Liberty
Letters

February 17, 2005
Burke, Perkins, Jefferson #17
Denying
Spiritual Man
by Steve Farrell
The apostle Paul prophesied the time would come
when man's "conscience [would be] seared
with a hot iron." (1)
Part of that searing, sad to say, has come in
the form of a modern secular state that has, plain
as day, utilized curriculum mandates, accreditation
standards, and block grants to impose one standard,
and one standard alone -- in this thing, that the
social 'sciences' and natural 'sciences' must deny
the true nature of man, deny that man is something
more than a mere compilation of biological
processes.
In 1790, English statesmen Edmund Burke, in his
famous denunciation of the atheist run, socialist
inspired French Revolution, declared "We know, and
it is our pride to know, that man is by his
constitution a religious animal; that atheism is
against, not only our reason, but our instincts."
(2)
Burke knew, what every honest, reflective man
must know, that man is not just a physical being,
but a spiritual being, and as such, that man is not
just blessed with a collection of 'common' physical
senses, but endowed by his Maker with a collection
of uncommon Higher senses -- among them, reason and
conscience.
Twenty nine years earlier, 'A Well-Wisher to
Mankind' (Massachusetts born, John Perkins), wrote
in his 1771, Essay on the Nature, Source and
Extent of Moral Freedom:
- Every human creature has a sense of right
and wrong, ought and ought not, which are
evidently intended to remind him of duty and
obligation; and without which he could have no
idea of it. It is as really a natural sense, as
the external ones of sight, feeling, tasteing
&c. As constitutional as the other internal
ones of honor, harmony, benevolence, &c.
(3)
A "natural," "constitutional" sense that reminds
of us "right and wrong, ought and out not," "duty
and obligation;" could it be?
Founder Thomas Jefferson thought so. While
mentoring his nephew Peter Carr as regards his
education, he noted in a letter dated August 10,
1787:
- He who made us would have been a pitiful
bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral
conduct a matter of science. For one man of
science, there are thousands who are not. What
would have become of them? Man was destined for
society. His morality, therefore, was to be
formed to this object. He was endowed with a
sense of right and wrong, merely relative to
this. This sense is as much a part of his
nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing,
feeling; it is the true foundation of morality
-
- The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a
part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to
all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree,
as force of members is given them in a greater
or less degree. It may be strengthened by
exercise, as may any particular limb of the
body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some
degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a
small stock which is required for this: even a
less one than what we call common sense. State a
moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The
former will decide it as well, and often better
than the latter, because he has not been led
astray by artificial rules. (4)
Jefferson was counseling his nephew about what
two prophets of God once charged, as the necessity
of "circumscribing all truth into one great whole."
(5) If you are studying man, and daring to call it
science, denying the reality of his spiritual
nature, and the existence of a conscience, such a
science is artificial indeed.
But it's more than that. There is a danger
involved. When Jefferson spoke of artificiality in
learning circles, his voice was a voice of
testimony against a history of state imposed
educational establishments that had stifled freedom
of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and with
them, the march of truth, so as to hold the masses
in darkness by design.
For this cause: Despots have always known that
disconnecting man from his kinship with the King of
the Universe, the Great and Eternal Sovereign of
all men, and with the spirit that God put in man,
is vital to any plan to hold man down. For no man
who truly understands his pedigree, and his
potentiality as a joint heir with Christ, is a
prime candidate to be a slave to any man or any
state -- and that's the point.
Atheism, then, or the separation of science from
any possible connection, however remote, to the
Christian faith, and men of faith, becomes part of
the modus operandi in despotic states, or for
states heading in that direction.
