Because you deserve it!

Our German correspondent, The Editrix, turns us on to a study, the results of which seems to indicate that -- brace yourselves! -- that 'eco-friendliness' can and often does coincide with a greater tendency to lie and cheat and steal. Which brings this question to mind,

Several years ago (as one example among numbers of them I could cite) I stopped at the drive-thru window at the local bank to cash a pay check. As was and is my habit, I re-counted my cash back and discovered that the teller had in fact overpaid me in the amount of $300. At which point I promptly returned to the window, advised the teller of her mistake and returned the overage. My question is this, had I spent the previous week doing eco-friendly work and making eco-friendly purchases in exclusion to all others when possible, might I have considered myself worthy of the $300. bonus, the mistake an "act of Providence" or some sort of good karma finally catching up to my noble deeds/bad karma finally catching up to the teller, the bank, or whomever would eventually eat the loss? Well, I imagine that if I were an eco-nut I could probably just about excuse any sort of immoral behavior I ultimately involved myself in at the expense of others, others who might well be eco-friendly themselves, but certainly not as advanced and deserving as me. After all, the spirit of the universe was smiling on me that day. How insulting must it be to this great spirit for someone to reject its special favors? Speaking of which, I think I've just answered a question that's been puzzling me for the last several years. ;-)

Read More

Psalm 2

One of my favorite Psalms is not a widely read or widely quoted passage, but it's a favorite of mine nonetheless. But then again, I'm something of an eccentric when it comes to reading God's revelation to man. I prefer reading the first several chapters of Genesis to reading the book of Acts or the book of Revelation for instance. But that may simply be a result of those books being the (almost) exclusive emphasis of my childhood church.

Here is the second Psalm in its entirety (from the KJV):

WHY DO the heathen rage, and the People imagine a vain thing?

2 The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I generally quote from the first four verses of the second Psalm, or paraphrase those verses when I see specific examples of the heathen raging and imagining vain things, demanding that the cords of the righteous be broken and cast away from among them, as if to say that the end result of the severing of those cords, once complete, is a world that any decent human being would care to live in. And all in the name of "liberty" you see, which is simply a word that means, to these people, license to practice any lasciviousness conceivable to the mind of man.

Among examples of this is the radical homosexual lobby. It seems pretty obvious to me that the homosexual lifestyle is - besides being a complete violation of nature involving unmentionably perverse and inordinate behaviorisms exercised by ungovernables - an agressive and radical lifestyle at its very roots. Let's face it, some folks are peculiarly in need of external government. They certainly exhibit little to no innate ability to govern themselves and their inordinate passions. Any society that permits such ungovernables to rule it has sealed its own fate.

But this insignificant group would simply fade into the background where it belongs had it not the backing of the radical leftist "change" agents which dominate in our society. "Breaking their bands asunder", and "casting away their cords from among us", encompasses, when you boil it all down, the whole of the radical leftist agenda. In other words, to create a world so very permeated with evil that it would literally be "hell on earth."

I once heard a certain minister of the Gospel state that there are merely two kinds of people in the world -- those who say to God "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says "thy will be done." His point was well taken. And I think we know which of the two groups dominates in American society these days. Forgive us Father, for we know not what we do.

Read More

History of the United States, by Noah Webster

I wrote once, in passing, about Google books. And I included a link in the post to Noah Webster's (America's Schoolmaster) "History of the United States." I thought that I had included a favorite passage of mine from the book in the entry, but a search of the blog archives proves that that is not the case, so I shall include it here. In the introduction to the book, Noah Webster wrote:

The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.

So much for the doctrine of "the separation of church and state," eh? By the way, how is it that one is to "separate" his religion (or the lack thereof) from his politics. I hold that it is impracticable; that those who vie for such a thing are irrational.

Someone named "Zapem" invokes the authority of General Washington in a comment posted under Dr. Keyes's latest entry over at Loyal to Liberty. My reply to Zapem involves the importation of foreign ideas of God, man, and government to these shores. It once was, you see, a great concern of Washington's, the witness of American youth migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. Why? Because, in his words, the great possibility existed that these students, ill-eqipped as they were to well understand the value of their own system of government, would thus imbibe principles not congenial with republicanism and bring them back with them on return to America. But we needn't worry with that anymore, as I intimate in my reply to Zapem.

