OPINIONS III
FOCUS
What we focus on is often like the proverbial straightening of the deck chairs on the Titanic before its encounter with the iceberg. Putting it another way: What’s the point of redecorating our 80th-floor penthouse, when the building’s foundation is crumbling?
We focus allot on institutions and events as we try to put national and international problems into perspective. We don’t focus as much on human nature, but that’s more fundamental. Human nature is the spring from which institutions and events flow.
Branches or Roots?
To site yet another cliché: for every thousand people hacking away at the branches, only one is hacking at the roots. Human nature is at the root of societal problems. It seems obvious enough, but we tend to avoid the subject because when we approach it we find an uncomfortable tension between the spiritual and the secular, between religion and science, between idealism and realism; yes between “good people” and “bad people.” This can be a real sore point for those who believe there are no good or bad people in the world (other than those who say such exist). Again, the problem of good and evil who has the right or authority to define such things, come into play.
In Western Civilization, for centuries, the church, in concert with the state, defined right and wrong, and, as imperfect as the system was, the result was a relatively stable government legitimized by traditions, legal precedents, established authority and the faith of the general public. The roots of this establishment weren’t only Christian either. In my recent reading of ancient Greek plays, I’ve been amazed to see how unapologetically the tragedians and comedians held to what would be termed today, “traditional values.” Of course, much of what was Greek became Roman, and Roman, European, and European, American.
Examples from Britannica, Great Books, Vol 5:
“proud thoughts are not for the worm called man” p.24 (Aeschylus; The Persians)
“Lady, thou surely hast a woman’s heart But a man’s sense withal” p. 55 (Aeschylus; Agamemnon)
“Sweetest of all days in a woman’s life, When for her husband she flings wide the gates, And he comes back from service, saved by God” p. 58 (Aeschylus; Agamemnon)
“For by the law the adulterer shall die” p. 79 (Aeschylus; Choephoroe)
“To be called mother is no wise to be Parent, but rather nurse of seed new-sown. The male begets; she’s host to her small guest; Preserves the plant, except it please God blight it” p.88 Aeschyllus; Eumenides)
“It is not right to adjudge bad men good at random, or good men bad.” P. 104 (Sophocles; Oedipus the King)
“O marriage rites, ye gave me birth, and when ye had brought me forth, again ye bore children to your child, ye created an incestuous kinship of fathers, brothers, sons—brides, wives, mothers—yea, all the foulest shame that is wrought among men! –haste ye, for the gods’ love, hide me somewhere beyond the land, or slay me, or cast me into the sea, where ye shall never behold me more!” p. 112 (Sophocles, Oedipus the King)
“What good man is not his own friend”? p.116 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)
“Thou hast come unto a city that observes justice, and sanctions nothing without law—yet thou hast put her lawful powers aside, thou hast made this rude inrode, thou art taking captives at they pleasure, and snatching prizes by violence,” p. 122 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)
“For the gods are slow, though they are sure, in visitation, when men scorn godliness and turn to frenzy.” p.128 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)
“Nay, we must remember, first, that we were born women, as who should not strive with men; next, that we are ruled of the stronger, so that we must obey in these things, and in things yet sorer. p. 131 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)
“Or dost thou behold the gods honouring the wicked? It cannot be.” p.133 (Sophocles, Antigone)
“But verily this, too, is hateful—when one who hath been caught in wickedness then seeks to make the crime a glory.” p.135 (Sophocles, Antigone)
“While I live, no woman shall rule me.” p.135 (Sophocles, Antigone)
