Separation of Church and State

Shenandoah

Many people seem to be confused over the meaning of the term “separation of church and state”. How is it relevant to our lives in America?

Beginnings

The very concept of the “separation of church and state” dates back to Roger Williams and the founding of Rhode Island in 1636. He was the first American to advocate and activate complete freedom of conscience, dissociation of church and state, and genuine political democracy. He also founded the first Baptist Church in North America. He settled in Providence with 13 other householders and in one year formed the first genuine democracy, as well as the first church-divorced and conscience-free community in modern history. Williams felt that government is the natural way provided by God to cope with the corrupt nature of man. But since government could not be trusted to know which religion is true, he considered the best hope for true religion rests with the protection of the freedom of all religion, along with non-religion, from the state. In that way, whichever religion was true would never find itself subservient to one that was false. The truth of a religion doesn’t lie in the number of it’s believers but in its message.

Separation of Church and State

The logic behind the concept is flawless, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the forward thinking of the founders of this country. With the diversity inherent in a pluralistic society, including a multitude of Christian sects, as well as representation of every faith on the planet, including those with no beliefs at all, the only conceivable way to ensure that no amount of favoritism is shown through legislation to any one belief, in preference to any other, is to create an environment in which all religious beliefs compete with each on a level playing field based on their own merits.

Some have argued that what that does is establish atheism as something having a favored religious status. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism is not a religion. It’s the absence of religion. It holds a secular position. The default position of the government is one that shows no favoritism to any religious view. That is the definition of secular. In order to maintain religious freedom, which is the core of democracy, government must not concern itself with religious subjects. In this way each religion rises or falls of it’s own accord without the assistance of the government. The success and purity of a religion should be based on faith, which is its message. Not government sponsorship. Government corrupts religion.

The atheist has no interest in religion and simply holds the same default position, and that position is one of democracy. Religious freedom and the freedom of ones conscience is fundamental to democracy. Atheism, for example, doesn’t introduce something into the legislative action of government based upon a belief. It doesn’t concern itself with belief at all. Therefore it, like the government, which must address the needs of all of its people, can only address matters that effect everyone regardless of their beliefs. Knowing that no religion can prove itself as more real or accurate than any other, government can’t possibly legislate the beliefs of one over the beliefs of another on issues that are simply matters of faith. The only result from that kind of action is religious tyranny. Society is reduced to a matter of who has the most adherents to a belief. Having more believers doesn’t mean that the belief is necessarily true.

Jefferson said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Holding to this principle insures the concept of religious freedom that is the cornerstone of democracy. Opposition to this principle begs the question put forth by Justice O’Connor when she asked, “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?“ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of our historical, legal and political/social heritage and preserves and protects our religious liberty.

References

Roger Williams - Champion of Liberty: by Ian Williams Goddard. eighth great-great-grandson of Roger Williams

Thomas Jefferson: Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson Writings. Library of America

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: United States Supreme Court

The copyright of the article Separation of Church and State in American Affairs is owned by Larry Allen Brown. Permission to republish Separation of Church and State in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Latest Articles by Larry Allen Brown

Become a freelance writer!

Larry Allen Brown (aka) adagio4639

Larry’s greatest influence has been his older brother, who turned him on to classical, and folk music at an early age, and encouraged him to pick up the acoustic guitar that was gathering dust in the corner. Stylistically Larry’s music that will remind you of artists such as Al Pettaway, Martin Simpson, Ed Gerhard, or Ken Bonfield, but with a feel all his own. What sets him apart is that the emotion that goes into each song is uniquely his.

Larry’s interests center on life with his wife, Kathryn, and their two dogs, Dipstick and Murphy. That life includes music, politics and tending to their garden. His basic philosophy in life can be summed up with the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Larry has released two CD’s. Cobb Lane and the recently released Music for the High Country.

Most of Larry’s viewing habits are centered around political news coverage. He and his wife can be found “raging against the machine” on any given evening. He’s an avid viewer of Bill Maher Meet the Press, and any other show that holds the government accountable for it’s actions.

Larry’s views on most things are usually out of the “mainstream”.

Glenn Beck….what can we say?

