Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Around the Web

It seems the federal Women, Infants, and Children program, ostensibly a low-income healthcare aid, is referring people to Planned Parenthood. Nice, eh?
-
“He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency.” That’s
the latest phony smear Obama claims the GOP is leveling against him. This race-baiting filth should be a cakewalk for any Republican candidate worth his salt. Unfortunately, we got Johnny the Wonder Dolt…who claims to be an “unabashed conservative.” Yeah, right.
-
This week,
Ann Coulter’s column takes on the Edwards-love child story. Lord knows if anybody’s sleazy enough to do something like this it’s John Edwards, and his reaction to the charges haven’t exactly been the conduct of an honest man with nothing to hide. Still, I’d be wary of anything from the pages of the National Enquirer.
-
Religion of Peace update: evidently the Dutch
no longer value freedom of speech.
-
Required reading: Walter Williams on “
A Country at Mercy of Environmentalists” and Rick Moran on “House Issues Apology for Slavery, Jim Crow.”

Monday, July 28, 2008

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is "Ethicist"

Alonzo Fyfe recently devoted an entire post to condemning misleading, context-free attack ads, and in another, chastised a reader for taking his own words out of context:
-
Words get their meaning from their context and it is impossible for a person to write anything or to carry on any discussion that will not contain elements whose meaning changes in a different context. For this reason, there is no option but for the burden of the responsibility to be on the reader to understand a statement in that context.
-
Isn’t that remarkable? It seems the Atheist Ethicist understands and values the importance of context
more than he let on…

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

ALL Report: Baby Steps DVD

This past week, we had one of these videos constantly playing at Pro-Life Wisconsin's booth at the Fond du Lac County Fair. They're tremendously effective at catching attention. To most hearts, no amount of propaganda can overcome the power of these faces.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Movie Review: "The Dark Knight"

