Professor Samuel Huntington points out the glue holding America together is fragile because it is abstract, based in Creedal ideas and not blood or race or ideology. America was created by settlers, not immigrants; there is an important distinction here: Settlers came as a group, usually formed a community from the wilderness, and were united by the common, shared purpose of creating a better society for themselves and their children.
Immigrants came into the community later, usually as individuals, because they wanted to join the community, embrace its values and share in its benefits. In order to do this, they learned the language, the culture and the common values. They did this willingly, even enthusiastically, because doing so made them part of the community; it enabled them to function and to benefit. They bought into the American creed!
In short, groups of settlers establish values in their communities. Immigrants, coming as individuals to these communities later, assimilate the values.
So in Huntington’s view, assimilation is the critical process immigrants must embrace when coming into any society. Then they are a constructive element, an asset; if they do not assimilate, they are a detriment (obviously, their race, religion or ethnicity has nothing to do with this).
The dictionary defines assimilation this way: "take in and fully understand; absorb and integrate; regard as or become similar. From the Latin: absorb."
Successful immigration policies, then, are based in complete assimilation. For the immigrant, the old is left behind, and the new is embraced and taken as one’s own. And for some 300 years, the United States has grown steadily because it has received immigrants who came voluntarily and assimilated willingly and enthusiastically. They did not come expecting to find little pools of their old land, old ethnic group, old value set or old culture scattered here and there.
They gave up the old, and they embraced the new. They became Americans — note: not hyphenated Americans, simply plain Americans. That is why our nation grew, why it prospered, why it became successful, why it became powerful. Multiple cultures and many ethnic groups contributed to our population over the last 300 years – but we have become one by the assimilating process of the American melting pot!
Immigration, to be successful, must have as its primary fact thorough assimilation. To the extent we tolerate those coming to America who do not assimilate to the American culture and political creed, who deliberately hold themselves apart and practice a conflicting culture or value-set, then we are fragmenting and weakening our own country and damaging our future prospects.
Huntington also asserts European and Asian immigrants come predisposed to embrace the process of assimilation. They come a long way, from other continents, and arrive intending to become Americans. Not Italian-Americans, not German-Americans, not Romanian-Americans, not Japanese-Americans. Simply Americans. And they have done so over and over again, very successfully. They embrace the American creed, they affirm the country and its culture and values and make positive, constructive and committed citizens.
The problem of immigrants arriving who were not committed to assimilation grew during the last third of the 20th century when more and more Latin-Americans began to immigrate to the United States.
Obviously many came with full determination to become Americans, period. And certainly they can assimilate just as well as any other immigrants if they choose to do so!
But others came in large numbers primarily to use the benefits of our communities and their economies but not to assimilate. They have fully intended to return to their homes in the regions south of our border, taking their earnings, their pensions, etc., with them. Thus they do not worry about doing so illegally. They have not embraced the values of the American community, nor its values, nor its political creeds. Nor do they intend to.
In Huntington’s estimation, policy that allows or tolerates such users will fragment and weaken the American fabric.
So when the conversation turns to immigrants and immigrant policy, ask the question: “Will this policy establish the primary principle of immigrant assimilation? Or not?”
If it does not promote and encourage assimilation, it is not good policy. It is a toxic substance entering our body politic; enough of it, we will weaken and we will collapse.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
One culture to dominate ... Vanishing Kingdoms Part II
I recently wrote about vanished kingdoms … kingdoms or states that once existed, vibrant, even aggressive in their day, but then disappeared into the mists of the historical record. Usually the "losers" in warfare, their political and cultural traditions were eclipsed as well by the winners. Winners prefer their own culture and language …
The British Isles are fertile ground for this sort of study. Being a word freak, I often am in my Oxford dictionary, and one finds the traces there. My mother told me long ago that Latin is the root language of most of the European languages spoken today, and she was right. Thousands of English words are derived from Latin. But there are other sources, too: Old English (Pict and/ or Welsh?); Middle English; Norse; and French and German, too. All have given many words to English. In fact, English is the most useful language of our century across the world because it always has borrowed and incorporated new words from everywhere. No one actually knows how many words make up English, but guesses run to ten million or more! Its utility is demonstrated by the fact that the Chinese school system teaches English as a standard subject, the second language of choice.
Word derivation is like sedimentary rock: layer upon layer of culture, one on top of another. Track it back and you summarize the history of the nation.
