The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Nation's Pulse
Print Email
Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Thanksgiving and American Exceptionalism

By on 11.24.10 @ 6:08AM

An “awful responsibility” to mull over as we enjoy a holiday given to us by some of the first American exceptionalists

The left-of-center Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and Brookings Institution have released a post-election survey showing nearly 60 percent of Americans believe God has assigned America a “special role” in human history. Over 80 percent of white evangelicals believe in this special role for America, as do two thirds of minority Christians. Majorities of white Mainline Protestants and Catholics also agree. Two thirds of the religiously unaffiliated disbelieve in any special role for America.

Probably the surveyors were discomfited by the results, especially that the devotees of American exceptionalism were not confined to white evangelicals but were nearly as numerous among minority Christians, which presumably mostly means blacks and Hispanics. American exceptionalism essentially originated with the ancestors of Mainline Protestantism, who were America’s earliest European settlers and America’s primary religious pillars for most of our history. A half century of leftward drift by Mainline church elites unsurprisingly has dampened their confidence in exceptionalism, but most still adhere. Likewise for most Catholics. The survey frustratingly does not provide a detailed break-down, but almost certainly most religiously active Mainline Protestants and Catholics are more prone to American exceptionalism than the nominally affiliated.

Much and perhaps most of American exceptionalism originated with the Calvinist English religious dissenters who settled New England, the first wave of whom landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. With Thanksgiving, America celebrates those dissenters’ founding holiday. Later waves of Puritan immigrants conceived of their American adventure as an “errand in the wilderness.” And some metaphorically likened their new civilization to the Chosen People of the Old Testament, with special blessings but also special obligations, always under both God’s gracious care and sometimes severe judgment. Subsequent immigrants were not always as religiously devout. But the Puritan conception of America on a special mission from God that would benefit not just Americans but all peoples was reinforced by the heroic and spiritually animated struggle for American independence. Later immigrants, though far removed from the British Protestant tradition, still often comfortably embraced the notion of America as a sort of Promised Land, especially when compared to the travails of the old country. The Calvinist conception of American exceptionalism expanded to include other Protestants, Catholics and Jews.

PRRI’s chief, a seeming proponent of “progressive” Christianity, tried to put a naughty slant on his survey’s results about American exceptionalism “Americans who affirm the idea of ‘American exceptionalism,’ a belief that God has given the U.S. a special role in human history, have a distinctly more militaristic approach to foreign policy than those who do not affirm this idea,” Robert Jones ominously observed. “Those who believe in American exceptionalism are more likely to favor military strength over diplomacy as the best way to ensure peace, and they are also more likely to say torture can be justified than those who do not believe God has given the U.S. a special role.” In other words, American exceptionalists are potentially dangerous.

A columnist for the Evangelical Left Sojourners group was also disturbed by the survey. “As a Christian, I tend to believe that God has a ‘special role’ for every person and every nation,” noted Evan Trowbridge, a Sojournerscommunications staffer. “Too often, however, we confuse ‘special’ with ‘exceptional.’ If we agree that God has granted the United States a special role in history, then shouldn’t we also agree that God has granted Thailand and Kenya a special role? Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s what most of the respondents in the study had in mind…”

No, it almost certainly is not what most American exceptionalists have in mind. Even non-believers in American exceptionalism must grant that America’s story has an outsized influence on the world that exceeds Thailand’s and Kenya’s. Many on the Left fret that American exceptionalism is synonymous with superiority, imperialism, and exploitation. But the original Calvinist theorists, from the first Thanksgiving onward, envisioned American civilization having special duties, not special privileges. Failure to comply with these duties risked divine wrath. Later, more generic versions of American exceptionalism, at least at its best, cited America’s special role as exemplar of democracy and justice. American exceptionalists were never exclusively property owning, patriarchal, Anglo-Saxon Protestant white males. Social reformers of all races and both genders, especially religious ones, successfully cited exceptionalism to justify their appeals for a more just America.

The traditional spirit of Americanism exceptionalism was articulated by a Methodist bishop at World War I’s close: “We want universal humanity to share the freedom we enjoy — a freedom which we believe to be God-given and the birthright of every human being. But let us not become self-righteous and self-complacent. We too have sinned.” Citing “over-luxurious habits” and “pleasure-seeking,” the bishop still rhapsodized: “God is not through with us. He has a mighty task for us, which no other nation is able to perform,” entailing not “world domination” but “world leadership.” He wondered: “Are we prepared to assume this awful responsibility?” The answer depended on America’s “attitude toward the great moral issues, upon our attitude toward God and His cause.”

American exceptionalism is not traditionally a pretext for domination, as critics like to allege, but instead an “awful responsibility” intertwined with obligation towards God and the rest of the world. We should mull over that thought as we enjoy a holiday given to us by some of the first American exceptionalists.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.


Letter to the Editor View all comments (77) |

Booger| 11.24.10 @ 6:11AM

From the desk of D. Mehpistopheles, Attorney-at-Law

Dear President Obama,

I have considered your request for advice and assistance from my esteemed firm in implementing your agenda for the nation over which you currently preside. Having given due diligence and considerable research, I have found an area for improvement which I strongly recommend for immediate implementation. My firm has determined that the upcoming “holiday” your nation celebrates each year, namely “Thanksgiving” is a continuous and dangerous impediment to our mutual goals. Please allow me to explain why this is so and what you can do about it.

First of all, this matter of your people offering thanks to someone other than the state, in the person of you, its chief ruler, is harmful to our goals concerning your human notions of “freedom”. Each year the superstitious inhabitants of the “flyover” country, along with a sizable number of even your more enlightened coastal regions, offer “thanks” to some imagined “higher power” (whose name I will not mention, as a matter of good taste) for their “freedoms”. Thus this “holiday” of theirs becomes an annual reminder to them that they owe their freedom and ultimate allegiance to some power higher than yourself.

Mr. President, this is simply unacceptable. As I have explained previously, all “freedoms” which your pathetic species may enjoy are simply a social contract which you arrange with one another. The idea that your species could have intrinsic rights, granted by a higher power, is specious, and causes your people to rebel when you exercise your rightful authority over them, their families, their neighbors and their pathetic religious institutions. Thus you must with all haste put an end to this notion of “thanksgiving” to a “higher power” for “freedom” if you wish to be successful in fully implementing our ultimate agenda.

To add to the destructive nature of this nonsense, your people gather in social groups, known locally as “families”, to celebrate this “holiday”. As I have explained to you previously, these family units are a constant thorn to our agenda, especially when gathered together to express “thanksgiving” to some “higher power”. Please face the facts Mr. President, as long as your people are so attached to their “families” they will never be as completely dependent upon the Great State as they must be for your complete success. Hence, you must do all within your power to destroy this irritating and unpatriotic institution. I recommend that you hasten the institution of gay marriage, continue to advocate abortion on demand through the fourth trimester, repeal all child tax-credits and re-distribute wealth from two-parent “families” to those who make the wiser choice of having children without a “spouse”. Once your people have no families to gather with they will lose much of what they give “thanks” for and have no one to lean upon other than yourself.

I must also point out that this holiday is a direct affront to your great leadership, Mr. President. Each year these people of yours give “thanks” for those who foolishly and uselessly died for the “freedoms” your country so stupidly celebrates. When your people do this, they forget that YOU are the source of whatever freedoms they are allowed to enjoy. By remembering those who died on their behalf they become less attached to you and your greatness. They have less and less desire to rely upon the Great State and its bounty. You must do all within your power to stamp this out as quickly as possible. Remember, you have a limited amount of time in which to secure your success. The enemy is always waiting to snatch the hearts and minds of this people away from you, do not give him the chance.

Thus, I recommend that you immediately do away with this “Thanksgiving holiday”. Remind your people that they owe no debt of gratitude to their families, to the soldiers who died for their “freedoms” and especially not to some “higher power” whom they mistakenly believe to be the source of their freedom. I recommend that you institute a day of “Civic Gratitude” instead, since they will demand something in its place, a day in which they can list the great blessings that you have given them through the benevolent Federal Government. Let them have a day to thank YOU, Mr. President, for health care, for economic stimulus, for spreading the wealth around, and for all your other great works. Only when they have given up giving thanks to Our Common Enemy and put him out of their knowledge altogether can our success be final.

