevant facts
and address them; and thirdly, when the extent of the ramifications which
follow from the case in question rises to the degree that it threatens the
security of society at any level. In
summary, it is vital to the governance of our civilization that truth prevail
only after facing rigorous scrutiny. If
it should be the case that the facts are indeed on one’s side, then it is
strongly in their favor that every aspect of their case be brought out into the
open. On the other hand, refusal to come
clean concerning the facts of the case becomes a tacit admission that the truth
is damning to their asserted claims.
[1] 1 Peter 2:22-24.
[2] A covenant is a close equivalent notion of a
contract. The former, was considered
absolutely inviolable. Yahweh, the God
of the Bible, him-self initiated covenants with his people Israel (Exodus 19:5).
[3] This Passage says, “I, I am He who
blots out your transgressions for my own sake.” Notice first the
double “I’s,” which
makes them emphatic. Notice secondly that the boldface portion emphasizes that
God considers that His own reputation is at stake.
[4] Constitutional documents can be accessed by searching
under the theme, the United States Constitution. ** Non-statutory documents are drawn from Diane
Ravitch, ed. The American Reader. (Harper Perennial, 1990). All boldface is my doing for the
purpose of highlighting the priority of the concept that governmental officials
are accountable to the voters, and not vice-versa.
[5] Dr. John Ellis (The Breakdown of Higher
Education: How it Happened. The Damage it Does. & What Can be Done.
(Encounter, 2020.)) argues persuasively in my view, that the prevailing
dominant “educational” strategy on university campuses today, political
activism, is incompatible with classical intellectual inquiry, which seeks
to assemble all the relevant evidence and freely debate over its ramifications (p.
39).
No comments:
Post a Comment