So: The British Isles originally were populated (scholars think) by the Picts, then came waves of other peoples. First, the Britons, the Romans, the Gaelic-Irish, the Vikings, the Frisians and Angles and Saxons, the Normandy French … Dig down, and one finds layer upon layer, language and culture, as you work backward through the centuries. But now we identify only the English, the Scots, and the Irish in the British Isles.
My point? The culture is English. They were the winners in the centuries of wars fought to determine dominance. They governed, they educated, they ran the economy, they controlled the lands. And while they tolerated the other languages and cultures, English was the official language. The others slowly have faded away. (My family is Welsh, and my grandparents spoke Welch as well as English; but no one in the family since then can even read Welsh.)
Multi-culturalism and diversity (used interchangeably by the media) are politically correct buzz words in our country; but they are rotten concepts. Advocates would have us believe we can have numerous pools of culture scattered here and there, each with its own language, each cultural group thriving, etc., and still be a united country. This begs the problem of functioning in the society (How can you talk to your boss or co-workers?) and, secondly, of preserving the common basis of values on which our country rests.
Would we endure as multi-cultural? "T’aint likely!" as the saying goes! The historical record is clear: one culture, one language, one world-view will rise to the top and snuff out the rest. There may be faint echoes of former cultural traditions remaining, but nothing more. Why do we kid ourselves?
I believe one cultural and one creed will – and must – dominate. And for the United States, this is a good thing.
Samuel Huntington, a Harvard professor and shrewd commentator on public affairs, made this very clear in his book “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity” published in 2004. (Huntington is justly famous for his book, "The Clash of Civilizations", which anticipated the conflict between the West and the radical Islamists of the Middle East. He pointed out that after the Cold War, the new fault lines of international conflict were based in cultural matters.)
In his book "Who Are We?" he discusses the fact the glue that binds the peoples of the United States together is unique, unlike any other nation in the world. It is not tribal or ethnic, for we are from many races; it is not ideology (like the USSR had been), nor is it cultural.
It is Creedal. We as Americans are dedicated to the American Creed. We are unified by what we believe is the best way to govern ourselves and our nation.
What is the American Creed? Huntington tells us it originally was formulated by Thomas Jefferson and elaborated by many of the Founders. “... It was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers of America … Key elements ... include the English language, Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, the responsibility of rulers and rights of individuals, and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a "city on a hill." Historically, millions of immigrants were attracted to American because of this creedal culture and the ... opportunities it helped to make possible.”
Using these concepts, our Founders designed and instituted the best governmental system the world has yet seen! And the Creed was fixed in the national identity by the crucible of the Civil War; as a nation, we began to think American at that point.
So these are core American Creed values. Now, our nation is not predominantly English-ethnic anymore (nor has it been since mid-19th century); nor is it predominantly Protestant anymore. But it remains committed to these core American values: They are the American Creed.
“... I am deeply concerned about the unity and strength of my country as a society based on liberty, equality, law and individual rights … All societies face recurring threats to their existence, to which they eventually succumb. Yet some, even when so threatened are also capable of postponing their demise by halting and reversing the processes of decline and renewing their vitality and identity. I believe America can do that … Americans should recommit themselves to the culture, traditions and values that for three and half centuries have been embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities and religions, and that have been the source of their liberty, unity, power, prosperity and moral leadership as a force for good in the world … (This is) an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people… (for America has) become a multiethnic, multiracial society (but one) committed to the Anglo-Protestant culture and the Creed of the founding settlers …
The British Isles are fertile ground for this sort of study. Being a word freak, I often am in my Oxford dictionary, and one finds the traces there. My mother told me long ago that Latin is the root language of most of the European languages spoken today, and she was right. Thousands of English words are derived from Latin. But there are other sources, too: Old English (Pict and/ or Welsh?); Middle English; Norse; and French and German, too. All have given many words to English. In fact, English is the most useful language of our century across the world because it always has borrowed and incorporated new words from everywhere. No one actually knows how many words make up English, but guesses run to ten million or more! Its utility is demonstrated by the fact that the Chinese school system teaches English as a standard subject, the second language of choice.
Word derivation is like sedimentary rock: layer upon layer of culture, one on top of another. Track it back and you summarize the history of the nation.
