Posted on 07/01/2007 11:45:23 AM PDT by tpaine
Faith-based patriot fails to pursuade
By: Justyn Dillingham
David Gelernter, author of "Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion," believes very strongly in a good many things, all of which he explains very well.
The trouble is that most of these things contradiction another. The result is a book with no real point. The book's thesis, as the title suggests, is that "Americanism" is a "global religion" that transcends America itself, to rank with Christianity, Judaism and Islam. (Or even above them: Christianity and Judaism have entries in the index, but Islam does not. "Islamic terrorism" does, of course.)
Gelernter's devotion to this creed is total. He adores it so much that he values it far, far above the mere country that allegedly created it. The creed leads him to pit himself against the very freedoms he claims to cherish. For Gelernter, everything good in America comes from the Bible; everything bad comes from "secularism" - everything that is not traceable to the Bible. Since the Founding Fathers, by and large, were not particularly religious, Gelernter can back up this claim only by making hollow claims about Thomas Jefferson's "respect" for Christianity. (He respected it so much he regarded Revelation as "the ravings of a maniac.")
Religious freedom in this "biblical republic," Gelernter argues, simply means the freedom to choose which version of "biblical religion" you believe in. America, he says, "is not unconcerned about whether you choose to be religious or an atheist" any more than your parents are unconcerned about whom you marry.
That rather sinister simile makes it clear that Gelernter does not cherish the republic that exists, but rather a nation that exists only in his imagination.
He admires above all the Puritans who came to America in the 17th century and spoke of a "city on a hill." He longs for a "Bill of Duties" to stand next to the Bill of Rights, to instruct young Americans in the noble creed of Americanism, so they can learn to be "chivalrous" again. "Chivalry," in Gelernter's view, consists of "knocking down tyrants" in the name of liberty. Gelernter is so taken by this notion of chivalry that he detests the idea that America could do anything for ordinary selfish reasons. He even blames FDR for not taking America into World War II before Pearl Harbor; fighting a war simply because you are attacked fails to measure up to his high standards.
Gelernter concedes that this creed is "controversial," and that it goes against "the isolationism and antimilitarism that comes naturally to Americans." This is a revealing concession, for it stands in stark contradiction to Gelernter's praise of "America." What exactly is this "Americanism" if ordinary Americans do not espouse it? Merely a pretext for American presidents to sally forth and win glory for themselves.
In Gelernter's peculiarly self-contradictory vision, mere Americans are an obstruction to American greatness. The fact that his invented faith does not correspond to what Americans actually want does not deter him; like a dutiful parent, he's determined to make everyone eat their vegetables and be chivalrous.
Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale. Judging by his grasp of politics, history and mere common sense, he clearly picked the right profession.
-Justyn Dillingham
Sounds like a controversial book. Anyone here actually read it yet?
Americanism has been replaced by Globalism.
Atheists are not capable of being patriots because they are incapable of convictions or love. Since they have denied God, they see no reason to practice either since they don’t see how it will benefit their personal standing.
So no, atheists can not be Americanism.
As far as I can determine, Americanism is Christianity. Who was it who said a very long, long time ago that a Republic would only work with a Christian people?
Why do you think they are allowing Christians to be persecuted in the education system, while Islam seems to be flourishing there? Why can a young graduate wanting to thank and give Jesus Christ the credit for all that he has achieved not give his speech and still receive his diploma?
Wake up, America! Let Christianity die, and we all die.
Whatever Jefferson’s private opinion of Christianity, he stated “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”
Certainly insofar as a nation expected to exist peacably with the amount of personal freedom provided in our constitution is concerned, I think he is correct.
John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Allan Bloom wrote that Americans were living off of the “inherited value fat” of previous generations in which Judeo-Christian beliefs were more prevalent and powerful.
My view is that societies with a great deal of unquestioning respect for tradition, such as, for example, East Asian societies and Confucianism, can live for a long time on this inherited value fat, but societies such as in modern Europe and America, where there is less respect for tradition, can not.
For a free society to function, I believe there needs to be a critical mass of people who generally follow a moral code voluntarily, without having to be coerced by the police power of the state. When that critical mass is suppressed or has been destroyed, as for example in the French revolution or in the communist societies of the 20th century, the government will naturally evolve into a police state in order to control the behaviour of the people.
For atheists, the smarter ones should accept this on utilitarian grounds, that a society in which Judeo-Christian principles are followed by the most people because of their own beliefs, and not because of coercion by the state, in fact provides the greatest amount of liberty to the atheists.
