Rev. John Leland on the Ten Commandments,
Judge Moore and other related things
Who was the Rev. John Leland?
John Leland (1754-1841), a Baptist preacher whose life involved writing and
preaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ and about the proper
relationship between religion and government. In the latter passion, Leland
agreed with the position of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of
whom he knew personally. Leland spent approx 14 years in Virginia from 1776
to 1790-91 (approx) Was a major leader of the Baptists in Va. He helped
Madison by rounding up support for the defeat of the assessment bill in Va
in 1784-86, threw his support behind ratifying the new constitution after
being assured that Madison did favor a BORs being added, threw his support
behind getting Madison elected over Patrick Henry's hand picked man, James
Monroe, to the House of Representatives of that First Federal Congress. He
returned to his home state of Mass. in 1790-91, where he remained as an
active minister and champion of separation of church and state and
disestablishment till his death in 1841. He wrote articles against
establishment while in Mass and testified before the Mass legislature on at
least one occasion. He and Issac Backus were probably the the most famous
of those who fought for religious Freedom in New England.
*************************************************
A warning from Rev. Leland
[emphasis added]
.. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous
of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your
constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and
estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who
seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst
of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to
establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a
principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids
the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore,
must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about
religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew
the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such
shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate
candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their
wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and
quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a
sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light,
that their deeds may be examined. . . .
SOURCE: Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The
Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York
Times New York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of
The Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By
Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass.
Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.
*************************************************
THE principle, that civil rulers have nothing to do with religion in their
official capacities, is as much interwoven in the Baptist plan, as
Phydias's name was in the shield. The legitimate powers- of government
extend only to punish men for working ill to their neighbors, and no way
affect the rights of conscience. The nation of Israel received their civil
and religious laws from Jehovah, which were binding on them, and no other;
and with the extirpation of that nation, were abolished. For a Christian
commonwealth to be established upon the same claim, is very presumptuous,
without they have the same charter from Heaven. Because the nation of
Israel had a divine grant of the land of Canaan, and orders to enslave the
heathen, some suppose Christians have an equal right to take away the land
of the Indians, and make slaves of the negroes. Wretched religion, that
pleads for cruelty and injustice. In this point of view, the Pope offered
England to the king of Spain, provided he would conquer it; after England
became Protestant, and in the same view of things, on May 4, 1493, the year
after America was discovered, he proposed to give away the heathen lands to
his Christian subjects. If Christian nations, were nations of Christians,
these things would not be so: The very tendency of religious establishments
by human law, is to make some hypocrites, and the rest fools; they are
calculated to destroy those very virtues that religion is designed to build
up ; to encourage fraud and violence over the earth. It is error alone,
that stands in need of government to support it ; truth can and will do
better without : so ignorance calls in anger in a debate, good sense scorns
it. Religion, in its purest ages,,made .its way in the world, not only
without the aid of the law, but against all the laws of haughty monarchs,
and all the maxims of the schools. The pretended friendship of legal
protection, and learned assistance, proves often in the end like the
friendship of Joab to Amass.
SOURCE: The Virginia Chronicle, by John Leland, 1790. The Writings of John
Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times N Y (1969)
pp.91-124) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder John
Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With
Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. New York
Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, 1845
*************************************************
Q. Did the Almighty ever give a code of political laws to any
nation? or, are nations left to act at discretion in establishing forms of
government and codes of laws?
A. The Almighty did certainly give the nation of Israel a complete
code of laws on Sinai, and in the wilderness, for their rule of conduct in
religious, civil and military life.
Q. Were those laws obligatory on other nations?
A. Laws, that are in themselves just, are binding on all men, but
the particular form of many of those laws was peculiar to that nation. The
transgression of many of those precepts was criminal in that nation, which
the Gentiles were never accused of by their great apostle, Paul.
Q. Has the political part of that constitution [Mosaic
constitution] ever been abused by Gentile legislatures?
