WTE: The Cristero War is history worth remembering

This week marks 100 years since the end of Mexico’s revolution (1910-1920). It established a communist constitution that became a model for the USSR. Even though this unfolded on our southern doorstep, most Americans are unaware of how our neighbors to the south suffered as a result. It is worth remembering—especially against the backdrop of the Marxist revolution being fomented in the streets of several American cities.

The Mexican Constitution of 1917 was steeped in Marxist philosophy. Of its 137 articles, the U.S Library of Congress highlights three. Article 3 made a secular public education mandatory. Article 27 declared that the government, alone, was the original owner of all land and water in Mexico. Article 123 seized power over the work force.

These Marxist provisions were directed against the family and the Church especially. Under Article 3, religious schools were put under government control and religious instruction was stricken from the curriculum. In its place children were instructed in sexual deviancy and atheistic dogma.

Article 27 was used to seize Church property throughout Mexico. Parochial schools were turned into government-run indoctrination centers. Monasteries, convents and seminaries were taken, and many churches were closed.

Using the powers of Article 123, not only did the government control wages and how many hours a person could work, it also socialized the economy by mandating insurance. Using its power over labor, it even reached into the church. Foreign-born ministers were deported, and many others removed from their parishes in order to reach the target of one priest per 30,000 citizens.

All this was done under a fig leaf of religious liberty. Article 24 promised: “Every man shall be free to choose and profess any religious belief,” but only, “as long as it is lawful and it cannot be punished under criminal law.”

Then Article 130 instituted a strict “separation of Church and state.” This made public preaching unlawful while also outlawing the mention of “politics” from the pulpit. This enabled the government to silence the church’s voice on any number of topics. Clerics were also specifically denied a jury trial. This meant that they could be arrested and executed on the spot. Many were.

Plutarcho Elias Calles was particularly anti-religious. His virulent prosecution of the religious populace sparked widespread resistance. Christians protested by petition, boycott and other peaceful means. But the Calles government treated these acts as sedition and forcibly closed their churches.

In 1926 a group of 400 parishioners retook a church in Guadalajara. After the parishioners ran out of ammunition and surrendered, the government stormed the church and killed the priest and his vicar. This was the opening skirmish in the Cristero War.

Cristero is a name deriving from the last words of Father Rodrigo Alemán. With a noose around his neck, his executioners shouted at him, “who lives?” He responded “Cristo Rey” (Christ the King.) They tightened the noose and repeated the process three times until he died with this confession on his lips.

Cristo Rey became the rallying cry of a war that claimed 90,000 lives over three years. It ended when the government agreed to back off from enforcing all of the anti-religious provisions of the 1917 constitution. Even after the U.S.-brokered armistice, thousands more Cristeros were assassinated.

It was not until 1992 that Mexico repealed the anti-religious articles of the Constitution. Today, a century after the Marxist revolution, Mexico is still paying a steep price. The decades-long devastation of religious and family life continues to have its oppressing effect.

This sad tale is not that far from us. Recent riots that began by targeting Civil War statues have already pivoted to the destruction of churches and church symbols. The mainstream media has been criminally negligent in its failure to report nearly 50 attacks on church property in two months.

The communist revolutions in France, Mexico, Russia and elsewhere have a common thread. Marxism refuses to admit individual responsibility as a cause of social problems. Instead, it locates all problems in impersonal classes and target groups that must be eradicated. For this reason, Marxism must war against Christianity just to prop up its own murderous ideology.

What happened south of our border could also happen here. Property rights (including gun rights), free enterprise, virtuous education and religious liberty are not merely isolated special interests. They form an integrated worldview where personal responsibility to love the neighbor stands as a bulwark against Marxism’s blind rage against disfavored groups.

Ideas have consequences. Evil ideas have evil consequences. Now is the time to understand the ideas that are driving the current wave of senseless destruction. They are neither new nor untried. They have been infecting and destroying societies for over a century. It’s time to understand them and decisively reject them.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, July 31, 2020.

The Cristero War is history worth remembering

Mission San Jose, Photo by Angela Loria on Unsplash

“Poncho was a bandit boy. His horse was fast as polished steel. He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel.” These lyrics from Townes Van Zandt were made famous by Merle Haggard and Willie Nelson in the 1983 recording of Poncho and Lefty. They are loosely based on Poncho Villa who surrendered a century ago, today.

Francisco “Poncho” Villa was a general in Mexico’s communist revolution (1910-1920). His daring and ruthlessness helped to usher in the infamous Mexican Constitution of 1917 which became a model for the Russian Bolsheviks a year later.

Francisco "Poncho" Villa

Even though Mexico’s communist revolution unfolded on our southern doorstep, and happened only 100 years ago, Americans are mostly unaware of how our neighbors to the south have suffered in the aftermath. It is worth telling the story—especially against the backdrop of the Marxist revolution being fomented in the streets of several American cities.

