Since the November election, I have spent more time on
civilization than on political and economic freedom. Of the three, it is the
most essential. You can’t have self-governance is you don’t have people who can
and do govern themselves. Nor can you have a thriving economy without people
who have a strong work ethic and honesty about earnings in exchange for labor
(replacing the uncivilized desire to get something for nothing). And that
starts with individual families, regardless of what sort of regime the family
is subject to, to pass along the behavior required of civilized people.
A critical mass of healthy, civilized families leads to
strong communities, then outward to cities, then states, then nations. Going north on all
three overlapping spheres starts with going north on the Civilization Sphere.
Here are the two basic premises for the Civilization Sphere
(covered in detail in two parts at Spherical Model, here and here):
1.
Not all religious societies are civilized
(according to my definition, which differs from the archaeological definition—see
below in “What does civilization look like”), but every civilized society is a
religious society. This absolutely does not mean state-sponsored religion or
lack of religious freedom; in fact, the opposite is true. Freedom of religion
is essential, and the flourishing of religion in general must be encouraged.
2.
The family is the basic unit of civilized
society. Whatever threatens the family threatens civilization. So preserving
and protecting the family is paramount in laws and social expectations in a
civilized society.
Sometimes people claim to be conservative on economic
issues, but not on social issues. They are misguided; it isn’t possible to
successfully follow free market principles and get economic prosperity in a decaying
civilization. It likewise isn’t possible to talk about the rights guaranteed us
in the US Constitution, and the philosophical concept of ultimate good the
Constitution is based on, without acknowledging the giver of those inalienable
rights: God.
I just finished reading Hugh Hewitt’s latest book, Talking with Pagans, a collection of
debates, mostly from his radio show, collected over the past several years. One
section was with Christopher Hitchens, who believed he had deflected the pro-religious
argument by insisting that he did believe in ultimate good and ultimate
standards of right and wrong. He simply believed the sense of ultimate good we
have, in anyone choosing to be ethical and good, is the result of Darwinian
natural selection. I’m glad that worked for him; being around people who are good
and ethical is always better than being around the savage opposite. But it is
capricious, since the ultimate arbiter of right is the person himself, with no
higher authority (other than just civil law) to contradict his opinion.
Hitchens, along with some of the others on the atheist side,
claimed that there’s a lot of disagreement among religious people on the code
of living righteously. Almost without fail these debaters take as evidence the
relatively rare fanatics, a few of whom in history have been violent, claiming
to act in the name of their god(s). They choose to cherry pick, however,
leaving out the savage atrocities of anti-religious tyrants such as Hitler,
Stalin, and Mao, just to cover the past century.
In fact, over the centuries there has been a great deal of
consensus about how to live a basically moral life. The primary list is the Ten Commandments, which outline our requirements to honor God, the giver of life,
liberty, and free will, along with limitations that show respect for those very
rights in those around us. No community ever progressed to civilization while
simultaneously allowing murder, theft, and promiscuity. In fact, you will find
life, family, and property rights valued in any community that can be construed
to be truly civilized.
In addition, there are refinements, positive behaviors to
develop, many listed in the New Testament. (See The Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12, plus the definition of charity in I Corinthians 13, and Paul’s
admonition on seeking virtue in Philippians 4:8. I keep returning to the BoyScout Oath and Law as well.)
What does
civilization look like? This description is from the Spherical Model:
In the northern circle that is the goal—Civilization—families
typically remain intact, and children are raised in loving homes, with caring
parents who guide their education and training, dedicating somewhere between 18
and 25 years for that child to reach adulthood, and who then remain interested
in their children’s success for the rest of their lives.
Civilized people live peaceably among their neighbors,
helping rather than taking advantage of one another, abiding by laws enacted to
protect property and safety—with honesty and honor. Civilized people live in
peace with other civilized people; countries and cultures coexist in
appreciation, without fear.
There is a thriving free-enterprise economy. Poverty is
meaningless; even though there will always be a lowest earning 10% defined as
poor, in a civilized society these lowest earners have comfortable shelter and
adequate food and clothing—and there’s the possibility of rising, or at least
for future generations to rise.
Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed
expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention
are the rule.
People feel free to choose their work, their home, their
family practices, their friendships and associations. And they generally
self-restrain before they infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Where
there are questions about those limits, laws are in place to help clarify
boundaries of civilized behavior. When someone willingly infringes on the
rights or safety of another, the law functions to protect that victim as well
as society from further uncivilized behavior from the offender.
I haven’t spent a lot of time writing about what savagery
looks like; I prefer looking at the positive goal. However, I’m concerned that
we may be missing the signs of the savagery we’re suffering. It’s like the
problem abuse victims have with their thinking: “I’m surviving this; it’s not
that bad. I’m just glad it’s not worse.” Only when they get out and get some
perspective can they recognize how wrong it was for them to submit themselves
to so much abuse.
So I’d like to continue this series with one more post, on
Friday, to look at where we are—not so we can feel miserable about it, but so
that we can take that first step of recognition that must come before doing
something about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment