The Rights of the Colonists
by Samuel Adams
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting.
November 20, 1772

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.

The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.

In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.

In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.

III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.

A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union.

The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.

First, "The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society."

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

"The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. "There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.

These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from the Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.) The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners after seven years' residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of England."

Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three thousand miles' distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted.

The Foundation Of Western Culture: The Freedom And Dignity Of Man As Found In The Catholic Tradition

A word of warning at the outset, for those of you who are not believers, or who do not adhere to the Catholic Faith: This post is, in no way, meant to win you over to Faith in Christ. Instead, I am simply presenting this information so that we can come to a better understanding of the foundational underpinnings which have led us to Western Civilization as we know it.

There were many streams of thought which led us to where we are today, including Greek Philosophy and it's resultant Democracy, Natural Law, Voltaire and the Enlightenment, John Locke, the Jewish Bible and the Talmud, and the Christian Bible and the Christian Tradition.

Here, I present to you, some of what the Catholic Faith has to say about the inherent Freedom and Dignity of the individual Human Being.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son¹ to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation."² It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God,"³ that man has been created "in the image and likeness" of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.⁴

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons (this is why societies built upon agreement, as expressed in Laws, arrived at through a process of Reason, are predominant, active, and Creative), in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,⁵ the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake. (The Human Being is sufficient, in himself, for any task. His will is not dependent upon the whims of Fate, or the whims of Nature.)"⁶ From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator (Reason is predominant in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, whereas, in Islam, God is not Imminent, or Present with us, but is instead, Exobiotic, or Above All and Beyond All, and therefore, not accessible through Reason ). 

By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."⁷

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."⁸

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God (what non-believers might call consciousness of Natural Law) which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."⁹ 

Everyone (including Kings and Rulers of various types) is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

1707 "Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history."¹⁰ He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:

Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.¹¹

1708 By his Passion, Christ delivered us from Satan and from sin. He merited for us the new life in the Holy Spirit. His grace restores what sin had damaged in us.

1709 He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

IN BRIEF

1710 "Christ . . . makes man fully manifest to man himself and brings to light his exalted vocation" (GS 22 § 1).

1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good" (GS 15 § 2).

1712 In man, true freedom is an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image" (GS 17).

1713 Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil" (cf. GS 16). This law makes itself heard in his conscience.

1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom (and is, therefore, not strong in an of himself, but finds his strength through a Reasoning process in which he participates with others, and with the great works - the Canonical works - of his civilization).

1715 He who believes in Christ has new life in the Holy Spirit. The moral life, increased and brought to maturity in grace, is to reach its fulfillment in the glory of heaven.

I'm sure those who are Catholic (I am not) will find much to correct in my interpretation of the Catechism. I am only offering this as the beginning of a discussion, and as an attempt to find the roots, the foundation of our Civilization.

The Foundation of Western Culture: The Dignity of the Human Person

Our culture is rooted in ideas which flow from many streams. We are a symphony of many notes, many chords, many melodies, and counterpoints.

The ideas which make up our culture are born of Grecian Philosophy and the Democracy it eventually spawned, of the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, and the Judeo-Christian tradition in general, of the Renaissance, of the progress of Western Philosophy (John Locke in particular), of arguements which took place between the Catholic Church and the various nations of Europe, of arguments between the people, the Aristrocracy, and the Royal Families of Europe, and of the Founding of America.

I'm sure I have left a lot out. But, the point is, we are not born of one ideology in particular, rather we are a confluence of ideologies which have crystalized, and yet, continue to grow.

One of the primary sources of our culture has been the Catholic Church. Whether you believe in God or not, I think you will find that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains many ideas with which you are familiar, with which you would agree, and over which you would celebrate.

The Catholic Church was an innovator in the idea of the dignity of the Individual Human Being. Not of the tribe, not of the Nation State arbitrated by a King, but of the Individual Human of Free Will.

Let us begin to look at the statements in the Catechism, so that we can come to appreciate one of the streams which has brought our Culture to where it is.

From the Catechism:

The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and
likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude
(article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this
fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person
does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral
conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their
interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means
of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article
7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1
to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the
perfection of charity.

In this short paragraph we find the seedling of the American Tradition.

Our inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is grounded in the idea that we are made in the Image of God. We have Free Will, to do as we please.

We are Free to choose whether or not to conform to an established set of laws.

We are responsible, through the exercise of our Free Will, for our own growth. By the help of Grace we are able to grow in virtue.

