From Erik Rush:
Without circumscribing an entire history of the world, most Americans know that it was once the norm for populations to be ruled, sometimes quite ruthlessly. In fact, governance (versus rule) is a fairly recent development, geopolitically speaking. I believe that our system of government having evolved into what it did makes it manifestly superior to others, but that's an entire story unto itself.
Whether one studies the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, or the monarchs of Asia or Europe, for millennia, people lived and died at the whims of the most powerful. A clan or warlord killed their way to the top and seized power over a region. The people under their sway were provided protection in exchange for some form or forms of homage. Once their power was established, the ruler, ruling family or class could concentrate on becoming pretentiously "cultured."
The right of such agencies to the power they amassed was often said to be a result of Divine Will. In the case of some – such as the rulers of Egypt – the sovereign was even touted to be a god himself. What rationale was used to persuade the people that their supreme rulers were such due to Divine Will? Well, if it weren't the will of the gods (or God) for them to hold such lofty positions, then they wouldn't be there in the first place, now would they?
Pretty convenient …
In such circumstances, populations were not accustomed to feeling entitled to much of anything. They considered themselves fortunate not to be summarily carted off on any given day, to be raped or murdered for some warlord or nobleman's sport.
With the advent of Christianity and Judeo-Christian sensibilities in the West, the view of the relationship between people and their governments began to evolve. With such events as the signing of the Magna Carta (1215), the Mayflower Compact (1620) and the Declaration of Independence (1776), aspects of Natural Law (which held that there were rights bestowed upon people by their Creator) that wound all the way back to basic principles found in Mosaic Law gave way to the idea that people were capable of self-governance, the caveat being that their supreme allegiance ought to be to God.
Most importantly, notions of liberty and sanctity of life became inculcated into the Western worldview. This did not occur in other societies, and the evidence thereof is still readily observable.
In the United States, for the first time, the government was subject to the people, rather than the reverse.
By and by, the prosperity and comfort to which freedom under the American system gave rise also gave rise to intellectual indolence. We became spoiled. We also became disengaged, which allowed philosophically opposed forces (progressives) to gain a political foothold.In the Judeo-Christian tradition, every individual believes he is so important to God that he can speak directly to Him.
What febrile, intellectually superficial rank-and-file liberals fail to grasp is that the core tenets of our culture, which are unique to it, had their genesis in Christianity – whether they like it or not. In their infantile fantasy relative to what America "should" be, they presume that all of the things they take for granted – life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, worship, freedom of ownership, etc. – will somehow still be guaranteed, despite their leaders' diametric opposition to this paradigm.
In the first century, a belief system centered around a loving, self-sacrificing God was novel. Previously, there was simply no compelling reason for people to behave kindly or equitably toward one another (except for that of obedience, as in Mosaic Law). In preceding cultures (some of which still predominate in certain regions), life itself was notoriously cheap. Westerners – and liberal ones in particular – operate upon the laughable assumption that if we treat people as we would like to be treated, they will reciprocate in kind.
Which just illustrates that liberals excel at nothing else if not denial.
This was illustrated superbly in an original episode of the "Star Trek" series called "Bread and Circuses." Here, the Enterprise crew encounters an Earth-like, technologically advanced society resembling the Roman Empire. It is what the writers (one of whom being the series creator Gene Roddenberry himself, I might add) thought might reasonably be extrapolated had Christian values never taken hold in the West. In this society, sex and death were central to the culture. Personal power reigned supreme. Life had no value. Gladiators and live executions were broadcast on prime-time television. The "Christ" figure had been crucified a scant few years before, so his teachings were just beginning to spread. Most of his scattered but dedicated followers were slaves.
As we celebrate Christmas and give thanks for America's blessings, one of the things I believe it appropriate to consider is the very paradigm of thought and life that we hold, solely due to Christ's ministry. While this is something that was once acknowledged and paid deference even by non-Christians, given the increasing assaults on Christianity by secular socialists, it is something all Americans could stand to re-affirm. Christ was not only the salvation of humankind in the spiritual realm, but the salvation of society in a cultural sense.
Such a belief system naturally causes it's adherents to question the authority of those "above". For are not these leaders, also, merely children in God's Kingdom?
