Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, November 4, 2024
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
Thursday, May 7, 2020
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Thoughts on Catholicism and Human Law
I would like to expand on something I wrote a few days ago concerning the concept of legitimate and illegitimate law. I hope in this day and age (unfortunately, you never know) most people would recognize that governments can and do create unjust laws (whether actual laws, judicial rulings and executive orders) which are made binding through force—not just in totalitarian nations, but right here in the US as well.
Realizing that even in the Western Nations (which are always held up as the paragon of freedom compared to the rest of the world, fair or not) the governments can and do create unjust laws is important. It shows that no state government is impeccable in creating laws (human laws, to distinguish from Divine Law and Natural Law)—even if our own party of preference is in command.
I think that with this understanding in mind, the Catholic perspective should be explored. A lot of accusations have been made about us, and we need to have a basic understanding on how the Church views the authority of the state and the human law it creates.
We're not anarchists. We don't hold that the adage, the government that governs best governs least. Nor do we hold that government is a necessary evil. When it works as it ought, government justly holds authority and must be heeded. On the other hand, Catholicism is not a proponent of Big Government. The authority of the state certainly has limits as to what it can do.
In the Catholic perspective, the purpose of government is ensuring the common good. However, the government is not itself the common good. It can only be a means to this end. The government does not have the authority to redefine what the common good is, and the burdens of the law must not be unequally proportioned—such as favoring your friends and harming your enemies. (See Summa Theologica I II Q 96 a4). Finally, the laws passed cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver.
This last point is important. While certain views of government exalt the power of the state, when the government decrees something it has no right to decree, the law it passes has no authority—much like if I were to pass a law that all the houses on my block have the obligation to pay me a 20% tax on their gross income. I would have no right to make such a law because I do not have the authority to even make a law. Maybe if I had my own private militia I could get away with it, but the law would have no authority on its own.
A government may decree a thing, but if the thing decreed goes beyond the authority of the government to decree, then the only way that the law can be binding is if the government uses force to carry out the law. There would be no moral obligation to follow such a law.
When you see these principles, it becomes clear that sometimes the Church must necessarily be in opposition to certain acts of government but is not acting in a partisan manner in doing so.
The Church rejects the claim by a state that it can decide to change the definitions of what is good or evil. Thus when the state creates such legislation, she denies that the law has binding authority. If the law interferes with the ability to do good and avoid evil, then it is not a law at all. It is merely an act of coercion.
Thus the Church will challenge the state that decrees that it can make marriage anything other than between one man and one woman. The Church will challenge the state if it decrees that abortion is a "right." The Church will challenge the state if the state demands that employers violate their religious faith by paying for contraceptives.
When the state decrees such things, these laws lack the morally binding force that valid human law possesses. The government can use force to demand compliance—do it or be sued, locked up or dead.
Now while that threat of coercion may work on individuals within the Church, it doesn't work on the Church as a whole. The Church that recognizes the witness of martyrdom (which is not to be confused with the perversion of the term by those who blow themselves and others up to make a point).
Martyrdom in the Catholic sense says that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil—even to the point of dying rather than doing what God forbids. The Catholic faith, which says, " I would rather suffer as an innocent than to be guilty of doing what God forbids," does not accept the claims of the state to have the right to make good evil or evil good.
The reasons above also explain why the Church—contrary to the hopes of the media—will never permit abortion, woman priests, "gay marriage," contraception, or remarriage when the spouse of a pervious valid marriage is still alive. The Church is not an institution which arbitrarily makes up rules for Catholics to follow and can undo them whenever she likes. When God teaches us what is good or evil, the Catholic Church knows she does not have the authority to change that teaching.
When one understands these things, it becomes clear how the Church can be in opposition to the human laws of a government without being partisan. The Church can accept a government which seeks the true common good and does not seek to elevate itself to the greatest importance and does not seek to make laws it has no right or authority to make.
But it must seek to convert the government that seeks partisan gain for its supporters, that seeks to pass laws it has no right to pass.
This then is why the Catholic Church must sometimes be in opposition to our government.
Thoughts on Catholicism and Human Law
I would like to expand on something I wrote a few days ago concerning the concept of legitimate and illegitimate law. I hope in this day and age (unfortunately, you never know) most people would recognize that governments can and do create unjust laws (whether actual laws, judicial rulings and executive orders) which are made binding through force—not just in totalitarian nations, but right here in the US as well.
