Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Sunday, June 21 2009

In a recent speech to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, former President Bill Clinton stated the obvious: that we are a nation with a great deal of diversity.  Heralding this fact as a "very positive thing," Clinton joined with the growing chorus of cultural commentators who apparently think that there is something inherently wonderful about diversity.

 

Sure, ethnic diversity has many benefits.  And the opportunity to learn about different customs and cultural characteristics is an enlightening exercise.  But the architects of our republic chose the Latin phrase "E pluribus unum" in describing our civilization for a reason.  The phrase means "out of many, one."  It's the notion that though having different experiences and varying backgrounds, the people of our country accept, embrace, and perpetuate similar values, a common belief system, and a unity in purpose.

 

In other words, what has made the United States so special is not the mere fact that we have welcomed in immigrants from many lands - that is merely diversity for diversity's sake.  The true glory of America has come when that rich diversity of persons has united behind core principles and advanced shared ideals. 

 

Unfortunately, at the behest of the politically correct and tolerant crowd, we are in danger of losing sight of that crucial reality.  Remember it was not long ago that President Obama made the declaration that, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation.  We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers." 

 

Now, certainly Barack Obama is smart enough to know that this country has maintained populations of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists for generations - it's not a new development.  So what was he saying?  Read in context, the President was suggesting that because of this diversity, the United States needs to fundamentally change its cultural foundation to incorporate values not just from the Christian faith, but from all these religions.  He called for us to begin to "translate our reasoning" to a more diverse approach.  This is a disastrous concept because it naively assumes that there will be no consequences from doing so. 

 

Our Founding Fathers were wise and learned individuals who were students of political philosophy.  When crafting the basis for our civilization, they could have chosen any of a number of belief systems, but they chose Christianity for a reason.  No, it was not to use the power of government to force everyone to be Christian or abide by a strict Christian code.  The First Amendment clearly prohibited such action.  Rather, it was because they understood that the absolute moral principles that come from Christian scripture - respect for life, private property rights, charity, frugality, stewardship, benevolence, peaceful living, responsible liberty - were the best friend to a free society and should be encouraged.

 

Don't take my word for it.  John Adams said, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed in ancient or modern times the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity."  Dr. Benjamin Rush added that the only means of perpetuating our form of government was the, "universal education of our children in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.  For this divine book, above all others, favors that respect for just laws, those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."

 

Even Benjamin Franklin, commonly regarded as the least religious of all the Founding Fathers said, "History will afford the frequent opportunities of showing the excellency of the Christian religion above all others."  If those words were uttered in our politically correct country today, whoever spoke them would be regarded as a narrow minded right-wing bigot.  Thus, you see the danger we are up against.

 

Again, our founders weren't suggesting that we use the power of government to force everyone into the baptistery.  They were suggesting, however, that for our culture to survive and endure, it would take a unified recognition amongst our people that not all belief systems are equal, and Christianity stands above them all.

 

