Why was it so difficult to stop international slave trade?

           In the modern world, slavery has come to be seen as a great evil. The notion of one man owning another and earning his daily bread, and often much more, by the sweat of that other man’s brow is abhorrent to Western mankind. However, this was not always the case. While it would be easy for us today to project in reverse our values and principles on those of the past, we must be careful to avoid this. By so doing, we would unjustly judge our forbearers and we would discredit the brave and progressive souls who stood up and fought for principles that we now hold to be self-evident.

The international slave trade was a deep and longstanding institution by the time William Wilberforce struck out to ensure its demise. For centuries, men and women of European descent had travelled down the western coast of Africa to capture black men, women, and children. From there, they would transport them all over the West, forcing them into slavery. During slavery, and along the way, they would subject them to heinous treatment, murder, rape, and other terrible experiences.

This institution became so central to the Western way of life that attempts to bring it down were met with serious resistance. One of the strongest reasons behind the perpetuation and defense of slavery in the face of opposition was its economic significance. Many of the thriving industries of the day were entirely dependent on slave labor. The textile industry, numerous major agricultural industries, and a significant portion of the shipping industry all relied on slavery.

With so much economic justification behind slavery, it is not hard to imagine that other reasons were conjured up to support the institution. Possibly, the most significant of these was racism. Many white people were eager and easily willing to accept that they were superior to Blacks. Indeed, almost all Whites at certain times in history were convinced that their race was, if not better, at least better suited for the role of leader and director of the Blacks. Not all of the racism of the day was violent or aggressive. Much of it was milder and in some ways, might have even been disguised as a sort of benevolence toward a less able group.

The variety of manifestations of racism presented those opposed to slavery with a great challenge. Firstly, those aggressively and more radically racist were formidable due to their absolutism and disregard to the welfare of Blacks beyond common property. The less radical racists, which I would guess constituted the majority of the people during the centuries of African slavery’s greatest prevalence, posed a different challenge in that they feigned goodwill concern for the Blacks. They were able to hide behind a façade, which among other things, came to be called “the white man’s burden.”

Another justification that was used in defense of slavery was religion. The Christian white population of the West viewed themselves as religious superiors to the “godless” Africans. This idea further supported racism at both ends of the spectrum. Those who claimed goodwill toward the Blacks could assert that they were taking a lost and dark people and bringing them into the light of Christianity, saving them from eternal hell. Those who did not consider Blacks to be humans drew further justification of that belief because, to them, those who did not believe in Christ were less human than those who did.

Also, as we explored more in depth in class, the Bible seemed to support slavery. Because many of God’s chosen people in the Bible had and kept slaves, adherents of slavery were able to cite the word of God as precedent for their practice. Those who did not feel the Bible supported slavery were nearly either forced to say that the Bible should not be interpreted literally, that the spirit of the Word was of greater import than the letter, or that the Bible was not true and must be abandoned. Neither of these approaches to dealing with slavery in the Bible was popular.

Aside from economics, racism, and religion, tradition combined of all of these factors and added to the support of the perpetuation of slavery. “My father had slaves, and his father before him. Why should I have none?” This type of sentiment surely encouraged many to support the institution.  Also, the traditional justification of slavery via racism, religion, and economics turned into self-fulfilling claims. For example, the idea that Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites was stimulated by the fact that black slaves were not educated, were commonly denied the right to read, to learn mathematics, or other forms of intellectual development and exercise. That Blacks were considered to be unchristian was only perpetuated by the fact that the lives they were allowed to live were, in some instances, not conducive to the principles of Christianity. For example, the common Christian principles of monogamy and fidelity to ones family were not easy for those who family members or they themselves could be sold and transported to another area, separated from their families. How could black slaves have the same concept of family as those who were actually secure in their familial relationships? They could not.

There were undoubtedly many other reasons why the international slave trade had such a firm footing, but I feel that all of the rest (at least those I can think of) were rooted in those I have discussed. Those who opposed slavery had much to overcome before they could make even the slightest step forward. For this reason, we should continue to remember and celebrate those who sacrificed so much to bring about the end of the slavery and the trading of slaves.

Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

          What is most magnificent to me about Lincoln’s second inaugural address is the magnanimity that he exhibits toward the South. Under his command, the entire nation was well invested in the most deadly and devastating of American wars. It would have been so easy for him to sound the trump of self-righteousness and assurance. How tempting it might have been, as a leader, to assert the rightness of their cause, and to claim that they had the sanction of God on their side. However, this is not what Lincoln did. He was humble in his declarations, claiming that he knew not entirely what was wrong and what was right. He avoided judging the South for what many would have called their many wicked deeds.

