We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Leviticus v. Leviathan: Choosing Our Sovereign
by Wayne B. Holstad
Reviewed by Sandra Alexander
31 May 2004

America's now omnipotent courts are moving us in the direction of Leviathan (raw political power), with its elevation of tolerance and multiculturalism as a first principle of philosophy, deserting America's original uniform adherence to a written set of rules transcending race, Christian sectarian beliefs, and ethnic origin. The problem is that the truths that form the rules tolerate, but do not incorporate, non-Christian religions.

In his book Leviticus v. Leviathan, Wayne Holstad carefully reviews the gradual eroding of the Biblical principles and the true meaning of the words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, upon which the founding fathers staked their hopes for the success of the fledgling nation. Whether by design or sheer ignorance, justices have ignored the original intent of the founding fathers, even though this intent is well-documented through historical documents, exchange of letters, etc. At times, the courts have actually changed the meaning of words and phrases such as “separation of church and state,” “tolerance,” “religion,” and “justice” in order to adapt them to their new definition of the “law of the land,” to replace the Biblically-based common law tradition. (p. 88) Sadly, the branch of government which was intended to be the least powerful, the judiciary, has now become the most powerful, virtually unchallenged as it makes ruling after ruling, gradually moving us farther and farther away from the solid rock this great experiment in freedom and democracy was founded upon, to leave us on the shifting sand of no foundation except the whim and caprice of man unfettered by allegiance to any power higher than himself, much less the God of the Bible, the true God whom the founding fathers served.

Mr. Holstad discusses the use and misuse of the term “marketplace of ideas.” Today it is commonly believed that “the importance of the First Amendment is to “preserve the debate of ideas in the ‘marketplace of ideas,’ a term originating with John Stuart Mill, an English utilitarian thinker in the mid-Nineteenth Century. This idea that such a debate in the marketplace of all ideas is guaranteed by the First Amendment’s protection of free expression provides the cornerstone of modern constitutional law, rather than its original meaning, that there is one true idea.” (p. 38) In actuality, the concept of the “marketplace of ideas” was not a First Amendment concept until used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Abrams case in 1919. This perception of the world as a “marketplace of ideas” differed greatly from the Biblical view of the founding fathers, who saw the world as a “ battleground between the forces of good and evil. Rather than considering truth as a comparison of ideas in which some ideas dominate, in the context of good versus evil, truth has consequences whether accepted or rejected. These consequences are clearly defined in the Bible. While obeying truth is an individual choice, it is also a cultural, societal, or national choice.” (p. 43)

Mr. Holstad points out that 17th Century English philosopher John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government provided “a starting point for the broader expansion of freedom of speech and religion in America.” (p. 39) From this writing came the concept of “religious tolerance.” Again, the American courts changed the original meaning of Locke’s term which was to urge toleration “for ecclesiastical and Christian church doctrinal differences,” which concept was “eventually incorporated into the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various state constitutions.” (p. 40) “Religious tolerance” was never meant to pertain to “disagreements over fundamental beliefs, such as the existence and nature of God and the deity of Jesus Christ.” (p. 39)

Mr. Holstad warns that we have replaced America’s Sovereign, the Biblical God, with “multiculturalism,” a view that e pluribus unum means “out of one, many,” rather than the true meaning, “out of many, one.” (anyone remember Al Gore's erroneous statement here?) America’s strength has been our uniform adherence to a written set of rules that transcends race, Christian sectarian beliefs, and ethnic origin. The truths that form the rules tolerate, but do not incorporate non-Christian religions. The beliefs of non-Christian religions ("multiculturalism") cannot be reconciled with the written set of truths that form the basis for our government.…There can be only one set of laws with one accepted meaning. (p. 50)“The first flaw of multiculturalism is that the principle of tolerance has been elevated to a first principle of philosophy without regard to the considerations of a national identity and the right of people to define their own characteristics...” (p. 40)

