U.S. House of Representatives Special Committee on Communist Activities in the United States. On Jan. 19, 1931- “The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each state by the Federal Constitution.”
Why would the ACLU have supported communism? ACLU is a law office isn’t it? It is supposed to uphold the constitution and protect it’s citizens, right? Communism seeks to destroy and replace the Constitution. It sounds so counter-productive.
For Humanism or Marxism to take hold, Christian morality and Christian restrictions need to be eradicated. Christian law needs to be replaced with preferences and relativity for humanism to take precedence.
Christian law? What are you talking about? When did we have that?
The Constitution actually was founded upon biblical principles, but even the law in our country was founded upon such. The leading law text book of the time was known to have such a powerful Christian basis that lawyers have been converted to Christianity by reading it. It is called Blackstone’s Commentary on the English Law.
David Barton - “Blackstone is invoked as an authority in the writings of James Kent, James Wilson, Fisher Ames, Joseph Story, John Adams, Henry Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Otis and more... In fact, so strong was its influence in America that Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.”
If it was based upon Christian principles, what happened? Christopher Columbus Langdell happened. He effectively replaced Blackstone with his case law system which replaced Christian principles with humanistic (athiestic) ones.
Gary DeMar - “Darwinian evolution has placed law in the arena with evolving man. If man has evolved, then the standards primitive man once held must change along with him. When the higher law is abandoned, another law takes its place. The humanistic doctrine of evolution allows man to create for himself the law he believes will most benefit evolving man. Law then is what men or the courts say it is.Wrongs are defined in terms of what hurts man. There is no appeal to a law-order outside man.” (Emphasis added)
If you doubt the contrast and anti-God shift, here are some pointers from John Eidsmoe who studied this change in law.
- There are no objective, God-given standards of law
- Since God is not the author, the author must be man
- Since man evolves, so must the law.
- Judges must guide the evolution of law (generally through Langdell’s Case Study method - a process based upon Marx's dialectic [see Synthesis not Resolution?])
Remember how I said the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles? What has happened to that?
Edwin Meese - “...under the old system the question was how to read the Constitution, under the new approach, the question is whether to read the Constitution... The results is that some judges and academics feel free to ‘roam at large in the trackless fields of their own imaginations.’” (Emphasis added)