Realizing that even in the Western Nations (which are always held up as the paragon of freedom compared to the rest of the world, fair or not) the governments can and do create unjust laws is important. It shows that no state government is impeccable in creating laws (human laws, to distinguish from Divine Law and Natural Law)—even if our own party of preference is in command.
I think that with this understanding in mind, the Catholic perspective should be explored. A lot of accusations have been made about us, and we need to have a basic understanding on how the Church views the authority of the state and the human law it creates.
We're not anarchists. We don't hold that the adage, the government that governs best governs least. Nor do we hold that government is a necessary evil. When it works as it ought, government justly holds authority and must be heeded. On the other hand, Catholicism is not a proponent of Big Government. The authority of the state certainly has limits as to what it can do.
In the Catholic perspective, the purpose of government is ensuring the common good. However, the government is not itself the common good. It can only be a means to this end. The government does not have the authority to redefine what the common good is, and the burdens of the law must not be unequally proportioned—such as favoring your friends and harming your enemies. (See Summa Theologica I II Q 96 a4). Finally, the laws passed cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver.
This last point is important. While certain views of government exalt the power of the state, when the government decrees something it has no right to decree, the law it passes has no authority—much like if I were to pass a law that all the houses on my block have the obligation to pay me a 20% tax on their gross income. I would have no right to make such a law because I do not have the authority to even make a law. Maybe if I had my own private militia I could get away with it, but the law would have no authority on its own.
A government may decree a thing, but if the thing decreed goes beyond the authority of the government to decree, then the only way that the law can be binding is if the government uses force to carry out the law. There would be no moral obligation to follow such a law.
When you see these principles, it becomes clear that sometimes the Church must necessarily be in opposition to certain acts of government but is not acting in a partisan manner in doing so.
The Church rejects the claim by a state that it can decide to change the definitions of what is good or evil. Thus when the state creates such legislation, she denies that the law has binding authority. If the law interferes with the ability to do good and avoid evil, then it is not a law at all. It is merely an act of coercion.
Thus the Church will challenge the state that decrees that it can make marriage anything other than between one man and one woman. The Church will challenge the state if it decrees that abortion is a "right." The Church will challenge the state if the state demands that employers violate their religious faith by paying for contraceptives.
When the state decrees such things, these laws lack the morally binding force that valid human law possesses. The government can use force to demand compliance—do it or be sued, locked up or dead.
Now while that threat of coercion may work on individuals within the Church, it doesn't work on the Church as a whole. The Church that recognizes the witness of martyrdom (which is not to be confused with the perversion of the term by those who blow themselves and others up to make a point).
Martyrdom in the Catholic sense says that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil—even to the point of dying rather than doing what God forbids. The Catholic faith, which says, " I would rather suffer as an innocent than to be guilty of doing what God forbids," does not accept the claims of the state to have the right to make good evil or evil good.
The reasons above also explain why the Church—contrary to the hopes of the media—will never permit abortion, woman priests, "gay marriage," contraception, or remarriage when the spouse of a pervious valid marriage is still alive. The Church is not an institution which arbitrarily makes up rules for Catholics to follow and can undo them whenever she likes. When God teaches us what is good or evil, the Catholic Church knows she does not have the authority to change that teaching.
When one understands these things, it becomes clear how the Church can be in opposition to the human laws of a government without being partisan. The Church can accept a government which seeks the true common good and does not seek to elevate itself to the greatest importance and does not seek to make laws it has no right or authority to make.
But it must seek to convert the government that seeks partisan gain for its supporters, that seeks to pass laws it has no right to pass.
This then is why the Catholic Church must sometimes be in opposition to our government.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Just a Pinch of Incense...
In ancient Rome, there was an obligation to burn a pinch of incense before the statue of the emperor. Doing so was essentially an act of worship of the emperor as a god. The monotheistic Christians could not do this without denying their beliefs in one true God... or give scandal by appearing to do so. But if they refused, they would suffer consequences for standing up for what they believed.
To the morally lax pagans, the Christians doubtlessly were viewed as intolerant. However, by insisting that the Christians burn this incense and do what they believed was morally wrong, the pagans were the intolerant ones. They thought the Christian beliefs were either a threat or something so insignificant that the Christians shouldn't make a fuss about it.
Fast forward some 1700 years to the present. The Christians who, because of their belief in one God, find themselves in a dilemma. Either let your business acknowledge the so-called "gay marriage" (or cause the scandal of appearing to do so), or suffer the consequences.