So: The British Isles originally were populated (scholars think) by the Picts, then came waves of other peoples. First, the Britons, the Romans, the Gaelic-Irish, the Vikings, the Frisians and Angles and Saxons, the Normandy French … Dig down, and one finds layer upon layer, language and culture, as you work backward through the centuries. But now we identify only the English, the Scots, and the Irish in the British Isles.
My point? The culture is English. They were the winners in the centuries of wars fought to determine dominance. They governed, they educated, they ran the economy, they controlled the lands. And while they tolerated the other languages and cultures, English was the official language. The others slowly have faded away. (My family is Welsh, and my grandparents spoke Welch as well as English; but no one in the family since then can even read Welsh.)
Multi-culturalism and diversity (used interchangeably by the media) are politically correct buzz words in our country; but they are rotten concepts. Advocates would have us believe we can have numerous pools of culture scattered here and there, each with its own language, each cultural group thriving, etc., and still be a united country. This begs the problem of functioning in the society (How can you talk to your boss or co-workers?) and, secondly, of preserving the common basis of values on which our country rests.
Would we endure as multi-cultural? "T’aint likely!" as the saying goes! The historical record is clear: one culture, one language, one world-view will rise to the top and snuff out the rest. There may be faint echoes of former cultural traditions remaining, but nothing more. Why do we kid ourselves?
I believe one cultural and one creed will – and must – dominate. And for the United States, this is a good thing.
Samuel Huntington, a Harvard professor and shrewd commentator on public affairs, made this very clear in his book “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity” published in 2004. (Huntington is justly famous for his book, "The Clash of Civilizations", which anticipated the conflict between the West and the radical Islamists of the Middle East. He pointed out that after the Cold War, the new fault lines of international conflict were based in cultural matters.)
In his book "Who Are We?" he discusses the fact the glue that binds the peoples of the United States together is unique, unlike any other nation in the world. It is not tribal or ethnic, for we are from many races; it is not ideology (like the USSR had been), nor is it cultural.
It is Creedal. We as Americans are dedicated to the American Creed. We are unified by what we believe is the best way to govern ourselves and our nation.
What is the American Creed? Huntington tells us it originally was formulated by Thomas Jefferson and elaborated by many of the Founders. “... It was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers of America … Key elements ... include the English language, Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, the responsibility of rulers and rights of individuals, and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a "city on a hill." Historically, millions of immigrants were attracted to American because of this creedal culture and the ... opportunities it helped to make possible.”
Using these concepts, our Founders designed and instituted the best governmental system the world has yet seen! And the Creed was fixed in the national identity by the crucible of the Civil War; as a nation, we began to think American at that point.
So these are core American Creed values. Now, our nation is not predominantly English-ethnic anymore (nor has it been since mid-19th century); nor is it predominantly Protestant anymore. But it remains committed to these core American values: They are the American Creed.
“... I am deeply concerned about the unity and strength of my country as a society based on liberty, equality, law and individual rights … All societies face recurring threats to their existence, to which they eventually succumb. Yet some, even when so threatened are also capable of postponing their demise by halting and reversing the processes of decline and renewing their vitality and identity. I believe America can do that … Americans should recommit themselves to the culture, traditions and values that for three and half centuries have been embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities and religions, and that have been the source of their liberty, unity, power, prosperity and moral leadership as a force for good in the world … (This is) an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people… (for America has) become a multiethnic, multiracial society (but one) committed to the Anglo-Protestant culture and the Creed of the founding settlers …
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Why certain kingdoms never last … Part 1
Sometimes scholars follow their muse and grind away for years on a passion they have. "Walking to the beat of their own drummer …" isn’t it?
Such a scholar is Norman Davies, author of a new book, "Vanished Kingdoms," which I stumbled across in a bookstore recently. Davies is a former professor of history at the University of London, and has taught at Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and McGill. He currently teaches at the University of Cracow in Poland. He has spent decades studying European History and the "kingdoms that are not there anymore ...," from the time of Christ until now.
What can we learn from such scholars? Davies can tell you what happened to Visigoths after they besieged and looted Rome in 410 A.D. (the Kingdom of Tolosa in France), or where the original Britons went (north!), or about the five (or six?) Bergundian Kindoms, or where the Holy Roman Empire originated. He can lay out the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th century, or, incidentally, why the Ukrainians hate the Russians so …
His work is fascinating, and complements assertions that I made in a recent writing about the absurdity of multi-culturalism; it is about obscure – yet interesting – quirks of historical events. But it is true that the winners write history, or as Davies puts it “In this jungle of information about the past, the big beasts invariably win out. Smaller or weaker countries have difficulty in making their voices heard, and dead kingdoms have almost no advocates at all.”