Mr. Obama is right in saying that this country is made up of people of varying beliefs.  But there's a reason that peaceful Muslims have found it safer to live in this country than in those founded on Islamic law.  There's a reason atheists have found it safer to live in this country than in those founded on the absence of moral authority.  It's because our founders made Christian principle our cultural foundation.  And that's something that if we're wise, no amount of diversity will ever change.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:21 pm   |  Permalink   |  34 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
Didn't you get the memo, Pete? There are two things that are supposed to be mocked by intellectuals and the media: Christianity and captialism. These two are what has made this the most prosperous and benevolent country in the world. Pres. Obama HOPES to complete this nation's CHANGE into a secular, socialistic nation. Yes, I used the "S" words. Conservatives had better begin speaking up before it's too late (if it's not already). Run to your nearest TEA Party and contact your representatives as often as possible to reverse our nation's run to the left.
Posted by vcamatt on 06/21/2009 20:06:26
The unifying principle of America is freedom. Every patriotic American can rally behind this principle. In this sense freedom unites us, but it is also that which permits us to be different. The individual's right to freedom follows from the reality that each and every individual has inherent worth. You don't have to be religious to believe this, and in fact I think Christianity betrays this with that claim that were are all born as fallen beings, tarnished by sins we did not commit. The freedom and also the relative safety of American life comes not from religious myth-based ethics, but from the common-sense recognition that all people are worth something, by virtue of simply being people.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/22/2009 10:46:49
Mr. Gavelis, I agree with you that freedom is the most important idea or principle that guides us. That is why we are so tolerant of people who break the law to come here to be free. That is why we let people use drugs and do all kinds of things we personally wouldn't do because we think, hey, it's a free country. But you have to be blind to think that without any moral guiding foundation everyone would do the right thing. Actually you've convinced me my Christian ways are only myths. Good job. By the way, I need some decent tires for my car - can you tell me where you park and when you work?
Posted by Steve Cicero on 06/22/2009 21:41:57
What does Christianity have to do with morality, Steve? Imagine if your tire joke actually rang true - imagine if nonreligious people were really, truly amoral criminals who did whatever they pleased. Civilization would have self-destructed long ago. At the very least, nonreligious people would have a higher divorce rate, higher incarceration rate, etc, than Christians. Why isn't this the case? Call me an optimist, but I don't think people need cosmic threats to keep them in line. Moral behavior has clear social and societal benefits - No superstition necessary.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/23/2009 15:02:40
1. Christianity is the best teacher of morality, NGav. That's what it has to do with morality. 2. Steve wasn't suggesting that all nonreligious folks were amoral criminals, just that they lack any objective standard of morality that lead to internal restraint. 3. Perhaps civilization hasn't self-destructed because the overwhelming attitude of its inhabitants has been there IS moral authroity? 4. Your stats on the divorce, incarceration rate, etc. are skewed, unreliable, and extraordinarily misleading - you know it. 5. If self-preservation is the instinct that has kept society functional as you suggest, could you explain self-sacrifice and altruism?
Posted by peterheck on 06/24/2009 14:23:14
(1) No, not even among religions. (2) I think Steve can speak for himself, but please define what constitutes an *objective* standard of morality. As for internal restraints - these are what prevent non-religious people from stealing your tires. (3) I never said there isn't any moral authority, just that religion isn't a necessary one. (4) No and you're not a mind-reader. (5) It's about more than self-preservation: morality is about love and genuine empathy. I love my friends and family, and I believe I would sacrifice myself so that they could survive some lethal misfortune. Love, like morality, is independent of religion.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/24/2009 16:16:48
Here is an objective basis for morality: ITS EFFECTS. If a people deemed theft, rape, and murder to be morally acceptable, their society would experience negative results, e.g., total chaos and death. But if instead the same people deemed these things IM-moral, their society would experience measurably positive consequences. Of course "negative" and "positive" are subjective labels, but these too can be defined based on their objective sequelae. Now tell me, Pete, what is the objective basis for Christian morality? Keyword objective.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/24/2009 19:16:15
If I may interject: 1. The best teacher of morality is natural selection, through which the rules of "morality" emerged as the most effective way to survive as a species. This is because what we general refer to as morals, ethics, virtue, etc. are the best method of survival if applied as a universal rule--if all people are "moral", the species is able to prevail. If all people are "immoral", and lie, steal, kill, etc. without restraint, the species would be unable to persist.
Posted by Some dude somewhere on 06/26/2009 04:18:29
2. The objective standard to which nonreligious people hold their morals is the aforementioned, as well as the capacity to reason what the effects of said actions would result. Now, of course, someone could reason that they could commit a crime without being caught (well, they could as easily as someone could rationalize a crime so that it fit a religion). Of course, a person's lack of belief certainly does not mean they have no empathy for their fellow man. In fact, their fellow man is the only judge, and how one judges a crime is ubiquitously known, for reasons mentioned already.
Posted by Some dude somewhere on 06/26/2009 04:28:43
2. (cont.) However, a religion's judge is invariably provided with a mixture of morals inherent to our evolutionary path and invented ones. Religions generally praise virtues, since a religion that did not would not survive. A society that adhered to a religion that promoted immoral behavior would die out as its people would. But all religions have as their ultimate virtue faith to the religion. In so doing the religion spreads, since an adherent must be a devoted one. Devotees spread exponentially.
