ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים
And Enoch walked around with Elohim and was not there because Elohim took him.
Gen 5:24
Most of us are all too familiar with this verse. Its traditional interpretation is that Enoch was righteous and that he ascended to YHWH without experiencing death. That may have been the intended meaning. In this series of posts, however, I will challenge this traditional understanding and suggest that we may have better reason, textually, to say that Enoch actually died. Though it may be unconventional to us, such a perspective has existed for a long time. The Targumim are ancient Aramaic translations of the Hebrew texts. As a general principle, it can be said that the later the Targum, the less literal, the more expansive, or the more explicative the translation. Targum Onkelos, which is probably the earliest of our Targumim of the Torah (discounting the questionable 4Q157), renders Gen 5:24 thusly:
And Enoch walked in reverence of the Lord, then he was no more, for the Lord had caused him to die.
Targum Onkelos 5:24
This translation has attempted to smooth out the obscurities of the Hebrew by explaining what it believed was the correct understanding—that walking
had to do with reverence and that Enoch actually died. A later Targum reverses this clarification about Enoch’s death and includes considerable expansion.
And Hanok served in the truth before the Lord; and, behold, he was not with the sojourners of the earth; for he was withdrawn, and he ascended to the firmament by the Word before the Lord, and his name was called Metatron the Great Saphra.
Targum Psuedo-Jonathan 5
The question of Enoch’s death is taken up later in the Genesis Rabba, a Rabbinic commentary on the first scroll of Torah. Although there is a diversity of opinion, it is plain that Enoch’s death is considered orthodox
and that those who argue strongly against it, those who are asking these authorities to explain why he died because they believe otherwise, are viewed as coming from a heretical position.
AND ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD, AND HE WAS NOT; FOR GOD TOOK HIM. R. Kama b. R. Hoshaya said : [AND HE WAS NOT means] that he was not inscribed in the roll of the righteous but in the roll of the wicked. R. Aibu said: Enoch was a hypocrite, acting sometimes as a righteous, sometimes as a wicked man. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘While he is righteous I will remove him.’ R. Aibu also said: He judged [i.e. condemned] him on New Year, when he judges the whole world.
Some sectarians asked R. Abbahu: ‘We do not find that Enoch died?’ ‘How so?’ inquired he. ‘Taking
is employed here, and also in connection with Elijah,’ said they. ‘If you stress the word taking
,’ he answered, ‘then taking
is employed here, while in Ezekiel it is said, Behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes.’ R. Tanhuma observed: He answered them well.
A matron asked R. Jose: ‘We do not find death stated of Enoch? Said he to her: ‘If it said, AND ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD, and no more, I would agree with you. Since, however, it says, AND HE WAS NOT, FOR GOD TOOK HIM, it means that he was no more in the world, [having died,] FOR GOD TOOK HIM.
Genesis Rabba 25:1, Soncino
The Hellensistic Jew, Philo, chimes in from around the time of Christ to agree that Enoch died.
Why, when Enoch died, the sacred historian adds the assertion, “He pleased God?”.
Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1:85
Philo’s question about pleasing God
is actually dependent upon the Greek text or its Vorlage (a Hebrew or Aramaic text from which the Greek was based). Many Dead Sea Scrolls preserve readings in Hebrew which do not exist in the Masoretic Text but do exist in the Old Greek translation (unfortunately, this particular verse is not extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Since Greek appears to be the usual method of reading and writing for the Hellenistic Philo, it is likely that he was quoting from the Greek itself and not its Vorlage. It should be pointed out, therefore, that he calls the Greek version sacred
. This is important because a common Modern attitude before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was that the Greek text was inferior to the Hebrew represented by the Masoretic because it was a translation and because it was believed the translation expanded on a lot of things that were not in the Hebrew. Now we know, however, that the Greek many times represents older and more ancient readings than the Masoretic so that many readings which were believed to be translational expansions are not. It is also the case that many ancient Jews did not believe that just because the Greek was a translation, that this in any way made it less authoritative, less inspired, or less holy, as Philo himself attests. The Letter of Aristeas actually claims the Greek translation to be more inspired, more authoritative, and more sacred than the Hebrew.
And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him.