Read More

On the sorry state of the Christian Church in America

As if the preceding two posts to this blog were not enough, I received a report from the frontlines a few days ago relating to the post title.

Now, I'm not particularly friendly to what some would call "organized religion." I'm a Christian, and I strive to follow Christ's teachings. That would include the Old Testament which Christ, several times in the New Testament, confirmed. On the other hand, I'm not opposed to some level of "organized" religion. There has to be a balance struck, and again, I strive [truly] to strike that balance as an individual, as well as in my relation to others outside my personal individuality.

In the particular case in question, and among other serious errors, it was reported to me, from a very reliable source, that the minister of this church announced to the congregation during his "altar call" during last Sunday's service that "if you want to be released from the bonds of traditionalism, then come forward and pray with me and you shall be set free." Well, okie dokie. That's about the point at which I would have walked out. And indeed, according to my informant, that WAS the point at which he walked out of the service, with no intention of ever returning.

Now, in and of itself it isn't that big of a deal if we establish some reasonable context in which the statement was made. But this isn't the case. This is the kind of church in which overweight females actually pray the calories out of their food (you'd think they'd look in the mirror, or step on a pair of scales once in a while), and such as that. It is the kind of church in which the Spirit of God cannot be in attendance unless virtually everyone is acting like a bunch of teenaged idiots at a rock concert or a local nightclub. And etc. You get the idea I think, but let us seal the deal: This is the kind of church in which the impending economic crisis is thought to be exclusive to the world; the kind of church in which the congregation is assured that as long as it pays its tithes, everything (for faithful tithe-paying members in exclusion of all others) will be hunky-dory. Getting the picture?

You see why I find life so interesting? Here we have a "Christian" church (and this is more common than some of you might think) which teaches doctrines that are not only unscriptural, but which also denies God's very nature and essence. But God is not mocked; He will laugh and will have us in derision. Let me put it this way: if you're a so-called "Christian" church, and your sole and exclusive focus is on the book of Revelation, end-times prophesy, name-it-and-claim-it "gospel," then you're so far from genuine Biblical-Christian teaching that you have no earthly business claiming to be "Christian" in any sense of the word. And this whole problem spans the denominations, believe me:

Several years ago one of the neighbor children came to me while I was busy doing some yard work and announced that she'd been "saved." Now, knowing her like I did, I thought this was kind of odd, so I began to quiz her on what she meant by the term "saved." She said that she was in church and the preacher had an altar call in which he invited all of the non-saved to participate. She, of course, participated. As I 'interrogated' her as to what she'd done, I found that she was completely oblivious to what she'd done. First, she didn't know who Christ was. Second, she had no idea about his birth, death, and resurrection. I gave her a few scriptures to read, and said to her that she should go back to the pastor and explain that she wasn't aware, at the time of her "conversion", what it all meant; that she wanted to be saved legitimately. She did so, and reported back to me (with a bit of an attitude this time) that the pastor in question had informed her that he had saved her before, so there was no need to go over it again ... and that she was to communicate this to me at our next encounter, which she did.

Years prior to that particular incident I was working on a job when the lady of the house announced to me that the weather at the time was the "weirdest weather she'd experienced during the course of her lifetime," and that she could "no longer tell the difference [between the seasons]." This occurance, to her, meant that Christ was soon to return in accordance with Revelation. The season in question was Fall, and I simply said to her that I can tell the difference -- all I have to do is look outside and see the changing as it takes place. And accordingly I asked how much time she spent outside the house. (Does geographic location -- in this case 35 degrees North latitiude, 100 degrees West longitude, approx. 750 ft. above Sea Level, and completely surrounded by land -- mean nothing to any American anymore?).