Before someone drags in the example of Islam as a society founded on religious principles with little freedom and one that neither atheists nor Christians would want to live under, I point out to the atheists that while they may consider all religious beliefs to be equally superstitious, they would do well to distinguish among religions if for no other reason than their utilitarian self-interest. Christians know that a people who worship false gods is as destructive of the type of freedom we have enjoyed in the U.S., as is atheism.
Overstated. Many atheists are admirable people quite capable of both.
I disagree with them, while hoping they will see the light, but I fail to see how such statements as yours help the dialogue in any way.
“A World Without Public Schools” by Gelertner. I was impressed with his reasoning. I haven’t read the referenced book, however I would imagine it is just as well written.
His is not the first time I’ve heard of “Americanism as religion” theory. I don’t know that I would call it a religion as much as I would call it a philosophical system. But I would agree that "Americanism" transcends geography.
The reason I say this about atheists is because it is the truth. Just because there might be a couple good atheists doesn’t mean that they are the representation of the whole.
If you think you know how admirable atheists are, just read the “God delusion” or “God is not great”, it will show how they really are.
I’m sorry, but it is imposable for atheists to intentionally good, they need the fear of punishment to keep them in line. For you see, they deny God and therefore refuse to believe in heaven or in a closeness to God. Without this, an atheist will only see himself as “God” and live accordingly under this selfish delusion, regardless of the consequences towards others.
“Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion”—not that there’s anything wrong with that...
Anyone who is only good due to fear of punishment isn’t good where it counts: from the heart. To be good, you have to be good because it’s what you want, not because you fear punishment otherwise.
Also, atheists do not have blood, but rather a black, malorodous oily substance. Where there hearts should be, there is a large hunk of marble. Their touch can spoil milk in three seconds. And if you pull back their hair, you can see their tiny horns.
Where the hell do you guys get this stuff? Every atheist has a mother, and the vast majority love theirs. Most love their country, too. Just because you cannot imagine any morality without the love of a benevolent God or the feqar of a vengeful one, don't assume that other folks don't have another basis for morality.
...
I’m sorry, but it is imposable for atheists to intentionally good, they need the fear of punishment to keep them in line. For you see, they deny God and therefore refuse to believe in heaven or in a closeness to God. Without this, an atheist will only see himself as “God” and live accordingly under this selfish delusion, regardless of the consequences towards others.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are living in your own delusional little dream world.
I'm not sure if the missing verb is "be" or "do," but in either case you're dead wrong.
There is a simple and universal basis for morality even if one believes in no deity. It's called empathy. The recognition that your fellow human being has feelings, hopes and dreams just like you do, and is worthy of respect just like you are. That can be a purely rational conclusion -- dude, don't kill or rob me, and I won't kill or rob you. Deal?
From that flows Kant's categorical imperative, which you probably know as the Golden Rule. And from that follows, as the night follows the day, a system of rules on how to treat one's fellow man. A moral code. God need not intervene.
You seem to believe that all atheists are sociopaths. I don't know who served you that Kool-Aid, but it's time to put it down.
Insulting the people you discussing things with is not a good way to make an argument, just so you know.
But to get back to the rest of your post I would like to ask if you have any proof, facts or figures that atheists love their mothers or their country I would love to see it. And you should know that unlike Christians, who are taught to love and respect their parents (read the 10 commandments), atheist are not required to do so and often don’t because “hey, since nothings’ going happen to me after I die why should I care”, that’s just how they think.
Do you have anything relevant to say to me? Or are you just going to keep insulting me like you always do?
When one posts something as patently false as you have, on an open forum, one should expect some disagreement.
Regardless of what you think of me and my beliefs, I do have the right to say what I want without being insulted by people who disagree with me. It’s called freedom of speech.
Now I’ll ask again, do you have anything relevant to say to me?
Wrong. You only have a right to speak. There is no right not be be insulted.
Now I’ll ask again, do you have anything relevant to say to me?
Yes. You have been wrong in just about everything you have said on this thread.
Maybe you are able to love others than yourself, but the vast majority chose not to.
I’ll say this again, the few are not the representation of the whole.
Alright then, tell me how I am wrong, it will be interesting to see what you come up with (if anything at all).
And please, go light on the insults this time.
Read “the God delusion” or “God is not great” if you want to see how “loving” atheists are. In fact go read any left-leaning web-site or blog for more proof.
Utter crap. The Dixie Chicks already tried that line of "reasoning".
Show me in the First Amendment where it says you have a right not to be insulted when someone responds to what you say, and all I'll say is that someone needs to take Rush Limbaugh off the air at once. His stock in trade is parodying and insulting people who disagree with him.
Is that a joke? I was responding to a post in which you baldly stated that all atheists -- some of whom can be foud in the conservative community and on Free Republic -- are psychopaths incapable of love. And after lobbing that grenade, you have the gall to complain about insults?