“Yea, this, my son, should be thy heart’s fixed law—to obey thy father’s will. ‘Tis for this that men pray to see duitiful children grow up around them in their homes—that such may requite their father’s foe with evil, and honour, as their father doth, his friend. But he who begets unprofitable children—what shall we say that he hath sown, but troubles for himself, and much triumph for his foes?” p.136 (Sophocles, Antigone)
“But disobedience is the worst of evils. This it is that ruins cities; this makes homes desolate; by this, the ranks of allies are broken into headlong rout; but, if the lives whose course is fair, the greater part owes safety to obedience. Therefore we must support the cause of order, and in no wise suffer a woman to worst us.” P.137 (Sophocles, Antigone)
“Father, the gods implant reason in men, the highest of all things that we call our own.” (Ibid)
“…the wisest fall with a shameful fall, when they clothe shameful thoughts in fair words, for lucre’s sake.” (ibid, p.140)
“…he was clothed with sole dominion in the land; he reigned, the glorious sire of princely children. And now all hath been lost. For when a man hath forfeited his pleasures, I count him not as living—I hold him but a breathing corpse. Heap up riches in thy house, if thou wilt; live in kingly state; yet, if there be no gladness therewith, I would not give the shadow of a vapour for all the rest, compared with joy.” (Ibid, p.141)
“For I see that we are but phantoms, all we who live, or fleeting shadows…. For a day can humble all human things, and a day can lift them up; but the wise of heart are loved of the gods, and the evil are abhorred.” p.144 (Sophocles, Ajax)
“Tis on the powerful that envy creeps. Yet the small without the great can ill be trusted to guard the walls; lowly leagued with great will prosper best, great served by less. But foolish men cannot be led to learn these truths.” (ibid)
“As the god gives, so every man laughs or mourns.” (Ibid, p.146)
“Yet ‘tis the sign of an unworthy nature when a subject deigns not to obey those who are set over him. Never can the laws have prosperous course in a city where dread hath no place; nor can a camp be ruled discreetly any more, if it lack the guarding force of fear and reverence. Nay, though a man’s frame have waxed mighty, he should look to fall, perchance, by a light blow. Whoso hath fear, and shame therewith, be sure that he is safe; but where there is license to insult and act at will, doubt not that such a State, though favouring gales have sped her, some day, at last, sinks into the depths.” (Ibid, p.152)
I quote at too great length, yet I only scratch the surface of a 650-page volume. Please don’t assume I’m endorsing every syllable of such “codes for living,” I’m only recognizing a reality, that values we may think outdated and outmoded today have been seriously adhered to in past great civilizations, and those systems worked rather well. The classic Greeks were not only focused on the rule of law, but perhaps more importantly, on the ultimate justice of man’s accountability to their gods; hence the utility of faith.
Modern day Christians, Jews, and Muslims would take the Greek and other ancients’ pantheistic perspective as not only mythological, but superstitious, and therefore outdated and irrelevant to us “advanced peoples.” However, we should not underestimate the unifying power of faith in some ultimate purpose or meaning in life, with its implied accountability.
It makes a huge difference when members of a society believe they will have to answer to some higher power for their actions. The concept can be powerful for good or evil. If ambitious and deceitful men play upon the fears and superstitions of the ignorant, faith may be a tool of oppression. But if faith is placed in a true, just and merciful God, much popular good can result.
Heterogeniety vs. Homogeniety
There is also the issue of homogeneity vs heterogeneity. The “progressives” among us sing the praises of diversity, and there can be no doubt that an inclusive society (democracy), by opening the doors of opportunity to all, avoids many social tensions that can otherwise lead from non-productivity at best, to outright rebellion, civil strife, and war or anarchy at worst. However, too much inclusion can lead to disorientation and disarray when it comes to maintaining a stable cultural or social identity. We lose national focus when we no longer know ‘who we are’ or ‘why we are,’ trying to be everything to everyone.
