An End to ‘Don’t Ask’? - Adam Paul Laxalt - National Review Online

An End to ‘Don’t Ask’? - Adam Paul Laxalt - National Review Online

Capitalism and Liberty

According to our individual skills combined with our energy and enthusiasm, capitalism in a free society allows each individual an equal opportunity to prosper. This drive is referred to as our right to an individual pursuit of happiness. It is also the first objective of government. (Rauchut, 2008, p. 215) Rauchut has called capitalism “the fairest and most beneficial economic systems that has ever been devised, one that works best with our political freedoms.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 219) It all comes down to freedom. The President of the United States, in recent months, has sought to intervene where it regards the current economical turmoil being faced in this country. The contention of this author, however, is that such intervention is wrong because the liberty of this generations and generations to come will be limited because of his bailout plan.

Freedom is the first objective of government to secure but is being compromised by the same government obligated to protect it. Assuming that the bailout is the right solution (which point is debatable) my grand children will have to wonder why they continue to divert their personal property to pay a debt incurred decades earlier. As Milton Friedman states, if someone else, i.e. our children, bear the consequences, should we be permitted to make the decisions? (Friedman, 1979, p. 481) Adam Smith alluded to this same type of thing in his Wealth of Nations as he states that when a single man or kingdom becomes involved in directing the economy, they are in a sense determining how the individual distributes their own wealth. (Smith, 1776, p. 586) Distribution of another’s wealth or “spreading it around” as was suggested by President Obama, ultimately isn’t “good for everyone.” (FOUHY, 2008) It limits liberty and the freedom to dispose of one’s property, which really is what is good for everyone. It’s good because it allows all men the opportunity to prosper and, when they prosper, whether they intend it or not…the whole nation prospers and life becomes better for all. That freedom fuels capitalism. “The history of the world over the past 200 years shows that capitalism did indeed permit and encourage ordinary men and women in the pursuit of their happiness to improve their condition.” (Kristol, 1978, p. 544)

One particular concern with the bailout is how government has become more involved with industry. While one probably shouldn’t go as far as to call our government communist, some would say that in this sense it appears to have some communist leanings. The Communist Manifesto talks about industry becoming the domain of the state. (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 597) One must question if that hasn’t started to happen with the majority ownership by the US taxpayer of GM and AIG. Communism hasn’t shown itself to be conducive to actual individual liberty in any country in which is practiced. Are we to believe that the US can do better? While the aim of the Obama administration is likely not communism, any time that we adopt the policies of communism we must wonder how much further down that road we are headed and what the fate of individual liberty will be.

The natural order of things, at least the way they should be isn’t economic bailouts by the government. If an organization is being mismanaged, according to Walter Williams, the collapse of that business should be allowed to happen with the understanding that there will be others who come in to fill the gap. Williams states that the process is “short-circuited if government offers bailouts….Government ‘help’ enables failing companies to continue to squander resources.” (Williams, 2005, p. 604) Now, the idea that we should let businesses fail on one hand is a concern when one considers the impacts on society and the overall economy, but on the other hand, it’s important to understand that there will always be someone to fill the gap as long as a need exists. It is better, in this author’s opinion, to adhere to sound principle rather than the inflammatory comments of ‘experts’ whose interest might be more self-serving or simply uninformed.

One can ask, “who is to blame for this? Who has allowed this bail-out to happen?” Unfortunately we have only ourselves to blame. It was Eberling who stated that it is up to the public, we citizens, to hold our elected officials accountable to the rule of law. In fact, we have elected officials that espoused economic principles that are contrary to liberty and the right to personal property, (Eberling, 2008, p. 606) principles guaranteed us by our constitution. It is true that there are many who did not vote for these officials, but did we each do enough to make sure the voice of reason was heard? Unfortunately, there were some of those who voted for those who had misguided economic solutions because of fear. Howard Buffett stated that “people controlled by their emotions in political matters have always been, and are today, easy prey for tyrants.” (Buffett, 2008, p. 601) The emotion of fear has left the intellectually incompetent resorting to knee-jerk decisions about the best course to right the economic ship.

What’s to be done though? What is the alternative? Leonard Read suggests that we just need to have a little faith in mankind. (Read, 1992, p. 616)Given time, freedom to act, and adherence to sound economic philosophies, America would have been able to recover from this economic crisis. The fear and lack of faith, however, resulted in a majority of citizens to assume that we would find no success without government intervention. How often have we, as a country, made this fateful decision? As Ronald Reagan said in his first inaugural address, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” (Reagan, 1981) Interestingly enough, he was speaking about the economic problems of the day and suggested that we would be better off with faith in mankind. Somehow, the economy recovered without a bail-out, but let’s not learn from experience.

