Christianity/Catholicism guarantor of our "inalienable rights" Continued

Dear Eques and the C&S Group,

I think my main concern with your line of argument is a Copernican one. That is, people have argued for many thousands of years just where the center of things is.

Is the Earth the center around which the Sun revolves? Or is the Sun the center around which the Earth revolves?

In social realms, every entity of humanity from the 150-person tribe, to the 1 billion person state of China, has believed that they are the Center of the Universe.

Jerusalem is referred to as the Umbilicus Mundi, as is Rome.

How does one choose just who is the Center? Is it Rome, or is it Jerusalem, or is it Shiprock New Mexico, or a Buddhist shrine in Thailand, or even Fenway Park.

One philosopher captured the argument by stating that the fallacy of there being a Center is captured by the following statement:

"There are universal values. They just happen to be mine."

Perhaps we can blame Copernicus, and certainly Newton for bolstering this way of thinking. Newton's main contribution to human thought was coming close to proving that there is an absolute frame of reference. The universe, in other words, has a cosmic x, y, and z axis, and everything can be located on this one universal framework.

Galileo first proposed that there was no such frame of reference in space, so that if someone is moving at a constant speed, and everything around them moves at the same speed they cannot tell they are moving. This is familiar to all of us on Earth which is moving at 25,000 miles per hour, but since everything is it seems when we lie down in our back yard we are not moving.

Einstein added the observation that there is no fixed framework for time either, no universal clock.

So today's science has rejected the notion of a fixed framework, and with it the notion of a fixed Center of the Universe. There is no physical Umbilical Mundi.

And I believe the same is true in religion and other matters human. I consider the whole question of a Center in human groupings to be a deeply flawed, old habit of human mind that has caused nothing but trouble, war, and needless death and oppression.

Yet I do believe that the various, and quite abundant events of human grouping have created much of what is valuable in life. It is only when a group ascribes to itself a sense of unique value, that I find things go sour.

In fact, I can think of no example of a nation, religion, or ethnicity grabbing at a claim of exclusive value without suffering or causing some grave harm to itself and/or others.

And so I would state that your characterization of Catholicism as somehow uniquely central to Western Civilization fits squarely into this dangerous habit of mind. Who is really to say that the Catholic Church's contribution to human progress weighs more than other religion's, philosophy's, and/or polities? Again, no argument with the vast value the Church has given to humanity and the world, but that in no way protects it from the dangers inherent in claiming unique supremacy.

With respect to America, the central core of what America did differently was to say there is no Center, there is no group, religion, identity valued over another. All groups weigh the same here, or will try to. Jefferson's mention of the creator was simply a nod to the religious sensibilities of his time. His statement in the Declaration of Independence created a society that could release humanity from the shackles of groups that would claim domination over others. Each person became equally powerful and equally valuable in his formulation. God was not part of that valuing or formulation, except perhaps as the Power that got the whole process started, hence reference as creator. No particular religion is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and God is not mentioned whatsoever in the Constitution. These are the first state papers in the history of humanity to not mention the state religion or God, and people noticed. The Constitution was criticized at the time for that omission, and the Founding Fathers made it clear it was not an omission, but an innovation. They clearly were trying to fashion a society in which neither God nor King was in charge, but rather the people.

Your call to make America a Christian nation, which it decidedly is not, but clearly could be, would essentially destroy nearly every initiative the Founding Fathers and Lincoln worked to achieve. It would make Christianity the nation's religion, establishing a State preference for singling out one approach, one group, as Central. The fallacy of one such group so much superior to all others would invite tyranny, it always has in history and always will.

I do not fault you for trying to push for the shift back to the way nations always have operated. After all, most innovations fail, and most long-lasting traditions succeed.

In this one instance, however, I do pray that the still novel concept of a government for the people, of the people, and by the people will prove in time to be a viable innovation, and that humanity can at last find its release from the forms of government headed by God or King that nearly always devolve into one form or tyranny or another.

Pace,

Arthur Lavin

Dear Dr Lavin and C&R group

As you requested I have posted your replies and our entire dialogue on HAA “Conservative and Republican” discussion group.

I believe we are beginning to talk past one another. I do not wish for the USA to be Christian Nation in any established sense. I wish to preserve the representative form of government we enjoy by virtue of arguably the noblest Constitution in the history of mankind. To do so I maintain we must rediscover the moral consensus that once existed in our nation, which most Americans took for granted for most of our history.

Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue exquisitely observed that our culture has suffered at cataclysmic moral event that we somehow missed. We can see its effects in our loss of moral consensus. I am certain that some would see this as a desirable thing. However, I would argue that it is a disaster for our nation and our culture. We are now a nation that turns to our legislatures and courts to tell us what is right or wrong, no longer malum in se but rather malum prohibitum.<;/i>

The result is that we are reduced to the lowest common denominator. Our morality is reduced to, “as long as I do not get caught I can do whatever feels good or benefits me.” We have become moral monads. The moral chaos is not a recipe for the building, but for the deconstruction of our culture and civilization.

It is incumbent upon us as a people to rediscover our cultural roots, which again are a mixture, of Greek, Judeo, Christian, and western “pagan” elements, historically mediated and integrated by Catholicism, which of course means, “universalism.” There is a reason that oaths of office and in courts are taken in the name of God on the Bible. A ritual acknowledging that our entire governmental and legal system is biblically based. As you are aware as you enter the Supreme Court building above your head on the façade of the portico you are confronted with Moses and the Ten Commandments. It is possible to argue that this is purely a secularist nod to the historical importance of the Ten Commandments to the history of law. However, when these rituals and buildings were designed and constructed secularism was not yet on the horizon. These were traditional allusions and recognitions of our biblical heritage.

I do not desire a Catholic US of A. I do wish to renew our culture and this is only possible by returning to its roots, which is exactly what MacIntyre proposes. Although he is a bit more pessimistic than I. He suggests that the only thing we can do is to return to our faith communities and wait for a new St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism, who he credits with preserving the remnants of culture and civilization after the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

Allow me to repeat, I do not propose or support a Christian/Catholic US of A. It is necessary, however, that we rediscover the moral consensus, which makes government for and by the people possible. In addition, a moral consensus would act as a break on tyranny by the majority, or worse tyranny by an oligarchy such as the Supreme Court, which is now free to ignore the Ten Commandments, legal precedent, and the legislative process.

I anticipate the retort that this is just another form of Axis Mundi of moral and religious type. Yes it is. Just as the Sun is necessary for the survival not only of our world and life, as we know it, but for the very existence of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, not every solar system but ours, Western Civilization will not survive without its particular Axis Mundi. Perhaps we are witnessing the decline and dissolution of Western Civilization and perhaps this is what most people actually desire. It follows that representative government is not likely to survive the end of the Civilization that produced it. No other culture had the ‘raw materials” that could or did produce it. Perhaps the noble experiment is ending; perhaps we are on the brink of a truly Imperial Presidency. Rome moved from city-state, to kingdom, to an oligarchic republic, to empire. Perhaps we are in a transitional historical phase that requires this moral shift in order to move to the Imperial phase our national history.

I am not a historical fatalist. I do believe it is possible to slow or even reverse this historical trajectory. However, a moral renaissance is essential in order to save what you and I both hold dear, our representative form of government.

Pax Tecum

Eques