The Mexican Revolution started as President Porfirio Diaz grew weak after 31 years in office and rigged an election to “win” against Francisco Madero with 99% of the vote. This touched off a 10-year power struggle among several rivals. Most of the warlords assassinated one another. The end of the revolution is dated to the surrender of Poncho Villa.

The military history is less consequential than the resulting Constitution of 1917. Only 30% of those attending the constitutional convention had actually fought in the revolution. Over half had university degrees and were steeped in the Marxist philosophy popular in that day. The resulting constitution had disastrous effects on Mexico and her people.

Three of its 137 articles stand out. Article 3 made a secular public education mandatory. Article 27 declared that the government, alone, was the original owner of all land and water in Mexico. It could seize and redistribute private property at will. Article 123 seized power over the work force. It instituted a national minimum wage, controlled how many hours any person could work, and mandated insurance.

These three articles are highlighted by the U.S. Library of Congress web site. Students of American government should note how remarkably different the Mexican Constitution is from that of the United States. Government indoctrination of children, wage and price controls, and infringement on property rights are the bread and butter of Marxist revolutionaries, not a just and free society.

Mexico’s Marxist policies were especially directed against the family and the Church. The 1917 Constitution specified that all religious instruction was to be stricken from public education and that religious schools were forbidden. What counts as “religious doctrine” was left undefined but soon became apparent. Children were instructed in sexual deviancy and atheistic dogma.

The Constitution also stripped the Church of any property that the government deemed not “necessary.” Labor laws were used to regulate how many priests could be employed in any given region. Hundreds were removed from parishes with the goal of one priest per 30,000 parishioners.

Article 130 instituted a strict “separation of Church and state.” Foreign-born priests and ministers were deported. Those that remained were forbidden from holding public office or speaking about politics. If they were arrested for any offence, the constitution specifically denied clerics the right to a jury trial.

Article 24 dealt with religious freedom in this way: “Every man shall be free to choose and profess any religious belief as long as it is lawful and it cannot be punished under criminal law.” This left the door wide open to passing laws that forbade anything from wearing religious garb, to religious speech in public. In fact, that article went on to spell out that Christians could only worship behind closed doors. Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone say that the First Amendment grants “freedom of worship,” rather than “free exercise of religion.”

Exclusion from jury trial meant that publicly religious people could be arrested and executed on the spot. The dominant religion in Mexico was Roman Catholicism. The Church was slow to recognize the threat, and was content to live under the radar for several years after the 1917 Constitution was adopted.

Plutarcho Calles

It wasn’t until the virulent anti-religious Plutarcho, Elias Calles, began a universal and strict enforcement of these laws that religious people started resisting. For several years they protested by petition, boycott and other peaceful means. But the Calles government treated these acts as sedition and forcibly closed their churches.

In 1926 a group of 400 parishioners retook a church in Guadalajara. After the parishioners ran out of ammunition and surrendered, the government stormed the church and killed the priest and his vicar. This was the opening skirmish in the Cristero War.

Cristero is a name deriving from the last words of Father Rodrigo Alemán. With a noose around his neck, his executioners shouted at him, “who lives?” He responded “Cristo Rey” (Christ the King.) They tightened the noose and repeated the process three times until he died with this confession on his lips.

Cristo Rey became the rallying cry of a war that claimed 90,000 lives over three years. It was ended when the government agreed to back off from enforcing all of the anti-religious provisions of the 1917 constitution. Even then, the armistice was broken and thousands of Cristeros were slaughtered in the aftermath.

The anti-religious provisions themselves remained in Mexico’s Constitution until 1992. Only then were religious organizations given legal status and property rights.  And, only then were restrictions lifted on the number of priests each province could have.

A century after the Marxist revolution, Mexico is still paying a steep price. The country’s population of 15 million was decimated. The economy was flattened. Religious and family life was devastated.  This, especially, continues to have its oppressing effect.

Churches attacked in America from May 25-July 24

This sad tale is not that far from us. Recent riots that began by targeting Civil War statues have already pivoted to the destruction of churches and church symbols. The mainstream media has been criminally negligent in its failure to report nearly 50 attacks on Church property in two months.

Best-selling author, Eric Metaxas has explained, “You saw this in the French Revolution. There was a hatred—at the bottom of it—of God, of any kind of authority.” He might have added that we saw this in the Mexican Revolution, as well.

Marxism refuses to admit individual responsibility as a cause of social problems. Instead, it locates all problems in impersonal classes and target groups that must be eradicated. In order to preach this new religion, the first thing it must do is put down Christianity. This has happened whenever and wherever Marxism raises its murderous ideology.

What happened south of our border could also happen here. Property rights (including gun rights), free enterprise, virtuous education and religious liberty are not merely isolated special interests. They form an integrated worldview where personal responsibility to love the neighbor stands as a bulwark against Marxism’s blind rage against disfavored groups.

Ideas have consequences. Evil ideas have evil consequences. Now is the time to understand the ideas that are driving the current wave of senseless destruction. They are not new or untried. They have been infecting and destroying societies for over a century. It’s time to take them seriously.

