Flirting with Sophia

First, Dan, thank you for the kind words. I look forward to digging into what you wrote. Tonight, however, we have a primary to tend to...if I can keep my eyes open another minute!

My first impulse is to zone out in utter boredom...running against John Kerry seems so utterly boring to me I can't imagine it. Even though Al Gore was boring, at least he had his quirks that were fun to tease. Kerry, it seems, does not even have fun quirks. A candidate without quirks! Oh John, why the long face? Don't you have any sparkle?

I need to ask myself: am I calling boredom what is actually fear? Do I fear John Kerry? As I give a quick scan of my soul, I really don't think so. I do believe George W. Bush will win this race with some ease either way. Oh, but what a joy it would be to run against Dean...a certified mad man. There is so much to riddicule, so much to tease, so much fun! With Kerry...nothing. Dull, dull, dull. Election season has suddenly lost some of its luster.

What does everyone else think? Does Pres. Bush have reason to fear? Do you think there is any reason to hope the primaries will be worth watching once again, or has Kerry truly ushered in the Season of Snooze!

Ah yes, Rachel! I am, indeed, something of a cheerleader for more excommunication! Some questions though...first being, Orthodox Catholics petitioning the Pope? I am surprised the orthodox laity thinks its thier place to petition the Holy Father!

In researching excommunication, I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholics...cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. Here, therefore, it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault." So, the question becomes, does advocating abortion meet this criteria? Is it only punishable when you vote for it, or simply when you state, "I am for a women's right to choose." Why pick on politicians? Can celebrities (if there are any Catholic celebrities) also be excommunicated?

Wouldn't one excommunication morally require thousands of other excommunications? I don't know, maybe the Vatican has shied away from the act because...where does it stop? Will councils be set up to inquire into who is pro-life and who is pro-abortion? Is it really fair to only excommunicate politicians?

As I think more on the question, I wonder if excommunication is really feasible for abortion advocates, even if it fits the above mentioned criteria. Then again, if not for abortion, then what is excommunication good for? Just dirty protestants?

On another note, look what my "boss" Michael Novak says about the election over at The Corner. I swear, we are of one mind!

Okay everyone, tomorrow is the big day: lets hear your predictions! First, what order will they finish in? Second, what will be the fallout? Will anyone drop out?

Here are my gusses: Maybe it is just dumb optimism, but I predict a Howard Dean upset...but still it will be a squeaker!

Why? First of all, according to the news, he has some momentum. Second of all, I believe there must be enough smart Republicans in NH who will see how wonderful a Dean win would be for George W. Bush, and they will get out and vote. (Anyone can vote in the NH primaries)

Kerry will come in a close second, followed by Edwards in Third. Despite the Joementum, Lieberman will be forth, Clark a sorry fifth, with Kucinich then Sharpton rounding out the pack.

I don't believe anyone will drop out as a result of the NH primary, they will all go for another round...though many will wonder why Clark remains. The justification will be that he is a Southerner, so he could do better later on.

What do you ya'll think?

I wanted to post a question about salvation earlier, and think, in light of Greg's comments, it might be interesting to discuss. What does everyone think of a "postmortem encounter with Christ" by which all will have an opportunity to know the gospel and respond?

You know, there is something in the idea of universal salvation that appeals to me as I think about the people I love who are not Christians. But ultimately, universal salvation does not really satisfy...I do believe it is possible for some to reject Christ's love, and in such an instance I do believe in hell where that person can follow their free will away from God. I don't believe God can force anyone to accept His love and sacrifice, he created us with a free will on purpose.

Anyway, it seems most of us agree with the Roman Catholic Church that salvation can occur, through Christ, even for those who have never heard of Christ. What I am wondering about is for those who have heard of Christ. What about a person who had an abusive father, for example. That person would probably have a hard time believing in a heavenly Father of love because of deep wounds caused by sin on earth. Deep inside of that person will be certain barriers, certain defense mechanisms, that are not really their fault, but still keep them from God.

So, my question: do you think it is possible that each individual will have a postmortem encounter with Christ where they will hear the gospel in a way that they can understand? I don't know, ultimately I believe that however it will work, it will be incredibly fair. No one will say, "Oh, God was really unfair to him or her!" That is ridiculous. That is why I like "The Great Divorce" so much, because after reading it I thought, "that was really fair". However it will really work will be no less fair, of course. But I do like the possibility of a postmortem encounter, and was wondering what you all thought?