A right to the pursuit of happiness is as old as the country itself. There has long been a spirit of freedom. It was noticed by Tocqueville in 1835. He noted that Americans were always pursuing advantages and new endeavors. He remarked that the real novelty was not that such an attitude existed, but that “a whole people furnish an exemplification of it.” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 583) American’s were free to advance their own self-interests and that opportunity was universal and limitless. There was not even the social condition to discourage such behavior. Today, however, the intrusion of government most recently manifested by the bail-out promises to create an environment where such liberties will be restricted. There is only so much liberty to be had and as government takes more, the people have less. Discord will continue to occur amongst the citizens of our country as more and more a long established and important facet of our culture is no longer supported by government and a new culture, the welfare mentality, is supported by a governmental culture that never intended its existence.

Howard Buffet indicates that America became great not because of the quality of the intellect of Americans but because our government was the first ever to allow man the freedom to create and keep wealth. (Buffett, 2008, p. 599) He goes on to quote Sokolsky in suggesting that as people become more reliant on government for their well being there is a negative and proportional affect on individual liberty. (Buffett, 2008, p. 601)On the part of the person reliant as they become conditioned to not exercise their liberty, and on the portion of those who choose not to rely on government as government removes from them their property to provide for the former.

There is an anecdote that discusses placing a frog in a pan of boiling water. If one were to do this, the frog would immediately jump out. If the frog is placed in cold water that is heated gradually enough until it is boiling, the frog won’t jump out but boil to death. It’s difficult to say whether this is true, but it does illustrate a principle. Gunnar Myrdal writes about how our country is being conditioned in a similar way. He says we no longer debate taxes, but take them for granted. The debate now is how the money will be spent. Even conservatives have given way to social reform in the welfare state. (Myrdal, 2008, p. 463) The bailout is just one step further down the road. Intervention, however, is against sound economic principle. It taxes future generations and will likely do little that wouldn’t have naturally happened if the principles of a free market were allowed to work. Those principles are truly consistent with the original idea of liberty espoused by our founding fathers. They sought to secure those rights in creating a constitution, but that great document has been abused and government, once instituted to secure the freedom of its people, now takes an active hand in applying economic shackles.

Works Cited

Buffett, H. (2008). The Economic Foundation of Freedom. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 599-601.

Eberling, R. M. (2008). Free Markets, The Rule of Law, & Classical Liberalism. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 605-611.

FOUHY, B. (2008, October 16). McCain hails 'Joe the Plumber' as winner of debate. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from www.foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct16/0,4670,McCain,00.html

Friedman, M. &. (1979). Equality of Opportunity. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from Bellevue University Electronic Reserve System

Kristol, I. (1978). A Capitalist Conception of Justice. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from Bellevue University Electronic Reserve System

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). From The Communist Manifesto - Proletarians & Communists. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 594-598.

Myrdal, G. (2008). Planning in the Welfare State. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from Bellevue University Electronic Reserve System

Rauchut, E. A. (2008). Democratic Capitalism & Individual Liberty. American Vision and Values , 201-223.

Read, L. (1992). I, Pencil. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 614-616.

Reagan, R. (1981, January 20). Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address . Retrieved December 3, 2009, from www.bartleby.com: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html

Smith, A. (1776). From An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 585-587.

Tocqueville, A. d. (1835). From Democracy in America . Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 583-584.

Williams, W. E. (2005). The Entreprenuer as American Hero. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 602-604.

Traditional Marriage and the Family

The two parent family is and has been the norm in hundreds of known civilizations throughout history. (Rauchut, 2008, p. 183). Today, however, the notion of marriage and family are considered archaic and obsolete…no longer serving the needs of a nation and its citizens. This in a nation, though, that finds 90% of all women getting married at some point in their life and many women who consider marriage and a family very important. There are some ideas in our current culture that are taking their toll on these important institutions and government isn’t doing much to help.

