I sincerely apologize for the lack of posting. First, I was busy forming a congruent vision for this blog after reading several blogging improvement blogs, such as ProBlogger and Steve Pavlina. From Saturday on, I was removed from the computer for prolonged time periods for various reasons; all I had time for was keeping up with RSS feeds. Finally, I am packing and moving this week. Hopefully internet will be turned on quickly where I am moving to. Anyway, enough of my personal life, let us move to my new vision for the blog.
My goal is to improve interactions between individuals, between the individual and society, and between societies. I use the word societies broadly as actual societies and as governments. In reality they are separate, though intertwined. However, I digress. My goal shall be accomplished through self-improvement posts, political theory posts, normative ethics posts, and posts on commentary of current issues. Self-improvement posts will work to improve the individual and its relationships. Political theory posts will deal with systems of political theory and its relations of individuals and society. Normative ethics posts will deal with systems of normative ethics theories and how the system will affect the individual and its relationships. Posts commentating on current issues will confront current issues, how they affect interaction at any level, and any potential solutions. Together, this should prove to be a goal worth aspiring towards. The vision should prove helpful and educational to all, and stimulating for intellectuals.
P.S. Sorry Jeremy for the loss of the post which I had already titled Romney's Coin Flip. Though if you still want me to do it for you personally...
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sincere Apology and Blog Vision
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Somber Realities, Inspirational Hopes, and Truisms of Life
Most people do not think of death frequently, dwell on the shortness of life, or consider the effects and legacy of their life. I do.
It is better to attend a funeral than a wedding; despite the gloom of the occasion. Life is often more closely scrutinized. When people realize that death comes like a thief in the night, they likewise realize the importance of life. At any moment, your life may be cut short, would you be proud of how you have lived your one shot at existence?
I have had an ongoing relationship with the fear of death, like a light switch, in that it is off again and on again. Currently I have a healthy fear of death. I fear death occurring before I have alleviated the world’s ills or contributed to the global library of philosophical thought.
Making the Most of Life: Your Options
Life is short; we must make the most of it. This much most people can agree on; the issue is how we enact ‘making the most of it’. While it is true that you could live for yourself and no one else, but any happiness derived from that existence would be fleeting. You would either live in isolation or keep limited, likely criminal, acquaintances. If you kept limited acquaintances, you would have broken from your purely egotistical lifestyle and accepted some morality in order to maintain your associates. If you lived in isolation, you would likely harm society, therefore incurring its wrath, resulting in a punishment likely contrary to your short-lived egotistically based happiness. Following a strategy of long-term morality-based happiness is much wiser; living a moral life to the benefit of society and the individual results in sustained happiness of you and your companions. Even better would be to fight the injustices of this world, improving the global society for posterity’s sake, whom will likely shower you with posthumous gratitude.
Why Fight Injustice?
Why do I fight the injustices of the world? Furthermore, why do I advocate you picking up the good fight? Simply to change the world, cliché as it may sound. Writing about what I see as reasonable and right, I see it as my duty to do what I can, regardless of the consequences. As a thorn in people’s sides, I would write even if popular opinion were against me. I know that some of the finest individuals, such as Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan, were all contemporaneously ridiculed or persecuted before their ideas were accepted. I write as a thorn in people’s side because I struggle to challenge how people think, to question their preconceived notions of life. Daily, I choose the lonely road over the well0traveled road of popular opinion. Ultimately, we should fight on, together, because of our children. What twisted creature would not improve the world for, at minimum, his own flesh and blood?