And this guy has a following? He was for Healthcare reform…before he was against it?

more about "Daily Show: Glenn Beck’s Operation", posted with vodpod

Glenn Beck is a Moron

Don’t take my word for it. Take Glenns.

more about "Glenn Beck is a Moron", posted with vodpod

A Rebuttal to Dick Armey

Mr. Armey, you wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Washington could use less Keynes, and more Hayek”.  I took you to be a conservative.  Am I wrong about this?  If you are a conservative I find it odd that you would be praising the views of Hayek who was not.  Does this come as a surprise to you? As a critical rationalist from the Vienna school, Hayek had no use for conservatism. Perhaps you missed his essay entitled “Why I’m Not a Conservative”, in the Constitution of Liberty. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960). He was certainly not a socialist but he was by his own admission a classical liberal, or as he described it, “an old Whig”.

In his words: “Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.”

Hayek went on to say, “The admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge. This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

“In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the “right” purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.”

If you weren’t aware of it, Hayek was a contemporary of the great 20th century scientific philosopher Karl Popper and subscribed to the concept of critical rationalism as the foundation of problem solving and obtaining knowledge. One of Popper’s main contributions to political theory was The Open Society and Its Enemies. In it, he reformulates Plato’s question of “Who should rule”, into “How do we arrange our institutions to prevent rulers (whether individuals or majorities) from doing too much damage.”

Hayek continues: “When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.”

“It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.”

“In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people – he is not an egalitarian – but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.”

“Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.”

“Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the powers of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.”

Clearly, Hayek completely rejected your conservatism. He describes conservatives as aristocratic and hierarchal among other things less flattering, and yet you cite him as a source to be admired and listened to. It’s understood that conservatives desperately want to preserve their institutions. They were even willing to fight a civil war to preserve the institution of slavery. The fought against the woman’s right to vote. They fought against civil rights. In fact they fight against every attempt at challenging the authority of an existing institution. They detest radical change. One must wonder when hearing them praise the founders and the establishment of this country and amazingly proclaim the conservative heritage of our nation just exactly how a conservative would handle a change as radical as a revolution against the existing institution of a monarchy? It would go completely against the grain of conservatism to endorse a break with England. It simply isn’t in their DNA.

I would end with this thought; Conservatism as an ideology cannot demonstrate itself as being true. It is a formalized ideology as set forth by the likes of Russell Kirk and his 6 canons of conservatism, and more recently by the bizarre attempt by radio personality Mark Levin to establish a “manifesto for conservatives”. Stepping outside of this construct is in the eyes of todays conservative, blaspheme. This reduces conservatism to a cult-like status akin to a religion, with its canons and dogma. It is therefore self limiting and looses any potential for anything great that lies beyond its borders. It also presents characters like Levin in the image of a raging buffoon, or media clown. One who negatively derides the president as an ideologue after publishing a “manifesto for conservatism”? How much more ideological can one get then that? The glaring hypocrisy of this doesn’t go unnoticed, with the possible exception of Levin himself and those unable to think for themselves. How can anybody truly take him or the movement he promotes seriously? However, the more basic question is how can an idea constructed by fallible men, be infallible? Is it possible that you could be wrong? Or is that not in the realm of possibility? Unless you are infallible yourself the answer is obvious. Those that think they have all the answers have stopped growing, and they’ve stopped learning. They have no intellectual curiosity. Why would I entrust the future of my country to people that are mired in the past and fear what they don’t know. A conservative viewpoint would not have gotten us to the moon. Obviously there are things that the government can do pretty well. Nobody has a monopoly on truth sir, and you haven’t demonstrated any methodology that proves that conservatism is nothing more than another belief system with its own doctrine and rigid dogma. I have no reason to trust irrational and unreasonable people. There is far too much at stake and so much to be gained.

The twisted mind of Klondike Barbie

Sarah Palin

I thought I’d heard it all until  Sarah of the Tundra opened  her mouth once more to reveal just exactly how stupid she could be. She has taken up the mantle of leader of the most moronic segment of the country.  Now, in all honesty, I don’t really know if she is truly this dumb, or if she is simply pandering to the ignorant.  Maybe it’s both. What is it that she said that has the sane and rational element in the country so amazed?   She said in a Facebook posting that he (Obama) would create a “death panel” that would deny care to the neediest Americans.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’, whether they are worthy of health care,” the former Republican vice-presidential candidate wrote.

“Such a system is downright evil,” Palin wrote on her page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate. 700,000 people support this idiot. I have to conclude that they probably agree with everything she has to say. They are infatuated with Nanook of the North. Does she even live up there anymore?

