July 24, 2006

Julie, Julie, Julie Do You Love Me?
Everett

Well, Julie, it's a pleasure to know you by your real name. I'm doing well, if a bit tired from double-shifting at work. Thanks for asking. I'm glad to know you're doing better, and if you find yourself in a funk again, let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

Was Lincoln right to move to stop the South seceding from the Union? If you take a straight reading of the Constitution, there is no clause that explicitly grants the federal government the power to prevent a state leaving the Union. As the Constitution defines the powers of the Federal Government, a straight (or Strict Constructionist) reading of the Constitution seems favors secession. However, this isn't the end of the matter. The preamble to the Constitution reads "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Sates of America." Thus, the question becomes, Does a state or group of states have the power to to dissolve the Union established by the Constitution which they had previously ratified? Clearly, the answer has to be no. Otherwise, one state would effectievly be rendered sovereign over all the other states with respect to the survival of the Union into which each sovereign state freely entered.

When considering whether democracy is reconcilable with Scripture (never mind the question of whether the Bible advocates for a particular form of government), bear in mind that God only established a king over Israel because the Israelites demanded that He do so. Thus, the establishment of a king in Israel could be said to be democratic.

I chose my words carefully when discussing representation. I made a point of referring to geographic areas, as opposed to groups of people, as the understanding of citizenship has evolved quite a bit over the past few centuries.

Would Parliamentary representation have completely quelled anti-tax sentiment in the American colonies? the experience of the Whiskey Rebellion would seem to indicate not. However, I'm of the opinion (hardly authoritative) that granting the Colonists Parliamentary representation would have prevented the Revolution.

As to frustration with government, there's always refuge in Conservatism (at least in its American form) or Libertarianism. It's so much easier to live with the failings of government once you realize that government is inherently inept.

Annatar, I find the notion of world citizenship to be a pie-in-the-sky abstraction of the worst sort. You forget that ideas matter. Beliefs matter. Customs matter. Culture matters. You cannot have a society without these things. Christ never advocated the sort of "World citizenship" you seem to be advocating. Rather, he established a new creation founded in Himself, namely the Church, to which all are called. The call of the Christian is to bring the love of Christ to all, that all might come to Christ. As we are both Catholics, I can take this one step further. In receiving Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, we are perfectly united to Christ, and through this perfect union, we are perfectly united to all who have thus received Him. In other words, we are united in Christ, not by our common humanity. Furthermore, as someone who accepts the factuality of evolution, you should know that competition is fiercest within a species, and that our common humanity is thus an inherent source of conflict. It is only through the ties of shared things such family, community, nation, and religion that conflict can be minimized. Replacing these things with an airy "World citizenship" is a recipie for disaster. Just look at what's going on in Europe right now, both culturally and demographically.