            To me, exhibiting such humility and love for the South in his position says to me that Lincoln was a true Christian, regardless of his religious convictions. He was a man who loved his neighbor as himself, who was willing to forgive, to avoid unrighteous judgment, and to extend peace to his enemies.

            For me, reading his address and considering it in the context in which it was given was a marvelous experience that taught me a great deal about Lincoln, about Christianity, and about the foundational principles upon which this great country stands. 

2nd Great Awakening

What did you learn about the Second Great Awakening that helps you appreciate or understand Joseph Smith's first vision?

With regards to the Restoration, it might be easy to isolate it from the times in which it occurred. The longer time continues, the further we get from that wonderful occurrence. The Restoration did not happen in a vacuum, however, and learning about the environment in which it did occur provided me with a better understanding of what prompted Joseph Smith to seek answers to prayer, and also helped me to see what type of climate our Heavenly Father chose for the commencement of the final dispensation.

In the Pearl of Great Price account given by Joseph Smith, he relates that he felt himself in a “tumult” of words, in a sort of religious battleground. While this has registered with me prior to learning to about the Second Great Awakening, I did not quite grasp the extent of his struggle. For me, I thought it was more akin to the situation that people of the current generation find themselves in. For example, today, there are many faiths and churches, and many of them compete with actively compete with each other. This was also the case in Joseph Smith’s time, but it was much more energetic than what we experience today. There was almost a craze, a fanatic preoccupation with religion. While many people today define himself or herself by the religion they adhere to, people also define themselves by many other meters, such as occupation, regional affiliations, hobbies, schools, music, etc. In Smith’s time, it appears, at least in certain areas, that the church to which he or she belonged determined one’s identity.

What is most interesting is that God chose to restore his Church in such a climate. In some regards, this makes sense: people were seeking to learn about religion, there was a great deal of excitement about it, and people were willing to dedicate their lives entirely to their faith. For some of the same reasons, it seems almost counterintuitive to restore the Church at this time. If a Five Guys, Smash Burger, and In and Out Burger all open up in 1 mile radius, it doesn’t seem like the best time or place to open up a start-up hamburger joint. God works in mysterious ways, I guess. 

Crandall Printing Press

The Crandall Printing Museum turned out to be a much cooler experience than I ever would have imagined. For one, the tour guides, all older gentlemen, were very entertaining. They competed amongst themselves for our attention, clearly had a pecking order, and were lonely men seeking to share their enthusiasm for printing. The two main presenters started working in print shops when they were 14-years-old. They had a passion for the craft, especially due to the incredible impact that it had on the world.

The museum was broken up into three main parts: the Guttenberg exhibit, the American Revolution exhibit, and the Book of Mormon Exhibit. To those of the Mormon faith, particularly Americans of the Mormon faith, these three parts represent three of the greatest turning points for the world. With the invention of the printing press, Guttenberg brought the West of the intellectual Dark Ages. With the American Revolution and the printing of such works as Common Sense, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution, men were freed from the grasps of the political dark ages. Finally, with the printing of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ, mankind was brought out spiritual dark ages.

I found this tour to be very enlightening. It was fabulous to see how the development of the printing press came about, and how it evolved as time progressed. This experience strengthened my testimony of the restored Gospel, the miraculous founding to the United States, and humanism in general. 

Why were women so late?

In answer to the question “Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concerted effort to receive rights?” my first response would be, “I have no idea. I wasn’t there, I don’t know much about the day to day life of people who were, and I’m not even a woman.” One way I could approach this question is to place all of the blame on men—at least I am a man and might be able to understand their position a bit more than the other genders (I said understand, not sympathize with or agree with).

According to my understanding, men were, and in many cases, still are of the opinion that women’s role is predominately in the home. Indeed, it appears that Mother Nature herself, or the less animate Biology, would agree. Anyway, if men were of that opinion, it makes sense that they would have opposed any changes to the status quo. If a woman, for example, sought to exercise more power out of what her husband had delegated her, she might even be subjugated more.

Reflecting on the last paragraph, I feel that it doesn’t say much.