Without the Grace given to us through the protections provided by our system of ideas, our culture, we would not be allowed to grow in virtue. Instead, we would be forced to live like animals fighting over shreds of food and turf.

Let me know what you think.

Midnight Rider adds:

Note well that it does not read:

The dignity of the CHRISTIAN human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude(article 2). It is essential to a WHITE EUROPEAN human being freely to direct himself to thisfulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the NON-MUSLIM human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). CATHOLIC Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into meansof this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

It makes no such distinction, no allowances for race creed or color.

ALL humans are this. And by the choices they make with their freewill alone will they be judged. But, out of the gate, we are all equal and deserve equal rights and fair treatment.

This is the bedrock of Western Culture and Democracy. We are all the same, naked before God and each other. Man woman child white black yellow red muslim hindu catholic protestant jew christian are nothing but labels we attach and mean nothing in how a person should be treated.

The Foundation Of Western Culture, Part II: God Made Man In His Own Image

Yesterday, I posted a passage from The Drama Of Atheist Humanism, by Henri De Lubac, which showed how, in the Christian worldview, man sits at the pinnacle of God's creation. He is given charge of the gallery, caretaker of God's beautiful artwork. Indeed, not only is man caretaker, but he is preeminent. He stands above and beyond creation. The totality of God's creation can not contain the soul of man, which like God's has an infinite and immortal quality to it.

These are dramatic ideas. They are a bit frightening to fathom. And, in all my years as a Christian, I do not recall ever having heard a Pastor say anything of the like.

In the days, since 9/11, I have begun to think through the implications of my faith, and of what I know of the Bible. I had come to these same conclusions, when I started reading the works of Catholic thinkers within this past few years. Oh, what a joy it is to find that I am not a blasphemous heathen, but that, instead, my conclusions are considered to be orthodoxy by some of the most profound thinkers to have ever walked the Earth; Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Mr. De Lubac himself.

Today, let's look at a passage that talks about what man has come to believe of himself, and what man is, and, of how the human race needs to be reminded of its purpose:

Philosophers have told man that he is a "microcosm," a little world made of the same elements, given the same structure, subject to the same rhythms as the great universe; they have reminded him that he is made in its image, and that he is subject to its laws; they have made him into part of the mechanism, or at most, into the epitome of the cosmis machine. 

Nor were they completely mistaken.

Of man's body, and of all that, in man, can be called "nature," it is true. But, if man digs deeper and if his reflection is illuminated by what is said in the Sacred Scripture, he will be amazed at the depths opening up within him.

Unaccountable space extends before his gaze. In a sort of infinitude he overflows this great world on all sides, and in reality, it is that world, "macrocosm," which is contained in this apparent "microcosm."

That looks like a paradox contained in one of our great modern idealists. Far from it. First formulated from Origen, then by Saint Gregory Nazianzen, it was later repeated by many others. Saint Thomas Aquinas was to give much the same translation of it when he said that the sould is in the world contiens magis quam contenta - containing it rather than contained by it.

Man, to be sure, is made of dust and clay, or, as we should say nowadays, he is of animal origin - which comes to the same thing. The Church is not unmindful of this, finding a warrant for it in the same passage of Genesis ("God made man in His own Image and Likeness... from dust ... He breathed life into him ..."). 

Man, to be sure, is also a sinner. The Church does not cease to remind him of that fact. 

The self-esteem she endeavors to instill into him is not the outcome of a superficial and ingenuous view of the matter. Like Christ, she knows "what there is in man."

But, she also knows that, that the lowlinessof his origin in the flesh cannot detract from the sublimity of his vocation, and that, despite all the blemishes that sin may bring, that vocation is an abiding source of inalienable greatness. 

The Church thinks that this greatness must reveal itself even in the conditions of present-day life, as a fount of liberty and a principle of progress, the ncessary retaliation upon the forces of evil.

And she recognizes in the mystery of God-mad-man the guarantee of our vocation and the final consecration of our greatness. Thus, in her liturgy she can celebrate each day "the dignity of the human substance" even before rising to the contemplation of our rebirth.

Man was made for greatness. We may have gotten a little off-track, but God still sees in us, the greatness, the infinitude of creativity and imagination, the power of love, and the longing for righteousness. Because He sees these things in us, he laid Himself down as a sacrifice, the Passover Lamb, whose blood on the doorposts of our hearts, causes death to shrink away and escape in fear.

One is not required to believe what I wrote in the preceding paragraph to understand that, whatever you believe, it is upon an idea of such greatness in man that the founders of liberty, and the Western ideal, undertook their mission to free all men from the chains of slavery to monarchies, and fiefdoms.

