For Teachers:

Teaching With Supreme Court Cases

 

 

 

For a different approach to teaching high school American History, the adventurous teacher can plot a course of study based on landmark Supreme Court cases. Each of these cases offers enough historical background for commentary on the affected period. Additionally, students are taught to analyze, think critically and logically, and enjoy American History in a uniquely different way. Using precedent cases as a base of study also allows for greater debate opportunities as well as possible simulations.

 

Supreme Court Cases that Provide a Good Base of Study

 

All of the following cases correlate to important times and events in American History, although some may overlap. Each one addresses a key issue, often overturned in later years. Taken together, a superb curriculum can be based on the use of these cases against the backdrop of history

 

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

 

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

 

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

 

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

 

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

 

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

 

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

 

Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904)

 

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

 

Schneck v. United States (1919)

 

Schecter v. United States (1935)

 

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

 

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

 

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

 

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

 

United States v. Nixon (1974)

 

By no means exhaustive, the list covers basic themes that can be woven into the particular time periods. Teachers may wish to add cases that introduce other areas to cover such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) if tracing the court’s use of the right to privacy, a newly opened door that would affect abortion.

 

Sample Lesson Plan Involving a Court Case

 

Devoting a week to Dred Scott might be briefly summarized in the following way:

 

Monday: Introduce the case (assuming you have given an overview for students to read over the weekend). Discuss the 1820 Missouri Compromise Line. Ask students to form small groups to discuss if Dred Scott was right.

 

Tuesday: Look over key elements of Chief Justice Taney’s opinion. Ask students to determine how Taney arrived at his conclusions.

 

Wednesday: Discuss the historical background, especially in 1857 when the opinion was publicized. Include public opinion (such as Abraham Lincoln’s) and review the chronology of events leading up to 1857 starting with the Compromise of 1850.

 

Thursday: Hand the class a copy of the 14^th Amendment. After reading the Amendment, ask the class to discuss how the Amendment overturned the Dred Scott Decision.

 

Friday: Review the case by having students participate in a mock simulation of the court case. Assign roles for Supreme Court Justices, attorneys for both parties, and expert witnesses. (This final activity can be stretched to two days by consolidating other above detailed activities)

 

Creativity Involves Time and Lots of Energy

 

Teachers that embark on such a study of American History must feel the passion of teaching and be prepared to devote time and energy to the endeavor. However, following a format such as the example above, each case can be plugged into similar lesson plans. Students will look forward to the final simulation and in most cases will prepare well.

First Published 1/19/09 in Suite101, M.Streich, copyright

The Supreme Court case Marbury v Madison is associated with the Jefferson presidency. It is still considered one of American History's most important cases, focusing on the important doctrine of "judicial review."

 

In the final days of the John Adams’ presidency, the president and his Secretary of State, John Marshall, conspired to fill the Judiciary with Federalists. Thomas Jefferson’s Republican-Democrats had won clear majorities in the Election of 1800, controlling both the Congress and the Executive branch. Exercising his right as President, John Adams sought to keep the third branch of government solidly in the hands of the Federalists and appointed men that followed this ideology. William Marbury was one of those men.

 

Midnight Judges

 

Although many of the commissions signed by Adams were delivered by the “midnight” hour of his presidential tenure, Marbury’s was not. After the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to have Marbury’s commission delivered. It was an attempt to keep Federalists out of the Federal Judiciary and both Jefferson and Madison knew that federal judges served for life, although Marbury’s term as a magistrate would have been for five years.

 

William Marbury sued and filed a Writ of Mandamus with the national Supreme Court, taking his cue from Section 13 of the recently passed Judiciary Act of 1789. The Writ of Mandamus, a harbinger of English Common Law, sought to order the government – James Madison, to fulfill his duty and delivery the commission.

 

The Court’s Response

 

Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed by Adams to lead the high court, was faced with a dilemma. Clearly Marbury deserved his commission, but there was no guarantee that the Jefferson Administration would honor such a decision. Marshall noted, however, that Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution defined the Federal Supreme Court as an appellate court, not a court of “original jurisdiction.” If the high court ruled in Marbury’s favor, it would be acting as a trial court and thus violating its Constitutional mandate.

 

The unanimous decision declared that Section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act was unconstitutional in that it allowed petitioners to bring requests for remedy before the Supreme Court without beginning the legal process in a lower court. The Judiciary Act was held unconstitutional. This decision is regarded as the precedent for Judicial Review, a process whereby the Supreme Court can review cases brought before it and determine the Constitutional merits of acts of Congress.

 

Jefferson’s Response

 

President Jefferson wisely accepted the court’s findings although his Congressional surrogates would attempt to remove Federalist judges through the impeachment process beginning with Associate Justice Samuel Chase one year after the Marbury decision was handed down. Chase was acquitted and the high court was vindicated.

 

Marbury v Madison (1803) represents a significant victory for the third branch of government and opened the door for other landmark decisions of the Marshall Court that highlighted Judicial Nationalism and preserved the Court as an integral part of the checks and balances system provided by the Founding Fathers.

First published 2008 in Suite101, M.Streich, copyright

Let us begin November with the 19th Century in American History, focusing on those topics relevant to that time period. The first one comes from the presidency of Thomas Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase.