That, my friends, is the state of Christianity in this country. I've seen and experienced it over and over and over again during the course of the last several years. And it isn't getting any better. It is getting worse, and the stain on Christianity and Biblical-Christian teaching is becoming more and more profound as we speak.

I completely understand where many of you non-Christians are coming from when you say things to the effect that religion is unreasonable. But I want you to know that there are some of us 'religionists' who do not deny our physical beings and our physical natures, nor the physical world in which we live. Indeed, we embrace it as essential aspects of who we are. At the same time we do not deny our spiritual sides either. And we believe, with assurance, that our physical existance is governed by physical laws which are more or less immutable. The same applies as well to our spiritual natures.

Read More

Bible vs. Koran

Which of the two books is more violent, and thus which of the two books is more peaceful? An interesting discussion on the topic may be had here.

Read More

The Bible and the election

I realize that the contemporary view is that religion and politics do not, and should not, mix. The whole of modern American society is infused with this false belief, but people don't actually believe it anyway when you get down to where the rubber meets the road. One's religion does, and forever will, inform one's politics. True, we can't legislate morality ... as long as it's Christian morality. All other versions of morality (non-Christian morality) is not only acceptable but encouraged in modern American politics. As I've said so many times before (and I invite anyone to refute the principle with a good argument), all laws are founded on morality, someone's morality.

Matthew Fontaine Maury once observed that "the Bible is authority for everything it touches." I agree. So, since I agree, I offer the following opinion. If the Bible says anything on politics, then it is authority for that particular aspect of political philosophy. If it says anything about what our standards should be for choosing our rulers, then it is authority for the making and observing of those standards.

So does the Bible have anything to say about choosing our rulers; about what standards and principles we should apply to their selection? Indeed it does, and we're wise to pay particularly close attention to the details, especially in this farce of a presidential election:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.

The elective franchise carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility and of duty. The two candidates we're offered in this election in no way, so far as I can tell, meet these simple, reasonable qualifications (If you think either of them does, I should like to hear why.), therefore, since no other candidate for the presidency is included on the Oklahoma ballot, and since the Oklahoma ballot does not make accomodation for a write-in candidate, I shall abstain in the presidential election.

For those of you who know the scriptures, you're encouraged to offer others, Old and New Testament, which speak to this issue. The scripture I've posted above serves very well the purpose of this post, and that is why I chose it.

Read More

Sarah Palin and Complementarianism

If you follow a biblical-Christian worldview then you're very likely a complementarian. To what extent you're a complementarian may be in question, but you're a complementarian to some extent, no doubt. To what extent you're a complementarian, though, is ultimately the determining factor in how you view the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's vice-presidential running mate. But if you're not a pure complementarian are you in danger of slipping into Christian egalitarianism?

Earlier today frequent VFR commenter and complementarian Laura W. sent to VFR a link to a site called "Doug's blog" where is posted this excellent essay by Bill Einwechter in which Einwechter discusses Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise. I'm posting the introductory paragraph below. You may read the entirety of the essay here.

Sarah Palin’s selection by John McCain to be his running mate in his bid for the presidency of the United States is not only a surprise political move, it also carries with it implications of historic proportions. If Senator McCain is successful in his candidacy, Mrs. Palin will become the first woman to fill the office of vice president of this country and be in place to assume the presidency, if necessary. She will also be in line to take up the Republican nomination for president in the future. If John McCain becomes president and chooses to serve only one term, it is quite possible that the next presidential election (2012) will be between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But Palin’s nomination to the vice presidency is not only an historic occasion for our country, it is also a watershed moment for evangelical Christians, particularly those who claim to be complementarian in their views of men and women (i.e., those who believe that men and women have different but complementary roles according to the revealed will of God).

I think you'll enjoy the rest of the essay irrespective of how pure a complementarian you are. So be sure to read it. I know I certainly needed a bit of a refresher.

Read More

Apostate Muslim's account of Islam

In an essay posted at VFR Evariste explains why he ultimately rejected the teachings of the Koran, and with that rejection the Bible itself.