Septuagint, Gen 5:24, NETS translation
Besides adding that Enoch pleased God, the Greek provides us with the idea that Enoch was not found
in place of the Hebrew’s he was not there
and that he was transferred
or translated,
which gives us more to play with in terms of the question about what happened to Enoch. Sirach, our oldest commentator on the Torah, appears to draw from this version of Gen 5:24 when he says in the Greek translation of his work:
Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations.
Sirach 44:16, KJV
Elsewhere, Sirach says:
But upon the earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth.
Sirach 49:14, KJV
This is difficult to interpret. Sirach could have meant Enoch was taken from the earth in a sense like being raised from the grave (and thus having died), in a sense like being taken alive from an earthly realm to a non-earthly one, or in a sense like being taken from one earthly realm to another earthly realm–either having died or not.
Philo gives us a Hellenistic interpretation of what it means for Enoch to be translated,
which we can be certain was never intended by the text.
What is the meaning of the expression, “He was not found because God translated him?” . . . it is here suggested, that he was translated from a visible place, perceptible by the outward senses, into an incorporeal idea, appreciable only to the intellect.
Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1:86
The Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be translated from an original Hebrew or Aramaic, appears to depend either on the Greek or its Hebrew Vorlage since it refers to Enoch not being found.
By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up.
Hebrews 11:5, NASB
Because this says “he should not see death,” many people believe it means Enoch never died. However, as we will see later, this may not be its intended meaning at all.
The idea that Enoch ascended to heaven without tasting death is certainly as ancient as the idea that he died. It is said to happen numerous times through various means (either in spirit, in vision, on a whirlwind, or by the assistance of the Holy Ones) throughout 1 Enoch in order for him to receive instruction and to convey messages to various human and angelic parties. If this could occur to Enoch before he finally left the world for good, it seems unreasonable to say he must die at the end in order for it to happen again. In speaking of this final ascension, the scroll of Parables says:
And after this, while he was still living, his name was raised into the presence of that son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits from among those who dwell on the earth. He was raised on the chariots of the wind, and his name departed. And from that day, I was not reckoned among them.
The scroll of Jubilees, which was influenced by 1 Enoch, speaks of Enoch’s terrestrial end thusly:
And he was taken from amongst the children of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honor, and behold there he writes down the condemnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men.
Jubilees 4:23
Josephus’ account is ambiguous. He seems to be saying that Enoch’s death was not reported because no one knew what happened to him—he simply departed or disappeared.
And then his son Enoch succeeded him, who was born when his father was one hundred and sixty-two years old. Now he, when he had lived three hundred and sixty-five years, departed and went to God; whence it is that they have not written down his death.
Antiquities 1:3:4
And indeed, as to Elijah, and as to Enoch, who was before the deluge, it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared, but so that nobody knew that they died.
Antiquities 9:2:2
The big question then is whether the text itself gives us any reason to think Enoch died. This issue will explored in P2: Death, P3: Redemption, P4: Out of Sheol, and concluded with P5: Hebrews.
Everything we think begins and ends with our epistemology, so I thought I would briefly summarize my own. My epistemology is a combination of antithesis (A = A and non-A cannot equal A), Natural Theology (truth can be known through the natural light of human reason), and Critical Realism (there is a story-telling human and there is a story-laden world, the human observes the world, challenges that observation by critical reflection on self–so it is not Phenomenalism–and on what is observed–so it is not Positivism–and then may be able, through story, to speak truly about the world).
See P1: Introduction and P2: A Radical New Translation.
Interpreting and translating Ezekiel 1:27 has proved a problematic task. Like many other verses of the throne vision (and not uncommon to Hebrew in general), it requires insertion of the English verb to be
to distinguish subject from predicate. But what has mystified most translators is the construction בֵּית־לָהּ, which I have rendered the house belonging to her,
or more simply her house
(see note m). Because most translators either follow the streamlined version from the Septuagint, which lacks this construction, or are predisposed to view the image of a person on the chair at the end of v. 26 as the necessary climax and ultimate subject of the vision, either the entire construction has been dropped from translation, its syntax hijacked to serve other uses, or the surrounding Hebrew ignored.
