Virtue & Morality: Freedom’s Prerequisites

Meridian Magazine ^ | Unknown | Timothy B. Lewis

[Jacquerie]

Our founders saw religion as the most powerful civilizing institution which could provide and sustain that moral base upon which our republic could be successfully built and without which, it would ultimately collapse like the Greeks before them. Consequently, they believed it to be imperative to encourage and support religion and did not see any 1st Amendment problem with governmental support of religion.

Rather than depending upon external legal constraints and force to maintain order and peace, they had to rely upon individual self-restraint and self-control. But they realized that it is only reasonable to expect people to act that way if they have a strong virtuous and moral base.

[Jeff Head]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, 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, Oct. 11, 1798

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." - Samuel Adams

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." Samuel Adams

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY

12 STEPS TO RENEW AMERICA

[Jacquerie]

For PoeWhiteTrash: With no attempt to be condescending, and in all honesty, did you read the article?

It is long and somewhat of a rocky read but does a good job of explaining Natural Law, Morality and their influence on our Founders and Framers.

One does not have to particularly religious to appreciate what they gave to us and what is necessary to preserve their gift.

No other governing document recognized the following Natural Rights that all men are born with: Exclusive right to the profit of one’s writings and inventions, habeas corpus, freedom of the press, speech, the right to peacefully assemble, keep and bear arms, to petition our government, to be secure in our persons, paper and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, speedy public trial, to be confronted by the witnesses against us, equal protection under the laws, non discrimination on the basis of race or sex in voting rights.

Protection against ex-post facto laws, double jeopardy, self incrimination, deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process, taking of private property for public use without just compensation, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, slavery (1865), poll taxes.

And finally the Ninth Amendment, to cover the Natural Rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

Only a moral people will protect the gift of our Founders and Framers.

[ForGod'sSake]

But I'm not sure I agree that when God is "disinvited" from a society that this somehow renders the evil one a non-entity.

You're exactly right of course and as I suspected, my inability to put my thoughts into words might create a misperception. MY fault. In fact it may be that I'm only pointing to something so obvious that it doesn't or won't come as any sort of revelation to others. With that said, I'd like to take another crack at it since it is such a glaring reality to me.

If satan and his minions are successful in their goal to boot God from the cultural consciousness, a commensurate goal and intended consequence is to also boot satan from the cultural consiousness. The seed, planted, nurtured and cultivated in the culture by he and his minions is, no God, no satan. No good, no evil. No absolutes. Satan, having been removed from the cultural consciousness leaves Man no longer able or willing to identify evil when it rears it ugly head. Man is left to his own devices and we know where that leads EVERY time: Men ruling over other men. Your following statement pretty well sums it up:

Rather I suspect that when God is "obviated," this simply leaves an unimaginably immense vacuum into which the evil one and his minions can rush and fill. They "take the place" of what is properly God's, for the purpose of destroying souls. Without God's protection, they are remarkably easy to "pick off." It's sort of like "open hunting season" on humans....

Well said, AND, FWIW, I'm still not happy with my feeble explanation but getting my feelings into words has always been a "challenge", but I try. Typical man stuff???

[betty boop]

If satan and his minions are successful in their goal to boot God from the cultural consciousness, a commensurate goal and intended consequence is to also boot satan from the cultural consiousness. The seed, planted, nurtured and cultivated in the culture by he and his minions is, no God, no satan. No good, no evil. No absolutes. Satan, having been removed from the cultural consciousness leaves Man no longer able or willing to identify evil when it rears it ugly head. Man is left to his own devices and we know where that leads EVERY time: Men ruling over other men.

Oh so beautifully and truthfully said, dear ForGod'sSake! I agree with every word you've written here.

I revert back to an earlier post to r9etb, having to do with a "two-valued" (i.e., Aristotelian) logical system, in which there are only two truth values, differently stated as: True/false; yes/no; black/white; 0/1. And the significance of the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, which points to a "three-valued" logical system, with the truth values true/false/undecidable.

Anyhoot, under a two-valued logical system, the absence of one of the values would wipe out its corresponding partner value. I.e., if there is no putatively "true" proposition, its corresponding putatively "false" proposition is starved for air and so just dies away.

This seems fine for simple measurement problems. But in my experience, it seems to me few human problems are resolvable on that expectation. To try to describe the model I perceive/apperceive, human life is not lived in the black-or-white of truth-or-false, but in the "in-between," as mediated by a higher principle. Which is why "undecidable" or systemically "incomplete" results can still be "truthful" results. And are always open to test.

