Higher Education: Creative Destruction?

Comment:  I came across this article Higher Education: Creative Destruction in 24Jun - 04July 2014 edition of 'The Economist'. I normally do not read The Economist for its outlook and truthfulness in reporting due to the publications strong bias. This article caught my eye after having written on Free-Market Capitalism.  After reading the article, I saw so much wrong with the fundamental logic purveyed, that I thought it may serve as a good example of the challenges facing U.S. Citizens. 

Download Higher Education: Creative Destruction   Morality of Capitalism Post

Higher Education: Creative Destruction?

The article opens with a glowing affirmation of welfarism as the unequivocated source of higher education's entitlement successes offering to the middle class what had previously been only for the elite. The article continues on to describe the Free-Market principle of ' Creative Destruction ' as a force operating in the remaking of the university. The article cites a variety of statistics, newer technologies, and market forces as evidence of the remaking. Specifically, the article cites Massive Open Online Courses, MOOCs, as the defining technology that will remake universities and upset the tenure system.  The MOOCs are still early in their development and research is ongoing to resolve long standing remote or distance training issues.  However, in general the MOOC offers classes for free and for a fee the student can transfer the course to an accredited status. The operative strategy of the MOOC is to reach as many people as possible training them in the values, knowledge, and perspectives of the course. 

The concept of 'Creative Destruction' is a Free-Market principle. Creative destruction replaces old technology with newer technology in service of humanity.  The article cites the older university system being replaced with MOOCs and provides value and benefits of the transition. However, the greater operative mechanism behind the transition is not human creativity in the production of wealth in a free market system but instead creative politics, institutional theft, and demeaning values of political ideologues.

The education system has been wrought with political ideologues for over the past 100 years.  Welfarism is touted as the champion of education but is nothing short of institutional theft which is rooted in political investments vice the production of free-market wealth. These political actors in the education system have introduced mechanisms for change that are not natural and not typical of the Free-Market system.  One such mechanism is Outcome Based Education which has the purpose of educating students according to planned outcomes. The misleading stated purpose is a systemic plan to prepare all students to meet high standards. The real purpose behind the misleading premise is a delivery system for new beliefs, values, and ways of thinking. The Father of Outcome Based Education is professor Benjamin Bloom stated, "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings, and actions of students" (Kjos, 1995, pp. 11-13).  In 1956 Professor Benjamin Bloom published  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in which he defined and classified learning behaviors into measurable categories that deny personality and the spirituality of a person stripping away individuality.  In doing so, Bloom changed the focus of education from a general education that benefited humanity to narrowly focused training based on behavioral psychologists' determination of what changes in thought, feelings, and actions are desirable and perhaps necessary for society as a whole. This led to Mastery Learning and Outcome Based Education (Coffman, 2012, p 203). 

The MOOC is a natural movement for political ideologues seeking globalization.  World-class standards seek new high standards for global challenges and a global economy. However, the new standards are low for literacy, comprehension, and factual learning but high standards for beliefs, attitudes, and group thinking to prepare human capital for the next century (Kjos, 1995, p. 11).   An upgraded version of Brave New Worldby Aldous Huxley is being implemented to include thinking skills based on feelings and experiences, not facts and reason (kjos, 1995, p. 29 ). The world has moved towards a high degree of confidence in unsupported personal beliefs; opinions are ok. For example, the method used for scholarly publication and citations by the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual, is deliberately designed to permit adaptations of the truth. The citation methods that the APA uses are paraphrasing in order to permit pliable and malleable adaptations of other scholarly works.

Evidence of the progress towards globalization and adaptation of the educational system is no more evident than this remark, "I have learned may things… children who are educated to respect other cultures, races, and religions generally grow into tolerant adults who raise tolerant children – Reema Sanghvi, grade 11 (Cummins and Sayers, 1997, p. 61).”   This is a political ideological view, a sound byte that sounds good, and not a critical assessment nor realistic as among religions there are intolerant paradoxes. For example, Islam's Surah 112:1-4 is direct denial of Christianity's ultimate revelation and well known verse, John 3:16.  Islam is directly denying Christianity holistically.  In another example, Islam's ultimate revelation is the Sword of Islam, Surah 9:5, states to kill the infidel. Christianity's counter point is Matthew 26:52, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.  In order for the Reema Sanghvi's remark to be upheld, the Muslim and the Christian must surrender their belief's to the secular belief rendering those beliefs mute to the secular belief. The issue is a struggle for dominance being taught in the schools not cooperation and tolerance.  The secular view is intolerant of others. "Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system [the secular system being installed] and to infect others with their discontents," Aldous Huxley (Kjos, 1995, p. 157).  Comment:  I received several remarks expressing concerns about this paragraph. I must stress that the Judeo-Christian theology is not built around one-verse localized context. The Judeo-Christian theology is built around an integrated message system that weaves its message through layers of complexity upon complexity. The principle involves internal consistency and is called the Entire Counsel of God. Therefore, any serious study of the Judeo-Christian theology goes well beyond any one-verse citation and may offer surprising nuggets of knowledge in ways not apparent without study.

Interesting enough, the American Forefather Thomas Jefferson commented on March 23, 1801, "The Christian Religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind," (Federer, 1996). Jefferson was referring to education and learning when remarking, "freest expansion of the human mind". A socialistic tax supported secular education today has become the topic of this Economist article that attempts to herald free-market concepts that are behind the Christian worldview and the socialistic system is rejecting.  Side note: Christian Doctrine promotes the free-market capitalism centering on the Lesson of Talents and stewardship in support of God's Plan for each individual. People are to be free to pursue their God-given talents. The Bible does discuss social justice as it discusses other bad things like theft and bad government leaders.  The early church, during times of crisis, pooled resources but this was short lived.  The Bible does not ordain social justice as legitimate.

The goal of a proper higher education is not designed to shape social systems or advocacy of political views. Higher education in support of free-market capitalism is designed to develop creative and critical thinking skills as well as sound reasoning abilities. Utilizing these kinds of skills people are able to envision and bring to market new technologies in service to humanity.  Creative destruction is only one component that is operative in a free-market.  Another operative component is innovation through which entirely new markets are possible. The MOOC is possible only because of the innovation of the World Wide Web.  Unfortunately, the MOOC may become a success for the wrong reasons and wrong purposes. Instead of promoting skills in support of free market capitalism, the student may be trained to think in terms of a labor job performing tasks after tasks with no end in sight. 

In conclusion, the authors of the article either have a fundamental misunderstanding of free-market capitalism and the operative mechanism of Creative Destruction or the authors are deliberately trying to mislead readers as they present this blend of socialist and capitalist mechanisms.  Closer to the truth is that the authors may be simply a product of the educational system that trained them in process obfuscation.  Secular thought sounds good but lacks critical assessment skills illustrating a myopic one sided view.  With a proper education, people can make better choices and reject bad things because they can see beyond the spin.

References: 

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual. (6th ed.). American Psychological Society: Washington D.C.

Coffman, M. (2012). Plundered: how progressive ideology is destroying america. Environmental Perspectives, Inc: ME

Cummins, J. and Sayers, D. (1997). Brave new schools: challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. St Martin Press. NY.

Economist, The (2014). The Economist: Higher Education, Creative Destruction. Vol 421 Nbr 8893. p. 11.

Federer, W. (1996). America's God and Country. Fame Publishing. ISBN: 1-880563-05-3.