One way that government has contributed to the dissolution of the family is through the AFCD where, according to Dafoe Whitehead, women were promised an entitlement to a lifetime of cash as long as they had dependent children, no job, and were not married to someone with a job. (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 533) In such an effort the government had the best of intentions but the results show that America is no better off because of it. If statistics show that children from two-parent families have a higher likelihood of becoming good citizens. And good citizens contribute to the good of society, why then put policies in place that penalize people for doing the right thing. The unfortunate thing is that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. How are we to undo decades of damage.

Another contribution of government to the problem is in the sponsoring of Title X clinics that promote the idea of birth control and family planning without ever putting proper focus on the merits of waiting until marriage to have children. While such things should never be compulsory, if one considers the strength that traditional marriage is to the foundation of society, it seems silly not to at least offer such education. (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 536) In all reality, however, the best thing that government can do is to get out of the welfare business and leave those activities in the hands of civil organizations that provide a face with the giving and aid the disadvantaged in becoming responsible and contributing adults.

One threat to the institution of marriage and the traditional family comes when those of the political and social left portray it as out of reach, even undesirable to Americans. Arlene Skolnick describes traditional marriage and family as a “luxury item available only to those with steady jobs and good incomes.” (Skolnick, 2006, p. 520) In contrast, however to her opinion that “steady jobs and good incomes” are practically required are statistics showing that black families, when times were oppressively tough for them, were much more inclined towards traditional marriage and family. Robert Rector said that in 1941 the average black man made the equivalent of $9000 a year, yet at that time 90% of black children were born inside marriage. (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 538) In fact, as poor women have become more independent economically through the assistance of the government, traditional marriage and family have become almost a thing of the past in the communities in which they live. By 1995 70% of black children were born out of wedlock. ( (Marshal, Lerman, Dafoe Whitehead, Horn, Rector, & Strober, 2008, p. 534)

Some call for additional government spending, or at least redirection of spending, to fund child care citing that children of single mothers are 50% more likely to be in poverty. (Strober, 2004, p. 525) This, however, is only addressing a symptom of the problem – namely, increased divorce and an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. I can think of no social situation into which the federal government has inserted itself that has made the situation better. The welfare state has contributed directly to the dissolution of traditional marriage and the family. Subsidizing child-care will only further that. It would be even easier for men and women to be independent of their own children’s fathers and mothers. Someday we may find that men are no more than sperm donors and women no more than birth canals. What children of single parents see and live with throughout their lives will become the societal norm.

Another contemporary threat to marriage and family is feminism-- the idea that a woman can only find identity and fulfillment through a career. (Graglia, 1998, p. 540) There seems to be a stigma attaché these days to a woman being in the home with her children. Who better, though, to entrust the upbringing and character development of a child to, though, than their own mother. We’ve heard the saying, “a face only a mother can love.” This is true, and maybe it’s not just the face, but the whole being. Mothers can see beyond the foibles of youth. Generally speaking, the love of a mother for her children is one of the very strongest of bonds. Yet mothers feel compelled by our culture to seek fulfillment elsewhere and leave their children to someone whose moral views may be contrary to that of the child’s family and who might be much less tolerant of a child’s short-comings. This is because the care of a child, to them, is mostly a paycheck. They may love children, but it’s a job and that care-giver has no vested interest in the long term welfare of that child. And for that working mother, her major complaint of working, says Graglia, is the “discrepancy between their own image of what being a good mother entails and the reality of their lives.” (Graglia, 1998, p. 545) “For a working mother to admit,” says Crittenden, “to wanting to be with her children – or worse, finding more satisfaction in being wither her children than at work – is to question the results of three decades of social transformation.” (Crittenden, 1996, p. 563)

There is a consideration to make when discussing the single parent family. No doubt it is a family. Not an ideal family statistically speaking, but no doubt a family. There are circumstances where this fracturing of the family has come as the result of circumstances beyond the control of the mother. I say mother here because it seems that this is usually where the children end up. An abusive or unfaithful father may be to blame. Perhaps the single-parent is a widow or widower. In such situations the single-parent is at a disadvantage by way of their children who are prone to just about every social problem. Problems like, delinquency, crime, early pregnancy, and emotional difficulties. (Hymowitz, 2008, p. 560) This can even be a problem in step families that seek to become, once again, the traditional norm. In situations like this these families do need help. The help should come, though, from civil organizations. From churches and organizations specifically designed to assist parents in need. Parents, however should never relinquish their responsibilities. Parents should strongly consider that, contrary to opinion, divorce isn’t a health life experience for children. A survey showed that children preferred an unhappy marriage to a divorce and that the negative effects of that divorce were felt as long as 10 years later. (Graglia, 1998, p. 543) There are times when divorce occurs because of something I call, “The Grass is Greener Theory.” This theory holds that one or both partners in a marriage falls out of love and feel that there is another, better option out there somewhere. In this case the relationship has become disagreeable not because of any obvious wrong doing by either spouse. In these cases, I think the parents are obligated to work out their differences and overcoming any extant selfishness for the longer term benefit of their children.