Another reason that might have contributed to the fact that women in general waiting a long time to organize a concerted effort to receive equal rights is that the women who went around in circles of high influence were bound my propriety and tradition. Many women, simpler women, might have exhibited the characteristics of a more liberated individual. Say, it is likely that some rural women participated in the same activities as their husbands or the men around them—similar types of work, similar responsibilities. These women, however, and also the men of such status, for that matter, were not really in position to organize groups of people to elicit change.

Women who were affiliated with political leaders, organizers, and those associated with money and education, were bound by tradition. After years of education, many women were essentially trained in the art of being fragile and tender, weak and submissive. While their male counterparts were being to taught to manage money, people, and in some cases, nations, the women were learning to remain oppressed.

The social norms revolving around individuals of money also taught a woman to know her place. She was taught that politics were too much for her feeble mind, and that weightier matters should be left in the hands of the men.  If she were to reject such notions outright, she would risk being ostracized from her public sphere.

Such were some of the obstacles that stood on the way of women organizing themselves to fight for equal rights. I wish now, however, to return the original question: “Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concentrated effort to receive equal rights?” I have to ask myself in considering this question if in fact it did take them “so long.” It might all be relative, but compared to other nations and cultures, women of the United States were early in their fight for equal rights. Why did it take so long for women of other nations to do so? And why did the women of the United States do it so early compared to others?

If we consider the fact that it was only recently that the Liberty and Freedom of American standards were established in the world, and that women in the world were for the great part not treated with equality anywhere in the world prior to the 19^th Century, it is not surprising that it happened when it did. Men in general were not equally much prior to the time when women began to organize themselves lobby for equal treatment. Indeed, equality was not known amongst men by any means at the time of the Seneca falls convention, and hundreds of years later, it would still be a stretch to say that men enjoy equality. I do not feel that the women’s movement for equal rights began late; I feel that relative to the fight for equality for man generally, they were very prompt.

Amistad, the movie

The movie Amistad presents a powerful representation of the Americanized institution of slavery, and at the same time, it exposes a great number of faults that have plagued this great nation. Before briefly exploring those issues, I wish to say that I believe that America truly is the greatest nation ever established. Pointing out flaws and weaknesses are not intended break America down, but to build it up.

            First off, the hypocrisy that was evidenced through the enslavement of one people by another, especially when the latter seeks to spread freedom to its people and even the world, showed how blind people can be, and how detrimental wicked traditions can be. John C. Calhoun, during the dinner scene, and also from other sources where he has been quoted, was a prime example of the blindness that a person or people can willfully adopt in order to do what they believe benefits them.

            Also, the weakness of the president and the challenges that he presented to the Amistad case showed how connected the various branches of government are. This is problematic as the purpose of this separation of powers is to avoid corruption and abuse. Luckily, the time was right and John Quincy Adams joined up for the cause of the Amistad.

            I loved this movie and was every inspired by it. 

Federalist 57

At the outset of this article, James Madison explains what the principle responsibilities of a political constitution are. He says:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Those are indeed very important aims of a constitution. A government, as we have come to understand it in the United States, is a system instituted for directing the affairs of a nation, keeping the protection and well being of the citizens of that nation at heart. So far, we have only been able to come up with governments that are run by people. Maybe as technology gets better, we will be able to design a completely new form of government, but so far, we are still dependent on human beings to run the affairs of this system. So, if men are to be the principle movers and shakers within this system, I think that Madison was correct in saying that one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to ensure that those men and women involved in the running of the government are virtuous, honest, and sincere citizens, and also that they stay that way at least for the duration of their tenure in office.            

            One way to ensure this is by allowing the people to elect those who represent them. The idea of a representative government is not new, but it was not in all cases that the people elected the representing officials. Actually, in the United States, such was not the case due to the fact that a majority of the populace was disenfranchised for many years following the inception of the U. S. government. However, having the people elect those who will represent them, and having them do so often, is one way that we can assure that elected officials are the types of people we want in office.            

We place so much power in the hands of elected officials, and making sure that they are going to fulfill their duties with the best interest of the people in mind is not necessarily easy. The terms of senators is six years long—that is no short time. One could do a great deal of damage while in office in that time, even in one year, if they are not monitored and checks and balances are not put into place to protect.

            Madison places a great deal of trust in the fact that elected officials are chosen by the people. He thinks that this will ensure that the officials will stay virtuous and good while in office. He claims that they will feel a sense of gratitude to their constituents, that they will be driven by their own ambition to get reelected, and that they will be forced to consider this often due to the frequency of elections.