Injustices of this World
There is too much injustice in this world to pass on to the next generation; too much to strive to improve. While I realize every time has its vices that is no excuse to ignore the issues of our era. Humans suffer globally, from the wails of starving babies to the bone-chilling shrieks of the tortured and dying. Ideologues of many stripes push fundamentalism of various colors, resulting in hateful polarization and stereotypes across our planet. Government enlarge themselves as they violate our sacred individual rights. Animals suffer unnecessarily in order to supply our ravenous craving for meat. Unborn babies die while religious programs teach only abstinence, ignoring safe sex practices. This is done for the sake of their worldview while irresponsible behavior occurs resulting in unwanted babies, sterile humans, the metastasis of sexual diseases, and the deaths of millions from AIDS. Dysfunctional families abound while domestic violence mars physically, and emotionally. Forests, potentially home to many cures, not to mention their biodiversity and ability to store carbon, are perpetually receding to the onslaught of humanity’s voracious desire for land. Young girls are raped and then punished for being raped while yet others are genitally mutilated. Moreover, it is excused as a different culture instead of being rigorously castigated. Of course, there is more to the picture than the senseless suffering.
World's Achievements: Inspiring Us Forward
Despite the tragedies transpiring globally and locally, the hopes of life inspire me to continue the war against the injustices of this world. Richer than most of the world, we live in lavish comfort in comparison to the world. Because of our wealth, we have the ability to create the fine matter of life, such as art and philosophy. Modern man can connect with more people over augmented distances than ever before because of our modern technology. This current technology simplifies our life, consequentially freeing us to undertake more imperative tasks. We Americans assist foreign governments and peoples, often without any form of gratitude in response; nor do we expect gratitude, we perform these charitable acts because it is the right thing to do. We in the west live in the most open, free society that history can recollect throughout time immemorial. Because of our open and free society, we are extremely tolerant and are provided with the sacred right of uncensored political opinion. These two opposites of life, horrid injustices and noble achievements, remind me of one of the great truisms of life, change.
View Change as Positive, Not Negative
Because it is often seen as tragic, change is perceived in a negative light. However, consider a different perspective; change brings potentially innovative opportunities. Relationships may fade, but new ones blossom; the telegram fell, but the phone rose; the radio sits in dust, but the television now brightens the room. People must learn to adapt and embrace fresh prospects in their friendships, career and life or they will fade away to die in the past.
Final Reflections
As you reflect on the shortness of life and contemplate on how it should affect you, remember two things. First, that you may assist the world in numerous ways. I write, but writing may not be for you; find what works for you. Second, remember the circle of life. Not even accounting for the spread of ideas that our contemporary technology makes possible, your ideas can proliferate through the world beyond your wildest speculations. Someone will pick up your idea and reuse it, therefore recycling it back into the current discussion of their age for yet others to ruminate over. The conception and propagation of ideas is how people are recalled. People may die, but ideas are eternal.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Governor Bill Richardson’s Foreign Policy Expertise and Positions
Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson has vast experience in foreign policy. Allow me to quickly highlight his experience and then move on to his foreign policy positions. Nominated four separate years for a Nobel Peace Prize, he is a former staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seven-term congressional representative, and U.N. ambassador. Using his background in foreign policy, Richardson has defused many situations and negotiated the release of many hostages, soldiers, and prisoners from numerous countries including Sudan, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea. In 1995, he successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein for the release of two American workers; in 2006, he achieved the release of an American journalist held in Sudan, where he also freed a pilot and two Red Cross workers in 1996. Overall, Richardson is a veteran of foreign policy affairs.
Iraq is an important denominator in the 2008 election and Governor Bill Richardson has a plan concerning Iraq. Believing that the U.S. military should only be used when U.S. territory is attacked, Richardson promotes setting a timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, much like numerous other democrats.