Traditional marriage is not dead. It should not be dead. It is the “foundation of any healthy society” (Santorum, 2008, p. 570). Motherhood does not make a woman less valuable, in fact they fill a role that no other can or should fill. Robin Parker talks about the woman who can do it all and is more happy when they do so (Parker, 2008) In fact, I believe that any additional experiences and education a woman gains before, during, or after marriage and motherhood can only serve to make her an even better mother to her children. These experiences enrich her life and give her a broader base of experience to improve the lives of her children. Even without that, though, mother is a shining star in society. Some say that children are our best hope, I contend that there is no hope without mother. She deserves the support and help of her husband and the father of their children. They should work together to make sure their children are being raised in such a manner as to make them good citizens. They should take an active role in the lives of their children that might be compromised when both mother and father are out of the home. Children shouldn’t be left to the guidance of strangers, or worse still, media (Hagelin, 2006)as a substitution to parenting unless there is simply no alternative. Can mothers be effective in the workplace? No question they can and are. Is a mother effective in the home? Like none else.

The best thing government can do now is begin the transition of welfare services to civil organizations that are better equipped to handle them. With government doing nothing to impede marriage, the next thing that must happen is that parents must begin taking the lead role in providing for the moral education of their children. Fathers must return to the home and set better examples for their sons. Lastly our society must embrace the traditional family for the exceptional value it offers our great nation and those facets of our culture that currently undermine the morals of our children by targeting them must cease those activities. Our nation can stand only as long as it’s foundation is secure. The family is that foundation.

Works Cited

Crittenden, D. (1996). The Mother of All Problems. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 563-569.

Graglia, C. (1998). from Domestic Tranquility. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 540-548.

Hagelin, R. (2006). Taking Back Our Homes. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 576-579.

Hymowitz, K. S. (2008). Marriage and Caste in America: Separate & Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 559-562.

Marshal, J. A., Lerman, R., Dafoe Whitehead, B., Horn, W., Rector, R., & Strober, M. H. (2008). The Collapse of Marriage and the Rise of Welfare Dependence. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 529-539.

Parker, R. (2008). Superwoman: Myth, Reality - Or What? Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 573-575.

Rauchut, E. A. (2008). Marriage & Family. American Vision and Values , 179-199.

Santorum, R. (2008). The Necessity of Marriage. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 570-572.

Skolnick, A. (2006). Beyond the "M" Word: The Tangled Web of Politics and Marriage. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 518-523.

Strober, M. H. (2004). Children as a Public Good. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 524-528.

Feminism

Some modern feminists, those who believe in the concept of sex/gender feminism, will maintain that men and women are born the same and then culturally shaped into a either a man, destined to command, or women, destined to obey. (Sommers, 2008, p. 455) This author has found domineering men, but has yet to find the woman who feels obligated to obey. Even as a religious person whose religion does clearly define roles based on gender, he is hard pressed to find the woman who is being held down or oppressed. In fact, it is often heard that husbands comment on the superiority of their wives spiritually and acknowledgment of their worth as daughters of God.

The idea of gender feminism is, according to Sommers, “the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders. But it lacks a grass roots constituency.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 155). The idea does not appear, however to have basis in fact as established by science. Rauchet, in quoting research by a geneticist, Anne Moir, that science indicates something quite different. She states that “differences in men’s and women’s brain structure account for differences in various behaviors between the sexes and these different are not the result of socializations.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 146) These differences include:

· Differences in behavior exhibited by humans are demonstrated in primates as well.

· Actual differences in brain size and make up of various parts of the brain that cause, for example, increased sexuality and aggression in men and

· Women given injections of testosterone improve in areas where men tend to do better mentally, and experience more difficulties in mental tasks at which women generally excel.