I will continue to consider this problem and offer new suggestions as they become available.

Your Patron, Friend and Admirer,

D. Mephistopheles, Attorney-at-Law

http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

Sean West Sculley| 11.24.10 @ 3:11PM

Wonderful!!!!
I am sure HE is doing all He can to ruin all WE are.
And if WE do the same to HIM, HE won't have a chance.
Happy Thanksgiving D. M.!

Ret. Marine| 11.24.10 @ 6:39AM

It is not up to the supposed "status of Man in his endeavors to right all wrongs" It is up to us (the Children of God) to insure a fair shake in all possible and socially acceptable, manners and ways, to ensure the most advantage to any and all who welcome and accept the responsibility of these duties as a free and individual peoples in the formation of means to this duty, our personal faith . We owe this to our creator and to our fellow man to insure the best end results while not offending God. It is not the exceptional ism that is exceptional, it is the opportunity to engage in this passage to determine an outcome while factoring in the lowest of all status of an individual (s). By the fruits of their labor thou shall know them.

Tim the Enchanter| 11.24.10 @ 3:18PM

"By their fruits you shall know them". Sure works in California!

David W.| 11.25.10 @ 9:39AM

Would this be because there are so many of them in California?

S.L. Toddard| 11.24.10 @ 8:31AM

[i]nearly 60 percent of Americans believe God has assigned America a "special role" in human history[/i]

This is literally blasphemy, not to mention idolatry. It is a good illustration of how the Americanist heresy has supplanted Christianity in the United States.

skip| 11.24.10 @ 12:55PM

God assigned a special role for the nation of Israel. Does this offend you too?

God discriminates; the Jews are His chosen people.

God is prejudiced; the saved go to heaven and the unsaved go to hell.

God is sexist; He did in fact create people with different plumbing, if that isn't sexist nothing is.

God is racist; He did in fact create people with different pigmentation, if that isn't racist nothing is.

American exceptionalism is self-evident. I know it in my Calvinist bones.

Michael Martin| 11.27.10 @ 12:57AM

Skip,
Hope you can pass your "Calvinist bones" DNA on to another generation. I'm attempting that in Korea as a missionary among the 2nd Infantry Division.
Stay gripped, brother ~ Michael Martin

skip| 12.1.10 @ 1:00PM

May The Lord bless you and keep you.

S.L. Toddard| 11.28.10 @ 10:25AM

God assigned a special role for the nation of Israel. Does this offend you too?

You mean Ancient Israel, I assume? No, that does not offend me. Where in the Bible does God assign such a role to the United States?

God discriminates; the Jews are His chosen people.

Not since the coming of Christ, if you are a Christian. Calvinism assigns eternal hellfire for the Jews, who deny Christ. Do you also deny Christ?

God is prejudiced; the saved go to heaven and the unsaved go to hell.

God is sexist; He did in fact create people with different plumbing, if that isn't sexist nothing is.

God is racist; He did in fact create people with different pigmentation, if that isn't racist nothing is.

All true, and all fine by me.

American exceptionalism is self-evident. I know it in my Calvinist bones.

What Biblical passages assign to the United States a "special role"? If God has assigned the United States a "special role", and the American people have elected Barack Obama to execute the duties attendant to that role, what is with these crazy Republicans trying to thwart God's will?

S.L. Toddard| 11.28.10 @ 11:18AM

God is prejudiced; the saved go to heaven and the unsaved go to hell.

By your own definition, God is prejudiced against the Jews and will send all Jews who deny the divinity of Christ - i.e. who are not "saved" - to eternal hellfire.

Do you agree with God?

S.L. Toddard| 11.29.10 @ 10:05AM

Anyone seen my Calvinist friends? Perhaps they were raptured.

skip| 12.1.10 @ 1:22PM

(p)S.(eudo) L.(ogic) Doddering:

re: United States of America-
Genesis 12:3 "...I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee..."
All nations, not just America, fall under the blessing or curse based on their relations with the nation of Israel; America's exceptionalism includes the wisdom to have been Israel's friend up until the current idiot liar-in-chief's current foreign policy.

re: salvation of jews-
Romans 11:34 "...who hath known the mind of the Lord..."
It is not up to man's thoughts and actions whether he is saved, it is up to the Savior, it is the Savior who judges; in typical human egocentric thinking the assumption is that man has control of the process, this is not supported by scripture.

re: salvation of jews-
John 14:6 "...No one comes to the Father except through me..."
Again, it is up to Christ and Christ alone. No where does scripture say jews are doomed, that is your human egocentric assumption; indigenous natives of some isolated island, never having heard of Christ, are not doomed because they haven't heard the Gospel, they, like all humans are judged by Christ and Christ alone, and I suspect their judgement by Christ will be decided by whether they obeyed the Holy Spirit within them, whether they they understood that concept or not.

You make assumptions and twist logic. Pseudo-intelligence and pseudo-honesty are in reality unintelligence and dishonesty. Good luck getting rid of the pseudo; I suspect it will not happen.

skip| 12.1.10 @ 3:13PM

Holy crap.

However lacking due to 'pseudobility' you are, and it is troubling, you are exponentially ahead of Tad R(epulsive).

Talk about lacking in intelligence and lacking in honesty.

Ted R. manages, in a mere 879, 584 words, to base his secular/enlightment theories on, when you wade through the drivel, Jefferson and Franklin.

The same Jefferson who wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." in the Declaration of Independence in 1776?

That Jefferson?

The same Franklin who said:

"I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth - That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without His Aid." in a speech to the Constitutional Convention in 1787?

That Franklin?

skip| 12.1.10 @ 6:23PM

Another particularly vile canard running through the 3,000,000,000,000 words of sanctimonious puke (wait, that number might be the annual debt of the idiot liar-in-chief) is the brutality of the religious via actions such as the inquisition, crusades, witch-burning and what not.

Yet completely disregarded is the fact that the secularly enlightened have killed many more, by a huge factor, than those 'in the name of god'.

Let us examine the plain truth, without benefit of supernatural assistance, of just a few examples, in the last century alone:

* abortion (over 50 million Americans, 'legally'
that is, in U.S. alone)

* hitler (over 20 million Germans and conquered
nationalities alone)

* stalin (over 62 million Soviets alone)

* mao (over 76 million Chinese alone)

That's over 208 million of their own respective people in the last century in just China, Russia, Germany, and the United States.

Ted R. is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty.

Ted R. is the epitome of a liberal in good standing.

You are right there with him S. L. Be proud.

Do the math.

Enlightenment my ass.

Ydnar| 11.24.10 @ 2:29PM

Not entirely sure I follow the "idolatry" direction of your statement since there is no mention of any American's worshipping either the country or its founding principles as being a religious deity or having power equal to or greater than God's (a requirement to prove your idolatry theory). I believe the article even mentioned that one third of non-believers actually accept America's role in the world. Interesting use of ignorance.

DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 6:16PM

What was the blasphemy? What was the idolatry? The biggest oddity is that the number wasn't 98%. Considerate of the poll's sponsor, the 'true' number is probably in the 85% range. A lesser oddity is the hypocrisy that the sponsors, who've enjoyed exceptionalism, are consciously 'pained' by the sentiment as a guide to policy and action.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 10:15AM

hey, Toddard,
nice three pointer into the punch-bowl!
(turd in the punchbowl that is)
Go re-read the parable of talents. "To whom much is given, much is required...."

Historian| 11.24.10 @ 10:21AM

While I don't know what G-d thinks this is what the Pilgrims and what American's have always thought. That Americans were chosen by G-d to do his work. Sometimes this led to Antinomeanism but by and large it was a force for good. The Pilgrims (and Jeffersonians) et al swa the US as the New Israel.

Louis Jenkins| 11.24.10 @ 10:37AM

The USA has been truly blessed among the nations. How much longer? Do not kid yourselves, there are many among us, including the President himself, that would like to see this stop and have tirelessly worked for such. We should imediately go to our knees and give thanks to the God who created us, and ask for forgiveness and, yes, that the blessings continue. If we foresake God, he will foresake us, which, in my opinion, is one reason why we have such a chief executive.