WTE: Who tells the story? And why it matters

The musical, Hamilton, tells the story of the founding father depicted on the ten-dollar bill. Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to America are nothing short of amazing—both in their diversity and in their lasting impact.

Among Hamilton’s many accomplishments: he was the principal author of the Federalist Papers. These documents were written after the Constitutional Convention of 1887 to persuade the people of New York to ratify the Constitution it had crafted.

Hamilton penned 51 of the 85 papers in only six months. They are the best interpretive guide to the U.S. Constitution that we have. If the musical, Hamilton, does nothing more than to revive an interest in the Federalist Papers, our state and country will be the winners.

Ignorance of these papers and of the Constitution they defend renders voters impotent to hold elected officials to account for their violations of constitutional principles. Without this tool, they can only watch helplessly as the promise of America fades away from their children and grandchildren.

As Wyoming approaches the August primaries, it would be great to hear questions about the Federalist Papers asked at candidate forums. The Federalist Papers, like the U.S. Constitution they defend, are not on the fringes of American life; they are at its very core. Candidates should be expected to know and agree with their principles.

The Constitution is as centrist as it gets. No one should be labeled “extreme right-wingers” for taking time to know our common foundation and defending it against perversions. Both the Right and the Left of the political spectrum ought to stand for the Federalist Papers.

That would be a giant step forward from the petty bickering and identity politics that characterize most of today’s political discourse. Consider the press coverage of the recent Wyoming Republican Party convention.

For the past three weeks, we have been treated to a steady stream of misrepresentations of the convention’s happenings. A few of the delegates who voted with the minority on key issues have received extremely disproportionate representation in the press.

Stories and opinion pieces, written by people whom I never saw at the convention, have flipped the narrative. Almost every vote was decided by a near-70 percent majority. This is anything but a small cadre from the “radical right.” Those peddling the narrative that some “far-right party leadership” hijacked the convention are lying to you.

The delegates and the delegates alone guided the conventions decisions. First, they ratified the election results from the May 9, 2020 online convention. Second, they adopted a platform that embodies the constitutional principles laid  out in the Federalist Papers. Third, they clarified that donations intended to support this constitutional platform should go to candidates who actually support it.

If any delegate could show that the GOP platform did not faithfully represent constitutional principles, the convention would have gladly adopted any improvements needed. That deep desire to uphold and support the Constitution and the principles of Hamilton, Madison and Jay characterized the entire convention.

Those who portray this desire as, somehow, “right-wing” should be ashamed of themselves, as should those who spread lies in the media and level personal attacks against party leadership. Open and honest debate on constitutional principles would elevate public discourse. Hiding policy disagreements by incessant personal attacks does not.

One major theme of Hamilton, the musical, centers on the question: Who tells your story? Much hinges on this question. The enemies of Hamilton sought to tell his story in the worst light possible. Aaron Burr first made a personal attack on his reputation. Eventually, Burr killed him in a duel. But Hamilton’s wife, Elizabeth, told his true story.

It is amazing how a man so instrumental in the formation of the American republic came so close to being lost to history. Had it not been for Elizabeth’s dogged determination to gather the facts and tell her husband’s story, this amazing man and the principles that he stood for may never have been known to our generation.

The same goes for the principles and people of our day. It is not enough to know the truth and keep it to yourself. We are all responsible for telling the story. Just because one narrative is told with a megaphone does not make that story true. The powerful and dominating enemies of Hamilton could not ultimately defeat the story that his faithful wife told.

Elizabeth’s voice was small but it was true and steady. Americans know the face of Hamilton and carry his picture in their wallet in large part because of Elizabeth’s voice.

We can honor her work by studying the Constitution that he helped to create. We can advance his cause by telling the true stories of those who labor to uphold Hamilton’s principles still today.


Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on July 24, 2020.

 

Who tells the story? And why it matters

One of the benefits of the COVID-19 pandemic is that Disney made a live recording of the musical, Hamilton, available digitally on July 3, 2020. I highly recommend it.

Hamilton premiered off-Broadway in 2015 and has received a record number of awards. Lin-Manuel Miranda is an amazing storyteller. Through non-stop music (46 songs) he brilliantly tells the story of the founding father depicted on the ten-dollar bill. He brings the history of America’s early decades to vibrant life. Not only will you learn much, you will be inspired to dig deeper and learn more.

Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to America are nothing short of amazing—both in their diversity and in their lasting impact. Among his many accomplishments, Hamilton was the principal author of the Federalist Papers. In a mere six months, he wrote 51 of the 85 profoundly reasoned essays detailing the genius of the U.S. Constitution and laying out the principles of American government.

The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitutional Convention of 1887. They explained the provisions of the newly drafted U.S. Constitution in an effort to persuade the people of New York to vote for its ratification.

So convincing are Hamilton’s arguments and so profound are his principles, that students of American government have been studying these papers for the last 233 years. They are the best interpretive guide to the U.S. Constitution that can be found.

