SECULARISM, FEDERALISM, INTERDEPENDENCE AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
PART 2
By
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 25, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
[Note: A few days ago, someone wrote to me regarding one of my previous NewsWithViews columns wherein I mentioned that Galatians 5:19-21 says fornicators will go to hell. The person said this did not comport with their understanding of the New Testament as presenting a God of love and forgiveness. What the person evidently does not understand is that "love" does not mean allowing someone to do whatever they want (e.g., fornicate). Parents who "love" their children do not tell them to do whatever they want. Rather, they provide their children with rules to live by, and that is what THE HOLY BIBLE also does.
Yes, God can forgive all sins but one (a sin against the Holy Spirit; see Matthew 12:31-32), but as Jesus repeatedly said, "Lest thou repent," one's sins are not forgiven. If one has been "born again" (John 3:3), has become a new person in Christ, and has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then that individual will repent of any sins he or she may commit and therefore be forgiven. But repentance MUST occur.]
Not only liberals, but also many conservatives have come to accept and promote the concept of a "democracy," even though the founders of the United States rejected that form of government as "mobocracy." James Madison in FEDERALIST PAPERS Number 10 wrote that "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Rather than a "democracy," which is "a nation of men" in which the majority will on any given issue on any given day becomes the rule, the founders determined that the United States would be a Constitutional Republic, which is a "nation of laws" based upon a predetermined set of principles (e.g., majority rule, but with protection of minority rights) explicitly set forth in a Constitution under which the people agreed to live.
It was only under such a Constitution, with an enumerated Bill of Rights, that the American people agreed to become a federation of states rather than a confederation. This is important to remember today when organizations such as the (formerly titled) World Federalist Association called for a "one-world federal government." They pointed to the change in America from a confederation to a federation in the late 18th century as evidence that such a world government is needed and not to be feared moving into the future, History, however, demonstrates the enormous problems with this proposition.
When the founders of the United States chose to change the voluntary association of states, known as a confederation (under the Articles of Confederation), into a federation under which certain matters of state sovereignty were given over to a central government. Americans agreed to accept this only after an addition of 10 amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, the 10th of which specifically indicated that powers not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This is where the term "States rights" originated. However, with the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall in the early 19th century adopting the right of "judicial review," whereby the High Court could "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to impinge upon "States' rights," the way was paved for the "positivists" (e.g., Supreme Court Justices such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis) in the erarly 20th century to maintain that the Constitution was an "evolving" document that meant anything they wanted it to mean!
Those considering what a World Court might do in a World Federal Government might also reflect upon how difficult it was for those states forming the 1861 "Confederacy" to withdraw from the American federal union. The Civil War which began in 1861 began over the issue of whether states could secede from the union, not over the existence of slavery in the seceding states, as President Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until almost 2 years after the war began. The seceding states believed that since their ancestors voluntarily had entered the union, they could voluntarily leave. Their motive for leaving was primarily economic, as they felt a majority of the states in Congress were now voting consistently for legislation which harmed the South economically (including how slavery would be extended into the western territories).
The reason that the issue of economics is important with the issue of secession here is that those advocating a World Federal Government today are being somewhat disingenuous. On the one hand, they attempt to allay fears of losing sovereign rights by assuring nations they do not have to participate in any World Federal Government activity that violates their own national interests or rights (which really makes a federation into a confederation), but on the other hand they insist that the World Federal Government is a federation rather than a confederation and that it will have a World Court, for example, to enforce world federal law against offending nations. Otherwise, the World Federal Government would be a toothless tiger.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Also, do not forget that the American federal union involved people with similar values, but a World Federal Government would be dominated by Socialist nations. Of course, here is where the term "democracy" again becomes important, because what is being promoted today is a synthesis of Western Capitalism and Eastern Communism into what is called "Democratic Socialism" as it now exists in the "Socialist democracies" of Europe (many heads of state in Europe have the title "Vice-President of Socialist International" in addition to being president or prime minister of their own country).
� 2013 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Share
This Article
