Democrats: "You won't compromise with us to guarantee that we do not have to face this issue in nine to twelve months, right when the 2012 elections will be heating up. You meanies want to make this an issue for our re-election, right at the time when our actions will be fresh in everyone's mind. That's so rigid, so 'right-wing radical,' so terrorist of you, to hold our Government hostage for such a small 'gimme', which would demonstrate to our captive media that you are the namby-pambies and RINOs we privately say you are." (That last dependent clause, of course, is unspoken, but is implied in the stakes of the debate.)Republicans: "It's not our job to help you get re-elected, so that you can continue on your mission to 'save life on this planet as we know it today.' We have been elected to represent the best interests of the country as a whole, and not just the interests of you Democrats who will face re-election. The country can no longer afford what you are doing. So if you want to prevent a default over the money your non-budgets have committed us to borrow just since January 1 of this year, you had better take our bill off the table, and pass it."
Friday, July 29, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The short-term plan (kudos to Morgan Worstler, at Big Government blog):
No one understands “what” is going to be cut. Saying discretionary spending is going to be cut over ten years sounds like a Nigerian email scam.
So please Boehner, for the love of god, listen to your buddy Morgan…. Just cut federal employee pay.
Give Obama three choices:
1. Cut Federal Employee Pay in every department except Military by $30B per year (off baseline) starting 2012: Ten-year savings $300B
2. Cut Federal Employee Pay in every department except Military by $60B per year (off baseline) starting in 2012: Ten-year savings $600B+
3. Cut Federal Employee Pay in every department except Military by $90B per year (off baseline) starting in 2012: Ten-year savings $1T+.
Make Obama choose. He can’t win.
Tell him that if he chooses low, when the credit card is maxed out again, he is getting the same deal next time. Suddenly, ALL Federal public employees are with our program.
Overnight, the entire Federal workforce will be desperate to help Republicans make real cuts. Overnight, our “servants” will be finally pushing out the deadwood, over the howls of their union bosses. Let’s get public employee interests aligned with the public.
To give you an idea of how easy these cuts would be, if we cut the full $90B off baseline, Federal Employees would be earning what they last received in 2008. A $30B cut is just paying them what they received this year.
Mr. Speaker, put Federal Employee pay on the chopping block, Americans will be grateful to know where it is coming from… and that is not coming from them. And the Tea Party Freshman will see you know which hostage to take.
The hero takes the bad guy as a “hostage,” and he chooses the bad guy who can actually DIFFUSE THE BOMB.
If we can’t trust Federal Employees to really help Republicans cut spending, they are the bad guys.
1. The Government announces the creation of a new currency, to exist side-by-side with the dollar.2. The purpose of the second currency is simple: it will be legal tender, and henceforth, the only legal tender, for all transactions involving the U.S. Government.a. All payments made by or from the Government will be made only in the new currency.b. All payments made to the Government (taxes, fees, customs duties, etc.) will also be made only in the new currency.3. All future government budgets, calculations, projections, etc., will be produced in terms only of the new currency.4. The dollar will cease to exist as a currency recognized by the U.S. Government. All dollar accounts held at Federal Reserve Banks will immediately be converted into units of the new currency, at an initial ratio of 1:1.
5. The dollar will continue to be the basic, and only, legal tender for the private economy. All of our daily business will continue to be transacted in dollars, just as before.6. In order to deal with the Government, persons holding dollars will need to convert them into the new currency. (We need a convenient name for the new currency. The original author, I remember, suggested the name "Budget Bucks", or "BBs" for short, and that will do fine for now.)7. All persons having dealings with the Government -- federal contractors, members of Congress and their staffs, the President and his staff, all federal judges and their staffs -- will be paid in BBs, and so they will need to convert them to dollars in order to buy groceries and pay their normal bills.8. Dollars will freely be convertible to BBs, and vice versa, at all banks, or at local post offices.