When the idea was first proposed, that Kings would not own men, but that, instead, men would own their kings, the powers who had always ruled, shook, and were overcome with the nausea of men set adrift at sea.

How can common people be trusted to rule themselves? How can the rabble be expected to mind the china shop of civilization? How can the bungled and the botched be expected to preserve the culture we have worked so hard to construct?

We see these same questions being asked about the Muslim world today.

How can we expect men, who are slaves to an violent ideology, a religion of the sword, to ever become civilized like us? How can we entrust them with the power of Democracy? How can we allow them to rule themselves?

The answer is to understand that they are humans too, created in God's own likeness and Image. We need to return to the foundational beliefs of our civilization. We need to do so with confidence knowing that the rights of man, firmly established, will work their magic on the frightening culture of the Muslim world.

We need to trust and enforce the rights of man, and we need to know that Muslims have the infinity of freedom and creativity within themselves, as surely as we do, and that this infinitude, connected as it is to the world of our Creator, will guide their culture in the right direction, gradually, but surely.

We have not done this, as of yet, however. By allowing Sharia law to be enshrined in the Constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have set ourselves up for failure. We have not taken our own ideals seriously. In fact, we have not followed our own blueprint for victory and the establishment of Democracy.

I can think of only three wars in recent history which permanently changed societies for the better. These three wars were 

1) the war against Germany (WWII)

2) the war against Japan (WWII)

3) the war against the American South (the American Civil War)

In all three of these wars we absolutely and unequivocally destroyed the enemy, humiliating him, and leaving no doubt in his mind that he was defeated. And then, in the aftermath of these wars, we were as merciless to the enemy ideology as we had been to their armies during the war. We banned their ideologies of mytho-religio-backed slavery, and we wrote their new Constitutions and laws for them. We did not allow them to tell us how they were going to run their countries. We told them how to run things, and we stayed there to enforce the new laws, until we were convinced that they were firmly established.

If we did this in Iraq and Afghanistan our results would be different. If we banned Sharia law, and the preaching of Jihad, as being against the norms of Human Rights (which they are), and if we enforced that ban strictly, imprisoning and/or executing anyone who violated our strictures, then we would have given the Muslims a fair chance at establishing freedom for themselves.

When we are finally forced to get serious in this war, we will return to our principles.

And then, and only then, Muslims will be able to find their way to freedom, just like we did.

We weren't a very pretty bunch when we started either. Just ask the Kings who had ruled us.

The Foundation Of Western Culture: God Made Man In His Own Image

The events of recent days, and the various comments I have seen written at this site, and at other blogs, have made me determined that IBA should go back to the basics and begin to study the Foundational Ideas of Western Culture.

Western Culture is born of ideas. It is a collected set of ideas. It is, however, not necessarily an organized set of ideas. Some of the ideas that go together to make up Western Culture do, indeed, contradict one another, for they were developed over millenia, by the Jews, the Greeks, the early Christian Church, the Church of the Middle Ages (under the pressure of Islam), from Western Mythology (the Knights Templar), from Philosophers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Voltaire, and finally, from the dramatic events of the American Revolution, and the Project that we have been working on in the years since.

I invite any of our contributors who are versed in these various studies to contribute to this IBA study of Western Civilization. For my part, the posts I will contribute will be studies of Christian writings and, specifically, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that one be a believer in God to understand and appreciate how the ideas presented in the Judeo-Christian paradigm have influenced our way of life.

I will also be doing posts on Culturist John's book Culturism, because, in my opinion, his book is an excellent meditation on the ideas that make our Culture, and why it is important to understand, and preserve them.

For instance, Epaminondas may want to write on the Founding Fathers. Culturist John will, I am sure, continue his endeavors, which already speak on this subject. Jason Pappas, if he has time, might want to post on the origins of Greek Democracy and Natural Law.

Here's a little lesson in the foundation of Western Civilization from the book The Drama of Atheist Humanism, by Henri Lubac:

A wonderful piece of sculpture adorning the cathedral of Chartres represents Adam, head and shoulders barely roughed out, emerging from the earth from which he was made and being molded by the hands of God. The face of the first man reproduces the features of his modeler. This parable in stone translates for the eyes the mysterious words of Genesis:

"God made man in His own image and likeness."

From its earliest beginnings, Christian tradition has not ceased to annotate this verse, recognizing in it our first title of nobility and the foundation of our greatness. Reason, liberty, immortality, and dominion over nature are so many prerogatives of divine origin that God has imparted to his creatures.