There are a lot of insights to be gleaned from Evariste's lengthy essay, so I recommend that you read it ... more than once. Certain Muslim beliefs are not common knowledge among Christians. I know, for instance, that I've been confused before on exactly what issue Muslims have with the Biblical account of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Particularly whether Muslims believe that Ishmael was the actual "son of promise." Which brings me to the point of this post, something Evariste states in his essay:

It's really an Arab supremacist religion that. Both the Arabs and the Jews are Semitic peoples with many resemblances, and Arabic and Hebrew are extremely similar languages, sharing an identical basic structure and much vocabulary, so I think there's a case to be made that the Arabic rage and fury against the Jews that manifests fully in the religion called Islam is actually an echo through history of the story of Cain and Abel, writ very, very large.

Yes, I suppose one could, more or less, accurately describe it that way; Cain angrily bludgeoned his brother Abel to death because of his outrage over the fact that God respected Abel's sacrificial gift but did not respect Cain's. But I think there's a better biblical accounting which more accurately describes the genesis of the sibling rivalry between Arabs and Jews. Namely, Genesis chapters 16, 17 and 21. It seems that the descendants of Ishmael came by their hatred for Isaac and his descendants honest, and that nothing will ever serve to satisfy them that their rightful inheritance, as descendants of the first-born son of Abraham, was not stolen from them.

Read More

One more post on Islam before I leave

(Update: See John Savage's analysis of the phrase "there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam," over at Brave New World Watch. Also, I've added the link to the AFB discussion on the topic where an additional comment has been added very pertinent to this discussion.)

What is a moderate Muslim? This question has been on my mind a lot lately, and in fact some time back I argued over at the AFB along the lines that the Christian equivalent of a moderate Muslim would be someone the Bible describes as lukewarm. In other words, what the two individuals of different faiths hold in common is that neither of them is that serious about his faith, and most likely not that knowledgable about it. This is what makes them, with regard to their particular faith and practice, moderate or lukewarm.

There's something else here too. It has been said over and over that "there are moderate "Muslims", but there is no moderate Islam." I think it could be said of Christianity, by contrast, that "there are radical "Christians", but no radical Christianity." The whole point being, of course, that there's something peculiar about the religion of Islam. It is inherently radical and extreme. That there are "moderate" Muslims does not in any way detract from that basic truth about the religion of Mohammed any more than the fact that certain violent individuals that exist claim to be Christians yet violate Christianity's first precepts.

But back to my original question. What to you constitutes a "moderate" Muslim? I've told you what a moderate Muslim is to me. Now I'd like to know what a moderate Muslim is to you. And I hope that Lawrence Auster will tackle this question of what constitutes a moderate Muslim either here or over at VFR in the near future.

Read More

No Taxation Without Enhancification

Okay, maybe I'm citing too many of Auster's entries lately, but I simply could not pass on this one because it discusses one of my pet peeves...

I certainly don't agree with, nor do I like the idea of taxing one class of people for the purpose of eliminating self-esteem issues of another class of people, which seems to be the idea here. But I'm mainly concerned with the false concept that outward appearances determine the level of one's internal self-esteem. That seems to be at the bottom here.

I've run into this problem numerous times within my own circle, and it's a fairly conservative circle by comparison. And my advice or counsel is always to be careful about entertaining the liberal bassackwards philosophy that says the external leads to the internal. Why is this my advice to those who ask it in one way or the other? Because, as I explain to them over and over (but this usually falls on deaf ears), invariably you will find that ultimately self-esteem is not enhanced, nor self-esteem issues eliminated by external means. It is the internal that leads to the external. One's self-esteem is not determined by the way one looks, but by the way one acts; by the content of one's character, to borrow from MLK.

Ultimately self-esteem is destroyed by this idea of enhancing one's features to increase self-esteem, not the other way around.

Read More

Top Ten men of the Millenia

VA has a great post up today concerning who are the top ten men of the millenia. I put up a comment just a few minutes ago where I displace one of VA's top ten with the name King James as one of my top ten, and my reasons why. Y'all go check it out and drop her a comment on who makes your top ten list.

Now, I have to go do some research to back up (or not) my assertions about the man responsible for the KJ version of the Holy Bible.