So…of course she must be right. After all, I did see “Soylent Green”. After we euthanize granny, we are going to convert her remains into a tasty nutritional supplement that you can spread on your morning cereal. It’s an all-purpose seasoning you can use to spice up almost any dish. If your granny was Italian, try using it in place of oregano on your next pasta dish. It makes a great seasoning for that barbeque. Here Bubba, try this. You can even give it to your pets, for a shiny coat. Even your gold fish will love it. Watch how they rush to the surface to gobble up every morsel.

What is even more astonishing than this is that there are actually a lot of people that believe this garbage. There are radio talk shows that are promoting it. “Death Panel”?? This is the extent that people will go to in order to defeat a bill that they actually know nothing about. What congressperson would conceive of attempting to put forth any kind of bill that would promote euthanasia, or “Death Panels”? Can anybody point to this in the health care bill? There is a provision, originated by two Republicans no less, that allow for people to have a consultation with their physician regarding end of life care, at THEIR request, or the creation of a living will, which would be paid for under the healthcare plan. And this has morphed into a “death panel” and euthanasia? What kind of insanity is this? I mean have the right wingers all had a collective lobotomy?

I see these loons on TV crying, “I want my country back”. Well you know what? You lost an election. Suck on it! The rest of us were saying the exact same thing for the past 8 years. Get over it. It’s called Democracy. You have an election, and the winners get to call the shots. Some time’s the other side wins and you lose. That’s how we do things in America. If you hadn’t screwed things up so badly, you might have won, but you did, and you lost. That’s life.  However, you aren’t likely to get back in control by acting irrational and convincing the rest of the sane people in the country that you aren’t smart enough to get the job done as long as you persist in this kind of mind-numbing stupidity.  And one more thing: When do we get to see Sarah’s high school diploma?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Does Conservatism oppose Democracy?

A few days ago I wrote an article called “De-constructing Levin” in which I stated that conservatism was the domination of society by an aristocracy, and that it was incompatible with Democracy and more compatible with Monarchy, Theocracy, Aristocracy and other forms of authoritarian rule. I found that it was a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Generally, my approach to finding the truth about things follows deductive reasoning. I look for something to disprove a claim rather then the inductive approach of looking for things that support a claim. I’m still looking for statements from conservatives that prove my assertion wrong, but all I find is statements from conservatives that support the claim rather then render it false.

Pat Buchanan is a well-known conservative who is interviewed from time to time on a variety of shows. He’s a regular contributor to MSNBC, as well as a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio program. So I examined a few of his views. Here is what I’ve found.
On African-Americans

After Sen. Carol Moseley Braun blocked a federal patent for a Confederate flag insignia, Buchanan wrote that she was “putting on an act” by associating the Confederacy with slavery: “The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance,” Buchanan asserted. “How long is this endless groveling before every cry of ‘racism’ going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?” (syndicated column, 7/28/93)

Actually, according to the articles of secession from the state of Mississippi, it was about something else. 
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. “
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
I think Pat may be oversimplifying things just a bit.
On Immigrants and People of Color

 
In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as “an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage.”
On Jews

 
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory.” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler’s anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was “an individual of great courage…. Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.” (Guardian, 1/14/92)
On Women

 
“The real liberators of American women were not the feminist noise-makers, they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer.” (Right from the Beginning, p. 149)
And finally…On Democracy

 
Attacking what he considers the “democratist temptation, the worship of democracy as a form of governance,” Buchanan commented: “Like all idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country.” (Patrick J. Buchanan: From the Right, newsletter, Spring/90)
In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan suggested that “quasi-dictatorial rule” might be the solution to the problems of big municipalities and the federal fiscal crisis: “If the people are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government.” (Washington Times, 1/9/91) He has written disparagingly of the “one man, one vote Earl Warren system.”
In Right from the Beginning, Buchanan refers to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco as a “Catholic savior.” He called Franco, along with Chile’s Gen. Pinochet, “soldier-patriots.” (syndicated column 9/17/89) Both men overthrew democracy in their countries.
There is no questioning Pat Buchanan’s conservative credentials. I just question the concept of conservatism itself. How is anything of this nature conducive to Democracy? Is Democracy not something that conservatives favor? Do they oppose it? If so, then why do I hear people like Hannity praising it so much? Hannity frequently interviews Buchanan on the radio. Chris Matthews will have him appear on his show as the conservative voice in a debate. If they oppose Democracy, why not simply come out and say it. Or is that too dangerous a position to take? Is it too radical a concept in a country whose history is wrapped in the concept of a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

Is it possible for conservatives to question their own beliefs? The great scientific philosopher Karl Popper said, ““I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.” Jefferson said, ”Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” We’ve already seen what Buchanan has said.