First, the structure of the throne vision indicates that whatever is discussed in v. 27 is not to be equated within the one on the throne. Virtually all English translations have made this verse speak about the enthroned one’s loins or body and the enthroned one’s appearance. Regardless of any stages of editing, the throne vision as we have it contains six instances of the verb ראה, one in the introduction (v. 1), one in the conclusion (v. 28bβ), and four in the body of the vision itself (vv. 4, 15, 27a, 27b). The body of the vision is structured according to the repetition of sentences beginning with the verb וארא, or And I saw/looked,
which is followed by the particle הנה twice (vv. 4, 15), although with some variation. The vision is brought to a climax by the dual appearance of ראה in the final section. After being reminded in the conclusion that Ezekiel saw
these things, we are told that he heard a voice speaking, which then moves the reader into the vocational account containing sentences beginning with the verb ויאמר, or And he said.
Since v. 27 begins with the verb ראה to indicate a change in perspective, this signals a change in description from a discussion of the one on the throne immediately preceding to something else. The verb is then repeated in v. 27 to emphasize and clarify what has just been described—a kind of expanded repetition that occurs frequently throughout the throne vision. So what is that something else?
If translations have followed the Hebrew by looking somewhere other than at the one on the throne, then they have routinely identified the something
which is being described either as the unidentified and unknown ḥašmal (translations which identify this word base that identification on the Greek translation) or as the fire. By looking at the verse, we should be able to dispel both of these ideas. The predicate of the verse is identified not only by what the prepositional kap̄ (translated as
or like
) is affixed to in כעין חשׁמל and כמראה־אשׁ, but through the use of one of these phrases in almost identical form in v. 4 (the only difference between them being the presence or absence of a definite article). This shows us that the sight of (the) ḥašmal,
and the appearance of fire,
both function as modifiers of the subject in order to tell us what that subject is like. The Hebrew is presenting us with something that has an appearance like ḥašmal and fire, not with ḥašmal and fire that has the appearance of something (like the one on the throne or its body/loins). The only way of turning the ḥašmal or the fire into the subject is to ignore the prefixed kap̄ or turn it from a preposition into a verb, which almost all English translations are fond of doing. If we don’t ignore or amend the Hebrew to suite our own whims, this leaves בֵּית־לָהּ as our only and appropriate subject. In v. 4, the sight of the ḥašmal is being used to describe what the bright light around the cloud and from the midst of the fire looked like. In v. 27, the sight of the ḥašmal and the appearance of fire are being used to describe what בֵּית־לָהּ (her house/its house/the house belonging to her) looked like.
So what is this house and why doesn’t it seem to have any bearing on English translations? The house disappears either because people are translating based on the Greek, which lacks this (among many other things in the throne vision), because they simply don’t like it (it interferes with their desire to make the one on the throne, the ḥašmal, or the fire the subject), or because it suggests a feminine understanding of or association with the deity (which offends or troubles some sorts of people). But if we are going to deal with the Hebrew itself, we must deal with this house/dwelling-place and its feminine suffix. Since the imagery of the vision communicates YHWH’s judgment upon Israel and abandonment of sanctuary and land, I suggest that the house
is the Jerusalem temple and that her
refers either to Shaddai (a name that has feminine connotations and associations) and/or the divine presence, composed primarily of the living being(s) and set in motion by the Spirit (both of which are grammatically feminine), which is supposed to belong to and descend over the temple. The elaborate description of the temple as having an appearance like fire and ḥašmal all around, from its structure upward and from its structure downward, and surrounded by bright light, visually represents the total destruction of Jerusalem and temple. The placement of this fiery house at the end of the vision, offset from the rest of the imagery as the last thing Ezekiel sees, serves to highlight this fatal future event as the (first) principle subject-matter of his prophetic activity. Ezekiel may then have fallen on his face at the end of his vision report not just because he was terrified, pious, or overcome by the glory before him, but because the sight of YHWH’s house being consumed in horrendous conflagration crushed his heart to dust.