Davies becomes the advocate of the dead kingdoms; he focuses on those kingdoms and states that used to be there, but are not anymore because they got pinched off by history. He is careful to point out that there is no determinism involved in this process, simply the accumulated impact of events, sometimes manipulated by extraordinary personalities. (To illustrate this, he tells us there was a time in the 13th century when Scotland could have easily come out on top in the contest with England for control of the British Isles).
But back to the Visigoths: the Visigoths, a wild Germanic tribe migrating from unknown lands to the east, who under a warrior chieftain named Alaric, crashed through the Roman frontiers in the late 4th century, and raided across present-day Yugoslavia and into present-day Italy, then laid siege and sacked the city of Rome in 410 A. D. They moved further west, raiding and looting as they went. Well … Professor Davies points out they settled in what is today southern and central France (Roman Aquitania), and formed a kingdom that lasted almost 100 years which they called Tolosa. They were accepted by the western Roman Empire as a federated tribe, and tried in many ways to become "Roman." They had their own law, established courts, wrote in Latin and their own language, practiced Arian Christianity and as federated allies, fought alongside the Roman armies of the time when needed. There were five kings of Tolosa over its lifespan of some eighty years.
Then the Frankish warrior, Charles Martel, who became an ardent Roman Catholic, invaded Arian Christian Tolosa in the late 5th century, defeated the Visigoth army and killed King Alaric II, replacing Tolosa with his Frankish kingdom that ultimately became what we know as France.
Having lost the battle, the Visigothic kingdom disintegrated and disappeared from history. Part of tribe escaped across the Pyrenees into Iberia, where they then lost their identity.
History is for winners, isn’t it? After all, winners write the history! We know about Charles Martel (winner) … but know nothing about Alaric II and the Visigoths (losers) after their defeat in 507 AD. Many times one kingdom was invaded by another, the invader of different ethnicity, language, religious faith, often more highly motivated.
The invader wins the battles that comes, then imposes language, religion, mores and laws on the subordinate native population. Old leadership knuckles under, or is killed, or in the old days, sold into slavery. The peasants remain and continue to operate the land. A new, dominating culture of aristocratic landlords prevail over a span of several generations and the former society, its language and culture, fades away.
History of the British Isles is loaded with this kind of experience and outcome over the last 2000 years; historians who talk about it track it by the language which is used dominantly at any given time. Glasgow, on the western coast of Scotland, has existed for two thousand years or more. The Romans called the "pirates" who raided the small city from the north, "scotti." So guess how Scotland got its name! Latin was certainly spoken there; following the departure of the Romans, Davies tells us “… a tussle for survival (begin) between the Ancient Britons, the Irish Gaels, the Scots, the Picts and a collection of immigrant Germanic ‘Anglo-Saxons.'” What we know as Welsh (ancient Britons) were probably in Glasgow when the Romans were; they would hold the area for a long time afterward. Their language was Brythonic Celtic; Gaelic Scots from Ireland were the next arrivals, a couple of centuries later, then followed by Norse-speaking Vikings in the 9th century. The Vikings first raided, conquering the great fortress-rock of Dumbarton in 870 AD, then settled, and ultimately assimilated into the population. Early in the 10th century came a resurgent Wessex army under King Athelstan, who consolidated much of the entire island under his rule, the first English king to do so. And the English of the day became the official language.
All of this detail of the 600 years after the Roman departure, until the resurgent warfare of the English from the south of Brittania, is commonly skipped over. But it is a perfect example of the victor and his culture and language becoming the new standard by which all affairs are conducted.
Or – infrequently – it works the other way: the invaders come, conquer, and are seduced by the richness and efficiency of the now-subordinate culture; China has numerous examples of this happening to the Mongolian invaders from the steppes; they all became Chinese in a few generations.
One culture will dominate! There is NO example in history of two or more cultures existing side-by-side for very long; one or the other becomes dominant and erases the subordinate one. Granted, the new ‘culture boss’ may borrow aspects of the older, subordinate culture and wrap his own culture around it in some way… but the old one ultimately disappears.