A. The convertibility of dollars into BBs, and vice versa, will establish over time an exchange rate, which will be set by the market, just as with any foreign currency. (As we saw above, the initial official exchange rate, to be fair, will be exactly 1:1 -- but it will apply only to those holding accounts at Federal Reserve Banks. Immediately thereafter, the BB will be free to float on its own.)B. If the supply of dollars exceeds the supply of BBs, the latter will grow in value to be worth more than the dollar.C. But -- and here's the kicker -- if the supply of BBs grows without bounds, due to profligate government spending and "budgets", the value of a given BB will drop in terms of the dollar.D. And the dollar, freed of its government tether, will actually have a value in proportion to all of the goods and services which people using it create.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The total amount of debt which the United States of America is authorized to incur to pay its approved expenses is hereby increased to the maximum sum of One Hundred and Fifty Trillion Dollars ($150,000,000,000,000.00).Do you see what the effect of the italicized words will be? Reflect on this simple fact: there is currently no lawfully enacted budget on which the Government is operating. The President's last proposed budget was voted "Dead on Arrival", because it made no meaningful attempt at reducing the sea of red ink in which the country is now drowning. The Senate (where the Democrats are in the majority, for the time being) has failed to produce any kind of budget measure for the last 800+ days (more than two years).
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
As you know, the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past. Failure to raise the debt limit would force the United States to default on these obligations, such as payments to our servicemembers, citizens, investors, and businesses. This would be an unprecedented event in American history. . . .A default would call into question, for the first time, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. As a result, investors in the United States and around the world would be less likely to lend us money in the future. And those investors who still choose to purchase Treasury securities would demand much higher interest rates . . .
Default would not only increase borrowing costs for the Federal government, but also for families, businesses, and local governments - reducing investment and job creation throughout the economy. Treasury securities set the benchmark interest rate for a wide range of credit products, including mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, business loans, and municipal bonds. Accordingly, an increase in Treasury rates would make it more costly for a family to buy a home, purchase a car, or send a child to college. . .. . . Additionally, a default would substantially reduce the value of the investments - including Treasury securities - held in 401(k) accounts and pension funds, which families depend on for their retirement security. This significant reduction in household wealth would threaten the economic security of all Americans and, together with increased interest rates, would contribute to a contraction in household spending and investment.
The unique role of Treasury securities in the global financial system means that the consequences of default would be particularly severe. Treasury securities are a key holding on the balance sheets of virtually every major insurance company, bank, money market fund, and pension fund in the world. They are also widely used as collateral by financial institutions to meet their day-to- day cash flow needs in the short-term financing market.A default on Treasury debt could lead to concerns about the solvency of the investment funds and financial institutions that hold Treasury securities in their portfolios, which could cause a run on money market mutual funds and the broader financial system - similar to what occurred in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. As the recent financial crisis demonstrated, a severe and sudden blow to confidence in the financial markets can spark a panic that threatens the health of our entire global economy and the jobs of millions of Americans.Even a short-term default could cause irrevocable damage to the American economy. Treasury securities enjoy their unique role in the global financial system precisely because they are viewed as a risk-free asset. Investors have absolute confidence that the United States will meet its debt obligations on time, every time, and in full. That confidence increases demand for Treasury securities, lowering borrowing costs for the Federal government, consumers, and businesses. . . A default would call into question the status of Treasury securities as a cornerstone of the financial system, potentially squandering this unique role and the economic benefits that come with it.Moreover, the fact that the United States would not have enough money to meet all of its obligations would have serious economic consequences. If the United States were forced to stop, limit, or delay payment on obligations to which the Nation has already committed - such as military salaries, Social Security and Medicare, tax refunds, contractual payments to businesses for goods and services, and payments to our investors - there would be a massive and abrupt reduction in federal outlays and aggregate demand. This abrupt contraction would likely push us into a double dip recession.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
SECTION 1: GOULD CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCILS ABILITY TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY OF GOULD. The Gould Citizens Advisory Council by passage of this ordinance is hereby banned from doing business in the City of Gould.
