I read a very interesting article this morning concerning parallels between our modern Day and the Civil War. This year is the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. Generally speaking the author made some very good observations about parallels between our modern-day and the times in which the Civil War was fought. He said that the moral climate and the political climate in particular was remarkably similar, in fact he said that the times in which the Civil War was fought or even more extreme!
But he did have one observation with which, though I certainly understand why he would make these comments, I must make some addendum. He said:
"The war erupted not long after the "Second Great Awakening" sparked a national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.
They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen, says David Goldfield, author of "America Aflame," a new book that examines evangelical Christianity's impact on the war.
Goldfield says evangelical Christianity "poisoned the political process" because the American system of government depends on compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both because "how do you compromise with sin."
"By transforming political issues into moral causes, you raise the stakes of the conflict and you tend to demonize your opponents," Goldfield says.
Contemporary political rhetoric is filled with similar rhetoric. Opponents aren't just wrong -- they're sinners, Goldfield says."
First off, we need to observe that the language used in Goldfields comment seems to be, shall we say, somewhat anti-religious. There is no doubt that Goldfield is either an atheist or he is a Quaker or some other form of religious moralist. Whatever the case, his comments demonstrated two things.
First, at least somewhat of a hostility toward biblical Christianity. It is clear that he has little or no time for those who believe in "Evangelical Christianity", even though Evangelical Christianity didn't really exist at the time that he is addressing, that is the time the Civil War.
Secondly, it is clear that he is among that group that believes that Christianity is the root of many the evils in our Western society. There are many who see biblical Christianity and what it calls men to do as a problem rather than a solution. This is particularly true in the social and political realms where compromise and accommodation or the word of the day rather than standing up for principal and moral absolute are essential.
In the political world, the world in which our modern politician functions and walks, certainty is a matter for the campaign trail and such certainty stops the moment one is elected and begins to have any actual effect on the workings of the office to which one is elected.
This is similarly true in the social realm as well. Because we are exposed to all manner of ideas, cultures, and peoples on a regular basis, we have lost the very concept of absolute truth and have come to embrace the idea of that truth is completely relative. Therefore it must be negotiable! The social media puts forth their own ideas and they put forth those ideas in the way that is most attractive and most supportive to their agenda - and the consumer "consumes" virtually without any discernment; simply on the basis of what they "enjoy", what makes them happy at the time.
There is little or no concern, for the vast majority of people, for what is actually true, but only for what is perceived to be true. We are like hogs at a trough, as long as I am satisfied, I am satisfied. Just let me go to sleep. If we basically support the individual and even some of what he says, then we'll swallow down everything that he puts forth, even if we don't actually like brussels sprouts.
This is what has happened with those who hear these folks who say that Christianity is the root of the evil's in Western society. They have, perhaps, said incredible things in other areas; and so now when it comes to this absurd thing, they are swallowed whole without any regard for the truth of the matter.
It is much like the issue of Jefferson and Madison building the idea of "separation of church and state", and meaning that to be that the church should have no influence over the state whatsoever into the constitution. Anyone who has read either Thomas Jefferson or James Madison and has read those ideas in their writings in context understands that they had no intention that religion have no influence on the government, or that it be kept strictly separate and that our government be kept as a strictly secular entity. What an absurd concept given that both Jefferson and Madison were religious men. Perhaps not religious in the sense that many are religious men in this day and age, but religious men nevertheless. All that need be done is actually read what they say without redacting or leaving some of it out to suit ones preconceived idea or just serve the purpose that one has a head of time. Rather it is easily understood that they meant that the government have no controlling influence on religion in this country.
But, like so many other things, worldview and preconceived notions control how things are viewed. The very great danger that is faced is how past history is interpreted in light of these things. If we insist on seeing the society of the past in light of the way that society is today, then we will completely and absolutely misunderstand the time of the Civil War. Surely there are parallels between the two times. Things were going on then that are "like" things now. But the worldview then and the mindset then were very, very different than the mindset now and the way people thought and lived then, from a moral and ethical point of view, was very different, so different has to be virtually unintelligible to 21st century men.
We'll continue this next time...
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the principle derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion.
ReplyDeleteSome try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
During his presidency, Madison also vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Thanks for your response. I agree with most of what you said, at least regarding the intention of the constitution. I agree that it was definitely intended to prevent the establishment of state religion. What was not intended, however, was to preclude any effect in the other direction. There was certainly no intention of Jefferson’s part, this somewhat less on Madison part, of participation in genuine religion and understanding that that participation would have an effect in the public life and therefore the public decisions in the political sphere. That understanding, as I see it, is inescapable.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education is an example, not of interpreting existing law, in this case obviously the Constitution and the First Amendment, so much as it is taking that Law and we’re a interpreting it in light of modern societies moral and ethical values. The question at hand, then, is whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
To answer that question, we need to look at the morals and ethics of modern society is compared to the morals and ethics of society at the time of Jefferson and Madison. I would argue that our morals and ethics fall sadly short period.
Thanks again for the response, you’ve obviously thought this matter through and I appreciate your opinion.