This weekend a friend and I saw The Dark Knight, the highly-anticipated sequel to Christopher Nolan’s celebrated franchise reboot, Batman Begins. I can confirm that the media hype is legit: this film is amazing.
-
Orphaned billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has been Batman for about a year, and Gotham City is improving for the first time in ages—criminals are scared, the mob is in disarray, and the efforts of new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) leave Bruce hopeful for the day Gotham no longer needs his alter ego, leaving him to a normal life with his beloved Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes from Begins). But all of Gotham’s progress threatens to be shattered by the rise to power of a self-described “agent of chaos” known only as the Joker (Heath Ledger).
-
Knight excels as an action movie (the ambitious action sequences will thrill you all the more when you realize digital effects are used very little), as a crime drama, and as a case study in human nature. I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen a movie that took such a strong grip on my attention, and maintained it throughout a 2 ½ hour running time. Nolan, along with writers Jonathan Nolan (yep, his brother) & David Goyer, have imbued the story with a real sense of unpredictability, and at times even fear of what might lurk around the corner (by contrast, I thought The Incredible Hulk was both a respectable effort and a lot of fun, but there was virtually nothing surprising or unpredictable about it).
-
Aiding the immersion is the fact that, just like Begins, Knight is far more grounded in reality than the average comic adaptation. Granted, the technology at Batman’s disposal still has one foot firmly planted in science fiction, but it’s decidedly more James Bond than Adam West (plus, Batman's the only one with access to hi-tech gear). As fanciful as the idea of costumed crusaders is, Nolan’s vision comes closer to making you believe what you’re watching could really happen than any other superhero film ever has. And none of this grounding comes at the expense of the source material’s essence (a refreshing departure from mangling things
for no better reason than the whims of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher…).
-
It’s also due in part to the film’s oft-mentioned darkness. If you’re expecting cartoonish villainy, or even something akin to the League of Shadows' master plan from Begins, think again. This Joker isn’t some unscrupulous goofball out for world domination—he’s a sociopath and anarchist without the slightest hint of decency beneath his grubby clown makeup, and his actions reflect that. While there’s no real gore (save one character’s fate I won’t mention, but every Bat-fan knows who I’m talking about) and there’s no sex (indeed, it’s to the filmmakers’ credit that a sex scene doesn’t happen at a certain point where it would have in most other movies), Knight is violent, even brutal, and there’s a lot of disturbing imagery, harrowing situations, and tense buildups to disaster and tragedy. Young children simply should not see this movie. At the very least, parents should watch it in advance so they know which scenes to skip when watching the DVD with their kids.
-
But teen and adult audiences would be hard-pressed to find a fictional movie more powerful and rewarding. Everything you’ve heard about Ledger’s phenomenal, menacing performance is true (Jack who?), but as great as he is, he doesn’t overshadow the rest of the cast. As the protagonist, Bale perfectly conveys, and balances, Bruce Wayne’s public image of carefree excess and Batman’s obsession with justice. Without giving too much away about Harvey Dent, let's just say Eckhart won’t disappoint in the role's broad range of emotions. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman display wit and gravitas as butler Alfred Pennyworth and gadget guru Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman’s role as honest cop Lt. Jim Gordon is larger than in Begins, and he soars in it. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was a tad too spunky early in the film, but she proves her dramatic credentials later on—and then again, a little spunk helps lighten the load in a film this heavy (unlike some viewers, I wasn't bothered by Katie Holmes in Begins, and I have no opinion on who is ultimately better).
-
On that note, don’t take all this talk of darkness to mean Knight is some sort of depression-fest. It’s not. Tragedy strikes and human depravity is on full display, but so are the heroism, courage and decency of Batman, his allies, and even the people of Gotham (refreshingly, the film actually affirms several basic conservative tenets: the futility of appeasement, the occasional need to do harsh, ugly things to defeat evil, and the importance of doing the right thing at the expense of public opinion). There’s wit, humor, and moments that are simply fun and cool. Without giving too much away, the film ends on a bittersweet note that drives home the sacrifices that make Batman compelling in a way few cinema or comic-book heroes can match.
-
Sure, there are imperfections here and there—a minor plot hole or two, if you look hard enough—but they are eclipsed by the film’s sheer quality. The Dark Knight is easily the best Batman film ever made—not only does
the beloved 1989 version pale in comparison, but the contrast shows just how limited an application Tim Burton's style really has. But it’s also the best example of the superhero/comic book genre, and an outstanding cinematic achievement in any genre. Simply put, it’s a masterpiece.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Tony Snow Passes Away

Tragically, he has succumbed to cancer at age 53. Tony Snow was the standard by which all future press secretaries should be judged. May he rest in peace.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Entschuldigung? *

Barack Obama thinks it’s embarrassing that more Americans don’t speak the language of the nations they visit. People have rightly noticed that this is another case of Obama looking down upon the common folks, but there’s another question we should ask him: if you ought to speak the local language when you merely visit a country, what about when you want to live there? Surely the good Senator would apply this principle to English here. Or not.
-
So as to show I won’t be embarrassing the Messiah anytime soon with insufficient multicultural credentials, I have a foreign-language message for him: Gehen Sie in der Hölle, Herr Obama.
-
* The title is German for "Excuse Me?" As for the message, take a wild guess.

D'Souza on "An Absentee God?"