Posted by Some dude somewhere on 06/26/2009 04:54:48
3., 4. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html A study showing a positive correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction. I'm not necessarily implying that religion CAUSED the dysfunction in including this; just that less-religious communities are certainly capable of functioning in the absence of as much religion as the US has if they function better than the US. 5. Preservation of both the self and of the society are products of evolution.
Posted by Some dude somewhere on 06/26/2009 05:00:42
Just a quick question I always find entertaining to ask folks like you "some dude somewhere"...If you were walking alone in a dark alley in the middle of a dangerous city, and 10 men started walking towards you...would you, or would you not be relieved to find out that they had just attended a Bible study? (h/t Dennis Prager). Now, why do you think that is?
Posted by peterheck on 06/26/2009 13:09:23
NGav: 1. sorry you disagree with the architects of our Republic...I trust them a bit more than you (with all due respect). 2 and so on: I honestly find myself incredibly amused that a self-professing atheist believes that he has a firmer basis of objectivity when it comes to Natural Law than a believer in the Natural Law giver. We've been down this road before, actually. Revelation and Reason...remember that? But I've had an epiphany of sorts after discussing Natural Law in an interview yesterday on the show. Hang on and I'll fill you in...
Posted by peterheck on 06/26/2009 13:12:09
You believe in Natural Law, NGav. You don't disagree with me that the virtues that I attribute to Christian principle: respect for life, private property rights, charity, frugality, stewardship, benevolence, peaceful living, responsible liberty, etc., are essential for the preservation of our society. Then perhaps we should stop bickering about their source and agree that our government should be about the business of encouraging such qualities. I believe, like our Founders, that these attributes are best found in Christian principle. You don't...but you do not have a problem with the attributes. So why does the political movement you support resist advancing them?
Posted by peterheck on 06/26/2009 13:14:51
To both the dude and NGav, I notice an alarming tendency both of you have to equate and suggest equivalence between all world religions. Call it the Bill Maher syndrome. Surely you don't believe as much? Are you able to distinguish between them?
Posted by peterheck on 06/26/2009 13:17:56
Dude from somewhere says, "A study showing a positive correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction." Ah yes, Mother Teresa a societally dysfuctional being. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, productive members of humanity. Let's go with that theory, shall we?
Posted by Dude From Another Place on 06/26/2009 13:19:41
I'd be equally relieved if those 10 men approaching me had just come from a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, the library, or a chess club. The reason is simple: people who are interested in bettering themselves tend not to be violent criminals. Anyway, please do tell me how Christianity is an *objectively* moral foundation, Pete. As for the virtues, we agree! However I don't think either Democrats or Republicans are working to advance these principles - both parties are corrupt and self-interested. Generally, these virtues are best practiced at the level of the individual, and the goal of government should be to permit and protect these things, not necessarily to legislate morality.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/26/2009 14:52:54
At dude #1, thanks for your posts. It's refreshing to hear a thoughtful exploration of the nature of human morality. Google mirror neurons. They fire when an animal observes another animal's behavior, in effect allowing us to understand what other people are doing, but also to even "feel" what they are doing. For instance, if a frenzy of godless rage caused me to bop Pete on the noggin with a frying pan and you watched, you'd feel a sort of impact in your head and cringe, having experienced Pete's injury vicariously. That's mirror neurons at work. So there is an innate physical basis for empathy, and I believe it can be suppressed or cultivated.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/26/2009 15:06:19
PS: Don't worry Pete, that was purely hypothetical silliness. Oh, and dude #2, a handful of anecdotes don't invalidate a trend, they just remind us that is a trend is a trend, not a rule. For instance, there's a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, but obviously that doesn't rule out the existence of many, many intelligent Christians, nor does it imply that correlation equals causation. It's just projecting *averages* based on samples from the population.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/26/2009 15:12:05
Pete, you allege I have an "alarming tendency" to equate all world religions. Re-read my posts and you'll see this occur approximately zero times. You then ask if I can even tell religions apart - yes, I can. Undergrad courses introduced me to Hinduism and Buddhism in particular - these interested me intensely. I perused Judaism, Presbyterianism, Rastafarianism, and others in a religious course focused on the concept of divine chosen-ness. Religions can hardly be grouped together, they are so diverse, but they do have a few things in common, like their obsession with death, the importance of ritual, the centrality of texts and their firm root in fiction.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/26/2009 22:03:33
Last fallacy to correct: I'm not a "self-proclaimed atheist." Atheism is an empty concept, a nonbelief. It would be silly to identify myself by what I *don't* believe. Although I am skeptical of most human claims about gods, the concept of "god" is so ill-defined and open-ended that it can't be rejected as a whole. We can't reject what we can't comprehend. That being said, I wouldn't call myself an atheist or a naturalist or anything really. Better to have no label than a misleading one.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/26/2009 22:35:17
Yikes, I think we're about to have a breakthrough, NGav! "Generally, these virtues are best practiced at the level of the individual, and the goal of government should be to permit and protect these things." You sound VERY conservative when you say this, NGav. Someone who truly believes this would be repulsed by the current leadership in Washington. Are you? It's funny how all this becomes circular. You are quite correct in saying that it works best when people exercise "Self-government" at the personal level. Our Founders felt the same way. That is why they thought the government should encourage Christian principle. Because Christian principle taught those very things.