 

 

 

 

When Robert Livingston and James Monroe returned from Paris with the 1803 Louisiana Territory Purchase Treaty, President Thomas Jefferson was faced with a dilemma. Jefferson had sent Monroe to Paris to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans for $2 million. A treaty selling the United States all of the territory was another matter and posed Constitutional issues for the leader of a party that believed in strict construction (interpretation) of the Constitution. Jefferson and the Congress had already authorized the Lewis and Clark Expedition, but not with the intent of owning the vast lands.

 

Constitutional Issues and Federalist Opposition

 

The Constitution did not appear to give direct assent to the purchase of land from another country. To remedy this, Jefferson, not wishing to violate his views of Constitutional construction, drafted two Amendments, the first one being lengthy and detailing all aspects of the purchase. His Cabinet rejected the notion of an Amendment, pointing out that the deadline for ratification of the treaty was October, not nearly enough time to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. Further, the Congress was not in session.

 

Congress was called into a special session to deal with the issue. It was Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, who pointed out that the Constitution allowed for the acquisition of territory through treaties. Interpreted as an implied power, it allowed President Jefferson to offer the treaty for Senate ratification.

 

Although Jefferson’s party, The Republicans (or Democrat-Republicans), were in the majority, Congressional Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase vehemently. They viewed the additional of western lands as an opportunity to create more states that would invariably align themselves politically with the Republicans (not to be confused with the Republican Party of the 1850s).

 

Article III of the Treaty

 

The third article of the treaty clearly states that the inhabitants of the Louisiana Territory would enjoy “all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States…” Federalists took issue with the implication of this guarantee. Congressman Roger Griswold firmly stated that Louisiana should hold the status of a colony and not be incorporated into the Union. This argument reflected the notion of the superiority of the original 13 colonies to other states and territories.

 

Another Federalist, Senator Thomas Pickering (MA), argued that any new state arising out of the territory should only be admitted by unanimous consent. His view was based on the principle that the Federal Union’s power was derived from the states rather than from the people.

 

Putting the Nation First: The Treaty is Ratified

 

President Jefferson explained his support of the treaty by putting the national interest before ideological considerations. “The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison had been privy to the dangers posed by the machinations of Napoleon Bonaparte. “To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, “Jefferson stated, “would be to lose the law itself…”

 

Thirteen new states would be formed out of the territory. In 1828, the US Supreme Court would validate Jefferson’s treaty-making power in the case of American Insurance Company v. Canter. Acquisition of the Louisiana Territory would provide further lands for expansion, motivating a westward movement that would continue throughout the century. The Louisiana Purchase was a major accomplishment of the Jefferson Administration.

 

Sources:

 

Thomas Fleming, The LouisianaPurchase (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003)

 

Jon Kukla, A Wilderness so Immense: The Louisiana Purchase and the Destiny of America (New York: Anchor Books, 2004)

 

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic Vol. 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

 

John J. Patrick and Richard C. Remy, Lessons on the Constitution (Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1987)

First published 12/28/08 in Suite101, M.Streich copyright

Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust 

 

Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope in the spring of 1939 and took the name Pius XII. By September, Germany inaugurated World War II by attacking Poland. The Nazi war against Europe’s Jews, however, started much earlier, beginning with Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor in 1933. Pius XII, who was pro-German, has been described by biographers as “dispassionate” and cold with a particular talent for diplomatic ambiguity. His role during the Holocaust earned him the epitaph “Hitler’s Pope,” and the recent decision to proceed with his beatification has been severely criticized by Jewish groups.

 

Nazi Germany and the Catholic Hierarchy

 

As early as 1933 Edith Stein wrote a letter to Pope Pius XI alerting him to the Nazi program of anti-Semitism and calling upon the Vatican to issue strong condemnations. She never received an answer. Stein, a brilliant philosopher who had converted to Catholicism, was a Carmelite nun, eventually deported to Auschwitz and gassed.

 

Within Germany, Catholic prelates, with minor exception, approved of the Nazi agenda and stated so in sermons and articles. Such attitudes were based on 1,500 years of anti-Semitism, often expressed violently. Hitler, himself a Catholic, reminded papal representatives of this long history several times, referring to Jews as “parasites.”

 

Cardinal Faulhaber’s 1933 Advent sermons are an example of these on-going attitudes. Although some writers have attempted to demonstrate that the sermons actually criticized anti-Jewish feeling, University of Massachusetts government professor Guenter Lewy (deceased) wrote that “It…is little short of fabrication of history when Faulhaber’s sermons in 1933 are hailed by one recent Catholic writer as a ‘condemnation of the persecution of the Jews.’”

 

The Silence of Pope Pius XII

 

Despite numerous attempts requesting Pius XII to issue a statement on the mass deportations of Jews and other non-Aryans, including a note from United States Secretary of State Hull, the pope remained silent. Pius XII said nothing when the Nazis deported the Jews of Rome, two thirds of them women and children, to eastern death camps; only 14 survived. The pope’s silence was duly noted by the Nazi leadership. On one occasion, Heinrich Himmler thanked the papal nuncio for the “discretion” of the Vatican. There is documented evidence that as early as 1942 the pope was made aware of the atrocities.

 

Reacting to Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to move the case of Pius XII toward beatification and sainthood, Isaac Herzog, Israeli Social Affairs Minister, stated recently that, “Throughout the period of the Holocaust, the Vatican knew very well what was happening in Europe.” The Vatican, however, points to the many Jews hidden during the war in monasteries and other Catholic institutions. But it is also a fact that, “In sharp contrast to the countries of western Europe, in Germany only a handful of Jews were hidden by the clergy…” (Lewy)

 

In Hungary, the last large Jewish community was saved not by the nuncio but by the Swedish government under the leadership of Raoul Wallenberg. It was Wallenberg who rallied the neutral Budapest legations into action, including that of the Vatican.

