How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone Not to Proselytize?

Francis Schaeffer on the Origins of Relativism in the Church

Words to Remember

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

One of My Favorite Songs

An Inspiring Song

Labels

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Fourth Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

Man is more than a physical creature. As Edmund Burke argued, each individual is created as a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience and is bound to a transcendent moral order established by Divine Providence and uncovered through observation and experience over the ages. "There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity--the law of nature and of nations." This is Natural Law that penetrates man's being and which the Founding Fathers adopted as the principle around which civilized American society would be organized.

The Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It provides further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

[snip]

Some resist the idea of Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for they fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy. They have that backwards. If man is "endowed by [the] Creator with certain unalienable rights," he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights--rights that are not conferred on man by man, and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man. It is the Divine nature of natural Law that makes permanent man's right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
You'll note a certain similarity between what Mr. Levin says here and what I've said about a bajillion times. Order the book here.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

  1. DaveNovember 25, 2009 at 5:16 AM

    One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how people like Levin quote the Declaration of Independence as some great conservative Christian document when that just isn’t true. Thomas Jefferson was a deist and was despised by the conservative Christians of his day. They hated the fact that God and Jesus weren’t explicitly mentioned in the Declaration (or the Constitution for that matter). Terms like “Divine Providence” and “Creator” were terms used by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment and deists, not conservative Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Man of the WestNovember 25, 2009 at 9:13 PM

    Thomas Jefferson was a deist and was despised by the conservative Christians of his day.

    Okay, supposing I grant that (I might mildly dispute whether he really fit the description of a full-blown deist or not, but I'll readily grant you the second part of your statement), supposing Jefferson really was a despised deist, how would that invalidate his obvious appeal to a Creator as the source of man's rights?

    ReplyDelete
  3. DaveDecember 28, 2009 at 5:55 AM

    MOTW said: “…how would that invalidate his obvious appeal to a Creator as the source of man's rights?”

    It doesn’t, but there is a total difference in how Jefferson viewed God and how conservative Christians view God. Often the Declaration is used as a calling card by those who belief that this is a Christian nation. Unfortunately, Jefferson’s own words contradict this idea. He was criticized for not mentioning Jesus and many thought that he didn’t go far enough when he used phrases like Creator.

    Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. I’ve had this email sitting around and have just been waiting to respond. And sadly as I respond now, I feel like I am leaving something out, but oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Man of the WestDecember 28, 2009 at 6:11 PM

    I don't mind you taking a while; there is more to life than the blogosphere, fortunately.

    Dave, I can't help but note that your second comment is basically a rewrite of the first one, save that in the second, you acknowledged that Jefferson's deism, such as it was, did not actually invalidate his appeal to a divine origin for man's rights. Since that was the point of the post, I am somewhat at a loss as to how to respond. You seem to be determined to respond to a post arguing that America is a Christian nation, but this is not such a post. This post simply points out--as I've done many times before--that the concept of unalienable rights is anchored firmly on the idea that they have a divine origin. Nothing written in this post would exclude a Jew, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, etc.

    I've written before, to be sure, that America has a strong Christian heritage, and if I haven't yet written that it has been, for most of its history, fundamentally Christian in its institutions and customs, I certainly will do so sooner or later. I might argue that America was once composed overwhelmingly of Christians. I might argue that the majority of Americans, even now, at least claim to be Christians. I might argue all of these things, but in this post, I don't think it can be legitimately said that I have done so. Nor, I think, can Mr. Levin be said to be arguing here that America is a Christian nation. Indeed, he specifically said, "If man is 'endowed by [the] Creator with certain unalienable rights,' he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion."

    ReplyDelete
  5. DaveDecember 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM

    I’m not doing a very good job of explaining myself, I’m sorry.

    I went back and re-read the quote and found this part interesting –

    “Some resist the idea of Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for they fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy. They have that backwards. If man is "endowed by [the] Creator with certain unalienable rights," he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights--rights that are not conferred on man by man, and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man.”

    Upon re-reading this I think that Levin in right in both things that he is saying. First the idea of Divine Providence can lead to intolerance and theocracy, when it is misinterpreted. Next, it is correct that these rights come from Natural Law which comes from God that makes them “fundamental and eternal human rights.” I guess the issue that I have with someone like Levin talking about the Declaration is that if he (Levin) had been alive in Jefferson’s day, he probably would have been anti-Jefferson. Maybe I’m wrong and my great dislike for Levin is clouding my judgment, but based on my exposure to his rhetoric, I kind of doubt it.

    Overall I was responding to what I see as a general misuse of the words of the Declaration and not what Levin was specifically saying here. Also I did a really bad job at trying to get my point across and for both I apologize.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)