A. Abundantly so, among Gentile nations that have become Christian;
for by bringing Christian states upon the same footing with the
commonwealth of Israel, they have supposed that Christian nations have a
just right to dispossess the heathen of their lands and make slaves of
their persons, as Israel served the Canaanites and Jebusites: for no better
claim than this had the European nation to make a seizure of America. Nor
is this all: civil rulers, in Christian countries, have taken the liberty
of adopting such precepts of the Mosaic constitution as suited them, and
punished those who would not submit, when, at the same time, they have left
unnoticed a great number of the precepts of Moses which were equally
obligatory.
Q. Has the eccleriastical part of the Mosaic constitution ever been
abused as well as the political part?
A. Yes, and that to a great degree. The church of Israel took in
the whole nation, and none but that nation: whereas, Christ's church takes
no whole nation, but those who fear God and work righteousness in every
nation. But almost all Christian nations and states, since the reign of
Constantine, have sought to establish national churches: in order to effect
which, they have brought in all the natural .reed of the professors into
the pales of the church, making no difference between the precious and the
vile; and from this foundation they have appealed to the laws of state,
instead of the laws of Christ, to direct their mode of discipline. What a
scandal it is to the Christian name to see church discipline executed in a
court-house, before the judges of the police to see censures given at the
whipping-post, and excommunications at the gallows;(1) and for smaller
breaches, to be admonished by a sheriffs
SOURCE: The Yankee Spy, by Jack Nips ( John Leland), 1794. The Writings of
John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times N Y
(1969) pp.215-229) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder
John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With
Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. New York
Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, 1845
*************************************************
In the United States it is generally believed that the laws given
by Moses were not binding on any nation but the Israelites. No other nation
has ever adopted them. That kings are born with a divine right to rule, is
not believed among us. Our government is formed on another principle. Our
institutions recognise the sovereignty of the people. That all power is
vested in them, and by them given to all the agents, who are accountable
servants. If this is correct, it follows that no chief magistrate,
legislative body, or judicial board, have, or can possess any power, which
is not found in small constituent parts among the units that compose the
whole body ; for how can the creature possess more power than the Creator ?
The result is, that if one individual has the power to impose an oath on
another, in a small moiety, then, by adding all the little grains together,
officers can be created to coerce by oath. But where is the individual who
possesses the power or right to compel his neighbor to tell what ho does
not choose to reveal, by a threat of the vengeance of God if ho diminishes
or adds to the truth ?
SOURCE: Oaths, by John Leland Published in 1830. The Writings of John
Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times N Y (1969)
pp 597-599) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder John
Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With
Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. New York
Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, 1845
*************************************************
The Law of Moses contains three parts. First. The ten commandments
engraven on stone. Second. The sixty precepts written in a book and
sprinkled with blood, designed for the government of their commonwealth.
Third. Their religious usages, containing bleeding victims, smoking altars,
divers washings, and carnal ordinances; to be continued until what they
prefigured should take place. Sometimes the whole of Moses' writings,
without distinction, are called Moses, or the law.
When it first took rise, to call the ten commandments moral,
distinct from the other parts of the law, or why it is continued, I cannot
tell.
The word moral is not in the Bible, but it is a word of general
use, in these days, and of a variety of meanings. In the religious
department, it is used by many divines, to express the eternal rule of
right which proceed from the relation that exists between God and men, and
between man and man, and that will continue as long as the perfections of
God and the faculties of men exist, without change, amendment or repeal. In
this point of light I receive and use the word in my research.
Why men should pay more deference to the decalogue than to the
other parts of the law, I cannot ascertain. True, the ten commandments were
spoken aloud by God, amidst awful emblems of his power ; so also the sixty
precepts were written in a book, by a holy man of God, inspired by the Holy
Ghost, and sprinkled with blood. When our Lord was asked by a lawyer, which
was the first and great commandment, our Lord did not answer him from any
of the ten commandments, but from Dent. vi., 6, and Levit., xix., 18, where
Moses was not treating of the decalogue.
4. None of the laws of Moses were written and engraven in stones
but the ten commandments; and yet it is expressly said, (2 Cor., iii., 7,
11, 13,) that the ministration of what was there written, is done away and
abolished, which will never be the case with moral law.
SOURCE: Sabbath Examined by John Leland, August 1837 & June 1838. The
Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York
Times N Y (1969) pp.688-696) Originally published as: The Writings Of The
Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By
Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass.