If Miranda’s musical does nothing more than to revive an interest in the Federalist Papers and prompt our own politicians and pundits to read Hamilton’s words, our state and country will be the winners.

As it is, widespread ignorance of the principles defended by Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison prevents the American people from holding our elected officials to account for their unconstitutional actions that harm every American. American voters who elect officials who are ignorant of—or hostile to—the principles found in the Federalist Papers do so at their own peril and to the harm of their children and grandchildren.

As Wyoming approaches the August primaries, it would be great to hear questions about the Federalist Papers asked at candidate forums. Ask the candidates whether they have read them. Ask how recently they read them. Ask if they disagree with any of their principles, and if so, which ones. Get them on the record and hold them accountable once elected to office.

While you do this, you should also read them yourself! This will enable you to engage in even more detail and with a deeper understanding. The Federalist Papers, like the U.S. Constitution that they defend, are not on the fringes of American life, they are at its very core.

It is extremely saddening to me when I hear people who quote the U.S. Constitution labeled as “right-wingers.” It is sadder still, that those who know and quote the Federalist Papers are called “extreme right-wingers.” This should not be. The Constitution is as centrist as it gets.

In fact, in their day, the Federalist Papers shaded to the left of the Constitution. The party of Thomas Jefferson criticized Hamilton for wanting too large a government and too much federal power. Today, that position seems to be reversed. Those arguing for more centralized power and higher taxes are likely to see the Federalist Papers as far too conservative.

If you are a big-government liberal who agrees with the principles that Hamilton expressed in these papers, I would be pleased to hear it and retract the previous sentence. I do not intend to characterize anyone falsely. I am pleading here only that both the Right and the Left of the political spectrum frame their arguments around the Federalist Papers.

That would be a giant step forward from the petty bickering and identity politics that characterize most of today’s political discourse.

As a case in point, consider the press coverage of the recent Wyoming Republican Party convention. For the past three weeks, we have been treated to a steady stream of misrepresentations of the convention’s happenings. A few of the delegates who voted with the minority on key issues have received extremely disproportionate representation in the press.

Stories and opinion pieces, written by people whom I never saw at the convention, have flipped the narrative. Those who were actually there saw that almost every vote was decided by a 70-80 percent majority. Rep. Scott Clem, who chaired the convention, did an excellent job of managing the debate according to the rules on which everyone had agreed beforehand.

This does not at all line up with the narrative that the convention was hijacked by a small cadre from the “radical right.” Those who attribute the convention’s decisions to “far-right party leadership,” are lying to you. The delegates and the delegates alone are responsible for the decisions of the convention.

They decided, first, to ratify the elections that had been conducted during the first May 9, 2020 online convention. Second, they adopted a platform that strives to embody the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Third, they decided that faithful stewardship of the money donated to support the platform of the GOP should go to candidates who actually vote for these federalist principles.

If any delegate could show that the GOP platform did not faithfully represent constitutional principles, the convention would have gladly adopted any improvements needed. That deep desire to uphold and support the Constitution and the principles of Hamilton, Madison and Jay characterized the entire convention.

Mike and Karen Pence (left) with Frank Eathorne (right)

Those who portray this desire as, somehow, “right-wing” should be ashamed of themselves, as should those who spread lies in the media and level personal attacks against party leadership. Open and honest debate on constitutional principles would elevate public discourse. Hiding policy disagreements by incessant personal attacks does not.

One major theme of Hamilton, the musical, centers on the question: Who tells your story? Much hinges on this question. The enemies of Hamilton sought to tell his story in order to destroy the man. Aaron Burr’s personal attack cost Hamilton his life. But Hamilton’s wife, Elizabeth, told his true story.

It is amazing how a man so instrumental to the formation of the American republic came so close to being lost to history. Had it not been for Elizabeth’s dogged determination to gather the facts and tell her husband’s story, this amazing man and the principles that he stood for may never have been known to our generation.

Philippa Soo as Elizabeth Hamilton

The same goes for the principles and people of our day. It is not enough to know the truth and keep it to yourself. We are all responsible for telling the story. Just because one narrative is told with a megaphone does not make that story true. The powerful and dominating enemies of Hamilton could not ultimately defeat the story that his faithful wife told.

As a result of Elizabeth’s small but incessant voice, all Americans know the face of Hamilton and carry his picture in their wallet. More than that, they have access to his story and to his Federalist Papers still today.

We can honor her work by reading his papers. We can advance his cause by telling the true stories of those who labor to uphold Hamilton’s principles still today.

WTE: The unwritten foundations of America give hope for healing

Two weeks ago, this column set about to rescue our common sense of morality from the false accusation that it is uniquely Christian. It pointed out that the Cardinal Virtues predated Christianity by four centuries and are understood instinctively throughout the world.

That remains true, but there is more to the story. There is also a unique contribution that Christianity has given to America. G.K. Chesterton wrote, “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.” That is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Few societies have ever believed a thing so radical. None had ever placed the idea at the center of its public life. Critics of America deny that we ever believed it at all. Slave states, the Indian wars, Japanese internment camps and Jim Crow seem to prove their point.