Consider this evidence that at their cultural heights, the Greeks were openly xenophobic:
“Oh may that be a daughter of Athens! That from her I may inherit freedom of speech. For if a stranger settle in a city free from aliens, e’en though in name he be a citizen, yet doth he find himself tongue-tied and debarred from open utterance.” p.288 (Euripides, Ion)
“Never to my city come this boy! Let him die and leave his young life as it dawns! For should our city fall on evil days, this bringing in of strangers would supply it with a reason.” –ibid
“Never may alien, from alien stock, lord it o’er my city, no! none save noble Erechtheus’ sons!” –ibid, p. 292
If it’s wrong for a nation to be separate and unique, why did God establish the concept of a chosen people?
“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation….” –Exodus 19:5-6
“And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldst keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken.” –Deuteronomy 26:18-19
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness unto his marvelous light.” –1 Peter 2:9
The Body Politic
When we consider homogeneity vs heterogeneity, I think nature can teach us a lesson. The Apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 12, uses the analogy of the body as a standard for the early Christian church, a probable precursor to our phrase, “the body politic.”
Paul makes the point that the body, in spite of the fact that we think of it as one, is in fact the sum of many specialized parts. His point is that allowance must be made in the ‘body of Christ’ for individual differences, and he launches into a marvelous exposition of various spiritual gifts as exhibited by individual members, emphasizing how each serve some valuable purpose. The analogy is apt also for the body politic.
However, while we appreciate the uniqueness of individual members, it would be well for us to remember the body’s demand of strict “homeostasis” in order to survive and thrive. A certain operating temperature must be maintained, there must be sterility, or the absence of invasive and destructive organisms. There must be exquisite order even at the cellular level, and there must be pervasive coordination between the various parts and systems. There is also an acute “commitment” to the welfare of the whole. For example, white blood cells freely sacrifice themselves in attacking invasive organisms. Ant colonies and beehives provide other interesting examples in Nature of selfless behavior.
If you think about the functions of your body, you will notice a high degree of sympathy between the various specialized entities. The apostle alludes to this with respect to certain members being more comely than others, yet each important. So it is with how we look at ourselves. We may think the head, for example, with its marvelous brain and intellect is the most important part, but what would the head be without the heart and the blood it supplies? Indeed what would the head be without the arm or the hand or the foot, or the rectum?! Even when we stub our big toe, the whole body responds to the pain and seeks relief.
In spite of astounding specialization among the various body tissues and systems, there is such “cooperation and sacrifice” in behalf of the whole, that we naturally think of the body as a single entity. Each member of the body functions according to a specific order, each seeks the good of all. There is no eye wanting to be a hand, no foot resenting what the ear does. There are no cells going off and doing their own thing. Or, when there is, we call it disease which obviously may lead to the body’s demise.
Something (amazingly) has stuck with me from my high school Biology class: it was that the definition of life was essentially organization. According to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, life is characterized by “organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction.” When you think about it, though, organization is an essential part of all of these characteristics. When organization breaks down, life breaks down.
Lets look at “irritability” for a moment. The essence of this aspect of life, is responsiveness to stimuli. A rock is responsive, but it isn’t alive in the biological sense. So, one definition of life has to do with the level of responsiveness a thing is capable of. Because of the way it’s “organized” a rock will respond in specific ways to being placed in a fire, or in a bath of liquid nitrogen; a rock will respond to the pull of gravity, or the push of crushing pressure. A rock has the “advantage” of not feeling pain, of surviving conditions that would easily kill a plant or animal. On the other hand, a rock does not enjoy the “advantages” of feeling pleasure, sensing in an intelligent way the sights, sounds, touches, tastes and smells we enjoy. A rock is oblivious to intangibles such as love and hate, knowledge, memory, hope and purpose.
We may wonder if it’s worth it to live as human beings in such a state of physical vulnerability. Would we want to trade places with a rock? How about a beautiful rock, an emerald, a ruby or an “indestructible” diamond? No, I think most of us, in the end, would rather take the risks that come with living and enjoying the experience higher intelligence affords.