SECTION 2: That the said Council is, in effect, causing confusion and discourse [sic] among the citizens of Gould and as a result is contributing to the friction not only between the Mayor and Council but also among the citizens who deserve a cooperative government. Also no new organizations shall be allowed to exist in the City of Gould without approval from a majority of the City Council.
SECTION 3: Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall be in full force and effect from and after passage and approval.
And from the same City Council, a second ordinance:
SECTION 1: MAYOR'S AUTHORITY TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS. The Mayor of the City of Gould shall not call special meetings to discuss City business without two thirds of the City Council's vote to do so. This includes meeting [sic] held inside or outside Gould city limits.
SECTION 2: The Mayor nor City Council members shall attend or participate [sic] in meetings with any organization in any location without City Council approval by two thirds vote.
Now, these ordinances from Gould, Arkansas come with the following explanation/ commentary by a member of the City Council which enacted them:
"In everything, you have somebody in control over it. In everything," said Council Member Sonja Farley.(H/T: Josh Blackman and Volokh Conspiracy)
Farley says no matter the group, if you discuss the city at all, the meeting must be approved by the city council.
"You couldn't just come in here and get with four people and decide you want to start an organization," said Farley. "You will go through your city council with documentation, the right paperwork and get an approval."
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Many of us have know[n] that there were conversations going on with the Network folk as they began the move that became finally the Anglican Church in North America, but have had no proof of such meetings. Now, as it begins to be history and not current events, Anderson feels free to tell us that there were many meetings. He does so believing that he was betrayed by the Archbishop who exhibits "passive aggression in dealing with any dissent from the orthodox wing of the Anglican Communion."
Well, I care not that he was stung.
What I do care about is that at a time when we are being asked to trust a system of consultation between the "instruments of Communion" and member churches whose actions may or may not have been reasonable in the eyes of other member churches, we have here the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury deliberately engaging in matters internal to a member church of the Communion apparently without transparency or consultation with the Church itself. More, the people he was meeting with were set on the path to form a new Anglican body (see the Chapman Memo of December 2003). That memo was reported on widely and by Thinking Anglicans in January 2004. It is impossible to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury and his staff did not know by January 2004 that the American Anglican Council and others were set to begin a process that would involve an attempted coup.
The whole history of the meeting, however many there were, the secrecy of them, and the role the Archbishop had in supporting or retarding the development of the Network and the Network into the Anglican Church in North America, is greatly disturbing to some of us in The Episcopal Church as we consider the matter of the Anglican Covenant.
If this is the kind of meddling statesmanship we can expect from the Archbishop as an instrument of communion and unity, we have every business being suspicious of the whole thing.
I come now to the reason why this Annual Diocesan Convention was postponed. . . . In December of 2009 our Chancellor, Mr. Wade Logan, was finally informed by a local attorney that he had been retained by the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor. In a subsequent series of letters he presented himself as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” and requested numerous items of the Bishop and Standing Committee, as well as information regarding parishes in this diocese. This way of presenting himself fails to acknowledge that this diocese is the only recognized body of The Episcopal Church within the lower half of South Carolina. There is no other representative or ecclesiastical authority of The Episcopal Church here but our Bishop and Standing Committee. Furthermore, this was carried out without the Presiding Bishop even so much as calling me. . . . The retaining of counsel now has all the signs of an adversarial relationship—one of monitoring through a non-constitutional and non-canonical incursion how a Diocesan Bishop and Standing Committee may choose to deal with its priests and parishes.
What is astonishing is that this Diocese of South Carolina, while seeking to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism and the received teaching of the Anglican Communion as expressed through its four Instruments of Unity, as well as to The Book of Common Prayer, and adhering to The Constitution and Canons of this Church, has experienced incursions not authorized by these very constitution and canons. . . .