Again, to a good many people, the Christians are viewed as either intolerant or fussing over something "not important." Laws seeking to protect Christians have been proposed, but they have been portrayed as discriminatory laws.
What makes it so sickening now is the First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from coercing someone into doing what they believed was morally forbidden. But now, it is the defense of these religious rights that is considered unconstitutional.
Once again, Lincoln's words have shown themselves prophetic:
"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
I first posted these words in 2007. Each year, they seem more amd more reflecting our government.
Just a Pinch of Incense...
In ancient Rome, there was an obligation to burn a pinch of incense before the statue of the emperor. Doing so was essentially an act of worship of the emperor as a god. The monotheistic Christians could not do this without denying their beliefs in one true God... or give scandal by appearing to do so. But if they refused, they would suffer consequences for standing up for what they believed.
To the morally lax pagans, the Christians doubtlessly were viewed as intolerant. However, by insisting that the Christians burn this incense and do what they believed was morally wrong, the pagans were the intolerant ones. They thought the Christian beliefs were either a threat or something so insignificant that the Christians shouldn't make a fuss about it.
Fast forward some 1700 years to the present. The Christians who, because of their belief in one God, find themselves in a dilemma. Either let your business acknowledge the so-called "gay marriage" (or cause the scandal of appearing to do so), or suffer the consequences.
Again, to a good many people, the Christians are viewed as either intolerant or fussing over something "not important." Laws seeking to protect Christians have been proposed, but they have been portrayed as discriminatory laws.
What makes it so sickening now is the First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from coercing someone into doing what they believed was morally forbidden. But now, it is the defense of these religious rights that is considered unconstitutional.
Once again, Lincoln's words have shown themselves prophetic:
"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
I first posted these words in 2007. Each year, they seem more amd more reflecting our government.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Fallen America
It is such a quiet thing to fall... but far more terrible is to admit it.
--Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
Introduction
I hear people debating from time on if America will lose its freedom. My take is to say, "What do you mean If?"
I don't say that to be facetious. I say it because it is true. Certain groups of Americans have lost their freedoms of expression if it goes against the behaviors which the government and media elites have decided to support.
Now loss of freedom does not automatically mean 'totalitarian dictatorship.' There are certainly degrees of infringement. A military junta will behave in a different manner than a nation which imagines itself to be a democracy under the rule of law.
So, in writing on this loss of freedom, I'm not equating what goes on here with what goes on in North Korea or the Middle East. Rather, I am pointing out that, compared to what our Constitution professes, our nation is now interfering with religious freedom.
Also, I'm not dealing with non government attacks. Individuals favoring unconstitutional laws are foolish, but not doing something illegal -- it's when they become law, or executive order or a Court ruling that they become relevant to this article.
Understanding Freedom
One of the problems is understanding what freedom means. In modern thought, it is taken to mean I may do what I wish without any restriction. But the problem with this concept is it means too much. It means a law which interferes with my whims restricts freedom... regardless of what my whim may be.
That's not freedom. That's called anarchy.
Freedom is the ability to do what we ought to do without being hindered. If I believe I am obligated to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the government does not have the right to hinder this.
It's stupid to say "I'm not free" if I can't have public access to large quantities of drugs and women of loose women." Nobody is entitled to that.
But it's not stupid to say "I'm not free" if the government can tell me that I or my business must go against that which God commands I must do or must not do.
The first example says "The law must sanction my wants." The second says "the law cannot interfere with my obligations before God."
That's an important distinction. Nobody's conscience tells them "I must abort my child" or "I must engage in homosexual activity." It does tell them "I must not murder," or "I must obey God."
So if the law tells a person "you must support that which your conscience forbids," the law is unjust. And really, the first amendment seems built around the right of the individual not to be forced to do what is evil and to speak out in defending that right.
What the Constitution Says
When the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We see that the Government cannot mandate a State Religion that others must follow. Nor can it interfere with the free exercise of a religion. If the government interferes with how a person carries out their religious faith, they are violating the certain unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence) which no government can bestow or take away.
A religion holds members to following a certain moral code, where refusing obedience is sinning against God. So it follows that laws which prevent the following of that moral code do prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Laws and Court Decisions Violate the Constitution
But it is this free exercise of religion which Federal and State governments do violate. The HHS contraceptive mandate decrees that schools and hospitals attached to a church do not have the right to refuse providing contraception to employees who demand it -- even though that interferes with the free exercise of religion of the religion that established them.