New York Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, 1845
*************************************************
If Alabama's Chief Justice Moore weren't a judicial demagogue and if he
really wanted to "do it right," he wouldn't have done it the way he did.
He'd have talked it over with his colleagues, he'd have done some research,
and he'd have solicited input from legal scholars and historians -- and
there wouldn't be any "Ten Commandments controversy" whatever. Moore would
have had his Moses, and more.... But, in my opinion, politicians like Moore
aren't as much about Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition as they
are about using Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition to create
controversy and get votes. (11.04.2001)
SOURCE: BurtLaw's Court Gazing II BurtLaw.Com- LawAndEverythingElse.Com -
Copyright (c) 2001 Burton Randall Hanson
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id50.htm
[Scroll down to: The "Ten Commandments movement" revisited.
*************************************************
The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go forward
steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent demand to
have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present tough
questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers
mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a
continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases
-where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public
park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of
those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the
symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized.
Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure
with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the
very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might
wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to
"put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say- -plants the
religious flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien,
infidel intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are
a kindred but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.)
Both are joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at
the heart of religious freedom in a pluralist society.
The gist of the demand is that the muscle of your religion be displayed in
the public space. The subject, as is usual with facile shows of patriotism,
is power. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free expression by the
creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud or self-delusion..
There are ample private spaces in every community, amply visible, for
displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public space, the space
that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the nonadherents. The
distinction is readily, if not always malevolently, blurred. . .
Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet atheism,
there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar
confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on
public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They
are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said,
power over the nonbelievers. This was underscored for me in a fleeting
moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division
(Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village
of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a
place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding,
one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing
it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas
season. To my surprise as the questioner, it turned out that he never
bothered to go look at the creche at all, let alone to admire or draw
inspiration from it. But on reflection that should not have been so
surprising. The creche was not there for him to see or appreciate for its
intrinsic spiritual value in his religious universe. It was there for
others, who professed other religions or none, so that the clout of his
religious group should be made manifest-above all to any in the sharply
divided village who would have preferred that it not be there: This is the
low road., followed by at least a good number of those who seek for. their
religion and its symbols the imprimatur of government. If it is religious
at all, this stance betokens a weak and self-doubting species of faith.
Much more blatant and unsettling than the creches and menorahs, and even
the tasteless evasions of moment-of silence laws, is the ongoing course of
flat-out defiance of the Supreme Court's ban against organized prayer in
the public schools. It is ironic at best that in God's name, while tracing
the blessings of democracy to their religion, so many people hack at the
most vital of democratic organs: the rule of law, including the acceptance
of authoritative decisions by those commissioned to expound the
Constitution. Ironic or not, the practice continues, at a steep price in
human anguish and political subversion.
SOURCE: FAITH AND FREEDOM, religious liberty in America, Marvin E. Frankel
(retired U S Federal District Court judge) Hill and Wang, N Y (1994) 55-64
*************************************************
.. . . The result is a tyranny of principles (including the emotivist's
principle of deference to "objective expertise"), as well as a concomitant
response in favor of a tyranny of individuals (anarchy). These twin aspects
of emotivism are evident, for example, in the rise of efforts, under the
rubrics of free speech and free exercise, to place formal Christian prayers
sanctioned by school authority back into the public schools. The free
exercise right is asserted here in terms of anarchical, radical individual
rights: "my" individual rights, "my" absolute right to free exercise,
without regard to the disestablishment principle or to competing interests
of the community. Interestingly, where they are able, religious adherents
(also or instead) argue the authoritarian side of emotivism: They reject
any court's interpretations of the first amendment which recognize civil
liberties contrary to their beliefs because these interpretations are based
upon nothing more than the justices' personal opinions and subjective
feelings.13 Their majority status and legislative influence are the hard
facts which objectively, and thus conclusively, should decide the issue.
(SOURCE: Regulating Religion, The Courts and the Free Exercise Clause.
Catharine Cookson, Oxford University Press, (2001) p (Preface) IX
.
|