· Women with high testosterone smile less, have more extra-marital affairs, and even have a stronger handshake. (Rauchut, 2008, pp. 148-150)

Science offers strong support, maybe even irrefutable support, for the idea of innate differences found between the sexes. Even anecdotal information lends credibility to the idea that men and women are simply different. 66% of females polled were interested in staying home and raising children. (Kamen, 2008, p. 415) A man who felt his mother was instinctively better equipped to care for him. (Kamen, 2008, p. 417) From personal experience, however, as the father of six children, 3 boys and 3 girls, the author can say without question, that mother is more patient, more compassionate, more tender, and infinitely more nurturing than father. Witnessing the growth of an even split of boys and girls it can be seen that behavior between the two sexes is very different. The girls love to play dress up, dolls, and house. The boys like to kidnap the dolls and destroy the house. This may be the result of societal influence, but it’s clear that there are differences and science strongly suggests that all of these differences are not driven by society. If, after all, it were driven by society would we not find at least one culture, out of the countless cultures that exist, where women and men were seen as identical, Rauchut says, though, “In all human cultures, men and women are seen as having different natures.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 147) It is that way in all human cultures simply because it is true.

There is another brand of feminism, equity feminism. Gender feminists stir the proverbial hornets’ nest by insisting that there are no differences amongst the sexes save what society has created and that the man is keeping them down...literally. Equity feminists on the other hand insist that there should be no right held by man that woman should not hold as well. Government tends to agree as evidenced by 19^th amendment of the constitution that gave women the right to vote and the civil rights act of 1964 that prevents discrimination based on gender.

Feminists whether they are the equity feminists or gender feminists do share something in common, however, and it goes a long ways towards shaping the attitudes, policy, and legislation. The idea, while not held by all feminists, is no doubt held by some. That idea is that men dominate women in our culture and that they are, to some extent, a necessary evil. The author recalls one feminist co-worker who announced that she was pregnant. The author asked, foolishly, whether she planned on marrying the father. She wrinkled her nose and in a harsh tone announced, “I don’t need no man to help me raise a kid! I’m an independent woman!” True to her word, she is still single and appears to have raised her son for the last 10 years.

This idea that men are a necessary evil is illustrated in several of this week’s reading. The first and frankly most shocking example came in The Story of the Hour by Kate Chopin who described the attitude of the wife who learned that she lost her husband in an accident. A husband who had treated her well she decided would no longer be there to dominate her and she thought that she only loved him some of the time. She actually walked out of her room confident that life would be better now that she was free. Unfortunately the shock of seeing her husband, still alive, walk in the door literally broke her heart. (Chopin, 1894)

It is not so much the idea that a woman can easily get over a husband who treated her well in such a stressful situation. Nor is it completely unbelievable that a woman can have a sense that she is now free and able to start over in life, perhaps make some different choices. The idea, though, that marriage is so dismal that the sudden realization that one must be shackled again is enough to literally kill an otherwise healthy woman. It can only be imagined that there were some very angry women who read this and said that the man had killed her, and if he hadn’t killed her that night then her certainly took her life the day she was compelled (by society at least) to marry him (or any other man.)

Was her freedom taken? Is any woman’s natural, god-given freedom taken when they get married? According to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in her Declaration of Sentiments such freedoms were certainly taken away. Back in the 19^th century when this was written there certainly was disparity between a man’s rights to property and the right to vote and women’s rights. (Stanton, 2008) Certainly, these days, the natural rights guaranteed to men are likewise guaranteed to women. It took too long in coming, but come they did. Yet, there still is the sense of oppression amongst some feminists today.

Another article that was particularly disturbing was by Virginia Woolf who cited that she had to kill the “Angel of the House” (Woolf, 2008) in order to be free as a woman. This angel wasn’t actually a woman, but the feminine side of all women who are a product of male domination and societies pressures to deny themselves. This is either a denial of the innate sensibilities and qualities of women, which according to science does exist, or it is a conscious effort to destroy those things so that women can advance like men because they are more like men. Can they, however, be more like men without infringing upon the freedoms of women who are not feminists yet seeking equal rights? How much manliness can they take on and still remain women? Will the female executive see the female employee who is less aggressive or career driven as a liability and treat her the same way that other male executives treat her?

Mary Wollstonecraft is another early feminist who contended, though not with such striking imagery as the previous authors, that women were secondary citizens. That the prevailing attitudes amongst men are that the role of women is as objects of desire and beauty. Their purpose is marriage and the pleasure of her husband and her denying herself for the sake of her family. The idea that they can be a human being instead of just a woman is foolishness. (Wollstonecraft, 2008) Some women today hold this view and they will discuss it heatedly, but Wollstonecraft wrote this wrote this over 200 years ago when such things in American society probably had a lot of basis in fact. Times have changed. Women have had to move on to other issues which are probably where the idea of gender feminism has gained so much steam. They are running out of fuel for the fire.

