The American ‘Watershed’
by Alan SnyderPaul Johnson is one of my favorite historians. In his already classic A History of the American People, he singles out the Woodrow Wilson administration as “one of the great watersheds of American history.” What does he mean by that?
Watershed Man?
Americans prior to the Wilson era, Johnson explains, “enjoyed a laissez-faire society which was by no means unrestrained but whose limitations to their economic freedom were imposed by their belief in a God-ordained moral code rather than a government one devised by man.”
In other words, although Americans were free to do as they wished, they always understood there were limits placed on that freedom by God. Generally speaking, they either stayed within those limits or were punished for violating them.
The Wilson era replaced that mode of thinking—normally called self-government—with a code created by man and instituted via civil government.
Typical of the earlier approach is this gem found in a speech by President John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge . . . would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
John Adams Understood Self-government
Adams realized that the American government was not a heavy-handed, coercive institution. It would only work if the people maintained a moral and religious foundation in their thinking and lifestyle. If they were to discard that foundation, the Constitution and the government it established would collapse.
This brings us back to Paul Johnson, who declares that we reached that tipping point during the progressivism of the Wilson years. There was an interruption: the 1920s, particularly under President Coolidge, reverted back to founding principles, but the Great Depression ended all that. FDR’s New Deal took Wilson’s ideas and made them reality. Government now became the arbiter of right and wrong; man’s code overruled God’s.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer of America during the early 1830s, published his Democracy in America in 1835. In it, he made a number of comments about the Christian religion in America, marveling that religion could actually be combined with limited government. That was not the way of Europe where a state-sponsored church was the norm.
He expressed a concern, though, for America’s future. Could this liberty he perceived ever be undermined? If so, here’s how he predicted it would happen. Speaking of civil government, he warned,
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property and subdivides their inheritances: what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the troubles of living?
Does this sound familiar? The government declares that it knows best, it will take care of all our problems, and we should cease worrying. Trust us, it says, and most of all, please stop thinking so much: we are the experts who can do your thinking for you.
Note that Tocqueville called this govenment “mild.” That is the image it projects—no Hitlers, Stalins, or Maos here—just caring lawmakers and bureaucrats. I love that Tocqueville quote, particularly the last line about not having to think and live life yourself—the government will do both for you. Yet he was not done. He continues with this pearl respecting how the government gets its way:
The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Is it possible that we are now experiencing Tocqueville’s prophecy? Johnson is correct, I believe, in identifying the Wilson years as a watershed. Is it possible that another watershed can be created, and that the water can begin to run back again the other direction? Frankly, that is our only hope.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
269 Comments
So, all morality springs from religion? Hmmm…
Certainly, Wilson's presidency was a watershed, but it had nothing to do with religion.
Mr. Johnson, the author you cited, needs a checkup from the neck up.
It's been said many times that locks and laws were made for honest men. And it's true that widespread incidents of breaking a particular law would render the government impotent in trying to put a stop to the behavior.
Still… These seem like some assertions on Mr. Johnson's part.
yak yak dont talk bak
Yes, one of my favorite quotes of De Tocqueville which describes what is going on. Yet, I don't think he captures the menace.
It's one thing for the government to be a helicopter parent, but when the promises are broken and the government can no longer provide, it always brings out guns to keep the "children" under control — for their own good.
Tocqueville observed a baby nation founded on christian philosophy and was fascinated. What we he observe today? An "historically" old republic driven by pop culture and MONEY, dieing from self-inflicted wounds.
Sorry, first thing to pop in my mind.
Old Woody wasn't a "watershed" president, he was a "water closet" president who should have been flushed. Sadly we never properly cleaned up after him, and now we have the odor and contamination he left in his wake all around us.
Tocqueville was brilliant in observation and analysis. He understood human nature on the individual basis and how men could also act to undermine other men with their uninformed consent. Rand predicted almost 50 years ago that we would get fascism disguised first as socialism, and that it would be soft as characterized by Tocqueville above. Another quote to follow…
What political party adopted this as part of their platform in 1920?