Bill Richardson is a firm believer that talking to enemies can produce results, such as the recent agreement with North Korea. Richardson would continue talks with North Korea and Iran. As president, he would pressure China and Europe to enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur. Regarding Russia, Richardson realizes that we need to strive to decrease Russia's nuclear missiles and end the war with Chechnya. He perceives Israel as less safe due to Bush's policy of stubbornness; former Congressman Richardson has said that being stubborn is not a foreign policy, but diplomacy is. As a former U.N. ambassador, he believes that we must pay, in full, our back dues and begin a process of serious reforms within the U.N. In November of 2005, Richardson negotiated with Castro to halve the fee to emigrate from Cuba; Governor Richardson would like to re-evaluate the embargo for a post-Castro Cuba. When negotiating, he believes we should focus on goals above all else, not whom we negotiate with.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Sunday, July 22, 2007
New RSS Feed System and How You May Use It
Today I have added a system of RSS feeds. What is an RSS feed? RSS feeds allow you to see when I update the blog with new posts. If you subscribe to multiple RSS feeds you can use news aggregators, or programs that allow you to see when your feeds upgrade. There are also online versions. I personally use netvibes to read the newest blog tips, life advice, political opinions, email and other necessary information; I have even set it as my homepage.
For those confused by all this, there is a simpler way to be notified when I update the blog. You can subscribe to the RSS feed through email. Once a day, between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. pacific time zone, you will receive an email if I have posted that day. If you signed up for the email RSS feed before 7 p.m. July 22, 2007 pacific time you should unsubscribe from the old one and rejoin the new one. I had another system in place beforehand that may not work since I have replaced it with a superior system.
Where are these RSS feeds? Just to the let of new posts and above the post archives are the links to subscribe to the RSS feed normally and through email. In addition, at the end of every post is a short message asking people to subscribe.
Since I am asking you to subscribe to my blog feed, I feel I have a duty to you, the reader. So I ask you, on behalf of your reading experience, to inform me of what you would like to read in this blog through either comments or email.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Barack Obama's Foreign Policy
Barack Obama, despite his newcomer status in Washington, has many qualifications regarding foreign policy. He has worked with veterans of foreign policy, is well respected by them, and is apart of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Summarily, he wants to strengthen America abroad, yet also seeks to end the Iraq War.
Senator Obama has used his position as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the genocide in Darfur. In 2005, shortly after being elected to the Senate, Barack worked with Republican Senator Richard Lugar to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction from the former Soviet Union to rogue states and Al Qaeda. Despite his opposition to the Iraq War, Obama keeps the option of military force open with regard to Iran and the Darfur genocide.
From the beginning, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, Barack Obama has opposed the Iraq War. He did so publicly when it could have hurt his political career; nor was it necessary to come public with such information, as he was only a state senator.
Overall, Barack Obama's foreign policy consists bipartisanship achievement and use of diplomacy abroad. He believes in warfare, such as in Afghanistan, Iran, or Sudan, yet is opposed to the Iraq War. Obama is neither dove nor hawk, but a moderate who does what he thinks is both reasonable and right.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Friday, July 20, 2007
American Image in European Media and the Remedy Through the Technology of Globalization
The U.S. image in Europe while seriously tarnished is reparable. The possibility of our image being salvaged is due to the contemporary technology that has brought us globalization. First, let us examine our tarnished image in Europe's media. In order to write this I talked to many European friends of mine to not have an article based on false assumptions and stereotypes.
First, Europe's most popular media is mostly run by their respective states, however, there are exceptions. On the other hand, the majority of the media is independent of the state; unfortunately, they are not popular. Therefore, the media most often seen is the popular state run media. Despite my friends' denials, there would be a conflict of interests. According to them, the state run media is politically independent. However, even if politically independent within the country, what would stop them from being political in the international arena?
Anyway, according to my various sources in European society, Europe has the same issue as us concerning the constant obsession over Hollywood life. Fortunately, Europe shows a negative light on the constant drug use of Hollywood stars.
The biggest issue in the European media is the perceived image of the American citizen as an arrogant, hawkish individual with low intelligence as illustrated by the Iraq War and President Bush. That is where the U.S. lost most of its credibility in Europe's eyes. Originally, we had a coalition. Afghanistan is an example of that. Bush is also largely perceived as an idiot, and the fact that he was re-elected illustrates the point that Americans are idiots to the Europeans.