Absolutism or Relativism

The author recently polled his friends on Facebook and asked them to vote, “Relativism” or “Absolutism.” Just two responses were given. The first response was, “Moral Relativism. Sometimes we have to be flexible even with our morals. For instance, who hasn’t bent the truth for those we love so we don’t hurt them.” The second response, “No freaking brainer here…absolutism. I’m not even going to justify it here because it is self-standing, self-supporting, rule of natural law.” The author commented to the two of them that their view might coincide with their political philosophies as well. The relativist is very liberal in his political views. The absolutist is very conservative. Truly these two friends are at opposite ends of the spectrum. At that point the author declared himself an absolutist and shared a news story from September 2009. This story described a 61 year-old man slapping a child 4 times at a Georgia Wal-Mart to get her to stop crying. (Associated Press, 2009) The question posed, is the relativist’s morality flexible enough to allow for this man who apparently believed that the correct way to get a child to stop crying is to resort to physical abuse. How does relativism apply to this story?

Morality is defined as “conformity to the rules of right conduct.” The question is who makes the rules? Who decides what is right or wrong? There are a variety of possibilities. A religious person would likely say that these rules come from God as the ultimate authority for correct conduct. William Irvine reminds us, though, that that nearly all of the absolutist ethical theories developed by philosophers involve no religious presuppositions at all. (Irvine, 2000/2001, p. 44). Aristotle indicates that what is right is what is good for man, or better still good for the country or city state. (Aristotle, 2008, p. 366) The absolutist says that there are indisputable answers to the moral questions that arise. The relativist states that what is right for one man is not right for another. What is right for one culture is not necessarily right for another. (Irvine, 2000/2001, p. 43)It is a philosophy of openness (Rauchut, 2008)

There is a moral hole in the ozone according to Christina Hoff Sommers (Sommers, Are we living in a moral stone age?, 2008, p. 390) and that has come about because of a cultural shift in America. According to Rauchut moral relativism “is the modern replacement of inalienable rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 116) Basically man is free to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. People like Emerson would agree whole-heartedly. He said that he would “obey no law less than the eternal.” (Emerson, 2008, p. 380) That eternal law comes from within, according to him. In our present vernacular we have another name for that…anarchy. If every man determined for himself what is right and what is wrong, then you would have a glut of outrageous incidents like 61 year-old men slapping little girls in Wal-marts.

Perhaps there are some relativists that will argue that each man isn’t the captain of his own ship and maker of his own rules as Emerson might suggest, but that morality is preserved when it is based on the inclinations of the dominant culture. Ruth Benedict suggested such a thing. “Normality,” she wrote, “in short, within a very wide range is culturally defined.”(Benedict, 1934, p. 210) This though is a logical fallacy called the appeal to popularity or ad populum. (The Nizkor Project, 1991-2009). When people mistreat each other, or kill each other, or in the example given by David Marbury-Lewis, “peel the penis like a banana and cut into the flesh beneath the foreskin” (Maybury-Lewis, 1992, p. 9)it becomes evident that there must be some people in that culture who are opposed to concept of moral relativity. As long as these people have a differing opinion about right and wrong is not the relativist in error in forcing their morality on the dissenter? In these situations it is clear that what is happening to these people is neither right nor good for man, country, or city state.

Absolutism is the alternative and it means that people have to start with the foundational belief that there is a difference between right and wrong. In our country such ideas should not be foreign. “When Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he did not say, ‘At least that’s my opinion.’ He declared it as an objective truth. (Sommers, Are we living in a moral stone age?, 2008, p. 391) Ms. Sommers goes on to express the need for moral education that embraces the concept of absolutism and her belief that “moral education must have as its explicit aim the moral betterment of the student.” (Sommers, Teaching the Virtues, 2008, p. 397) The author, though, would take a radical position and state that this type of training should also happen in the home starting at a very early age.