Religion is not merely worship or ritual. It involves doctrine and moral teaching. It involves obligation for those who confess it to be true. The government cannot interfere with the individual who believes their religious beliefs says they cannot do a thing...
...But the government does interfere. They say that the man who refuses to participate in providing services recognizing "gay marriage" by making a cake or providing photographs can face legal action. The business that refuses to pay for abortion services out of religious conviction can face ruinous fines. The religious pharmacists who refuse to distribute abortifacients can be fired.
Schools run by churches, which have a right to be concerned about the moral example set for students by teachers, get sued if they fire a teachers who creates a scandal by public immorality.
Let's not forget that in San Antonio, a proposed city ordinance seeks to bar people from city government those who "demonstrated bias" against people with a same sex attraction... something so vague that it can exclude who say they think so-called "gay marriage" is wrong.
This not only violates the 1st amendment by interfering with the free exercise of religion, but it violates Article VI of the Constitution by imposing a religion test:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Article VI).
Because the government (via Justice Kennedy) has decreed all opposition to homosexual behavior is based on intolerance, the City Council of San Antonio can decide that religious beliefs disqualifies one from city service.
It is quite clear that the US Government in its laws, executive orders and court decisions is violating the Constitution.
Conclusion
America is not in danger of losing freedom. No, our government has taken away freedom already -- with the support of many who short sightedly hate us for speaking against evil, and the tolerance of those who are either ignorant or apathetic about what is being done.
The fall was quiet. But admitting it is the terrible thing... and I think many would rather deny it than face the reality and have to do something about it.
Fallen America
It is such a quiet thing to fall... but far more terrible is to admit it.
--Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
Introduction
I hear people debating from time on if America will lose its freedom. My take is to say, "What do you mean If?"
I don't say that to be facetious. I say it because it is true. Certain groups of Americans have lost their freedoms of expression if it goes against the behaviors which the government and media elites have decided to support.
Now loss of freedom does not automatically mean 'totalitarian dictatorship.' There are certainly degrees of infringement. A military junta will behave in a different manner than a nation which imagines itself to be a democracy under the rule of law.
So, in writing on this loss of freedom, I'm not equating what goes on here with what goes on in North Korea or the Middle East. Rather, I am pointing out that, compared to what our Constitution professes, our nation is now interfering with religious freedom.
Also, I'm not dealing with non government attacks. Individuals favoring unconstitutional laws are foolish, but not doing something illegal -- it's when they become law, or executive order or a Court ruling that they become relevant to this article.
Understanding Freedom
One of the problems is understanding what freedom means. In modern thought, it is taken to mean I may do what I wish without any restriction. But the problem with this concept is it means too much. It means a law which interferes with my whims restricts freedom... regardless of what my whim may be.
That's not freedom. That's called anarchy.
Freedom is the ability to do what we ought to do without being hindered. If I believe I am obligated to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the government does not have the right to hinder this.
It's stupid to say "I'm not free" if I can't have public access to large quantities of drugs and women of loose women." Nobody is entitled to that.
But it's not stupid to say "I'm not free" if the government can tell me that I or my business must go against that which God commands I must do or must not do.
The first example says "The law must sanction my wants." The second says "the law cannot interfere with my obligations before God."
That's an important distinction. Nobody's conscience tells them "I must abort my child" or "I must engage in homosexual activity." It does tell them "I must not murder," or "I must obey God."
So if the law tells a person "you must support that which your conscience forbids," the law is unjust. And really, the first amendment seems built around the right of the individual not to be forced to do what is evil and to speak out in defending that right.
What the Constitution Says
When the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We see that the Government cannot mandate a State Religion that others must follow. Nor can it interfere with the free exercise of a religion. If the government interferes with how a person carries out their religious faith, they are violating the certain unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence) which no government can bestow or take away.
A religion holds members to following a certain moral code, where refusing obedience is sinning against God. So it follows that laws which prevent the following of that moral code do prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Laws and Court Decisions Violate the Constitution
But it is this free exercise of religion which Federal and State governments do violate. The HHS contraceptive mandate decrees that schools and hospitals attached to a church do not have the right to refuse providing contraception to employees who demand it -- even though that interferes with the free exercise of religion of the religion that established them.
Religion is not merely worship or ritual. It involves doctrine and moral teaching. It involves obligation for those who confess it to be true. The government cannot interfere with the individual who believes their religious beliefs says they cannot do a thing...