Is there a conservative that is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position?

No…I doubt it. That isn’t what conservatism is about. It never questions itself. And because of that, it is locked in a box of its own making. How does it grow its sphere of influence? It doesn’t. That isn’t what it’s about either. It’s about maintaining institutions and beliefs that provide it with solid ground. It never rocks the boat. And as a result, it never explores mans potential for greatness. It can only hope that people come to it as a last resort. It’s safe. It’s uncompromising. It’s a voice of authority. It’s basically timid. A person named John Lofton who describes himself as a Recovering Republican commented on one of my articles with this view, which I thought was pretty accurate. He said, “”What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism”.

This is a fascinating look at what I think is a completely accurate way of describing conservatism. It seems to resist innovation and finally accepts that innovative idea as its own, and then resists the next innovation in an endless cycle of resistance and acceptance. Always behind the curve. Always resisting change. Always hopeful that reality will conform to it, rather then the other way around. How can an idea ever be right, if it doesn’t contain the possiblity of being wrong?

De-constructing Levin

Mark Levin is fundamentally a fire-breathing moron. Aside from that he’s an advocate of aristocracy. In his interview with Sean Hannity, he states that conservatives are the beneficiaries of thousands of years of human experience. He then refers to Obama and others as relying on philosophies a couple of hundred years old. That’s interesting considering that aside from the Ancient Greeks, Democracy as we know it is only as old as this country itself…approximately 218 years old. Those philosophies that preceded it were aristocratic, authoritarian, or theocratic. They were not democratic. They were exactly the philosophies that our founders rejected.

Essentially, Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world, which is exactly why it’s floundering today.

 Levin re-iterates that “our principles are tried and true. They’ve been tried for centuries”. Yet again, Democracy as we know it only began at the time of the ratification of the constitution. So what philosophy is he talking about that preceded democracy? Certainly it wasn’t something that our founders sought to replicate. Levin hits the main problem with conservatism. He states that we can’t salute a philosophy that is antithetical to our history (that’s a subjective view and could be debated forever) or to our BELIEF SYSTEM. And that is where the problem lies. Conservatism is by Levin’s own admission, a belief system. But being so it can never demonstrate itself as being true. It’s an ideology actually formalized by Russell Kirk who provided 6 canons that conservatives follow. Canons? Conservatism today has taken on the mantle of a religious cult. It has a doctrine that must be followed religiously or you risk excommunication. For example: his dismissal of Colin Powell, Tom Ridge and others who he claims aren’t Republicans or for that matter conservatives. Apparently if you aren’t a conservative then you aren’t even a Republican. The problem with ideological thinking like this is that it assumes it’s own infallibility. That it is flawless. Yet it was created by fallible men. Is it even remotely possible that it could be wrong? Can an idea created by fallible men be infallible? The question is, can it even demonstrate how it’s true. If it can, then maybe Levin could provide the methodology that he uses to prove it. He writes a book that is the Conservative Manifesto, defining conservatism. By defining it, he is unconsciously limiting the reach of it’s own effectiveness. Once he defines it then it’s not possible to be something beyond that definition. Its potential for greatness is limited to what he’s described. That is self limiting and completely contrary to free-thought and democracy. If, in a democracy those ideas are rejected as they have been recently, then perhaps he might reevaluate his ideas. But no! That isn’t possible because the ideology can’t be wrong. He can’t demonstrate how it’s true, but it can’t be wrong. But if something cannot possibly be wrong, then how can it be right. In order for something to be right it must contain the possibility of being wrong. For something to be true, it must contain the possibility of being false otherwise you’re merely preaching a belief, rather then something that can be proven right or wrong empirically. You would have nothing to compare that truth to. In the world of Mark Levin, conservatism cannot be wrong. 

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Mark Levin has no interest in democracy. His only interest is a return to an aristocratic society of Lords and serfs.

Somebody is really going to get hurt.