The value of absolutism is the curbing of the moral decay of America and throughout the world. It recognizes that it is morally wrong to take an innocent life. It acknowledges that it is wrong to lie or steal or abuse a child and these things are true universally. The absolutist is (or should be) mature enough to understand that even though they don’t have all the answers, doesn’t mean that the answers don’t exist. (Irvine, 2000/2001, p. 44) The absolutist has to learn to be ok with the idea that people will disagree with him and think of him as intolerant, though it is interesting that a relativist could, with a straight face, make such a moral judgment. The absolutist must love truth.

Attitudes have changed much over the last 50 years or so. An absolutist who saw the right and wrong of a moral issue was more of the norm. Today, it’s the “secular saint…the person who is most non-judgmental, the person most willing to tolerate the most repugnant behavior.” (Rauchut, 2008, p. 126). The norm from 50 years ago is under attack. Krauthammer explains what society labeled deviant log ago is now labeled by society as normal. (Krauthammer, 2008, p. 384) Such a thing can easily happen in a society where there is fear to offend, fear to speak the truth, and fear to make a moral decision, and most importantly a fear to acknowledge that people can be wrong. Relativists find themselves without a leg to stand on if they stop long enough to think about their own philosophy. When they understand that there can’t be 6 billion versions of the truth, and when they realize that even an appeal to the dominant culture cannot make what is wrong right, they can be free to do their part to make the world a better place to live.

Works Cited

Aristotle. (2008). The Nichomacean Ethics. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 366-373.

Associated Press. (2009, September 2). Stranger Allegedly Slaps Crying Toddler in Store to 'Shut Her Up'. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from www.foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545823,00.html

Benedict, R. (1934). A Defense of Moral Relativism. The Journal of General Psychology , 10 , 204-213. Heldref Publications. Retrieved from Electroic Reserves System.

Emerson, R. W. (2008). Self-Reliance. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 374-383.

Irvine, W. B. (2000/2001). Confronting Relativism. Academic Questions , Vol. 14 Issue 1 , Winter, p42, 8p. Princeton, NJ, USA.

Krauthammer, C. (2008). Defining Deviancy Up. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 384-389.

Maybury-Lewis, D. (1992). Tribal Wisdom. 8-14. Retrieved from Electroic Reserves System.

Rauchut, E. A. (2008). American Vision and Values: A Companion to the Kirpatrick Signature Series. Omaha: Bellevue University Press.

Sommers, C. H. (2008). Are we living in a moral stone age? Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 390-393.

Sommers, C. H. (2008). Teaching the Virtues. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 394-398.

The Nizkor Project. (1991-2009). Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from www.nizkor.org: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

On Religion and Morality

In his farewell address, President George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports.” (Washington, 2008)History shows us that religion was an important aspect in the lives of our Founding Fathers and to most of them God had an active role in their lives. There were a few deists, but most clearly saw the hand of divine providence directing their actions and protecting them. It was with divine sanction that they declared their independence against impossible odds. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was not a very religious man, attend church services because he felt that it was owed his “sanction” and he contended that “no nation had has ever existed or been governed without religion.” Because he was President of the United States he felt he had an example to set. (Novak, 2008) Religion was important enough to the framers of the constitution that they made special provisions for religious freedom. What is the role of government in religion now?

The first Amendment to the constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Constitutional Convention, 1787) In an explanation of the meaning of this amendment, Judd Patton states and that it was meant to “protect religion from government intrusion” (Patton, 2008). Rauchut confirms this by indicating that the purpose of the 1^st Amendment was “crystal clear” and that the federal government would be prohibited from establishing a “single national denomination” (Rauchut, 2008) History is replete with examples that showed our Founders saw religion as not only advantageous to the formation of a morale nation, but was critical to the establishment and maintenance of a republic. Where, then, did our modern judges get the idea that the founders were opposed to anything but a strict and complete separation of church and state? Interestingly enough it was Thomas Jefferson.

In the Danbury letter, written to a Baptist congregation in Danbury Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson assured the Baptists that there was no intention on the part of the Federal Government to create a nationally recognized religion. He was quoted as saying that there was “a wall of separation between Church and State.” (Dreiscach, 2008) The Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases for a separation of church and state referencing this wall that Jefferson mentioned in his letter. It is “far-fetched legal reasoning to give it the force of law,” (Patton, 2008) yet that has turned out to be the case.