So how is this image reparable? Through the technology that brought us globalization. Allow me to explain. Through the internet, Americans can instantly communicate to Europeans. If Americans act as civil, normal individuals, like most the human race, the idea of the arrogant, stupid, hawkish American stereotype shall fall by the wayside as Europeans get to actually know Americans instead of seeing them through the lens of the European media.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Monday, July 16, 2007
Political Analysis 2008, July 2007
First, I would like to begin this by saying that since this analysis more than a year in advance many things could change before the election, politicians could make irreparable gaffes, scandals could break, finances could run low, and support could dry up among other things. Finally, if the populace began believing the Iraq War was being fought successfully, this entire analysis would be rendered invalid. I have done my best to divorce personal opinion about the candidates, and replace it with professional analysis. This political analysis of the 2008 U.S. election is merely how I see things in July 2007.
Let us begin with the Democratic Party’s Nominee; the only real contenders at this point are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and to a lesser degree John Edwards, who is running an all-or-nothing campaign at this point. He is focusing his campaign on his home state of South Carolina, and should he not get first in the state primary, he will be out of the national election.
Hillary Clinton is the favored candidate to receive the Democrat nomination; she has experience and knows how the capital runs. She has the majority of her husband’s campaign apparatus along with a strong campaign team of her own. After debates, her polls rise. However, Hillary has a tough road to walk, in that she is perceived by moderates as too left, and by leftists as too center. Most importantly, is her stance on the Iraq War, it is too close to the establishment of Washington.
Finally, Barack Obama rounds out the democratic primary picture. He is full of youth and vigor, and comparisons to Kennedy are often made. He has not been in Washington long, four years by the 2008 election, in comparison to the other candidates. He used more of the new technology on the internet and is favored by the younger generation. His polls rise continually, though faster without the debates. From the beginning, he has not supported the Iraq War, which will be a bonus for him. The way I perceive this election, is an election of change. One in which, because of the Iraq War, cronyism and corruption, the establishment will largely be kicked out of Washington. Therefore, I believe Obama will win the Democratic Party Nomination.
The Republican Party’s nomination is very open; there are numerous candidates spanning many ideologies. The important candidates are John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. McCain is like the Edwards of the Democratic Primary in that he is not running a smart campaign. In 2000, he ran against the establishment, in an election where the establishment was the dominant force. In this election, he is running with the establishment, supporting the Iraq War and Bush, when he should run anti-establishment. Therefore, his poll numbers while not dropping are not growing either. One more consideration is that he is not afraid of angering possible financial donators. That will likely work against him more than for him, but the voters would like such a candidate if such news were made more public.
Thompson is the candidate supported by the conservative base. While he has not officially declared his candidacy, he has shown his interest. I will preface my following comments with the statement that I have not been able to do the research into Thompson I would like to have done. Thompson has not made too many comments lining up with establishment, but that is where I believe he would fall in line. Because this election is an election of change, I believe that the Republicans needs to divorce themselves from the Bush and the establishment by putting forward a moderate, and Thompson is not a moderate.
Romney is one of the two candidates that have the best chance of winning the nomination. Romney is running a very smart campaign, focusing on the primary states ahead of the nation, but he has two large issues looming on his horizon, which he must confront. First, his Mormonism is an overriding consideration; a large portion of the Republican base is conservative, evangelical Christians, who have been raised learning that Mormonism is a cult. This is quite similar to John F. Kennedy’s Catholic Conundrum, and Romney would be wise to take a page from Kennedy’s book. Second, his perceived political expediency is an issue. Whether the expediency is real or not, the people have largely interpreted his change of beliefs as political expediency because he changed his views approximately the same time he announced his candidacy. The positive attributes on Mitt Romney equal the negative though. He has a strong business background of turning around companies. Secondly, he has the largest Republican financial campaign going right now. Romney is definitely a contender for the Republican nomination.