Kjos, B. (1995). Brave new schools. Harvest House Publishers: OR. 

Morality of Capitalism: Part 1

American Democracy And The Judeo-Christian Bible Series

Figure 1: Morality of
Capitalism. Click to Buy

Comments: Many people do not think about capitalism's real contribution and value. Although, most hear more from capitalism's opponents who are quick to point to perceived flaws and problems in order to espouse their competitive system. The sound bytes echo over the airwaves as news media drive the spin home; corrupt corporations, greedy executives, and compensation deals that are out-of-this-world. In this post the morality of capitalism is explored. Originally, this was scripted for inclusion into a book being written several years ago and since that time this material was updated and concepts from the book "The Morality of Capitalism" were included. This book is not a single person's view but instead a set of essays from economists, marketers, political scientists, etc... from whom a broad perspective is offered.

Morality of Capitalism

Morality is a dialectic conversation within the mind of an individual as they search out the distinctiveness between right or wrong, good or evil, redeeming or demeaning, etc... Morality results in an internal character condition within the individual that reflects in their decision making. An individual's moral condition is impressed upon a system, institution, or process by management or the seat the individual may hold.  Moreover, a system, process, or institution may reflect a moral posture by design as well as by management.   For example, institutional theft is the confiscation or restriction of wealth instituted by those invested in political power, not invested in the production of wealth, and is considered to be the worse kind of theft. Thus, when organizing a new process, system, or institution care must be taken to ensure there is redeeming value. Leaders must engage in the dialectic conversation and examine the paradoxes carefully.

There is a moral paradox between selfishness and selflessness. When people are selfish disputes arise over exchanges deemed unfair and a resentment towards those who become rich. Similar dispute arise when both parties are selfless. In a hypothetical example, the buyer may not make a purchase if the price is too low for fear of taking advantage of the seller. However, the seller may not raise prices out of fear he may be gouging the buyer. The problem is a conflict of interest in either scenario and not a dilemma of rich vs poor cast often as privilege; the haves and have nots.  The solution to the problem is equal rights for everyone. In this way everyone has the opportunity to pursue wealth (Yushi, 2011). Success is another issue.

Regarding success, in free-markets some people become more wealthy than others and some loose their shirt. Markets do not generate equal outcomes nor do they require equal capitalization. Thus, a seeming paradox is setup between inequality and equality. Equality is necessary in order to trade, innovate, choose and reap rewards earned but the expectation of results generated is a risk.  People possess the equal rights to participate in the free-market but   equal results would be an economic absurdity even though that is upheld as a moral value by many people.  The scandal in equality thought is the gap between wealth of people in economically free societies and the wealth in unfree societies. Freeing people economically will create enormous wealth and close the gap.  Moreover, it would do so as a positive consequence of justice by eliminating unequal treatment of people in countries misruled by cronyism, statism, militarism, socialism, communism, corruption, and brute force. Economic freedom means an equal standard of justice, equal respect for rights of all to innovate, produce, and trade (Nokonov, 2011). Capitalism is a just alternative to these other systems. 

There needs to be a distinction between the forms of capitalism that are often equivocated as one by social intellectuals.  ' Crony ' capitalism is a system found in many nations and governments. In many nations, the aristocracy came about their wealth by birth or by alignment with the state and not through the means of production of wealth. Thus, these people, friends, relatives, and/or supporters inherently wield political power and are the ' Cronies '.  Being in such a privileged position they take it on themselves to reward some companies and harm others often using taxpayer money in the process for activities like bailouts, stimulus, pork barrel spending, and other activities. This is a corrupt system and should not be confused with Free-market capitalism refers to a system of production and exchange that is/has:

• Based on the Rule of Law and guiding discipline of profits and losses
• Equality of Rights for all
• Freedom to choose
• Freedom to trade
• Freedom to innovate
• The Right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, savings, and investments
• Freedom from Institutional Theft; confiscation or restriction of wealth by those invested in political power  rather than the production of wealth.

Free-market capitalism is often resented by the elite due to an inherent loss of status, power, and control. Free-market capitalism gives levity to the middle class and produces advances to human kind that do not have the magnitude of impact under other systems. 

Looking Deeper Into Free-Market Capitalism

So far, as we examined capitalism we considered the ' essence ' of Capitalism as a system that promotes equality, freedom, and opportunity.  We also considered the ' being ' of capitalism is a market where production and exchange occur.  Now we are going to look deeper at the ' virtue ' of capitalism or what good does capitalism bring about to humanity. We saw on a personal level that everyone was equal and that unjust systems have an alternative.  But what good does capitalism do for humanity?

Freedom is connected to capital economies as discussed in the post Biblical foundations for Freedom which are deemed to be natural and precede other economic forms (see notes) such as the collectivist views of socialism and the extreme form of communism. Capitalism is an economic system that combines cultural, spiritual, and ethical values in a mixture that puts human creativity to the service of humanity such that value is created as opposed to menially making stuff, things, or jobs (Palmer, 2011, pp. 1-3). Stuff, things, and jobs may be the outcome of creating value but making things serves no redeeming value in itself; every task is followed by another task as there is no foreseeable end or real purpose.  Politicians who do not understand capitalism create jobs rather than incentivize innovation. This is a very important distinction between creating value vice simply making things or creating jobs. Capitalist create value and new markets emerge causing the age old axiom, "Necessity is the mother of invention / innovation" to be an incorrect understanding. Nothing of value was ever necessitated as for example no one was sitting around complaining there needs to be a telephone.  The telephone was invented that caused the need that people saw value in having forming a new market.  The accurate depiction is "Invention / innovation is the mother of necessity" (Schwartz, 2004, p 13).  No one needed the smart phone until Apple / Steven Jobs created the value then lines were out the door for the smart phone. The innovation  disrupted the cellular market fundamentally changing the cell phone. Thus, the distinctive aspect of Capitalism is creativity in service of humanity which results in new markets and technologies that give levity to life in some way.  In the case of smart phones despite people playing games and texting, the device concentrated technologies of portable computing and telecommunications providing GPS maps, contact list consolidation, weather graphics, etc...  Of course, jobs were also created to manufacture, distribute, and sale the new phones. Creativity in service of humanity is a principle redeeming value of capitalism.

' Creative Destruction ' is a systemic action within capitalism that replaces the old with new  (McCloskey, 2011). The kerosene lantern was replaced by the light bulb and the light bulb is being replaced with the Light Emitting Diode (LED). Kerosene is a fossil fuel and these lanterns when knocked over cause fires. This was the cause of the Great Chicago Fire on October 8, 1871.  The incandescent light bulb is safer but burns large amounts of electricity. The LED bulb last longer and burns substantially less energy.  Thus, the service to humanity is a safer more energy efficient light source. Of course, there were jobs along the way created too but the advantage of capitalism is the value created in service to humanity and in this case was achieved through ' creative destruction '. 

Free-markets are considered natural and precede all other forms of economic systems. When free-market capitalism was instituted and protected by United States Government for the first time in human history and the middle class had dignity and liberty, a innovation explosion took place. There were all kinds of new devices, products, ideas, and society overcame many social ills. The poor had opportunity to move up,   women can assert their worth and races have equal opportunity. The redeeming value to humanity is an uplifting of dignity and liberty.  Overall,  Free-market capitalism has had the single most impact on humanity than any rhetoric, idea, political system or economic system (McCloskey, 2011). 