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:49:59
Removed from Christian principle, moral restraint would disappear, they believed. As a result, government would have to begin trying to legislate what should be known (remember there were no drug or gun laws at the time of our founding). But when government started legislating more, that naturally means less freedom. It's the whole "freedom requires religion" thing. Let me walk you through some founders' quotes to demonstrate the proof of what I'm saying.
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:50:38
We know JQA's comment that "the highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." But WHY did it connect them? Because as his Dad, John Adams pointed out, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by religion and morality. Avarice, revenge, gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our government was made only for a moral and religious people- it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:51:08
And George Washington confirmed this fact when he wrote in his Farewell Address, "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 would labor to subvert these pillars, these firmest props of men and citizens." Amazing. Washington called the very act of trying to remove religion and morality from the culture unpatriotic! Imagine what you might have said of me if I would have proposed that! But why are they saying this?
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:52:09
As I pointed out in my column, it wasn't because they were trying to force everyone into the baptistery. It was because they understood for a free society to function, the people must respect the Natural Law and exercise moral restraint. And what was the best teacher of that moral restraint? Christian principle. As Dr. Benjamin Rush said, "It is not my purpose to hint at the arguments which establish the truth of the Christian revelation. My only business is to
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:54:16
declare that all its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well-being of civil government...A Christian cannot fail of being a republican...for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy...A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teaches him that no man ‘liveth to himself.' And lastly a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teaches him in all things to do to others what he would wish, in like circumstances, they should do to him."
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:54:57
Disagree if you like with the Founders, but surely you must acknowledge their reliance on Christian principle in perpetuation our forms of government.
Posted by peterheck on 06/27/2009 12:55:20
Of course Christian principles were important in maintaining social order and restraints - the colonies were of Christian heritage. My contention is that the nation-state of America was not founded upon Christianity, but upon freedom. Freedom that allows ALL religions to be practiced here. I also realize morality is fundamentally non-reliant on religious myth. Moral rules are moral based on the objective consequences of their practice, based on their EFFECT. To inject Christian myth into matters of common decency and common sense is just a cultural power-grab, a greedy attempt to copyright and merchandize human qualities that both underlie and transcend religious faith. Morality is love and good will, not myth and dogma.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/27/2009 14:55:15
All, I appreciate your reasoned, civil debate. A couple of comments. Maybe the negative correlation between religion and education is that a lot of people can't really read very well and could use some help interpreting the Bible. And disregarding any of the various churches and religions, which have done so very much to advance the progression of mankind, let me just quote Jesus, "...He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives in you and will be in you." Not to be too mystical - God doesn't talk to me directly, but he winks at me all the time.
Posted by Steve Cicero on 07/01/2009 21:52:25
Hi Steve. Yeah I don't put too much weight in the religion-stupidity correlation - there could be any number of explanations and yours is a good one. Sociologists have also found a negative correlation between intelligence and conservatism, but that's a different issue for a different day. As for your Jesus quote, I'm not a Christian but it seems Jesus really is inside people, if only psychologically, as a sort of sub-personality. Sometimes I feel like I'm not alone, as though my parents or grandparents are watching me from within. I imagine some people feel similarly about Jesus.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/02/2009 16:33:00
Let us not forget, Hitler's biggest fan club in the USA consisted of patriotic, conservative, Christian groups who were hysterically anti-communist and anti-socialist (not that socialism was a movement of worker solidarity for better terms and conditions, but is "satanic"). Right wing Christians HATED Franklin Delano Roosevelt and considered him a "commie" in disguise (despite his long career amongst capitalists on Wall Street). Right wing Christians felt that Adolf Hitler was the savior of Mankind.
Posted by G.Goodman on 09/07/2009 16:51:50
Some of these groups included: American Liberty League, the Crusaders, the Sentinels of the Republic, the National Economy League, Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, Christian Action, Committee for a Sound Dollar and Sound Currency, Christian America, Chamber of Commerce, Order of '76, and a host of prominent individuals and families such as Rockefeller Associates and the DuPont family. The power behind NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) was the Special Conference Committee. Twelve corporations made up the Special Conference Committee, a secretive business organization dedicated to destroying unions and promoting the agenda of NAM.
Posted by G.Goodman on 09/07/2009 16:54:00
NAM's Special Conference met in the offices of Standard Oil, 30 Rockefeller Plaza. The twelve firms are listed as follows: ATT, Bethlehem Steel, E.I Du Pont de Nemours, General Electric, General Motors, Goodyear Tire, International Harvester, Irving Trust, Standard Oil of N.J, US Rubber, United Steal, Westinghouse. So this right wing "anti-liberal" crusade was actually backed by the "East Coast Liberal Establishment" of business and banking.
Posted by G.Goodman on 09/07/2009 16:54:47

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here