But Americans universally condemn these injustices, and more. That condemnation, wherever it is found, confirms America’s founding creed to be right and true.

The 56 signers of the Declaration were aware from the start that their bold creed was contradicted by the very existence of slavery. Washington, Jefferson, and other slave owners, were acutely aware that their declaration, sooner or later, would require the end of slavery. They signed their names to the Declaration not in hypocrisy, but in solemn pledge to make American life—including their own lives—conform to their beliefs.

It would take more than eight decades of strife, capped by a war that cost 625,000 lives, to right that wrong. The 13th Amendment brought America one step closer to a just society. More steps followed and still more are required. The claim that “all men are created equal,” continues to challenge every unjust treatment of human beings from Jim Crow to broken Indian treaties, to America’s total abandonment of 60 million unborn children.

America continues both to believe that all men are created equal, and to strive against every law that would contradict it. These twin realities bring us to an even more fundamental creed. The ongoing quest to root out injustice requires belief that redemption is real. Christ died for all, and anyone can repent and be forgiven by His blood.

Human life is not about perfectionism but redemption. No person perfectly lives up to his or her own beliefs. Redemption is not about atoning for your own sins or demanding full payment from those who sin against you. It is about restitution paid by another—ultimately by God through the crucifixion of Jesus. That is the uniquely Christian idea embedded in America’s creed.

Only when the price of justice is paid by God does forgiveness become a reality. This alone can create a space where the bonds of love grow. Without infinite forgiveness, the demands of justice are insatiable, and peace is impossible.

The turmoil in America today is not a result of imperfectly living up to the creed that, “all men are created equal.” We have struggled with this from the beginning. Turmoil results when striving for justice is cut off from its necessary grounding of forgiveness and redemption.

Where repentance, redemption and forgiveness do not reign supreme, hate and turmoil fills the void. Lacking the grace that redemption and forgiveness provide, each person, individually, is driven into a posture of self-defense and counter-attack. Admit no wrong. Apology is weakness. Demand justice. Give no mercy. Forgiveness is betrayal.

In this toxic stew, people are no longer defined by their humanity, but by their sins—real or perceived. No one is equal. Each seeks to dominate.

The founders of the republic understood that without the possibility of redemption, there can be no change for the better. They understood that utopian visions of a perfect society cannot bring about the perfection they desire. To the contrary, they cause obsession with the injustices of others and willful blindness to their own.

They also knew that the grace of redemption could not be regulated by the state, but only received through the Church. So, they asserted only what was knowable by nature in their Declaration of Independence—that “all men are created equal.” The revelation of redemption through Christ was protected by the First Amendment and left to the Church alone.

While repentance and redemption are possible only in Christ, they are the unwritten foundation of our entire republic. Without them, no reparations and no restitution will ever suffice. Our present turmoil will continue until all society is burned to the ground.

But through repentance and redemption, human dignity is restored and the bedrock ideal of human equality is grounded in the Creator and Redeemer of all mankind.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on July 17, 2020.

The unwritten foundations of America give hope for healing

Photo by Joshua Eckstein on Unsplash

Two weeks ago, this column set about to rescue our common sense of morality from the false accusation that it is uniquely Christian. It pointed out that the Cardinal Virtues predated Christianity by four centuries. More to the point, the principles of morality are instinctively known by every human being and every society in the history of the world.

That column, focused as it was on the virtues held in common across the globe, did not discuss the unique contribution that Christianity has given to America. That remains a profound part of the story that must be told.

It is not necessary to wade into the argument about whether America is a “Christian nation.” No state can ever be the Church, and the Church cannot do the work of the state. But neither of these confusions need deny that America depends on fundamentally Christian ideas.

G.K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton wrote, “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence …” “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Few societies in the history of the world have ever believed a thing so radical. None had ever placed the idea at the center of its political life. Critics of America deny that we ever believed it at all.

From the slavery of African Americans to the unjust treatment of Native Americans, from the internment of Japanese Americans to the Jim Crow South, critics have plenty of evidence for their charges. But any American who condemns these events and institutions as unjust is, thereby, confirming America’s founding creed to be right and true.

More than this, the “self-evident” nature of America’s creed does not merely mean that every individual always feels it to be true. Rather, “self-evident” is a philosophical term which means that the proof of the assertion is contained in the assertion itself. It needs no proof because any denial of it always winds up in a self-contradiction.

Signing of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull

The 56 signers of the Declaration were aware from the start that their bold creed was contradicted by the existence of slavery in the colonies. Those who owned slaves themselves, like Washington and Jefferson, were acutely aware that their declaration required a reckoning with that unjust carry-over from their continental forebears. Nevertheless, they refused to water down the Declaration to condone their shortcomings.

They signed their names to the Declaration not in hypocrisy, but in solemn pledge to make American life—including their own lives—conform to their faith. It would take more than eight decades of strife, capped by a war that cost 625,000 lives, to right that wrong. The 13th Amendment brought America one step closer to a just society.