 

Heroic Virtues and Moral Corruption

 

Benedict XVI’s reference to “heroic virtues,” attributed to Pius XII, can only be justified if the so-called “secret” archives salient to the war period are fully disclosed to neutral researchers. Until that occurs, Pius XII will be tainted with his silence, a silence that one historian has described as “moral corruption.”

 

Pius XII may have saved the German Catholic Church by his silence and averted a conflict of conscience for German soldiers, but the price was the deaths of millions of innocents. As the American Jewish Committee wrote in a December 19, 2009 press release, the Vatican must take into account the sensitivities of the Jewish people in regard to the Holocaust era.

 

Sources:

 

John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (Penguin, 2008)

Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964)

Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust 1930-1965 (Indiana University Press, 2001)

Published December 20, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich, copyright

Myths in History

 

 

 

 

How many students coming out of high school and lower grade history and social studies classes will tell you that Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492 to prove that the earth was round? Or that his sailors feared falling of the end of the earth? How many students quote the final lines of Patrick Henry’s immortal speech, “give me liberty, or give me death?” And how many students really think that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and then confessed because he “could not tell a lie?”

 

Perpetuating the Fiction in the Archives

 

In 1991 Jeffrey Burton Russell published Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Russell’s research destroys the long standing myth that contemporaries of Columbus held to a flat earth theory. How then did this notion creep into history texts? Russell demonstrates how the myth became accepted history following publication of a nineteenth century biography of Columbus by Washington Irving, whose fanciful tale was more romanticism that true history. Irving’s work was subsequently used universally as fact by generations of history teachers.

 

In his 2004 book Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past, Ray Raphael casts doubt on the authenticity of Patrick Henry’s famous “give me liberty…” speech. The text of the speech was first recorded in 1817 in a biography authored by William Wirt. Wirt’s only resource was from an old eye-witness, Judge St. George Tucker, who did not have written notes but provided Patrick Henry’s text from memory. Raphael’s detailing casts significant doubt on the veracity of the speech. Founding Myths also addresses Paul Revere’s ride, Molly Pitcher, and a number of Revolutionary War subjects.

 

Henry Wiencek addresses the story of Washington and the cherry tree in his book An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. [1] Wiencek traces the store to Mason Locke Weems, an early biographer. According to Wiencek, young George Washington was responsible for the death of his mother’s favorite horse and argues that Weems altered the details into a more palatable story that still had the moral: I can’t tell a lie.

 

Many American History texts still include the anecdote that a British band played “The World Turned Upside Down” during the surrender ceremonies ending the Battle of Yorktown. But, as Barbara Tuchman explains in The First Salute: A View of the American Revolution [2], the story hails from an 1828 written account that was not based on historical fact. Tuchman demonstrates that this was probably not the tune played, but whatever the British did play “is historically obscure.”

 

In 2006 Vincent Carretta, English professor at the University of Maryland at College Park, challenged the authenticity of Olaudah Equiano’s autobiographical account of the Middle Passage, alleging that Equiano may never have been in Africa. While Carretta never set out to discredit the work [3], his painstaking research lit fires in African-American and American Slave studies. While the proverbial jury is still out, Carretta’s assertions severely questioned the use of sources without verifying all of the underlying facts. Popular stories achieve a sense of universal acceptance simply because no one vetted the original documents.

 

The Purpose of Historical Research

 

Historical research should aim toward a plausible conclusion based on verifiable sources and ironclad facts, even if it means debunking popular stories that fire the imagination. In American History, many of the early “creation myths” find roots in a post-1812 burst of nationalism that attempted to create larger than life heroes, the role models of a unique Democracy. Every civilization has done this. But for the historian, the truth is often hidden behind the fiction.

 

[1] See pages 32-33.

[2] See pages 288-289.

[3] Jennifer Howard, “Unraveling the Narrative,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Section: Research and Publishing, Vol 52, Issue 3, September 9, 2005, pp. A11ff.

Published December 14, 2008 in Suite101 by M.Streich, copyright

Ancient Witches

 

Witchcraft and the many variations denoted by that general term can be traced back to the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, especially the Babylonians. Those who practiced magic (the term “witch” is an Old English derivation), divination, and the performance of supernatural acts served both a positive and a negative purpose. Within the Judeo-Christian framework, however, there is no such dichotomy: witchcraft ran counter to religion and later became identified with the works of the devil or Satan. In the ancient world, two women stand out as the iconic witches the western tradition has come to accept as examples of the dark side.

 

The Witch of Endor

 

In Exodus 22:18 Hebrew law declares, “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” (or “sorceress”) while Deuteronomy 18:10 states “There shall not be found among you anyone…who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft…or a sorcerer…” Such passages were used in the late 15^th Century Malleus Maleficarum to justify the witch hunts of the late Middle Ages. Yet in I Samuel 28 King Saul visited the most famous necromancer (from the Hebrew terminology) of the Old Testament: the witch of Endor.

 

The witch practiced divination and could call the dead back. One modern translation refers to her as a “medium.” From the account in I Samuel several facts can immediately be determined. King Saul came at night, in disguise. The work of a witch was best concluded in the dark. The woman thought that a trap had been set: mediums and “spiritists” had been persecuted for practicing their arts.