Establishing man, from the outset, in God's likeness, each of these prerogatives is meant to grow and unfold until the divine resemblance is brought to perfection. Thus they are the key to the highest of destinies.

"Man, know thyself!" Taking up, after Epicetetus, the Church tranformed and deepened it, so that what had been chiefly a piece of moral advice became an exhortation to form a metaphysical judgement. Know yourself, said the Church, that is to say, know your nobility and you dignity, understand the greatness of your being and your vocation, of that vocation which constitutes your being. Learn how to see in yourself the spirit, which is a reflection of God, made for God.

"O man, scorn not that which is admirable in you! You are a poor thing in your own eyes, but I would teach you that in reality you are a great thing... Realize what you are! Consider your royal dignity! The heavens have not been made in God's image, nor the moon, nor the sun, nor anything to be seen in creation... Behold, of all that exists, there is nothing that can contain your greatness."

I invite Midnight Rider to comment and contribute to the main body of this post.

"If It Looks Like a Duck. . ."

Western Culture is in a fight for survival against Islam. As Islam is now. No one here denies that.

However, if we begin to surrender or ignore the basic tenents of Western Culture, tenents based on the Judeo-Christian model if you will, just to win, then for what are we fighting? If we abandon core beliefs then they have won by allowing ourselves to destroy Western Culture.

We understand taqiyya, understand it is practiced and used as a weapon against us. But Christine's post below is an excellent example that not every Muslim who speaks out against Islam is attempting to fool us.

To deny that there are peaceful Muslims, that Muslims can change or can disagree with the violent aspects of their faith, is to deny that "each of these prerogatives is meant to grow and unfold until the divine resemblance is brought to perfection". It denies the free will God gave to man. And the directive that man is to grow and become more like God.

For myself I do not hate Muslims. I hate Islam. Islam as it exists. But for individuals I will take a man as he is. To do so otherwise is to deny that God created that individual the same as he created me. To lessen that individual's worth absent any information that he intends me harm.

To turn on an entire group of people, to call for their extermination simply because of the way they dress or the region of the world they hail from or the name they have without further inquiry into each individual's beliefs is an ideology we saw in the middle of the 20th Century.

Does that mean we question every Muslim as to what they believe? Of course not. If a man ia pointing an AK-47 at you, or was takenon the battlefield, or in a raid on a planning meeting "I do not believe in Jihad" is not going to work.

But if a man walking down the street or working in your office says it, that may be quite another matter. And unless he demostrates in some way he is practicing taqiyya or is intent on harm it is both against our Laws, our Culture and God's Know Thyself to assume otherwise. Will you shun or chastise or call for the interment of a woman in the next cubicle simply because she wears a hijab? Should you then shun chastise or inter an Amish or Mennonite woman for keeping their head covered?

Western Culture, Western Law, would say neither is violating a law here. So should one be treated less equally than the other absent information that one is specifically intent on doing harm?

-- Midnight Rider

More --

Of late it seems many are lashing out blindly in rage. Being consumed by hatred. Some of this may be in part because our current government seems more eager to appease Islam than confront it. This is also true to some degree of the previous administration.

I contend hatred is good and helpful provided it is directed at the right place. But if we allow rational thought to disappear from the discourse, if we do not think through our words and actions, if we misdirect that hatred, then we are already lost.

-- MR

Thoughts from commenter Kwelos:

It's certainly worthwhile launching an ideological and philosophical attack on Islam, although whether Muslims will be easily persuaded by rational arguments is very much open to question.

Islam is a pre-rational and mind-numbing tribal ideology of power and subjugation, which provides its adherents with divine justification for all manner of criminality.

Given the attractions of rape, pillage and enslavement (and the generally high levels of illiteracy and low levels of intelligence among Muslims brought on by inbreeding), engaging them in rational arguments may be no more fruitful than discussing theology with a group of violent village idiots.

When Pope Benedict stated that that not only is violence in spreading faith unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason, or above reason, leads to that very violence - the Muslims rioted.

Even Muslim 'intellectuals' are committed to irrationalism in the form of 'occasionalism' which denies the existence of natural laws of cause and effect.

Is it any wonder that Muslims, despite their numbers, are totally incompetent at science?

One of the most amazing things about the universe is that it is understandable in terms of mathematics. Buddhists and Judeo-Christians have (different) rational explanations why this should be so, but Muslim theologians with their commitment to an irrational God just cannot deal with this aspect of reality.

For Muslims, "the choice between Islam and reason was made long ago, and remember: it was Islam that won then. The question before us now is, will Islam win against reason today? "