Tinstaffl Part IV - History and Moral Philosophy Part IV

Earlier I stated that a religion is essentially a philosophy and vice-versa. I refer again to the definition of religion; a belief, activity or cause pursued with fervor and devotion. I would call attention to the actions of the House of Representatives and Senate of late (2009 CE) and state that they have indeed pursued their belief(s) with fervor and devotion, refusing to hear the entreaties of those who voted for them. Who entrusted them with the authority to speak for them, an authority they have abused. Their actions are quite similar to some religious ceremonies with their hallelujahs and amens.


It can be easily demonstrated that crusading religions and revolutionary governments are essentially the same thought process, differing only in tag lines and creeds. Each relies on the ‘faithful’ and those willing to sacrifice their very lives to achieve an ideal. Even today the Democrats are being asked to sacrifice their seats in the next election to achieve a goal now. They will be the new martyrs for the cause and their recompense will be quite handsome indeed, thanks to perquisites and privileges they’ve given themselves without the consent or approbation of the people who elected them in good faith; a faith they have long abused


At the end of the Revolutionary War an attempt at creating a government under the Articles of Confederation was made but the central government was quite weak and had no authority to tax. In time it was declared ineffective so a new Constitutional Convention was called and that Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, is the one we work under today. The first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were added in 1791. They were patterned on the English Bill of Rights. They were reinforcement, a pledge that all pre-existing civil liberties and privileges would be guaranteed under the newly formed government. This was in response to the criticism of many that such guarantees had not been addressed in the body of the Constitution. It was the voice of the people that forced this change. For, in the end, it was not a revolution to form a drastically new form of government but one that was essentially familiar, but with a new rationality of authority.


When did this change? When did the voice of the people become subservient to the needs and requirements of the Party, be it Democrat or Republican? We can begin with the Civil War, “….testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” At the end of hostilities the supremacy of the federal government over the states was established and the will of the people was truncated just a trifle. During the Great Depression, Congress at the insistence of Franklin D Roosevelt, voted for sweeping changes, instituting agencies to bring aid and comfort to a demoralized population. One of those agencies was the Social Security Administration that established a monetary pool to supplement the retirements of those eligible. It meant the sacrifice of a bit of privacy, giving everyone a number and creating a database of every worker in the land. Those who were disaffected welcomed it and lauded its passage, not realizing its long term implications.


One of the changes that occurred during the war years was the Tax Payment Act of 1943. It compelled all employers to withhold taxes from each employee’s paycheck and submit it directly to the government – to gain funds to pay for the war effort. This was the opening of the floodgate, for now the government had access to every working individuals pay records. This made it easier for the IRS to track down those who were failing to pay their ‘fair share’. It was but another truncation of privacy and even liberty.


There was much controversy about the act and even though the Supreme Court declared many of Roosevelt’s created agencies unconstitutional it ruled the Social Security Act constitutional, but only after laws were passed that allowed the Roosevelt administration to pack the court with his own nominees. It was another victory for the central government that gave impetus for what was to come in the following decades under Democratic leadership.


Next I will discuss the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms.

TINSTAAFL - History & Moral Philosophy Part III

Rather than delve at length in what can be a very daunting subject that is entirely too large for this essay, suffice it to say that moral philosophy (or ethics) has played a leading role in the history of the world – both in the East and the West. From the early Greek philosophies of Aristotle and Plato to the modern philosophies of Aquinas, Kant and Rousseau, among others, history has shown that nations and religions rise and fall around certain philosophical teachings.


In the late eighteenth century the hypothetical state of nature became the philosophy du-jure. One of its chief proponents was the French philosopher Jean-Jaques Rousseau. It was from Rousseau that Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily when he framed the Declaration of Independence with that immortal declaration of the rights of man – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is so much more to be divined, however, from that most precious of all American documents next to the Constitution itself.


One of the problems that has arisen in the nation over the past two hundred plus years is the attempt by many to judge the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights based on contemporary philosophy that has ‘devolved’ politically over the years. From a strictly general semantic point of view these documents can only be truthfully analyzed and interpreted in the light of the prevailing moral philosophy and popular culture that existed at the time of their framing.


This is why there has been such a bone of contention over the ‘true’ meanings of the first and second amendments; why those who ascribe to a modern philosophy read it one way and fail to account for the precedents and history that lie behind them. This is true of any document or literary work. One cannot truly understand a novel, short story or other work of literature without knowing, at length, the history of the era in which they occur or were penned. It is also true of any legal document. These must be viewed in the light of the prevailing ordinances, resolutions or other rules and regulations that are labeled laws.


This is nothing new. Authors have used this device ad nauseum. Mark Twain wrote two novels transporting 19 century morality into Arthurian and Tudorian England. It is a flaw of thinking that must be understood to be merely a literary device only. History is what it is and any attempt to deconstruct it to suit a political agenda is tantamount to tyranny over the minds of all humanity.


Now, to return to the Declaration of Independence and that immortal verbiage, this was nothing more than a rationalization for the secession of the North American Colonies from the British Empire.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights…


We hold… that all men are created equal. Why that phraseology? Why not, We hold … that we are created equal… that we are endowed … This verbiage has always bothered me. At this point he changed from the first person to the third person. Why? What was he really trying to say?


Next is the statement, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just authority from the consent of the governed.


Consent of the governed. That they are endowed. Their creator, not our creator. The only possible conclusion I can come to is an old Latin adage that states quite succinctly Vox Populi, Vox Dei. This transliterates into English as the voice of the populace is the voice of the deity, or more plainly the voice of the people is the voice of God.


So, in essence Thomas Jefferson was saying that it was the voice of the American People who decided that their desires to separate from the tyranny of England would become a reality with the assurance that it was spoken as though it were the voice of God.

This phraseology, however has taken on epic proportions with the false assumption that the rights enumerated were granted by an omniscient being when in reality these rights were granted to the people by themselves.


In the next installment I will delve further into the reasons why this is so.