Grace| 11.24.10 @ 1:05PM

Absolutely! Once we completely take our eyes off of God this nation is toast. Many have replaced morality with Political Correctness and look what that has gotten us. This nation was founded on Christian Principals and God has blessed us because of it.

Shannon| 11.24.10 @ 11:58AM

Yes God has assigned a special role for America and guess what folks, we are failing. God wants America to be a free nation, a land of opportunity for the oppressed and down trodden to come to. God wants us to show the tyrants of the world what peace looks like. He doesn't want us to turn into the socialistic, marxist country that Obama is making it. Kick it in America, take back your country...stop Obama from taking us down the path he is taking us down. Check out www.takingonissues.com

Dave Williams| 11.24.10 @ 2:04PM

There. Is. No. God.
There is no EVIDENCE for any god.
That said, America is still the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see.
And no, morality doesn't have to be based on religion. I try to be a good person because it feels more right, and makes me feel better than being bad -- NOT because of fear of some punishment after death....not that there is any evidence for survival then, anyway.
A happy Thanksgiving to all AmSpec staff, writers, and readers.

Ydnar| 11.24.10 @ 2:36PM

WOW! Just wait until GOD takes one look at you and says,” There. Is. No. Dave. Willliams. There is no EVIDENCE for any Dave Willilams.” I can only imagine the look on your face... But wait, at that moment you won't exist, so I guess I won't get to see it.

skip| 11.24.10 @ 4:45PM

Christianity is either true or it is not true.

A person either believes Christianity or does not believe.

If Christianity is not true and a person believes, nothing bad happens.

If Christianity is not true and a person does not believe, nothing bad happens.

If Christianity is true and a person believes, nothing bad happens.

If Christianity is true and a person does not believe, there is, literally, hell to pay for all eternity.

But, gee, as long as you feel right and better...

Morality has to be based on religion in order to be absolute, or else it is based on some random human and is only relative, and pretty soon everyone will be subject to the person's morality who is most powerful, not right or wrong.

On the other hand, if there is no punishment after death, I can arbitrarily get rid of any unintelligent and dishonest idiot I choose, simply because his post is so completely insipid. That is tempting.

Ted R. | 11.24.10 @ 4:47PM

Thanks Dave, for speaking the plain truth. Our country is great not because of any supernaturally assigned role, but because of our humanist ideals (including the very un-Biblical "Pursuit of Happiness") and because of the many generations of Americans that have sacrificed to uphold them

DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 6:18PM

Chesterton: Without God, there would be no atheists.

David W.| 11.25.10 @ 10:58AM

Please explain to me why or how pursuing happiness is unbiblical. You may use any of the parts of the Bible including the 'books' that were deemed improper for inclusion, i.e. Apocrypha.

D. Singh| 11.25.10 @ 7:16AM

Dave William’s shouts:

‘There is no EVIDENCE for any god.’

Unless you tell us what kind of evidence you risk being misunderstood.

He asserts: ‘I try to be a good person because it feels more right, and makes me feel better than being bad…’ That statement would not be out of place on the lips of Hitler and Stalin. And in any event what is ‘good’?

He again resorts to shouting:

‘NOT because of fear of some punishment after death....not that there is any evidence for survival then, anyway.’

Again, unless you tell us what kind of evidence you risk being misunderstood.

And in any event I do hope you won’t criticise evil. After all doing evil may feel good to an evil man.

Despeville| 11.26.10 @ 5:11PM

D.Singh,

There is plenty of evidence for God, for Triune God of the Bible for there is no other. In fact so much so that that God asserts and confirms that none have any excuse whatsoever with a whine of "no evidence" read Romans 1, and especially : "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse." ~ Romans 1:20

By the way no amount of the evidence would make you believe any way and that is just another confirmation of above truth.

butterfly| 11.26.10 @ 1:59PM

How do you gauge your life Dave? Where do you think the rules for a good life come from? ie, the 10 Commandments. I feel sorry for you as you wander through the desert alone. There most certainly is a good, just and loving God and he is there for you. All you have to do is ask.

Tim the Enchanter| 11.24.10 @ 3:22PM

To Dave: a quote I remember (regarding miracles)-
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible."

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 5:39PM

Dave and Ted,
This thanksgiving, try to thank "God-Skyfather" for your good fortune to be born among Christians and Jews....in the good ole USA.

If you two wrote those words in most countries... they would just behead you or throw you in a gulag.
HMMMMM...there is some truth hiding there somewhere.
Search for it.

Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 6:12PM

No doubt they would Ken - in fact, not so long ago (in the grand scheme of things), faithful types like you did, as well -! Fortunately, we are indebted to earlier generations of humanists, and their inspiration by the Classics, for gradually training Christians in the ways of comsopolitan tolerance and Stoic self-control. (We call it the Enlightenment, by the way.)

The thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, slowly over the centuries domesticated Christianity, largely purging it of its more violent impulses (Crusades, witch burnings, etc. etc.). The secular civilization which those Europeans built is now being exported to the rest of the globe (with America today as the main agent of transmission). Never fear: we will domesticate all religious traditions - subordinating them to secular institutions - in time. We won, after all.

D. Singh| 11.25.10 @ 7:39AM

Ted R.

‘Fortunately, we are indebted to earlier generations of humanists, and their inspiration by the Classics, for gradually training Christians in the ways of comsopolitan tolerance and Stoic self-control. (We call it the Enlightenment, by the way.)’

It is from the so-called Enlightenment that the philosophies of communism and Nazism arose.

It was William Wilberforce, Christian, who lead the campaign against slavery.

It was Martin Luther King Jr, Christian, who led the civil rights campaign.

I am beginning to believe that it is you on the Left-liberal wing whom Darwin has made monkeys out of.

Ted R.| 11.25.10 @ 7:36PM

Nazism and Communism are modern political movements, true. But they are repudiations of, and they saw themselves as repudiations of, the (classical) Liberal State. They are atavistic forms of age-old authoritarian power structures. They are anathema to the Liberal Secular state - that is why they were determined to destroy us.

The totalitarian state has much more in common with the totalistic form of community that religion typically seeks to establish and maintain. Look closely at Nazi and Communistic institutions and ideology, and you'll find more in common with the Medieval Papacy or with the Umma of Islam, than you will with 18th century Holland. The strict hierarchical authority structures. The demonization of the Infidel, and the active and violent efforts to eliminate internal dissent. The focus on the Leader. The silly costumes and rituals. For those with historical perspective and eyes to see, it is plain that modern forms of totalitarian are in the end nothing but ersatz religions - religions taking the State as the highest authority.

As for Wilberforce and later Christian civil rights champions - my point is simply that their moral fervor was the result of a Christianity that had passed through the prism of the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment. Where were the Christian denunciations of slavery, of rapine and pillage in the name of Christ, in the almost 20 centuries before Wilberforce? How can any but the deluded deny that it was the Enlightenment that taught Christians to live up to the true meaning of their creed?

D. Singh| 11.25.10 @ 8:05AM

Ted R.

'The thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, slowly over the centuries domesticated Christianity...'

Is this what you mean?

‘I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.’

David Hume’s essay ‘Of National Character’

Ted R.| 11.25.10 @ 7:19PM

You could just as easily have quoted Jefferson. In contrast to Hume, the author of the Declaration not only had opinions which are today unfashionable, he also held human beings as property. But you are missing the forest for the trees. These men were essential in building the (classical) Liberal National worldview so dear to us in the West.

Our moral views would in time better fulfill the civic and secular ideals articulated by these Enlightenment figures. If you want to attack the Enlightenment and the secular state, there is no need to indulge in anachronism - simply ally yourself with Al Qaeda.

D. Singh| 11.26.10 @ 3:17AM

Sir

Ted R. wrote: ‘You could just as easily have quoted Jefferson’. The fact is I didn’t. I quoted the eminent atheist philosopher David Hume from the so-called Scottish Enlightenment in response to his post where he wrote:

‘Fortunately, we are indebted to earlier generations of humanists, and their inspiration by the Classics, for gradually training Christians in the ways of comsopolitan tolerance and Stoic self-control. (We call it the Enlightenment, by the way.)’