Notes: Free market capitalism is considered natural because when freed of all political, social, and human induced constraints, the market character persists.  The antithesis of free-market capitalism is social justice. I will look at social justice more closely in an upcoming post. 

BUY The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won't Tell You

References:

Kelley, D. (2011). The morality of capitalism; ayn rand and capitalism: the moral revolution. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 71-72.

McCloskey, D. (2011). The morality of capitalism;  liberty and dignity explain the modern world. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 27-30.

Nikonov, L. (2011). The morality of capitalism; the moral logic of equality and inequality in market society. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 55-62

Palmer, T. (2011). The morality of capitalism; introduction: the morality of capitalism. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 1-3. 

Schwartz, E. (2004). Juice: the creative Fuel that drives world-class inventors. Harvard Business Review Press: USA.   

Yushi, M. (2011). The morality of capitalism; the paradox of morality. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 1-3. 

Of Rebels and Radicals

Comment: This was organized rather quickly summarizing the Rules for Radicals in comparison to Rebels. Alinsky interestingly cited the forefathers quite often and compared his efforts to those of the founding brothers. As you read Alinsky's rules think about the Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun and Sun Tzu: The Art of War. I believe there are some parallels. Also do not forget that the likes of Margaret Sangar, John Dewey, Roger Baldwin, Earl Warren, Gloria Steinem, Ralph Nader, Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson, Billie Jean King, Bill Moyers, Bill Ayers, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Michael Moore are all progressives. Some were connected in some way with Saul Alinsky's work. Its kind of scary to think these people have little interest in a Constitutional America.

I am attaching to this blog post some additional documents for your review.

Hillary Clinton's College Paper on Alinsky

Alinsky's Book:  Rules for Radicals

Of Rebels and Radicals
Declaration of Independence verses Rules for Radicals

The American forefathers are often depicted as rebels due to their defiance of tyranny. They were open about their calling and cause. Rebels find themselves rooted in principles that they aspire towards and the American Forefathers aspired towards Judeo-Christian principles. Others see those principles as just and rally to the cause. In the case of the American forefathers, they wrote a Declaration of Independence stating their grievances and principles as guide posts for the rebellion:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (Jefferson, 1776).

Subversive actors are most often depicted as radicals who are extremist ideologues favoring fundamental and drastic changes in political, economic, institutions, habits of the mind, and social conditions within a society. The etymological meaning of radical is a medieval philosophical sensibility from the Latin word radicalis meaning "of or having roots”. Radicals are the political sense of “reformists" via a notion of drastic “change from the roots” or to fundamentally change away from the status quo. Radicals are considered subversives as they operate within a functioning society to undermine core values, principles, ethics, and virtues in order to replace them incrementally with their ideology. Radicals rarely have a large following and remain as a negligible portion of society but derive their influence from controversy and disruptive conduct. 

Figure 1: Saul Alinksy

Saul Alinsky, Figure 1, was a radical who sought to fundamentally change the United States and is thought of as the father of modern community organizing, the modus operandi for socialistic and communistic reforms. Community organization is different than the democratic processes of community leadership. Community organizers seek to create hostile circumstances from which they derive direct influence and power over decision-making bodies of governments, institutions, and corporations. The hostile means include but not limited to picketing, boycotts, sit-ins, petitions, and influencing electoral politics. These activities are not the end but instead a vehicle to a little known or hidden agenda. Community organizers are generally of three types; faith-based, coalition building, and grassroots. The Faith-based and grassroots efforts are built on the works of Saul Alinsky who was active from the 1930’s to 1972 before dying of a heart attack.

Alinsky was born in 1909 to Jewish Russian immigrant parents in Chicago, Illinois. During Alinsky’s formative years the United States was in the midst of the Progressive Movement which was circa 1890 to about the late 1920’s. Progressives were through out the political spectrum; Democrats and Republicans. As the Progressive movement ended, Alinsky began his activist life which concluded with the release of the book, Rules for Radicals, in 1971.

Figure 2: Rules for
 Radicals

Alinsky opens the book's, Figure 2, first chapter with a errant quote from the Bible citing “The life of man upon earth is a warfare…”; Job 7:1 (Alinsky, 1971, p. 4.). The correct citation follows; “Is there not a time of hard service for man on Earth? Are his days also like the days of a hired man?”; Job 7:1 NKJV, GB, NIV. Job likens human life to forced service in the army, the mercenary, or a hired man - a servant or slave. He feels that without meaning or purpose life for him is empty (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, p. 495.). Attempting to leverage theologies and faith in support of theory based ideological personal beliefs is not uncommon among those who have inconsequential faith themselves. Although, the errant citation indicates Alinsky’s disposition was that he was at war in which the pivotal cornerstone was ‘change’. Alinsky comments, "WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be (Alinsky, 1971, p. 4.).“ Alinsky builds a case in which the have-nots are justified in conducting a war against those who have. This has been the call, the mantra, of the socialistic and communistic movement throughout the 20th and 21st century.

In the book, "Rules For Radicals", Alinsky assesses the Ends and Means through a relativistic lens of the Post-Modernist that was strongly present during his adult life. The Post-modern movement questioned everything that was considered set in stone in either a deconstructive or a structuralist approach. Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser was a structuralist. Alinsky leans in this direction as well as evidenced by the relativistic, go with the flow Ends and Means rules:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue (Alinsky, 1971, p. 26.).
2. Judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment (Alinsky, 1971, p. 26.). In war the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky, 1971, p. 29.).
3. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point (Alinsky, 1971, p. 30.).
4. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa (Alinsky, 1971, p. 32.). The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means (Alinsky, 1971, p. 34).
5. General success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. (Alinsky, 1971, p. 34.).
6. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory (Alinsky, 1971, p. 34.).
7. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical (Alinsky, 1971, p. 35.).
8. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinksy, 1971, p. 36.).
9. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace (Alinsky, 1971, p. 45.).

The Ends and Means rules are cast in an amoral venue. The outcome is not pursued but instead a result of actions that disrupt, diminish, deter, and deny the status quo.  In classic form of information warfare (IW), ambiguity, innuendo, deceit, and truths are leveraged in order to diminish, deny, disrupt, destroy, deter, etc… their enemies morale and ability to fight back. The "Rules for Radicals" are a set of relativistic guide posts that leverage and reflect war fighting concepts.

1. Power is not what you have but what your enemy thinks you have (Alinsky, 1971, p. 127.).
2. Never go outside the experience of your people (Alinsky, 1971, p. 127.).
3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy (Alinsky, 1971, p. 127.).
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinksy, 1971, p. 128.).
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky, 1971, p 128.).
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128.).
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128.).
8. Keep the pressure on (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128).
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128.).
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129.).
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129.). 
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129.).

By invoking the Rules for Radicals and the rules for Ends and Means, Alinsky was seeking specific outcomes layered behind the apparent.  Many folks jumped onto actions and efforts that seemed genuine on the surface but are ruses for the layered objectives. Alinsky alluded to some of these objectives; 1) The real action is in the enemy's reaction, 2) The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. 3) Tactics, like organization, like life, require that you move with the action (Alinsky, 1971, p. 136.). People power is the real objective; the proxies are simply a means to that end (Alinsky, 1971, p. 181). Then Alinky retorts citing Lincoln’s frustration with the Civil War, ”My policy is to have no policy.” as a supreme tactic (Alinsky, 1971, p. 166. ). The goal according to Alinsky is to be a quick moving target and keep the enemy reacting. In short, always be on the offensive.