All this is a profound overreach of the Presiding Bishop’s authority. . . . [T]he thing we are confronting now is . . . a challenge to how for over two hundred years The Episcopal Church has carried out its mission and ministry. . . . In standing up and protecting our autonomy or independence as a diocese in TEC, in protecting the diocesan bishop’s authority to shepherd the parishes and missions of his diocese, and in defending the bishop and, in his absence, the Standing Committee as the Ecclesiastical Authority, we are in fact defending how TEC has carried out its ministry and mission for these many years. Every Diocesan Bishop, every Standing Committee, indeed every Episcopalian ought to know that if this is allowed to stand, that if the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor are allowed to hire an attorney in a diocese of this Church, to look over the shoulder of any bishop or worse dictate to that Bishop or Standing Committee how they are to deal with the parishes and missions under their care, imposing upon them mandates or directives as to how they disburse or purchase property then we have entered into a new era of unprecedented hierarchy, and greater autocratic leadership from the Presiding Bishop’s office and his or her chancellor. It may then be the case that a chancellor who has heretofore been only a counsel of advice for the Presiding Bishop can now function, without election, confirmation or canonical authority, as the de facto chancellor of the Church, exercising power not authorized by this Church and therein dictating to the dioceses of this church how they shall deal with their parishes and property.
Recently, the Presiding Bishop and I have had a respectful conversation about this matter, during which she asserted once again what she has stated publicly on many occasions: That she has responsibility for the whole Church. That the property of The Episcopal Church must be protected and this is one of her duties. But if so, it is a duty that she has assumed, not one stated in the Constitution & Canons, nor assumed by any previous Presiding Bishop. . . . [S]hould a diocese decide to purchase property to plant a congregation, or alienate or sell the property it possess, it seeks no further authority than itself for such action. So too if a diocese chooses to close a congregation there is no higher authority than the bishop. The Presiding Bishop’s decision to hire counsel in South Carolina leads us all into such precarious waters that every diocese and bishop in this Church ought to be concerned, lest the polity and practice of TEC be changed by a precedent without constitutional or canonical authority. . . . Unfortunately, after lengthy and respectful conversation, the Presiding Bishop and I stand looking at one another across a wide, deep and seemingly unbridgeable theological and canonical chasm. . . .. . . This is not to imply that a Church, diocese or parish should never go to court or enter into litigation. It is merely to suggest that the imposing of a model of indiscriminate and unbridled litigation on the 110 dioceses of this Church, as if one model fits all, has brought bitter acrimony, a multiplication of law suits and what St. Paul feared so many years ago, public disgrace and scandal upon the Church. For [the Presiding Bishop] to demand in this diocese such a policy would be an egregiously inept exercise of non-canonical pastoral leadership. Furthermore, this is the wrong time in the life of The Episcopal Church for such a centralization of power, especially one so far removed from the ethos and issues of regions and dioceses. The irony is that such remote hierarchical authoritarianism without constitutional and canonical restrictions, and in the absence of theological unity, would only exacerbate the crisis of spiritual authority we are experiencing in The Episcopal Church and across the Anglican Communion.
[UPDATE 07/18/2011: Father Harris has been accommodating enough to explain why he thinks I am off-base in my criticism. He writes (in part, with my italics added):
Well, the "sauce" in each case is different. In the first, namely the Archbishop meeting secretly with people who were clearly unwilling to be in a church they deemed doomed, the problem with the sauce was that it involved someone not of this church entering into deep conversations about ways to either change this church or replace it. I don't suggest that the Archbishop was for the development of what became ACNA (The Anglican Church in North America), but I do believe he ought to have been both transparent (at least by notification) and clear about his role. And yes, the ABC meets with many people and many conversations are private. But very few are secret, at least in the way that David Anderson described it. In any case it was an intervention in the life of this church by a prelate of another church in secret from, one supposes, the church leadership of this church. And my question was, how often did they meet?Let me here explain why I have added the various italics above:
In the second, the engagement of legal coun[sel] to advise the Presiding Bishop of matters in the Diocese of South Carolina, the "sauce" is quite different. There seems to be no question that the Bishop of South Carolina knew that there was legal coun[sel] from the PB's office. There was apparently a meeting between the Bishop and the Presiding Bishop in which they disagreed about the actions she took and the role she understood was hers. There may be serious disagreements about the canonical propriety of her actions, just as there are serious questions about the nature of the canonical changes effected in the Diocese of South Carolina. Those are arguments to which the Curmudgeon has given considerable attention. But that "sauce" is one of possibly bitter disagreement, not subterfuge.