The point about his humanism is that it did give rise to the philosophies of Communism and Nazism – both trace their roots back to Hegel and further back to Rousseau: Ted R’s beloved Enlightenment philosophers. And that is why I believe Ted R’s Left-liberal values are in the final analysis racist.

He claims triumphantly that humanism and (or) secularism have won. He is clearly misguided.

Nazism, a product of Enlightenment values, was defeated by the Allies during World War II.

Communism, a product of Enlightenment values, was defeated by the foreign policies of Reagan and Thatcher.

He makes a suggestion to me: ‘If you want to attack the Enlightenment and the secular state, there is no need to indulge in anachronism - simply ally yourself with Al Qaeda.’ As I have argued above it is his Left-liberal world-view that has made it possible for such ideologies to gain confidence. These groups know that the West has lost confidence in its historic world-view that gave rise to it. People like Ted R. create the intellectual and then physical vacuum for such ideologies to fill the public space vacated by Judaeo-Christian values.

It is so sad to see someone such as Ted R. who has proclaimed his university education in an out, loud and proud manner unable to advance a satisfying defence of his subtle attack on American values.

Ted R.| 11.27.10 @ 10:38AM

The totalitarian political programmes of the 20th century are modern movements/ political developments; in the sense that they are modern, they are part of the legacy of the turn to Modernity that marked the end of the traditional Christian civilization of Europe in the 16th century. You don't get Fascism - any more than you get Jeffersonian Democracy - with the Medieval anthropology and institutions.

It is simply a fact that for the great majority of human history, large-scale societies were governed by authoritarian means, with religion as a crucial part of the ideology of rule. The crucial innovation of Modernity, begun by some Christian theologians in the late Middle Ages but really formally introduced by Hobbes, was to sunder political power and religious authority. That set the stage for the modern state, both the Democratic and the Totalitarian versions.

Democracies learned the virtue of keeping para-political forces (religions) from official power. With church and state not infecting each other (but each subtly influenced by attitudes and dispositions fostered by the other), both thrived and became more (classically) Liberal. Religious authorities stopped their inquisitions; political authorities, influenced by a Christianity that had been leavened by Renaissance and Enlightenment humanism, began to produce ideas favoring more equality and compassion for the disadvantaged.

But we must always respect the power of inertial forces in history. Authoritarianism was the way that political power was configured, for most of human history, all over the globe. There is a sense in which the West lucked into democratic institutions and habits of mind; it took centuries for those to build up.

It is no surprise that as the West became more (classically) Liberal, it began to grow richer and more powerful. This meant that the state became more powerful, too. A strong state is not itself a bad thing - you need one, first and foremost, if you're going to have the rule of Law.

But it could happen, and it did, that the modern instruments of state power would pass into the hands of men and of societies which looked back to the older, authoritarian style of political organization, instead of democracy. Authoritarian power, in order to be able to maintain itself, typically has to claim the mantle of some sacred mandate to rule. With traditional religious authority sidelined and no longer able to fulfill this role, ultra-nationalist ideologies - what by all appearances have the form of secular religions - sprang up to fill the void.

Totalitarianism does have some proximate roots in the thought of certain Modern thinkers, like Hegel and Rousseau. But it should be pointed out that these men (particularly Rousseau - Hegel gets a bad rap) were Romantics, CRITICS of the Enlightenment. It is not surprising that in later days, para-religious movements like Fascism and Communism would draw on their critiques to attack the Liberal state.

At any rate, Liberalism has had its showdown with the atavistic authoritarian forces of the modern total state; and yes, we won, hands down. You might like the form that the Liberal state takes in other parts of the world - in Canada or Germany, for example. But you would be sadly naive to think that the modern Democratic Socialist state bears ANY resemblance to a statist regime like Mousollini's Italy (let alone Stalin's Russia).

Ted R.| 11.27.10 @ 11:06AM

So humanism/secularism has indeed won against Authoritarianism, be it against its ancient or against its atavistic forms.

Yet - laughably - you suggest that the humanistic and Enlightenment worldview that I am espousing makes it possible for the Ancien Regime to "gain confidence."

Like most conservatives, you reveal yourself as not truly understanding and appreciating what the open, Liberal society entails. It entails vigorous disagreement over what freedom for the individual really means. The scope that the conservative will allow for legitimate disagreement is so narrow, that you insist that those who do not agree with you, in fact render aid and comfort to our common enemy. This is as insidious as it is ignorant.

Liberals will vigorously contest the homo economicus anthropology that conservatives love to bandy about; and merely because totalitarian thinkers will, in a different ideological context, sometimes echo these critiques, you quickly try to tar us with that association. This is as transparently self-serving as it is cynical. You fool only yourselves with such talk.

Men like Hume contributed in critical way to the building up of the world that you enjoy today, with all its comforts and freedoms. Yes, he held racist views; but it is utterly anachronistic to attack him with the liberal values which, in their present-day form, men like him made possible. When I suggested you ally yourself with Al Qaeda, I was being (mostly) rhetorical. My point is that if you REALLY are going to attack Hume (and Smith, and Jefferson, and Paine, etc. - all of whom probably held racist views), you will find yourself in some very unwholesome company.

How is it, that you cannot see that our form of society is not weakened by our disagreement? In an authoritarian society, disagreement IS weakness, and DOES abet the enemy. In our form of life, however, it is a symptom of strength. Our enemies think otherwise, but they are wrong and have been proven wrong. So why then, DO you find purchase on THEIR point of view?

D. Singh| 11.26.10 @ 4:07AM

Sir

If Ted R.’s values can be taken as symptomatic of Left-liberalism in this country then they are certainly worth studying – so that we on the Right-of-centre may learn how to challenge them.

Let me take this as an example from Ted R.

‘Our moral views would in time better fulfill the civic and secular ideals articulated by these Enlightenment figures. If you want to attack the Enlightenment and the secular state, there is no need to indulge in anachronism - simply ally yourself with Al Qaeda’.

Setting the aside his misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘anachronism’ that quotation demonstrates how subtly the Left-liberal is undermining the past, present and future of America. His invitation to me to ally myself with a heinous group is not only calculated to undermine my Judaeo-Christian values by associating them in the readers’ mind with such a group but it is also a subtle attempt to associate all Jews and Christians in America with the ideals of such a group. In other words, he is trying to establish Judaeo-Christian values as the moral equivalent of the values held by such groups.

He may be pleased with that as it is in accord with the values of his atheism. But the thematic logic of his attempt does not stop there. It is in fact a repudiation of the very foundations of American life. It repudiates the Judaeo-Christian values in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United Sates. In his previous posts he has said that the founding Fathers used God as a metaphor in those documents. That should immediately alert the reader that he is using the same techniques as the Communists and the Nazis did. He is attempting to not only revise American history to a version that would be in disaccord with the historical record but he is also attempting to silence the voices of the founding Fathers and imputing to them that which they plainly did not mean.

By silencing their voices and ‘making’ them speak lies in the school history text-book, he blinds our sons and daughters to the truth and poisons the souls of those yet to be born.

Ted R.| 11.27.10 @ 11:53AM

It is obvious that, in the formal political sense, Judeo-Christian values do no influence public life anymore. There are no more inquisitions, no more suffocating social pressure to conform to inherited ways of thought, no more religious tests for public office (so long as you're not an atheist, anyway), no sort of formal religious persecution at all. All these, however, were for centuries central to the "Judeo-Christian values" that everyone - lay, church, nobility - espoused. Damn right, that we are better off with such "traditional values."

But, in another sense, one just as obvious, the Judeo-Christian ethic has triumphed. It was Enlightenment humanism, fed in a complicated way by the streams of Classical thought and by Christianity (which ITSELF was significatly influenced by Classical thought), which brought out and secularized the most redeeming aspects of Christian teaching - and has subsequently been trasmitting them to the world. You don't need to be Christian, anymore, to place a high value on individual human life, on the needs of the weak and vulnerable.

You go on to say that: "He may be pleased with that as it is in accord with the values of his atheism. But the thematic logic of his attempt does not stop there. It is in fact a repudiation of the very foundations of American life."

