The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Hope for the Dead
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What is the connection between personal freedom and rising from the dead?

When America was in its infancy and struggling to find a culture and frustrated at governance from Great Britain, the word most frequently uttered in speeches and pamphlets and editorials was not “safety” or “taxes” or “peace”; it was “freedom.” Two acts of Parliament assaulted freedom and broke the bonds with the mother country irreparably.

The first was the Stamp Act, which was enforced by British soldiers, who used general warrants issued by a secret court in London to rummage through the personal possessions of any colonists they chose, ostensibly looking to see whether they had purchased the government’s stamps.

These general warrants, like the ones the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issues in America today, did not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized — which our Constitution requires. Rather, they granted authority for the bearer to search wherever he pleased and seize whatever he wanted — as FISC warrants do today, in contravention of our Constitution.

The second intolerable act was the imposition of a tax to pay for the Church of England, which all adult male property-owning colonists were forced to pay, no matter their religious beliefs.

The Stamp Act assaulted the right to be left alone in the home, and the Church of England tax assaulted the free exercise of religion. These two laws caused many colonists to realize they needed to secede from Great Britain and form their own country, in which freedom would be protected by the government, not assaulted by it.

They did that, of course, yet today the loss of freedom still comes in many forms.

Sometimes it is direct, as when Congress tells us how to live and the courts permit it to do so. Sometimes it is subtle, as when the government borrows or prints money to pay its bills and, as a result, all the money and assets we already have lose much of their value and our descendants will be taxed to repay the loans. Sometimes the government lies about its assaults, as when the National Security Agency reads our email and text messages and listens to our phone calls without a search warrant based on constitutional norms and denies it.

Freedom is the ability of every person to exercise free will without a government permission slip or watchdog. Free will is a natural characteristic we share in common with God. He created us in His image and likeness. As He is perfectly free, so are we.


When the government takes away free will, whether by fiat or by majority vote, it steals a gift we received from God; it violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to seek the truth. Because the exercise of free will to seek the truth is a natural right, the only time it is moral for the government to interfere with it is when one has been fairly convicted by a jury of using fraud or force to interfere with the exercise of someone else’s natural rights.

We know, from events 2,000 years ago that Christians commemorate this week, that freedom is the essential means to discover and unite with the truth. To Christians, the personification, the incarnation and the perfect manifestation of truth is Jesus — who is the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On the first Holy Thursday, Jesus attended a traditional Jewish Passover Seder. Catholics believe that at His last supper, Jesus performed two miracles so that we could stay united to Him. He transformed ordinary bread and wine into His own body, blood, soul and divinity, and He empowered His disciples and their successors to do the same.

On the first Good Friday, the Roman government executed Jesus because it was convinced that by claiming to be the Son of God, He might foment a revolution. He did foment a revolution, but it was in the hearts and minds of men and women.

The Roman government had not heard of a revolution of hearts and minds, so when it crucified Him, it thought it had triumphed over Him.

Jesus had the freedom to reject this horrific event, but He exercised His free will to accept it so that we might know the truth. The truth is that He would rise from the dead.

On Easter, three days after He died, He did rise from the dead. By doing that, He demonstrated to us that while living, we can liberate our souls from the slavery of sin and our free will from the oppression of the government. And after death, we can rise to be with Him.

Easter, which manifests human immortality, is the linchpin of human existence. With it, life is worth living, no matter its costs or pains. Without it, life is meaningless, no matter its fleeting joys or triumphs. Easter has a meaning that is both incomprehensible and simple. It is incomprehensible that a human being had the freedom to rise from the dead. It is simple because that human being was and is God.

Jesus is the hypostatic union — not half God and half man and not just a godly good man and not God connected to a man but truly and fully God and, at the same time, truly and fully man. When the Roman government killed the man Jesus, it killed God. When the man Jesus rose from His tomb, God rose from the dead.

What does Easter mean? Easter means that there’s hope for the dead. If there’s hope for the dead, there’s hope for the living. But like the colonists who fought the oppression of the king, we the living can achieve our hopes only if we have freedom. And that requires a government that protects freedom, not one that assaults it.

Happy Easter.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Civil Liberties 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
7 Comments to "Hope for the Dead"
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. bartok says:

    Jesus didn’t say “merge all the nations together before I gather them,” but Andrew worships an idol called racial equality. Andrew supports libertarian open borders but conceals his view. He wants a Somali living to your left and a Afghan to your right. He is betting on which one rapes your daughter first.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  2. Thanks Judge. I concur in your verdict.

  3. anarchyst says:

    Napolitano is incorrect when he blames the Romans for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death. The Jews (Pharisees) took full responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion and death, stating that “his blood would be on their hands”. Pontius Pilate KNEW that he was condemning an innocent man, but feared Jewish riots if he did not “carry out the deed”.
    To this day, Jewish hatred for Jesus Christ, and by inference, Christianity is common. One glaring hypocrisy is Christian dispensationalism’s slathering support for Israel and zionism, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Christianity. Christian dispensationalists are today’s “useful idiots”.

  4. Anonymous[365] • Disclaimer says:

    Free will is a natural characteristic we share in common with God. He created us in His image and likeness. As He is perfectly free, so are we.

    Nice. I’m not religious but this rings true.

  5. Singh says:

    Eostre is the name of a German fertility goddess you cucklord।।

  6. Lin says:

    Jesus was
    1)A rabbi who wanted moral revival of the jewry and condemned Herod’s immorality
    2)A non-violent sympathizer of jewish nationalism
    3)He never explicitly said he was the ‘Messiah’ nor he denied the claim(IMO Jesus didn’t want to dampen the enthusiasm of his followers). He called Yahweh his ‘father’ in manners americans call Washington ‘Father of the Nation’; It’s a metaphor; same with ‘Son of God’. The most controversial theological theme of Christianity is ‘Trinity’ which is pure blasphemy from the view point of Judaism,the religion of Jesus.
    Many of his followers saw potential in him as a rallying focus to fight for independence from Rome. ‘Messiah’ means the ‘chosen one’, traditionally the title of jewish king, not ‘saviour’ as claimed by Christians. The average Christian pastors/priests know this fact very well but they usually don’t mention it, fearing disrupting the religion of Christianity which was laid down by disciples of Jesus. Jesus didn’t intend to form a new religion. The ‘Messiah’ thing was shouted so loud that King Herod and the pharisee felt threatened. When the jewish theocrats brought jesus to the audience of the Roman governor, they said Jesus was called the ‘King of jews’ by his followers, suggesting jesus was a leader of an anti-Roman and anti-Herod up-rising. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this earth. The Romans realized that was just internal jewish religious conflict but to placate Herod and the Pharisees, the roman governor nevertheless just crucified him.

    Crucification was the punishment deserved for enemies of Rome or rebel leaders like Spartacus. Herod and the Pharisees dared not stone Jesus because of Jesus’s large following(Stoning was the punishment for heretics) but successfully persuaded the romans to play executioner.
    After Herod and the Pharisees, Jesus’s followers were the culprits directly or indirectly responsible for Jesus’s crucification. The Romans were just executioners.

  7. @bartok

    He wants a Somali living to your left and a Afghan to your right. He is betting on which one rapes your daughter first.

    The Somali men I know don’t even want to touch white women. Why would they? Their own women have been less corrupted by modernity than almost any other group’s.

    As for Afghans, it’s your son you’ll have to protect.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?