Quotes to remember
"And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Thomas Jefferson "Declaration of Independence" 1776
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the dutied of men and citizens." George Washington (farewell address of 1796)
"Revelation assures us that 'righteousness exalteth a nation.'" Samuel Adams to Arthur Lee, September 27, 1771
"...can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public office, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty, and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws." Noah Webster "Advice to the Young" 1834
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. same
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. John Adams
The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests. John Adams
"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in the system (Christianity) than he did." Thomas Jefferson
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. same
I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. same
and my favorite from Tommy:
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/24 @ 09:07 AM — (Reply)
I don't see these quotes as contradictory at all to the ones I posted. What is required is a moral public for the survival of the union - de Tocqueville also made that observation. The amorality of a secular church guiding the nation is just as harmful as the overbearing hand of any particular established religion.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/25 @ 10:14 AM — (Reply)
The founding fathers believed strongly that a moral foundation was necessary for a well-functioning society. They believed that religion was the best place (and for some of them, the only place) for a citizen to develop those morals.
They were equally, perhaps for some, even more vociferously, adamant that faith was a private matter, between a person and their Divine, and NOT something for the public forum.
Where you and I might differ, is your apparent presumption that "secularism = amorality." It takes more than a mere profession of faith for me to accept that someone is, at their core, a moral person. In fact, I am most likely to distrust someone pronouncing their faith publicly.
"By their fruits, you shall know them."
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/27 @ 11:39 AM — (Reply)
It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
In fact, there really are no moral boundaries of secularism because the code of behavior is 100% relative. A convenient way to live but no universal morality to which others are bound. This fails to live up to de Tocqueville's admonition. How can private morality inhibit men from the horrors that democratic laws allow if we don't share a common idea of acceptable behavior?
What you consider chicken salad is a senseless and heinous murder to the vegan. What I consider pedophilia is a valid political consdieration in the Netherlands. Can democracy function under the amorphous ambiguity of secularists, making up the rules as they go along?
Secularism dismisses piety in the public square either as pretention or by proclaiming adherents intellectual inferiors and duped disciples. How can you expect a society to value morality (which by their own admission, secular humanist can't define and don't pretend to teach - they hand that burden over to the NEA) if we exceptionalize religious practice by viewing it as inappropriate in politics or academia, for example.
Either there are laws that supercede man's limited ability to define or there are only arbitrary guidelines we determine amongst ourselves. If there is no universal (God-given) law, then there is only the myopic moral code of situational ethics. And we both know, Michael, that adoption of either law does not ensure the perfect practice of it.
Ultimately, either we value religion and respect the devotion of adherents or we devalue it, send the message that somehow a common morality is less worthy of consideration and eventually eradicate it.
Western society is staring down the gun barrel at anhiliation and pulling the trigger are generations of human beings who've severed all ties with the universe and whose only higher allegiance can be summed up in 3 words. "I got mine."
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/27 @ 01:13 PM — (Reply)
Another well-written response. Sadly, this is so rife with false dichotomies and straw-man arguments that I almost don't want to credit you with its creation. You clearly are confusing humanism with... heck, I don't know what, some form of capitalistic amoralism.
Humanism, even secularist, is founded on the worth, dignity, and autonomy of the person. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. (Amsterdam Declaration 2002)
In fact, humanism pre-supposes that men and women already share a common idea of acceptable behavior, and that this is essentially a part of the human condition. [M]orality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction. (ibid)
Proof of that is simple enough to find. The prevalence of the Golden Rule across cultures with and without reference to any Divine concept, clearly indicates that there are, if not absolutes, then certainly broad commonalities to human morality. We can leave the debates about chicken sandwiches as murder, or bacon-cheeseburgers as abominations against the God's Law, open for discussion, without saying that rape is suddenly okay.
I take GREAT exception to your simplistic (and wrong) assertion that either there is an absolute or there is chaos. For thousands of years, China has existed in relative cultural stability, based primarily on a set of instructions (supposedly) written by Confucius. While Europe descended from the Roman civilization into the chaotic morass of the Dark Ages, China maintained her social establishments largely through these collected instructions on right living. China survived, even thrived, despite lacking any divine set of "Because I said so."