With an understanding of the current liberal judicial perspective on the separation of church and state we must now examine the repercussions of such a legal precedent. Justice John Paul Steven’s called the lowering of any wall designed to separate church and state a threat to democracy. (Dreiscach, 2008)They say that it is the only way to protect religious liberty (Dreiscach, 2008). Can government give official recognition to any sect or religion and not, in some way discriminate against others? Alexis de Tocqueville indicated in his Democracy in America the conflict that can exist between the different religions. He compared Islam and Christianity with obvious favor towards Christianity because of its political neutrality, but in our modern America would not the Muslim contend that his religion is just as true as Christianity and, if that were the case, would not all aspects of their religion be as pertinent to the administration of our government (which Islam incorporates). (Tocqueville, 2008) Yet another demographic is the atheists who deny religion’s importance at all citing that “praying to a god makes no more sense than praying to a chicken. At least you can see a chicken.” (Silverman, 2008) It is easy to see how the idea of mixing church and state would seem not only objectionable but silly to the atheist.

In contrast the founders supported religion and politics based on the syllogism: “Morality is necessary for republican government; religion is necessary for morality; therefore, religion is necessary for republican government.” (Spaulding, 2008) There are those opposed to the strict and total separation of church and state who predict dire consequences that will come from this wall of separation and the moral decay sure to follow.

For a devoutly religious person, religion is even more important than it is for those who simply see it as a tool to shore up the moral foundation of the population. For some it is so important that they will teach their children about it. They may believe that religion is so important that their immortal souls stand in jeopardy of damnation if they don’t adhere to religious precepts. Parents who are very religious and active in their churches will likely insist that they be the ones that indoctrinate their children. Their own religious standards may make them good citizens and they expect that by raising their kids the same way that their children will also be good citizens.

People who are of a different denomination, for example those who are Muslim as compared to those who are Christians, may feel the exact same way. A Muslim will not want their child, in school to pray to the Christian God. Many Christians may not want their children to pray to Allah, but when equal access is given to all denominations in a public setting sanctioned by the government, there may easily be situations arise that cause religious strife. And what if there are those who come along who pray to a chicken? They would have the same expectation of inclusion and people of other religions will likely find this strange and offensive.

In matters so critical, it is the family that must have the opportunity to protect their children spiritually. They must be able to enter a government institution and find nothing there that may be offensive to their religious sensibilities. They may say, “for me…Islam is not right.” A Muslim would, likewise, say Christianity is wrong. In our country both are entitled to their opinion and both have every reason to expect the protection of the constitution and rule of law to protect their right to feel that way.

Religion does have a place in American society. Joseph Loconte said it best when he said, “We American’s jealously enforce the separation of church and state – but not the separation of faith from life.” (Loconte, 2008) Religion is a personal matter. Government should encourage people to follow the precepts of their religion without interference… as long as those precepts do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. They should not favor one religion over another but should promote faithful adherence to religious principles on the part of its citizens. That is the way to build the moral fiber of our nation and protect democracy and liberty.

This country was founded by men, most of whom, worshipped or believed in the Judeo Christian God. They went to church. They believed that by following the teachings of the Bible, teachings like, “Love your neighbor” and “forgive men their trespasses” and “lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth.” (Matthew, 2008) Society would, by virtue of this influence, enjoy a moral stability that would allow the republic to remain free and to be a decent place to raise future generations. While the separationists certainly have gone astray in their use of the wall of separation and have employed it to encourage a godless government and some might say even a godless America, religion is so personal to many Americans and so important that Government should stand back and encourage its citizens in their exercise of religion, protect their religious liberty, and then leave well enough alone.

Works Cited

Constitutional Convention. (1787, December). The Constitution of the United States of America. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 120-130.

Dreiscach, D. (2008). The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church-State Law, Policy & Discourse. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 315-322.

Loconte, J. (2008). Why Religious Values Support American Values. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 358-361.

Matthew. (2008). Gospel of Matthew. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 332-334.

Novak, M. (2008). Faith & American Founding: Illustrating Religion's Influence. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 304-310.

Patton, J. W. (2008). The "Wall of Separation"Between Church & State. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Readaer , 328-331.

Rauchut, E. A. (2008). American Vision and Values: A Companion to the Kirpatrick Signature Series. Omaha: Bellevue University Press.

Silverman, H. (2008). American Religion Undermines American Values (Oxford Union Debate). Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 323-325.

Spaulding, M. (2008). Meaning of Religious Liberty. Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 312-314.

Tocqueville, A. d. (2008). From Democracy in America (1835). Kirkpatrick Signature Series Readaer , 326-329.

Washington, G. (2008). From Farewell Address (1796). Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader , 311.