But what a great post!

Read More

Washington's Farewell Speech

(Note: This post has undergone some minor editing so as to include the link to the full speech from whence the excerpted portion posted below was taken. And also to add just a few more thoughts, and a couple more helpful links.)

Below is posted a long excerpt from Washington's Farewell Speech. Never dull reading for yours truly.

I have highlighted in bold text portions of the speech which struck me on this, the latest of the many times I've read it. I know that many of you would highlight other portions of the speech, and indeed it's hard to pick above others certain phrases to highlight. Nonetheless I've done so here as they relate in no small way to our current situation and how to go about fixing it.

Somewhere around the house here I have a copy of the speech which I printed from the computer wherein I broke the speech down into sub-headings and cross-referenced some of the principles I have highlighted in bold below with my copy of the Federalist Papers. I need to locate that copy, and/or, print off a new one and redo the work I so laboriously engaged way back when. I think I'd rather find the old one and see whether I need to add something, rather than retracing all of those steps. Not that retracing them doesn't have its advantages too.

And by the way, a great online resource for finding many relevant historical documents associated with the story of liberty, from the Magna Charta to the Mayflower Compact; from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and to Madison's Proposal for the Bill of Rights and beyond, is provided here.

One more link I would add is to an AFB post I did apparently back in October of '06, Expanding Upon the Concept of Balance. This entry, along with its sister post, Why libertarians have it wrong, though not particularly well done, nonetheless has relevancy in this context. The discussion that ensued upon both of these postings is in some ways more helpful than the actual entries themselves.

**********

Washington writes:

[...]

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now near to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand, Turning partly into its own channels the sea men of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing the parties by geographical discriminations - Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western - whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of 2 treaties - that with Great Britain and that with Spain - which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the off-spring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; the facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of persons and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep live the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party, but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! Is it rendered possible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government, but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to use have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish - that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good - that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the impostures of pretended patriotism - this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of [1793-04-22], is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined as far as should depend upon me to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after 45 years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government - the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers."

Read More

Books I'm currently reading, cont.

(Note: this post has been edited from its original, and is likely to undergo other revisions shortly.)

I just received my copy of Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Raoul Berger, yesterday. My copy is the second edition, hard-bound, and new, though the book is currently out of print. This book came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster, whom I thank. I sat down and read about six chapters yesterday evening, and indeed, Auster was right when he said I would be in for an "experience."

In addition to that book, I'm still reading the two I mentioned the other day. Also, with all the discussion on Islam, I've gone back to re-read Secrets of the Koran, by Don Richardson. Richardson's book deals with the unique nature of Islam to preclude any attempt to reach its converts by the redemptive analogy method.

One other work I've been lately revisiting is Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, which encompasses four volumes. Another work of Geisler which is complimentary to, well, all of the aforementioned books is Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. As to the latter two books in particular, I began a system of cross-referencing them a couple of years ago, and it's proving very helpful to me in my current pursuits.

All of these will find their way into many of my upcoming posts. Indeed, they've inspired several posts I've already prepared yet haven't yet put up. Y'all stay tuned.

Read More

Some of us have it, some of us don't, part 2

If you haven't been following the thread over at VFR concerning what is required of Christianity, I would strongly urge you to do so. There, Kristor L. offers us one of the most excellent pieces of Christian Apologetics I have ever had the pleasure of reading. In fact, I think I'm going to add Kristor's initial lengthy comments to my newly added feature in the left sidebar of this blog, Select VFR Articles.

In Kristor's latest, he dismantles the arguments of his critics with a skill and a precision that is rarely to be seen these days.

We've argued these things before over at the AFB and elsewhere. And often times, when I'm asked how I know God exists, my reply is simply this: "I know God exists because of the existence of evil." Which is not to say that I believe evil is a real thing; I don't. Rather, I believe evil is a deprivation of a real thing, absolute good. But the key to it is that by simply being able to distinguish between good and evil, I must have some idea of what pure goodness is, elsewise, how could I make the distinction? In a purely physical universe (devoid of a transcendent God), where all of our observances of the phenomena of nature are marked by imperfections, how could we know that these imperfections are indeed imperfections without some idea of that which is all-perfect?...