Comment: These Rules for Radicals have become apparent and entrenched character actions of the left. 

"...Under careful scrutiny, progressive liberalism's distortion of the normal ability to reason can only be understood only as a product of psychopathy... The modern liberal mind, it's distorted perceptions and it's destructive agenda are the product of deeply disturbed personalities," Lyle Rossiter, Jr M.D.

NOTE: Many people try to vet urban legends and rumors through Snopes.com. Snopes was founded by Barbara and David Mikkelson. Snopes is considered to be a liberal propaganda machine by the right. Snopes has affiliation with the New York Times and the owners have appeared on almost solely left leaning media outlets.  In reading their postings, they often use left tactics, language, and take left leaning positions.  Is the Owner of Snopes.com a Liberal?  The Snopes.com site claims to be apolitical.  Snopes for all intents should be considered a mechanism to obfuscate truths; rule 8. 

For a deeper exploration into the Original Intent please see the series American Democracy and the Judeo-Christain Bible

References:

Alinksy, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: a practical primer for realistic radicals. Random House: New York

Jefferson, T. (1776), The charters of freedom: The united states declaration of independence. Resourced 14 February 2014 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

radical. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical

Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1999). King james: bible commentary. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville

Wess, R. (1987). Leadership secrets of Attila the hun. Warner Books: New York. Radicals

The Biblical Foundations for Freedom

American Democracy And The Judeo-Christian Bible Series

Comment: This post is an article on 'Biblical Foundations for Freedom' by Kevin Youngblood. The article is not comprehensive on the thought but does underpin the notion of freedom from the Judeo-Christian worldview. I will add further comment to the article in order to increase understanding and connect freedom to America's founding as the Forefathers thought. 

This prose uses the theological concept of sin. The notion of sin is not clear to most people who mindlessly throw the term around and others who boldly reject the idea of sin without understanding the concept. Sin is rebellion against the Judeo-Christian God. People who reject the notion of sin are in fact rebelling in that mere action whether they acknowledge the act or not. There are other views of sin but all views boil down to rebellion. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, rebelling places a person into slavery or bondage. This will be discussed lightly in this post and more in depth in another post being prepared. 

Please note that while this is a discussion on the Judeo-Christian God or simply God. The term, Judeo-Christian, will precede God whenever possible. The reason for this is not to confuse the common term god with other gods. For example, Al-Lah is Aramaic meaning 'The god'. Al-Lah or simply Allah is not the Judeo-Christian God. Allah is distinctly different being the Moon god that Abraham's mother Terrah worshipped while in Kut. The Moon God's crescent symbol also appears atop the spires and the mosque dome.

The Biblical Foundations for Freedom
Kevin J. Youngblood
Southern Baptist Seminary
Louisville, Kentucky

Freedom is a key Biblical theme finding expression in both the spiritual and social ramifications of salvation in Jesus Christ. Scripture portrays freedom in a complex and multifaceted manner. It addresses issues related to political freedom, freedom from the institution of slavery, freedom from oaths and obligations, freedom from guilt and punishment, and freedom from sinful destructive habits. Naturally, these categories are not air tight; there is considerable overlap, but these constitute the basic categories for understanding the Bible’s conception of freedom.

Political Freedom

The central redemptive event of the Old Testament, The Exodus, resulted in Israel’s freedom from Egyptian domination. While it is true that the exodus involved freedom from slavery, the more significant result was the fulfillment of the divine promise ensuring the formation of Abraham's offspring into an independent political entity with its own land; Genesis 12:1-3; 15:18. Israel’s political freedom, however, did not take the form of a democracy; God formed a covenant with Israel in which he ruled over the nation as king and the nation worshipped and served him as devoted subjects - a form of government referred to as a theocracy; Exodus 19:5-6. Israel’s freedom consisted of her independence from other human kingdom’s, not an independence from her divine king.

Comment: Israel was granted secular leadership but the Judeo-Christian God retained sovereignty over morality; 1 Samuel 8.  There is no separation of Church and State in the Bible. All governments are subordinate to the Judeo-Christian God's will; Judges 8:23. As long as the political leaders follow the Judeo-Christian God's framework then the nation prospers; Duet 16:18-20.  Thus, political freedom is not absolute but instead subjected to the Judeo-Christian God's will from the Judeo-Christian perspective or worldview.

Freedom from Slavery

In many Biblical context, freedom is a social category standing in contrast to the social category of slavery. Though the institution of slavery did not exist in the social structure of ancient Israel, it was regulated by strict laws ensuring the humane treatment of slaves. The Torah, for example prohibited any Hebrew from owning a Hebrew slave longer than six years unless the slave voluntarily agreed to remain in the service of the master; Exodus 21:2-5; Deut 15:12-18. In fact, the law commanded that any Hebrew who became poor and sold himself into slavery was not to be treatd as a slave but as a hired worker. Furthermore, he was to be released on the year of Jubilee; Lev 25:39-43. Any slave who suffered physical injury at the hands of his master was to be freed; Exodus 21:26. Thus, it was God’s intention that his chosen people enjoy social freedom in the ancient Israelite economy. They were not to live in the promised land as they had lived in Egypt before their redemption.

In the New Testament, Paul advised slaves to gain their freedom if possible, but if not, to serve Christ faithfully as a slave. Their social position was irrelevant to their status in Christ’s kingdom and their calling in ministry; 1Cor 7:21-22. Though a believer may be a slave in society, he is free in Christ and thus can live in spiritual liberty while enduring social bondage. Paul’s letter to Philemon appears to be singularly concerned with the release Onesimus, a runaway slave who belonged to Philemon. In social terms, therefore, the Bible acknowledges that freedom is preferable to slavery but not essential to enjoying spiritual freedom offered by the Gospel.

Comment:  A  more comprehensive article on slavery is being prepared for posting.  In short, slavery in ancient society was not viewed or thought of as modern slavery is deemed. In the ancient world the practice of paying off debt through servitude was common. The concept of being a servant gained positive acceptance in the ancient world  in which the economies were solely dependent on slavery. Christ himself likened his service to man as a servant by humbling himself washing the feet of the disciples; John  13:1-17. That act is consider the ultimate demonstration of service or servitude.   

Freedom from Obligation and Guilt

Scripture also relates the concept of freedom to the concepts of obligation, oath, and guilt. In the Old Testament, people are commonly bound to and released from oaths. In example; Genesis 24:8,41. The two-and-a-half tribes that lived on the East side of the Jordan [River] were under obligation to help the rest of the Israelites conquer the land of Canaan. God said that once the land was subdued they would be free from this obligation; Numbers 32:22. Similarly, Paul speaks of a spouses freedom from marriage in the case of a mate’s death or in the event that an unbelieving spouse forsakes the marriage; 1Cor 7:15,39.

This concept is then broadened to include freedom from punishment brought on by guilt. For example, a woman suspected of martial infidelity was subject to a bitter water ritual to determine her guilt or innocence. Before administering the test, the priest would say, "If you are innocent of uncleanliness, you may be free from the curse of the test of bitter water”; Numbers 5:19-22. Pual uses the term freedom in a similar sense in Romans 8:1-2 when he says, “Therefore no condemnation exists for those in Christ, because the spirits law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death; Gal 5:1.