Intelligence
What is intelligence anyway? Actually we think of intelligence in more than one way. There’s the ever-present “IQ,” and then there is “knowledge vs wisdom.” Most of us know from experience a person who may be “smart,” but not wise. We can be clever and cunning in the immediate context, but oblivious to long-term issues and/or consequences. Let’s categorize this phenomenon in three ways: those who live only for the present (fools), those who consider long-term consequences for this life (worldly-wise), and those who live for eternity (the godly). Yes, here I reveal my bias, as there are adherents of each category who think those of the other categories are fools. My contention is that those who live for eternity actually have it better in the short, medium and long-run:
“…I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10)
One important definition of intelligence, then, is awareness. The more intelligent we are, the more we are aware.
The rock responds to outside influences, but has no sense of concepts like past and future. Plants and animals, though more responsive to their environments, seem to live in the present with limited awareness beyond “today.” It is man’s broader awareness and ability to imagine how things could be (dream), in context of how things have been (remember), that facilitates “progress.”
For example: a group of people that have been living in filth and squalor learn that such conditions breed disease and death. They imagine an environment that’s clean and healthy and so they get busy and create it. Actually, this capacity to dream is naturally coupled with faith. In Ecclesiastes ll:4 we read that one who observes the winds and clouds neither sows or reaps. To be productive, a farmer must believe in a conception, based on experience. He sows seed; having faith the seeds will germinate and become plants bearing fruit. He sows with confidence there will be rain in due season, there will be sufficient sunshine and warmth, sufficient air movement and stillness, soil nutrition, etc.
And, as the apostle Paul reminds his readers, we may sow the seeds, but it’s God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7). In other words, we plant, but the real miracle is the germination, the DNA, the cells and all that goes with the organization we call life. This would include the effects of the spirit, or ‘spark’ of life. Thus we have a measure of Paul’s intelligence, his awareness of the eternal. We may ask, then, what is our intelligence, what is our level of awareness and focus?
Cancer
These allusions to homogeneity vs heterogeneity have to do with where our priorities are today as a nation. For a long time, especially since the 1960’s our focus has increasingly been on personal freedom. This has its merits, but when we focus on individual rights at the expense of the rights of others, or the good of the whole, we become like cancer cells in the body, wildly doing their own thing and destroying the overall “order.” Eventually the constitution of the body is broken and death ensues.
As individuals within the body politic become more selfish (thus less aware) the body’s ability to function is impaired. As individuals get more competitive internally, the whole becomes less competitive externally. In other words, for the body to function effectively with the outside, there must be sufficient unity (homeostasis) on the inside. This principle can easily be observed devolving among us in recent decades. The more we have gotten away from the traditional values of godliness, selflessness, honesty, humility, faith, hope, charity, etc, the more we’ve become divided, and politically paralyzed!
The paradox of unbridled diversity, is that it ultimately leads to non-identity. Let me illustrate:
The cells of the body decide they want to do their own thing without regard for the whole. They want to be free of the strict rules that keep each specialty in its place (differentiation). So they begin dividing wildly without regard for the consequences. We call this process, cancer. Lets take this process to an extreme. Of course death occurs long before this, but lets say the body becomes nothing but undifferentiated cells. Rather than hold true to their assigned specialty, each cell decided to be unique, bazaar, special, free. Normal cells around them are insulted, try to fight for the old order, but in the end are overwhelmed. In the end all decide to follow the trend rather than resist. In the end you have a mass of useless (dead) protoplasm. The cells who thought they were so “progressive” were in fact digressive, bringing about their own ruin. Those who wanted to be everything, became nothing.
Freedom?
It would be salient, here, to consider the related concept of freedom at greater length. There is more than one definition of freedom, and our political health would be better served if we were more discriminating in this regard. Freedom is not simply “free of care,” hence “careless,” hence “irresponsible.” The freedom answer should be to the question, “freedom from what?”
