An Encounter Between Two Men at a Bus Stop on Thanksgiving Day

“So, what are you thankful for?”

The two men are sitting as far apart as the small bus stop bench in the middle of nowhere allows. The bleak question comes out in a cloud of cynical cigarette smoke which made the older man wince, but he answers anyway.

“Thanksgiving, isn’t it?” He asks in quiet, reflective voice. He is silent a minute. “I can’t actually really think of anything,” he says, a moment later. “I give my life to the Corps. Three tours. In return, I get a busted leg before I’m thirty; my wife leaves me—takes the kids. Gov tried to say I had PTSD, so they could take away my guns, but my wife beat ‘em to it. Took the house and everything.” He chuckles dryly.  “So, I dunno. Nothing really comes to mind.”

The younger man with the cigarette—not yet twenty, stirs from his malaise enough to ask one more question as the bus rolls up. “Regret it?”

“The Corps? Naaw.  It was worth it to keep punks like you safe,” he says affectionately. “It’s just, that sorta life doesn’t really give me any reason to be grateful, ya know?”

The young man tosses away his cigarette. “Thank you for your service,” he says softly as the man boards the bus and it pulls away.

 He stares after the bus, growing smaller in the distance. “Funny,” he says to himself. "I didn't think I had anything to be thankful for either. Guess I was wrong."

He pauses. "Thank you for your service," he whispers again, to himself this time. The bus has vanished, leaving only clouds of dust.

Updates and Such

Well, hello again, people. I've just survived an exam on political theory, of all things.
It's been a while since I've posted on The Idealistic Cynic. I had one idea for a post earlier this summer, but turned it into a column for my newspaper instead.  Apparently it somehow slipped under the radar of the G+ crowd when I shared it, so ya'll can read it here. My earlier column, which I think is still relevant, can be found by clinking here.

Now, while I did start this blog to comment on political theory, I warned ya'll that it'd also be about whatever else I came across. I think any musings I have on political theory might be more well-reasoned after I've finished up my classes on political theory, but I do have some other stuff that might keep ya'll entertained, including some Literature Journal entries that I think are interesting, and some short stories. Stay tuned!

David Barton, Thomas Jefferson, Young Evangelicals, and Me

   

As some of you know, this blog is usually devoted to my lackluster attempts to do political philosophy. However, we're taking a break from our normal programming today to take a look at this blog post on Young Evangelicals Speak. I'm not entirely satisfied that David Barton (and history) are quite being given their fair shake, and wanted to add my .02 cents to the arena of public discussion and set a few things straight.

Before I start, however, a moment of personal disclosure is warranted. I worked for Wallbuilders and did some of the research for this book, so I cannot claim to be disinterested. However, they're not paying me to write this and I don't consider it my duty to defend Mr. Barton from all sides--I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him on everything myself. In this case, however, given my personal knowledge of and involvement with the issue at hand, I feel the need to say something. (Besides, it is summer, I have nothing better to do, right?) As a last note, this is not meant to be an attack on the good folks at Young Evangelicals Speak. I certainly don't mind their questions/comments/critiques, and I don't think they mind mine.
So, here goes. I'm going to address the post in the order it was written, quoting the relevant portions in italics, with my comments below. In case you missed the link above, the blog post is here.

One thing I hope our readers know is that although conservative, I do my best to remain intellectually honest and not give free passes to my political allies. If anything, I’m actually stricter towards those I agree with. I greatly dislike finding out I was mislead.

Admirable sentiments, in my opinion. The author of the post goes on to mention that he has not read the book, and to quote from the book description, which describes Jefferson as a "man who reveres Jesus."


"A man who revered Jesus.” How does that square with Jefferson’s famous bible? Barton explains on his website: “What Jefferson did was to take the ‘red letter’ portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality.”
Christian morality maybe, but certainly not Christianity. Even if the part about evangelizing the Indians is true (and it’s historically dubious), Jefferson’s bible is certainly not merely a simplified edition. In a letter to Adams, Jefferson described it as a fixing of the historical record:


We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages.
You can read the result for yourself. As it shows, the "amphiboligisms" "misconceptions" “dicta” and "dung-hill" cut out by Jefferson include all the miracles as well as the resurrection, reducing the gospels to a mere "code of morals." If Barton thinks that’s orthodox Christianity, he fails not only as a historian, but also as a theologian (ironically, his background is theology, not history, and we already knew he had difficulty distinguishing between Christianity and Mormonism.)"