I read this, and honestly, I could exchange just one part - 'Islamic life' for "American life" - and what you have written could have easily been said by one of the members of the Islamic Brotherhood. You see, what you fail to grasp, is that the technical atheism of the Liberal, Secular state - its withdrawing from association with religious authority - is absolutely essential for freedom of conscience. The fact is, that freedom of conscience requires a tacit atheism in politics. This is a revolutionary idea - it is STILL a revolutionary idea, three centuries after it was introduced. To most people still - and certainly to people before modern times - political and religious authority were inextricable. You are simply in thrall to an age-old pattern of thought, Mr. Singh.

Your mistake comes out again in how you and most other conservatives read the significance of the Founding. The fact is that the Framers' views on Christianity and religion existed along a continuum. Some were frankly evangelical, like John Jay. Many were Christian, but were interested to draw the poison caused confessional rivalry, by making the central government officially netural on matters of religion. And some held views which certainly disqualified them as Christians - Jefferson and Franklin in particular.
There is a reason why the Framers used honorifics to refer to God; very rarely did they used the word God - instead they spoke of 'Deity,' 'Almighty Arhitect' - and 'Creator.' At least a few of the Framers were Deists - they were not Christians, and they were not comfortable with talking about deity in terms of the Christian confession.

You probably suspect that Deism is but a step away from atheism. On that, I have to say that I agree. And given that fact, I think it's perfectly legitimate for us, in the present day, to give honorifics like "Creator" a purely metaphorical interpretation. That of course contradicts the views of many of the Framers - but that does not matter. The atheist logic of the the Secular state they established points history in the direction of atheism, no matter what they themselves intended.

Unlike you, I do not take the views of my forbears as formative for my own. Hume (like most of his contemporaries) held racist views; that hardly means that I, as an admirer of Hume, am incumbent to agree with him. Unlike conservatives, liberals are not bound to adopt wholesale every part of the legacy of those to whom we are indebted. If you say that it is this an idea which is a "subtle attack on American values," "blinding our sons and daughters to the truth," all I can say is: you make your best case for the truth for the kids, and I'll make mine. We'll see who they decide in favor of.

Alaskan| 11.28.10 @ 11:28AM

Teddy, still bloviating your commie, atheistic views unfounded in reality. Get a job.

Ted R.| 11.28.10 @ 8:21PM

Cuts me to the quick, "alaskan." Not my problem that you have a 40 second attention span.

Alaskan| 11.28.10 @ 10:15PM

Teddy, 40 seconds is 35 seconds more than I need to read your rants. You are predictable and tiresome. You do not deny you do not have a job.

Ted R.| 11.28.10 @ 10:52PM

I have not denied it, true. Is a cheap shot is the best you can do to defend your beliefs?

Alaskan| 11.29.10 @ 10:57AM

Ted, not meant as a cheap shot, meant as a statement of fact. You take is as a cheap shot, which is a good sign because maybe you do want to work. If you do not work and pay taxes, then you do not understand the sacrifices people make who work and do pay taxes. Since you admit you do not work, please tell us 1) are you a socialist? 2) who pays your bills? what is the source of your "income?"
Enough till tonite, have to return to work.

D. Singh| 11.29.10 @ 4:03AM

Sir

Ted R. continually asserts that Christianity was shaped by Enlightenment humanism. That assertion is misleading as the Enlightenment did not begin until about 1800 years after Christ’s execution.

He makes another bald assertion without historical or literary proof: he claims that Christianity was influenced by Classical thought. But he cannot explain how these processes worked as he claims that Enlightenment humanism and Classical thought were ‘fed’ into Christianity in a ‘complicated way’; a way, presumably, which is only accessible for investigation to him alone and not his audience to whom it remains a mystery.

This may be because he is going to have difficulty in justifying Plato’s guardians: a ruling elite which directs society. A situation that we are remarkably familiar with today: the Left-liberal ruling class. That is a short step away from fascism.

He says: ‘You don’t need to be a Christian, anymore, to place a high value on individual human life, on the needs of the weak and vulnerable’. But he fails to explain why at one point in time he believes that one had to be a Christian ‘to place a high value on individual human life’. It may well be that he does not want me to dwell to much on his clumsy observation for fear that I may ask him to explain if Left-liberals demonstrate that they place a high value on human life through supporting the practise of abortion.

He then blathers on about ‘freedom of conscience’ knowing full well that the sub-branches of humanism, Nazism and Communism have committed mass murder on an industrial scale calculated in the millions.

He bizarrely gets excited by one of his points (another symptom of self-congratulation?): ‘The fact is, that freedom of conscience requires a tacit atheism in politics’ and he says this is ‘still a revolutionary idea’. It has long been accepted that any world-view in politics requires as a necessary pre-condition freedom of conscience. It is unclear why he seems to be excited that atheism should have freedom of conscience.

He then retreats back into his favourite type of historical revisionism – a favourite pastime of the Critical Marxist: the Framers did not mean God when they described Him as Creator.

The Framers knew, as modern philosophers accept, there are only two grounds for bestowing rights: revelation or humanism. We have seen from a reading of history the terror and destruction that the latter has caused.

He quotes me: ‘He may be pleased with that as it is in accord with the values of his atheism. But the thematic logic of his attempt does not stop there. It is in fact a repudiation of the very foundations of American life’.

He says in reply: ‘I read this, and honestly, I could exchange just one part - 'Islamic life' for "American life" - and what you have written could have easily been said by one of the members of the Islamic Brotherhood’.

Well then let me put it in the way he sees my conclusion:

‘Ted R. may be pleased with that as it is in accord with the values of his atheism. But the thematic logic of his attempt does not stop there. It is in fact a repudiation of the very foundations of Islamic life’.

What he has done is exchange American life for Islamic life. That is unequivocally an anti-American position to hold.

Ted R.| 11.29.10 @ 8:56AM

Certainly Christianity was influenced, heavily, by Renaissance and Enlightenment humanism. Renaissance humanism placed very high value on the dignity of the individual and the powers of the individual, something that was not present in Christianity. Christian civilization prior to Modern times concerned the individual (and the equality of individuals) primarily only as the subject of the last judgement. Enlightenment humanism emphasized the need for the political autonomy of individuals, and of their ability to consciously improve the material conditions of life through the use of reason. These ideals were not to be found in earlier Christian civilization, but Christian scripture could be (selectively) used to lend support to them. In this way, through feedback effects Christian moral teaching was - gradually - made over into a force for liberty.

When I speak of the Classical, Greco-Roman legacy to (classical) Liberalism, it is naive of you to think that I am saying that Modern Europeans took without remainder from what the ancients thought and said. Only ignorance of history could make you think that the Enlightenment humanists wanted to set up Plato's Republic.

The historical fact is that the worldview that first placed a high value on the dignity, creativity, and freedom of individuals, was that of the civilization of early Modern Europe. Christianity was a necessary component in the development of this worldview, but it was not sufficient. It required the influence of the Classicals, and the peculiarities of European history itself. The hybrid civilization that resulted was the first in world history to place a high value (or at least, a high value, relative to other civilizations) on individual human life. Since the peoples of Modern Europe were overwhelmingly Christian (albeit of many different confessions), it so happened that to be Christian, was to give greater scope to humanist ideals than any contemporary civilization did.

Not all Left-Liberals support abortion rights. I do not. Nevertheless, at the very heart of (classical)Liberalism, what is one of the hallmarks of Western civilization, is the social, political, intellectual, and economic emancipation of women. Women's ability to control the reproductive cycle is crucial to women's independence. It is on the ground of the autonomy of the individual - the physical autonomy of the adult female, in this instance - that pro-choice advocates will say that abortion rights are essential to Modern liberal humanism. The disagreements we can have with this position are obvious enough; but it is simply self-delusion to say that from the perspective of many women, a right to abortion is indispensable for their effective liberty. (cont.)

Ted R.| 11.29.10 @ 9:50AM

Freedom of conscience certainly is at the heart of the (classical) Liberal worldview. I don't know what you're blathering about when you mention totalitarianism in this connection - pre-Modern Christian civilization disregarded freedom of conscience every bit as much as totalitarianism did. You continue to assert that Left-liberalism is essentially totalitarian, but it is not true and I have explained why. You're going to have to defend your knee-jerk pet belief against my argument, if you want to continue to make it.