Let’s take an example of the criminal. Fundamental to the criminal mind, in many cases, is the desire to be free from having to work and free from being bossed. These ends are sought in a variety of ways, of course: lying, cheating, stealing, even killing, etc. Let’s look at a situation from the liar’s and the honest person’s point of view:
The liar gets out of work by pretending to have a physical disability (which is cheating and stealing too). He does gain a certain freedom from work and being bossed; but what does he lose? He is no longer free to walk and run for fear someone might see him. He can’t participate in sports, he can’t go hiking. He can’t stay in shape, thus increasing the chances of acquiring real illness or disability. He has the stress of keeping his secret and making sure his stories are consistent. He has the stress of a guilty conscience. He suffers from low self-esteem and a lack of respect from associates close enough to suspect his motives. In fact he has no close friends or family for fear they will find him out, so he suffers from loneliness and alienation. He may resort to other crimes, including violence, to maintain his “privileged” position. If he thinks he’s about to be found-out, he may even commit suicide rather than face his accusers.
How free, really, is this liar? Similar scenarios could be developed for any criminal lifestyle. We see, then, that freedom isn’t just one thing. Freedom is actually a function of the choices we make, which in-turn are a function of our values or the laws we live by. Law carries with it, a sense of restriction, but the intelligent observer will also appreciate law’s liberating qualities.
”Thy liberty in law.” (America the Beautiful, 3rd stanza)
Let’s say we obey the law of God in being honest and we find ourselves in a situation where we are tempted to lie about our health for some real or imagined advantage. Although we see some attraction in the lie, we go ahead and admit we are healthy, thus bearing the burdens of work and the discomfort of being bossed. But, we have nothing to hide. We are free to walk and run, to play outside with our friends and family. We can stay in shape, thus improving our vitality. We are free of the stress of remembering to keep our false stories consistent; we are free of guilt. We are free to enjoy close associations with others. Because we are trusted, we are free to get a loan for a car or a house, free to enjoy greater responsibilities, and thereofre greater rewards…. We are not careless, but we are carefree!
The more aware we are of possibilities, the more choices we have, and choices lead to various levels or qualities of freedom. A plant or animal can’t decide between wearing a solid colored or print shirt, between buying a Buick or a Volvo. A cow might decide to go to the barn, but she can’t decide to build a barn. Conversely, a plant or animal can’t decide to be a sinner or a criminal, and in that sense, we might say they have an advantage. And in fairness, we have to admit all “lower” creatures have gifts and abilities we don’t have, though we still wouldn’t trade places with them.
So, rather than simply saying we are “free,” it would be more discerning to specify the type of freedom, relative to the choices we make or the law we live by. It is also noteworthy that we can be very un-free as a result of our choices, and sometimes there aren’t enough choices left to “make it better!”
Now let’s return to our perspective on homogeneity (collective freedom) vs heterogeneity (personal freedom).
Melting Pot or Chamber Pot?
I don’t agree entirely with Michael Savage’s, ‘The American Melting Pot has become the American Chamber Pot,’ but his pungent couplet merits some consideration. If we carry diversity to the point we stand for nothing, we are no longer able to act in concert. We become weak and ineffective as a people, as a nation; and therefore vulnerable to our enemies, to the enemies of freedom and all that we have enjoyed now for generations. Our life begins to stink!
All the advantages of freedom which include the inventiveness, productivity and wealth of free enterprise, as well as the personal potential for self actualization, are canceled-out by a “diversity” that yields the fruits of rebellion, division, and strife. Even though totalitarian states like China fail to offer their people true prosperity (as already discussed) and personal fulfillment, the unity forced upon them by their dictators, finally begins to outperform a democratic society that has lost its self-discipline, lost its guiding principles, and has become anarchic. In the end, the most united society (even un-free) is the most powerful.
