Sir, I am no Academic graduate. However I have and do study human history in a broad spectrum. I served 22 years in the Marine Corps and Air Force. A Combat Marine in Vietnam 67-68.
The human mind (is) human behavior. The English mindset determined American mindset and paid dearly for the consequences. This produced the French Revolution. Having studied American politics since 1800 the forms of media usurped the 1st Amendment to this day. Bias is an ugly weapon. Gossip is an ugly weapon. Prejudice is an ugly weapon. Accountability is nebulous. Personal integrity is fluid.
The media is untouchable and consequently remains a weapon out of control.
As I implied in my comment on your first essay in this series, your problem is secularism. You are describing the founders in such a way that deprives them of the Christian oxygen that allowed them follow Locke in forming their revolutionary mind. The republic our founders gave us cannot be sustained in a secular environment. You rightly argue for morals, but you cut them off from their biblical roots. You argue as all modern secularists do - that Americans do not have to agree on the source of their morals, only on the morals themselves - but experience proves that this is not tenable. When you separate the branches from the roots, the leaves do not instantly change color - but, over time, time they will inevitably turn from green to brown. Monday through Friday our secularized government is pouring carbon monoxide into school classrooms and the result, over time, is decaying morals in each succeeding generation. The societal duress we are currently experiencing is the consequence of the metastasizing of secularism in our culture. Secularism begins benignly and seemingly harmless, but it eventually turns militant. Being woke is simply a militant form of secularism. American liberty cannot survive severed from its Judeo-Christian roots. Morals must have a foundation.
Hi Mike: Thanks for your thoughtful response. Much appreciated. We agree on one important point (and probably more than you realize): "Morals must have a foundation." With that I agree 100%. That we disagree on what that foundation is or should be is the nub of the issue. Maybe I'll write something on that.
"Christian oxygen that allowed them follow Locke in forming their revolutionary mind."
But what they followed in Locke and the basis of the revolutionary mind is not Christian, since a good Christian obeys authority from on high unquestioningly.
"The republic our founders gave us cannot be sustained in a secular environment."
Not just secular, but reason, is the only thing that can sustain the republic. Appeals to a supernatural dictatorship obviously cannot.
"You argue as all modern secularists do - that Americans do not have to agree on the source of their morals"
He is not arguing as a modern secularist at all, nor is religion the source of morality. This is just an arbitrary assertion made by religious people who do not understand the concept of morality. Hint : it does not involve obeying arbitrary commands from on high unquestioningly.
In short, it's the religious collectivists who do not understand the "roots" of America's founding whatsoever and make arbitrary assertions that demonstrate this.
Mr. Smith, you are poorly informed about the American mind at its founding, and even about C. Bradley Thompson's mind, for he wrote in the first essay of this series, "Still, over 95% of all Americans during the eighteenth century and beyond were practicing Christians of one sort or another, and I do not discount that fact." You may disagree with the religious mind, but there is no historical basis for saying that America did not have one at its founding.
The fact that "over 95% of all Americans during the eighteenth century and beyond were practicing Christians of one sort or another" does not change a single thing about what I said.
It does not change the fact that America had a purely rational and entirely secular founding as evidenced by the actual content of the founding documents which explain the function of government is to protect rights, not do anything with religion whatsoever except explicitly exclude it from politics.
If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and find them to be "entirely secular" and not having "anything [to do] with religion whatsoever except explicitly exclude it from politics," then our respective readings of those documents are so wildly different that I don't see how we could have a productive discussion.
This is what I'm saying. Conservatives have no understanding of these documents whatsoever. You probably think because the word "creator" is mentioned in the Declaration that it makes it a religious document, or something.
It does not.
Aside from that the only other mention of religion is in the bill of rights, where religion is mentioned in order to explicitly exclude it from politics.
There is exactly ZERO mention of religion in the Constitution itself.
These documents set out the proper function of government with respect to rights for the first time in history. This subject matter has nothing to do with religion.