Such a scholar is Norman Davies, author of a new book, "Vanished Kingdoms," which I stumbled across in a bookstore recently. Davies is a former professor of history at the University of London, and has taught at Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and McGill. He currently teaches at the University of Cracow in Poland. He has spent decades studying European History and the "kingdoms that are not there anymore ...," from the time of Christ until now.
What can we learn from such scholars? Davies can tell you what happened to Visigoths after they besieged and looted Rome in 410 A.D. (the Kingdom of Tolosa in France), or where the original Britons went (north!), or about the five (or six?) Bergundian Kindoms, or where the Holy Roman Empire originated. He can lay out the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th century, or, incidentally, why the Ukrainians hate the Russians so …
His work is fascinating, and complements assertions that I made in a recent writing about the absurdity of multi-culturalism; it is about obscure – yet interesting – quirks of historical events. But it is true that the winners write history, or as Davies puts it “In this jungle of information about the past, the big beasts invariably win out. Smaller or weaker countries have difficulty in making their voices heard, and dead kingdoms have almost no advocates at all.”
Davies becomes the advocate of the dead kingdoms; he focuses on those kingdoms and states that used to be there, but are not anymore because they got pinched off by history. He is careful to point out that there is no determinism involved in this process, simply the accumulated impact of events, sometimes manipulated by extraordinary personalities. (To illustrate this, he tells us there was a time in the 13th century when Scotland could have easily come out on top in the contest with England for control of the British Isles).
But back to the Visigoths: the Visigoths, a wild Germanic tribe migrating from unknown lands to the east, who under a warrior chieftain named Alaric, crashed through the Roman frontiers in the late 4th century, and raided across present-day Yugoslavia and into present-day Italy, then laid siege and sacked the city of Rome in 410 A. D. They moved further west, raiding and looting as they went. Well … Professor Davies points out they settled in what is today southern and central France (Roman Aquitania), and formed a kingdom that lasted almost 100 years which they called Tolosa. They were accepted by the western Roman Empire as a federated tribe, and tried in many ways to become "Roman." They had their own law, established courts, wrote in Latin and their own language, practiced Arian Christianity and as federated allies, fought alongside the Roman armies of the time when needed. There were five kings of Tolosa over its lifespan of some eighty years.
Then the Frankish warrior, Charles Martel, who became an ardent Roman Catholic, invaded Arian Christian Tolosa in the late 5th century, defeated the Visigoth army and killed King Alaric II, replacing Tolosa with his Frankish kingdom that ultimately became what we know as France.
Having lost the battle, the Visigothic kingdom disintegrated and disappeared from history. Part of tribe escaped across the Pyrenees into Iberia, where they then lost their identity.
History is for winners, isn’t it? After all, winners write the history! We know about Charles Martel (winner) … but know nothing about Alaric II and the Visigoths (losers) after their defeat in 507 AD. Many times one kingdom was invaded by another, the invader of different ethnicity, language, religious faith, often more highly motivated.
The invader wins the battles that comes, then imposes language, religion, mores and laws on the subordinate native population. Old leadership knuckles under, or is killed, or in the old days, sold into slavery. The peasants remain and continue to operate the land. A new, dominating culture of aristocratic landlords prevail over a span of several generations and the former society, its language and culture, fades away.
History of the British Isles is loaded with this kind of experience and outcome over the last 2000 years; historians who talk about it track it by the language which is used dominantly at any given time. Glasgow, on the western coast of Scotland, has existed for two thousand years or more. The Romans called the "pirates" who raided the small city from the north, "scotti." So guess how Scotland got its name! Latin was certainly spoken there; following the departure of the Romans, Davies tells us “… a tussle for survival (begin) between the Ancient Britons, the Irish Gaels, the Scots, the Picts and a collection of immigrant Germanic ‘Anglo-Saxons.'” What we know as Welsh (ancient Britons) were probably in Glasgow when the Romans were; they would hold the area for a long time afterward. Their language was Brythonic Celtic; Gaelic Scots from Ireland were the next arrivals, a couple of centuries later, then followed by Norse-speaking Vikings in the 9th century. The Vikings first raided, conquering the great fortress-rock of Dumbarton in 870 AD, then settled, and ultimately assimilated into the population. Early in the 10th century came a resurgent Wessex army under King Athelstan, who consolidated much of the entire island under his rule, the first English king to do so. And the English of the day became the official language.