The whole idea of an independent America, was based on the desire our founders felt to be free to live in a certain way, guided by a specific set of principles. These principles were under-girded by a faith that the Creator endowed all men with certain inalienable rights. While we were established as a secular nation, our right to be secular was seen as guaranteed by God. We were to be secular, not in the worldly sense, but of liberation from religious sectarianism. Thus to be independent, didn’t mean to be self-indulgent, but rather self-disciplined. To be independent was to be uniquely and distinctly good, apart from what was seen as the evil monarchies of Europe. (see http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/joshua/manifest.html) With this was carried a belief that the common man was capable of governing himself, in contrast to the traditional Divine Right of Kings, where the common man was seen as intellectually and morally inferior, needing to have uprightness imposed on him.
Of course when it comes to “righteousness,” we needn’t define it in solely Christian terms, but rather the simple meaning of the word—a sincere and honest concern for what’s right. If people had broad agreement on just that point, I think we would have a basis for greater unity. The Judeo-Christian approach to righteousness, to me, would be even better because it’s proven to be most helpful in establishing a unity that fosters the truly “good life.” This I hope to show in various ‘wordy treatments’ (to borrow a phrase from the Greeks).
For many today, independence means to be independent of parents, all authority figures, all laws and restrictions, all traditional beliefs and institutions. They see no value in maintaining what has been uniquely American. They see the exclusiveness associated with righteousness as self-righteous even when it means the exclusion of evil. In fact, their definition of equality compels them to include evil with open arms! They see our uniqueness as snobbery, a snobbery which must be discredited and dismantled. But hypocritically, they don’t hesitate to take full advantage of the bounties and blessings our uniquely traditional system has produced!
Horns-a-Plenty and Dilemma Meringue
But you say, ‘the United States is rich and powerful. Why shouldn’t I be “free” to enjoy the bounties that are at hand?’ Problem is, because of our choices, the “Horn” with its plenty is beginning to rot. What’s the point of clamoring and groveling for a slice of a shrinking pie? It’s only a matter of time before there will be no pie. But, you say, ‘at least I can get a slice before the pie is gone.’ That puts our finger on the pulse of the dilemma:
It’s a dilemma growing out of godless philosophies that have taken their toll on our collective psyche. Theories like relativism and existentialism which boil down to saying one value or lifestyle is no better or worse than another, life itself being meaningless. These supposedly represent a more honest approach to life, but in fact become handy rationales for not caring about the quality or future of our own life, let alone the lives of others. They also kill any personal or social restraints that come from a belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Judge to whom we will someday have to account.
At this juncture we must ask ourselves a couple of simple questions: 1, Do we want to live, and 2, Do we want to live as a nation? I’m really saying ‘do we want to be happy,’ with all that entails. I’m suggesting happiness is a unique thing. It’s a state of being that meets specific criteria; and for a people or nation to be happy certain conditions must be met. Certain laws must be obeyed. In light of current negative philosophies and predictions, it’s significant that our Founders saw “the pursuit of happiness” as a key inalienable right!
The United States is young. Other great civilizations have lasted thousands of years. There is absolutely no valid reason for us to think we are approaching the end of our days. But the body without the spirit is dead. We must revisit and grasp the spark of life that brought this country into being, and then we must re-internalize it, believe in it, speak up for it, and defend it “against all enemies foreign and domestic.” I believe righteousness is what gives life to this body.
Western Roots
The Greek comedic play write, Aristophanes, in Clouds, pits “Right Logic” against “Wrong Logic.” May I quote “Right Logic” showing us another ancient author’s appreciation of “traditional values:”
“To hear then prepare of the Discipline rare
Which flourished in Athens of yore
When Honour and Truth were in fashion with youth
And Sobriety bloomed on our shore;
First of all the old rule was preserved in our school
That ‘boys should be seen and not heard’:
And then to the home of the Harpist would come
Decorous in action and word
All the lads of one town, though the snow peppered down,
In spite of all wind and all weather
And they sang an old song as they paced it along,
Not shambling with thighs glued together:
‘O the dread shout of War how it peals from afar,’
Or ‘Pallas the Stormer adore,’
To some manly old air all simple and bare
Which their fathers had chanted before.
