Posted on 07/01/2007 11:45:23 AM PDT by tpaine
Faith-based patriot fails to pursuade
By: Justyn Dillingham
David Gelernter, author of "Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion," believes very strongly in a good many things, all of which he explains very well.
The trouble is that most of these things contradiction another. The result is a book with no real point. The book's thesis, as the title suggests, is that "Americanism" is a "global religion" that transcends America itself, to rank with Christianity, Judaism and Islam. (Or even above them: Christianity and Judaism have entries in the index, but Islam does not. "Islamic terrorism" does, of course.)
Gelernter's devotion to this creed is total. He adores it so much that he values it far, far above the mere country that allegedly created it. The creed leads him to pit himself against the very freedoms he claims to cherish. For Gelernter, everything good in America comes from the Bible; everything bad comes from "secularism" - everything that is not traceable to the Bible. Since the Founding Fathers, by and large, were not particularly religious, Gelernter can back up this claim only by making hollow claims about Thomas Jefferson's "respect" for Christianity. (He respected it so much he regarded Revelation as "the ravings of a maniac.")
Religious freedom in this "biblical republic," Gelernter argues, simply means the freedom to choose which version of "biblical religion" you believe in. America, he says, "is not unconcerned about whether you choose to be religious or an atheist" any more than your parents are unconcerned about whom you marry.
That rather sinister simile makes it clear that Gelernter does not cherish the republic that exists, but rather a nation that exists only in his imagination.
He admires above all the Puritans who came to America in the 17th century and spoke of a "city on a hill." He longs for a "Bill of Duties" to stand next to the Bill of Rights, to instruct young Americans in the noble creed of Americanism, so they can learn to be "chivalrous" again. "Chivalry," in Gelernter's view, consists of "knocking down tyrants" in the name of liberty. Gelernter is so taken by this notion of chivalry that he detests the idea that America could do anything for ordinary selfish reasons. He even blames FDR for not taking America into World War II before Pearl Harbor; fighting a war simply because you are attacked fails to measure up to his high standards.
Gelernter concedes that this creed is "controversial," and that it goes against "the isolationism and antimilitarism that comes naturally to Americans." This is a revealing concession, for it stands in stark contradiction to Gelernter's praise of "America." What exactly is this "Americanism" if ordinary Americans do not espouse it? Merely a pretext for American presidents to sally forth and win glory for themselves.
In Gelernter's peculiarly self-contradictory vision, mere Americans are an obstruction to American greatness. The fact that his invented faith does not correspond to what Americans actually want does not deter him; like a dutiful parent, he's determined to make everyone eat their vegetables and be chivalrous.
Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale. Judging by his grasp of politics, history and mere common sense, he clearly picked the right profession.
-Justyn Dillingham
Sounds like a controversial book. Anyone here actually read it yet?
Americanism has been replaced by Globalism.
Atheists are not capable of being patriots because they are incapable of convictions or love. Since they have denied God, they see no reason to practice either since they don’t see how it will benefit their personal standing.
So no, atheists can not be Americanism.
As far as I can determine, Americanism is Christianity. Who was it who said a very long, long time ago that a Republic would only work with a Christian people?
Why do you think they are allowing Christians to be persecuted in the education system, while Islam seems to be flourishing there? Why can a young graduate wanting to thank and give Jesus Christ the credit for all that he has achieved not give his speech and still receive his diploma?
Wake up, America! Let Christianity die, and we all die.
Whatever Jefferson’s private opinion of Christianity, he stated “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”
Certainly insofar as a nation expected to exist peacably with the amount of personal freedom provided in our constitution is concerned, I think he is correct.
John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Allan Bloom wrote that Americans were living off of the “inherited value fat” of previous generations in which Judeo-Christian beliefs were more prevalent and powerful.
My view is that societies with a great deal of unquestioning respect for tradition, such as, for example, East Asian societies and Confucianism, can live for a long time on this inherited value fat, but societies such as in modern Europe and America, where there is less respect for tradition, can not.
For a free society to function, I believe there needs to be a critical mass of people who generally follow a moral code voluntarily, without having to be coerced by the police power of the state. When that critical mass is suppressed or has been destroyed, as for example in the French revolution or in the communist societies of the 20th century, the government will naturally evolve into a police state in order to control the behaviour of the people.