But, really, Cate: "I got mine"-- where did you come up with that as a summation of humanism?!? Are you sure you aren't confusing capitalism with humanism? If you don't know what you're talking about, try not to be cute about it. In return, I promise not to try and sum up the mysteries of Christianity in trite bumper-sticker-level insults.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/28 @ 09:17 AM — (Reply)
As far as labels go.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/28 @ 09:23 AM — (Reply)
That instrinsic morality is on pretty shaky ground when you consider the groupthink that we've seen happen on juries where cases where decided in a distinctly bad-for-society way. And it comes off as arbitrary, though our laws are increasingly arbitrary anyway, it seems.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/28 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/28 @ 11:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/27 @ 01:30 PM — (Reply)
Your reference presents lovely but highly ineffectual platitudes that do not define a code of behavior.
Unlike the Evangelists you usually argue with ;-) I don't believe that all truth is in the Bible. I believe that God has spoken to man from the dawn of time and that his words have been handed down all over the word in various forms. So, you say Confuscious, I say divine wisdom.
The humanists are onto something though, man has an innate moral compass. It's a byproduct of our divine DNA.
Amoral self-interest (which you say I confused with secularism) has become the byproduct of secularism. Consider this example: The young son of a peanut farmer goes to school with his PB sandwich. His teacher says "No, son, PB is fine at home but we don't allow that here." How long before he believes that PB is somehow less on the food chain (pun intended) than a school purchased lunch? How long before his children refuse to eat it altogether? Secularism has pushed piety out of the public arena and has left a moral void which we see filled often with self-interested animalistic behavior. "I got mine" - like road rage, like gang behavior, like suburban gals prostituting themselves for Gap gift cards. Although I don't see humanism as the ultimate answer, I would be happier if there were more humanists than completely unbelieving cynics but unfortunately, your preferred moral source isn't filling the void either.
Right now, we have a growing segment of society that is increasingly not tethered to any moral code. You have faith in humanity and I have faith in God - too many have faith in nothing. And as long as we disavow public application of faith (secularism) we quiet the moral voices.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/28 @ 10:43 AM — (Reply)
Either the Bible is the unerring Word of God, or everything moral is 100% relative. If anyone can pick and choose what they want believe out of the Bible, then chaos will ensue. How long until witches start abducting our children again??
Absurd, because you know I don't believe it, but is it very different from your false dichotomy against secularism?
You're attacking the wrong societal influence. Secularism doesn't chase out piety, it chases out hypocracy and prostelytizing. Certain recent movements against Islam dress are, I believe, a misapplication of secularism, but to my knowledge, no secularist has ever gone to a Mennonite or Hassidic Jew (for example), and insisted that they start shopping at Gap.
Frankly, I don't understand your PB analogy. Public school has been teaching secular evolution for over 100 years, and yet there is still, 80 years after the Scopes trial, the idiotic Intelligent Design folks trying to undermine basic scientific methodology in favor of religious superstition. If ever there was a peanut butter sandwich that needed to be chased out, it would be that.
I don't see humanism as any sort of ultimate answer either, but that's because I don't think the cause of the gap you're lamenting is a faith-based one.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 04:00 AM — (Reply)
No, I think this is wrong. I think too many have faith in money. I think this is the source of your "I got mine" philosophy.
Increasingly, "wealth makes right" is running rampant through our society. Social priorities are based not on any responsibility to each other, or to a larger power, but to simply what brings home the money.
Usury, if folks even know what the word means, is not a "sin," - it's a well-defined risk/profit strategy. Political candidates are not judged on qualifications, or on the basis of their message, but quite simply on how much funds they are able to raise and how quickly.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 04:13 AM — (Reply)
You can accuse unbridled capitalism but the proper bridle for any life is a perspective that extends beyond one's own 70 or so years on the planet.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/29 @ 06:11 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 10:42 AM — (Reply)
And chaos has ensued from misinterpretations over the years but at least we shared the basic 10 commanments, love thy neighbor, the golden rule... ways to get salvation are not socially relevant so much as ways to get along.
And inteligent design has such weak support that I'm surprised you would even use it as an example. Further, in the context of social interaction, why does it matter if some people eat that particular PB? For that matter, ID was rejected because it's theories can not be validated by experiementation. So... when was the last time a brainchild up at MIT created a universe? Let's put two scientists in an empty room with all of the elements on the periodic table available to them and see them produce, say, a duck. While micro evolution is certainly provable, man has yet to create anything with only basic raw materials. At best, we manipulate already formed components (sperm and egg, various seed parts, etc). Does that really prove our ancestors climbed down from the trees?
Here's a nice quote for you: The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.
This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.
An example of a spontaneous process is a boulder that dislodges from a mountaintop and rolls down the mountain. The only way to get the boulder back up the mountain (thereby increasing its height, or the order of the system) is for energy outside the system to be expended—such as someone directing the process by seeing that the rock is carried up the mountain.