 

Saul asked the medium to bring up the prophet Samuel. When Samuel appeared, however, he declared that Saul would lose his kingdom because God was now his adversary. The fact that Saul used divination to request help in preserving his kingdom demonstrated the strong antipathy toward such arts since he felt he could no longer call upon God and was going against his own edicts to eradicate such practices.

 

Circe and Odysseus

 

Although Greek mythology and lore contains the accounts of many witches, Circe, in Homer’s Odyssey, may be the most colorful and remembered. Odysseus landed on her island during his long trek home following the Trojan War. It is here that he encountered the beguiling woman who had transformed several of his crew into pigs.

 

The passages are full of magic and aspects of witchcraft. Circe used potions and a magic wand. She cast spells. Her magical ointments (sometimes referred to as magical rejuvenation) retransformed the pigs back to men. Circe can make herself invisible. Odysseus overcame her power with a magical root, given to him by the god Hermes. Although the passages do not say exactly how the root was used, it rendered Circe’s potion useless.

 

This magical root, called molu, may have been garlic, according to some interpretations. Garlic is one of the oldest spices in the ancient world, often equated with warding off evil, perhaps because of its curative powers. Little wonder garlic came to be identified as a defense against vampires in later centuries.

 

The outcome in the Odyssey was positive. Circe, after swearing an oath not to attempt any more magical arts against Odysseus, slept with him and fed his entire crew. She shared the secrets of necromancy, which would help Odysseus in subsequent adventures.

 

Abundance of Witchcraft in the Ancient World

 

Scholars have determined that the terms used in the ancient world to denote “witch” and “witchcraft” were both feminine and masculine. During the formation of the early Christian Church, Simon Magus was considered a witch or “wizard.” Yet, as in the time of the 16^th and 17^th Century Witch Craze, witchcraft was more often associated with females. Circe and the Witch of Endor are but two colorful examples of the phenomenon.

 

Sources:

 

T. Witton Davies, “Witchcraft,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Volume V (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1939)

Daniel Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford University Press, 2002)

New American Standard Bible, 1973

Published June 22, 2009, Suite101, M.Streich, copyright 

What Happened to Democracy? Our Form of Government - Indeed, Way of Life, in Peril.

 

 

 

 

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence begins with the ringing words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal…” Thomas Jefferson’s words go on to highlight the “unalienable” rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But, as students of American history have long pointed out, this would not become reality for over two hundred years. The development of a democratic society in which all members share both political and social rights, took a very long time in American history.

 

The Early Republic

 

Framers of the United States Constitution were cautious and followed the precepts known to them regarding representation. Only white males that owned property (land) could participate politically. The Constitution, as it was originally ratified, only allowed for the House of Representatives to be elected by direct popular vote. The President, ultimately, was elected by an Electoral College and Senators serving in the national legislature were appointed by state legislatures.

 

By the 1820s states began to change voting qualifications to open the franchise to all white males whether they owned property or not. Historians estimate that between 1824 and 1828, nearly one million new voters were eligible to participate in the political life of the fledgling nation.

 

By the 1840s, groups of women began to actively advocate for the right to vote. The 1848 Seneca Falls Convention publicized the Declaration of Sentiments, written by early Feminist leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. The early Women’s Movement would join forces with a growing Abolitionist Movement, hopeful that their political emancipation would come with the emancipation of slaves. The 15^th Amendment proved them wrong.

 

The Post Civil War Years

 

The Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in 1870, upheld the right to vote by all citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” On the heels of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws” and “due process,” the Fifteenth Amendment enabled African Americans the opportunity to participate politically.

 

But even as Southern states sought to circumvent Reconstruction legislation designed to mainstream freedman into the political system, social equality was not addressed. Additionally, the clamor to include women in the political process met with deaf ears.

 

The “separate but equal” doctrine, affirmed by the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v Ferguson, denied blacks social equality while prohibitive policies geared toward political participation kept blacks from exercising the vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other local devices in the South stifled the notion that “all men are created equal.”

 

Women finally achieved the right to vote in 1920 with the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment, although some territorial jurisdictions had already allowed women to vote in that last 1800s.  It was not until 1964 that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment did away with the “poll tax” as a requirement to vote in a national election. By 1971, citizens attaining the age of 18 were given the right to vote.

 

Social Equality in the United States

 

Enough evidence exists from the lives of post Civil War Radical Republicans that social equality between races was not a part of the political equality enshrined in federal law and Constitutional amendments. Social equality began with Brown v. Board of Education when the Warren Court ruled that separate but equal was “inherently unequal.” The inability of African American students to obtain an equal education directly impacted their ability to be successful in society.

 

Ultimately, the Civil Rights movement and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s legislative initiatives would pave the road toward social equality for all citizens. Over two hundred years after Jefferson’s Declaration, the nation would truly become the world’s greatest democracy.

 

Sources:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development

Published December 21, 2008 in Suite101, M.Streich copyright 

 John's Letter to Laodicea

John’s letters to the seven churches in the New Testament book Revelation or the Apocalypse have been the subject of diverse interpretation and debate for two thousand years. This is particularly true of his letter to Laodicea, believed by many evangelicals to represent the Christian Church at the period of Christ’s second coming. Other scholars view the letter as an isolated communication, describing historical observations apart from allegorical motivations.