For atheists, the smarter ones should accept this on utilitarian grounds, that a society in which Judeo-Christian principles are followed by the most people because of their own beliefs, and not because of coercion by the state, in fact provides the greatest amount of liberty to the atheists.
Before someone drags in the example of Islam as a society founded on religious principles with little freedom and one that neither atheists nor Christians would want to live under, I point out to the atheists that while they may consider all religious beliefs to be equally superstitious, they would do well to distinguish among religions if for no other reason than their utilitarian self-interest. Christians know that a people who worship false gods is as destructive of the type of freedom we have enjoyed in the U.S., as is atheism.
Overstated. Many atheists are admirable people quite capable of both.
I disagree with them, while hoping they will see the light, but I fail to see how such statements as yours help the dialogue in any way.
“A World Without Public Schools” by Gelertner. I was impressed with his reasoning. I haven’t read the referenced book, however I would imagine it is just as well written.
His is not the first time I’ve heard of “Americanism as religion” theory. I don’t know that I would call it a religion as much as I would call it a philosophical system. But I would agree that "Americanism" transcends geography.
The reason I say this about atheists is because it is the truth. Just because there might be a couple good atheists doesn’t mean that they are the representation of the whole.
If you think you know how admirable atheists are, just read the “God delusion” or “God is not great”, it will show how they really are.
I’m sorry, but it is imposable for atheists to intentionally good, they need the fear of punishment to keep them in line. For you see, they deny God and therefore refuse to believe in heaven or in a closeness to God. Without this, an atheist will only see himself as “God” and live accordingly under this selfish delusion, regardless of the consequences towards others.
“Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion”—not that there’s anything wrong with that...
Anyone who is only good due to fear of punishment isn’t good where it counts: from the heart. To be good, you have to be good because it’s what you want, not because you fear punishment otherwise.
Also, atheists do not have blood, but rather a black, malorodous oily substance. Where there hearts should be, there is a large hunk of marble. Their touch can spoil milk in three seconds. And if you pull back their hair, you can see their tiny horns.
Where the hell do you guys get this stuff? Every atheist has a mother, and the vast majority love theirs. Most love their country, too. Just because you cannot imagine any morality without the love of a benevolent God or the feqar of a vengeful one, don't assume that other folks don't have another basis for morality.
...
I’m sorry, but it is imposable for atheists to intentionally good, they need the fear of punishment to keep them in line. For you see, they deny God and therefore refuse to believe in heaven or in a closeness to God. Without this, an atheist will only see himself as “God” and live accordingly under this selfish delusion, regardless of the consequences towards others.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are living in your own delusional little dream world.
I'm not sure if the missing verb is "be" or "do," but in either case you're dead wrong.
There is a simple and universal basis for morality even if one believes in no deity. It's called empathy. The recognition that your fellow human being has feelings, hopes and dreams just like you do, and is worthy of respect just like you are. That can be a purely rational conclusion -- dude, don't kill or rob me, and I won't kill or rob you. Deal?
From that flows Kant's categorical imperative, which you probably know as the Golden Rule. And from that follows, as the night follows the day, a system of rules on how to treat one's fellow man. A moral code. God need not intervene.
You seem to believe that all atheists are sociopaths. I don't know who served you that Kool-Aid, but it's time to put it down.
Insulting the people you discussing things with is not a good way to make an argument, just so you know.
But to get back to the rest of your post I would like to ask if you have any proof, facts or figures that atheists love their mothers or their country I would love to see it. And you should know that unlike Christians, who are taught to love and respect their parents (read the 10 commandments), atheist are not required to do so and often don’t because “hey, since nothings’ going happen to me after I die why should I care”, that’s just how they think.
Do you have anything relevant to say to me? Or are you just going to keep insulting me like you always do?
When one posts something as patently false as you have, on an open forum, one should expect some disagreement.
Regardless of what you think of me and my beliefs, I do have the right to say what I want without being insulted by people who disagree with me. It’s called freedom of speech.
Now I’ll ask again, do you have anything relevant to say to me?
Wrong. You only have a right to speak. There is no right not be be insulted.
Now I’ll ask again, do you have anything relevant to say to me?
Yes. You have been wrong in just about everything you have said on this thread.
Maybe you are able to love others than yourself, but the vast majority chose not to.
I’ll say this again, the few are not the representation of the whole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.