My point is, the strategy of a two-valued logical system is at the base of Left progressive ideology. It wants to reduce all human problems to the dimensions of true-or-false. But human life as experienced never reduces to that! The only way you can assert such a (pre)supposition is to utterly expunge the idea of the sacred from human consciousness altogether....

Thank you so much for your beautiful essay/post, ForGod'sSake!

[r9etb]

It’s always a great pleasure for me, betty, when our paths cross and I get to read your wonderful comments.... You’re a real treasure!

[ForGod'sSake]

My point is, the strategy of a two-valued logical system is at the base of Left progressive ideology. It wants to reduce all human problems to the dimensions of true-or-false. But human life as experienced never reduces to that!

Granted to an extent but I think we might have a bona fide disagreement here; maybe not. IMHO almost everything can be parsed down to the dimension of direction. IOW, are one's actions moving one towards good or towards evil; towards right or towards wrong; towards truth or towards lies? That still, quiet voice; our God given spirit of discernment should conceivably leave us dwelling in the unknowable/undecidable for only short periods of time. A temporary affliction if you will.

It may be why most of us I'm sure have noticed that people of faith are a happy, serene and contented lot for the most part. Whereas unbelievers, unfamiliar with the grace and glory of our God seem to live in a constant state of confusion without even being aware of it. Truly an unhappy and discontented bunch of busybodies who think they have the answers when in truth, they don't even know the questions.

Peace ;^)

[ForGod'sSake]

As happens all to often I overlooked adding a point that slipped by me. First time that's ever happened. You believe me -- don't you???

Re the general serenity of believers and our occasional struggle with the unknowable/undecidable: What do we do when we arrive at a point where we are inclined to throw up our hands and just say, "I don't have a clue what to do, the heck with it"? We turn it over to Him who in fact does have all the answers. If we trust that He will furnish us the wisdom to proceed in a Good Orderly Direction, and have patience, He will not let us down.

Again, peace...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Poe White Trash]

Only a moral people will protect the gift of our Founders and Framers.

Since we as a people murder about one million souls a year, and have been doing so for about 30+ years, I guess that means that gift from our Founding Fathers is a little frayed around the edges by now. Moth-eaten. Positively ratty.

Don't you think?

[Jacquerie]

Read the article?

[Poe White Trash]

Yah, I did. You care to address directly any of the points I've made on this thread?

In general, I don't see how reducing the Revealed Word of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ to a mere instrument for regulating the passions of U.S. citizens shows either proper worship to Him or the seriousness needed to address the problems which beset our nation.

P.S. I don't think that Petrarch and Samuel Adams have the same idea of "virtue." Think about it. It's also puzzling that the author does not take into account the influence of Roman history, and Latin notions of virtue, upon our Founding Fathers.

P.P.S. John Adams' kind words for Lord Bolingbroke, Hume and Gibbon as a source of "general principles of Christianity" help to prove my point about the deistic tenor of the author's position. "Religious" men in the 18th and 19th centuries -- i.e., in the American context, men both Christian and Protestant -- considered these gentlemen to be quite suspicious, and Deists if not Infidels. Hardly an uncontroversial source for a set of General Principles that we would dare to call Christian.

P.P.P.S. I am not LDS and do not believe in the revealed nature of the Book of Mormon, but I appreciate the author's discussion of God's Providence in the "Religious Addendum." I wonder what the essay would have looked like had he used the Addendum as his starting point instead of making it look somewhat extraneous.

[Poe White Trash]

One does not have to particularly religious to appreciate what they gave to us and what is necessary to preserve their gift.

I agree -- one does not have to be particularly religious to appreciate all this, but perhaps one has to be of a particular religion to be in a position to inherit that gift and to be able to preserve it. See the difference?

Let's not forget that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were not Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox, Hindus or Druids. They were a mix of Christian Protestants with Deists/Freethinkers of a decidedly Protestant background. To the extent that "religion" as religion is isolated as the defining factor for the foundation for our "mixed" Republic, this degree of specificity as to WHAT religion we're talking about becomes significant. No doubt a society of Druids in North America would have founded a much different political order based upon much different principles.

Well, I've got things to do. You have a nice day!

[Jacquerie]

<>Yah, I did. You care to address directly any of the points I've made on this thread?

The single coherent, snarky point you made was off topic but I'll address it anyway.

Since we as a people murder about one million souls a year, and have been doing so for about 30+ years, I guess that means that gift from our Founding Fathers is a little frayed around the edges by now. Moth-eaten. Positively ratty.

