William H. Seward Monument
Auburn, NY
William H. Seward was a prominent American politician in the 19th Century, a founder of the Republican Party, and Secretary of State under President Lincoln during the Civil War. His home in Auburn, NY is in the background of the pictures to the left.The inscription on the monument is from a famous (and controversial) speech he delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 11, 1850, opposing what eventually became known as the Compromise of 1850 – a last ditch effort to save the nation from disunion. The quotation contains a reference to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." But Seward also referred to "a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain . . ."
The speech touched off a firestorm of criticism. Southerners called it "monstrous and diabolical." Henry Clay, who first proposed the Compromise, called Seward's speech "wild, reckless, and abominable." President Zachary Taylor commented "This is a nice mess Governor Seward has got us into . . ." (Seward had previously been governor of New York State).
But was Seward right? What is "the higher law"?
The speech touched off a firestorm of criticism. Southerners called it "monstrous and diabolical." Henry Clay, who first proposed the Compromise, called Seward's speech "wild, reckless, and abominable." President Zachary Taylor commented "This is a nice mess Governor Seward has got us into . . ."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet they were all Christian.
(shrug)
Slavery is a good example of two groups of Christians enlisting their faith to defeat the other. (After all, atheists were a tad thin on the ground)
There are many mentions of slavery in the bible.
They are there and they are not going away.
The history of Christianity and the condoning of slavery has a very long history that goes back even well before the founding of America.
Can you quote a bible quote to say "x" about slavery? Yes.
However, the other guy can do the same thing and say "y".
It goes around in circles. The word "context" comes up a lot etc.
The problem with atheism is that there is no "higher law" at all.
ReplyDeleteTu quoque. You can't argue like that.
ReplyDeleteAh, but I can argue like that. In this case we are talking about replacing a problem (thinkers disagree over exactly what the "higher law" or "natural law" is) with an even worse problem (there is no higher law at all). It is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
DeleteNo, if your argument is a Tu Quoque then you've stopped before you've started.
DeleteAny argument must stand or fall on it's own merits.
This is...basic stuff.
Logical fallacies don't just go away because you just really, really want them to.
In this case we are talking about replacing a problem (thinkers disagree over exactly what the "higher law" or "natural law" is) with an even worse problem...
No, that's not what is happening
I pointed out that two groups are going around in circles.
You then ignore it.
(?????)
You ignore it and go on about something else (in this case- atheism). It's not connected. The problem of the two groups has not gone away. It's still there. You just tried to change the subject and hope I wouldn't notice. It's very dishonest.
Tu Quoque. (shrug)
Both groups presupposed the existence of a divine law, and the subject of slavery was hotly debated by them before the Civil War. President Lincoln summed it up this way in his 2nd Inaugural Address: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
DeleteBut what if there is no "just God" at all?
Both groups presupposed the existence...
DeleteThank you. It's possible to talk about these two groups.
It's entirely possible to talk honestly about the problem they have and not go off on a Tu Quoque.
I don't do it to you and it's fair of me to expect the same courtesy in return.
If we are going to discuss things honestly, then we both have to avoid the various logical fallacies of argument, right? Well, one of them is the Tu Quoque.
So, back to the two Christian groups.....
"Both groups presupposed the existence of a divine law..."
Yes, they did. They presupposed something. There was no evidence. They just went ahead with the assumptions that they had been brought up with from their local geography.
No wonder they failed.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other."
Yep, that sums it up. They had the same source material. The same supposedly 'holy' book and magical friend that (suspiciously) never makes personal appearences. Yet it did them no good at all. They were deadlocked.
And it's not like we're talking about something trivial. We're not talking about communion wafers or the colours of priestly robes or when to or not to genuflect.
We're talking about slavery.
Amongst Christians.
Millions of Christians.
With Bibles and Churches and Priests and everything.
Plenty of time to discuss and investigate and debate.
Slavery.
Slavery in their own country.
Is slavery wrong? Yes.
It's easy for me to say. I don't even have to think about it.
I'm sure the same is for you. The idea revolts you as much as it does me, right? Of course, it does.