Giuliani is the second candidate with the best chance of winning the nomination. He is leading the national polls, though lagging behind Romney in the important primary states. He is most known for being mayor during 9-11 and the courageous leadership he showed. Many people feel they know him well, and still approve of him; however, the media has not covered his personal scandals in relationships (three marriages), nor his incompetence. Prior to September 11, 2001, against all advice due to the 1993 bombing, he placed the New York City crisis center in the world trade center, which largely contributed to the chaos during 9-11. Giuliani is more popular among evangelical Christians than Romney is. Giuliani has committed to keeping the party platform rather than his personal views. He is also a believer in appointing constitutional judges, a huge plus for conservatives. Giuliani is a moderate republican, that is, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
The Republican Party needs to find a working compromise between the moderates and the conservatives if they want to have a chance at putting a strong candidate forth. Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson are the three front-runners. However, Thompson is too conservative for the moderates, and Romney and Giuliani are too liberal for the conservatives. Because it is an election of change, Republicans need to put someone forward who is moderate, to the chagrin of conservatives, or Republicans do not have a chance at winning the general election. It is more a matter of political expediency than ideology. Romney is running a smarter campaign than Giuliani, yet Giuliani is more liked by the public nationally. If I had to predict the Republican nomination, it would be Giuliani because of his moderate stances and his general likeability by the evangelical conservative Christians.
In the general election, between Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani, I believe it will be an extremely close election between the two; however, Obama would likely emerge victorious because of his original anti-Iraq war stance and his youthful optimism.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Honesty As A Tool
Honesty is a tool, not an end in itself. We all desire happiness, and through demonstrated cause-and-effect scenarios, we have seen that honesty generally brings about a happy outcome. However, that is not always true. You are looking at the common logical fallacy of oversimplified generalization; this is a situation that puts honesty in the place of being best exclusively or not. In all reality, it depends on the situation; while we have noted that honesty would be best in the majority of cases, as in almost everything, exceptions do arise. For example, if a family in Nazi Germany was hiding some Jews, and the SS asked if they were hiding Jews, would they follow the honesty is best principle? Obviously, we would use our reasonable utilitarian judgment, and deem it more moral to lie about the status of the Jews rather than to give them up to die. Do you now see how, while honesty is usually good, it is not always the best course of action?
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Monday, July 9, 2007
Active Voting Responsibility
Republics. We automatically assume that republics are good. We associate them with freedom.
Dictatorships. We automatically assume that dictatorships are evil. We associate them with tyranny.
When viewed in certain perspectives, these assumptions are accurate; however, we must look at these governmental forms as dynamic. Government rules by consent of the people, therefore the attitudes of the people affect how government is run. Republics are weak; dictatorships are strong is only true when the populace is indifferent, the reverse is true when a population is passionate about its government.
Currently, our republic is weak. We are run by blind ideologies, greed, and the power-hungry. We are among the governments with the lowest voting record, in the 2004 election only 45% of those eligible voted compared to 96% for Australia or even 76% for our friendly northern neighbors, the Canadians. If you speak to most U.S. citizens, you will hear a pessimistic attitude when it comes to government. Our government endlessly passes new laws and funds new programs, with no improvements to show for it; meanwhile we become deeper and deeper in monetary debt to the world.
What is the solution? Well, there are two. First, we must have an attitude of change; second, we must form a new system of voting in order to ensure the survival of our political system, and society.
In terms of attitude, the people of this country must care about their society, government, and their respective futures. When less than half the country is voting you have a problem. Without an active populace participating in the government, republics are weak. We let a few corrupt individuals run us into the ground, for their benefit. We lose hope in our government, do not vote, and the spiral continues. We must take a stand, remembering the government is in our hands. Benjamin Franklin once challenged us to protect our republic, it is time we accept that challenge.