One of the current explanations of the improvement in plant and animal species over time is that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes resulting in a higher order of offspring survivability than the parent possessed.
A number of years ago, a renowned biologist and geneticist told of an experiment he had directed in which grasshoppers in their various stages of growth had been subjected to radiation levels greater than that insect family had received during its existence. He said the experiment caused many genetic changes, including the loss of a foreleg, an antenna, or some other inheritable change. However, not one of those changes gave the offspring a greater viability or survivability than that of the parent.
Many ... recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system.
Applied to modern science - even if we can modify genes to eradicate cancer, it won't happen spontaneously, we become the designers.
Interesting topic with more questions than answers and since I believe God and science are not exclusive of each other, I am unmolested by the turbulence between evolutionists and creationists.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/29 @ 06:04 AM — (Reply)
Besides, I see this particular "argument" used so many times, I wonder if anyone even bothers to think about it:
This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change. ... The only way (for) the order of the system (to be increased) is for energy outside the system to be expended
Yeah, there's energy coming into the system. A heck of a lot of energy, in fact.
More than all the nuclear bombs we've exploded, and dumped on our system on a daily basis.
IT'S CALLED THE SUN, boys and girls.
Read a book.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 10:56 AM — (Reply)
Uh-huh... reproducible through experimentation, I believe those were the parameters for defining science in the ID case.
Call me when your buddies there in Gopherville have reproduced a big bang and the subsequent evolution to modern humanity. If they are so sure about this premise, then the missing link should be easy to recreate, right?
No, Michael, this has nothing to do with a book. It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of a secular scientific community who has become so enamored of their own theories that they hold themselves to a different standard. If ID is ruled unscientific because it can't be recreated through experimentation, then let's see some forward movement on the evolutionary end. Let's see the creation of a human being from other primate subspecies. (The Island of Dr. Moreau doesn't count.)
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/29 @ 11:59 AM — (Reply)
Then again, maybe they are...
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/29 @ 12:09 PM — (Reply)
You're killin' me here! Laughing too hard...
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 12:57 PM — (Reply)
Heckfire, put three marbles in space, and not only can't the MIT scientists create a predictable set of orbits, they can prove to you that it's impossible to solve it (or at least functionally impossible).
Yes, evolution is incomplete as a theory. Biogenesis has made little progress since the oft-cited, but flawed Miller-Urey experiment. Virii have been artificially created, but they don't qualify as "life." The evolution of sex is extremely poorly understood. There are plenty of fields open for anyone interested in more than a "Guess God Must Have Done It!" sort of answer.
By the by, Cate, where did you get that quote on evolution? "higher forms" and "lower forms" of life are not scientific evaluations. Is an elephant a "higher form of life" than a manatee, or a hyrax? Evolution posits that these three animals shared a common ancestor, but whether they are higher forms or not, there doesn't seem to be any real scale to measure against. Horses appear to have evolved from smaller mesohippus, while the flightless flea seems to have evolved from a kind of scorpionfly with flight.
In fact, the one reasonable scientific measure might be the complexity of the genetic code. However, a species of single-celled amoeba has more than 200 times the DNA of a human. Certainly on an organism-level, we are more complex than an amoeba. Well, except for some of the ID advocates.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 12:41 PM — (Reply)
In the broadest sense, I would say that the highest form of life is that which is capable of acting in a purely selfless fashion without regard to instinct or self-preservation. An animal with the cognitive ability to comprehend and analyze completely abstract concepts. The lowest end of the spectrum would be defined not by the number of cells or length of its genetic code but the limitations of its functions. An amoeba cannot study calculus. An amoeba cannot dream of conquering the skies through flight. An amoeba cannot produce art or music. For that matter chimps, though clearly more advanced than amoeba, are lower form than humans. How is that chimp thing coming, anyhow? Any news on chimps evolving as we speak?
Ironic that man's potential is almost unlimited in either direction. He can find enlightenment or depravity - a testament to his status at the top of the food chain.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/29 @ 04:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/06 @ 01:59 PM — (Reply)
"I have said that these provisions authorizing religious exercises are properly to be regarded as measures making possible the free exercise of religion. But it is important to stress that, strictly speaking, what is at issue here is a privilege rather than a right. ... And that issue, in my view, turns on the question of coercion."
"It is conceivable that these school boards, or even all school boards, might eventually find it impossible to administer a system of religious exercises during school hours in such a way as to meet this constitutional standard ..."