All of this detail of the 600 years after the Roman departure, until the resurgent warfare of the English from the south of Brittania, is commonly skipped over. But it is a perfect example of the victor and his culture and language becoming the new standard by which all affairs are conducted.
Or – infrequently – it works the other way: the invaders come, conquer, and are seduced by the richness and efficiency of the now-subordinate culture; China has numerous examples of this happening to the Mongolian invaders from the steppes; they all became Chinese in a few generations.
One culture will dominate! There is NO example in history of two or more cultures existing side-by-side for very long; one or the other becomes dominant and erases the subordinate one. Granted, the new ‘culture boss’ may borrow aspects of the older, subordinate culture and wrap his own culture around it in some way… but the old one ultimately disappears.
Friday, June 15, 2012
A nation of 2 world views
Philosophers and historians talk about "world views"— attitudes and concepts we bring with us when
judging events and then responding to them. In many cases, we are
unaware of these values explicitly, since we absorbed them growing up
from parents, teachers, church, and friends over the years.
So: few people explicitly understand
their own world view.
Nevertheless, we DO have them and they
DO impact our thinking. A century or more ago, we could say the
people of the U.S. shared an almost common world view with one
another. We perceived things in the same way, thought problems could
be solved in a certain way and worked to correct them; consequently,
we COULD achieve broad consensus solutions to problems.
Not so any more. We are now a nation
of at least TWO world views, and they conflict in many ways.
The classic world view still exists;
this traditional Judaic-Christian system of values and beliefs
remains dominant in parts of the country. Generally, we understand
that our heartland value system derives from the Creator and is found
in our biblical scripture, notably in Exodus 20: "man is an
imperfect creature, subject to moral failures," and the corollary: Human nature has not changed from the time of the pharaohs in Egypt.
Evil acts continue to be committed by humans today, just as they were
4,500 years ago. This value system certainly influenced our constitutional founders, who believed power concentrated in a few
hands was corrosive to human liberty, and must be offset by checks
and balances built into the structure of society in order to
counter-act pervasive human faults and sins. Further, that values
are unchanging in application because human nature is unchanging.
But now we have a second, very
different system of values popular among many in our society. It is
secular in origin, growing from the "humanistic" perspective
first articulated during the Renaissance. It postulates a perfectible human creature; thus, if man is well-educated and
well-treated, then he will behave in an ever-improving manner.
Ultimately, we will have a nearly-perfect society. The socialist
philosophers (e.g., Marx, Engels, the Fabians, etc.) went even
further, predicting a perfect order of human affairs, overcoming all
of man’s natural instincts – providing their system was in place.
In their current political form this
worldview argues by applying enough money and enough
governmental effort to problems, we will achieve this "state of
perfection." This is a common viewpoint inside the Beltway; many
of those in our national leadership and information media embrace
this secular world view, including the present national
administration.
But the reality of history over the
last century and a half have been hard on the "secular-progressive-socialist-utopian" package of beliefs; the
system has been tried several times in Europe, in both eastern and
western sectors, and in other countries. The worst failure came in
the USSR, where well-meaning reformers installed it in 1917, then
lost control to more radical leftists; this resulted in the death of
tens of millions of innocent Russians at the hand of these "reformers" in their own government. Lesser failures abound,
including the one currently going on in Greece, where progressive
politicians promised patrons and voters what they could not pay for;
now they cannot pay, and their economy is disintegrating.
Simplistically these world views are
sometimes summarized as "conservative" versus "liberal." They
underlie much political posturing as we debate and make governmental
policy in our own country; so we see opposed forces working against
each other.
Which one will prevail? I think the
traditional or conservative viewpoint is the more reliable and
constant philosophy; in the long run, humanity will remain free as a
society when governed by such principles. Technology and methodology
no doubt evolve and change, but human nature does not! To assume
that it can and will is delusional. The more one expects improvement in human character, the further one drifts from
reality, it seems to me.
But secularism make pretty promises!
Oh yes, no doubt! But grim realities will inexorably follow. How
long will this jarring conflict of world views go on in our society?
No one knows.
To use a geological term, these
conflicting world views are the hidden fault line under much of
the partisan political conflict in Washington, and our politicians in
Washington think they can reconcile these conflicting ideas and
values. Guess what?