            I myself am not entirely convinced that these measures are sufficient. We have, with hundreds of years of experience, seen that elected officials can and often do act in their own self-interest, which oftentimes goes against what is best for their constituents.

            However, even with numerous examples showing that our system of electing representatives has been insufficient in assuring the best actions of the government, I did learn a great deal about the system of government that we do have through reading this article. Before, I was convinced that the number of terms that elected officials can serve should be limited, as is the case with president, but I am not now not entirely sure that would help in keeping them virtuous while in office. 

Wonderful Compromise

The word “perfect,” when used to describe any subject, elicits thoughts of unity, integrity, wholeness, completeness, purity, etc. As the endeavors of the Founders have been described as intended to create “a more perfect union,” the amount of compromise that was required to bring about the product seems to be in contrast with the idea of perfection.

While watching the film A More Perfect Union, I found myself growing frustrated with the battle between the small and large states. To me, as to Madison and others, it seems that true liberty would have been served by having both houses of the Legislature determined by the population. The failure of the “larger states” to secure this would make me think that the desire to create a “perfect” nation was not fulfilled. And that is definitely true.

The epiphany that Madison has about the need to compromise had quite an effect on me, despite the fact the movie was plagued with a terrible score, acting, cinematography, and sound quality. While the ideals to create a perfect nation served as motivation for the Congress and all of Madison’s work, the great good that eventually came out of that work was that a more perfect nation was created.

One of my main struggles with politics is that it is so subjective, and that there are no absolutes. What is best for one person might not be what is best for me. This complicates things. Or so I thought. This is only a problem if the goal of government is to be perfect. I no longer think that it is. Its goal is to meet the needs of people, whatever they may be. This requires compromise and a give and take attitude.

This attitude, this willingness to give and take that government requires, is actually a great thing. In life, it is required of s to give and take, to be willing to sacrifice our wants to the wants of others at times. This is what makes us good people. And a system of government that encourages that by necessity is accomplishing good. Such might have been Madison’s epiphany, and even though it was hundreds of years ago that this idea came to him, I experience it still today as a powerful and useful discovery.

Writing the Constitution

The following are some questions that the Founding Fathers of America dealt with when establishing their new nation. In thinking about such questions, I wonder what factors allowed them to identify such questions, and what sources gave them the insight to answer them.

-What is the fundamental assumption behind the Constitution?  

Their answer to that might have been something like this: “We need a gov't, or that a gov't is essential.”
-What does an ideal gov't do?

In my own words, I would say, “Encourages moral behavior through permitting liberty.” The answer that the Founders derived was a bit broader than mine, but it did include what I said.
 

One of the sources of inspiration for how to model their new government was to look at the past governments of the world and try to learn from their mistakes and success. They did this by comparing idealistic principles to real situations--this leads Founders to consider various solutions. The result is the Constitution.
The Constitution was a response to the recognition of the Human Predicament, which is outlined in the following flow diagram:

 
tyranny=>revolution=>anarchy=>competing groups=>back to tyranny, etc...

This predicament had been addressed in at least four way in the past, all of which tried in different ways to balance the issues of Government, Freedom, Human Nature. Those four options were, Autocracy, Classical, Libertarianism, and Liberalism. The fundamental assumptions behind each of these modes of political thought are as follows:
Autocracy- people are like children and they need teaching. Strong gov’t.
Classical- idea that man could be corrupted, and so gov’t was intended to instruct people so they could govern themselves. This also applied to gov’ts—they too could be corrupted.
Libertarianism- idea that humans are essentially good, not just clean slate, but good, and minimal gov’t is best. “Best gov’t is the gov’t that governs least”
Liberalism- people are basically good but gov’t can be used to improve society even more. Gov’t is a tool of releasing human potential.

All of the Founders saw each of these options and considered them. They were not black and white about which was good and which was bad, but they agreed that not any one answered all the questions on its own.  The Founders decided to build a government that took ideas from all of the modes of thought above. They also instituted checks and balances so that the various powers would not win out over each other. This is the original genius of the US Constitution. The Founders then set bounds by laws, courts, and police.

Also, the Founding Fathers did not see a difference between politics and economics. Therefore, the same variation that we see in the political sphere, we see in the economic. Within the economic sphere, there is a system of checks and balances in place. Out economy is not strictly a market economy, nor a socialist, neither is laissez faire nor communism the modus operandi.