...But the government does interfere. They say that the man who refuses to participate in providing services recognizing "gay marriage" by making a cake or providing photographs can face legal action. The business that refuses to pay for abortion services out of religious conviction can face ruinous fines. The religious pharmacists who refuse to distribute abortifacients can be fired.
Schools run by churches, which have a right to be concerned about the moral example set for students by teachers, get sued if they fire a teachers who creates a scandal by public immorality.
Let's not forget that in San Antonio, a proposed city ordinance seeks to bar people from city government those who "demonstrated bias" against people with a same sex attraction... something so vague that it can exclude who say they think so-called "gay marriage" is wrong.
This not only violates the 1st amendment by interfering with the free exercise of religion, but it violates Article VI of the Constitution by imposing a religion test:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Article VI).
Because the government (via Justice Kennedy) has decreed all opposition to homosexual behavior is based on intolerance, the City Council of San Antonio can decide that religious beliefs disqualifies one from city service.
It is quite clear that the US Government in its laws, executive orders and court decisions is violating the Constitution.
Conclusion
America is not in danger of losing freedom. No, our government has taken away freedom already -- with the support of many who short sightedly hate us for speaking against evil, and the tolerance of those who are either ignorant or apathetic about what is being done.
The fall was quiet. But admitting it is the terrible thing... and I think many would rather deny it than face the reality and have to do something about it.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 1 of 2)
Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.
—GK Chesterton
As we see our civil rights in America eroded, some people have speculated on the cause. Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Communist" for example. We hear similar things about media conspiracies. The basic premise is that the reason our freedoms are declining because of some special efforts by some groups to bring down the country.
I think these things are distractions. We don't need to bring conspiracies into the equation at all. What we actually seem to have is that a certain influential group of the American population tend to think in a similar way and, when they receive political power, approach lawmaking in the same way they approach moral obligations.
In other words, we don't have a secret cabal of People against Goodness and Normality. We have people who have bought into certain errors as a way of thinking and are making that thinking into the law of the land. It has six steps. Three which are concerned with individual morality and three in which the individual steps are made law.
Looking at the First Three Steps
These first three steps are the framework, reflecting on how certain individuals view morality and how such individuals view challenges to their moral views. Such persons reject the idea that there are moral absolutes that may not ever be transgressed when it comes to such rules requiring them to restrict their behavior.
The First Step: Reducing Morality to Not Harming Others
The basic form of this modern morality is the concept that anything that does not harm others is permissible. Thus drug use that is not harming others is permissible. Fornication is permissible. Also, the emphasis on harming others is important. Under this view, we can be self-destructive so long as this destruction does not harm others.
We can see the roots for this kind of thinking in Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill describes the basic view as:
the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.
If it causes happiness, it is good. If it causes unhappiness it is not good. However, we do see a early warning sign here. The standards of distinguishing good and harm is arbitrary, and as society has moved forward in time have become more individualistic. The individual is expected to decide for himself or herself what amount of pain is acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure. The "habits of self-consciousness and self-observation" are replaced by the slogan, "If it feels good, do it."
The problem with this view of morality is it is too short sighted. It focuses on the pleasure of the moment and ignores how long term effects of these behaviors can be harmful.
For example, the loose sexual morality requires contraception to avoid pregnancies. However, the laws of averages means eventually there will be unexpected pregnancies, and the demand for abortions. Therefore abortion becomes classified under the category of "anything that does not harm others is permissible." It's considered a minor inconvenience which should be legalized to remove consequences from sexual behavior as a pleasure.
But abortion does harm. The obvious harm to another comes from the fact that the unborn child is a person. Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was pretty much accepted as fact. Only after the Supreme Court ruling do we see medical textbooks stop talking about this. Moreover, in modern times, it is recognized that abortions cause mental and emotional harm to the mother who has an abortion. But since this harm challenges the basic premise of modern morality, it has to be somehow removed from consideration. This brings us to our second step
The Second Step: Denying the Harm Exists and Explaining It Away
The response of the modern morality is to either deny the harm exists or explain it away as less than the action defended. Often it tries to argue both, leading one to ask, "Well, which is it?" Either the harm exists or it does not. If it does, it has to be acknowledged and dealt with. If it doesn't, then why try to explain it away?
So we see people facing an unexpected pregnancy, denying the unborn child is a person; denying that such mental harm to the mother exists or explaining the harm away in the name of "a woman's right to choose." But if the unborn child is a person, then the "woman's right to choose" is causing harm to others and cannot be permitted under modern morality. So they have to deny that the unborn child is a person while also saying that whether or not the unborn child is a person, it doesn't outrank the "freedom of choice."