 

Laodicea as an Important Roman Metropolis in Asia Minor

 

John’s letter is detailed in Revelation 3:14-22 and describes a Christian community in the midst of a thriving city. Established between 261-246 BCE, Laodicea was located on an important eastern trade route as well as a site of military movements. It was where King Louis VII of France was defeated by the Muslims in AD 1147 during the Second Crusade.

 

During the time of imperial Rome, Laodicea was known as an important medical site, notably for the treatment of eye problems with a locally produced ointment. Its woolen industry, characterized by black wool, was highly prized. Finally, the city was located less than ten miles from the hot springs at Pamukkale.

 

The Christian Community Critiqued by John’s Final Letter

 

John’s admonition begins with the words of Christ, identified as the “Amen.” The Laodicean Christians were branded as “lukewarm,” neither hot nor cold. Some scholars suggest that John’s metaphor referred to the city’s proximity to Pammukale. By the time the water from the hot springs reached Laodicea, it was lukewarm.

 

The term lukewarm” suggests that the Christian community had allowed compromise with their wealthy community to silence their witness and testimony. They were no different in their everyday lives from others in the community. Their “goodness” was not unconditional and their faith was obscured.

 

The focus of the admonition shifts to the prosperity of the Roman city: “I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything…” The Christians are advised to “buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see.”

 

Here John refers to the medical treatment Laodicea was known for. According to his observation, Christians had no need of God because they were blinded by their own prosperity.

 

Jesus Stands at the Door and Knocks

 

At the end of the passage, Jesus, through John’s writings, “stands at the door and knocks…” Significantly, he is standing outside of the community of believers and hopes that someone will “hear my voice.” The Christians were so preoccupied and self-absorbed, they did not even hear Christ beyond the door.

 

Anyone opening the door would receive Christ in their home, taken to mean their entire being. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus broke bread with those that came to hear him and be taught a different path. Some of the most important and long-reaching fellowships Jesus had were over dining together such as the Last Supper and the evening meal at Emmaus.

 

These were the victors whose garments were white and who had bought from Jesus “gold refined by fire.” The white garments were in contrast to the black wool that made Laodicea so prosperous while the gold represented purity set apart from the gold of commerce.

 

Spiritualizing and Allegorizing the Revelation Passage

 

Are contemporary Christians “Laodiceans?” Observers that highlight the lukewarm nature of 21^st Century Christianity not only believe this but view it as a sign of the “end times.” This is particularly true in industrialized nations where religion has been marginalized by wealth.

 

Like the ancient Laodiceans whose wealthy community was home to a vast banking industry, Christian communities today are often motivated by the gold of greed and power. Laodicea was destroyed during the Middle Ages, conquered by the Turks. Its early Christian churches are merely ruins, hardly attesting to the once proud and prosperous metropolis.

 

Sources:

 

E. J. Banks, “Laodicea,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume III (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939)

Fatih Cimok, A Guide to the Seven Churches (Turizm Yayinlari, 2001)

Anna G. Edmonds, Turkey’s Religious Sites (Damko Istanbul, 1998)

New American Standard Bible (Moody Press, 1973)

The author's visit in 2007

Published 3/4/11 Decoded Past, M.Streich

The On-Going Dearth of American Religion

 

The recent USA Today story on Americans and religion, reported in all the major media outlets and based on the American Religious Identification Survey 2008, highlights the growing trend among Americans to forsake mainline churches and in some cases turn from established religion altogether (March 3, 2009). The results may come as a shock to a nation that has always considered itself “religious” compared to the secularization of Europe, notably those nations like Sweden and Denmark where people are happy and content but rarely attend church (Phil Zuckerman, Society Without God, NYU Press, 2008).

 

Why Americans May Be Turning From Established Religion

 

Throughout the 19^th century and into the 20^th century, Americans were predominantly of Protestant background, identifying with denominations that stressed Bible literacy. Americans read their Bibles and religion was a daily part of the nation’s schools. Although one cannot blame the current trend on taking prayer out of schools, the fact is that as America emerged as a global superpower, the emphasis internally on religious education waned.

 

Americans today have difficulty reading speeches and books written in previous centuries that contain Biblical allusions. Additionally, it is out of fashion to make analogies to Old or New Testament stories and parables; most listeners simply cannot “get” the connections. For many college students today, the dearth in understanding American History is eclipsed by an almost total ignorance of the Bible.

 

Additionally, 20^th century immigration patterns enabled many non-Christian immigrants to settle in America. Multiculturalism and social diversity introduced new religious faith traditions. Muslims today comprise 5-7 million adherents in the United States, depending upon which count is accepted. All of these changes are good for America but they also help to explain why Christianity is losing ground.

 

Politics and Social Activism Replaces Bible-Based Teaching

 

Ever since the so-called “religious right” leaders like Jerry Falwell and later men like Ralph Reed promoted the “moral majority” and faith based initiatives, identified with conservative Republican politics, fundamentalist churches and entire old-line Protestant denominations partially redefined their roles, supporting a movement that promised to stop gay initiatives, abortion, and other practices deemed sinful by the religionists.

 

The Roman Catholic Church followed suit, albeit late, appointing priests to lobby not only the Federal government but state legislatures. For Catholic bishops, the chief issue has always been abortion. The American Bishop’s Conference November 2008 letter to President-elect Obama demonstrated their solidarity in promoting a pro-life position, threatened by the potential of a liberal administration’s forcing all health care providers to offer abortions and contraceptives.

