Truth.

In an American Thinker post, “Calamity Impending for the Clintons” by Scott S. Powell, a passage stood out:

440px-gilbert_stuart_williamstown_portrait_of_george_washingtonIn his Farewell Address of 1796, George Washington laid out the essentials for the rise and prosperity of America:

[“]Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may [due to] influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.[“]

This passage stood out to me because I am an Objectivist. Here’s why.

The vast majority of thinkers on the topics of morality and ethics reject outright the idea that morality can exist in the absence of religious faith. Thus, they reject Ayn Rand and Objectivism due to its explicit irreligiousity.

This has always irked me because Objectivism has a fully explicated ethics so this rejection is, at the same time, both dogmatic and uneducated, while, sadly, largely true for the population at large.

Thus, the extremely nuanced position espoused by President Washington – when translated from the original 18th century American English – shows how the idea was accepted by the thinkers of the Founding era as a fact of life. By focusing on the added emphasis, it is clear that Washington’s view is that it is, in fact, possible for people with minds of certain structure and educated [in the ways of critical thinking, I assert] can be moral without that morality being religion based.‡

He concludes, however, that the above is rare and therefore an electorate with a morality based on religious values is necessary in order to elect a government protect the natural rights of the individuals.*

I believe he nailed it. Religion for the masses is a good thing because it provides for a common morality that requires neither “refined education” nor “a mind of peculiar structure” to understand – its obvious appeal to authority, nothwithstanding.


† Sloppy, I know, but I don’t have the energy to document this. It is right, though, so I just assert it to be true. : )
‡ Late in life, in correspondence with that religious guy wherein she outright stated that Objectivism and Christianity are compatible.
* There is a lot packed into this… suffice to say, the ideas of “security for property, for reputation, for life” fall into the category “Natural Rights,” an area of philosophical thought developed during the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and was the underpinning of the Enlightenment view that a government exists only to protect the rights of its citizens from threat from other citizens and by from external threats.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s