To guarantee that we do not slip into another attitude of indifference and complacence, we must increase the active voting population. In order to increase the voting population, we must use social pressure; do not treat non-voter’s arguments with the respect of reply, do not invite them to social events you are hosting. Perhaps we should add extra incentive and punishment to voting; nothing draconian, but if you do not vote at least twice in a 6 year span you lose your voting right and are not eligible for tax cuts. Remember folks, freedom is not free and voting should be a duty while living in a republic.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Political Polarization
This country has become polarized politically. People's votes are becoming based more on political parties than anything else. Politicians use the politics of fear mongering through the usage of divisive rhetoric; the ills of society are often, “their” entire fault.
There are many reasons for this problem, including stereotypes, indifference, and ignorance, which result in yet other problems, totaling in a divisive situation. Republican conservatives are stereotyped as big business sustaining, gun toting, anti-environment, privacy removing, anti-abortion, Christian war hawks; democrat liberals are stereotyped as environment-obsessed, tax hiking, gay marriage supporting, anti-religious doves.
Unfortunately, for all involved, these stereotypes are often applied before getting to know the person. The majority of the populace is too indifferent about the future of the government and the society to vote, leaving approximately half the country to vote. Among the remaining voters are those who vote based on extremist parties, therefore dividing our country. Then, there is the problem of ignorance. Most people derive their political news from a few biased sources, generally all biased in the same belief, such as cable news, internet and newspapers (democrat bias) and internet, Fox News, and talk radio (republican bias). Each form of media is driving the country into further poles ideologically with their own extremist viewpoints. Therefore, with essentially only one source, they vote with what they have been brainwashed into, without looking into the opposition’s arguments.
We must curb this political polarization while we still can, and yet, how can we, a small group of people, accomplish this task ourselves? We must be open-minded; surround yourselves with ideologically diverse viewpoints. It does not matter if you disagree, it gives you the opportunity to have your opinion challenged, allowing you to change it if you are wrong, or refine it if you were only a little off course. No one is perfect, we all make mistakes in our lives, consequently, have the courage to admit when you are wrong. In order to increase the voting population, we must use social pressure; do not treat non-voter’s arguments with the respect of reply, do not invite them to social events you are hosting. Perhaps we should add extra incentive and punishment to voting; nothing draconian, but if you do not vote at least twice in a 6 year span you lose your voting right and are not eligible for tax cuts. Remember folks, freedom is not free and voting should be a duty while living in a republic. In addition, the stereotypes need to be challenged, especially the one regarding moderates as indecisive fence sitters. Finally, as writers, we must continue to write in order to bring about respectful, ideologically diverse, moderate, political discourse. These above changes will bring us to a more level headed, moderate opinion where we can have open discourse without the ignorant stereotypes.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Monday, July 2, 2007
Secular Foundation of U.S. Government
A common myth of our contemporary times has permeated our national conscience, hence impeding upon our stance as a secular government: the idea that this great nation was founded upon the religion of Christianity. In order to contribute to the debunking of this ignorant claim, I shall first lay out the personal religious beliefs of our founding fathers, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, John Adams and James Madison; following that I will examine the words of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli; finally, I will counter the Christian arguments of the supposedly Christian common law which influenced the Constitution, and outline the rise of religious words within our pledge of allegiance and upon our currency.
George Washington’s mythical re-creation as a Christian is quite an insulting affront to his person. This came to be because of a perpetuating fable originating in Christian minister Mason Locke Weems’s book, Life of Washington; this is where the story of George Washington and the cherry tree arose.
If Washington was not a Christian, why was he a vestryman of the Episcopalian Church? Well, in order to be an influential person in early American society, you had to belong to the dominant church of your area; but what of the position of vestryman? “Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestryman, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence,” page 191 of Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade I. If Washington had been a Christian, he would have spoken of Jesus, but despite having written thousands of letters, Jesus Christ’s name never appears.
