May 22, 2001

I have read your letter and was interested in responding with my thoughts on some of the items you touched on as well as other topics.

First and foremost, I’m interested in telling you my thoughts on the current political climate in Washington as well as it has been in the not so distance past. The Republicans and Democrats (or as we libertarians like to say “Republicrats”) remind me of two kids fighting over a toy. The bickering and power struggle has more to do with ego than any proposed differences on the issues. In fact, they want the same thing: cater to the whims of special interest at the expense of the Constitution, increase the power and size of government and spend with reckless abandon. So why do two kids much less political parties who want the same thing argue and fight amongst themselves? It really comes down to a matter of who gets to play with the toy. They at any given time can then indulge in their self-gratification.

I would like to elaborate more on a much-cited yet misunderstood clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Simply put, this means that the government shall not set up an official religion such as the Church of England. This clause had three main intentions: to prevent the persecution of people in the name of religion, prevent wars that for the most part are waged in the name of religion and that people in spite of different faiths or religious beliefs will not destroy each other over a matter that really bears answering to God and only God. Politicians have the same right of freedom of speech as you do. Simply uttering "God bless you" is not a violation of the First Amendment. If anything, the religion clause of the First Amendment guarantees that any politician can say "God bless you" or "Blessed be." However, the Supreme Court and ACLU take this clause to mean that there should be no public expression of anything doing with religion, faith, spirituality, etc… This extremist approach would make the Framers of the Constitution cringe. If anything, the ACLU doesn’t have much credibility with me. They are quick to shout “Separation of Church and State”, but yet when the Baptist Tabernacle in Indianapolis was seized because they refused to take out on Federal Withholding taxes, they were nowhere to be found much less heard.

Separating the powers of church and state has been America's unique addition to history's search for the optimal arrangement of governmental power. It is probable that America would have never moved so forcefully to its radical stance of separating church and state had it not been for the life and work of Roger Williams and James Madison.

Williams viewed the Church as an invisible body, being any and all who place themselves in God's kingdom by faith in the Christ. It is neither denomination nor group of denominations, nor is it coeval with the membership of Cotton's church. Williams was convinced that the true Church was made up of those people who were being led by God's Spirit, whoever they were, wherever they were. Such members would not likely be involved in the civil persecutions characterizing the Puritan churches. The weapons of a true Christian's warfare would never be so carnal. The Crusades, for example, were an abomination to Williams as was the Roman hierarchy in its many uses of force.

James Madison further stated that "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

–Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Simply put, if God is so great, then God needs no approval from people, much less governments comprised of people. When Jesus went before the governor and “he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he said nothing.” (Matthew 27:12) Jesus who was righteous, holy and without sin didn’t need to defend himself before those who are not righteous, unholy and sinners.

You mention that you believe that “those Justices have more influence on our society than anyone else in our government”. It was this precise reason that Thomas Jefferson feared the potentially dangerous situation involving the courts. He feared such because “the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law without precedent, sapping little by little the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction before anyone has perceived that that invisible and helpless worms has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”

(Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.”)

When federal judges take their oaths, what do they swear to uphold and defend? The Constitution. But what has really happened is that they reinterpret the Constitution to do exactly what Jefferson noted in his letter to A. Coray; to boost their own political power and cater to the whims of whoever they seek to please. The same thing can be said about Congress and the President. They take an oath, then go about their own power grabbing ways, not the business of the people.

However, what is more disturbing is that We The People haven’t exactly done a good job of holding our elected officials accountable. How did we get sucked into collectivizing decisions? Purple prose is one. Words such as “community” and “social” soothe us into thinking that collectivist decisions are for the betterment of the people. But the simple fact is that communities don’t make decisions. Individuals who claim to speak for the community impose their decisions on all of us. When the government fears the people, we have freedom. When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. As of now, we have tyranny.

I’m also interested in replying to your comments on state’s ban on partial birth abortion and prayer at high school football games. Is Roe v Wade Constitutional or unconstitutional? It is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government shall be involved in abortion? Nowhere! In fact, it only mentions three specific actions listed as crimes: counterfeiting, piracy and treason. Because the Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion, it should have no position whatsoever. It shouldn’t fund it, endorse it, encourage it, mandate it, prohibit it, discourage it, nor criticize it. But with Roe v Wade, it opened the door for the federal government to be involved in abortion. Sure enough, the so-called Pro Choice groups are now using the courts and Congress to pigeonhole their way using public money to fund abortion, make it a crime to say “abortion is murder” and even to prohibit you from expressing your thoughts to your representative. The Pro-Choice aren’t pro-choice at all. What they secretly desire is to position themselves to eventually mandate (in another word force) women to have abortions for whatever reason they see fit. It could be “population control” or crime prevention techniques. If it is decided that they don’t like blacks, then they could require all black women under a certain age to have abortions so that we can “cut down on the crime that occurs in the inner cities.” Sure enough as mentioned before, people will fall for these feel good words. This is the danger of having the government involved in abortion much less other areas that the Constitution doesn’t authorize. But likewise, if the Pro-Life people also seek to use the government to get their way, they are in effect doing the work for the Pro-Choice side. What the Pro-Life people need to do is join the Libertarian Party and fellow libertarians. Jefferson stated that it is wrong to compel people to do, or pay for something that violates their morals. It would be wrong to force a Muslim to pay his or her money that will eventually be used to subsidize a cattle farm. Likewise, it would be wrong to force people to do, or pay for something that violate any other moral that a person may have.

On the issue of education and public schools, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government shall be involved in this matter and with good reason. Nowadays, public schools are indoctrinating kids to be “fine upstanding citizens”. Usually this means imposing means on the kids that would cause a parent to remove their child from school if they were aware of it. It could be homosexuality. It could be condoms. It could be any other matter in which a parent objects to their children being taught. If a public school says we shall pray, is this not an establishment of religion? But likewise, if the government says you can’t pray voluntarily, is this not prohibiting the free exercise thereof? All the more reason to get the government out of the schools. No more public schools. All schools will be voluntary and private. Then if a parent wishes for their child to attend a Christian school or a Jewish school, then they should do so. No longer will the ACLU be able to use the crutch of “no prayer in schools” if the schools are not associated with the government. Also, get rid of this system of slavery otherwise known as taxation. This will prevent the government from using the excuse of “how do we fund public education if we don’t have any money?” The parents will be doing the spending and choosing, not the politicians who in effect cater to special interest. In light of this, the issue of home schooling is a big issue with libertarians. A parent should be able to raise their child as they see fit not some government bureaucrat. If they teach at home and away from public indoctrination programs, this will be achieved. However that is not to say that you shouldn’t expect a visit from the FBI who will then charge you with contributing to truancy of a child.

If you are more interested in information on the Libertarian Party, visit the national web site at http://www.lp.org

Call 1-800-ELECT-US

Or write to:
The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Ave, NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20037
In closing, I wish to remind you as I try to remind myself, that I don’t do the Lord’s work for my own self-glory or the glory of others. The Work of God should bring Glory upon God. I wish you well on your future endeavors, and if you have any questions that you would like to ask, write to the return address on the envelope or email me at [email protected]

God Bless,

Chris Fortner