Not much of a set up is needed here, since the quotes and replies provide most of the context. John, a friend at Zillas, is attempting to support the proposition that ordered liberty can exist without the spiritual foundations mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. He took to an uncharacteristic pessimism, where he also declared that the DoI would not have meant much without the successful conclusion to the American Revolution. He actually used the phrase that might makes right. As I said, this appears uncharacteristic for John. John's quotes are indented.
My first post:
1. Can a society accept ordered liberty without western religion, much less a monotheistic religion?
Yes and no.
Japan was able to graft many Western traditions while keeping its unique culture. It is something Japan has been able to do so well (i.e. grafting cultures) over the centuries. Yet, let's not lose sight of the fact that this was imposed from above, after losing a war.
India is much like Japan, although the process was considerably longer.
Meanwhile, a culture with a monotheistic religion, namely Islam, has proved to be very resistant to the concept. You might be tempted to point out the early years, especially in Spain, but after a fresh conquest it is most rational to start a rule with a light touch (as Hilter learned too late on the eastern front). Eventually, the light touch gave way to the heavy hand, and the enlightenment turned to darkness. The reconquest of Spain had as much to do with the petty infighting and oppression of the muslim rulers as with the "brutal" reconquest by Christians.
2. Can a non-western religion accept ordered liberty at all, given its non-liberal (19th Century Western) prejudice?
It's hard to place the oriental religions as religion in the western sense. They are much more like philosophies with religious rituals. These seem to more easily acquiesce to these ideas.
The heresy that is Islam will not be able to do so.
But there is an underlying theme here, but I will address this in your follow up post (where it is more natural to do so).
My second post:
So in a way I am looking for a totally secular definition of American Liberty. I choose my trusted friends and occassional fencing partners over mumbling to myself...
Good luck.
In a nutshell, here is the fatal flaw in all you've written over the weekend. It's not new John. Pope Pius X called it "modernism" (he was not the first BTW) but in the philosophical world it is called logical positivism. In my e-mail to John Derbyshire, I called it scientism. It's all pretty much the same thing.
There are some truths that will not submit to the empirical formulas of the scientific method.
The Declaration of Independence was a statement of Transcendent Truths revealed in large measure by a Transcendent Being who goes by the name I Am (sorry TEE). It's not entirely true that He revealed all these Truths, but He nudged Mankind into a process of rational discovery of these Truths. The fact that Man was able to rationally discover some of these Truths does not make these Truths any less Transcendent.
And that's the point. The Declaration of Independence did not depend on victory at Yorktown. It never did. If American falls into empire and later to barbarism, it will not take away from these Truths. The Truth remains the truth. It is Transcendent. It is Eternal.
There is a reason why the French Revolution, a revolution based on Reason, Man's reason, was such an insane affair. Man's reason lies on quicksand if it is based on anything else but the solid foundation of Transcendent Truth.
Any other translation of "We hold these truths to be self-evident... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." is to deny the very foundation of those rights.
Rights given by Man or by Governments are rights that can be defined away. It is a truism as described by Orwell in Animal Farm (this is a paraphrase from memory): All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
The Arthurian legends were very much at heart a denial that Might makes Right. It is very much a story that Might must bend to Right. The concepts of limited government are based on the same types of ideas. That we, as Fallen Men, might stumble or fumble about does not detract from the basic Truths. We are imperfect Men with an imperfect government. Arthur failed. Logres faded. But the Truth did not.
Posted by Bob at May 5, 2003 08:31 PM