Jefferson (and Barton is quick to point this out) actually had two different edited Bibles, one specifically titled "for the Use of the Indians" (apparently some historians think--and perhaps they are right--that this is a disguised poke at the Federalists.) However, Barton is not trying to argue that Jefferson's theology is orthodox. He's attempting to combat "the notion that Jefferson so disliked Christianity and the Scriptures that he made is own Bible." (pg. 67, The Jefferson Lies.) Jefferson, believe it or not, actually was a big fan of both Jesus and Christianity. To be more precise, his Jesus and his Christianity. Jefferson believed that Christianity and Jesus' motives had been corrupted by his biographers (I disagree with him there) and the church (can't really disagree with him here.) Probably Jefferson's idea of "rescuing" Jesus's works went into his later edited Bible, which was The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Incidentally, both versions of the book contained references to miracles and the supernatural (pg. 80, The Jefferson Lies.) As Barton points out, Jefferson called Jesus' "system of morality...the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught..." Barton is trying to argue that Jefferson was not a Jesus-basher (he wasn't), not that he was theologically orthodox (he wasn't).


A review in the Wall Street Journal nails this point exactly:


Jefferson was "pro-Christian and pro-Jesus," [Barton] says, although he concedes that the president did have a few qualms about "specific Christian doctrines." The doctrines Jefferson rejected—the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Trinity—are what place him in the camp of the deists and Unitarians in the first place. It was Jefferson's difficulty with these doctrines that persuaded his close friends Benjamin Rush and Joseph Priestley that Jefferson's skepticism went beyond anything even these latitudinarian believers could endorse.
I don’t dispute that Jefferson was a very influential founder, or that he made immense contributions to the nation (although he was also a mass of contradictions). But to claim him as a devout evangelical Christian is to make Christianity subservient to political ideology. It is no different than the often complained about practice of liberals claiming Leonardo da Vinci, William Shakespeare, or Abraham Lincoln was homosexual. With claims such as these Barton has crossed a line that no Christian or historian should cross. He has redefined orthodox Christianity to exclude the divinity of Christ, and he has rewritten history to serve his political ends. Barton has done to Jefferson what Jefferson did to Christ - rewrote history to exclude the inconvenient parts and then justified it by claiming to “fix” the record.

Jefferson was, indeed, pro-Unitarian. But Barton acknowledges this, and does not attempt to paint Jefferson as an evangelical Christian. Indeed, Barton states that "many of the declarations made by Jefferson...definitely do not comport with an orthodox understanding of what it means to be a Christian." (pg. 189, The Jefferson Lies.) Barton argues that Jefferson's personal religious history is checkered, and that at some times he made completely orthodox statements (and claimed to be a Christian) while at others he completely rejected core tenants of the Christian faith. Barton closes his section on Jefferson's Christianity by stating his personal belief that "probably no human today can know for sure whether or not Jefferson finished his life as a Christian in good standing with God through Jesus Christ." (pg. 190, The Jefferson Lies.) I, for one, hope he did. Barton does argue--convincingly--that Jefferson at times held orthodox beliefs, and he argues with certainty that Jefferson was not an atheist or deist (in the "Divine clockmaker" sense of the word "deist.") But regardless of whether or not Jefferson ended his life as a Christian, claiming Barton is attempting to paint Jefferson as a through-and-through evangelical Christian is simply not true.

The Foundations of Government

Before I delve into the issue of government's proper role, I'm going to assume as objectively true, that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"--in other words, what most of the world professes to believe.  I do not think that consensus (i.e. "what most of the world believes") creates truth, but it does create the conditions in which a political framework is set up.  For instance, when the consensus is that a racial minority is genetically inferior, the political framework will treat the minority in such a way until the consensus changes.  This does not justify such treatment, it is merely a reality in the world.  Since without consensus it is impossible to agree upon a form of government, I will often refer to it in the future.