 

Despite the official church views, however, many Catholic legislators support abortion rights. Adding the fallout of the abuse scandal and the church’s turn to a more conservative orthodoxy focused on Canon Law, individual bishops are exercising near medieval powers in reigning in any perceived “liberal” detractors. The firing of Ruth Kolpack by Bishop Morlino in Wisconsin in early March 2009 illustrates the move from social justice to arbitrary rule ( Mike Sweitzer-Beckman, National Catholic Reporter, March 17, 2009).

 

The Disillusion of the Faithful

 

Whether an emphasis on political issues or an effort to emasculate the gains of the Vatican II Church Council, mainline American churches have placed themselves into positions whereby they are not ready to address the everyday concerns of Americans who may be facing unemployment and impoverishment. Abbreviated sermons that would cause Charles Finney and Billy Sunday to shudder frequently omit any scriptural exegesis and leave church-goers with a sense of emptiness.

 

These are some of the reasons Americans are less religious. Liturgies are non-relevant; sermons and homilies tend to be psycho-babble or extended please for donations, and the study of the Bible has dwindled. Americans are too busy – or too tired, to attend Sunday School or Bible studies. Until the Christian churches regain their focus, the trend may continue, as it has in Europe.

Published 3/21/09 M.Streich, Suite101 copyright

Dominionism or "Kingdom First"

 

Why do some conservative, evangelical Christians view the building of mosques and Islamic centers in America as a threat? Why do certain political candidates decry “Sharia law” but demand the posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses? What do some evangelicals mean when they refer to the “Kingdom of God?” These questions describe an eschatological interpretation referred to as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, or Kingdom First.

 

This is why many evangelical leaders and politicians, in part, fervently support Israel. In a fusion of religion and foreign policy, it helps explain theological imperialism, used, for example by leaders such as George Bush, to excuse foreign Middle East adventurism as an element toward global democratization. Gerson, writing in the Washington Post, states that Bush was “converted” to Dominionism, “a kind of Christian Wahhabism.”

 

Is there a Bible Basis for the “New Israel” Concept of Belief?

 

Dominionist evangelicals believe that the Christian Church is the “New Israel,” an age that began in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus. Bible passages such as Matthew 24ff are used to support this view, including the erroneous notion that St John’s Apocalypse was written prior to A.D. 70 and actually describe contemporary events. It is generally accepted, however, that John’s ‘revelation,” written on the island of Patmos, is dated to the period of Emperor Domitian.

 

Kingdom First adherents also believe that Jesus’ references to the “Kingdom of God” were characteristic of a worldly kingdom, not a spiritual state or relationship with God. The Great Commission, referenced by Christ several times, never assumes an earthly kingdom: no Bible passages support this. But Christians believing that it does are the very ones insistent on the full application of Old Testament law in a civil society. This becomes part of building the kingdom of God on earth.

 

One of the “signs” of the end times is that the Gospel will be preached throughout the world. Those that follow Dominion theology assume this to mean that the world will be reflective of biblical laws, including Old Testament proscriptions.

 

God has Never Forgotten His Chosen People

 

Many of the Old Testament prophets speak of Israel’s redemption and restoration. Zephaniah speaks of Israel’s future at the end times declaring, “…I am going to deal at that time with all your oppressors…I will give you renown and praise…When I restore your fortunes before your eyes…” (3.19-20) Ezekiel’s vision of dry bones (37.1ff) also speaks of restoration. The Jews are the “apple of God’s eye.” (Zechariah 2.8)

 

Other passages clearly state that God’s people will be restored. There is no biblical evidence that demonstrates that the Christian Church is the “New Israel,” supplanting the Jewish people. In fact, St Paul devotes part of his letter to the Romans (chapter 11) to this very subject. Dominion movement adherents, however, see America and American democracy as part of the “New Israel” mission.

 

They interpret the “pursuit of happiness” as part of that vision, viewing multiculturalism as a threat. Thus, Islam in America must be opposed, according to their thinking. To attract broad conservative appeal, especially among evangelical Christians, they spread erroneous view of Sharia law and other Muslim beliefs. Comparative religious studies become taboo.

 

Theological Imperialism and the Spreading of Democracy in the World

 

Christians that follow the Reconstructionist view interject theological perspectives into foreign policy, equating the kingdom of God with democracy as a political system favored by God and part of the divine order. Gary North, a prominent figure in the movement, wrote that, “When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.”

 

Dominionists have a poor historical or cultural understanding of the Middle East and Islamic beliefs. Although often referred to as “biblical literalists,” they tend to cling to allegorical interpretations of biblical “end times” conclusions. Thus, the “Arab Spring” is viewed as a positive step toward a more democratic Middle East. Such thinking divorces Islamic belief and practices from existing tribal cultures in the Middle East. One clear example is the rise of extremism in Egypt involving groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Israel’s right to exist is viewed more in eschatological terms rather than real-life considerations. Conservative politicians are concerned with obtaining Jewish votes in American elections but profess friendship for Israel based on underlying theological principles. Those same politicians have no trouble equating the American global “mission” with the ideals of a Christian “New Israel.” Senator James Inhofe’s seventh reason for supporting Israel, for example, is that Israel has a right to the land because “God said so.” Inhofe states that, “This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.”