"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. (My Note: It takes a Village, or Family Values.) Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand… the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious (citizen) the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education… We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents… The government must undertake the improvement of public health by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor – by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the… materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good."
Sound like anyone we know today?
as the people of a nation turn their backs on GOD they collectively turn to embrace government. what then does it say when our nations government has turned to face GOD with shoulders squared arm outstretched and middle finger fully extended?
The US was founded on enlightenment philosophies, not christian philosophy.
Where does morality spring from?
"Perpetual childhood" is an apt discription that sadly is exploited by politicians need for "perpetual power." These politicians, judges, educational institutions, media and entertainment have secularized America, not for the betterment of its people but for the power to control them.
Wrong, did you not read this?
Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer of America during the early 1830s, published his Democracy in America in 1835. In it, he made a number of comments about the Christian religion in America, marveling that religion could actually be combined with limited government.
I marvel at how people attempt to rewrite our history. Sorry but I am going to go with Tocqueville, then you. Nothing against you but unless you are over 180 years old I am going to stick with the observations of those who witnessed this era. I bet you would be shocked to learn that religion was taught in schools and everyone knew the Constitution practically from memory. You would be lucky to find any of our children who could cite the first 3 ammendments. 50 of our 55 signers were Christians of various backgrounds.
Here's an agenda for return to a free America: THE FREEDOM MANIFESTO
I read an article in Politico on the agenda of MoveOn.org, which explains their new agenda, now that the most liberal politician in our history has been elected President. Got me thinking of what it would look like if the "right" would – hypothetically speaking, of course – develop a plan to resist MoveOn, Obama and the age of huge (not just big) government. These people at MoveOn did not wait for politicians in Washington to step up to their agenda – they stepped up to the politicians and said "you are going to do this, or else." We Christians and Conservatives, likewise cannot continue to howl and fuss at Republicans who do not fight for the Founding Principles upon which our nation was founded. If MoveOn and the Daily Kos can do it, so can we. And we must. The attack plan below to restore Constitutional government, is just a start but should include:
1.Establish the groundwork for a boycott of the federal income tax. If you no longer feel the federal government is operating within the confines of the Constitution, you have a moral obligation to become a conscientious objector and simply say NO to the payment of taxes to Washington. Does the Constitution give the Feds the right to bail out labor unions and give non-citizens rights and benefits? If you feel that by doing so, our sovereignty, Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void then so is any responsibility you may have had for taxes under the 16th Amendment. 2. Begin a vigorous campaign to urge the public to home-school and/or send their children to private schools, with or without vouchers. Then begin a major program to build a private, non-union school system. This is the only way we will crack the huge union dominated government school bureaucracy. 3. Begin to use the legal system to fight big government. If the ACLU can do it, why can't we? We must begin to bring suit on every issue that threatens our nation's original freedoms and traditions. 4. We begin a systematic march on the media, especially television. TV is the medium through which the liberal agenda is being implemented. The left learned long ago that a picture is worth a thousand words and the best example of this is the pictures of bodies of dead soldiers they broadcast every time we are in a war they do not approve of (usually when a Republican is leading it!). Holding pro-America, Republican rallies at local TV stations would be a great start – especially if the liberals re-implement the "Fairness" Doctrine. 5. Boycott employers who advertise on far left liberal media outlets like NBC. No patriotic American should buy a General Electric household product as long as Matthews, Olbermann and their ilk are permitted to spew their anti-Republican, anti-American hatred. 6. Expose the controlling roll that unions play in growing a totalitarian media/government complex. 7. Establish an underground network of physicians and health care providers that will fight to preserve private sector medicine. 8. Establish Committees of Correspondence and Safety to provide communications and security – just as our Founding Fathers did. 9. Join the NRA as we have just as much right to carry guns under the 2nd Amendment as the media does to carry cameras under the 1st Amendment. 10. Demand adherence to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution and promote and support state sovereignty efforts. 11. Tell your health care providers that they do NOT have your permission to enter your private medical information in a Federal data base as required in the recently passed (and unconstitutional) so called Stimulus law. 12. Give every American citizen two million dollars, deposited in a bank of their choice, in conjunction with the elimination of Social Security and all federal welfare programs such as WIC, S-CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, etc. Shut them all down and repeal the law that makes government employee unions legal.