The danger is, this modern view of morality focuses on what the individual thinks, as opposed to what is true. So if the person decides they should not worry about the harm caused to another, they are deciding for themselves whether the harm done to another has any meaning. As we will see later, when people with this mindset receive political power, their self-focused determination on whether those harmed have value or not will impact the laws they pass.
The Third Step: Shooting the Messenger
In a reasoned discussion, people would attempt to objectively consider the issues and attempt to discover the reality. Behavior would then be changed in order to live in accordance to what is true. Unfortunately, in modern times we do not see this. It is one of the greatest ironies that people who claim that beliefs in objective morality and absolute truth are labeled "irrational" and "illogical" when the response to people who challenge modern morality is to verbally attack them and make no attempt at refutation.
The denial and explaining away can be (and often is) challenged by rational argument, but people don't like to be shown to be in the wrong, and this leads to the third step: Hostility to those who point out the modern morality is causing harm to people.
When it is pointed out that certain behaviors are NOT morally permissible and DO cause harm, there are no attempts at a reasoned refutation. What we have instead is a lashing out at those who point out the behavior is harmful.
It works this way: People standing up for absolute morality creates a challenge that puts the follower of modern morality into a dilemma. If what challengers say is true then it indicts the act as wrong and the person who performs the act must choose between renouncing the act or continue the act, knowing it is wrong.
Very few people deliberately want to be evil-doers in the sense of the character Aaron in the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus who dies regretting he had not done more evil. Rather, many people are inordinately attached to certain behaviors and are unwilling to give them up. They also don't want to be in the wrong in not giving them up.
So the defense mechanism begins. But since the justification for modern morality is the individual decides that the act doesn't harm anyone in a way the individual considers important, they cannot defend their position as being right. So what often happens is to avoid being wrong, they seek to denigrate their challengers, trying to portray them as being in the wrong.
This is why we see so many ad hominem attacks: "War on women." "Homophobic." "Judgmental." These attacks make no legitimate claim against the truth of the defender of absolute morality. It merely attacks the person who challenges this form of thinking. It is as if they think if they can discredit the messenger, they can justify ignoring the message.
It's a sort of begging the question.
- If they were good people they would agree with [X]
- They don't agree with [X]
- Therefore they're not good people
- Why does not agreeing with [X] make them bad people?
- Because [X] is good.
[X] is the issue being disputed whether it is good or not, so to argue that people are not good if they do not agree with [X] merely assumes what has to be proven.
Once we get to the point where a person being good or not depends on whether he accepts the position of modern morality, it becomes easier to label the person who challenges modern morality as people who don't matter. Once that label is bestowed, it will have relevance in a society which adapts the modern morality to law.
Conclusion
Now the first three steps are individually focused, but when numbers of individuals who share the same view group together, we can see political influence grow from them. Voters who hold these views are going to tend towards supporting candidates that share their views ,or at least favor leniency towards the behaviors. Members of the media who share these views are going to report things in terms of promoting the modern morality and denigrating the concept of moral absolutes. Politicians who hold these views are going to pass laws which reflect these views of morality.
The next article will take a look at how we go from this individualistic view of morality to what happens when we elect people who hold to this view of morality.
How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 1 of 2)
Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.
—GK Chesterton
As we see our civil rights in America eroded, some people have speculated on the cause. Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Communist" for example. We hear similar things about media conspiracies. The basic premise is that the reason our freedoms are declining because of some special efforts by some groups to bring down the country.
I think these things are distractions. We don't need to bring conspiracies into the equation at all. What we actually seem to have is that a certain influential group of the American population tend to think in a similar way and, when they receive political power, approach lawmaking in the same way they approach moral obligations.
In other words, we don't have a secret cabal of People against Goodness and Normality. We have people who have bought into certain errors as a way of thinking and are making that thinking into the law of the land. It has six steps. Three which are concerned with individual morality and three in which the individual steps are made law.
Looking at the First Three Steps
These first three steps are the framework, reflecting on how certain individuals view morality and how such individuals view challenges to their moral views. Such persons reject the idea that there are moral absolutes that may not ever be transgressed when it comes to such rules requiring them to restrict their behavior.
The First Step: Reducing Morality to Not Harming Others
The basic form of this modern morality is the concept that anything that does not harm others is permissible. Thus drug use that is not harming others is permissible. Fornication is permissible. Also, the emphasis on harming others is important. Under this view, we can be self-destructive so long as this destruction does not harm others.