That is so over the top I honestly don't know whether you could possibly be this dense and capable of typing an English sentence, or you're engaging in an elaborate, if not subtle, work of satire.
But to get back to the rest of your post I would like to ask if you have any proof, facts or figures that atheists love their mothers or their country I would love to see it.
85.7% of athiests in a recent survey I just made up love their mothers. Of the other 14.3%, 8.2% were raised by single fathers, 4.1% honestly didn't like Mom, and 2.1% had their mothers visiting and staying in their houses and were just really annoyed when the pollster called. It's summer, you know. The little old ladies want to spend time with the grandkids.
As far as love of country goes, the population Reference bureau (prb.org) estimated in 2004 that 21% of members of the US military were self-described atheists, free-thinkers or agnostics.
And you should know that unlike Christians, who are taught to love and respect their parents (read the 10 commandments), atheist are not required to do so
I ask again, where do you get this stuff? Atheist parents most certainly do teach their children to love and respect them. If you've ever been over to dinner at an atheist household, you must have observed that the father always gets the first and largest portion when they feast on the blod of the innocent. And dad always goes first at the raucous orgies held every Wednesday night.
and often don’t because “hey, since nothings’ going happen to me after I die why should I care”, that’s just how they think.
You have no insight into how anyone else thinks, but provide plenty into how you think. You are incapable of doing the right thing because it is the right thing, and require the fear of Hell to keep you in line. You assume everyone else is the same, and further assume that anyone without the fear of Hell must therefore be amoral. Don't project your failure of character onto others.
The reason I say this about atheists is because it is the truth
Grammatically speaking, when you make an unqualified statement such as "atheists are" you are speaking of all members of that group or at least the vast majority.
While no doubt there are such people among atheists, the atheists I have known have as a group been about as moral as the Christians. (Not that this is saying a great deal!)
I'm sure you are aware that many of the greatest crimes of history have been committed by highly religious people, often for specifically religious reasons.
During the 20th century the religious crimes were dwarfed by the anti-religious crimes, but its the only century for which this is true.
True.
without being insulted by people who disagree with me.
False.
It’s called freedom of speech.
Exactly. And I exercise mine when i type: Idiot.
“Regardless of what you think of me and my beliefs, I do have the right to say what I want without being insulted by people who disagree with me. It’s called freedom of speech.”
Actually, you have the right to say what you want. Others have the right to insult you and disagree with you. Freedom of speech does not protect you from insults. Grow thicker skin.
For those who don’t know, Gelernter is a computer scientist at Yale who was blown up by the Unibomber, losing most of his hands.
I read his book about the experience and its aftermath.
If all you can site are surveys you made up, then don’t even bother.
And don’t question my faith, I have never said that I fear Hell (just reread my posts), I (and other Christians) do the right thing out of love for God and nothing else.
“I’m sure you are aware that many of the greatest crimes of history have been committed by highly religious people, often for specifically religious reasons.”
I know that some Christians have committed crimes in the past, but these crimes were motivated by materialism, not Christianity. Those people let their faith slip and lost site of the true meaning of being Christian.
Americanism:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Google "inquisition" for a little light reading. For example:
The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal for discovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused.While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.
Initially a tribunal would open at a location and an edict of grace would be published calling upon those who are conscious of heresy to confess; after a period of grace, the tribunal officers could make accusations. Those accused of heresy were sentenced at an auto-da-fe, Act of Faith. Clergyman would sit at the proceedings and would deliver the punishments. Punishments included confinement to dungeons, physical abuse and torture. Those who reconciled with the church were still punished and many had their property confiscated, as well as were banished from public life. Those who never confessed were burned at the stake without strangulation; those who did confess were strangled first. During the 16th and 17th centuries, attendance at auto da-fe’ reached as high as the attendance at bullfights. Source
Are you comfortable with someone using the identical explanation why the 9/11 terrorists should not considered “really” Muslim?
By your definition, a crime cannot be committed by a Christian, because anyone who commits a crims is by definition not a Christian. This is a very convenient argument, but not very convincing.
If you want the larger picture of how dangerous atheism is, just read up on our history.
You should know that every atheist leader was a dictator of some sort and that atheism was the state religion of the communist (no Christianity aloud). Stalin killed more people than all the crusades combined.
I was mocking you. Demanding facts and figures about atheists loving their mothers? The only sane response is mockery.
And don’t question my faith,
Wouldn't dream of it. I just point out that it has also moved over into the areas of life in which most people, including most devout believers, exercise thought.
I have never said that I fear Hell (just reread my posts), I (and other Christians) do the right thing out of love for God and nothing else.