Town-hall meetings.  A great American tradition! Too bad it isn’t being followed. What was once a way of connecting with those that represent us to our government, has now become a mob scene highlighted by angry protesters with no desire at all to hear facts or for that matter to allow opposing views to be heard.  The issue Du Jour is healthcare.  A great deal of disinformation is being pushed, mainly from talk radio that the bill being constructed in congress provides for; among other things, the promotion of euthanasia.  In other words, this is all about killing your grandpa or grandma. After all, they’re old and had their turn at life. It’s time they got out of the way so we can provide health care to those with more time left. The fact of the matter is that the new healthcare bill provides for coverage for those people that want to see a doctor for advice on end of life care, and the preparation of a living will. And how is this being spun? A government bureaucrat will be coming to your door periodically telling you that it’s time for you to go and that the euthanasia center will be glad to set up an appointment for you. When would you like to go? I’m sure they can squeeze you in next week. How about Tuesday? Say….10 AM?

This is the world of the “deathers”. You’ve heard of the “birthers”? Those are the people that can’t accept that we have a black president and that he must have been born in Kenya. 58% of those that don’t believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States just happen to live in the South. Imagine that! They BELIEVE that he was born in Kenya, because they’ve seen the forged birth certificate that say’s so, and once they believe something, well, you aren’t likely to get them to question their beliefs regardless of all the factual evidence to the contrary. Now we have the “deathers”. They believe that the government wants to throw granny from the train. And who is ginning up this fear and hatred?  Well, there is a very strong profit motive in this healthcare issue that is at stake. United Healthcare, which happens to be my very own insurance provider, is spending $12.6 million to defeat this measure. Stephen Hemsley, the CEO for United Health Group received 13.2 million in 2007. $3.25 million in 2008. The total value of his unexercised stock options comes to $744,232,068. In 2009 Hemsley  exercised $127,001,281. Mr. Hemsley is clearly a billionaire, and I’m sure his healthcare comes at no cost to him. It’s likely part of his compensation package.

There is obviously a financial incentive to deny people payment for needed medical care. With United Health, there is a deductable which varies with each plan. That will depend on the plan your employer is using. The less they have to pay out, the greater the profit. The Minnetonka, Minnesota-based company reported second quarter net income of $859 million, or 73 cents per share, compared with only $337 million, or 27 cents per share, in the year-ago period. Last year’s results included a pretax charge of $922 million, or 47 cents per share, however. That’s a 155% profit! Revenue jumped 7% in the latest quarter to $21.66 billion from $20.27 billion, helped by higher premiums and price increases. My premiums went up. They will continue to go up. So will yours.

The more profitable his company is, the more money he receives for making it so profitable.

Frankly, I’d like to be able to have the option of taking the profit motive out of my health needs. The idea of somebody making tons of money off of my or anyone else’s illness is repugnant to me. It kind of makes me think of a vampire sucking your blood for his own benefit. Does this make me a socialist? If you don’t like vampires, you’re a socialist?

According to Rush Limbaugh, it’s worse than that. It makes me the equivalent of a Nazi. A woman protesting Democratic plans for health care reform was captured on camera holding up a sign of a Swastika, with the president’s name below it, encircled and crossed out by a red line. The implication is that Obama is a Nazi. Where did she get this idea? Que up the music…..and now…heeeeeeeearss…Rush!

The AFL-CIO is now planning on sending out their people to counter the demonstrators at the town-hall meetings. What happens when these emotionally charged opponents come face to face? I can only hope that if you’re planning on attending one of these town–hall meetings, that you have a good health care plan.

Conservatism and Liberalism in America: Ideology vs Philosophy: Is There a Distinction Between the Two?

It’s been said that a conservative knows that he’s right while a liberal knows that he could be wrong. One takes a dogmatic approach to life; the other applies reason.

The Ideology of Conservatism

In his lecture on The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:

1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.

Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.” Looking back at Kirk’s claims, one can examine the statements that “A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society”, and ” Civilized society requires orders and classes.”

The Philosophy of Liberalism

A divine intent pre-supposes not only that a divinity is at hand, but that it’s intent can be determined. A personal conscience is, of course, a matter of subjectivity. A religious view appears to be essential to conservative thought. According to Professor Gerhard Rempel of Western New England College, “to understand the Enlightenment and the foundations of democracy is to know that doctrinal substance was less important than overall philosophy.” It wasn’t as much Descartes’ reason as it was Newton’s Laws. Not abstraction and definition, but rather observation and experience. The real power of reason lay not in the possession, but in the aquisition of truth. The ideal for knowledge was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:

1. The particular rather than the general;
2. Observable facts rather than principles;
3. Experience rather than rational speculation.