They will not succeed. There is NO
example in recorded human history of two opposed value systems
co-existing side-by-side within a society for more than a few
generations. One system or the other ultimately prevails…and the
other is scrubbed out. Both Chinese and European history
demonstrates this particularly well.
Sometimes we Americans think ourselves
the exception to history’s realities. Though I believe the
United States to be an exceptional creation in human history, I
don’t think we can overcome this historical fact. It will not come
out differently. Multi-culturalism is a cruel joke, a
delusional political promise.
One value system, or the other, will
become dominant. Watch the national campaigns as fall comes … and
bear in mind the two systems of world view. Who is making the
more realistic and probable promises? Who is offering pie in the
sky?
Then vote your values!
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Why a fight with the Roman Catholics?
Why would a president of the United States pick a fight with the Roman Catholic church? It simply doesn’t make sense to me. But this president is doing just that. His health care regime intends to compel religious institutions to fund benefits for employees that violate the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Needless to say, the church is very distressed at this prospective regulation.
Still, why would he pick a fight with the Roman Catholics? Is it because it is one of the most classically conservative institutions in our society? Could he hope to separate some of its members from doctrine that the Church holds near and dear, and thereby from the institution itself? Does he hope to influence voters in the coming election? Or is his action taken to protect his ‘centerpiece legislation’ of universal health care under review by the Supreme Court? But that makes little sense; his actions have simply spotlighted one of the policy’s most oppressive features: remote and unreachable bureaucrats will establish the rules of treatment, even dictating treatment policy that is personally oppressive to many, readily violating values they hold next to their hearts.
If this is his intent, it makes no sense to me. (In interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am a United Methodist, one of the ‘mainstream’ Protestant churches; but I am aware of the history of the Roman Catholic Church through its 1600 years of history, and I admire its considerable institutional strengths, and I generally share its core Christian beliefs.)
The last major political leader to pick a battle with Christendom was the late totalitarian tyrant, Joseph Stalin, who waged war on the Russian Orthodox Church for decades – and Stalin lost! The Orthodox Church survived two generations of abuse by the Communists, and Christianity is once again spreading in Russia.
I recently saw a YouTube piece put up by a Roman Catholic group (‘Catholics Called to Witness’) that features visuals of a blacksmith forging words for key issues in the upcoming election: ‘Jobs’, ‘Life’, ’Marriage’, ‘Freedom’. then points out that the ‘Church’s Sacred Right’ is being ‘put to the test’. It stresses that ‘Life is Not Negotiable’; that ‘Marriage should be reinforced, not re-defined’; and that current national policies are a ‘...Violation of Religious Freedom’. It then calls for faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church to ‘Vote the Values that will stand the Test of Fire’ and to do so ‘For our Generation and the Generations to come’. And it cites Psalm 127: ‘Unless the Lord builds the House, those who build it labor in vain.’ It is a rhetorically powerful piece and it conveys a powerful message. It will cause many to vote against Mr. Obama.
It cuts through the clutter of campaigning and it speaks to the hopes we all have for our children and grandchildren that they will enjoy Freedom and Life in our country in the future – and to our fears that actions taken for partisan political purposes by those currently in office will inhibit or even erase those values in the future.
Now it may not be the institutional Church itself putting up this rhetoric; I am unsure what -- if any -- connection exists between the sponsoring group and the institutional church.. But it certainly shows the sentiment of certain Roman Catholics about Obama Administration policies and attitude. And I certainly find their points well made.
I have long been convinced President Obama believes in moral relativism. Recent postings on the University of Notre Dame’s website illustrated this when one of their professors analyzes the content of a speech the president made there in 2009. Gerald Bradley, a professor of law at Notre Dame University, listened very carefully to that speech; here is what he heard: “...the president affirmed a strong religious indifferentism and moral relativism. Obama endorsed all of listeners’ ‘values’ without qualification and without reference to what their ‘values’ might be. ‘All present should hold on to their ‘values’, define them, defend them, and be guided by them in a world of moral disagreement’. The same goes for ‘faith as well... Obama conveyed the message that one cannot be practically certain about any conviction that is held by faith. He thus implicitly rejected many essential truths of the University of Notre Dame’s Catholic faith, including the truth that it is rationally defensible to assent with certitude to the tenets of the faith. President Obama used the incomprehensibility of God as his basis for claiming that what we think we know about God is ...inherently doubtful. But the president’s reasoning is unsound and his conclusion is false.”