These are just a few of the actions that are necessary to first stop and then roll back the liberal juggernaut that threatens our basic freedoms and liberty. In our Declaration of Independence, our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. It is not too late for us to make that same commitment; in fact it is just in time.
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. – Thomas Paine, The Crisis, December 23, 1776
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and a lot of the founders were against christianity, so you're wrong.
Read some history and then come back.
You know that adults aren't supposed to have imaginary friends, right?
did we shed water that year? I'm just kidding.
Religion is capable of being an effective transmission for morality, but is not it's origin.
What is it's origin?
jefferson also said no nation can remain ignorant and free. report to your owner slave/moron
you know children should not play on the computer unsupervised dont you
Thanks for your plan to implement right wing christian fascism. Much appreciated.
"have secularized America"?
No, Americans have been sold on a philosophy that what's yours is mine, I am not to be held responsible, and I deserve it, not because I worked for it, but that I NEED it.
We have made it acceptable for the "needs" of some people to trample on the rights of others. That is a "Christian" value. Don't believe me? Ask the Pope.
Half of all people have below average intelligence -and the right to vote
Humans are essentially self serving and corrupt hence a self serving and corrupt institution like government is their to reign in them in.
God and Judeo-Christian thinking started to die around the end of the 19th century and is now not a place where anyone who applies critical thinking can dwell. I gave up religion after the 8th grade after a lifetime of catholicism.
Humans are essentially self serving and corrupt hence a self serving and corrupt institution like government is their to reign in them in.
God and Judeo-Christian thinking started to die around the end of the 19th century and is now not a place where anyone who applies critical thinking can dwell. I gave up religion after the 8th grade after a lifetime of catholicism.
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. Thomas Jefferson
I wonder how many will catch on……
Do you have a frickin' clue what fascism is? Nope, since you voted for it.
I quote my original post, which you apparently didn't read very closely.
"Rational self-interest and historical experience are the sources of morality."
God may have created Heaven and Earth, but man is solely responsible for his history and our present state of affairs. If you believe God intervenes in the affairs of men, then you have to concede, at the very least, that He is wildly inconsistent. I am not an Atheist, but would you proffer the idea that all Atheists are immoral since they don't believe in God?
You have some good ideas to ponder. Hmmmmm.
President Adams was dead-on: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Therein lay our current problem ~ we are overrun with crooks & heathens, too many of whom have lied their way into Congress & White House. I say we have Constitutional cause for legal proceedings against them.
O bomber I agree with your commentary and I'm well aware of Jefferson's quote "In any country and any age, the priest had been hostile to liberty.", however I used the word in the context of a loss of religious character and its attendent loss of a moral influence which has, in my opinion, contributed to the problems that you and I agree beset our country.
Great post.
You are spot on FeéVert.
Part one….
This has been the state of most of humanity for most of history. It is the rule. American freedom is, or was, the exception to the rule. It is not the normal state of large scale human affairs. The normal state of affairs is oppression. That is what most humans choose or endure. Regardless of whether that oppression is communist, theocratic, or just raw dictatorship of some kind. That is still the state of most of the current world. Theocracies, collective socialism, kings, despots, and dictators still rule most of the world. The conscious choice of liberty is still, and will always be, the exception. It is the top of the mountain. It is the height that few attain and from which all will fall. The time one spends on that summit is solely dependant on how much dedication we have to maintaining our footing. We have lost our footing and are sliding down to rejoin the rest of the world in various states of oppression.
That’s our environment. That’s what we must understand to climb back to the summit.
I see your point.
I agree that all men and women are born free and sovereign, and that our liberty isn't the government's to "give." We own it. Government can take it, and try to hold it, but government can't "grant" that which was ours at birth.
I'm just not altogether sure about the God thing. The main assertion I would make: Even if there is no God whatever, we're still born free and sovereign.
Thank you for your kind reply. (No sarcasm, either. I mean it.)
forget part one, read from newest to oldest….
