Our country is on a rapid downward slide into a socialist morass. We were once a proud and free people but now look to government for medical care, education, home mortgages, student loans and a host of other services. The bankers that have had control of our money for a century are now demanding trillions of our dollars to avoid a total economic collapse, so they say. They have convinced the American people that free enterprise is a failure and requires government intervention to prevent disaster. Our senators are not challenging the foolishness of attempting to bailout the economy. They are merely questioning how to structure the monetary dissemination process and while they're at it, like hogs at the feeding trough, getting as much as they can for themselves and their constituencies. Why is it that we have such unprincipled leaders, leaders that are totally self-seeking and care not a whit for us, except at election time when they lie through their teeth to get us to keep or put them in office?
I submit that the problem lies, not primarily with them, but with us. The spirit of liberty that pervaded early America has faded to the point of unrecognizability. Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" has degraded to "give me my share of the goodies." Why has the penchant for freedom that characterized the average American, who was ready to shed his blood rather than lose his liberty, virtually disappeared? What changed us from what we were as colonists, in the Civil War or even in WW-2 to the spineless creatures we have become? The problem, as is always the case, is many layers deep but at the bottom, the root cause is really very simple. Libertarianism has failed and is continuing to fail because its principles are inconsistent with its fundamental philosophy of life.
Liberty, the concept of a free people that respect each other's freedom and live together in peace with a minimum of government intervention, requires an inherent constraint within each individual against the natural desire for self-gain at the expense of others. This characteristic is not inborn in any of us. Our natural instincts are for self-preservation and self-improvement whether at the expense of others or not. The entrepreneur goes into business to make a profit for himself; the purchaser tries to get the lowest price he can and the seller the highest. Do they ever lie or cheat to maximize their gains? Yes, if they can get away with it without any real loss to reputation that would hurt them later. If we're honest with ourselves we must see and admit that deep down we are all really out for number one. We very naturally, almost automatically, place ourselves and our personal well being before the concerns of our neighbors. We're really not so different from those senators and congressmen that are selling us out in Washington.
So whence comes this necessary restraining influence and what are the limits beyond which personal interests are not permitted to reach? Basically and practically there are only two possible sources: self-government or a coercive external government. Robert Winthrop stated it very clearly and succinctly when said:
All societies of men must be governed in some way or other.Why does he bring religion into the discussion? Why only the word of God? Couldn't it be the word of man that instills in our hearts a love for our neighbor and a concern for his well being, a concern that causes us to give up personal benefit? No, selfishness is too deeply embedded in our very being for that to work. We would be looking for others to follow such a philosophy while we personally would try to use their gullibility to our own advantage. It must be the word of one who knows exactly what we've thought, said and done and can take away our gains and our peace in this life and the life to follow. All the philosophies of the world cannot reach into our inner beings and change us from within. But a God that reads our thoughts, sees every deed and has the power to judge and punish disobedience can provide real internal constraints. Without such constraints, we cannot have the freedom libertarians seek.
The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government.
The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint.
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.
It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.
©2009 Lou Poumakis, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, February 8, 2009
Last modified: Sunday, February 8, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Lou Poumakis only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lou Poumakis is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Lou Poumakis of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Lou Poumakis |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-02-08 11:03:08
The reason not to bring God into it is that government is force, and force used to back faith is the worst of all possible worlds. If the history of the crusades and of all the murder and theft and viciousness perpetrated in God's name hasn't taught you that lesson, then you simply haven't been paying sufficient attention. Force used to back faith always plays out as one particular religion dominating others. These evils were caused by combining the Bible and the bayonet, as a faith-based government must become, which is the inevitable end that comes from contrasting them.