 

Building the kingdom of God revolves around a union of church and state. Political leaders like GOP candidate Michele Bachmann, for example, do not believe in the idea of separation of church and state. Dominionists support private and home-schooling efforts and want to do away with the Department of Education. They oppose gay rights and maintain that the legal system is grounded in Old Testament laws.

 

Secular Misunderstanding of Dominion Theology

 

Secularists view such evangelicalism as extremist but fail to appreciate the theological implications. These implications go far beyond a denial of global warming or, as Bachmann has stated of herself, that God speaks through personal revelation. They impact foreign policy views that focus, largely, on Israel and the Middle East, but for the wrong reasons. In 1989, Hal Lindsey wrote that, “Unchecked, the Dominion Theology movement among Christians could lead us – and Israel – to disaster…”

 

In 2011, the movement has capitalized on widespread social discontentment, blaming economic problems on moral decay. Any hint of liberalism is attacked as “Socialism,” including social justice efforts. Adherents of Dominion theology profess to be biblical literalists in everything except the example of Jesus’ ministry to the poor and sick as well as eschatological interpretation. Thus, its political leaders are determined to repeal health care reforms; GOP frontrunner Rick Perry believes that Social Security is a hoax. Perry’s attack on Social Security cannot be minimized given the fact that he wrote about it in 2010.

 

Well-meaning Christians often have no idea that they are supporting the Reconstructionist or Dominionist agenda. Writing in the National Review (September 1, 2011), David French attempts to debunk the “fears” of Dominionist thinking by disingenuously using examples that do not illustrate the theological dangers of the movement. For example, he talks of Francis Schaeffer’s pro-life message but has probably never read any of Schaeffer’s philosophic works. By ignoring the underlying theology of the movement, French misses the crux of the argument. Although it would be wrong to use the movement solely as a political barometer, Americans – and especially evangelicals, should be aware of what shapes the views of key political candidates.

 

References:

 

Huet-Vaugun Emiliano, “A danger to democracy,” National Catholic Reporter, September 21, 2007

David French, “I’m a Dominionist? I Had No Idea,” National Review, September 1, 2011

Michael Gerson, “An unholy war on the Tea Party,” The Washington Post, August 23, 2011

Michael Goldberg, “A Christian Plot for Domination?” The Daily Beast, August 14, 2011

James M. Inhofe, “Peace in the Middle East,” Speech on the U.S. Senate floor, March 4, 2002

Hal Lindsey, The Road To Holocaust (Bantam Books, 1990)

Jon Meacham, “In God We Trust,” Time, September 26, 2011, Vol. 178, Issue 12

“Stop Sharia Law, Foreign Law From Entering American Courts,” Conservative Action Alerts, July 17, 2011

M.Streich, copyright September 25, 2011 Decoded Past

Growing up in the American Northeast in the 1960's my family would frequently drive to one of the early so-called big box type department stores thriving on the nearby highway. Many times these trips occured after Sunday dinner. This was still a time when certain rules applied and only parts of the stores were available for shopping; the rest of the store was roped off. This was the long legacy of Sabbath beliefs that dated back to the early Puritans. 

The Sabbath was all important in every phase of American life. During the election of 1844, for example, President John Quincy Adams, seeking reelection, was branded as a "Sabbath breaker" by the opposition. In 1877, Rutherford B. Hayes did not take the oath of office on the Sabbath even through Grant's term had ended at midnight, so the nation spent one full day without a president. 

Following is an article from September 29, 2008 (Suite101) by M.Streich, copyright explaining the role of the Sabbath in Colonial America.

 

During the highly charged presidential election of 1828, supporters of Andrew Jackson labeled John Quincy Adams a “Sabbath breaker.” Keeping the Sabbath was part of religious tradition and expectations since the founding of the colonies and would not change until Irish and German immigration redefined the role of Sunday in American culture. So important was Sunday church attendance that, in the earliest days of the Virginia colony, a newly arrived governor, Sir Thomas Dale, called for repeated church absences to be subject to capital punishment. Keeping the Sabbath in colonial America was a key feature of religious practice, regardless of the particular denomination enforcing the rule.

 

Early Sabbath Practices

 

In Puritan New England, the Sabbath began Saturday evening. The earliest places of worship were homes or crudely constructed meeting houses. Even as these primitive churches were rebuilt in later years, Calvinist New England frowned upon church adornment, unlike the Anglican Churches in the Virginia colony.

 

The Old North Church in Boston, famously identified with the midnight ride of Paul Revere, is an example of how colonial churches came to identify Sabbath worship with social classes. Rather than pews set in rows, the church contained rectangular boxes, each one the private domain of families that had paid for the seating.

 

The same held true in Virginia churches. Families, including servants and slaves, filled these private boxes, bringing blankets and foot warmers in  colder months. In New England, it was not uncommon for sermons to last several hours and required church attendance extended to afternoon services. Commenting on the social configuration of church seating, Henry Wiencek writes that “In Washington’s Virginia, family determined one’s place and one’s identity, even in relation to the Creator.”

 

In 1954 Great Britain’s Queen Mother visited the Bruton Parish Church in Colonial Williamsburg. According to historian Richard Fried, when asked if she wished to join in prayer in the pew once used by royal governors, she asked if George Washington had owned a pew and replied, “I would prefer to kneel there.” Pews were sold well into the 19^th century.

 

Religion professor Ronald White relates that when President Lincoln arrived in Washington in 1861, the First Presbyterian Church offered the new president a pew without charging the customary rental fee. Lincoln, however, declined, attending instead the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church paying $50 a year for a pew.