Or, maybe we shouldn't really be questioning this because it is not absolutely clear in scripture...maybe it is just supposed to be a mystery? What do you think?

The question: on what was our nation founded? On freedom? And upon what foundation is American freedom built? The answer from John Adams: “Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles, upon which Freedom can securely stand.” And Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

Though Jefferson was a deist, he did not lack respect for Christianity. At the time of his presidency, the largest church service in the nation took place in the Capitol Building. And Jefferson attended. One day a preacher examined him about his churchgoing. This account can be found in the preacher’s diary: “President Jefferson was on his way to church of a Sunday morning with his large red prayer book under his arm when a friend querying him after their mutual good morning said which way are you walking Mr. Jefferson. To which he replied to Church Sir. You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it. Sir said Mr. J. No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”

Before I conclude, there are a few more comments in Dan’s blog that I would like to address. First, Dan quotes well the Declaration of Independence, with its references to Nature’s God and the Creator. To him, this is secular material, not necessarily the God of the Bible. I will grant Dan that for now, but say also that Dan should have read on. The last paragraph reads: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

So, the Declaration refers to the Creator, Judge, and Providence. It cannot be said that this is the same God as the God of the deists. This is uniquely the God of the Bible.

Dan, you then quote, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” You say this is not from Scripture or Tradition. Assuming you regard Saint Thomas Aquinas as part of Tradition, I quote him now: “If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power.” It seems that Catholic thought has, as Novak says, “established the principle that political power flows from the consent of the governed.”

I will close with two extended quotes. First, for our Catholic friends, John Paul II in 1998 said, “Thus John Dickerson, chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: ‘Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declarations of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.’ Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine Providence over the individual and over the father of nations.”

Next, George Washington, the Father of our nation. In his farewell address he says: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim 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 cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with public and private 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. ’Tis 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?”

Dan says that he does not believe that the founders established the United States with an “eye towards heaven.” While I am not exactly sure what Dan means by an “eye towards heaven”, I assume he means that they did not establish America with Christianity on their minds. This is incorrect. What needs to be understood is that their whole way of thinking was literally shaped by Christianity. Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, in Christianity on Trial, refer to a study done by Bernard Bailyn in the 1960s. This study “undertook a systematic review of revolutionary era pamphlets in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and found that the political and social ideas of New England Puritanism had a major impact on the men who made the Revolution. Bailyn concluded that covenant theology in particular ‘carried on into the eighteenth century and into the minds of the Revolutionaries the idea, originally worked out in the sermons and tracts of the settlement period, that the colonization of British America had been an event designed by the hand of God to satisfy his ultimate aims.’”

Again, Carroll and Shiflett quote Sidney Ahlstrom in saying, “Puritans provided the moral and religious background of fully 75 percent of the people who declared their independence in 1776.” Carroll and Shiflett conclude, “For that generation, the language of social compact and a stubborn insistence on the consent of the governed was ingrained tradition—Christian tradition—with more than a century of practice behind it.”

It is important to take a careful look at the Puritan tradition in America, since it is, to a large extent, the heritage of the founding fathers. Historian Stephen Foster, quoted in Christianity on Trial, says, “Few societies in western culture have ever depended more thoroughly or more self-consciously on the consciously on the consent of their members than the allegedly public life in New England…Every aspect of public life in New England demanded the formal assent of the public. Church members elected their ministers, town meetings the selectmen, freemen their deputies and magistrates, and militiamen their officers.” These democratic customs, Foster explains, sprang in part from the Puritans’ unromantic view of human nature and its tendency toward corruption. “Because even magistrates, the most saintly of the saints, had a sizable residue of natural lust left in them, their power had to be limited by a codified body of laws [and] frequent elections.”

Though it would be difficult to argue that the Puritans were secular, they too had a democratic system of government. This was the heritage of the revolutionary generation. Novak says that a Jewish metaphysic also played a significant role in ordering the thoughts of the founders. This metaphysic declared, “Time had a beginning and is measured for progress or decline by God’s standards; that everything in the world is intelligible, and that to inquire, invent, and discover is an impulse of faith as well as of reason; that the Creator endowed us with liberty and inviolable dignity, while the Divine Judge shows concern for the weak and the humble; that life is a time of duty and trial; and that history is to be grasped as the drama of human liberty—all these are the background that make sense of the Declaration of Independence.”