What were the chances that Washington was ashamed of his Christianity? Would he not have been a regular at church if he were merely ashamed of his beliefs? However, Washington’s 14 years of diaries, 13 of which written while at home with two Episcopal churches within 10 miles of his residence, place his average church attendance at approximately six times a year, with 1774 being the most regularly attended year, with 14 times. When Washington did attend church with his wife, a Christian, it was among those that Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, officiated. According to pages 196, 197 of the Memoir of Bishop White, on August 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White a letter regarding whether Washington ever accepted the communion, Bishop White, on the 15th of August, responded, “In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was a habitual communicant.”
If he was not a Christian, what did Washington believe? On page 82 of Paul F. Boller, Jr.’s book, Washington and Religion, it says that Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradword, an acquaintance of another Presbyterian minister, Ashbel Green, who has known George Washington personally, wrote that Green, “often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all of the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist.” Finally, after Washington’s death, Dr. Wilson interrogated Dr. Abercrombie, Washington’s friend, regarding Washington’s religion’ the reply came back as, “Sir, Washington was a deist.” With that, and all of the aforementioned evidences, I am sure we can conclude that Washington was in fact a deist, and not a Christian.
Benjamin Franklin was another influential founding father of ours whom was not a Christian. In Toleration, an essay of his, Franklin wrote, “If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.” An intimate friend of Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Priestley wrote in his autobiography, “It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers.”
In fact, Benjamin Franklin wrote openly about his own beliefs. In his autobiography he wrote, “…I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself…Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote many letters and within them, we can establish that he considered himself a Christian Deist, that is, one who believes the original Christianity was deistic, but was perverted in later times. “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other,” in a letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803. Jefferson continued, “Jews. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious. He,” speaking of Jesus Christ, “corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.”
Jefferson thought the Bible so degrading of God, that he literally cut and pasted the gospels, removing the supernatural revelations, and created The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, now known as The Jefferson Bible. Jefferson recommended to his nephew Peter Carr, “In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal, every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson believed in questioning everything through a test of reason, and as a result came to be a Christian Deist.
Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were the most open about their beliefs, for they both wrote books explaining their beliefs. Thomas Paine wrote Age of Reason; Ethan Allen wrote Reason: The Only Oracle of Man. Both were vilified, ostracized by America for writing such evil books.
John Adams was not a Deist, but a Unitarian, a liberal version of Christianity. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abused of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” He often asserted he was a true Christian, but he definitely did not agree with orthodox Christian dogma.
The father of the constitution, James Madison, was an Episcopalian, but often argued for separation of church and state. In his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” While religiously a Christian himself, Madison did realize the shortcomings of having government based upon a religion.
Now, while we see most of the influential founding fathers were not Christians, there still might be the slim possibility they created a Christian nation, so we now move on to the words of three documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli.
The Declaration of Independence is often mentioned as supported a Christian nation because of its references to God. However, it does not explicitly describe Christianity’s God, the references to God are those used by Deists, with such terms as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it may be oft quoted, but it has no legal power, it is merely a document announcing the rebellious intentions of thirteen colonies.
The Constitution would be the one place you would find mention of the nation being founded upon Christianity, if it was in all actuality founded upon Christianity. Yet nowhere in this document do we find any mention of any supreme being; there are only two references, but both are exclusionary in their words, not establishing any religion.
The Treaty of Tripoli was one of our first few legal documents, and within it is an interesting article. Now, before I begin, I will admit that the Treaty of Tripoli only had legal status for eight years, but what it does show is the attitude of our founding fathers regarding religion and government. In Article 11, the treaty states, “ As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselman; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared b the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty began with a preliminary signing during Washington’s last term as president; then John Adams, now President, and Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State, endorsed it and sent it on to the U.S. Senate, where it was ratified. Never once did Article 11 raise any concern, showing that neither the Senate, nor two different administrations find issue with the government not being founded on Christianity.