Alternatively, the house of fire could be a heavenly sanctuary as opposed to an earthly one. In the Book of Watchers, Enoch sees celestial apparitions that directly parallel Ezek 1 as well as a fiery temple whose upper and lower structure is described:
And look, another open door before me: and a house greater than the former one, and it was all built of tongues of fire. Its floor was of fire, and its upper part was flashes of lightning and shooting stars, and its ceiling was a flaming fire. And I was looking and I saw a lofty throne; and it’s appearance was like ice, and its wheels were like the shining sun, and the voice (or sound) of the cherubim, and from beneath the throne issued rivers of flaming fire. And I was unable to see. The Great Glory sat upon it; (1 Enoch 14:15, 17-20a)
George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 35.
Just as the imagery of Ezek 1 is meant to evoke the judgment that the prophet will be commissioned to proclaim against Israel for her sins, so the parallel vision in the Book of Watchers takes place in reference to Enoch’s commission to proclaim YHWH’s judgment against the Watchers for their iniquity. All these similarities would seem to indicate that the interpretation of a house of fire in Ezek 1:27 was known among the ancient Hebrew people, even if it has been long forgotten or dismissed by English-speaking ones.
Before reading this radical new translation of Ezekiel 1:1-28, please read P1: Introduction.
(1)And it came to pass [that] in the thirtieth year, on the fourth, in the fifth of the month, while I [was] in the midst of the exiles beside the Kabaru Canal, the heavens were opened and I saw apparitions of the celestial. [(2)In the fifth of the month—that is, the year (the fifth) of the exile of the king, Joiachin—(3)the word of YHWH trulya came to Ezekiel, son of Buzi the priest, in the land of Chaldea beside the Kabaru Canal, and the grip of YHWH came upon him there.]
(4)And I looked, and there—a tempest wind coming from the north, a great cloud, and fire flashing intermittently, with a bright light around the cloud and from the midst of the fire like the sight of the ḥašmal from within the flame;b (5)and from the midst of the fire, the likeness of four living beings. And such [were] their appearances: the likeness of a person belonged to them (6)with four faces to each being and four wings to each one of their appearances. (7)And the appearances’ feet [were] a stretched out foot and sole (their feet [were] like the sole of the foot of an ox) and they were sparkling like the sight of shiny bronze. (8)And a hand of itc—a person—from beneath the appearances’ wings [was] on their four sides.
Now, the appearances’ faces and their wings—concerning the four of them—(9)their wings were touching, one to another. The appearances would not change direction. As the beings were moving, the appearances would move, each one, toward the side [of one] of its faces.d (10)Now, the likeness of the appearances’ faces [were] the faces of a person, the faces of a lion to the right of the four human faces, the faces of a bovine out of the left of the four beings, and the faces of a bird of prey to the four beings (11)and the appearances’ faces. And their wings were spread out upward toward each other. Two were touching each other while two were covering the beings’ bodies. (12)So the appearances would move, each one, toward the side [of one] of its faces—toward where it would be. They would move [as] the winde would move. They would not change direction as the beings were moving. (13)Now, the likeness of the living beings—their appearances [were] like burning coals of fire (as an appearance of the torches, [so] that appearance was moving about between the living beings). And the fire had bright light [to it]. And from the fire, lightning was coming forth. (14)And the living beings were going forthf and returning like the likeness of the scattering.g
(15)And I saw the living beings, and there—one wheel [was] on the earth beside [each of] the living beings, belonging to the four surfaces of each one.h (16)The appearance of the wheels and their actions [were] like the sight of topaz with one likeness to the four surfaces. And the wheels’ appearances and their actions [were] like when the wheel would be in the midst of the wheel. (17)Beside the beings’ four sides, as they were moving, the wheels would move [also] without changing direction as the beings were moving. (18)And the living beings’ elevationi and height belonged to the wheels. And a fear belonged to them. And their rims were full of eyes round about for the four of them. (19)And as the livingj was moving, the wheels would move beside the appearances. And as the living beings were raising themselves up from the earth, the wheels would raise themselves [also]. (20)Over whatever the spirit [was] to move, they would move there–[where] the spirit [was] to move, [in order] to be there–and the wheels would raise themselves with them because the spirit of the livingk [was] within the wheels. (21)As the appearances were moving, the wheels would move, and as the appearances were remaining [still], the wheels would remain [still], and when they raised themselves up from the earth, the wheels would raise themselves up with them because the spirit of the living [was] within the wheels.