Nor should we forget that there are a sizeable minority of the population who are agnostic or atheistic. This same segment is also proof against your claim that concern for others can only be obtained within the context of religious doctrine. For myself, it was my rejection of religious doctrine which occurred because of my concern for my fellow man. It was not the cause of that concern; it was the opponent of it. I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist, but my faith is my own, private, and not to be made a basis for government. Perish the thought! I totally distrust those who claim that faith is essential to concern for others, for they always have a horrible, hidden agenda, as history has repeatedly shown us. They are the ones who are truly blind to the needs of others.
Posted By: Lou Poumakis
Date: 2009-02-08 13:35:30
Walt,
It's not the force of government used to impose an alien faith on people that I was addressing but rather the influence of faith on government.
All governments are based on one religion or another. Law is a reflection of what the people that constitute the government believe, their ideas of right and wrong. These ideas are of necessity religious in nature. Because man does not have an infinite knowledge base he must start his reasoning process from a set of assumptions that are believed and not derived. These beliefs constitute his religion.
Atheism is a religion. It cannot be proved or demonstrated; one either believes it or not. Our country was based on the Christian religion and is now in the process of switching to atheism. The change is largely due, as you advocated, to Christians having limited their faith to their personal lives and having retreated from the public square. The atheists have not done that; they carry their faith into every area of life, education, entertainment, the arts and the world of politics. Hence their success in subduing Christianity and converting America.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-02-08 17:51:54
Atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is freedom FROM religion. Atheism is the culmination of a disbelief. Existance of gods cannot be proven and therefore an atheist is convinced by NOT having a faith. The atheist claim is "I don't believe there is a god" instead of "I believe there is not god". Therefore since atheists have not found a way to believe, then Atheism is is NOT a religion.
Posted By: Lou Poumakis
Date: 2009-02-09 09:23:43
"I don't believe there is a god" instead of "I believe there is not god".
These statements are equivalent. To disbelieve "A" is to believe "not A."
And atheism requres faith, actually a great deal more faith than does Christianity.
Posted By: LibertarianBlue
Date: 2009-02-09 15:10:44
How is Atheism a faith? All that Atheism is just not believeing in the existance of God. Thats all Atheism is. There is no doctrine on how to live one's life in Atheism, none what so ever. Your fear that Atheism is overtaking Christianity is unfounded. To date their is only one Atheist in Congress and that is Pete Stark, people still want their leaders to have some sort of religious faith. In my opinion people are sick of those who use religion in order to get votes, forward an agenda, consider themselves high and migthy because they are a particular faith such as Obama, Bush, Robertson, Dobson, Perkins, Falwell, etc. It has yet to be proven that one needs religion in order to tell right and wrong.
Posted By: Lou Poumakis
Date: 2009-02-09 17:16:57
"How is Atheism a faith?"
Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
Atheism is a belief concerning the nature of reality. The Christian believes there is an eternal God that created the universe. The atheist says he believes there is no such God, that the universe itself is eternal. Both believe what they believe by faith. The atheist cannot prove there is no God; he clings to this belief by faith alone. That is a religious act.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2009-02-09 17:50:28
Lou
Those two statements are *not* equivelent. Your arguement is a sophist one. It apears logically correct, but it is false. The failure is a result of the English language. "Believe" is a verb of conviction. However, the inverse of that verb results in either a verb of non-conviction, OR a verb of conviction. It is that ambiguity that makes your statement false. You obviously choose the inverse with conviction, but the rest of your premise fails because of this falacy.
To highlight the sophistry, substitute "To Believe" with a verb that is not ambiguous and has similar inversion properties, "To Know" for example. If your argement is true, its truth will not change with the substitution. Now, one either knows something or they don't. There is no ambiguity. Therefore, the inverse of Know (a verb with conviction) results in Not Know (a verb without).
Taking your logical inversion (with substitution) (Not Know A) --> (Know Not A) results in two statements that are *not* equivelent. The first statement is without conviction about A, while the second is with conviction that something is Not A.
While inversion is communative in logic, the truth must still be evaluated after the inversion. And comparing A == A' is false.