We can see the roots for this kind of thinking in Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill describes the basic view as:
the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.
If it causes happiness, it is good. If it causes unhappiness it is not good. However, we do see a early warning sign here. The standards of distinguishing good and harm is arbitrary, and as society has moved forward in time have become more individualistic. The individual is expected to decide for himself or herself what amount of pain is acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure. The "habits of self-consciousness and self-observation" are replaced by the slogan, "If it feels good, do it."
The problem with this view of morality is it is too short sighted. It focuses on the pleasure of the moment and ignores how long term effects of these behaviors can be harmful.
For example, the loose sexual morality requires contraception to avoid pregnancies. However, the laws of averages means eventually there will be unexpected pregnancies, and the demand for abortions. Therefore abortion becomes classified under the category of "anything that does not harm others is permissible." It's considered a minor inconvenience which should be legalized to remove consequences from sexual behavior as a pleasure.
But abortion does harm. The obvious harm to another comes from the fact that the unborn child is a person. Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was pretty much accepted as fact. Only after the Supreme Court ruling do we see medical textbooks stop talking about this. Moreover, in modern times, it is recognized that abortions cause mental and emotional harm to the mother who has an abortion. But since this harm challenges the basic premise of modern morality, it has to be somehow removed from consideration. This brings us to our second step
The Second Step: Denying the Harm Exists and Explaining It Away
The response of the modern morality is to either deny the harm exists or explain it away as less than the action defended. Often it tries to argue both, leading one to ask, "Well, which is it?" Either the harm exists or it does not. If it does, it has to be acknowledged and dealt with. If it doesn't, then why try to explain it away?
So we see people facing an unexpected pregnancy, denying the unborn child is a person; denying that such mental harm to the mother exists or explaining the harm away in the name of "a woman's right to choose." But if the unborn child is a person, then the "woman's right to choose" is causing harm to others and cannot be permitted under modern morality. So they have to deny that the unborn child is a person while also saying that whether or not the unborn child is a person, it doesn't outrank the "freedom of choice."
The danger is, this modern view of morality focuses on what the individual thinks, as opposed to what is true. So if the person decides they should not worry about the harm caused to another, they are deciding for themselves whether the harm done to another has any meaning. As we will see later, when people with this mindset receive political power, their self-focused determination on whether those harmed have value or not will impact the laws they pass.
The Third Step: Shooting the Messenger
In a reasoned discussion, people would attempt to objectively consider the issues and attempt to discover the reality. Behavior would then be changed in order to live in accordance to what is true. Unfortunately, in modern times we do not see this. It is one of the greatest ironies that people who claim that beliefs in objective morality and absolute truth are labeled "irrational" and "illogical" when the response to people who challenge modern morality is to verbally attack them and make no attempt at refutation.
The denial and explaining away can be (and often is) challenged by rational argument, but people don't like to be shown to be in the wrong, and this leads to the third step: Hostility to those who point out the modern morality is causing harm to people.
When it is pointed out that certain behaviors are NOT morally permissible and DO cause harm, there are no attempts at a reasoned refutation. What we have instead is a lashing out at those who point out the behavior is harmful.
It works this way: People standing up for absolute morality creates a challenge that puts the follower of modern morality into a dilemma. If what challengers say is true then it indicts the act as wrong and the person who performs the act must choose between renouncing the act or continue the act, knowing it is wrong.
Very few people deliberately want to be evil-doers in the sense of the character Aaron in the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus who dies regretting he had not done more evil. Rather, many people are inordinately attached to certain behaviors and are unwilling to give them up. They also don't want to be in the wrong in not giving them up.
So the defense mechanism begins. But since the justification for modern morality is the individual decides that the act doesn't harm anyone in a way the individual considers important, they cannot defend their position as being right. So what often happens is to avoid being wrong, they seek to denigrate their challengers, trying to portray them as being in the wrong.
This is why we see so many ad hominem attacks: "War on women." "Homophobic." "Judgmental." These attacks make no legitimate claim against the truth of the defender of absolute morality. It merely attacks the person who challenges this form of thinking. It is as if they think if they can discredit the messenger, they can justify ignoring the message.
It's a sort of begging the question.
- If they were good people they would agree with [X]
- They don't agree with [X]
- Therefore they're not good people
- Why does not agreeing with [X] make them bad people?
- Because [X] is good.