Freedom from Confinement and Distress

Scriptures frequently describes God as one who sets prisoners free; Pss 102:20; 146:7; Isa 45:13, 58:6; 61:1; and Luke 4:18. In these contexts, God is freeing people from their literal and metaphorical confinement. The concept is frequently broadened to include distress or dire circumstances; Ps 118:5; Zech 9:11; 1 Cor 7:32.

Freedom from Sin (Rebellion)

The work of Christ brought new depth and significance to the Biblical concept of freedom. Paul in particular proclaims a new freedom in Christ, freedom from sin. Beyond freedom from the penalty of sin, Paul also speaks of freedom from the power of sin, the Spirit-empowered ability to resist habitual disobedience; Romans 6:7-22; Gal 4:1-7. Closely related to this is Paul’s declaration of freedom from the law, not freedom from God’s standard of righteousness but freedom from the frustration of our fallen nature’s inability to keep God’s law; Romans 7:7-20. Not only did Christ fulfill the demands of the law in his own life and sacrificially death, he continues, through the Holy spirit, to fulfill it in the lives of the transformed believers.

Thus, contrary to popular opinion, freedom is not the ability to do whatever one desires. This inevitably leads to enslavement to one’s own passions. Rather, The Bible, defines freedom as the ability to deny one’s self, to deny one’s desires in the interest of pleasing and glorifying God.

Comment:  Youngblood opens remarking that the Biblical notion of freedom is expressed in both spiritual and social ramifications of salvation in Christ.  While I agree with Youngblood, I would like to expand the thought adding the perspective that freedom is a natural right.

The concept of natural rights begins with the architecture of man from a Judeo-Christian God perspective and centers on several key concepts. God created a male embodiment from the Earth then breathed a soul into the embodiment; Genesis 2:7. Woman was created from man.  Humans were also created in or of God's image according to his likeness; Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6. Many interpreters have thought to locate the God's image in human reason, creativity, speech, spiritual nature, or some aspect of humans. It is more likely that it is the whole of man rather than some part or aspect of him, that is the image of God (Marshall, Millard, Packer, and Wiseman, 1996, p. 499). Therefore, the Biblical model of a human is an embodiment of which within there is an image and a soul. The soul is the steward of the embodiment and image. The Bible provides the framework for accurate and righteous stewardship. When connecting the architecture of humans to a natural right to be free, the concept that God cannot rebel against himself (sin) and is free from this rebellion is the basis for imprinting the right to be free upon humans since the image is in humans. Thus, humans assume the natural right of freedom from the image in them.

This thought which originated from Rabbinical thinking has extended into Christian thought. Freedom is simply one right. In general, God's in image in humans gives humans dignity, all their natural rights, and purpose. Wrapping all this together, the framework for provisioning dignity, rights, and purpose are expressed as a comprehensive framework throughout the Judeo-Christian Bible in terms of commandments, principles, and concepts that are connected to and elevate Christ in humans. 

Natural freedom is also extended to mobility or the freedom of movement as humans are architected with legs and feet that permits humans to move throughout space-time. God, himself, enjoy mobility walking through the Garden of Eden, passing over the waters, wrestling with Jacob; Genesis 1:2, 3:8, 32:24-30.  Of course, there is also a spiritual mobility stated both in positive and negative terms. Walking in Christ or in the light as opposed to walking in darkness.  The focus in this prose is on the natural and not so much on the spiritual.

Humans are also architected with arms and hands that permit them to perform work and create things. The Judeo-Christian God and Jesus Christ creates.  He created a universe, is like a potter molding our lives , and Chirst was a carpenter. The mind-brian phenomena is where the human essence, the soul, assumes free will in order to self-determine their path or walk in life. Humans are able to pickup then transport objects and created things using their freedom of movement and free will in order to make something of the talents they possess; Matthew 25:14-30.  Christians, in particular, are given a mission to share knowledge and go out into the world (be mobile); Matthew 28:18-20.  Humans are to do what they have to offer the world, use their skills and talents; Ecclesiastes 9:10. In short, this is the underpinning of a natural economy which is a capital economy.

Capital economies are linked to freedom since humans are free to pursue their purpose in life.  When a free person acts on God-given talents, abilities, and skills then the capital economy duly compensates for needed resources. That compensation is used to give levity to the image and improve the quality of life such that humans can live a dignified life.  From a spiritual perspective, every human is needed in order for the body of Christ to fully function as each is a contributor to the whole. None are a cog or gear in a machine but instead a living breathing participant in the whole. 

In conclusion, freedom is founded on Salvation in Christ that connects other natural rights in support of providing dignity and purpose to humans. The American Forefather's understood this notion of freedom and the connection to productive work in a capital economy. They saw the potential for America and leveraged a system of government that, to them, was self-evident as nature's way to guarantee the rights.  They wrote these Biblical concepts into the founding documents after witnessing two competitive systems. The Jamestown colony was under tyrannical rule, martial law, disease, famine, and infighting. The Plymouth colony was under a constitution of the Mayflower Compact and thriving as a society of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Forefathers choose the constitutional solution.

Reference:

Marshall, H., Millard, A., Packer, J., and Wiseman, D. (1996). New bible dictionary: image. (3rd ed.). inter-Varsity Press: England. pp 498-500.

Youngblood, K. (2003). Holman illustrated bible dictionary: freedom. Holman Bible Publishers: Nashville.

Greed is Eternal?

Comment: Over the years, I have noted an increasing movement in industry and social settings towards dysfunctional relationships and personality base character ethics. People no longer dialogue on important matters, value systems are moving towards a corporate morality, and companies are becoming politically centered. The movement has some eerie reflections on  horrors both real and fictional.  

Greed is Eternal?

(Click for Video Feed)

Most everyone is familiar with the term Gestapo which is short for the German term, Geheime Staatspolizei meaning Secret State Police. Most people in Nazi controlled territory lived in fear the Gestapo. Among the tactics of this organization was a subversive undercurrent in which unnamed persons reported other persons activities, nature, comments, and behaviors to the Gestapo who in turn investigated. As an outcome, people were reluctant to participant in the public sphere and democratic processes for fear of reprisals. In a similar manner, paranoid people, corporations, and governments in Western society utilize similar tactics of the Gestapo.  People no longer dialogue on important matters, debate, or undergo formal argumentation. When someone does not like something, they simply just report another person to HR, the boss, or provide tips to some other institutionalized system such as email tips, drop boxes, or hot lines. Then counter to the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights, one has to answer to some third party regarding the allegations without confronting the accuser. Often the reports are trumped up, unfounded, or partially based in a truth in response to an authority figure or a peer of whom someone finds issue with.  This erodes the status quo identity of the society as competitive identities leverage this method to advance self interest and selfish beliefs.

People within modern Western society often complain about political correctness and adherence to a social doctrine under which nearly every behavior and belief is tolerated to the chagrin of the status quo identity. If a society is to hold any identity then other identities are either not compatible, competitive, and/or hostile. There has to be boundary limits in order to maintain an identity. For example, if people are to be under a republic then socialistic, communistic, kingdoms, cast systems, and other identities are not compatible as well as any elements of those other identities. These different systems are known by their identity to which there are limitations before the identity erodes, becomes lost, or changes to one of the other identities. The issue goes deeper than just clashes of political systems and becomes much more complex when considering corporations that commingle personhood and governance.