The gift remains. If you are given an auto and wreck it, it is not the fault of the auto. When a man swears to support and defend the Constitution and later does not, it is no more the fault of the Constitution than marriage is at fault when a man takes wedding vows and later cheats on his wife.

[betty boop]

Likewise r9etb! And thank you....

[betty boop]

We turn it over to Him who in fact does have all the answers. If we trust that He will furnish us the wisdom to proceed in a Good Orderly Direction, and have patience, He will not let us down.

Amen! I so agree....

To God be the glory!

[betty boop]

Granted to an extent but I think we might have a bona fide disagreement here; maybe not. IMHO almost everything can be parsed down to the dimension of direction. IOW, are one's actions moving one towards good or towards evil; towards right or towards wrong; towards truth or towards lies? That still, quiet voice; our God given spirit of discernment should conceivably leave us dwelling in the unknowable/undecidable for only short periods of time. A temporary affliction if you will.

In general I agree with your insight here, ForGod'sSake. The only qualification I'd make is "true vs. false" is not logically the same thing as "good vs. evil." It seems to me "true vs. false" indicates rational categories, but "good vs. evil" indicates ontological categories. In other words, the two sets of terms distinguish between the different states of knowing and being. We Christians may sense ourselves moving along a linear path towards good or evil, according to our free choice. But without God to draw us, our propensity/susceptibility to evil will tend to overwhelm us, ineluctibly it seems.

To put it another way, God is not "in" the same temporal universe that we inhabit, so to speak. Yet our spiritual life is conducted "at the intersection of time and timelessness" (as T.S. Eliot put it): the "time" of our existence, and the "timelessness" of God's Eternal Now — if that makes any sense at all.

God is Being, God is Life: Who lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

You wrote:

It may be why most of us I'm sure have noticed that people of faith are a happy, serene and contented lot for the most part. Whereas unbelievers, unfamiliar with the grace and glory of our God seem to live in a constant state of confusion without even being aware of it. Truly an unhappy and discontented bunch of busybodies who think they have the answers when in truth, they don't even know the questions.

I have noticed that most Christians I know are cheerful, serene, basically happy people — and so many non-Christians nowadays seem to have all kinds of axes to grind. Yet as you wrote, they do not have the answers — they don't even know what the relevant questions are. And seemingly aren't interested in finding out.

Peace!

[MajorThomas]

ping

[ForGod'sSake]

The only qualification I'd make is "true vs. false" is not logically the same thing as "good vs. evil." It seems to me "true vs. false" indicates rational categories, but "good vs. evil" indicates ontological categories.

Your astute observation brings to mind the consideration of "outcomes" before we proceed with words or actions. Should children be protected from the truth at times? I think the answer to that is likely yes, but are there also times when other adults should be protected from the truth? By omission; also a probable yes. By commission is a little tougher call but I can see where your point about truth vs lie set against good vs evil are on separate planes.

Yet our spiritual life is conducted "at the intersection of time and timelessness" (as T.S. Eliot put it): the "time" of our existence, and the "timelessness" of God's Eternal Now — if that makes any sense at all.

Whew! I'll have to study on that but it does put God in some perspective, at least as much in perspective as we can grasp. Infinitely unknowable but eminently reachable. His grace is a marvelous thing!

But without God to draw us, our propensity/susceptibility to evil will tend to overwhelm us, ineluctibly it seems.

No truer words...

[Poe White Trash]

The single coherent, snarky point you made was off topic but I'll address it anyway.

My pointing out that many of my fellow Americans have been "legally" murdering about 1 million innocent souls a year since Roe v Wade became the law of the land is "snarky." Why do you say that?

Since we as a people murder about one million souls a year, and have been doing so for about 30+ years, I guess that means that gift from our Founding Fathers is a little frayed around the edges by now. Moth-eaten. Positively ratty.

The gift remains...

Of course it remains. It's just after decades of USSC decisions like Roe v Wade it's a little tattered and torn.

If you are given an auto and wreck it, it is not the fault of the auto. When a man swears to support and defend the Constitution and later does not, it is no more the fault of the Constitution than marriage is at fault when a man takes wedding vows and later cheats on his wife.

Your mixed metaphors are giving me a headache.

If you live under a legal system or constitution that, via amendments and legal interpretation, is pushed further and further away from natural and Divine law, I'd say it's time to start trying to put it back on track before God decides to start pushing back. Hard. (cf. Mr. Lewis' "Religious Addendum").

[SaraJohnson]

People who do not have the ethics and morals - wisdom to government themselves, will need a police state to govern them. That is why liberals/marxists have torn apart the moral fabric of this nation. And it is falling...