During this debate, Christopher Hitchens actually raised an intriguing challenge to God’s existence (good points from atheists are so hard to find these days). Now, Dinesh D’Souza has an answer:
-
What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas. On Friday July 11 the libertarian conference FreedomFest will have, as its featured event, a debate on "Christianity, Islam and the War on Terror" between Christopher Hitchens and me. The media will be there, and the organizers also expect to have the debate up on the web. (Just in case Richard Dawkins is listening, I'll have to remember
not to use Hitler-style shrieks and yells.)
-
In thinking about this debate, I'm reminded of an argument that Hitchens made in our New York debate last October. At that time I did not know how to answer his point. So I employed an old debating strategy: I ignored it and answered other issues. But Hitchens' argument bothered me.
-
Here's what Hitchens said. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for a long time, let's say 100,000 years. Apparently for 95,000 years God sat idly by, watching and perhaps enjoying man's horrible condition. After all, cave-man's plight was a miserable one: infant mortality, brutal massacres, horrible toothaches, and an early death. Evidently God didn't really care.
-
Then, a few thousand years ago, God said, "It's time to get involved." Even so God did not intervene in one of the civilized parts of the world. He didn't bother with China or India or Persia or Egypt. Rather, he decided to get his message to a group of nomadic people in the middle of nowhere. It took another thousand years or more for this message to get to places like India and China.
-
Here is the thrust of Hitchens' point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this?
-
I'm going to answer this argument in two ways. First, in this blog I'm going to show that Hitchens has his math precisely inverted. Second, in a future blog I'll reveal how Hitchens' argument backfires completely on atheism. For today's argument I'm indebted to Erik Kreps of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.
-
An adept numbers guy, Kreps noters that it is not the number of years but the levels of human population that are the issue here. The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born before Christ came to earth.
-
"So in a sense," Kreps notes, "God's timing couldn't have been more perfect. If He'd come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world's population, so even though 98 percent of humanity's timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption."
-
I have to agree with Kreps's conclusion: "Sorry Hitchens. And Hallelujah."
-
Part 2 of his response:
-
Here I want to show how Hitchens' argument completely backfires on atheism. Let's apply an entirely secular analysis and go with Hitchens' premise that there is no God and man is an evolved primate. Well, biology tells us that man's basic frame and brain size haven't substantially changed throughout his terrestrial existence.
-
So here is the problem.
Homo sapiens has been on the planet for 100,000 years, but apparently for more than 95,000 of those years he accomplished virtually nothing. No real art, no writing, no inventions, no culture, no civilization. How is this possible? Were our ancestors, otherwise physically and mentally undistinguishable from us, such blithering idiots that they couldn't figure out anything other than the arts of primitive warfare?
-
Then, a few thousand years ago, everything changes. Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.
-
So how did
Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. If we compare man's trajectory on earth to an airplane, we see a long, long stretch of the airplane faltering on the ground, and then suddenly, a few thousand years ago, takeoff!
-
Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.
-
So paradoxically Hitchens' argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by the Book of Genesis.
-
UPDATE: A reader posed a few challenges to D’Souza’s argument (if he wants to know why I’m not publishing his comments, he’s free to ask here). I want to address them, though, since they strike me as common areas of misunderstanding.
-
Humanity's "takeoff" provides no evidence that God was involved. It could have been coincidence, or the invention of something like the written alphabet or mathematics or several such developments at once.
-
But this is precisely the issue: mankind had a whopping 95,000 years in which none of it happened. Then “several such developments at once”? Granted, it’s not material evidence, and it’s not proof, but you've gotta admit, it’s certainly intriguing circumstantial evidence.
-
It also provides no evidence that it was Christ or Christianity specifically that is the answer. Advancements took place before Christ...maybe the Greek Gods get credit for Ancient Greece?
-
This complaint gets the two arguments mixed up. D’Souza does not tie human advancement to the coming of Christ at all, but to the endowment of man with a soul. The only point Christ pertains to is the percentage of the human race that lived before Him as opposed to after.
-
It's also interesting that technology has advanced exponentially in recent history, despite no known input from Allah or God or Zeus.
-
That’s because the input we’re talking about—the soul transforming an animal called human into a man, giving him a true mind rather than a brain—already happened. According to D’Souza’s theory, human reason and creativity flow from this singular change.

