A Culture Against Culture - Continued Ramblings

This got too long for the combox.

Reader Artaban writes (in response to this post),

"I would argue there was a common religion--insofar as it was Judeo-Christian."

There was certainly a greater commonality of outlook, though I think both Jews and Christians would agree that "Judeo-Christian" is not a religion, but a kind of cultural penumbra. It was the culture that flowed from Christianity with its Jewish roots, but it was not The Thing itself.

There were always those who were agreeable enough with the moral assumptions and outlook of the Faith, but who also did not hold that faith themselves. They coasted, more or less, on the philosophical momentum of Christendom, with little complaint.

But there was no *official* provision made to maintain this Judeo-Christian cultural prominence. I think the founders assumed that it would continue, but they made no real provision to assure that it would. For instance, though the Ten Commandments are enshrined in stone on the great frieze atop the steps of the Supreme Court, they are nowhere in our founding documents.

This is not to say that a Christian basis for law and government would require that any individual profess the Christian faith. It is just a matter of stating plainly, "The laws of our land are based on the Ten Commandments and on Christian principles of natural law. You need not believe or practice any religion, but you will follow the law." I don't think any reasonable person could have much of a problem with that, just as any reasonable person would abide by the laws and customs of a foreign country when visiting (unless they flat-out contradicted one's own fundamental morals, or positively compelled one to do evil).

The founders were so skittish, so anxious about the effects of organized religion (most especially anything like the Catholic Church) on the state, that they insulated the Republic from any such direct religious influence. I don't think they could have imagined the full-frontal assault on religion that has taken place in the last century. The primacy of Christian thought was so secure, in their minds, that they believed they could get by without explicitly favoring it. They were counting on its continued influence. George Washington said, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

But no official measures were taken to preserve religious principle. It was assumed. The elephant in our national living room.

It was Sola Scriptura, Enlightenment thinking. Every man his own magisterium. What could go wrong?

So... now we are reduced to battling it out among our various tribes, seeing who can get the upper hand politically from season to season, seeing who can sway the masses a little one way or the other. Morality by referendum, and principles that change with the weather.

Comments

[The Cobbler]

And so we get this: http://distributistreview.com/mag/2010/10/the-superficiality-of-left-right/