Liberalism is more easily recognized for what it is not, than for what it is. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. points out in his essay on Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans that “the absence of feudalism is a basic factor in accounting for the pervasive liberalism of the American political climate.” Schlesinger adds that “The absence of feudalism meant the absence of a static and confining social order, and it meant equally the absence of a profound social passion to uproot and destroy that order.” Above all, it appears to be found in the application of critical thinking.

According to Schlesinger, “The use of words like liberalism and conservatism immediately raise questions of definition”. Today, each view tends toward defining the other in the most negative of terms. American liberalism in Schlesinger’s words, feels that “realism is the source of strength, and that illusion, while productive of momentary enthusiasm, will be in the end a source of catastrophe.”

Emerson said, “the basic difference was between the party of the past and the party of the future, between the party of memory and the party of hope. It is still true that the American liberal believes that society can and should be improved, and that the way to improve it is to apply human intelligence to social and economic problems. The conservative, on the other hand, opposes efforts at purposeful change — especially when they threaten the existing distribution of power and wealth — because he believes that things are about as good as they can be reasonably expected to be, and that any change is more likely than not to be for the worse.”

References:

The Age of Enlightenment by Professor Gerhard Rempel, Western New England College

Liberalism in America by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. from The Politics of Hope

The Origins of Modern Conservatism by Lee Edwards PhD. Heritage Lecture #811

Ralph Waldo Emerson; selected quotes

The copyright of the article Conservatism and Liberalism in America in US Parties is owned by Larry Allen Brown. Permission to republish Conservatism and Liberalism in America in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Critical Rationalism in Everyday Life:Is It Applicable to Politics?

What is Critical Rationalism? Basically, it’s an approach to how we obtain knowledge and its foremost proponent was the scientific philosopher, Karl Popper.

In his book, The Myth of the Framework, Popper stated, “I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.” In short, everything should be open to critical analysis. Nothing is sacred in that regard. Thomas Jefferson said, “”Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

One of Popper’s main contributions to political theory was The Open Society and Its Enemies. In it, he reformulates Plato’s question of “Who should rule”, into “How do we arrange our institutions to prevent rulers (whether individuals or majorities) from doing too much damage.” He is probably best known for his principle of falsification. Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses followed by unrelenting criticism. Only hypotheses capable of clashing with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific. Those that aren’t are considered metaphysical and exist outside the realm of science. Faith, for example, is not a matter of science. It’s metaphysical in nature. On that basis alone subjects such as creationism don’t qualify as science.

Popper’s protege

One of Popper’s students at the London School of Economics was William Warren Bartley III. According to Rafe Champion, Bartley, along with Popper, recognizes “the authoritarian way of thinking which charactorizes Western thought. This creates demands for true or justified beliefs, along the lines indicated by the formula:

“Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.”

“However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism.”

David Miller, in his book Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense points to Bartley’s formulation of Comprehensively Critical Rationalism: “The new framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.

Political ramifications

What does this hold for political candidates who are expected to adhere to committed positions regardless of the reality that constantly shifts? A politician who holds onto a position in spite of these new unanticipated shifts runs the risk of being viewed as stubborn, out of touch, and ideologically driven. The politician who is willing to shift his views based on new information is viewed as a “flip-flopper”, weak, or pandering to whatever the prevailing popular view is. If the politician adopts the views expressed through Comprehensively Critical Rationalism he is attached to no position. He is committed to nothing. The alternative is to be driven by an ideology that is held together by faulty logic and attempts to defy reality by appearing to be driving a square peg into a round hole.

We do like for our politicians to take a position on something, but it seems that some degree of flexibility in that position is required if the policies that are enacted actually benefit those they are intended to serve.

References

Karl Popper, The Karl Popper Web.

Rafe Champion, The Philosophy Site of Rafe Champion

David Miller, Critical Rationalism; A Restatement and Defence

Thomas Jefferson, Famous Quotes

The copyright of the article Critical Rationalism in Everyday Life in Philosophy is owned by Larry Allen Brown. Permission to republish Critical Rationalism in Everyday Life in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

writing_jobs

Latest Articles by Larry Allen Brown