A heroic conservative
Writing by treason on Friday, 30 of November , 2007 at 8:37 pm
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the 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.”
– George Washington’s Farewell Address, September 1796
Ask someone to define morality and you’re bound to get a variety of answers. Most people would agree that it is linked to a specific code of conduct or ethical behavior based on some concept of what is right and what is wrong. Sure, a lot of this varies according to society and the different cultures and religions with a society. And that can create some issues because what I consider moral conduct might not be what you consider moral conduct. That’s why on the “big issues,” many people like to find common ground based on religious principles. Most religions seem to be on the same page on a lot of this, but then problems can arise when guidelines are interpreted one way and not the other. For instance, one group of individuals might feel mass genocide is acceptable, yet consider naming a stuffed toy “Mohammed” an offense punishable by death. And why would this not make sense? After the slaughter of half a million people, what’s so absurd about executing a clueless, foreign, middle-aged schoolteacher? Just a drop in the bucket. Yet there are those who feel this type of disregard for life is immoral. One can be offended, yet spare the life of the offender. Different people, different philosophies, different governments. But I digress.
I don’t think anyone would disagree with the Father of Our Country who believed there was a link between freedom and a moral government. That sounds good, doesn’t it? A moral government. But what precisely is that?
There are those who want a clear separation of Church and State and interpret this as the establishment of a government that is free of any particular religious leanings. Others believe that our political system is based on particular religious teachings and that our nation was founded on a deep-seated belief in a higher power.
There are those, too, that seem to believe that morality has no place in government. Generally we refer to these individuals as politicians. But then there are those in politics that believe there should be a stronger influence from religion… and that seems to be acceptable depending, of course, on the religion. So where is this going? I have no idea, actually. I just started thinking about the role of religion in government because I saw that David Frum had written about Michael Gerson’s book in National Review. I’d just posted something on Gerson recently, so I was interested in what Frum had to say.
In a nutshell, Frum thinks Gerson has some issues. One could say Frum has some of his own, but on this matter I tend to side with Frum. Especially since it sounds like Gerson lifted a bit from Frum for his book. Odd, coming from someone who’s criticizing others for their lack of integrity. I’d heard once that “integrity is what you do when no one is watching,” and if that’s the case, Gerson might just be a tad integrity-challenged.
Plagiarism aside, my beef with Gerson is that he holds himself above others because he is a Christian and believes that Christian principles should be more generously applied to conservative policies. Not just compassionate conservatism, but heroic conservatism. And he himself is quite generous with criticism and that strikes me as a bit ungracious. It’s no coincidence that his political hero is Jimmy Carter, an overtly religious, pious figure. But, like Carter, Gerson’s vanity seems to get in the way. And it’s that vanity, that self-importance, and that self-righteousness that weakens Gerson’s position.
There are particular behaviors that some generally regard as “Christian,” yet those are really just behaviors that aren’t necessarily attributed to any specific religion, but rather to a belief in doing the right thing for the right reason. Of being decent and fair. Of being careful and caring. Of balancing idealism and realism, and bringing fine ideas to realization. One can apply common decency to his work and accomplish great things, and do much of it without requiring fanfare or credit. Or even perfection. One such person was Henry Hyde.
NRO published a tribute to Hyde, who was, by all accounts, heroic. R.I.P.
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Digg -