Organizing the Constitution was a mighty work, because it had to incorporate many things, such as: structure, participation, law, custom and tradition, moral sense, and leadership. Also, it needed to find a way to insure that laws be implied impartially, and this is one of the great steps forward of the Constitution, though it is reminiscent of  the Rule of Law—no one is above the law, which was part of the English political canon.

Conclusion
The Founding Fathers wanted to tackle the problem of gov’t once and for all. This necessitated an inherent ability within the gov’t to change and adapt. This required that individuals did not make changes, and that they were deliberate, that a mad or self-interested man did not drive them. 

John Adams Miniseries

The HBO miniseries John Adams is one of the best television experiences I have ever had. For me, it went way beyond good entertainment, like the rest of the shows on TV. It was educational, like a History Channel special, mixed with inspiration, like a LDS General Conference, and drama, better than LOST, if you ask me.

            One of the main reasons that I enjoyed the show so much was the portrayal of John Adams. Many times we hear the Founders referred to as demigods, yet this series shows Adams as a simple yet passionate man. He struggled with pride, a bad temper, and family difficulties. It was inspiring for me to see him struggle with all of his challenges, all the while holding to his ideals and remaining true to his duty to his country and people.

            After watching the entire series, I decided to dedicate myself to being a better American. Watching this show reminded me that I too have a responsibility to serve my country and fellow citizens, and being passive about it will amount to nothing. John Adams was a man, despite his many flaws, who was not passive. He fought to create this country, and he fought to maintain it.

            Sometimes, I think, “If I had lived in those times, I would have done the same. I would have been one of the leaders, pushing for change and good.” Then I have to ask myself, Am I doing that now? Am I pushing for change now? Am I willing to sacrifice for something bigger and better than myself? And at times, I have to honestly answer myself with a no.

            The portrayal of John Adams in this miniseries has encouraged me to be more active, and it is for that reason, I say that it is a good show.

           

            Even though the HBO John Adams was a Hollywood interpretation of historical events, I feel that they were true to the spirit of the Revolution. There are so many different, politicized accounts of what occurred during the founding of America. As a matter of fact, when I was watching the miniseries at home over Christmas break, my liberal grandfather was visiting, and he was very critical of the series because he felt that it venerated Adams too much and did Jefferson a disservice. I thought about what he said, and see where he was coming from.

            For me, however, as I have already mentioned a bit, the series was about plain people who recognized that change needed to occur and set about making sure that it was good change. Jefferson was undoubtedly a significant figure in the Founding, and his ideals for government certainly influenced the outcome. What was magnificent about the Founding, and what remains magnificent about the government today is that it is a collection of ideas that are used to counterbalance and compliment each other.

            Following this thought, I see that my involvement in government does not need to be perfect. I do not need to have everything figured out. I do not need to be right. I simply need to bring uplifting and positive ideas to the table, where they can be matched with the ideas of others to produce a part of the whole. The whole is greater than the sum of the part.

Types and Shadows: Intimations of Divinity

Art is a fun thing. And like any fun thing, it’s more fun when enjoyed with more people. I have been accustomed to visiting museums, reading books, looking at architecture, listening to music, considering ideas, and watching performances alone, alone, alone. While many of those experiences are dear to me, I must say that the few times that I have truly experienced art with someone else, in sync, simultaneously, have been most rewarding.

The point is that, sure, I’ve been to art museums with people before. I’ve watched movies with others many times. But just because our eyes were cast the same direction did not mean that we were seeing the same thing. There have been a few occasions, however, when it felt like we were. We were being stretched in similar ways, challenged together. That is a unique and powerful experience.

Our class visit to the BYU Museum of Art to see the Types and Shadows: Intimations of Divinity exhibit was truly a group experience. Through the comments made by others, I felt that we were enjoying the art together.

The experience with one particular painting sticks out. The piece with the chairs, one standing and one fallen elicited thoughts and feelings within me that I knew others were experiencing as well. As we talked about the journey of life, about sin and redemption, about the process of repentance, and about the majesty of God, I could tell that others were deeply contemplating these issues.

As the scriptures teach, “all have sinned,” and for those of us who desire to be guilt free and clean, repentance is a very important part of our lives. As we viewed that painting, I felt supported in my quest for growth toward perfection by the idea that others too were taking steps in their minds, motivated by that beautiful painting.