. . . namely the Archbishop meeting secretly with people who were clearly unwilling to be in a church they deemed doomed . . .
. . . it involved someone not of this church entering into deep conversations about ways to either change this church or replace it . . .
In any case it was an intervention in the life of this church by a prelate of another church in secret from, one supposes, the church leadership of this church.
In the second, the engagement of legal coun[sel] to advise the Presiding Bishop of matters in the Diocese of South Carolina, the "sauce" is quite different. There seems to be no question that the Bishop of South Carolina knew that there was legal coun[sel] from the PB's office.
In December of 2009 our Chancellor, Mr. Wade Logan, was finally informed by a local attorney that he had been retained by the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor. In a subsequent series of letters he presented himself as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” and requested numerous items of the Bishop and Standing Committee, as well as information regarding parishes in this diocese. This way of presenting himself fails to acknowledge that this diocese is the only recognized body of The Episcopal Church within the lower half of South Carolina. . . Furthermore, this was carried out without the Presiding Bishop even so much as calling me. . . .
There may be serious disagreements about the canonical propriety of her actions, just as there are serious questions about the nature of the canonical changes effected in the Diocese of South Carolina. Those are arguments to which the Curmudgeon has given considerable attention. But that "sauce" is one of possibly bitter disagreement, not subterfuge.
I do believe . . . the struggle in The Episcopal Church is changing the role of the Presiding Bishop, as well as our common understanding of what it means to be in union with the General Convention, how that relates to [the] notion that dioceses derive their authority from a wider synodical context, and so forth. I disagree with almost everything the Anglican Curmudgeon writes, but I do agree with him that the changes matter. Our disagreement is about what they mean and what they portend.The changes currently going on in ECUSA most certainly do matter; thank you, Fr. Harris. Where we disagree most is in how those changes have been brought about -- not by any current "struggle" in the Episcopal Church, for instance, but rather by pretending that new canons can alter -- just like that, as long as no one objects -- what Article II, Section 3 of our Constitution has provided ever since 1789.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Example: If as an attorney, I charge $200 per hour of my time, and if the shoemaker charges $100 for a pair of handmade leather shoes, then in the market I share with the shoemaker, my time of one hour spent as an attorney is worth two pairs of his handmade leather shoes. (If it takes the shoemaker less than one hour to produce two pairs of shoes, then in the market we share, his labor is valued more than mine is.)Next: viewed as a medium of exchange, the dollar has been a great success. One can travel the world over, and the dollar is instantly recognized in almost every market as a means of purchasing goods in that market.
Answer: Because with the passage of time, America has become less a nation of savers and more a nation of spenders. This is nowhere more true than with our legislators, who are the biggest spenders of all (with other people's money).When ordinary people spend every dollar they earn almost as fast as they receive it, they fail to notice, over long stretches of time, that their dollars purchase less and less for the same amount (particularly if their earnings are indexed to [go up with] inflation). There are scarcely enough people alive today to remember what a dollar could buy in 1913 -- and they certainly are not a major voting bloc.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
G.R. Mead:[G.R. Mead]: ... if the Resurrection is not real then we are, of all men, the most to be pitied.
[zuch]: How about “laughed at”? Would that be more pleasant for you?
In honored tradition — please be my guest.
What do you find funny? Or does your plan work out better ?
My “plan”, such as it is [or isn’t, as the case may be], works out better than yours, wasting your affections and efforts (and probably money) on some fictitious sky pixie. Why I should pity you when you voluntarily choose such behaviour is beyond me. If there is no Resurrection, no skin off my nose.