Yes, they are.
And, these days, they are naughty children.
;-)
And they'll be getting lumps of coal for Christmas.
Self-worth not dependent upon fantasy of being able to talk to a god.
ReplyDeleteDid not need to be "saved" from anything.
Am secular but emphatically not socialist.
If all Americans ought to "re-affirm" that "the very paradigm of thought and life that we hold [is] solely due to Christ's ministry", won't that mess with the First Amendment? At the very least make those pesky billboards illegal and print "Merry Christmas" on the money.
Or just chain us up in the basement between Thanksgiving and New Year's? Since the Christian churches in this country are more concerned with us and our billboards and our "Happy Holidays" than they are with their Muslim brothers and sisters murdering their fellow Christians all over the Middle East, it would seem more stringent measures are necessary.
John Adams stated that the United States of America was in no way founded on the Christian religion.
Well, at least he could always use a bit more coal for the fireplace. And if you're right, I will have some marvelous company in hell.
Btw, why does Michaelangelo have God wearing a pink nightshirt?
All due respect to John Adams.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there was the little matter of the Alien and Sedition Acts (from this source):
The Sedition Act – Any conspiracy against the government including riots and interference with officers would result in a high misdemeanor. This went so far as to stop people from speaking in a “false, scandalous and malicious” manner against the government.
Adams vehemently opposed criticism of the Federalists.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were likely the main cause of his not getting elected to a second term.
Some additional information about John Adams, a Unitarian, and religion:
ReplyDeleteAdams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.
Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.
Also of interest to me is that fact that Adams was willing to pay tribute to the Barbary pirates. From this source:
ReplyDeleteDuring President Washington's administration, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson disagreed sharply over policy toward the Corsairs. Adams strongly favored paying off the pirates, arguing that a long and protracted war would financially ruin the young nation. Jefferson vehemently disagreed, appealing not only to an American sense of honor, but also to the notion that a single, decisive war might be more cost-effective than annual bribes for perpetuity. Not surprisingly, their subsequent administration policies reflected these beliefs. Adams was anxious to prevent conflict, and ensured payment of all demanded tribute. In addition, Adams even agreed to build and deliver two warships for the Algerian Corsairs.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteAll the above blabbing is not to say that one cannot be a patriot if one isn't a Christian.
Just pointing out that there was division among our Founders as to the whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation.
Funny you should mention Adams' aspirations to study law instead of lead from the pulpit. Coincidentally, I just read the following from a small book titled "Oh Say Did You Know" in which a highlighted box on Page 18 states:
ReplyDeleteFirst, Kill All the Lawyers"
"Remembering their experiences under the English legal system, the colonists didn't trust lawyers. The Massachusetts Bay Bodie of Liberties (1641) forbade payments to anyone representing another in court. Virginia literally threw out all its lawyers in 1658 and didn't allow them back for 28 years.
Legal education in our modern sense didn't exist, and most colonists represented themselves before judges who were only marginally less ignorant of legal technicalities. But this wasn't necessarily a bad thing. By relying on frontier justice, the colonists didn't import the hierachical, class-ridden British system. Tehy simply taught themselves enough law for everyday transactions, trusted the common sense of judges and juries, and gradually constructed a practical justice system more egalitarian than any in Europe.
Our early lawyers, including those who wrote the Constitution, were mostly self-taught. In 1777 the first "Professorship of Law" was introduced at Yale University. It wasn't until rutherford B. Hayes was elected that a president had a law degree (Harvard, calss of 1845). Washington, D.C. may be awash in lawyers now, but a streak of colonial mistrust survives: Of our 13 presidents since 1934, only Nixon, Ford, Clinton and Obama graduated from law school."
God Almighty rules over all.
ReplyDeleteI know this and am prepared to die for this; AND that fact is exactly what makes me a superior defender of truth than any atheist or agnostic anywhere at anytime.
I am fully convinced that only people of faith can ultimately defeat a force of evil such as Mohammedanism.
While I welcome any allies I can get, they have a fatal flaw as King David so clearly points out: The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.
Merry Christmas, cjk.
ReplyDeleteThanks, you and everyone else also.
ReplyDelete