Finally, we move on to counter any claims by Christianity that the Constitution derived from supposedly Christian common law is based upon Christianity because of its relation to the common law of England. Then, we shall outline the rise of religious words within our pledge of allegiance and upon our currency.
The Constitution is derived from the common law of England, but there are claims that the common law is Christian, making the Constitution Christian. So let us investigate these claims. In a letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson expounded upon the history of common law, “For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Carta, which terminates the period of the common law…This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.” Furthermore, in Encyclopedia Britannica, “The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines.”
It is often said that the words within the Pledge of Allegiance and upon our currency have always been there and as such should stay there now as part of our country’s history as a Christian nation. However, if you look in-depth at the history of the rise of religious words, it is not true. Authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words “under god”; the words did not appear until June 1954 as part of the McCarthyism changes, which were the result of fear of communism, not reason. For almost a hundred years our currency, lacked the words, “In God We Trust” until they were first proposed by Reverend Watkinson in 1861. Even then, it was slowly adopted until it was made mandatory, again, by a McCarthyism-induced act of congress, in 1955.
As we have documented through the personal beliefs of our founding fathers, our founding documents, and the real history behind the rise of religious words, we were not founded as a Christian nation. Our government was founded distinctively secular, and as such, it should remain that way, instead of trying to reform it to a historically revisionist past.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Science's Historical Nemesis
What is the one event in history that has hindered the advancement of knowledge? The greatest blow to knowledge has been the rise of Christianity. Christianity changed focus from logical goals, such as politics, science, and security of an empire, to a mythological heaven, where people focused on the afterlife, with less care to the immediate life. This new philosophical outlook laid the foundation for Rome’s decline. Christianity ignored Roman technology, lost Roman inventions, persecuted scientists, and today challenges scientific breakthroughs.
In the days of Rome, new technologies abounded. Roman cartographers had mapped most of the eastern hemisphere, enabling Roman merchants to consistently trade with Sri Lanka and eastern Africa. Few things are as important as a transportation system and Rome was no different with its extensive network of maintained roads. Ungrateful to “pagan” technology, Christian bishops overused the roads without paying road tolls, essential for maintenance. Thus, these roads, which were more advanced than our modern roads, fell into disrepair. Roman technology declined as Christianity rose.
New inventions were rapidly appearing in Rome. Using Archimedes’s screw, Romans had improved the wine press; the printing press should have followed. However, the printing press was not invented until 1440 because Christianity did not advance Archimedes’s technology. Despite its invention, the Church regulated printing because it undermined their power. Sewage systems and flush toilets existed two millennia ago in the heart of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, medieval European cities had no sewage system. Moreover, the modern toilet was not reinvented and mass-produced until the eighteenth century. When Rome fell, so did the number of inventions.
Throughout history, Christianity has pressured, threatened, and persecuted scientists. Copernicus remained quiet, until shortly before his death, about his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, yet Catholics could not resist slandering him in his epitaph. Christians, including Protestants, fiercely censored Galileo, a Christian with the first evidence supporting Copernicus’s theory, for his “atheistic” findings. Many Christians disagreed with Newton’s theories because they supposedly changed God’s direct action on human lives to material mechanism. Numerous scientists either faced persecution or waited until their dying moments to come public due to fear of persecution.
To this day, Christianity has wielded its influence upon science. In the 17th century, Protestants opposed quinine, malaria medication; in the 18th century, Catholics objected to smallpox vaccination; in the 19th century, Christianity questioned the usage of anesthetic. Today, sects of Christianity remain against blood transfusions and organ transplants. From its rise to power until contemporary times, Christianity has preferred superstition over knowledge.
Apart from actions, Christianity has openly spoken against science. “There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiousity…It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets beyond our understanding which can avail us nothing which man should not wish to learn.” – St. Augustine. Where would we be today if Christianity had not risen to persecute, then bully, science?
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
Posted by Ethan Lee Vita 0 comments