If you accept that freedom of conscience is essential to productive and peaceful politics, then you must accept that the public square is technically an atheist space. We can bring whatever ideas of our own into the square, if and only if the square ITSELF doesn't pre-judge the ultimate truth of ANY of them - only, hence, if it is technically atheist.

You claim that much terror and waste of life have resulted from humanism. But history did not have to wait for Modern humanism to feature terror and waste of life. Peoples from all over the world - hardly excluding Christian peoples! - have indulged the human propensity to dominate others and engage in wanton destruction. That's a propensity that's sunk down deep in our nature, Mr. Singh. As I have said, some Modern men and modern societies have used the LANGUAGE of left-liberalism to promote their schemes; but there was nothing truly Left-liberal about the way those societies were organized. The terrible destructiveness of modern authoritarian regimes, in contrast to past ones, is almost entirely (if not entirely) due to technological advancements. There is every reason to suppose, for example, that if Pope Innocent III had the railway, phone lines and automatic weapons, his Crusade against Cathar France would have been genocidal in proportions. To think otherwise is simply to be naive about human nature.

As regards the Framers: many of them, of course, did think of the Christian God when they used the honorifics; but not a few did not - that is historical fact. To obviate any tensions over this matter, they all felt it suitable to use the honorifics.

I do not deny that the Judeo-Christian ethic is a vital part of the ideological context of our founding documents. I do think - for reasons that I have attested to - that they represent a Christianity transformed by Enlightenment humanism. And indeed, the FACT that some of the Framers (including some of the most important) were Deists, not Christians, is a key evidence of this.

At the heart of our civic life is freedom of conscience, PERIOD - not freedom of 'Christian' conscience. This was why the term 'God' was taken OUT of the document, when the Articles of Confederation were rewritten (and oh man did the evangelicals throw a fit about THAT).

This freedom of conscience was derived from the humanistic tradition; and the technical atheism which backs it, is what is essential to a society free of Sharia. To deny THIS, is unequivocally anti-American.

D. Singh| 11.30.10 @ 5:36AM

Sir

I see that Ted R. has reverted to Marxian style revisionism. He begins his latest post with sweeping generalisations without the support of authority:

‘Certainly Christianity was influenced, heavily, by Renaissance and Enlightenment humanism’.

But he does not state how it was heavily influenced. Thus, his generalisation remains a bald assertion.

He states:

‘Renaissance humanism placed very high value on the dignity of the individual and the powers of the individual, something that was not present in Christianity’.

That of course is correct. It was Nietzschean philosophy that was a product of the humanism of the Enlightenment that placed not only Man at the centre of the universe but enthroned him as ‘superman’ – an ideal exploited by the Nazis who manufactured the holocaust. The same theme of the ‘superman’ is also evident in Soviet art from the First and Second World Wars. I presume that is what he means by humanism placing a high value on the dignity and powers of the individual. Of course he may deny that – but then he would depart from the company of our respected historians.

He states without the support of authority:

‘Christian civilization prior to Modern times concerned the individual (and the equality of individuals) primarily only as the subject of the last judgement’.

I take it that he does not know about or ignores Judaeo-Christian practices such as ‘fellowship’, ‘community’ and ‘communion’ underpinned by ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’. In any event such historical documents as Magna Carta (1215) drafted prior to the Renaissance brought men as equals before the eyes of the law. Copies of Magna Carta and Sir Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke’s The Institutes were brought by the English settlers to the Americas as foundations for American law. They are still cited in US legal cases today influencing American life.

He continues with his now familiar undergraduate themes by ignoring Judaeo-Christian scientists who gave birth to the scientific and industrial revolutions:

‘Enlightenment humanism emphasized the need for the political autonomy of individuals, and of their ability to consciously improve the material conditions of life through the use of reason’.

It was Christians who established hospitals, schools and universities as the histories of Cambridge, Oxford, Yale and Harvard demonstrate.

His reading of history leaves much to be desired by the trained eye:
‘These ideals were not to be found in earlier Christian civilization, but Christian scripture could be (selectively) used to lend support to them. In this way, through feedback effects Christian moral teaching was - gradually - made over into a force for liberty’.

The Enlightenment occurred in the 18th century. In the previous century the English Civil War where the parliamentary forces led by the Judaeo-Christian Lord Oliver Cromwell triumphed – who set the standards for liberty, security and freedom. It was their sons and daughters who emigrated to America bringing with them Puritan (not Enlightenment) values.

The reason why Christianity and not humanism or Islam is a force for democracy is because it holds a concept which is not found in those ideologies: give to God what belongs to God and give to the State what belongs to the State. That makes Judaeo-Christianity a force for freedom the world over.

His ignorance is breath-taking:

‘Only ignorance of history could make you think that the Enlightenment humanists wanted to set up Plato's Republic’.

At the risk of repetition the end product of Enlightenment thought murdered six million in the Nazi holocaust and sent twenty million soviet citizens to the Gulag.

What he lacks in knowledge he increasingly makes up for in demonstrating ignorance:

‘The historical fact is that the worldview that first placed a high value on the dignity, creativity, and freedom of individuals, was that of the civilization of early Modern Europe’.

Setting aside the fact that the ancient Jews had already been given their Ten Commandments (an embryonic constitution), a judiciary, built their great palaces, temples and cities whilst Europe was living in mud huts: ‘Enlightenment Europe’ gave birth to totalitarian philosophies – which our fathers fought to vanquish. And we may have to do that once more.

He then contradicts his world-view by not supporting abortion and in the next breath he presents the arguments for killing defenceless children.

‘Not all Left-Liberals support abortion rights. I do not. Nevertheless, at the very heart of (classical)Liberalism, what is one of the hallmarks of Western civilization, is the social, political, intellectual, and economic emancipation of women. Women's ability to control the reproductive cycle is crucial to women's independence. It is on the ground of the autonomy of the individual - the physical autonomy of the adult female, in this instance - that pro-choice advocates will say that abortion rights are essential to Modern liberal humanism’.

This segment of the Left-liberal world-view is worthy of analysis. It trumps ‘the right to life’ of the unborn with the sentimentality of the ‘quality of life’ ethic of the woman. It does this by excluding from consideration the practice of chastity before marriage. In essence he is saying that killing of some human beings is essential to the emancipation of other human beings in a ‘civilised’ society.

He asks me if I accept something.

I shall reply.

‘If you accept that freedom of conscience is essential to productive and peaceful politics, then you must accept that the public square is technically an atheist space’.

I do not accept that freedom of conscience ‘is essential to productive and peaceful politics’.

Freedom of conscience is essential to all politics.

That includes ‘destructive’ politics.

It is the exercise of freedom of conscience that often leads to the execution chamber. It was freedom of conscience that put our Jesus Christ in the dock as a defendant leading to Him being nailed on a cross. Truth was put on the scaffold by the pragmatic politicians.

Freedom of conscience for the Judaeo-Christian leads not only to persecution by the State but also to rebellion against the State. That is because we believe that God authorises the institution of the State to do good and punish the bad; to protect and promulgate freedom, security and liberty. Its first duty is indeed to protect its citizens. When it departs from its God-ordained remit then it is the Judaeo-Christian’s duty to confront it.

Has your reading of the First and Second (American War of Independence) English Civil Wars taught you nothing except undergraduate moral platitudes?

Ted R.| 11.30.10 @ 2:16PM

Greco-Roman thought was influencing European political thought even before the Renaissance, actually - most obviously in the case of Aquinas, whose theories of natural law, and of the relationship between the state and the people borrowed heavily from Aristotle.

Those theories were vital background for early Modern political theorists, even as those theorists often moved beyond such pre-Modern Christian political beliefs such as the "Divine Right" of kings. Men like Hobbes and Machiavelli, and Spinoza and Locke after them, recognized that the state was not a divine dispensation but a wholly human institution, set up by a quasi (if not an actual historical) Social Contract. These were the men who laid the theoretical foundations of Secularism; each of these men were steeped in Renaissance humanism; and if you want to blame the atrocities of 20th century totalitarianism on humanism, you have to begin with them, rather than (oh so predictably) trying to lay the blame on Nietzsche.