His dissent was not on the merits of religious exercise in school, which he acknowledges can and often does take a coercive, and therefore, unconstitutional tact, but rather on judging the case without having actually demonstrated the failure of the school board to provide adequate (and equally compelling) alternatives to the religious exercise involved.
Splitting hairs, perhaps, but when even your legal base admits to an inherent risk in permitting school prayer, (might I add, the only dissenter in an 8-1 opinon), it's a weak pillar to stand on.
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/08 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
Stewart acknowledged in his dissent something that we see all around us - secularists have used the courts to weaken the underpinnings of faith and now, outlawing piety from all public forums, seek to frame every debate with their own Godless viewpoints getting an unnatural advantage.
He saw that more than 30 years ago... long before Ann Coulter pointed out that secularism has the characteristics of a religion and long before Stephen Carter decried the ostracizing of faith.
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/08 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
I am not taking the Justice's words out of context, nor am I seeking to divert the topic. I fear you both focus on the Free Exercise clause without giving due credence to the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Barry, I agree with you (and Justice Stewart) that the Incorporation theory of the Fourteenth Amendment has expanded the original provisions of the First Amendment far beyond the original intent of the authors. The merits and reasoning of that IS a tangential argument. While it was make a very interesting discussion, but it must be conceeded that, at present, the First Amendment is considered fully incorporated and thus directly applicable to the state level. In his dissent, Stewart proudly asserts, "I accept without question that the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against impairment by the States embraces in full the right of free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and I yield to no one in my conception of the breadth of that freedom." As you cite, he does note the irony of states now being restricted by a provision (the First Amendment) intended to give them freedom. That, however, is precisely the point of the Fourteenth Amendment- states had abused their autonomy, and the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to guarantee all Americans their basic rights, regardless of what state they resided in.
So, taking Incorporation as a given, the question becomes when do the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses conflict with each other?
I think it's hardly irrelevant to point out that even Justice Stewart acknowledges and gives due credence to the threat inherent in government-sanctioned religious piety: "the duty laid upon government in connection with religious exercises in the public schools is that of refraining from so structuring the school environment as to put any kind of pressure on a child to participate in those exercises."
So, even the prophet-in-the-desert, decrying the establishment of a "religion of secularism" recognizes that government must not be seen to be advocating one religion over another. In like kind, the majority in the Abington ruling agreed with Stewart: "We agree of course that the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.'"
So, there is apparently no real debate over Free Exercise. Radical secularists (if there even is such a thing) won't dispute the inherent freedom for anyone to believe what they will, and profess their faith. The question is what constitutes Establishment.
The thing is that I agree with you, Cate, that morality, even religion, ought to be more involved in the public forum. What I disagree with is where and how that ought to be manifested. The marketplace of ideas must be free of governmental intrusion.
For thousands of years, Jews have held to their Covenant despite being cultural minorities in hundreds of lands, and in many cases, outright hostility. Certainly there have been generations who fell subject to cultural influences, and fell away from their people's traditions. Maybe they even started eating those PB sandwiches from your analogy.
The societies where they resided were (and are) a continual strain upon the faithful. I'd do a great disservice if I even tried to list all the ways the Jews were repressed. Wrongs were inflicted, often in the name of religious fervosity, but almost always out of direct government interaction.
It's a horrible and utterly bogus affectation on the part of Coulter and others of her ilk to somehow assert that precisely to avoid anything akin to that sort of repression on any religious faith, that secularists seek to weaken every faith.
Perhaps there is gross error on the side of caution, but no more than there is often gross error on the side of presumption.
Example, for both of you:
Is ours a Christian nation?
Comment by Michael— 2007/10/09 @ 08:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/10/08 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
"It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard the [religion clauses] as establishing a single constitutional standard of "separation of church and state", which can be applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion.... As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government. The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments. ... So matters stood until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, or more accurately, until this Court's decision in Cantwell...."
He stated his agreement with the doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment's embrace and application of the Bill of Rights, but pointed out the irony of such an amendment "designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy" (Eastland, 1993, pp. 165).
"If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and state-created disadvantage.... And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private (Eastland, 1993, pp. 165)."
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/10/08 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
In the meantime, I am in the process of cloning the best Mexican gardener I have ever had. About ten of them would keep my ranch in heaven in tip top shape. Of course when it concerns government sanctioned cloning or cloning by anyone other than me I am against it. : )
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/29 @ 06:48 AM — (Reply)
While I understand her laudable motives, too often, Objectivism is merely used as vindication for the very sort of self-centric "me-first-and-screw-you-guys" going on today.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/29 @ 11:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/29 @ 05:43 PM — (Reply)