A Lesson From My Past: Part Five (12-2005)

In the final part of his series, Dr. Del Tackett discusses separation of church and state, the growth of civil government and other important issues in relation to judicial appointments.

by Dr. Del Tackett

I pray that you and your family enjoyed a wonderful Christmas! We certainly did and I appreciated the few days off as well. But with the battle over Samuel Alito now heating up, it is time for us to summarize the past four "judicial" newsletters.

We began pondering why there was such a firestorm over Supreme Court nominees. When we started, Harriet Miers was the target. It is now Judge Alito. It doesn't really matter who it is since the situation that generates this tinder box still exists. The more a nominee represents a shift in political power, the more volcanic the battle will be.

But wait a minute! That doesn't make sense, does it? Judges aren't supposed to have "political" power. They are simply supposed to have wisdom and discernment - an ability to examine the facts in a case and (often with the aid of a jury) rule according to the law.

Let's review what we have found on our little historical tour to better understand our present situation:

• America was founded upon the premise that its people would govern themselves through an internal moral compass. John Adams even stated that our Constitution was "wholly inadequate" to govern a people not guided by this internal moral compass.
• America was founded upon the critical notion that the civil government must be limited - in both scope and power. When you consider the concept of a limited civil government, it is easy to understand why they had such a deep interest in securing the underlying foundations of religion and morality.
• American law was based upon the view that any man-made law must conform to God's law, clearly understood from His Word and His creation. Jefferson penned two well-known legal terms for this: "the law of nature" and "nature's God".

So what has changed? How did we go from relatively uneventful appointments to our current battle? Well, each of these three principals have flip-flopped.

First, from academia to mass media, the mantra of "separation of church and state" has virtually severed the original link the founders saw between our religious foundation and the health of our nation. Without the internal moral compass, we are slouching ever closer to Gomorrah.¹

Second, the civil government has grown in size and scope without restraint. This has resulted partly from the fact that power craves power, but largely because of our "foundation" problem. As Benjamin Franklin warned: when a people grow corrupt, they have more need of masters. Eventually, moral chaos will demand the rise of a tyrant.

And finally, the judicial system has turned its back on the notion that law is based upon anything absolute and transcendent. That puts man (and particularly, man in power) at the center of all things judicial. He becomes the sole source of defining what is right and wrong. In essence, might makes right. And since all law is based upon an ethical notion, the might that makes right rules.

So, having abandoned these three fundamental sets of guidelines, we are now engaged in a mad fight for the king of the hill. If God is removed, man becomes the source and center of power, and thus we have a battle for who is on top. Law will always be the mechanism of power in a nation state, even in the instances where it is the capricious law of a despot king. The essence of his law boils down to what helps or hurts him personally.

We are no different today. Many of our laws are now crafted with the purpose of gaining or maintaining power.

So, as you follow the Alito hearings, you are going to witness a firestorm, filled with heated arguments and some very deep, emotional accusations. When you do, you will now know why.