Christianity was solidly established in Europe for around a thousand years before the Modern period. It served as a civilizing agent to the native Germanic peoples of Northern Europe, i.e. it brought literacy and artistic innovations, but there is no reason to suppose that it improved much the moral attitudes of Europeans. The evils and injustices of serfdom, for example, were never condemned. Freedom of conscience was suppressed with much more vigor in Christian Europe than in Islamic Spain.

In fact, when identifying salient changes in European moral attitudes, it is difficult to differentitate the effect of greater Biblical literacy, and greater literacy in general, which introduced readers to Muslim-inspired Troubador Romances as well as the Classics.

Much of official modern Christianity (Catholic and Protestant alike), however, is on the record as being against the humanist vision of man and society.

In the Modern period, just as in the Medieval period, it was accidents of history, rather than anything essential to Christianity - that made Christianity amenable to the ideal of the freedom of conscience. Jesus of Nazareth's famous remark about "rendering unto Ceasar" itself must be seen in its political-cultural milieu. Unlike the Zealots, he did not agitate for Israel's independence as a religious nation-state. In the context of the prevailing Roman power, his ethic was politically quietist like many a Hellenistic philosopher's was in the Hellenistic period before Rome.

Throughout the Medieval period, churchmen tried to aggrandize political power for themselves whenever and wherever they could; either by the influence they exercised at court, or directly as powerful abbots and landlords. Most obviously, the Medieval papacy, at the height of its ambitions, had pretensions of making all of the European peoples vassals of the Papal States. We really sh0uld hardly be surprised by this, though - it is a pattern we see again and again throughout history: sacred and temporal authority are melded together, each serving to reinforce the other. Secularism was Modernity's master idea, because it brought an end to this accomodation and to its decidedly illiberal legacy. (cont.)

Ted R.| 11.30.10 @ 3:02PM

Eventually the rulers of the European states were able to reduce the independence of the Church; but after centuries of separation, they could not (as the Christian Byzantine emperors, in contrast, did) make themselves into sacred authorities. Not that there weren't attempts - in the English Reformation, most notably. And speaking of the Reformation, with it there was a backlash against humanism, and the first attempts at the creation of the total state in the West - Calvin's Geneva and Cromwell's England. The illiberalism of these states, and their anti-humanism, is no coincidence. It surprises me not in the least that you would speak fondly of Cromwell's Christian dictatorship, Mr. Singh.

The deep illiberalism of Protestant Christianity is most manifest in the Puritan communities that left England for America. Escaping persecution themselves, when they had control of their own communities, they proceeded themselves to practice it. These communities were not ones which upheld the dignity, creativity, and freedom of conscience of individuals. The Enlightenment would not take place in Christian America, but in a gradually secularizing Europe.

Europeans had to learn the hard way the virtues of freedom of conscience, and of tolerance for difference. Prior to the Enlightenment, Europe was embroiled in religious wars. These conflicts discredited religious certainties in general, and further made Christian modes of thought liable to influences coming from secular thinkers. The writings of Erasmus and Milton are worth referencing here, as well as the legacy of Shakespeare's more skeptical reflections.

But it was Enlightenment humanists who led the way in reforming Christian social attitudes, into the form that we recognize today. Modern Christian views of individual rights, and even of the role of the free market, were influenced by thinkers (many of whom themselves, like Diderot and Voltaire, were nominal Christians at best) who were steeped in a Classical education. (cont.)

Ted R. | 11.30.10 @ 3:39PM

It is a half-truth at best to claim, as you do, that "‘Enlightenment Europe’ gave birth to totalitarian philosophies." I have already explained, in an earlier post, how modern tyranny developed; tyranny forms no part of the essential Enlightenment ethos. If you think otherwise, it is incumbent on you address the argument I've made - not merely dismiss it without evidence.

And your claim that "Freedom of conscience is essential to all politics" is either trivially true, or simply false. If by politics you mean the peaceful means of resolving conflicts by stipulated rules, negotiation, and compromise, then you are right - and you have not contradicted anything I have said. If by "politics" you mean the resolution of conflicts by whatever means, including coercive force, then it is (obviously) false to claim that a free conscience can always play a role in such conflicts. One cannot be free while one is being subject to coercive force.

It is simply pernicious to lodge the State's legitimacy with a so-called "God." We know this, because human beings have been doing that for time immemorial, with results that are inimical to freedom. The first, God-given, duty of the state, you say, is "to protect its citizens." Really, now? Time and time again, individuals and minority populations have been put on the rack, for the "protection of the citizens," and in nothing less than the name of God. And who decides, who speaks for God?? Are you that ignorant of history, Mr. Singh, that you still have not learned such an elementary lesson?

If you are interested in real politics, and not simply coercion (though with your warm remarks about Cromwell you sound like a sympathizer of the religious total state), then the state, in order to secure freedom of conscience, must itself be neutral, silent, on all matters of ultimate existential commitment that its constituent members might harbor. The state itself is bound instead by Constitutional procedures for channelling conflict towards peaceful resolutions. These procedures do not need divine sanction, and it is playing with fire to say that they have it.

You clearly are operating with a Christianized view of Western history, Mr. Singh. Such a providential view of history distorts what it does not obscure, and lays the ideological ground for political violence.

D. Singh| 12.1.10 @ 5:09AM

Sir

There is something currently happening in Britain that will shed light on the fundamental differences between mine and Ted R.’s views on the source of rights.

The present Coalition government is seeking to pass a Sovereignty Act that states in statute form the supremacy of Parliament.

The British Constitution holds Given that no parliament can bind its successor.

This means that a new parliament can repeal a Sovereignty Act – and we would no longer remain a sovereign nation-state.

The debate between us boils down to this, the very point that triggered it: either inalienable rights are given to us by our Creator or they are given to us by the State.

If it is the latter, then they are a gift from the State and therefore they can be abolished by the State.

In essence, and on the individual plane, the humanists conjure up ‘rights’. For from where else could they get from? And equally they could make them disappear on Friday evening: totalitarianism.

Ted R. says that my view of history ‘lays the ideological ground for political violence’. Setting aside the fact that his world-view, humanism, is already applying violence to the unborn – I am flattered to find myself in the same company as the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and President Lincoln.

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

‘Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are insufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security’.

The Declaration of Independence

‘This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it’.

President Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 6:50PM

Ted R.
Forgive me. I'm still getting my jaw off the floor.

Are you the proverbial dentist who does root canals via the anus?
Are you genuinely that ignorant?

What have you "won"?
You know in baseball, a team gets twenty-seven outs. uh 3 times 9.
Often my kids would ask me: "Coach, who is winning?"
I would always tell the words to the effect..."we are. I have five runs in my back pocket."

...They would laugh, and then go win the game.

Ted, I honestly believe we are only in the first inning in this life...and then there is eternity.
(twenty-four more outs if you will.)
....except according to you the game is already over after one inning.
I'm 65.
I have already won more than you will ever win.
(heh, and I have lost more than you will ever see.)

I have buried some folks. I have held the hands of dying friends. People like you break my heart. You sound like the 5 year olds I have comforted. They just don't quite get "death" yet.
However stupid Christians can be...Christ showed us the way. "Love your neighbor as yourself".
So,
I love yah, and pray for you to have a good inning...and game.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 6:50PM

Ted R.
Forgive me. I'm still getting my jaw off the floor.

Are you the proverbial dentist who does root canals via the anus?
Are you genuinely that ignorant?

What have you "won"?
You know in baseball, a team gets twenty-seven outs. uh 3 times 9.
Often my kids would ask me: "Coach, who is winning?"
I would always tell the words to the effect..."we are. I have five runs in my back pocket."

...They would laugh, and then go win the game.

Ted, I honestly believe we are only in the first inning in this life...and then there is eternity.
(twenty-four more outs if you will.)
....except according to you the game is already over after one inning.
I'm 65.
I have already won more than you will ever win.
(heh, and I have lost more than you will ever see.)