[X] is the issue being disputed whether it is good or not, so to argue that people are not good if they do not agree with [X] merely assumes what has to be proven.
Once we get to the point where a person being good or not depends on whether he accepts the position of modern morality, it becomes easier to label the person who challenges modern morality as people who don't matter. Once that label is bestowed, it will have relevance in a society which adapts the modern morality to law.
Conclusion
Now the first three steps are individually focused, but when numbers of individuals who share the same view group together, we can see political influence grow from them. Voters who hold these views are going to tend towards supporting candidates that share their views ,or at least favor leniency towards the behaviors. Members of the media who share these views are going to report things in terms of promoting the modern morality and denigrating the concept of moral absolutes. Politicians who hold these views are going to pass laws which reflect these views of morality.
The next article will take a look at how we go from this individualistic view of morality to what happens when we elect people who hold to this view of morality.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Movies Worth Watching Before November 6th
As we get nearer to election day, I've found certain movies resonating with me because they remind the viewer that the obligation to do what is right calls people to make a stand in the face of government intrusion – even at the cost of mistreatment.
Three that come to mind are:
- For Greater Glory
- Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
- A Man for All Seasons (Both the 1966 movie and the 1988 Charlton Heston version are well done)
In all three movies, we see the theme of a government which behaves in a way that people of conscience cannot accept. In all of them, we see characters who are told that if they just "compromise a little" and accept the government intrusion, all will be well with them. In all of them, these characters make the decision that stands up for doing what is right and suffer the consequences – consequences the government has no right to impose because the government had no right to create such laws in the first place.
Another good movie is After the Truth. A German movie from 1999, it takes as the premise, What if the infamous Nazi Doctor Josef Mengele came back to Germany to face trial with the intent of justifying his position? The trial points out that the callous Nazi medical experiments and euthanasia did not arise in 1933, but before with German doctors questioning whether a human life is really worth living in the case of the insane or the deformed. As the movie progresses, we see that Mengele's positions are not born in the extreme ideology of the Nazis, but instead can be found in the assumptions of pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion supporters – that some life is not worthy of life and should be ended. When we realize that some people in modern society who are definitely not Nazis have a similar mindset and are promoting these things in the name of "compassion," it makes one realize that evil is not simply done by tyrannical regimes, but also by governments and individuals who think their ideas are "merciful."
I think in all of these movies, we should be brought to asking why such government injustices were permitted to go so far as they did that they ended up doing such injustice.
Of course the members of the government in each movie have their own responsibility, but every one of us should be asking questions about governments and individuals who make policies that force or encourage people do do wrong and to ask questions about what it means when a government makes use of its power to coerce people who say "I will not comply with this evil."
Movies Worth Watching Before November 6th
As we get nearer to election day, I've found certain movies resonating with me because they remind the viewer that the obligation to do what is right calls people to make a stand in the face of government intrusion – even at the cost of mistreatment.
Three that come to mind are:
- For Greater Glory
- Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
- A Man for All Seasons (Both the 1966 movie and the 1988 Charlton Heston version are well done)
In all three movies, we see the theme of a government which behaves in a way that people of conscience cannot accept. In all of them, we see characters who are told that if they just "compromise a little" and accept the government intrusion, all will be well with them. In all of them, these characters make the decision that stands up for doing what is right and suffer the consequences – consequences the government has no right to impose because the government had no right to create such laws in the first place.
Another good movie is After the Truth. A German movie from 1999, it takes as the premise, What if the infamous Nazi Doctor Josef Mengele came back to Germany to face trial with the intent of justifying his position? The trial points out that the callous Nazi medical experiments and euthanasia did not arise in 1933, but before with German doctors questioning whether a human life is really worth living in the case of the insane or the deformed. As the movie progresses, we see that Mengele's positions are not born in the extreme ideology of the Nazis, but instead can be found in the assumptions of pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion supporters – that some life is not worthy of life and should be ended. When we realize that some people in modern society who are definitely not Nazis have a similar mindset and are promoting these things in the name of "compassion," it makes one realize that evil is not simply done by tyrannical regimes, but also by governments and individuals who think their ideas are "merciful."
I think in all of these movies, we should be brought to asking why such government injustices were permitted to go so far as they did that they ended up doing such injustice.
Of course the members of the government in each movie have their own responsibility, but every one of us should be asking questions about governments and individuals who make policies that force or encourage people do do wrong and to ask questions about what it means when a government makes use of its power to coerce people who say "I will not comply with this evil."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)