Read More

Welcome Back!, and a good question

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch is back from his short, but I'm sure needed vacation, and it seems to me he hasn't missed a step in the interim. As an example of what I mean, check out this entry.

John writes:

"I'd like to ask the question: "Does it ever benefit us to claim that liberals are being hypocritical if they don't want to destroy every sexual taboo?" For example, even liberals are often viscerally grossed out by incest. Some right-leaning pundits have criticized them for not taking their position to the logical extreme and calling for an end to laws against incest. But is that a smart way for traditionalists to talk?"

And here is one way in which I would answer it:...

Perhaps some of you are aware of the recent contentious incident between a traditional church in Dallas, Tx., and the homosexual community in the area? I read the story in the Dallas Morning News, and what happened according to the story was basically this:

The church in question volunteered its facitities and its services, at no cost to the family, to host the funeral of a church member's deceased brother. The church agreed to the family's putting together of a multi-media slide show depicting the deceased's life with the understanding that church officials would view the slide-show before approving it. The issue came about in this viewing where the family had inserted photos highlighting the deceased's homosexual behavior and lifestyle. Concerns were raised with the nature of the material and brought before the family, but the family would not agree to have any of it edited. No acceptable terms could be reached, and the church reneged on its promise. But what I'm getting at here is the goofy way in which the church's spokesperson handled the questions coming from the media. He said something to the effect of:

"What if the church were to volunteer its services to host the funeral of a murderer? Would it be required of us, or would it make any sense for us to allow depictions of that aspect of the person's life to be shown in our sanctuary?"

Obviously this is a ridiculous comparison to make. And all it accomplishes is to bring into question the credibility of the church and its reasoning, or its ability to take a reasonable position on anything. I mean, this person is its spokesperson, right? You can imagine how the homosexual community in the area reacted to this explanation of the church's position. You can imagine how liberals would react to this; not very favorably.

But here's the deal. The spokesperson from the church could have strengthened the church's position and its credibility immeasurably by simply responding to the media's questions in a way that people can understand and relate. For example, he could have said something like this: "What if a homosexual church in Dallas (of which I'm sure there are several) agreed to host the funeral of the straight brother of a member of that church? Would the church allow to be shown in their sanctuary depictions and images of the deceased working to inhibit the progress of the homosexual agenda in the Dallas area? Would the church leadership not reject such material based on what it perceived to be hostility toward homosexuals of which the congregation in question is made up? Furthermore, why would the family expect it to? Why would the straight community expect it to? Is any organization bound to honor a commitment to another party when certain pre-established and known boundaries have been crossed and no acceptable compromise can be reached?"

If you're going to accuse someone from another perspective of being hypocritical, you need to be able to show examples of their hypocracy. Otherwise, don't make the accusation to begin with if you're not able to back it up.

Read More

The Sufficiency of Christianity

I've said innumerable times in the past that we are not to compare ourselves with others who are worse, or appear to be worse than we are to establish our "goodness." This method falls short every time because we can always find someone who possesses and exhibits qualities worse than our own until finally we arrive at the ultimate evil and the father of it, Satan. Compared against Satan, the consummate personification of pure moral deprivation, or evil, we're all righteous. And that's exactly the road we lead ourselves down when we mistakenly compare ourselves with people and nations worse than our own to establish our relative goodness.

I'd like to direct your attentions to yet another entry posted at VFR where Kristor L. establishes that the correct way, and the standard of measure we should apply in all cases is indeed the exact opposite of the above. Indeed, we are to measure ourselves against the ultimate in goodness and righteousness, the necessary Creator God. This method will never fail to shed a bright and glaring light on our deficiencies, and is the only way for societies, and those who make up society to improve themselves.

Indeed, Christianity is sufficient.