Our decent from relative freedom to a government dominated by the federal social or “progressive” state is not due to a decay of god’s given morals, it is a decay of our dedication and defense of liberty and personal freedom. Obama came out and said it last week. We are no longer the government. He said the government is us. A distinction that I’m sure was lost on him and unconscious on his part. He is a believer. A believer in god, of whichever name. He believes in going to church. He also clearly believes, like the majority before him, here and in other nations over the expanse of human history, that it is right and proper to oppress one’s neighbor for the collective good or the good of the state. To him, and most of humanity, it is moral.
A godly man might believe in god because he “knows” this is so, and he justifies our constitutional rights with his belief in god. Unfortunately, none of that has kept other believers from eroding those rights. As an atheist, I belive that all men are entitled to freedom and constitutional rights because I “know” that it should be so. No further justification is required. The desire to defend those rights is unchanged, the rationalization is simply of a different nature.
Just so, a belief in god, or it’s lack, has not made a lick of difference in man’s tendency to oppress his neighbor over the millennia. The Greeks and republican Romans, who our political ancestors, did not believe in one god, much less a Christian one. They did not share our current morals. Yet they preceded and inspired our grand American experiment in freedom.
A decay in our collective “relationship with god” has had nothing to do with it. Frankly, the same accusations of that same moral decay is exactly what lead to our freedom. The march from a collective of western theocratic states to our unprecedented experiment in freedom, at least since the fall of the roman republic, was only made possible by the enlightenment and people turning from the religious establishments and norms. This clear “moral decay” is how we became free. Have no doubt that the 13th century church would have looked at the early united states and declared it heretical and morally bankrupt by it’s very nature.
It is man who oppressed, it is man who chose to be free. It is man who leads us back to oppression. The poorest communities, who are used by the progressives for their own abuses, who “benefit” most from progressive policies, who support the progressives most consistently, have no lack of churches and tend to be just as religious as any other group. It makes no difference. Progressives do not flip the bird at god, they do it to our founding principles and to the people.
I find myself weary with the apparent widespread perception that our current struggles are between the “real” Christians and the godless heathens. That the answer is somehow tied to the “right” observance of god’s will and intent. It is a misperception that clouds the environment that we must address our difficulties within.
The founders of our nation were professed believers in a higher power. Every congressman and president since has been a professed believer, with perhaps one recent exception. All, for appearance or otherwise, attended services and thought they were “right” with god. That fact has not changed what has happened.
Asking questions is a way to gather data. Yes I see that I did miss your original "Rational self-interest and historical experience are the sources of morality" No excuses there.
Morality springs from Rational self-interest and historical experience.
That makes sense. Morals are something that can be a learned behavior, morals are different from right and wrong. For some abortion is OK and for some it is murder. Is murder right or wrong, well that would depend on your sense of right or wrong and your definition of murder.
I believe the author may be saying that it was different America when people took their Religious teachings to heart and had a divine sense of right and wrong. When the government then started to decide what was right or wrong, not allowing the religious teachings of the Judeo-Christian God (not Islam) to dictate right or wrong. You have gone from a divine power deciding right from wrong to a government separate from church deciding what is right and wrong.
Today we see a result of that. Morals can be defined as anything since it springs from rational self-interest and historical experience. (Hu)mans are notorious for messing things up. Moral and right or wrong when they are not predefined are subjective. Is killing people a good idea? Ask a serial killer, he may very well tell you yes. As a pro-choice person if abortion is wrong and they will tell you know, but only a true divine presence, I believe can give you a definitive answer.
This all is, of course….wait for it, MHO…ahhh the disclaimer, we gotta have em in CA
Thanks, just saw yours now. I was just collecting data.
We are in the midst of change all right, but not in a good direction. Swing back? Maybe part way but all things equal we will still be further to the left than when we started. We will pay for this change for decades.
http://www.PoliticalCentrist.com News and views for independent voters
I view New Deal policies and the Great Society aftermath metaphorically as the Hoover Dam, not a watershed. The Hoover Dam looks to all the world like a permanent structure, but the geologic history of the Colorado River Gorge tells us that, eventually, that dam will be gone: It's not a matter of if, just when. Likewise, the New Deal and Great Society programs will eventually collapse under the weight of the financial burden they put on America and Americans, and then they will be washed away.