And should anyone dare the tune to impair
And with intricate twistings to fill,
Such as Phrynis is fain, and his long-winded train,
Perversely to quaver and trill,
Many stripes would he feel in return for his zeal
As to genuine Music a foe.
And every one’s thigh was forward and high
As they sat to be drilled in a row,
So that nothing the while indecent or vile
The eye of a stranger might meet;
And then with their hand they would smooth down the sand
Whenever they rose from their seat,
To leave not a trace of themselves in the place
For vigilant lover to view,
They never would soil their persons with oil
But were inartificial and true,
Nor tempered their throat to a soft mincing note
And sighs to their lovers addressed:
Nor laid themselves out, as they strutted about,
To the wanton desires of the rest:
Nor would anyone dare such stimulant fare
As the head of the radish to wish:
Nor to make over bold with the food of the old
The anise and parsley, and fish:
Nor dainties to quaff, nor giggle and laugh,
Nor foot within foot to enfold.
“Yet these are the precepts which taught
The heroes of old to be hardy and bold,
And the Men who at Marathon fought!
But now must the lad from his boyhood be clad
In a Man’s all-enveloping cloak:
So that, oft as the Panathenaea returns,
I feel myself ready to choke
When the dancers go by with their shields to their thigh,
Not caring for Pallas a jot.
“You therefore, young man, choose me while you can;
Cast in with my Method your lot;
And then you shall learn the forum to spurn
And from dissolute baths to abstain,
And fashions impure and shameful abjure,
And scorners repel with disdain:
And rise from your chair if an elder be there,
And respectfully give him your place,
And with love and with fear your parents revere,
And shrink from the brand of Disgrace,
And deep in your breast be the Image impressed
Of Modesty, simple and true,
Nor resort any more to a dancing girl’s door,
Nor glance at the harlotry crew,
Lest at length by the blow of the Apple they throw
From the hopes of your Manhood you fall.
Nor dare to reply when your Father is nigh,
Nor ‘musty old Japhet’ to call
In your malice and rage that Sacred Old Age
Which lovingly cherished your youth.
“But then you’ll excel in the games you love well,
All blooming, athletic and fair:
Nor learning to prate as your idlers debate
With marvelous prickly dispute,
Nor dragged into Court day by day to make sport
In some small disagreeable suit:
But you will below to the Academe go,
And under the olives contend
With your chaplet of reed, in a contest of speed
With some excellent rival and friend:
All fragrant with woodbine and peaceful content,
And the leaf which the lime blossoms fling,
When the plane whispers love to the elm in the grove
In the beautiful season of Spring.
If then you’ll obey and do what I say,
And follow with me the more excellent way,
Your chest shall be white, your skin shall be bright,
Your arms shall be tight, your tongue shall be slight,
And everything else shall be proper and right.
“But if you pursue what men nowadays do,
You will have, to begin, a cold pallid skin,
Arms small and chest weak, tongue practiced to speak,
Special laws very long, and the symptoms all strong
Which show that your life is licentious and wrong.
And your mind he’ll prepare so that foul to be fair
And fair to be foul you shall always declare;
And you’ll find yourself soon, if you listen to him,
With the filth of Antimachus filled to the brim!
(Britannica, Great Books, Vol 5, pp. 500-501)
It’s ironic that the idea of liberalism, which grew out of Greek democratic and Roman republican philosophy, but in recent centuries has been shored-up more substantially by our Judeo-Christian traditions, is now aligned with anti-traditional and anti-religious politics! Faith in God has been displaced significantly, and in some cases replaced utterly, by faith in science, or just faith in self. Modern science often parts company with philosophy, not to mention religion. Need we expound upon the limitations of self? Where, then, is found a foundation for meaning in life, for the spiritual? If this life is all there is, what’s the point of redecorating our penthouse?