Read More

Some of us have it; Some of us don't

I know the Bible teaches us not to covet, but I can't help but covet the talent that others have with the written word. I want you to go over to Rick Darby's blog and read what Mr. Auster has to say about the beauty of disease. I don't know how many times I've attempted to express this exact kind of thought on the non-existence of evil and evil things. They are not things in themselves, they are rather deprivations of something real. But never have I been able to put it in words as beautiful and simplistic as these. What a treat!

Read More

Is Christianity Destructive of Society?

Yes, you read the title right. Now pick yourselves up off the floor and let's discuss why this question needs an answer.

In reality this post is intended to lead you to another place where that question is being discussed. Just click on the link here provided and you'll be taken to the VFR entry of this morning: What Christianity requires in order not to be destructive of Society. Also, over at VA's is posted this title on the same subject: Which Christianity? continued.

As far as Auster's entry goes, I think Conservative Swede may actually have one good point. One of the things that VA points out in her post is that today's Christians tend to neglect the Old Testament in preference for the New Testament, the gospels and particularly Christ's words...

A Jew that's a Christian would most likely (today) be more familiar with the Old Testament than his Christian counterpart who is only familiar with the New Testament. He would be more prepared then to make sense out of the New Testament as it relates to the whole Bible.

How Christians have come to believe that the Old Testament, as part of the whole Bible, is not relevant to Christianity is beyond me. It would be like taking one of Paul's epistles and trying to understand it outside the context of the whole New Testament. I know Christians who actually do that. The rest of the Scriptures mean nothing to them if they can't make a direct connection between them and their preferred book(s) and passages. When the Bible explicitly states that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and etc..." But of course, if the book that contains that passage isn't one of their chosen books, then they've probably never run into it I guess.

Anyway, I highly recommend you go read Auster's post. And particularly the excellent comments that follow. But don't try to understand the comments outside the context of the post entry. That's my advice.

-DW

Read More

Righting a Wrong

This is going to come as a huge shock to you all, but I've actually been wrong before. Moreover, I've actually assented to a wrong idea knowing full well that I was assenting to an idea that was purely untenable.

One of the most egregious examples of this came a couple of years ago when I wrongly, and knowingly, assented to the idea, expressed by someone I'll not name here, that "people are essentially good." I knew there was a huge problem with this idea, and I recognized it right away. Yet, to my great regret now, I joined in to this chorus feigning a true belief in the concept.

I'd like to clear the record on this, as well as to finally put my conscience at ease in this matter. I do not believe that people are essentially good, but rather that they are essentially bad. People need a reason to be good, as I've said so many times since, thus contradicting myself. I believe that the best reason to be good is contained in the Bible. And the Bible explicitly states that man is not good, no not one.

I agree with Auster on this question of being good. I can't truly be good outside the good influence of my religion. And to that person (you know who you are) to which I falsely and knowingly mis-stated my actual position (for which I have no good explanation), I offer my most sincere apologies, and beg forgiveness.

-DW

Read More

Is Worldview the Cure for the 'Disease' We Face?

In the previous post put up yesterday evening I asked you all to look for a post this morning having to do with what I discovered upon reading the entries put up at a few of my favorite blogs while we were away. The implication being, of course, that I was going to concentrate my efforts this morning on saying a few things about the aforementioned blogs and the entries which had been posted during my absence. Well, as these things seem to go for me fairly frequently these days, that has now all changed, though I intend to do another post on that subject later today...

It's no secret that I frequent VA's blog, nor that I hold her in pretty high esteem among bloggers. And it's been on numerous occasions like this one that a post at VA's has sparked some idea for a related post here at Webster's.

Most of you know by now that I have a pretty simple approach to the world and the problems facing it. Usually it all boils down, for me, to a poor religious foundation on an individual level. That leads to a poor foundation at the various group levels. Truly I believe, in direct contradiction to what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, that the 'whole' of society is exactly equal to, not greater than (or lesser than for that matter), 'the sum of its parts.' Personally I believe this very idea, or concept, is at least indirectly responsible for many of the problems our society faces these days.