More steps have been taken since. Injustices toward Native Americans, former slaves and Japanese Americans have been addressed in the succeeding decades. America continues both to believe that all men are created equal, and to strive against every national sin that would make it otherwise.

These twin realities bring us to an even more fundamental creed. It is not stated in the Declaration of Independence, but it is written between the lines. If “all men are created equal,” then all men are likewise capable of redemption. Christ died for all, and anyone can repent and be forgiven by His blood.

Human life is not about perfectionism. No person perfectly lives up to his or her own beliefs, nor can they ever make themselves perfect. Human life is about redemption.

Redemption is not about atoning for your own sins or demanding full payment from those who sin against you. It is about restitution paid by another—ultimately by the blood of God, shed on the cross. That is the uniquely Christian idea embedded in America’s creed.

Painting by Robert McCall

Our founding fathers rejected the utopian dreams of national perfectionism. They did not insist that the laws of every state be in perfect conformity with the Declaration before they could join the union. They only insisted that every American submit to the founding principles and work continually toward “a more perfect union.”

Right along with the idea that all people are equally capable of being redeemed from their own sins, there is a corresponding requirement they forgive. So, Jesus teaches us to pray, “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” No two people can live together under the false dictates of perfectionism. Without the space created by forgiveness, repentance and redemption are impossible.

The turmoil in America today is not a result of imperfectly living up to our national creed that, “all men are created equal.” We have never perfectly lived up to that creed and will continue to struggle against evil until the end of time. But today, that struggle against evil is widely hampered by the unchristian notions of perfectionism.

Perfectionism cannot deal with sins and shortcomings—either in oneself, or in others. Perfectionism cannot countenance movement toward a goal but must have everything perfect immediately. The sins of people long dead are dredged up and imputed to the living. And there is no forgiveness possible.

Lacking the grace that redemption and forgiveness provide, every avenue for repentance and change is closed. Each person, individually, is driven into a posture of self-defense. Admit no wrong. Apology is weakness. Forgiveness is betrayal.

Photo by Cristofer Jeschke on Unsplash

People are no longer defined by their humanity, but by their sins—real or perceived. When people are so defined, it can no longer be said that “all men are created equal.” What a person, people-group, or nation has done makes some less equal than others.

Using the power of guilt to subjugate others is an intoxicating drug. But such fundamental denial of equality, will always come back to subjugate the subjugator. Without the grace of repentance, and forgiveness, equality is not possible.

This understanding is what sets America apart. The Cardinal Virtues describe those attitudes and behaviors required of all people. But even equipped with these virtues, societies degenerate and die. They break up because nobody has ever been able to live up to these virtues. When too many citizens forget forgiveness, a culture will degenerate into a dog-eat-dog world.

The founders of the republic understood that without the grace of redemption, there is no possibility of change for the better. They understood that utopian visions of a perfect society cannot bring about the perfection they desire. Rather, they only freeze in place whatever injustices are accepted to create the utopia.

They also knew that the grace of redemption could not be regulated by the state, but only received through the Church. So, they asserted only what was knowable by nature in their Declaration of Independence. The revelation of redemption through Christ was assumed but left to the Church alone.

While repentance and redemption are possible only in Christ, they are the unwritten foundation of our entire republic. Without them, no reparations and no restitution will ever suffice. Our present turmoil will continue until all society is burned to the ground.

But through repentance and redemption, human dignity is restored and change for the better is made possible.

WTE: Do we love freedom enough?

In the opening pages of the Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recounts how the secret police arrested millions of Russian citizens by secret midnight raids. Sleeping citizens would be awakened by the sound of their door bursting open.

They would watch helplessly as every drawer was emptied and every mattress overturned. Eventually, they would be led away without need of guns or shackles. Terror was the tool. Neighbors who heard the crash would pretend not to notice for fear that they may be next. With each arrest the will to resist was further drained.

After recounting these methods, Solzhenitsyn noted, “how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if …people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?”

What is it that prevented the millions of Russian citizens from offering any meaningful resistance to the regime that would terrorize them for seven decades? No nation can be enslaved by direct power. Russia was divided before it was conquered. The tools of division are hatred and fear.

Hatred is created by inventing ever-new categories of people, and setting them against one another. America’s motto, e pluribus unum (out of many, one,) must be reversed. The purpose of identity politics is simply to divide and conquer.

Divided people can then be manipulated by fear. When every man is for himself, a threat to his job or social standing leaves him helpless. Promise him that the threat will subside if he doesn’t make a fuss, and he will usually take the bait. The few who are not cowed by the unspoken threat must be made into public examples so that the rest will be too afraid to stand together.

All it takes to counter such terror is the simple resolve to be united. “If...if...,” Solzhenitsyn continued. “If only we had stood together against the common threat, we could easily have defeated it. So, why didn’t we?”

He answered, “We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

These are powerful words. They challenge us today. Do we love freedom enough? How much do we value freedom? What price are we willing to pay to keep it?