While it is possible to create logically equivelent terms via communative and associative transformations, a simple inversion will not.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2009-02-09 17:53:14
correction:
"It is that ambiguity that makes your statement false. " should read:
It is that ambiguity that makes your false statement appear true.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2009-02-09 18:05:42
Shown a different way
A' B == A B' : false
Let C = A' B
C == C' : still false.
Posted By: Dan from IL
Date: 2009-02-10 00:40:39
(A' B ) of course does not equal (A B')
one is agnosticism and the other is atheism
Filius Publius you are right when you say that C != C'
Believing in god does not equal believing not believing in god
but boths are beliefs, both are faiths
the definition that I have of Faith is Trust in and reliance upon
An atheist has Faith that God doesnt exist just as A christian has faith that god exists
if the definition of Religion: is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
This means there are trillions of religions out there becuase if say 2 people hold that god exists and that murder is wrong only one thinks that drinking pop is wrong
you have two different sets and there fore 2 different religions since you have 2 different sets of ideas since (q,w,e) !=(q,w,e') so if one holds any different opinion on the nature, cause, purpose they have a religion.
Since christians hold that the nature of the universe was created by a God, and atheists dont then both are religions, both are faith in something, both are beliefs
Your are correct in your logic that agnosticism is not a religion since by definition they are not taking a view and saying they dont believe either way,and one of the grounds for being a religion in relation to god is actually believing one way or another
Now to my thoughts on the original article, I have to say that I am of the same opinion as Lou. That the privitization of religion, where instead of being in and around and centered on the whold church now it is totally on the individual.
I believe we are both not saying that it guarentees or is necessary that the individual will be a freedom loving upright and moral individual we are saying that it helps a person(or in our conversation the nation ) go in that direction. It doesnt hurt.
Just as George Washington said in his farewell address
"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."
I Encourage everyone who call themselves and American to read his Farewell Address, many words of wisdom are found there.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2009-02-10 13:48:58
Dan
While A'B == AB' is a false statement, A'B is not agnostism and AB' is not athiesm.
I chose knowlege as the verb because the inverse of of knowlege does not have abmiguity like the inverse of belief does. That does not mean I was adding agnostism to the arguement. It was a logical substitution to highlight the false statement.
You are making the same false assumption about athiesm that Lou is. The inverse of belief (or faith) results in a verb in English that behaves as an action with conviction and without. It is the context that the lack of faith (or belief) is used that determines wether it is with conviction or without.
Here is the logical arguement being made.
Those that are not religious are agnostic or athiest.
Some athiests believe that there is no God.
Therefore all athiests believe that there is no God.That is a false arguement.
What you are trying to do is frame things (forgive me my assumption if I am wrong, but your statements imply belief in Christianity) in context of your active belief in Christianity that those who do not believe as you do must actively belive in something else.
However, the full truth is that some athiests actively believe that God doesn't exist. While others just don't believe in God and don't replace that lack of belief with an active belief in something else (the non-existance of God for instance). That does not make athiesm a "faith" system though. It is a without faith .... "system" (system really isn't the apropriate word but I can't think of a more apropiate one at the moment). As I said, Not Belief in God != Belief in Not God.
Posted By: Lou Poumakis
Date: 2009-02-10 18:36:18
Filius Publius,
Atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
This atheist of yours that does not believe in God but yet does not believe that God does not exist sounds like an agnostic to me.
If he's not an agnostic, he's a schizophrenic.
An atheist doesn't need to have "an active belief in something else" to have faith. To merely disbelieve in God is a religious position.
Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
The fact that atheism is a negative belief does not exclude it from this set.
This is the religion that has permeated our education system, entertainment, the arts and politics. It's not a belief in nothing. It is a belief that, because there is no transcendent being, man is, in effect, his own God. It doesn't need to be systematized, hold meetings or be organized in any way. If enough people believe it and adhere to that faith, it can influence the culture, just as Christianity did earlier.