I always thought that, like the Hoover Dam, New Deal and Great Society thinking would outlive me by an incalculable amount of time, but now I'm not so sure. If Europe implodes and world financial markets melt down again, there may just be so great a loss of societal cohesion that liberal-democratic welfare states come to be viewed as Naziism is now.
Part of me would very much like to see that, but another part wouldn't care to live through it. lol.
The Declaration of Independance refers to adopting a "State of Nature" existance, rejecting the former "State of Society" imposed by the king's government. A "State of Nature" is simply the Law of the Jungle (total freedom). John Locke, who influenced the Founding Fathers, believed that a "State of Nature" is not total anarchy, but governed by the "Laws of Nature's God". All law emerges from a religious dogma of some sort or another. Our Anglo-American common-law (unlike the Roman common-law) draws its substance from the Bible. Evidences of this can be traced back to the Magna Carta. Self discipline is maintained from a personal duty to one's God and fear of His Eternal punishment, which an supercedes any allegiance to the state.
.
This lays the fault too easily at the feet of the political class.
Surely a moral citizen would know that his handout comes at the expense of someone else? Surely a moral citizen would object to taking money out of his neighbor's pocket?
The notion of self government does not only apply to the nation governing itself; it also applies to individuals governing their own behaviors.
It theft illegal because it is immoral or is it immoral because it is illegal?
It is one thing to complain about the welfare queen sitting and watching Judge Joe Brown, lets just hope the complainer isn't an Iowa corn farmer or ethanol investor, or someone who enjoys baseball and is sitting in a taxpayer funded stadium, or a NASA employee touting the virtues of manned space flight, or……
The political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, on Feb 24, 1920.
OUCH!!! Sheepish look on my face….
In my defense, it is tough to tell what stupidity comes from which specific party, as there seems to be enough Big Government ideas on all sides of the aisle.
According to Evolutionists, there is a "altruism gene." This gene regulates being kind (to those related) and cruel (to those different).
But where did our genes come from? And why do we live in a universe where humans benefit by acting humane in the first place? There's plenty of room for believers in G-d's almighty love.
It is the realm of the atheists that is constantly shrinking as they try to explain everything without G-d. The marxists, the fascists, the environmentalists all tried and failed to make a better world without G-d. Famine, Genocide, and DDT-denial doomed millions each in the name of "better".
Nothing is better than G-d.
If there be no God, then you have no unalienable rights…for they are granted us by our Creator. Without God, there is only a world full of immoral tyrants which would not long endure. Your understanding may be a mile wide, but it seems only an inch deep.
I lean agnostic, but the God thing doesn't bother me at all because space and time are malleable and too much is unknown.
It only bothers me to see religion constantly attacked as an excuse to take everyone's natural born rights away by those who seem way too eager to convince us there is no higher authority than the state.
The religious, agnostics and atheists should at least all be able to agree on that point, so I agree with you on that big time. Invocation of God, at the very least, just means there is no going back because kings and presidents can't argue with "God," so it's like a repellent, at least for now.
.
"lets just hope the complainer isn't an Iowa corn farmer", guess you haven't seen the bumper sticker
IF YOU EAT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN AGRICULTURE
I can see how one could say nothing's better than God. After all, God agrees perfectly with every single person who agrees with Him, no matter that His adherents are (often) diametrically opposed to each other.
My realm isn't shrinking in the least. This whole conundrum about God or not-God goes back to our fear of death, and the discomfort of thinking we will simply, one day, cease to exist. I can't prove the non-existence of God, and I see no value in trying. I can say with certainty (at least, within my own mind) that no existing sacred text on earth is true.
So, in my mind, if there is a God, and a life beyond this physical existence, it's available to all, regardless of obeisances to men in dresses or the Good Lord Himself.
Lets do it — we need to show the commie fascists what a real government and power to the people really is.
Language is but play-doh in the hands of professional polititians and their manipulators, taking any shape and color desired – never hardening but able to be reshaped whenever desired.