In 1886, the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company the United States Supreme court ruled a corporation is the same as a living breathing organism. From this ruling is the notion of corporate personhood in which an organization legally becomes human-like and is the basis for corporate law in the United States.  Complicating corporate personhood is the emergence of the corporate governance that fundamentally changes and commingles personhood with governance. A corporation assumes under corporate governance, at some level, governing responsibilities. Among these governing duties the corporation has a moral, ethical, and economic responsibility to the customer and employees.  This has exacerbated over the years to the point that corporate rights, principles, morals, ethics, etc… now supersede human rights, personal belief systems, and compromise the US founding. Corporate employee policy manuals, codes of ethics, and even national leases in apartment complexes are preventing people from participating in democratic processes and rights. These corporations are advancing beliefs, political ideologies, and other systems often not fully consistent with the domain of commerce for the company.  The post Values Leadership touches on this issue.

In the past, people were adherents to principally one of the three monotheistic theologies but following the Post-modernist movement corporations have assumed the role that religion once played. Scriptural text are being replaced by Employee Codes of Conduct and waivers of rights. People continue to participate in an array of personal beliefs that have little impact on their lives and are more or less an activity in private as they assume the Corporate Code of Ethics in all their dealings. In fact, many policy manuals prohibit some employee activities 7/24 or hold employees accountable 7/24 but pay the employee from 9 to 5. The company policy manuals define the person more than a sovereign deity or god. 

In 1809, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Larkin Smith, "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.”

Perhaps Jefferson's concern was captured best by the fictional Star Trek characters, the Ferengi, who are known for their enterprising savvy to the point that they are con-artists. In the Star Trek Voyager episode “False Profits”, Figure 1, the enterprising Ferengi posed as gods and established their Code of Ethics based on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, a Bible of sorts, that have principles of economic vanity. Are humans on Earth to become like the Ferengi on Takar?  Will the next tyranny be corporate demi-gods in a socialized economy after capitalism dies? 

Figure 1: Star Trek Voyager - False Profits

Greed is Eternal

Approach Your Gods

We are sort of Gods

Rules of Acquisition

The Unwritten Rule

On planet Earth, humans must come to terms with purpose and meaning of their existence. Living by Rules of Acquisition or strong economic vanity, like the Ferengi, reduces life to an economic venture, mere pennies on the dollar.  Humans should reconsider the meaning of work as a component of their lives but not the defining doctrines in their life. Economic influence, wealth, is not available to all humans. Most humans live a modest life and have other focuses.

Interestingly, Jefferson saw commerce as a source of good and a fabric of a capitalist society that lead to the sense of national happiness found in the Declaration of Independence. However, Jefferson stopped short of social justice and viewed merchants as having no loyalty to a country or moral system (Mayer, 1994, pp. 137-138).  America is at juncture. The question is will America retain the capitalist views of the founding or become some sort of socialized economic center of influence? Will our gods become enterprising tycoons and their sense of ethics? Will your ethics, morals, and principles be determined by your paycheck? How much control will you give your employer over you?

References:

Federer, W. (1996). America's god and country: encyclopedia of quotations.  Fame Publishing: USA. 

Mayer, D. (1994). The constitutional thought of thomas jefferson. University Press of Virginia: USA. 

Menosky, J. & Brozak, G. (Writer) & Bole, C. (Director). (1996). Star trek voyager: false prophets season 3 episode 5. Paramount Television

Values Leadership?

Recent unusual comments and social positions taken by numerous CEOs got me to thinking about the limits to which CEOs should support or reject social, political, or personal causes within the business environment.  Many CEOs on both sides of the isle seem to be over stepping the boundaries or at least what was thought to be a boundary.  How do we define those boundaries and what should be supported? 

Values Leadership?

In The World Is Flat the author, Thomas Friedman, outlines an overarching vision that people work for companies that embrace their social, political, and religious ideologies. Friedman went on indicating that governments deal with CEO's directly and the people indirectly. The idea is that people, the majority, would gravitate towards companies that hold popular beliefs and companies that hold unpopular beliefs would fade away or change. The political leadership then transitions from its current form to one of CEO politicians and aristocrats who oversee them. In a strange sensibility, political, religious, and personal views would be economically rationed and the government would no longer have elected leaders represent the people. In chapter four, Friedman points to comparisons between the Industrial and Information revolutions leading to a belief that the flattening could have been predicted by Karl Marx.

There has been trending in the direction that companies assume human like qualities. In 1886, the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company the United States Supreme court ruled a corporation is the same as a living breathing organism. The ruling has become known as corporate personhood in which corporate law has been built applying laws intended for humans to the corporation. Complicating this position of corporate personhood is the emergence of the corporate governance that fundamentally changes and commingles personhood with a governance. A corporation assumes under corporate governance, at some level, governing responsibilities. Among these governing duties the corporation has a moral, ethical, and economic responsibility to its people. 

Corporate governance which includes sustainability efforts institutionalized the infusion of political initiatives into business giving CEOs a venue to express their personal, political, and religious beliefs. CEOs from both sides of the isle have jumped on this supporting nearly every personal, political, or religious cause regardless of merit. Political leadership in the US has also pursued state owned enterprises, SOEs, which are also economic venues for advancing political ideologies. This has framed a debate to what extent should personal, political, and religious views of CEOs be infused into industry and business or should the people be empowered equally to follow their own personal, political, and religious beliefs as the United States founding documents guarantee.

Two companies recently embattled over the views of their CEOs are Starbucks and Chick-Fil-A. Their positions are diametrically opposite as are their approaches. Starbucks' CEO insists upon his personal views telling disenting shareholders to sell off shares - leave. Whereas, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A speaks to principles and values that his company holds. The difference is one threatens dissent and the other sets principle based values for the company. I need to pause here and frame the discussion. The merits of any specific social debate is not part of this discussion. This is a discussion about leadership style and the extent to which a CEO's personal value system should become part of the business.

The paramount question that must be addressed is what criteria applies to determine if a social concern is applicable to a business. The traditional purpose of business is a value added process in which there is a redistribution of wealth in return for productive work and risk taking. In short, labor is compensated for productive work and business owners are compensated for taking risk. Business puts money in the pockets of people. An ancillary debate is under what system does this perform best; capitalism, socialism, or some other system which is not part of this post but is discussed a little in the post Reflecting on the Character of Business and Economy. A social concern must somehow couple to, at a minimum, optimizing risk and/or improving the workforce of a business. Most companies are connecting social concerns to sustainability initiatives that assure long term profitability. For example,

• Sustainable work forces
• Sustainable resources
• Sustainable markets
• Sustainable environments

The book Collapse: How Society's Choose To Fail or Suceed discusses an operationalized view of sustainability in complex economies. The author, Jared Diamond, looks to capacity and capability of the ecology and economies. Diamond argues that societies that suceed make choices related to sage sustainability based on carrying capacity of the economies and ecology. For the purposes of this discussion, societies are treated as companies.  If work and resources are monetized then sustainability also applies to wise use of available currency in the economy or business.  In choosing social issues to support, CEOs must ask at least three questions:

• How does this assure long term profitability? 
• How does this optimize operations and the business? 
• Does support of this issue exceed the carrying capacity of the organization? For example, does supporting a social cause increase health care costs, result in the loss of the workforce, or place an unnecessary tax on the business such as to exceed the ability to support.