As modern people living in the 21st Century, it's almost impossible for us to understand or excuse the mentality that allowed slavery in their midst. We're not talking about aliens or strange savages here. We're talking about our past. Our Western Civilization. Yet right there, awash with money and power and control, those two groups kept going around in circles.
If you want to invoke a "higher law", you have to do it in such a way so as the other guy cannot hi-jack it.
A:God wants you to do X,Y,Z.
B:Oh yeah? Well, God really wants you to do A, B, C.
A: In the Bible it says...
B: Oh well, in the Bible, it also says...
A: I am a priest and I have had years of religious study which proves..
B: Well, I am a super-duper priest and I have had years of religious study which proves..
A: You are not a real Christian.
B: Actually, YOU are not a real Christian.
A: I just prayed and it was revealed to me that...
B: Well, I just prayed and I got the opposite. It was revealed that...
And that's just amongst the Christians!
Yet there's no need to limit ourselves to just them. This same kind of spinning around in circles can also apply to other religions. Hindu branch A says "1,2,3" which is angrily dennounced as blasphemy by Hindu branch B. (shrug) Rince and repeat for all religions and cults both living and dead.
And so what is the atheist solution to this problem? "They presupposed something. There was no evidence. They just went ahead with the assumptions that they had been brought up with from their local geography." In other words, there is "no evidence" for a higher law. Or to put it another way, the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the highest law of the land; and at that time slavery was perfectly legal under the Constitution. In fact, in 1857 the Supreme Court handed down its definitive ruling on the issue, the infamous "Dred Scott Decision," in which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared that black people "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order . . . so far inferior, that they had no rights which a white man was bound to respect." And from an atheist point of view, that should have been the end of it. The court had spoken and there was "no evidence" for the existence of any "higher law."
DeleteAnd from an atheist point of view, that should have been the end of it.
DeleteUm...why?
I don't follow.
What's the connection between Taney and atheism?
Surely, he was a Christian, right? So...
(shrug)
In other words, there is "no evidence" for a higher law.
None is forthcoming, that's for sure.
This means that if a religious group claims a higher law, then (conveniently) they get to interpret that law and demand others follow it.
Trouble is, the other team can play that game and by those same rules...and get the opposite result.
You did a great job of answering your own question! Congratulations!
DeleteYou've lost me. What do you mean?
DeleteI asked "why" as in "Why from an atheist point of view, that should have been an end of it?".
Plus I asked what was the connection between Taney and atheism give that he was in all likelihood a Christian.
Would you mind being a little more forthcoming on what you mean?
I made the comment that from an atheist point of view the Dred Scott Decision should have been the end of it, and you asked "why"? But then you went on to answer your own question in the second half of your comment. You stated that there is no evidence for the existence of a "Higher Law" and asserted that religious groups claim the existence of higher law in order to insist that others follow it, which, in fact, is pretty much what Seward did in his speech. (He later backed off after he faced a storm of criticism). In other words, from your point of view there is no "higher law," and I would think that it would be very difficult for any atheist to believe in one, absent a divine law-giver.
DeleteYou stated that there is no evidence for the existence of a "Higher Law"
DeleteYes. Go on.
...asserted that religious groups claim the existence of higher law in order to insist that others follow it...
Pretty much. It's the divine thingy with one group claiming a direct telephone link to their magic invisible friend only to have another group doing the same thing but getting a different dial tone.
In other words, from your point of view there is no "higher law,..."
Anything that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. No evidence for a higher law, therefore no reason to accept there is indeed a higher law etc.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared that black people "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order . . . so far inferior, that they had no rights which a white man was bound to respect."
Ok, so Taney (the presumed Christian) said that. Go on.
And from an atheist point of view, that should have been the end of it.
???
This is the part I don't get.
How does the atheist "point of view" (whatever that is) mean that Taney's pronouncement on black people is "the end of it"?
Non sequitur.
TheraminTrees had released a new video.
ReplyDeleteAs always, it's an absorbing watch. I like all his work.
I did see the video and thought it was very interesting. I always thought that L. Ron Hubbard was kind of goofy, and never understood how anyone could have fallen for some of his wild theories.
DeleteGlad you enjoyed it. TheraminTrees is getting very popular. It's easy to see why.
Delete