Good, I see you are not one of those hyper-ventilating reactive types. I sometimes take for granted that people understand my incomplete thoughts.
I still maintain, as I see you did not disagree, that religion is not a necessary precondition for morality or moral behavior. Right and wrong can very well be understood through the application of rational self-interest. Rational is the key concept, self-interest alone leads to what you outline above. Moral subjectivism is a blank check to do whatever you want.
Abortion, by a truly objective standard, is the termination of a human life. Society permits it because there is disagreement as to when that human has rights recognized by law. That does not change what it is. The serial killer may believe murder is okay, but that is an evasion of rational self-interest since he is subjecting himself to a punishment possibly as severe as death. His action can not be considered "moral" by any objective standard, especially the standards of our Founders because he has violated the individual rights of his victims. They have an "inalienable right" to life. It is the violation of another's individual rights that makes an act "immoral". Self-destructive behavior is not immoral per se, but is in direct contradiction to rational self interest. That is stupidity. Is it "immoral" for two consenting adults to have sex? Or is it merely a violation of church "rules"? It is certainly possible that it is not in someone's rational self-interest if such behavior is risky. But if it is done with mutual consent for pleasure, it is not immoral.
A bit rambling, I admit, but I guess my point is that morality can be discovered using an objective standard of rational self interest as it relates to the individual rights of others.
Thanks for the discussion.
Can I quote you on that one?
F-ing brilliant turn of phrase Randy.
Outstanding!
Precisely.
Everyone who gets a subsidy is convinced–Convinced!!–that their particular handout is necessary.
My dad was a bulk fuel agent, hauled fuels to the farms in the area when I was growing up (where do you think I learned how to drive at age 11!? lol), and it was fun to get into discussions with farm kids who insisted that "without us you don't eat!"
To which I would reply, "without my dad, your tractor doesn't move."
The point was that no one person or sector of the economy was 'indespensable,' at least no more indispensable than any other sector.
I'd rather believe the truth, no matter how unpleasant or socially (or politically) inconvenient. My truth, as revealed by my study, is that there is very likely no God. A further truth, which I feel very certain about, is that no existing sacred text on earth is true.
We're big boys and girls. We should be able to handle the truth, even about such sensitive questions as from whence we came, and what happens to us when our bodies die.
We were all taught where the road paved with 'good intentions' leads.
Thanks.
Knock yourself out, just don't "twist" my words.
Looks like Randyl2 finally blew the cover. I was hoping for more responses like yours until some dumb troll stepped in it. Oh well… Thanks for the response.
I have my issues with Christian theology myself (which is why I generally identify more with the secular than with the religious), but the idea that man is inherently self-serving and corrupt flies in the face of many examples. Too many to be safe. For instance, Oskar Schindler, once the epitome of the sleazy war profiteer who was entirely willing to profit off of slave labor, not so willing to be party to the systematic extermination of said slaves and who effectively bankrupted himself and considerably shortened his life trying to avoid it. Or Mother Theresa or Jose Marti? These people were not perfect, but they go against such a simple evaluation. ANd more importantly they are a few of many examples I could give.
Which is why I support the idea of Tabula Rasa: humans have the ability to determine their own destiny and their own character.
So in leaving religion behind you subscribe to the "enlightened" thinkers that came up with the brilliant idea that we somehow evolved out of some cosmic happening that created the conditions for life to exist. When they can't explain something, let's throw millions of years at the problem as the probable solution. Explain to me how something as complex as "sight" evolved?
Well, Turtler, you came along at just the right time.
I was already tired of Little Johnny, and didn't plan to respond. However, you did, and it was a magnificent job, indeed! Thank you, thank you. Very good remarks!
Many thanks… Monty (if I may?) Happy MD to your wife from me…
Mr Alan Snyder,
This is a most thought provoking and excellent article.
I thank you for sharing it, and I feel the need to study the points you make, and ruminate upon them.
I look forward to your next article.
Thanks,
David
Chicago?