The national identity of the founders of America was firmly entwined with the Bible. They believed that the duty of mankind to the God of the Bible superceded the duty of man to the State, which is why they so carefully wrote the laws of this nation to have no contradiction with the laws of God. As we view the laws of our nation today, it is obvious that this standard is no longer employed. Whether it is Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions which contradict the Biblical principles of equality (in Dred Scott a direct negation of the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “equality and liberty;” in Roe, a direct negation of the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “life”), the creeping “multiculturalism” encourages courts to base their decisions on principles other than the Bible, common law, and historical interpretation. “Multiculturalism proponents advance a false premise that religion is the same as truth. The establishment of religion - any religion - in their view refers to ideology and not just the establishment of a monopolistic institution. Contrary to the intentions of its drafters, the modern reinterpretation of the first Amendment's Establishment Clause combines God and truth within the same prohibition against the establishment of a nationally recognized Church. The drafters were not guilty of such confusion; they knew the difference between philosophy and corporate organization.” (p. 41)

In Mr. Holstad’s chapter on “Justice” he states, “Rights and justice are related terms. ‘Rights’ are possessed by individual American citizens. ‘Justice’ is the process, with enforcement actions, necessary to secure individual rights, and to conform individual actions and will to the law.” (p. 82) “The guarantee of justice is known as due process. Under American law, the rules of due process bind both the federal government under the Fifth Amendment and state governments by application of the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment….The courts have subsequently classified due process into two categories. Procedural due process refers to constitutional guarantees that the rules governing the administration of justice will be applied, and will be applied fairly. Substantive due process guarantees that the administration of justice, or the application of lawmaking and the rule of law, cannot be used to deprive any person of their life, liberty or property unless that person is guilty of a criminal or civil wrongdoing.” (p. 84)

Mr. Holstad next goes on to document how the Supreme Court has abandoned these two concepts, stating that “...procedural due process rules now exist only for the purpose of guaranteeing the aspect of due process of law that was originally related to the rules of procedure.” And, perhaps even more seriously, “The abandonment of substantive due process is an obvious manifestation of the Supreme Court’s more subtle abandonment of ‘inalienable’ rights and its substitution of a new ‘law of the land.’” (p. 87)

“In place of the former ‘reign and rule of law,’ where the courts administered justice in accordance with established centuries old principles and rules, is a modern court that mediates and arbitrates in accordance with the judge’s own set of beliefs and rules….The most important question, therefore, is if the Rule of Law remains, then whose rules and what laws will control? A second question is, what standards will control correct behavior? If ethical conduct and virtuous behavior are necessary, what law governs and from where do the rules come? When the Biblical moral standards that formed the foundations of American government are removed, new arbitrary ethical standards will become law. ‘Political correctness’ is the most recent attempt to formulate a code of correct behavior.” (p. 239)

“Modern judges and legal scholars who advance theories of fundamental law, without rooting the fundamental law in Biblical theology, either assume the role of Leviathan (raw political power), decreeing fundamental precepts by their own act of will, or struggle to find support for natural law theories derived from fuzzy natural law philosophy based on tradition or generalized ethical goals gleaned from history.” (p. 242)

“For Americans also to reject God’s sovereignty, and to submit to an absolute political authority in the legislative and judicial branches that ignore God’s moral law, is to also reject the terms and conditions upon which the institutions of American government were established in 1776, 1787 and 1865. … Many American Christians are unaware of the historical tradition that formed the basis for this country’s existence, and blindly submit to secular authority. The need to choose between Leviticus and Leviathan is becoming more apparent…..” (p. 256)

“For we must consider that we shall be a city upon the hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.” - John Winthrop (1630)

Mr. Holstad practices law in St. Paul, Minnesota, specializing in title work. He received a B.A. in Economics from the University of Minnesota in 1976, and a J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in 1980. As a litigator, he has been lead counsel in more than 100 cases as well as an appellate attorney before the Minnesota State Supreme and Appeals Courts, and the Federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a member of the Real Estate Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association and the Litigation and Business Law Sections of the International Bar Association. He has represented low-income criminal defendants for Ramsey County, and asylum cases for the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. He serves as an affiliate attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice. He is a member of the board of directors of Lawyers for Life and of the Independent Land Title Association. You may contact Mr. Holstad, who is available for speaking engagements, or participating in a debate or a panel at AlethosPress.com

Order the book from Alethos Press