When freedom is devalued our will to defend it is diminished. If freedom is nothing more than the selfish pursuit of doing “whatever I want,” who will die in its defense?

Don’t let freedom be cheapened. True freedom, has never been about doing whatever you want but about doing what is right. It is about living up to the highest ideals of your own humanity. Freedom to raise a family and build a just civilization is freedom worth dying for.

What price will you to pay for freedom? Are you willing to invest serious money in your children’s education? Are you willing to teach them at home and attend school board meetings—even run for the school board—to improve their moral education?

Are you willing to spend serious money to support candidates that will fight for true and noble freedoms against those who would debase our culture and enslave us further to debt and vice?

Recently Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, spoke in Gillette and asked a simple question of his audience: Are you willing to spend as much on the election of good candidates as you spend on coffee? The average American spends about $10 per day on coffee. Imagine that multiplied by 100 million.

How might that capital offset the multinational corporations that incessantly divide and debase us. What if… What if…? Solzhenitsyn asked. What if we “had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand”? He concluded that it would have changed the world and prevented the misery and deaths of millions.

Will we be asking a similar question years from now? What if… What if… we had spent as much money on good rulers as we spent on coffee? What if we had spent as much time on educating our kids as we spend on entertainment? What if we had spent as much energy on loving our neighbor as we spend arguing with strangers?

The value of freedom is infinite. If we are unwilling to spend mere pocket change in its defense, we will purely and simply deserve everything that happens afterwards.

Also published in the Cowboy State Daily on July 9, 2020.

"We didn’t love freedom enough"

In the opening chapter of the Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recounts how the Bolshevik security “organs” arrested millions of Russian citizens by secret midnight raids. The arrests rarely happened in the light of day. Nor did they round up all their targets at once.

People were picked off one at a time. “Blue caps” would burst into an apartment in the dead of night and spend hours rifling through personal possessions looking for whatever they thought useful to gin up charges against the unfortunate target. They would leave before dawn with the arrested individual in tow.

No guns or shackles would be visible as they walked down the corridor. After being terrorized for hours the target would meekly walk past neighbors without any sign that he was being taken by force. Neighbors might know it. They might have heard the midnight crash of the door across the hall. But, to a man, they fearfully averted their eyes and pretended not to know.

Terror was the tool. Many, accused of crimes against the state, were randomly allowed to walk free. But they lived in constant fear of re-arrest. So, also, family members left behind never knew when the door might burst open again for another search of the apartment and another person to disappear into the maw of the secret prison system.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

These arrests filled the prisons and labor camps of the Soviet Union and robbed family after family of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. With each person carted off to the camps, the people’s ability and will to resist was further drained.

After recounting this pattern of events, Solzhenitsyn penned a remarkably moving passage marveling at the universal lack of resistance. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?”

What is it about the human heart that prevented this most reasonable of responses? Why is it that nobody thought of it until they were in the camps and it was too late? From our comfortable vantage point, we can easily call them foolish. But would we do any better? More to the point, are we?

When the enemies of freedom come, they cannot devour an entire people by direct power. They must first divide before they can conquer. Division can be created in two ways: hatred and fear.

Hatred is created by inventing ever-new categories of people, and setting them against one another. That’s the essence of identity politics. The motto printed on every American coin, e pluribus unum (out of many, one), is what built America. To tear down any society, it must first be divided.

Once stripped of unity, people are easier to manipulate with fear. When every man is for himself, all that is needed to maneuver people into silence is a threat against their income or good name coupled with the vague promise that if they don’t make a fuss, they will not be bothered.

“Making a fuss” is then defined as defending your fellow citizen against unjust accusations. Those intent on tearing down a society cannot tolerate one citizen defending another. They must make public examples of a few people, so that the rest will be too afraid to stand together. That’s the recipe for a reign of terror. All it takes to counter the terror is the simple resolve to be united.

“If...if...,” Solzhenitsyn continued. “If only we had stood together against the common threat, we could easily have defeated it. So, why didn’t we?” He answered, “We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

“We didn’t love freedom enough,” and for that reason, “deserved everything that happened.” These are powerful words. They challenge us today. Do we love freedom enough? How much are we willing to risk to defend it?

There are two elements necessary to address this question. First, there is the valuation of freedom; second, there is the price of defending it.

One of the reasons that freedom is devalued today is that it has been redefined. If freedom is nothing more than the selfish pursuit of doing “whatever I want,” how can that be valuable enough to defend?

But freedom, true freedom, has never been about doing whatever you want. True freedom is the capacity to do what is right, what is noble, and what is just. Freedom is about living up to the highest ideals of your own humanity. It is not about wallowing in the mud of selfish and self-serving desires.

That is why true freedom is worth dying for. Who, in their right mind, would die for the freedom to be lazy and cowardly, disloyal and intemperate? But the freedom to raise a family and build a lasting and just civilization has the capacity to inspire people gladly and willingly to pay the highest price.

So, what are you willing to pay for this kind of freedom? How much money? How much time? How much social capital?