Sir, I am no Academic graduate. However I have and do study human history in a broad spectrum. I served 22 years in the Marine Corps and Air Force. A Combat Marine in Vietnam 67-68.
The human mind (is) human behavior. The English mindset determined American mindset and paid dearly for the consequences. This produced the French Revolution. Having studied American politics since 1800 the forms of media usurped the 1st Amendment to this day. Bias is an ugly weapon. Gossip is an ugly weapon. Prejudice is an ugly weapon. Accountability is nebulous. Personal integrity is fluid.
The media is untouchable and consequently remains a weapon out of control.
As I implied in my comment on your first essay in this series, your problem is secularism. You are describing the founders in such a way that deprives them of the Christian oxygen that allowed them follow Locke in forming their revolutionary mind. The republic our founders gave us cannot be sustained in a secular environment. You rightly argue for morals, but you cut them off from their biblical roots. You argue as all modern secularists do - that Americans do not have to agree on the source of their morals, only on the morals themselves - but experience proves that this is not tenable. When you separate the branches from the roots, the leaves do not instantly change color - but, over time, time they will inevitably turn from green to brown. Monday through Friday our secularized government is pouring carbon monoxide into school classrooms and the result, over time, is decaying morals in each succeeding generation. The societal duress we are currently experiencing is the consequence of the metastasizing of secularism in our culture. Secularism begins benignly and seemingly harmless, but it eventually turns militant. Being woke is simply a militant form of secularism. American liberty cannot survive severed from its Judeo-Christian roots. Morals must have a foundation.
Hi Mike: Thanks for your thoughtful response. Much appreciated. We agree on one important point (and probably more than you realize): "Morals must have a foundation." With that I agree 100%. That we disagree on what that foundation is or should be is the nub of the issue. Maybe I'll write something on that.
"Christian oxygen that allowed them follow Locke in forming their revolutionary mind."
But what they followed in Locke and the basis of the revolutionary mind is not Christian, since a good Christian obeys authority from on high unquestioningly.
"The republic our founders gave us cannot be sustained in a secular environment."
Not just secular, but reason, is the only thing that can sustain the republic. Appeals to a supernatural dictatorship obviously cannot.
"You argue as all modern secularists do - that Americans do not have to agree on the source of their morals"
He is not arguing as a modern secularist at all, nor is religion the source of morality. This is just an arbitrary assertion made by religious people who do not understand the concept of morality. Hint : it does not involve obeying arbitrary commands from on high unquestioningly.
In short, it's the religious collectivists who do not understand the "roots" of America's founding whatsoever and make arbitrary assertions that demonstrate this.
Mr. Smith, you are poorly informed about the American mind at its founding, and even about C. Bradley Thompson's mind, for he wrote in the first essay of this series, "Still, over 95% of all Americans during the eighteenth century and beyond were practicing Christians of one sort or another, and I do not discount that fact." You may disagree with the religious mind, but there is no historical basis for saying that America did not have one at its founding.
The fact that "over 95% of all Americans during the eighteenth century and beyond were practicing Christians of one sort or another" does not change a single thing about what I said.
It does not change the fact that America had a purely rational and entirely secular founding as evidenced by the actual content of the founding documents which explain the function of government is to protect rights, not do anything with religion whatsoever except explicitly exclude it from politics.
If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and find them to be "entirely secular" and not having "anything [to do] with religion whatsoever except explicitly exclude it from politics," then our respective readings of those documents are so wildly different that I don't see how we could have a productive discussion.
This is what I'm saying. Conservatives have no understanding of these documents whatsoever. You probably think because the word "creator" is mentioned in the Declaration that it makes it a religious document, or something.
It does not.
Aside from that the only other mention of religion is in the bill of rights, where religion is mentioned in order to explicitly exclude it from politics.
There is exactly ZERO mention of religion in the Constitution itself.
These documents set out the proper function of government with respect to rights for the first time in history. This subject matter has nothing to do with religion.
Your response encourages me to stand by what I said the last time.