If the idea is accepted and acknowledged generally as a truth (and I think it may safely be said that it is), then I know we have a huge problem on our hands that results from that kind of thinking. There may be 'power in numbers,' but no more or less than those numbers add up to. And if you want to discover the character of the nation and this people as a whole, just look to the individuals making the nation up and let that be your answer, disheartening as it may be. At least that's an honest approach which leaves little room for individuals to wriggle themselves out of their ultimate responsibilities.

And that's really the subject I want to get to in this first full post following my recent absence. VA discusses this morning the problems involved with identifying personal issues of 'self-indulgence' as, or equating them with legitimate 'diseases.' She focuses her post on drug and alcohol addiction, and the tendency these days to treat them both as diseases, as opposed to treating them in the old fashioned, or the traditional way as problems associated to the lack of personal restraint and control.

Personally I believe strongly in the admonition of the Bible to 'raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it.' And truly, y'all, can any of us say with a straight face that a majority of American children (little people) these days are raised by their parents, or influenced by our society in that way?

America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, certainly keyed in on this approach essential to maintaining and perpetuating a largely 'self-governing' society. In his very definition of the term “education,” Webster defines it as “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations. Note Webster's choice of terms here – discipline, correct, form, fit. And I gotta ask, folks, if our methods of 'education' are not “intended” to do all that, then why would we ever think we'd end up with a society comprised of self-governing people? How could we ever honestly believe that our constitution and the principles it was founded on could ever survive?

As I read VA's post the thought kept coming to mind, sentence after sentence, that this is far from what is intended within today's 'educational' establishment. But the primary educators of our children, irregardless of who, or what sphere of government is ultimately chosen to the task of educating them, are their parents and adult family members. But what exactly is happening with today's youth? Why is education, and the primary educational institutions in this country (the home, the church, and the schools) failing our kids? Why does each successive generation seem to exhibit less and less self-governing qualities, and more and more dependency on others, on government, on drugs, on alcohol, you name it?

Is it not that they're being raised this way? Is it not that the disease of liberalism has so infected all of our primary educational institutions that this is just the natural result of their poor raisings? I believe so, and I believe that one indicator of this is the growing tendency for parents to seek a medical cure for problems of the temper exhibited by their children, and for the schools to assist them in doing so.

All too often these days parents are all too willing to identify problems with their children which they seem to believe is related to some 'disorder' possessed of their children in a way unique to other children. I suspect I know at least part of the reason parents are inclined to accept these false notions about their kids. First, it gets the parents off the hook for the bad behavior of their kids, or so the parents believe. Second, the parents derive a lot of self-indulgent pleasure from the sympathies they receive from family members and the general public when they have a child with 'special needs.' Third, if they have a 'special' child with 'special' needs, there are all kinds of financial benefits to be derived therefrom, and so on. But is the problem correctly identified, and is it as widely spread as we're led to believe? I certainly believe that the problem is mis-diagnosed much of the time, if not most of the time.

One thing I've always said regarding my own children, albeit somewhat jokingly, is that “they all had A.D.D. until I beat it out of them.” What I mean by that, obviously, is that they all (every last one of them) showed all the signs of having an 'attention deficit' until it was cured through the methods of instruction and discipline intended to (1) enlighten, (2) correct, (3) form, (4) fit. And if this is not the method for producing self-governing individuals 'fit for usefulness in their future stations,' as self-governing, independent, and productive American adults, then I'm utterly deluded.

The point being, of course, that our tendency these days as parents and guardians to darken the understanding, encourage the practice of bad behavior through non-correction, to allow the manners and habits to be formed outside a guiding moral influence, and to raise children not fit for usefulness in their future stations is all too common, and all too noticeable out in the real world. And if you don't believe it, just make it a point the next time you go to a public place, to watch how much parents indulge their misbehaving children.

But of course these misbehaving children just can't help themselves, can they? They must have some disorder that causes them to behave so badly, whether there's been a term put to it yet or not, and for which there must be some prescription drug available to control it. And if not there will be, right? Pretty convenient excuse for those parents who themselves are very often self-indulgent, drug addicted types, wouldn't you agree?

-DW

Read More