As people, we are social beings. We want to belong and be a part of something greater than ourselves. Our trip to the MOA really showed me how art can be a powerful tool in uniting people across so many different barriers.  Art is a social entity, not meant to be enjoyed in a vacuum. This in and of itself is a type of Divinity.

We can experience God on our own. This is a valuable experience. But I believe that the heart of religion is the interpersonal relationships that it helps to create and to perfect. Through such relationships, we become perfected. 

Revolution of Sober Expectations

One of the great questions of history is “Why does one people flourish while another does not to the same extent?” This question can be asked, for example, of the difference between certain Latin American countries and the United States of America. While both were settled at similar times, and both have similar resources, one has become the most powerful nation in the world, possibly that the world has ever known, while the other remains a third world country (I won’t clarify which country fits where in order to avoid offending anyone.) Answers to our original question shed great light on the way we understand the world.

I believe that this question is what led to Martin Diamond’s observation that the American Revolution was a “revolution of sober expectations.” By asking why the American Revolution was so successful in breaking the cycle of the human predicament while the French and the Russian revolutions were not, Diamond discovers that it was the modesty of the founding fathers that brought about that change.

I find Diamond’s conclusion very interesting. It seems to me that the more common deduction as to what the reasons for the success of the American Revolution were would be the genius of the founders, their passion, and also the zeal of the people in general for liberty. This, however, is contrary to what Diamond finds.

Referring to Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the two founding documents of the U.S., Diamond says “Only in the unity of the Declaration’s principle and the Constitution’s institutions does the American Republic achieve its complete being.” He goes on to say that this is because, while the Declaration begins the Revolution, it “is devoid of guidance as to what those institutions should be.” It is only after another eleven years of consideration and compromise that the Revolution “reaches its completion with the Constitution.” This shows that at the time of issuing the Declaration, the founders were not yet confident in asserting what type of government should replace the existing one.

It is this eleven-year silence, this gap between the beginning and completion that Diamond calls the “splendid distinction” of the American Revolution. The Jacobin and Leninist revolutions were driven by devotion to the Reign of Liberty or unlimited equality in all respects, where as the American was devoted to the idea of civil liberty. This devotion civil liberty encourages moderation and sobriety. And those are the sentiments that drove the Revolution to completion.

Furthermore, the American Revolution, while devoted to democracy what not too hasty in subsiding all power to the ideals of democracy. However, a dispersal of powers was put into place, with checks and balances.

All of the considerations presented by Diamond are impressive, once again, because they are so counter-intuitive to the common ideas of revolutions in general. It was the mature nature of the American Revolution that allowed it to be so successful. I feel that this is a powerful example of the Christian ideals intertwined with the founding of America. Sobriety, moderation, maturity, and ultimately humility were the keys to the success of the Revolution. 

The Declaration of Independence

IN my opinion, The Declaration of Independence contains one of the most significant statements ever made on governance, politics, leadership, religion, and theology--"Governments [...] deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed." This statement challenged the traditional claims to power.

I know that it was not the first statement of its kind. Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, alludes to the idea when he says, "All me being equals, no one by birth could have the right" to rule others and set his family up above others. There are also many other direct references to the idea that the power of governments is derived from the consent of the people.

I feel that this idea reaches beyond politics. Within a family, the only righteous and ultimately, the only truly efficacious exercise of power of a parent over their children comes as the children consent to be governed by their parents. This, they will do, when the relationship is founded on principles of love, respect, trust, and honesty, all going both ways. A parent child/relationship is hindered by exercising power through force, compulsion, and assumed arbitrary dominion.

As with parenting, the same applies to management and leadership. Lastly, I believe that this system of governance is also employed by God. It is not through force that he directs us, but by our will (faith) that he would lead us. He expects us to walk by faith, not by knowledge. The reason why faith is so important, to my understanding, but it gives the choice--and not just the choice between things we know to be either bad or good, not a choice that is already made for us, but a choice to choose.

I see this same principle at work in American politics today. We, in my opinion, can never know for a fact what is right or wrong in politics (within certain boundaries, of course). We are expected to choose sides, however, on inherently incomplete knowledge. In doing so, we are not just choosing sides, but we are also choosing to choose.

In short, what my ranting here seeks incompletely to express is that power of any kind in any sphere of life should be something that is given or relented freely, and never taken.

An ending note, I like the following definition of Liberty--A general right to resist arbitrary Government.