Odds & Ends

Rock for Life’s YouTube page has new video of numerous pro-life Congressmen taking Planned Parenthood to task. Glad to see some Republicans still have spines…especially after this moment of GOP brilliance.
-
Your brain on drugs: Frederick Douglass
belongs to the Left?
-
Ever wonder how Jesse Jackson feels now that Barack Obama’s stolen the spotlight?
Well, now we know. Surprised? Me neither.
-
In case you missed it, “the father of Quebec Medicare” has
second thoughts about his creation.
-
Iran is
faking photographs of missile tests. Yep, reaaaal stable regime there…(hat tip: Jihad Watch)
-
Bobby Jindal, conservative champion? Sadly, his “new politics”
seem awfully familiar, too. Conservatives need to be careful not to build up fairytale heroes (*cough*Fred!*cough*), but I still think we should keep an eye out on Mitt, as well as Sarah Palin.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Catholic Complicity in Abortion

From ALL’s Michael Hichborn:
-
As you may be aware, American Life League has been covering a scandal in Richmond, VA where four employees of a Catholic Charities actually helped a teenaged Guatemalan immigrant obtain an abortion. What is so terrible about this is that Bishop DiLorenzo actually knew about the abortion that was to take place the following morning, and did nothing to prevent it. Even worse is that it took at least 3 months before these employees were fired. And as if those weren't enough, the same employees helped the girl implant a birth control device several months before. Who knew about that, and why didn't it come out until now that this was done?
-
There are so many questions surrounding this incident that American Life League asked the Commonwealth Attorney to step in and conduct an investigation. Given that this looks so much like a cover-up, we wonder if this has happened before at this or even other Catholic Charities.

-
For more information:
-
Washington Post: Antiabortion Group Urges Inquiry
-
Washington Times: Prosecution of Charity Ruled Out in Abortion Case
-
CBS-6 Richmond: Abortion Investigation

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Friday, July 4, 2008

Odds & Ends

Sen. Jesse Helms has died. Rest in peace, Senator.
-
Now apparently four-year-olds
need sex ed. Yes, you read that right. How does one even reason with such insanity?
-
This Independence Day, Thomas Sowell
reflects on patriotism.
-
Now ABC News is noticing that Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. Looks like it’s
time to wake up from the Hope Dream.
-
A few weeks back I saw the Robin-Williams-runs-for-president comedy
Man of the Year. It was entertaining, but certainly no side-splitter. Williams’ “independent, third-way” character tilted left-of-center, predictably, but what really stands out is that, for a movie about the position of commander-in-chief, I don’t recall a single acknowledgement that there’s a war going on (I understand it’s a comedy, but still.). Kinda hits home the point that the war just isn’t real in the minds of Hollywood.
-
Speaking of movies, I went to see
The Incredible Hulk the other night, and thought it was great, the only drawback being some inconsistent quality in the CG work. It was everything the 2003 film should have been.

The Fourth of July

On July 5, 1926, President Calvin Coolidge delivered this speech reflecting on the Declaration of Independence’s 150th anniversary:
-
We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgement of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.
-
Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.
-
It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.
-
It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.
-
It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.
-
We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.
-
The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.
-
While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.
-
This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.
-
When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.
-
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.
-
If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be under-estimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.
-
It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.
-
The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.
-
But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Reverend Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that:
-
"The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people."
-
"The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance."
-
This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Reverend John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused", in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.
-
While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.
-
That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent." It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth…". And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is
Christ's government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.
-
When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."
-
No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.
-
Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.
-
If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.
-
We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.
-
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
-
In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government — the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ's government." The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.
-
On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.
-
It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.
-
Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.
-
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Another Flip-Flop? Not So Fast

Barack Obama’s getting flack for announcing his opposition to a proposed ban on same-sex marriage in California. It’s being called yet another Obama flip-flop since he previously said the decision to recognize same-sex marriage should be left to each state. However, I don’t think conservatives should add this one to the list. Stating an opinion on which government level should have the authority to make this decision doesn’t presuppose an indifference to what decision they ultimately make. Unless Obama advocates overturning state decisions on the matter via federal power, which he hasn’t, it’s not a flip-flop.
The views expressed on this weblog are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other websites, blogs, campaigns, publications, or organizations where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with such groups.