Novak argues that if the foundations of this country were based solely on reason, the founders, or Locke, could never have come up with the idea of natural human rights. This is because reason seems to suggest that some people are strong and some are weak. Throughout nature there is inequality, not equality. Novak says, “Locke’s contention that by nature no man is intended to be ruled by another comes not from observation, not from history, and not exactly from philosophical argument, but from an appeal to a biblical metaphysic. Indeed, it never entered into the consciousness of philosophers in any part of the world, unless they had first had contact with Christianity. The one overwhelming reality that reduces all humans to equality is the Face of their Creator, Who is not impressed by men’s power, wealth, or earthly might.”

Therefore, let us return to the question: on what foundation did the fathers of this nation build? Was it a purely secular, or predominantly secular, foundation as Dan suggests? Or was it a foundation of both faith and reason, as I argue? Consider Alexis de Tocqueville for a moment. What did he find in America? He writes, “There is no country in the world in which the boldest political theories of the eighteenth-century philosophers are put so effectively into practice as in America. Only their anti-religious doctrines have never made any headway in that country. For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other.”

If the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so mingled, then to create a government based on human liberty is, in fact, the Christian thing to do. Tocqueville again: “In France I had seen the spirits of religion and of freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.” And again: he sees Anglo-American civilization as “the product of two perfectly distinct elements which elsewhere have often been at war with one another but which in America it was somehow possible to incorporate into each other, forming a marvelous combination. I mean the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.”

After studying the issue for a couple of days, I am prepared to answer the first half of Dan Geary’s blog criticizing my earlier blog about the SOTU. As you may remember, Christopher Hitchens said that America’s founding was completely secular, and I said that this statement is “utterly false”. To some extent, Dan sympathized with Hitchens, at least on the question of America’s founding. Dan said, “I would also hesitate to say that [America] was necessarily founded on Judeo-Christian values.” In response to Dan, I will affirm that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. As Michael Novak has written, there were two wings to the American founding: common sense (or reason) and faith. While some of the founders were more comfortable with one wing or the other, America could not “fly” without both wings.

Dan began his critique of me by quoting Webster’s Revised unabridged Dictionary. I thought I too would start with a quote from Webster—Noah Webster, of dictionary fame. Eight years after the death of Jefferson and Adams, Webster wrote, “[The Christian religion] is the real source of all genuine republican principles…Never cease then to give to religion, to it institutions, and to its ministers, your strenuous support….those who destroy the influence and authority of the Christian religion, sap the foundations of public order, of liberty, and of republican government.” Here Webster contends that the Christian religion is the foundation of both liberty and republican government. If this is true, if the founders themselves thought as Webster did, then one cannot say that America was built on reason alone. Simple put, if Webster is correct, then America was built on the foundation of Christian values.

Dan, the definition of secular that you employ against my argument starts, “Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy…” What I hope to show is that, in the minds of the founders, the founding of a republican government was indeed a spiritual and holy act. They were acting in obedience to God by establishing a government that most closely reflected his will. Liberty for mankind was the will of God, and therefore to establish a government based on such liberty is doing God’s work. It is possible you imagine that unless the government is run by a church, or runs a church, then it is secular. For the founders, creating democratic America was their holy and spiritual duty.

See what John Adams wrote Dr. Benjamin Rush: “The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy, that ever was conceived upon earth. It is the most republican book in the world.” If this was the mindset of Adams, that the Bible is republican, than how could a Christian not promote republican government?

In fact, Rush himself believed that a “Christian cannot fail of being a republican”. Rush was a medical doctor, and considered the most learned man in the colonies. He is one of the signers of the Declaration. See where he gets the idea of inalienable rights: “The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind. A Christian, I say again, 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 and the pageantry of a court.”

Here again, we see that Dr. Rush’s understanding of equality and republican government stem from his understanding of Christianity. If, in the minds of the founders, a Christian cannot help but be a republican, and as you say most founders were Christians, then establishing a republican government based on equality for all is, in fact, a holy and spiritual duty.

My dear fellow bloggers, you will find in my entries above evidence of a man gone mad! I have taken Dan Geary's criticism of an earlier blog I wrote, and prepared an extended reply. However, I am aware that such long entries are not common in the blog world. Following this three part post, I shall try to conform to general blogging etiquette and offer more pithy statements in the future. Speaking of the future, I hope to someday tackle the second part of Dan Geary's critique, where he asks me to "unpack" my statement that "without Christian theology there could be no democracy or capitalism or freedom." I would also like to comment on Machiavelli, and finally Dan O'Connor's comments about salvation. However, first things first: my mega blog in three easy installments.