Far too many of us who have been utterly spoiled and bored by the peace, freedoms and bounties of the Western World, especially in Europe and the United States are increasingly attracted to the idea of not only helping “third-worlders” but also becoming “third-worlders.” There is guilt over the inequalities we see in the world. With some of us, there is even a fascination with death and destruction, growing out of the ‘meaninglessness of it all.’ I can guarantee, there will be a prompt change of attitude for the vast majority of us once we actually are plunged into some ‘idyllically’ deplorable condition. The problem is, once we are impoverished, displaced, degraded, enslaved, or destroyed, there will be no turning back. We won’t be able to help ourselves, let alone anyone else!
The “Independent” Part of Freedom
Independence was the watch-word of our Founders. How important is independence to us today? Independence can be more expensive in the short-run, but dependence is always more expensive in the long-run.
Independence is tied to the idea of uniqueness, and uniqueness implies exclusivity. We must be independent of those people and nations who not only don’t support our way of life, but also hate and despise our way of life, people and nations who actively seek to destroy our way of life! What else does this mean?
It means we must not be dependent economically on hostile people and nations. It means we have to produce our own goods and services as much as possible, or deal economically only with entities that support our interests and that of true freedom. It means we cannot allow people to immigrate into this country who are indifferent or hostile to our way of life. They should be screened to show they understand and are committed to supporting and defending the Constitution.
It means we must not allow people who are already residents or citizens of this country and hostile to our way of life and Constitution, to subvert and overthrow us by force or coercion. It means special interests may not trump national interests, either economically or politically. It means we cannot allow our personal ambition and fortunes to get in the way of what’s good for the whole country.
These are principles that can apply to all races, religions and ethnicities. Like the human body, there is provision for diversity, but this diversity must flourish under a broader homeostasis, under overriding and governing principles which apply to all.
Tolerance and Discrimination
I sometimes wish the Declaration of Independence had not included the oversimplified: “all men are created equal.” It’s a phrase that too often appeals to folks who cannot or will not appreciate its deeper significance. It has become a handy wedge for cracking and then splitting our nation into antagonistic camps. It has become a more than handy tool for those antisocial and irresponsible members of our national family who use less than honorable means to impose on, upset and harass its more sociable and responsible members. If you resist or expose or oppose these spoilers, they accuse you of not living up to the “equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence, or to your Christian ideals of mercy and compassion. They turn you into the villain, the cause of the “problem.”
All men (and women) are created with equal opportunity to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc, but there are individual circumstances and choices with corresponding consequences. The idler should not be equal to the honest laborer in terms of rewards. The shallow and populist thinker should not be honored equally with the deep delver in truth. –Same holds for the criminal vs the law abiding citizen, for the terrorist vs the freedom-loving patriot. There must be mercy, but also justice; tolerance, but also intolerance of that which is intolerable. A society may be compassionate, “free and open,” but if it is unjust, it invites unrest, strife and ultimate chaos.
There must be discrimination between good and evil, or to return to the analogy of the body, adherence to the law or order that sustains what is strictly defined as life. Hence every cell, organ and system must discriminate between that which leads to health/life and that which leads to sickness/death, accepting the one and rejecting the other.
It has become “unfashionable” to talk about what’s uniquely American. In fact, we can hardly agree on what America is anymore—and yes, we’ve been inaccurate and insensitive to refer to the United States as America, since in doing so we ignore South and Central America and Canada. Whether we call it America or the United States the more critical point, is that what is good or desirable demands appreciation and distinction from that which is undesirable. All people and all nations are not the same. To appreciate the distinctions we must discriminate. That’s what the word means.
All of this, of course, bates the question, who has the right to discriminate; who can “judge” in ways that protect us from evil without frustrating or neutralizing the good? And so we have a subject for another day!
The common man
Must be uncommonly wise,
Or the common man
Will be captured by lies!
–Doug Taylor