Many social issues do not advance profitability or optimize operations for the business. Both Chick-Fil-A and Starbucks have failed to demonstrate how their support for opposing sides the same social issue benefits the business. In fact, the Starbucks CEOs encouraged negative outcomes to the business limiting the prospective pool of investors (and customers) if people opposed his personal view that has yet to demonstrate business value.  Is that a wise business practice? Furthermore, there is little evidence that a CEO's personal, political, and religious views in support of a cause of the moment attract sustainable labor in the long run. Most labor is interested in two things; a reasonable paycheck and secure employment driven by natural causes as opposed to the perception of artificially held security. 

In the United States, the appearance is that religious institutions no longer drive one's personal moral code but instead a system of CEOs and aristocrats economically ration values to the workforces. Oddly, the workforces are forbidden to speak about personal, political, and religious views in the work place. Yet, CEOs are not only discussing these topics in the workplace but imposing personal, political, and religious views into business as a requirement for participation.  For example, a Tampa based mortgage management software vendor requires all employees to sign a document stating belief in Global Climate Change and green initiatives in order to be employed. How is this CEO's views connected to the business and grander than any of those working for the CEO? Somehow, stacking the deck with politically sympathetic employees is good business?

I wonder from where do these CEOs get these values and how do we evaluate its honest merit when it is economically rationed via a paycheck? Is that the measure of virtue, a paycheck? The truth comes down to the virtue of the value, principle, ethic, or moral code. There are methods to assess the virtue but those methods are independent of the business. A high degree of confidence in an unsupported  or poorly supported personal, political, or religious belief does not meet the test of virtue.

In the end, CEOs must use some sort of rule of thumb in selecting social causes to support. Whatever the cause, it should fit snuggly into a set of well known and understood criteria that has widespread support of not only the workforce but the customer base as well. In doing so, meaningful, productive, and reasonable outcomes are enjoyed that advance the business ensuring a long term survivability.

References:

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How society's choose to fail or suceed. Pengiun Books: New York.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. (1st e.d.). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: New York.

Emergence of Human Rights in America

American Democracy And The Judeo-Christian Bible Series

Human rights have been advanced by both the Judeo-Christian Theology and secular thought right up to modern times with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.  When speaking of human rights, we are referring to those freedoms, immunities, and benefits, collectively known as fundamental human rights, enjoyed by all members of free and democratic societies. In order to uphold human rights the focus is on the individual and nation-state to execute responsibilities in the form of duties.  With this in mind let us explore the origin of human rights and the consideration the American Forefathers had for human rights.  There are extensive historical accounts of the events and commentary surrounding the emergence of the US Bill of Rights and other rights presumed by the ForeFathers.  This posting attempted to get to the point quickly. Therefore, much of the background and history have been dispensed as the body of works on this topic is overwhelming.

Human Rights

Human rights history has a foundation in Biblical law.  Early law began with Hammurabi’s Code circa 1750 BC. This law was a collection that consisted of 44 columns of cuneiform writings having 282 laws. The tagline associated with Hammurabi's code comes from Exodus 21:24; “Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”  However, this law did not deal with theological principles as penalties varied based of social class and immense value was placed on material effects. Hammurabi's Code was of worldly origins being of humans. 

Figure 1: Ten Commandments

Circa 1325 BC, Moses architected the judicial system centering the rule of law and the Ten Commandments, Figure 1. The Ten Commandments begin at Exodus 20 having the first 4 commandments as God's rights while the last 6 protect the rights of the community.  The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are written in a negative connotation. When the Commandments are viewed in terms of a modern language equivalents and written in a positive connotation then they become more easily understood in terms of rights.  Theological scholars and the Forefathers viewed the Ten Commandments as the World’s first ‘Bill of Rights’. However, unlike modern bill of rights that secure rights for an individual, the Decalogue protects the rights of others. 

The Ten Commandments

The red text is the modern language equivalent followed by the King James Version of the related Commandment. 

1. God’s right to exclusive alliance. You shall have no other gods before me; Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7.
2. God’s right to self definition. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments;  Exodus 20:4-6, Deuteronomy 5:8-10.
3. God’s right to proper representation by his people. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain; Exodus 20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11. (This is not referring to vulgar language. Instead, ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’ biblically means not doing what you are commanded or supposed to do.)
4. God’s right to his people’s time. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11 A households right to human treatment Deut 5:8-10
5. My parents right to respect. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you; Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16.
6. The right to life. Thou shall not kill Exodus; 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17.
7. The right to a secure marriage. You shall not commit adultery;  Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18.
8. The right to property. Thou Shall Not Steal; Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 5:19.
9. The right to an honest hearing. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor; Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20.
10. The right to secure existence. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's; Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21

List Source: Block, D. (2003). Holman illustrated bible dictionary: ten commandments. Holman Bible Publishers: Nashville. pp 1570-1572.

Jewish and Christians consider the Commandments to be divinely inspired dealing in absolutes and meaning no human has authority to change them. Originating from Rabbinical thought these Commandments are known to be natural rights that stem from Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6 where mankind is created in the image of God. That image within man demands dignity which is given proper levity beginning with the Ten Commandments (Eidsmoe, 1987, p. 367). In general, the Ten Commandments express the man's rights to a secure life, property, home, and fair treatment.  In the Christian view, humans were stewards of the image and the Ten Commandments are the 'rules' to care for the image in others as well as themselves.  The American Forefathers used the Ten Commandments as the purpose for civil government to secure natural rights and not create rights or entitlements. 

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison (Federer, 1996, p. 411).

The Emergence of the United States Bill of Rights

Figure 2: US Bill of Rights

The foundations for the Bill Of Rights, Figure 2, were derived directly from the Ten Commandments and was ratified by Congress in 1791 but not without a hot debate by the Forefathers.  The Forefathers put into practice philosophical works on natural rights from a host of Christian philosophers to include Montesquieu, Blackstone, Locke, Vattel, etc...  The concept of natural rights was championed by John Locke (1632-1704) who had a powerful influence on the Forefathers being written into the founding documents. 

"Father of the Bill of Rights" is George Mason, an Episcopalian, who strongly influenced the Bill of Rights amendments. Mason was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, a lawyer, judge, political philosopher, a planter, and the richest man in Virginia. He was the author of the Virginia Constitution and the Virginia Bill of Rights (Federer, 1996, p. 422).  

"The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth." - George Mason (Federer, 1996, p. 423).

The United States Bill of Rights

The 1791 ratified Bill of Rights numbered 10 amendments and were designed to uphold the Ten Commandments. Cited below are the ten amendments followed by a brief discussion of the Original Intent.  There is no preferential order to the amendments and some are fiercely debated, even during modern times. The intent of this posting is to discuss the Forefathers intent referring to their own works, sources, and quotes.

All the Forefathers regardless of political posture as Federalist or Anti-Federalists held that God had given all humans certain rights. That the Laws of Nature and Nature's God required respect for those rights.  Human rights are found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 in addition to the Bill of Rights (Eidsmoe, 1987, pp. 365-366).

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment has several components. The "Establishment Clause" involves this portion of the amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  The view of the Forefathers when enacting this clause was to prevent a legal union between the state and a specific church that enjoyed special privileges from the state given its relationship. The state is prohibited from enacting laws favoring one church over another.  i.e. state run church such as the Anglican Church of England.  