Burke knew all about this agenda. He
observed: "[T]he mind will not endure
a void"; and so the intent is to empty it, and then
fill it up again with "some uncouth, pernicious,
and degrading superstition." (6)
The "uncouth, pernicious, and degrading
superstition" was the byproduct of political
ambition. It was Europe's first leap into the arms
of a new revolutionary order, socialism, whose
Utopian goal it was and is to impose a top down
control on all things, especially in education, in
order to usher in their godless version of a Heaven
on Earth. "Uncouth, pernicious and degrading,"
because the truth of the matter -- in practice --
was that this new religion resembled something more
like a "riot," a "drunken delirium," a "hot spirit
drawn out of the alembic of hell," and always will.
(7)
It is a point of interest, if not confusion for
many of us, how it is that there is absolute
freedom in the halls of academia for some lines of
thought, and certainly for every sort of
debauchery, and yet a fierce intolerance for the
things of God, for appeals to man's moral
conscience, or even to the existence of a
conscience.
Burke provides a frank answer, as disconcerting
as it may be. Pulling a lesson from history, about
how the aristocracy of Venice got away with
imposing "so heavy
[a] yoke" on her
subjects, he observed:
- [T]he nobles have been obliged to
enervate the spirit of their subjects by every
sort of debauchery; they have denied them the
liberty of reason, and they have made them
amends by what a base soul will think a more
valuable liberty, by not only allowing, but
encouraging them to corrupt themselves in the
most scandalous manner. They consider their
subjects as the farmer does the hog he keeps to
feast upon. He holds him fast in his sty, but
allows him to wallow as much as he pleases in
his beloved filth and gluttony.
Meanwhile,
- The ruling nobility are no less afraid of
one another than they are of the people; and,
for that reason, politically enervate their own
body by the same effeminate luxury by which they
corrupt their subjects. They are impoverished by
every means which can be invented; and they are
kept in a perpetual terror by the horrors of a
state inquisition. (8)
Sounds like University 101 to me. Unlimited
freedom to debauch, to promote the false and
unseemly -- side by side with "perpetual terror by
the horrors of a state inquisition" for stating,
teaching, or discussing that which is politically
incorrect.
Think about it. It's happening here. History is
repeating itself. Conscience is being suppressed,
religion crushed, the true nature of man denied in
almost every academic circle, and all of this in
the name of a "more valuable liberty."
The questions we ought to be asking ourselves
are: Why have we agreed to this? Why are we playing
along? What has been the price of our negligence,
to our children, our neighbor's children, to truth,
and to the nation at large? And what will yet be
the price if we fail to be men and women of virtue,
and turn the tide now, today?
The good news is, such a denial of the true
nature of man "cannot prevail long." (9) Burke
taught that too. I agree. There is an awakening
going on. As a member of the new media, I have seen
it, felt it, and been part of it. As a well known
fictional Evil Emperor once said, 'there is
a disturbance in the force,' and it 'could destroy
us." He was right. You and I, if we do our small
part, can help check and then route the Secular
Empire we face, and then remake a better, brighter,
more blessed nation, a nation that encourages its
children and citizens to stay in touch with, and be
true to, their conscience, that part of their being
which is as natural a sense to them as seeing,
hearing, tasting, and touching.
Footnotes
1. 1 Timothy 4:2
2. Kramnick, Isaac, editor. The Portable
Edmund Burke, Penguin Books, New York, New
York, 1999, from Burke's essay, Reflections on
the Revolution in France, p. 453.
3. Hyneman, Charles S., and Lutz, Donald S.
American Political Writing during the Founding
Era: 1760-1805, Volume I, Liberty Press,
Indianapolis, 1983, p. 149.
4. Cousin, Norman, editor. In God We Trust:
The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American
Founding Fathers, Harper and Brothers
Publishers, New York, 1958, p. 127.
5. Ludlow, Victor L. Principles and Practices
of the Restored Gospel, Deseret Book Company,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 1992 (statement attributed to
Presidents Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith) p.
139.
6. Kramnick, p. 453.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 45, from Burke's 1756 essay, A
Vindication of Natural Society.
9. Kramnick, p. 453.
Farrell
Archive
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|