 

The Penalties of Sabbath Breaking or Service Disturbances

 

Although Governor Dale’s suggest of capital offense was never acted upon, penalties for neglecting Sabbath services were severe. In Virginia, offenders were usually fined, the proceeds going to the churches charged with financial support of orphans and widows. Repeated offenses invited public flogging or the pillory.

 

Parishioners were summoned on the Sabbath by the ringing of bells, beating of drums, or the sound of a trumpet. Lay church leaders scoured the communities, making sure everyone that wasn’t sick was at church. In Virginia, for example, it didn’t matter whether a person was a member of the Church of England. Attendance was still required.

 

The Sabbath also banned any activities considered profane, such as hunting, sporting, dancing, or doing non-essential work. The Sabbath was “the Lord’s Day,” and any activity that was deemed inappropriate was an offense against God. In New England and Dutch New Amsterdam, also a Calvinist community, these rules were far more stringent and more rigidly enforced.

 

Modern Vestiges of the Sabbath Laws

 

Many states still retain elements of Sunday prohibitions traced to Sabbath practices that are often called “blue laws.” In some states, no alcoholic beverages may be purchased on Sunday and liquor stores are closed.

 

Fundamentalist denominations still promote a “Lord’s Day” free of work and devoted to family worship and fellowship. As long as personal religion is important to Americans, these considerations will be honored and kept.

 

Sources:

 

Alice Morse Earle, Home Life in Colonial Days (Stockbridge, MA: The Berkshire Traveller Press, 1974) [book was first published in 1898]

Dale Taylor, The Writer’s Guide to Everyday Life in Colonial America From 1607-1783 (Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books, 1997)

Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003)

 

The Music of Imperialism

 

The music of late nineteenth century British imperialism took many forms. From beer hall ballads to Evangelical hymns highlighting the goals of an increasing missionary movement, popular music characterized nationalist pride in empire. In Britain particularly, with a far flung global army on which the sun never set, music celebrated the glory of empire whether in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta or the martial tunes of the “Soldiers of the Queen.” Rule Britannia was the epitome of what it meant to be British. As the Japanese forces converged on Singapore at the state of World War II, colonial leaders sat in the lounge of the Raffles singing, “There will always be an England.”

 

“Men of Harlech” and Beer Hall Jingoism

 

Two years after the gallant defense of Rorke’s Drift, the regiment adopted the tune Men of Harlech. The song hearkened back to the time of the War of the Roses when a handful of men held the old Harlech Castle for seven years against a superior force. Now it pointed to British action in the Zulu Wars. (The song was used in the 1964 film Zulu, albeit with different words) Stirring tunes like Heart of Oak and Rule Britannia, both written a century earlier, captured the spirit of national patriotism. Commenting on the events of early 1878 in the Russo-Turkish War, Queen Victoria wrote her daughter saying, “But we shall yet assert our rights – our position – and ‘Britons will never be slaves’ will yet be our motto.”

 

In the nation’s pubs, another song was being sung:

 

We don’t want to fight,

But, by Jingo, if we do,

We’ve got the men,

We’ve got the ships,

We’ve got the money too.

 

According to Penny Summerfield, music-hall entertainment (as well as pub tunes) and popular ballads of the day fed patriotism and impacted the government’s actions toward the empire. Under public pressure, Britain sent its fleet to stop Imperial Russia from acquiring Constantinople. In the mid 1880s, popular outcry forced the Gladstone administration to send an army up the Nile to relieve Khartoum and one of England’s imperialist heroes, General Charles Gordon.

 

Empire and the New Jerusalem

 

Although written in 1804, William Blake’s “Jerusalem” characterized the self-perception of Britain. It was set to music in 1916 and is still part of a venerable repertoire that recalls the days when God favored England to bring civilization to Rudyard Kipling’s “half devil, half child.” (From his poem, The White Man’s Burden)

 

I will not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England’s green and pleasant land.

 

Blake’s intention was far from an imperialist endorsement, yet his words were later adapted to fit the Utopian ideals of imperial egalitarianism.

 

In 1878, HMS Pinafore opened in London and ran for 571 performances. Perhaps Gilbert and Sullivan’s most characteristic refrain in the piece highlighted the notion of providential superiority, a by-product of Social Darwinist beliefs:

 

For he is an Englishman

And he himself hath said it

And it’s greatly to his credit

That he is an Englishman

 

This was the spirit of “Jerusalem” and Elgar’s later “Land of Hope and Glory.” In many ways, the patriotic ballads and songs legitimized empire and Britain’s self-perceived unique role as a global force. Still today, the “Last Night at the Proms,” part of an annual summer concert festival, features the songs of empire, ending with Rule Britannia, as concert goers in the over-filled Royal Albert Hall frantically wave the Union Jack.

 

Rule Britannia!

Britannia Rules the waves

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

 

Sources:

 

John M. Mackenzie, Imperialism and the Popular Culture (Manchester University Press, 1986).

Andrew Porter, The Oxford History of the British Empire: the Nineteenth Century (Oxford University Press, 1999).

Jeffrey Richards, Imperialism and Music: Britain 1876-1953 (University of British Columbia Press, 2001).

Penny Summerfield, “Patriotism and Empire: Music-Hall Entertainment,” (in Mackenzie, cited above), Chapter 2.

Published in Suite101 2/16/2009, M.Streich copyright