I have buried some folks. I have held the hands of dying friends. People like you break my heart. You sound like the 5 year olds I have comforted. They just don't quite get "death" yet.
However stupid Christians can be...Christ showed us the way. "Love your neighbor as yourself".
So,
I love yah, and pray for you to have a good inning...and game.

Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 7:51PM

It's a wide world, Old Texan. There's more ways to a fulfilling life than getting the toys. Though as the Good Lord constituted you, that's probably hard for you to understand.

I'm happy for you, that you've had a good run so far, with few regrets. It matters all the more, Ken, because I honestly believe that there is indeed an eternity after our hour on this stage.

I've buried some friends, too. Why does it sound like you're boasting about it? If you really believe you're going to see them again, I think it's You who just doesn't quite get death, yet.

I guess I was speaking over your head when I said that "We won." The "We" is secular, Liberal (whether you come at it from the Right or Left) civilization. And WE have most certainly won...

So, happy Thanksgiving. You sure have a lot to be thankful for. You probably don't appreciate how lucky you are - it's not usually in the constitution of the strivers to see that. Anyway, reflect and enjoy the memories.

D. Singh| 11.25.10 @ 7:41AM

Ted R.

'I guess I was speaking over your head when I said that "We won." The "We" is secular, Liberal (whether you come at it from the Right or Left) civilization. And WE have most certainly won...'

Do you always congratulate yourself?

Alaskan| 11.25.10 @ 11:07AM

to D.Singh, interesting posts. You are wasting your time responding to Ted,and his various other names. He is an unemployed commie, atheis who "thinks" conservatives are evil, and his lefty comrades possess the truth. He probably has pictures of Fidel, Che, Stalin, Mao, Billy Ayers, etc. on his t-shirts, and on the wall of his apartment.

Stephanie| 11.26.10 @ 2:09PM

How suprised he will be when he crosses over.
I bet he has one of obama too, Alaskan.

David W| 11.25.10 @ 5:28PM

Your comment about having won sounds eerily similar to what the Social Democratic Party of Germany was saying in 1919.

Your turn.

DRed| 11.24.10 @ 6:50PM

Tom DeLay is facing life in prison-that's something to be thankful for.

Sue| 11.26.10 @ 10:38AM

Well, I don't think Tom DeLay's punishment is something to be thankful for. He was accused of "money laundering" a misnomer of campaign financing and a disgrace to our political process. Yes, some states have laws on the books that corporate donations cannot occur to political campaigns. Yes, he did raise money from corporations, deliver those funds to the RNC and received back from the RNC monies given to the RNC by individuals and then dispersed these monies to the campaigns.

Now, just several months ago, the almighty Supreme Court of the land says, well, it's okay (now) to solicit, take and spend corporate donations.

Hmmm, a lot like the Catholics "rule" on not eating meat on Fridays (or, you'll go to you know where); then, suddenly, the rule is changed and it's okay to eat fish on Fridays. What happens to all those poor suckers in Hell already?

Tom DeLay's conviction is nothing to be happy about. It's another nail in the coffin to the citizens who used to have complete assurance that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" meant Congress shall make no law. In today's world, it's make the law, hang you political opponents with it, unmake the law, spout off to the public about how you're so wonderful "unholding the unjust law," run for office, get elected, and appoint more of judges who don't care to understand "Congress shall make no law" contract.

All of this while the true crime of "money laundering" is happening under our very noses with the Federal Reserve (devaluing our dollar) and the Congressional spending spree (devaluing our Contract) and that no one seems the wiser to.

DRed| 11.26.10 @ 7:48PM

The last two paragraphs of your response don't make any sense. Congress didn't make any of the laws that Mr. DeLay was convicted of violating. In any event, the first Amendment doesn't prohibit Congress from making laws. Making laws is what Congress is supposed to do.

RCV| 11.30.10 @ 1:25PM

Tom Delay is a devious, despicable crook who is headed where he always belonged. His pre-Congress skills as an exterminator will serve him well in his new home.

Elad Eiliv| 11.25.10 @ 8:47AM

So,,,dont you just love a supposed attorney who goes by booger, and calles himself by the name of a mythical demon, mephistopheles. The junk you put out is only worth being blown our your nose and flushed. You oathing of freedom and desire to crush people under the thumb of government is as disgusting as your suppoesed name. If that is what you want, live in china or saudi arabi or iran, or pakistan, or the like. They hate people as much as you do.

Dabnabit| 11.25.10 @ 12:40PM

Ted R.
It was Christianity that perfected the humans. The process is far from over.

Randy131| 11.25.10 @ 5:28PM

Avery good article and very true. What most people overlook are the similarities of the founding of this country and the way GOD had His chosen people take possession of the land He promised their fathers, from the peoples who occupied it, after the Exodus. Without the Preachers whose sermons inspired the Founding Fathers to take up arms and defeat the armies of the tyranical government of the King of England, and with the intervention of GOD Himself as proclaimed by those Founding Fathers, there would have never been a United States of America. In our 'Declaration of Independence', the 'Constitution', as well as the 'Bill of Rights', GOD is not without mention and favor. None of this would have ever been accomplished without the Clergy tending to, motivating, and inspiring those Founding Fathers. If you ever read the 'Federalist Papers' you will find that the Founding Fathers thank and give credit to the Clergy. To bad the same cannot be said about todays Clergy, for against what Jesus said about the student not being greater than the teacher and never will be, they attempt to be greater than GOD (the great teacher of word in the Bible) by changing His words in Num: Ch.35 Vs.16-21, by trying to be more compassionate than GOD, and Lev: Ch.18 Vs.22 and Ch.20 Vs.13, by trying to be more tolerant than GOD. Blasphemers all who do this, is it any wonder why our country is in the predicament it is?

Ted R. Weiland | 11.25.10 @ 6:39PM

Mark Tooley wrote, "And some metaphorically likened their new civilization to the Chosen People of the Old Testament, with special blessings but also special obligations, always under both God's gracious care and sometimes severe judgment." Could the reason be that some metaphorically likened their new civilization to the Chosen People of the Old Testament be because those early European settlers actually were descendants of the Israelites of old?

Tooley also wrote, "American exceptionalism essentially originated with the ancestors of Mainline Protestantism, who were America's earliest European settlers and America's primary religious pillars for most of our history." Why did the gospel of Christ go west and not east? It was not by mistake or even chance - nothing God does is by mistake or chance. It was by providence, by prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31), and by covenant (Hebrews 8:8) that the gospel went west. It went west because Yahweh’s word never fails and because the peoples of the West, namely the Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples are Israelites.

Over the last two thousand years, it has been predominately Celto-Saxons who have embraced New Covenant Christianity and who have been most responsive to the Savior’s call to salvation. Other nations, in fact, would be oblivious to Christianity had it not been for the Celto-Saxons’ proliferation of the gospel message. Only the Celto-Saxons fulfill the dozens of other biblical markers for Israel. Additionally, some fourteen hundred Assyrian cuneiform tablets, recently deciphered, provide some of the names the house of Israel was given or that they assumed during their Assyrian captivity.These names have been linked to the Celto-Saxon peoples.

For more on this exciting news, see "The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org.....index.php.

ogame | 11.27.10 @ 5:45PM

The focus on the Leader. The silly costumes and rituals. For those with historical perspective and eyes to see, it is plain that modern forms of totalitarian are in the end nothing but ersatz religions - religions taking the State as the highest authority

Chris| 12.3.10 @ 12:01PM

When we fail its because of the Democrats, every other time it's because of God.

That's basically how they think, why even bother with a poll?

Ridiculous.

More Articles by Mark Tooley

More Articles From The Nation's Pulse

My Generation’s Disease

May 17, 2013 | Benjamin Brophy

The Seventeen Year Itch

May 15, 2013 | Lisa Fabrizio

Consternated Conferences

May 13, 2013 | John Tabin

Sweet Sounds Way Out Yonder

May 2, 2013 | Bill Croke

Knuckle Draggers and the Pro-Life Enlightenment

April 26, 2013 | Matt Purple

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/24/thanksgiving-and-american-exce

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|27 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|22 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|20 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|9 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|4 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|6 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|13 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.