James Madison remarked, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion" (Levy, 1999  p. 81). 

Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist in January 1802 confirming that the intent was not to establish a state run religion, "Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely between a man and his God, that he owes no account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American People which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State" (Federer, 1996, pp. 324-325).

"The Christian Religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind" Thomas Jefferson on March 23, 1801 (Federer, 1996, p. 324).

Thomas Jefferson declared, "[Religion] deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet by our experience to be the best support" (Federer, 1996, p 334).

These seemingly conflicting statements by Jefferson are actually complimentary. Jefferson espouse a rejection of state operated religion but found that Christianity was the kindest religion towards civil government.  The Forefathers fashioned the government after religious institutions for religious people but rejected any one of the churches as favored.  

Of the Ten Commandments, the operative commandments in the establishment clause are God's right to his people's time, exclusive alliance, and proper representation by his people. The government cannot interfere or compete with God. 

Alexis de Tocqueville confirmed the indirect influence of religion in government and wrote, "One cannot say that in the United States religion exerts an influence on the laws or on the details of political opinions, but it directs mores, and it is in regulating the family that it works to regulate the state" (Tocqueville, 2000, p. 278). In short, theological beliefs shape the people who serve in the government  and consequently shape the government. However,  the government is prohibited from shaping the people under original intent.  Coincidentally, shaping the battlespace, market, or people is an operative information warfare tactic.

However, the Forefathers were clear that America was a Christian nation. Patrick Henry orated, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here " (Federer, 1996, p, 289). 

The second component of the First Amendment is the Free Press/Speech Clause.  The original effort  in  the Constitutional Convention during 1787 supported only a few rights and omitted many leaving open the possibilities for abuses. This was a massive mistake and heated debates ensued.  The Forefathers esteemed the public sphere and felt that free speech and a free press were critical to the conduct of the public sphere. However, they debated fiercely the extent of the right and if the right even was necessary. 

Jefferson wrote a letter in December 1787 to James Madison urging the Bill of Rights to expressly guarantee the freedom of religion and the press, protections against standing armies and monopolies, as well as fair legal treatment (Mayer, 1994, p 155). 

Of the Ten Commandments, the operative commandments in the free Press / Speech clause are God's right to his people's time, God's right to self-defintion,  God's right to proper representation, and the right to an honest hearing. God has the right to his people and for them to assemble in his name. People have the right to discuss their belief and publish their views in the public sphere.  If anything interfere's with this right then the people have the right to address the grievance in a civil manner. 

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of the Ten Commandments, the operative commandments are the right to life and the right to a secure existence. Coupled with the right to life is the obvious defense of life when life and a secure existence is threatened by apparent belligerence. The concept of Biblical warfare applies here as well and is an extensive complex subject that is often difficult for many people, especially those not educated in Biblical matters or having a strong foundation in Biblical thought.  The bottom line is that most people will understand is the right to self-defense, including the defense of a state against tyranny even of the national government that is found in some state Constitutions (Levy, 1999, p. 134).  The Forefathers also saw the need for the minutemen in order to establish a secure plant afoot in America or in the modern context a reserve force.  

There are numerous incorrect views of the amendment to include the collective rights theory which incorrectly uses the preamble to assert restrictions on the individual rights to bear arms (Levy, 1999, p. 134). The Forefathers saw the right to bear arms as an individual's natural right. Jefferson praised arms, "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks" (Levy, 1999, p. 141).  Tench Coxe, a partisan Federalist, wrote in a leading Philadelphia newspaper that "the power of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry America, ourselves, to prevent the establishment of  standing army, the bane of liberty" (Levy, 1999, pp. 146-147). 

Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Forefathers observed the quartering of the King's armies in private home during their time. Of the Ten Commandments, the operative commandment is the right to property and a secure existence which also extends to a secure home and family.  Private ownership of property is a key concept among the ForeFathers. Through private ownership of property levity is given to the image in humans as there is purpose to improve the land and develop wealth improving the quality of life.  Hostile and belligerent taking of property is counter to this commandment. Therefore, the Forefathers insisted on asserting that people have the protection against invasive actions by the Government or foreign actors that may occupy and conduct belligerent actions against the citizenry. In fact, this was a grievance in the Declaration of Independence. 

"IX.  He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."

"XIV.  For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of the Ten Commandments, the operative commandments are the right to a secure existence, secure home, secure marriage, property, and life. The Forefathers understood the right to privacy in terms of the image in humans and had observed harassment by the King of England's agents and agencies. In fact, this was a grievance in the Declaration of Independence.

"X. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendments V to XI are outcomes of grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

IIX. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

IX. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

IIXX. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.

IXX. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.

Of the Ten Commandments, the operative commandment is the right to a honest hearing as well as the right to a secure existence.  The justice cannot be used to detain people unjustly nor exact unjust penalties.

Many of the Forefathers were attorneys or had legal training. John Adams believed strongly in the right to a fair trial and in the Boston Massacre successfully defended the British commander, LTCol Preston. Two soldiers were branded for manslaughter.  The calm that came out of the trial was due to the fair treatment of evidence and a tribute to the emerging American system of justice.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is the cornerstone of limited government and stems from the Philosophy of John Locke. Locke modeled the Social Compact Theory after the Calvanist idea of covenant.  The compact is a covenant between humans and government in order to secure rights. The government is given powers by either God and/or the people in order to secure all the natural rights. The concept is found also in the Declaration of Independence.  Once again God's Law is natural law.  Locke was scripturally based,

"Human laws are measures in respect of Men whose actions they must direct, albeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two, the Law of God, and the Law of Nature; so that Laws Human must be made according to the general Laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive Law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made." John Locke (Eidsmoe, 1999, p. 62).

The operative Commandment underpinning the tenth amendment is God's right to self-defintion and exclusive alliance. The logic follows that if God is supreme then no other law can rise above his law. Thus, governments are instutited to preserve natural law. 

Conclusion

Human rights, as the Forefathers perceived them, are a derivative from the Bible and Ten Commandments.  God created nature and the architecture of humans begins with a natural embodiment into which the image is given, into which a soul is breathed, and into which the Holy Spirit indwells when invited.  Natural Rights, also known as Human Rights, assert proper stewardship of the image imparting dignity and purpose to humans.  Governments have limited powers, to the extent of assuring that natural rights are secure.  

References:

Berry, L. . (1969). The geneva bible. (1560 E.D.). Hendrickson Publishers Inc: MA.

Eidsmoe, J. (1987). Christianity and the constitution: the faith of our founding fathers. Baker Book House Company: Grand Rapids.

Federer, W. (1996). America's God and Country. William J Federer, Fame Publishing, ISBN: 1-880563-05-3

Federer, W. (2003). The ten commandments and their influence on american law. Amerisearch Inc: St. Louis. 

Levy, L. (1999). Origins of the bill of rights. Yale University Press:  Harrisburg.

Mayer, D. (1994). Constitution thoughts of thomas jefferson. University of Virginia Press: USA.

Schmidt, J. (2006). Making man in reason's image: the enlightenment and the birth of modern humanity. Barnes and Noble. ISBN-13: 9780641967221

Tocqueville, A. (2000). Democracy in america: translated, edited, and with and introduction. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Vattel, E. (1758). Law of nations or the principles of natural law in four books. (Electronic E.d.). Lonang Institute.