So one law professor finds the former constitutional professor practicing rhetoric! He makes skillful speeches...but ‘the reasoning is unsound and his conclusion is false’.
Moral relativism does not ‘sell well’ with religious people of any denomination, it seems to me. Add a weak economic recovery and I think Mr. Obama has an uphill slog in the mud going into fall elections.
(John Cromwell is an Enid businessman and life-long history student. He also writes ‘Roamin’... for the Garfield County Daily Legal News occasionally.)
Still, why would he pick a fight with the Roman Catholics? Is it because it is one of the most classically conservative institutions in our society? Could he hope to separate some of its members from doctrine that the Church holds near and dear, and thereby from the institution itself? Does he hope to influence voters in the coming election? Or is his action taken to protect his ‘centerpiece legislation’ of universal health care under review by the Supreme Court? But that makes little sense; his actions have simply spotlighted one of the policy’s most oppressive features: remote and unreachable bureaucrats will establish the rules of treatment, even dictating treatment policy that is personally oppressive to many, readily violating values they hold next to their hearts.
If this is his intent, it makes no sense to me. (In interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am a United Methodist, one of the ‘mainstream’ Protestant churches; but I am aware of the history of the Roman Catholic Church through its 1600 years of history, and I admire its considerable institutional strengths, and I generally share its core Christian beliefs.)
The last major political leader to pick a battle with Christendom was the late totalitarian tyrant, Joseph Stalin, who waged war on the Russian Orthodox Church for decades – and Stalin lost! The Orthodox Church survived two generations of abuse by the Communists, and Christianity is once again spreading in Russia.
I recently saw a YouTube piece put up by a Roman Catholic group (‘Catholics Called to Witness’) that features visuals of a blacksmith forging words for key issues in the upcoming election: ‘Jobs’, ‘Life’, ’Marriage’, ‘Freedom’. then points out that the ‘Church’s Sacred Right’ is being ‘put to the test’. It stresses that ‘Life is Not Negotiable’; that ‘Marriage should be reinforced, not re-defined’; and that current national policies are a ‘...Violation of Religious Freedom’. It then calls for faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church to ‘Vote the Values that will stand the Test of Fire’ and to do so ‘For our Generation and the Generations to come’. And it cites Psalm 127: ‘Unless the Lord builds the House, those who build it labor in vain.’ It is a rhetorically powerful piece and it conveys a powerful message. It will cause many to vote against Mr. Obama.
It cuts through the clutter of campaigning and it speaks to the hopes we all have for our children and grandchildren that they will enjoy Freedom and Life in our country in the future – and to our fears that actions taken for partisan political purposes by those currently in office will inhibit or even erase those values in the future.
Now it may not be the institutional Church itself putting up this rhetoric; I am unsure what -- if any -- connection exists between the sponsoring group and the institutional church.. But it certainly shows the sentiment of certain Roman Catholics about Obama Administration policies and attitude. And I certainly find their points well made.
I have long been convinced President Obama believes in moral relativism. Recent postings on the University of Notre Dame’s website illustrated this when one of their professors analyzes the content of a speech the president made there in 2009. Gerald Bradley, a professor of law at Notre Dame University, listened very carefully to that speech; here is what he heard: “...the president affirmed a strong religious indifferentism and moral relativism. Obama endorsed all of listeners’ ‘values’ without qualification and without reference to what their ‘values’ might be. ‘All present should hold on to their ‘values’, define them, defend them, and be guided by them in a world of moral disagreement’. The same goes for ‘faith as well... Obama conveyed the message that one cannot be practically certain about any conviction that is held by faith. He thus implicitly rejected many essential truths of the University of Notre Dame’s Catholic faith, including the truth that it is rationally defensible to assent with certitude to the tenets of the faith. President Obama used the incomprehensibility of God as his basis for claiming that what we think we know about God is ...inherently doubtful. But the president’s reasoning is unsound and his conclusion is false.”
So one law professor finds the former constitutional professor practicing rhetoric! He makes skillful speeches...but ‘the reasoning is unsound and his conclusion is false’.
Moral relativism does not ‘sell well’ with religious people of any denomination, it seems to me. Add a weak economic recovery and I think Mr. Obama has an uphill slog in the mud going into fall elections.
(John Cromwell is an Enid businessman and life-long history student. He also writes ‘Roamin’... for the Garfield County Daily Legal News occasionally.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)