For those of you that are politically astute, you probably instantly picked up on "agree upon," and said "Aha!  Locke!  Contract theory!"  I am not well versed in every idea of the formations of government that exist, but suffice to say that I believe many governments were first formed in absence of a contract.  Some people are natural leaders, and as such the weaker will gravitate towards them for protection and mediation of wrongs.  However, I think that most people will agree (again, I appeal to consensus) that using force to establish a government without a people's consent is usually wrong.  This notion is largely an idea of our Western, post-Enlightenment political views, but I believe that it is a correct one.  If all people are created equal and have equal rights, by what right can one govern over another, save by the "consent of the governed?"  Any other government is either tyranny by the majority (mob rule) or tyranny by the minority (a dictatorship or aristocracy.)

In short, I think some form of contract is morally right (and beneficial) when establishing a government.  The people--consensus--will naturally choose what role they want the government to play in their lives and delineate it in their contract.  In a document like the United States Constitution, for instance, the people made clear that they only wanted the federal government to carry out certain carefully described tasks.  Since then, both political engineering and public outcry (consensus) have expanded the role of the American federal government (and most other Westernized nations) greatly.

When looking at all of this, it would seem that I believe that the role of the government, then, is to carry out the role assigned to it by the consensus of the people.  I do not believe this necessarily believe this is what the role of the government should be, merely what it often is.  (You may notice in my posts a strange dichotomy of "should do" and "will do.")

Now let's run back quickly to the idea of equal rights.  If we agree that men have equal rights, (as an objective truth rather than a subjective one), then it means that taking away those rights is wrong--and it also means that the rights of the individual should trump the will of society.  (To phrase it awkwardly, these individual rights--which we just agreed on--shouldn't be taken away even if we agree to do so.)  That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  At the same time, it is necessary to have an objective groundwork or belief system in order to set out to create a groundwork for government.  The consensus changes, but the truth always remains the same.  If truth changes as consensus does, then there is no absolute morality, and therefore no right or wrong--and I think we can all come to a consensus that a world without at least some minimal notion of morality would be a very unpleasant place to live.

Now, most people (including myself) believe very strongly that there is a much more concrete ground for objective truth than consensus (usually a religious conviction--Christianity, in my case--or a philosophical one).  While I agree that such concrete ground exists, everyone disagrees on what that concrete ground is.  I might agree with a Hindu that genocide is wrong, but our basis for that belief would vastly differ.  Now, ordinarily, this wouldn't matter, but if human beings choose to mingle in the same society with other people who share different convictions, they must come to a common ground upon which to govern themselves.  (Or, they can choose to fight a bloody war, and let the winners make up the rules.)

I'm going to close this post on that note.  I intended to talk about the role of government, but ended up deciding to legitimize my "find the common ground society can stand on" views first.  Again, consensus does not make right, and I do not advocate allowing consensus to dissuade you from doing what you know is right.  But a small band of revolting colonies in the late 1700s showed the world that is was possible to find common ground between people of all different belief systems and still run a harmonious society, and looking back, I believe the model set forth by the early United States is still quite feasible.  Next time, I'll try to expand on this theme by detailing what kind of common ground can be found, and perhaps opening up the question of what to do when there is no such common ground.

Again, I'm not sure this is a particularly articulate explanation of my opinions.  I welcome questions and comments--hopefully I can clarify my beliefs and refine my views, purifying away the dross to bring forth a political system that shines like gold (or at least is internally consistent, which is my primary aim.)

   

First Principles & Presuppositions

Hello all,

  I am Derringer Dick, the Idealist Cynic.  I call myself that because, first, it's contradictory and sounds clever, and second, because it reflects a very important facet of my beliefs; namely, that there are ideals and goals that individuals, society, and the government should strive for, but at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a perfect system of government or even a perfect person.  

  All of humankind is fallen, and as humans strive towards something better, they should be wary of expecting something more than human.  History is a long story of humanity's failings as a collective whole, and our most recent events in the 20th century have shown us that ideals and visions of a perfect society are often mirages that hide real evil.  (See Nazi Germany and Communism as a whole.)  Too often, humans trying to help have inadvertently hurt, and these spectacular failings should temper our enthusiasm in the future.

  As you may have guessed, I'm starting this blog to post my reflections on government & political theory, as well as whatever else I come across.  I'm an eclectic person, so be prepared for almost anything!