(22)Now, the likeness over the heads of the living [was] a firmament like the sight of the feared crystal, spread out over the appearances’ heads upward. (23)And below the firmament, the appearances’ wings were stretched out, one to another, for each had two [wings] covering this side and each had two [wings] covering that side of their bodies. (24)And I heard the sound of the appearances’ wings as they were moving. [It was] like the noise of abundant water (like the voice of Shaddai); the sound of the crowd (like the noise of an army). When they were remaining [still], they would hang down their wings. (25)And a sound occurred from above the firmament which [was] over the appearances’ top as they were remaining [still]{, they would hang down their wings}.l (26)And from over the firmament which [was] over the appearances’ top [was] the likeness of a chair like the appearance of an azure-stone. And upward over the likeness of the chair [was] a shape like the appearance of a person thereon.
(27)And I saw [that] like the sight of ḥašmal, like the appearance of fire, [was] the house belonging to herm round about. From the appearance of the house’sn structureo and upward and from the appearance of the house’s structure and downward, I saw an appearance like fire with a bright light to it round about. (28)Like the appearance of the bow that would occur among the clouds in a day of the rain, so [was] the appearance of the bright light round about.
Such [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of YHWH. And I saw, and I fell on my face, and I heard a voice speaking.
Proceed to P3: The Climax for an explanation and defense of v. 27.
What follows is a radical new translation of Ezekiel 1:1-28. It is radical and new in a number of respects. Firstly, it is one of the few English translations which treats the actual Hebrew grammar and syntax as it exists and doesn’t retreat to the Septuagint to arrive at its content or meaning. Secondly, it is the first English translation that attempts to scrupulously match the text’s erratic gender and number oscillations with their most syntactically appropriate referents. Third and most radically, I have offered a translation and interpretation of Ezek 1:27 which dramatically veers away from every English translation extent to suggest a truly new understanding of the climax of Ezekiel’s throne vision. Although the translation has been simplified by stripping the copious footnotes that originally accompanied it, a few have been retained where I felt this was necessary. The translation is very literal. It attempts to give a precise sense of each and every Hebrew verb, follows repetitions or explanations in the Hebrew with repetitions or explanations in the English, and seeks to closely mimic the style, form, and arrangement of the language. Thus, for instance, King Jehoiachin is spelled Joiachin in v. 2 and v. 27 has the form like such and such was the house
instead of the house was like such and such
because this is how the text presents them. Part three will feature a defense and explanation for my translation of v. 27.
Go to Ezekiel’s Throne Vision – P2: A Radical New Translation.
I just got the news–my mother may be homeless, but now that she is, she is actually succeeding to do the one thing she didn’t do and believed she couldn’t do when she had other options available to her–she is actually fighting to gain back her life! Apparently, she has found an apartment she wants that opens up next Wednesday, so she may be out of her car and into an actual dwelling next week! I was so afraid we were going to lose her. Thank you to all who have prayed that YHWH would help her in this time of her great darkness. Please continue to pray that she will keep fighting to regain her life and that YHWH will make a path clear before her to guide her to her restoration. Praise be to YHWH!
Life. A gift from YHWH. But sometimes, to some people, it is a gift that they desperately wish could be returned. My mother’s is one of those. From the moment she was born, her life has only been one deadening and destroying tragedy after another. And today is one of those days where that tragedy cuts deep. For the first time in a long time—probably for the first time in her life—she is in a position where the only way for her to escape is for her to do something about it. It breaks my heart that my family has done everything we can to help her, but there is nothing left we can do—and if we continued to try, it would only make it worse. Now she is truly alone and facing the one thing she’s fled from ever since the beginning—her own life and what she makes of it. What she does from this point, we don’t know. It scares the shit out of me. She drove off in her car toward the coast. She’ll be sleeping in that car tonight. Maybe for many more nights to come. I don’t know. I don’t know if she’ll make it. I don’t know if I’ll ever hear from her again. I don’t want to lose my mother. I don’t want her to give up. I don’t want her life to be nothing but tragedy. But there is hope because YHWH exists. And there is hope because Yeshua was raised from the dead to prove it in his very flesh and blood. And there is hope because mom has reached the very bottom of darkness and despair–there is nowhere further to fall. She can lay down and die in the depths or she can fight until her last breath to make her way out. Please, YHWH, be with her. Help her to find a way out of the darkness.