The source of morality isn't religion, it's God. God the creator defines the standard for what is good and what is evil. God created man in his own image. However man willfully distanced himself from God and man became incapable of distinguishing good from evil. Without God's influence, man's nature becomes more and more desensitized to depravity. Without God's presence on the planet we would disintegrate into total chaos. Even so, we have free will to make our own choices.
I'm with you, DavidMontgomery.
GaltFan is an accomplished thinker and commenter, indeed.
And THAT, Randy, is why you are one of the only people that I follow on my ID account.
My thoughts are always incomplete and I forever am leaving out words, I think my thoughts are faster than my fingers.
I agree that Morality can be a learned behavior, but I believe the true meaning of right or wrong comes only from the only divine source, the Judeo-Christian God and is instilled through the Holy Spirit.
There is a code of conduct written and it is called the Ten Commandments and the Founding Fathers were believers in that code. Going back to our very fundamental roots would be impossible because we have wiped away the author of that moral code. We now have the government to interpret what is right and what is wrong.
The moral code of God does not change it is an absolute, it is something to judge ourselves against, but it no longer exists, only government exists in it’s place. Now we judge our actions against each other’s actions and it’s a competition of who can act the most immoral and get away with it the longest.
GF,
You may, I'm not sure I want a nickname or a handle though (That is why I use my name)… I may need to think upon that now that I've said it though…
I suspect my wife would like you as much as I do sir. There are times she is now further to the right than even I am!
Alas and alack for the poor damsel I had to catch a predawn flight for work and MD has been postponed at our house until I can return..
Agreed.
You are shot too nabby yourself Mr. almost 100p…
I will also say that I did not thumb you down on the "morals" post, I thumbed you up 'cause I respect you and your position (even if I disagree). Maybe we can chat about it someday, but it is not the fish I am here to fry at the moment, if you follow me…
Hand waving in air … sorry to blow the cover.
NO SIR! Not me…
I tried to fit it in my ID Profile… but it was too long… I need to find someplace to keep it so I don't forget it.
Always will properly attribute it sir.
No intentional plagiarism.
certainly by proxy
You're way kind and entirely fairminded. How refreshing!
While I don't have children, I have often considered ways that "home-schoolers" could get together and help those who can't afford private school and can't home-school either. Like finding other parents in the area who would be willing to "take-on" an additional child for a minimal "daycare" fee or some other arrangement. This would allow low-income parents the opportunity to participate in the home-schooling system.
Perhaps home-schooling parents could rent a small but affordable space so that they could combine their children and pool resources. With multiple parent-teachers running it, parents would have a day or two off during the week as well. And it would allow those who could not otherwise engage in home-schooling, the opportunity to do so.
Don't set the bar so high. I want to know what gave the first life the capacity and "need" to "want" to reproduce. How did it conceive of "survival of species" when it was the first one (presumably). And just what is that feedback mechanism that tells a maple seed to develop a wing and "helicopter" in the wind, or the thistle to cling to hair, or my clothes? All random? Sure it is…
I'm not big on organized religion, and I respect those who are (so long as they don't impose), but to think this is all random and happenstance seems to me to be the height of ignorance.
"Larry" somehow edited his post, as the: "I gave up religion after the 8th grade after a lifetime of catholicism. " is somehow no longer there.
"I gave up religion after the 8th grade after a lifetime of catholicism. "
I guess reading isnt one of your strong suits since my post doesnt contain that statement. Guess homeschooling isnt as good an idea as some of you think.
What it does say is "I gave up religion in the 8th grade after having spent the previous and unfortuantely subsequent years in Catholic school."
I guess reading isnt one of your strong suits since my post doesnt contain that statement. And FYI I'm 36, have a masters, etc. I'm actually curious what the median age of commentors on this website.
Fixed:
"Language is but poopie-ca-ca in the hands of professional politicians."
The problem with your standard of "Rational self-interest and historical experience are the sources of morality" is that rational self-interest doesn't necessarily lead to what we would call morality. Rational self-interest means acting in a predictable manner based upon a consistent assessment of preferences, outcomes, and issues. Take two ancient herders: one sheepherder, one goatherder. Both want to allow their flocks to freely roam and graze in an open field. The difference? Sheep will tear up the grass by its roots, leaving the field barren. The goats will only eat the grass, but leave the plants able to regrow. Now – what's in their rational self-interest? The sheepherder's rational self-interest leads him to pick up a rock and throw it at the goatherder to scare him off, and he chases off the goats. Is that moral? Did he do anything wrong? <continued>
As man fails to limit himself government by his consent will but, once started, can never be reversed.