Are you willing to invest serious money in your children’s education? Are you willing to teach them at home and attend school board meetings—even run for the school board—to improve their education?

Charlie Kirk

Are you willing to spend serious money to support candidates that will fight for true and noble freedoms against those who would debase our culture and enslave us further to debt and vice?

Recently Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, spoke in Gillette and gave a simple challenge to his audience. Imagine what could be accomplished if every American spent as much on electing worthy officials as he spent on coffee. On average, that amounts to $10 per day. Imagine that amount multiplied by 100 million citizens. That simple act, alone, could offset the corporate moguls that skew our elections.

What if… What if…? Solzhenitsyn asked? What if we “had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand”? He concluded that it would have changed the world and prevented the misery and deaths of millions.

Will we be asking a similar question years from now? What if… What if… we had spent as much money on good rulers as we spent on coffee? What if we had spent as much time on educating our kids as we spend on entertainment? What if we had spent as much energy on loving our neighbor as we spend arguing with strangers?

The value of freedom is infinite. Today, the cost is a bargain. Let’s invest in freedom today, before the cost is prohibitive.

WTE: America’s survival hinges on the Cardinal Virtues

Why can’t we all just get along? Since the L.A. riots in 1992, many have breathed out these words in despair and confusion. In a word, America has lost her public virtue. Virtue, not material prosperity, is key to “getting along.”

Long before Christianity came on the scene, virtue was understood as the foundation of civil life. It was Plato, 400 years before Christ, who articulated the Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Courage, and Justice. Centuries later Christian thinkers added the Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope and Love, to bring the total number of virtues to seven.

Today this is flipped on its head. The specifically Christian virtue of “love” has been perverted and used as a wrecking ball to wipe out the Cardinal Virtues.  These non-religious virtues have been driven from public life under the rubric of “freedom from religion.” This nonsense needs correction.

Human beings are not animals. More than biology, we also have a spiritual side. This is why the virtues are so necessary. When human beings are treated like animals, they become animals. The Cardinal Virtues allow us to become human again.

Prudence (wisdom) is the mother of all virtues. It is the virtue that enables a person to know the good and right course of action. As such, it requires an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, that is shared by all. Without this, there can be no society.

Yet honest talk of good and evil is regularly dismissed as mere opinion. Anti-social worldviews deny any validity to our shared sense of good and evil. Foolishness prevails. To rebuild, we must replace this moral relativism with prudence.

Temperance is the virtue of controlling the appetite. It recognizes that human beings have physical needs that give pleasure when they are met. It also recognizes that overindulgence and disordered use of these appetites will always cause great human suffering.

Four of seven deadly sins are connected to temperance. Gluttony, greed, lust and sloth are overindulgence in food, money, sex and rest respectively. The pre-Christian Greeks joined all civilized cultures in warning against decadence. Only dying cultures celebrate and encourage deadly sins.

Teaching temperance does not establish any religion. Nevertheless, modern materialists pretend that temperance is uniquely Christian and exclude it from public discourse. By this “divide and conquer” strategy, they have created great misery.

Courage does the right thing in the face of fear. It is in short supply today. An overwhelming desire for public approval and economic success makes Americans vulnerable to Twitter mobs and Facebook trolls. Consider how many politicians, teachers, church leaders and businesses have been silenced by fear. Cultural renewal begins with courage.

Justice is the final virtue in Plato’s list. It is the constant and permanent determination to give everyone his or her rightful due. While prudence discerns good and evil, justice is the willpower to do it.

When Lady Justice is depicted in art, she is always blindfolded because she operates without respect of persons. When money, status, or public opinion skews the application of justice, it is evil. Social justice that judges class membership but ignores individual acts of good and evil is inherently unjust.

It has been a very long time since our political system paid attention to the Cardinal Virtues. America has been deluded into thinking that justice requires strict moral neutrality. This lie has driven our common sense of good and evil out of the public square. This foolishness has brought us to the brink of disaster.

While the Cardinal Virtues do not establish any particular religion, their exclusion is motivated by a materialistic worldview that hates the very idea of religion. This worldview is, itself, a religion that denies the very spirit of humanity and has led to the slaughter of millions and enslavement of billions around the globe.

Sooner or later America will come to her senses and reclaim the value of the Cardinal Virtues. No society can deny reality forever. The question for our generation is this: Will we learn this lesson by listening to the voice of prudence? Or, will we have to learn it the hard way?

Eastern Europeans suffered under materialistic communism for decades and are now in the process of rebuilding thriving societies. They are urgently warning Americans to embrace the Cardinal Virtues before we fall into something akin to the Soviet horror. Either we will have the prudence to listen, or we will learn through our own bitter experience.

The decisions we make today will determine the outcome for our children and grandchildren. They will either endure great suffering or enjoy true freedom. They will also have the clarity of hindsight to see exactly how our decisions created their world. By Prudence, Temperance, Courage and Justice, let’s make that outcome a good one.


Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, July 3, 2020.