- Daniel exhibits properties characteristic of a text from an oral culture prior to Hellenism’s emergence in Palestine (pre-300 B.C.).
The texts of oral cultures had particular styles inherent to them which differs from the style of texts arising out of a book-based culture initiated by Hellenism. One oral style of narrative texts is the concatenation of various short, textual episodes that are virtually independent of each other instead of a long story that moves linearly through time and would require a kind of sustained attention difficult to achieve with a hearing audience as opposed to a reading one.
The patriarchal stories in Genesis, just as the Epic of Gilgamesh in Babylonian literature, consist of a string of episodes owing their unity to the principal protagonists of the various stories. . . . additive rather than subordinative.
Karel Van Der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, pp.14-15
So Genesis and Gilgamesh are given as examples of narrative texts from an oral culture. Just like these, the narrative text that we call Daniel is episodic and additive instead of subordinative, consisting of various short stories strung together which have little relation to the others other than their characters or subject-matter. This becomes even more apparent when one looks at the Greek version of Daniel, which includes several more short stories (Bel and the Dragon and Susanna) that are also complete in and of themselves and which no one would even know were missing if they heard or read Daniel without them.
We can contrast a narrative text like Maccabees, which is the product of Hellenistic book culture and often believed to have been composed at about the same time as Daniel, with the narrative text of Daniel to see their differences. Maccabees follows the exploits and experiences of certain characters linearly through time and contains basic plot and subplot structure throughout (like, for instance, the defilement of the temple, the rising up of a leader against the perpetrators of this defilement, and the eventual restoration of the temple from its defilers and defilement). The same cannot be said of Daniel, which at best is structured not according to plotline in the stories or even according to its characters (sometimes the text focuses on people like Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah and has nothing at all to do with Daniel or vice versa), but according to other criteria such as story type (for instance, court stories are gathered together in chs. 1-6 and revelatory stories are gathered together in chs. 7-12) or thematic relation and/or relation in terms of physical existence around other stories on a scroll (just as the second story among the court stories—ch. 2—focuses on a series of four kingdoms with a final that will not pass away, so the second story of the revelatory stories—ch. 7—focuses on a series of four kingdoms with a final that will not pass away).
Daniel’s textual style just doesn’t fit into Hellenistic Palestine book culture (like Maccabees, around which Daniel’s composition is often linked) and therefore argues for its composition prior to that cultural milieu (pre-300 B.C.).
Today is both a sad and happy day in California. The California Supreme Court–after ruling that prohibiting gay marriage was anti-Constitutional and then allowing 18,000 gay couples to be married–nevertheless upheld the people’s will to change the State Constitution and to make the terrible injustice of Prop 8 a reality. I think that the California Supreme Court did the right thing in upholding the will of the people to make their Constitution and to decide for themselves what they will legally allow and what they won’t (much better the people decide what they want than government decide for them!). And yet what the majority decided is, in my opinion, a great and disastrous inhumanity. I feel like I’m living back in the days of Martin Luther King when he was speaking and marching and protesting the injustice and the inhumanity of our nation first against African-Americans and then against those we demonized in Vietnam. It seems like no matter all the progress we have made, we have returned to where we were before. And it is startling to think that there are now parts of Europe like Denmark and Belgium that are MORE free and just than California–at least on this front. And yet, there is great good in the free will of humanity to make their own choices and to be self-governed–to be able to make WRONG choices. Ultimately, I think right will win out and the choices of gay couples will no longer be coerced, oppressed, and controlled by the wills of others. And then we can work on the next injustice. But until then, here we are.
The Patriot Act scares the living shit out of me. Here’s an example why it does: Mom Says Patriot Act Stripped Son of Due Process. Basically, it gives government the ability to supersede your INALIENABLE rights as declared in the Constitution based on the government’s own arbitrary whims. As this poor mother and son found out the hard way, far from making America safer, the Patriot Act puts America at the risk of the kinds of fascism and tyranny that have held sway over the rest of the world since the beginning of human history. Even YOU could be taken in the middle of the night and held hostage indefinitely by your own government without the ability to defend your innocence.