I said it started with enlightenment thinkers but I would say Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucalt, Jung, Freud, and yeah, Marx to a degree:) finished it.
Could you explain to me how sight evolved? Even though i cant, but I'm sure a biolgist versed in that subject could. How do you figure that the evolution of the eye supports the idea of a God?
Randy
Thanks for the great wordsmanship…
It's going in the "draft" file , stolen and subtly morphed to a future comment…
But will grudgingly give credit and proper royalties….
HPjr
You're really laying it on thick today…
is he from Chicago,…..????
David
You gonna let Galt call you the name of a Brittish General?
Yes, but the Kids have guns now too…….lots of them. I just ordered another 1000 rounds for my AR.
LOL — TOO FUNNY!!
I might BS ya, but I'll never lie to ya!
Not from Chicago, but my girlfriend visited there once (with her husband). She brought me something back, but I can't recall what.
No attacks from me. Reasonable people can disagree. I would however, since you seem sincere in a quest for knowledge, recommend "Signature in the Cell" by S.C. Meyer. He makes an excellent argument that evolution does not explain "origin" and that random mutation is a poor model for long-term survival. He doesn't even mention "God" or religion until about page 450. Fascinating and thought provoking on a few different levels. I wouldn't say drop everything, but you won't regret working it in to the list. We agree on many points in this thread…
I just saw your post and that was a great post. Evolutionists are so funny. What people don't realize is that it is properly called the Theory of Evolution and it's science is as exact as Global Warming….um so to say it's crap science not settled science. There is no way to prove evolution. They compare the fossils to the geological column, but all the data from the geological column is based on the fossils, it's circular reasoning. Radio carbon dating has also proven to be faulty. However they pushed for evolution in school as one more step to eliminating God from our country. People believe evolution because it was taught in the public schools as fact.
Are you upset with the catholic priests because of something they did to you or because they didn't?
Thanks for proving my point. You seem to be wallowing quite well in retrograded right wing politics and fear. That's a really vicious remark and trivializes the suffering of victms of sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy and then to suggest it's something I might have wanted? Worse than that it makes you a hypocrite to say something like that and then speak with such self righteous indignation. But that's typical for right wingers. Jus think of George Rekers from the Family Research Council. Although I'm sure you do alot nowadays when you are surfing rentboy dot com.
Thank you. I agree.
It was never there but if it hads been I suppose you could interpret it as a lifetime up until the age of 14.
HPjr
I'll have to get to know you better so I can tell the dif….
I like your blog…will check it often…
You're right, I shouldnt have said all people are self serving and corrupt but often if left to their own devices people often do the wrong thing. I think the deregulation of financial markets has shown how little some might think of others if you take the shackles off. In light of that, and I think this is the point the blogger is making, is that people should be able to be their own cop but when they cant be the government inevitably has to be.
It's a fact that we humans know far too little.
That's one good reason to kick the statists out on their butts. It annoys me when people impede human knowledge, even though I possess but a smattering of same.
Who knows, unless the quest for knowledge is shut off by the likes of PrezzoBama, or a religious leader, what the people of the year 2100 might have learned?
Thanks for replying, and for the recommendation of "Signature in the Cell."
and my experience in grammar school was the complete opposite of yours there larry,……………
and witnessing how the MSM,…" has started to decline around the end of the",…… 20th century,…….
I realize that I am the fortunate one,………….as for you,………
I sure hope you didn't throw away that Rosary,………….we are ALL going to need one,………
sometime in this century.
GF
Had I not known it was the NAZI Party, I would have guessed Dimocrat…
Sounds good and workable( niiiiccceee) to the sheepol, but the reality is quite different…
ya sound like an intelligent lad there larry,………….
but I think maybe,…you should have played little league.
You must be logged in to post a comment.