You wrote that atheists cannot love their parents because they do not believe in an afterlife. The inference is that without fear of Hell or the hope of Heaven there can be no morality.
Stalin also killed more people than the inquisition (and that was motivated by greed as well).
..Americanism is not some religious ideology
It is rooted in Judeo\Christianity--let's not mistake the fruit with the tree which bore it...
It is possible for an atheist to be moral. He must not kill, cause pain, disable, deprive of freedom, deprive of pleasure, deceive, break promises, cheat, break the law, or steal. To be good he must try to prevent or lessen the above.
This is one of the most illogical posts I have ever read. Let us substitute Communism and Capitalism in there, and perhaps you can see the folly of it.
I know that some Communists have committed crimes in the past, but these crimes were motivated by Capitalism, not Communism. Those people let their rationality slip and lost site of the true meaning of being Communist.
Anyone can excuse anybody in their favorite group by saying “they were not true to the groups principles”.
Too stupid for words. Atheists are incapable of love>? Balderdash. Before God found me, I was very much an atheist. Despite what you and others might want to believe, I wasn't lost in a sea of debauchery, nor was I incapable of love.
As a Christian, I've certainly learned to forgive, but I always knew how to love. See, atheists like most of us learn to love via parents who loved them. Atheists aren't grown in an alien, loveless environment.
No. You most certainly have the right to say what you will, and call it free speech. However, you don't have the right to remain free from insults. Guess, what, those are free speech too.
This comes up often, but can't be said enough: There is no right to not be offended. If Jesus bothers you, then tough, sit through the prayer anyway. If you don't like Heather Has Two Mommies, then don't read it. If you don't like rap lyrics change the station. If fire and brimstone offends you, don't read the bible. etc etc.
I contend that these prescriptions are unconsciously derived from Judeo-Christian principles. For example, the idea that all human life should be equally protected from murder is derived from the principle that all humans, regardless of condition, are created in the image of God.
On what basis can one atheist claim that his view that all people, regardless of condition, should be protected from murder is superior to the view of another atheist, who might say it is okay to kill landlords, or kulaks, or city dwellers? The first atheist has as his moral authority only his own opinion. Perhaps he believes that a Lockeian-compact analysis would persuade his fellow atheists not to kill Kulaks, for the Kulaks might turn the tables and kill them (not sure how dead Kulaks would manage to do this). But this is at best only an appeal to pragmatism, and an empirical examination of history, in my view, demonstrates that this appeal generally has not prevailed, and that human society in the absence of the beneficial impact of Judeo-Christian principles is a society in which the strong exploit the weak, people become servile and are drawn to the strong for protection, and personality cults or tribalism or bolshevism or some other ism prevails. (You can argue that these conditions have been found in some ostensibly Christian societies, but I would counter that you would need to separate out both the Machiavellian rulers and those who have perverted Judeo-Christian principles if you are claiming it is Judeo-Christian principles that are the causative effect.)
Where there is only a relative basis for "morality," as in atheism, there is no authority higher than the opinion of one atheist over another as to what the "morality" should be. An attempt to persuade one atheist to come around to the view of another atheist at bottom boils down only to an appeal to convenience.
Atheists are not capable of being patriots because they are incapable of convictions or love.
Um, sure, "convictions of love" are somehow necessary to agree that our Constitution must be honored and defended? - Could you explain that concept a bit more? It's rather alien to me. The last time I heard anything like that was from Cultural Jihad.
Since they have denied God, they see no reason to practice either since they don't see how it will benefit their personal standing.
"Practice" what? And what does "personal standing" have to do with constitutional patriotism?
So no, atheists can not be [for?] Americanism.
Your conclusion is simply not supported by your previous words. Can you try again?
More here
A word from David Gelernter on Americanism
Power Line ^ | 6/13/07 | Scot Johnson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859115/posts
Where do you people get this stuff from?
Atheists don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to be good people in life. Anyone who does need that is simply not a moral person.
I won’t bother reading any books that promote atheist propaganda anymore than I will read books that promote religious propaganda.
I certainly don’t see myself as god or any type of god like figure. I’m a mortal, the same as everyone else on the planet.
“Atheists are not capable of being patriots” - Incorrect. Although rabid jingoism might not be so easy for them.
“because they are incapable of convictions” - That must be why there are so few of them in prison :)
“or love” - Completely incorrect. For example, I love my sister and all my friends, and yet I don’t believe in the existence of God.
“So no, atheists can not be Americanism.” - Assuming by “Americanism” you meant Americans, this is also incorrect. Atheists can be, and indeed often are, born in the United States, which by definition makes them Americans.
Nice try, though.
Nice try, but I'll go on, an American Orthodox Jew.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.