G.R. Mead: This is what it comes to. You have not actually faced the reality of a conviction that there is nothing, then an accidental existence, and then nothing. Neitszche did — and look how he turned out. In a world that is thus — there is no reason, literally, no rational basis — to do anything but take any risk, do any harm to others, that may be necessary to find maximum pleasure in this life. Oh sure, maybe you have some hormonal surges evolution programmed to trick you into maximizing fitness as a social group — but that just some illusion bred by your blind and selfish genes of which you are the mere tool. If you are rational you should rise above all of that an consider reality in its true face. Blackness then a flash of awareness and then the black and nothing else. Get what you can — while you can.
You’re not only a philosopher par extraordinaire, you’re a geenyus and a mind-reader as well. I fart in your general direction.
Why you think I have not faced your own personal daemons is beyond me. They’re your boogeymen, and I think you ought to deal with them yourself and not insist that I need to do this, so that you can feel that you’re not so much the scared little man that you are.
And you seem to think that I must either follow the dictates of [your] religion, or else be a totally amoral person. Why you think this is beyond me. You seem to think that an atheist must ‘logically’ indulge in hedonism, nihilism, and selfishness. Not so. But ‘logically’, you as a religionist must put homosexuals and sassy kids to death, kill the entirety of the menfolk in other tribes and rape their women, turn your wife out of the house and city if she’s menstruating, offer to kill your own son if asked by ‘sufficient authority’, and any number of things that I find personally appalling from a moral perspective. Other religions think that killing infidels is a grand thing. That’s the ‘morals’ that you have chosen. Thanks but no thanks.
And if you want to insist your genes make you do things, go for it. But isn’t that blasphemy?
A good example is the best sermon.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
The Rev. William White spent several years with the group we now know as the Founding Fathers. As chaplain to the Continental Congress, he met with them, dined with them, swapped late-night stories with them (his next-door neighbor was Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence). White's unique role gave him a front row seat to the debates of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest concerning the single most important issue of the day: independence. How could a collection of British colonies live into a new reality as a united, self-governing nation? How could they maintain the best of the values they had inherited while creating a new system that would fit their context? As they deliberated, White listened ... and learned.
White was also an ordained Church of England minister. Having witnessed firsthand the birth of a new Republic, he turned his attention to the labor pains of a Church that could no longer be "of England" in name or composition, but neither could it be wholly unfamiliar. Through the Constitution that White wrote for this Episcopal Church, as it would become known, he helped create "a church government that will contain the constituent principles of the Church of England, and yet be independent of foreign jurisdiction or influence." Actually, this was no newborn he was helping along, but rather an adult child ready to strike out on its own, leaving the nest and creating a life separate from the expectations of its parent.
The Rev. Canon Dr. Robertson continues with his history lesson for the erudition of the Brits, and draws a most inapt parallel with early church beginnings:
That parent, unsurprisingly, did not immediately embrace its child's new status. White used the term "Episcopal," the Greek term for "bishop," to describe this entity, and yet he could not convince Church of England leadership to consecrate indigenous bishops for the fledgling Church. In some ways, the situation was not that different from what was experienced by the first-century believers in Antioch, who desperately wanted the support and connection with the "mother Church," but at the same time were taking steps in their own governance and mission that reflected their geographic and ethnic context, and therefore looked quite different from what the Twelve had started in Jerusalem. Even so, while the English Church used the appointment system to propagate its ecclesiastical hierarchy, American bishops, said White, would be elected . . . and not simply by clergy, but by lay representatives as well. [Obligatory reference to ECUSA's unique polity omitted.] And in a land where there would be no king, neither would there be an archbishop. Rather, the head of this new Church would be a Presiding Bishop, reflecting the principles of the young republic in which this Church had taken root.Frankly, I find it impossible to reconcile the good Canon's version of our Church's history with the known facts. There was no "Presiding Bishop" created by the founding documents to be "the head of this new Church", much less a lead bishop "reflecting the principles of the young republic" -- see the details about the gradual establishment of that office, and its subsequent mushrooming into its current form, in this earlier post.
Through the years, misunderstandings and differences have continued. Oscar Wilde's famous maxim about two peoples separated by a common language has proven true for the Anglican Churches in these lands. It is not simply that different decisions made by one Church are often frustrating to the other. No, it is the difference in processes by which decisions are made in the respective Churches that can mystify and exasperate. Our directness can at times seem to be overly bold and unilateral, while the more nuanced ways of our transatlantic colleagues can appear heavy-handed and non-transparent. Singularly unhelpful labels such as "cowboy diplomacy" or "backroom politics" can prevent the real possibility of mutual understanding and appreciation of both Church's distinct contexts. At its worst, there can be now, as in William White's time, a refusal to see God at work in the other's polity and policies. Different does not have to mean deficient. And if we can let go of the infallibility of our opinions about our own context, perhaps we could learn from the other.
Our forefathers, when they left the land of their nativity, did not leave the bosom of that Church over which your Lordships now preside; but, as well from a veneration for Episcopal government, as from an attachment to the admirable services of our Liturgy, continued in willing connection with their ecclesiastical superiors in England, and were subjected to many local inconveniences, rather than break the unity of the Church to which they belonged.
When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the universe, that this part of the British empire should be free, sovereign, and independent, it became the most important concern of the members of our Communion to provide for its continuance. . . . [I]n accomplishing of this . . . it was nevertheless their earnest desire and resolution to retain the venerable form of Episcopal government handed down to them, as they conceive, from the time of the Apostles, and endeared to them by the remembrance of the holy Bishops of the primitive Church, of the blessed Martyrs who reformed the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, and of the many great and pious Prelates who have adorned that Church in every succeeding age. But however general the desire of compleating the Orders of our Ministry, so diffused and unconnected were the members of our Communion over this extensive country, that much time and negociation were necessary for the forming a representative body of the greater number of Episcopalians in these States; and owing to the same causes, it was not until this Convention that sufficient powers could be procured for the addressing your Lordships on this subject.
The petition which we offer to your Venerable Body is, that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thousands in this rising empire, professing the same religious principles with the Church of England, you will be pleased to confer the Episcopal character on such persons as shall be recommended by this Church in the several States here represented, full satisfaction being given of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, and of its being the intention of the general body of the Episcopalians in the said States respectively, to receive them in the quality of Bishops.
. . .
Whatever may be the event, no time will efface the remembrance of the past services of your Lordships and your predecessors. The Archbishops of Canterbury were not prevented, even by the weighty concerns of their high stations, from attending to the interests of this distant branch of the Church under their care. The Bishops of London were our Diocesans; and the uninterrupted although voluntary submission of our congregations, will remain a perpetual proof of their mild and paternal government. . . . Our hearts are penetrated with the most lively gratitude by these generous sentiments; the long succession of former benefits passes in review before us; we pray that our Church may be a lasting monument of the usefulness of so worthy a body; and that her sons may never cease to be kindly affectioned to the members of that Church, the Fathers of which have so tenderly watched over her infancy.
For your Lordships in particular, we most sincerely wish and pray, that you may long continue the ornaments of the Church of England, and at last receive the reward of the righteous from the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls.
We are, with all the respect which is due to your exalted and venerable characters and stations,
Your Lordships Most obedient and Most humble Servants,
SIGNED BY THE CLERICAL AND LAY DEPUTIES
OF THE CONVENTION.
Christ Church, Philadelphia.
October 5th, 1785.
33. In 1973, after the geographic territory that included San Diego County became part of the newly-formed Diocese of San Diego, the mission congregation at St. John's sought permission from the Diocese to become a parish. In their application, the representatives of the prospective parish promised that St. John's Parish would be bound by and conform to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese.
34. In consideration for promises of subservience to the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, the Diocese admitted St. John's Fallbrook as a Parish at the Primary Convention of the Diocese on December 7, 1973.
We are unanimous and explicit in assuring your Lordships, that we neither have departed, nor propose to depart from the doctrines of your Church. . . .