Under the guise of providing an intellectual foundation for the American achievement, Meir Soloveichik, writing for Bari Weiss’s Free Press, argues that there can be no rational foundation for that achievement.
Excellent analysis, superb sourcing. Rightly rejects the false choice of theism vs nihilism. To add: this is about recognizing equal human capacities (reason, free will) and upholding equal treatment under law, not equality of result or the alleged “equal dignity” of every human (whether Washington or Stalin).
And on this Sunday morning, hundreds of millions of kids are getting their religious philosophy =
Epistemology = Faith, Feeling, Believing
Ethics/Morality = Living for God, living for Others
Metaphysics = Magical universes of unseen forces for Good and Evil, Evil is powerful
Religion = giving the exact opposite philosophy they need to flourish on this earth
And think about the concept = "give me the kid until the age of seven".... true? If so,
even when the child later grasps new concepts in philosophy... do they integrate, somehow messy as hell, into their new philosophy ... I know I did. Crippling.
Please don't cripple the next generation with billions, yes, billions, being raised religious, philosophically speaking.....
Which is why children need to be protected from irrational religious mystics. They commit the greatest crime against children possible by destroying their minds!
I think you’d enjoy Matthew Stewart’s “Nature’s God: the Heretical Origins of the American Republic.” The answers to many of the questions you’re discussing here lies in Epicureanism and Lucretius.
But Stewart (and this column) overlook the influence of the American Quakers and other dissenting religions on applying the golden rule in the colonies.
The unique blend of Enlightenment values, atomism, and dissenting Christian faiths is the true mix which enabled equality under the law.
Sharp takedown of Soloveichik's argument. The part about Christian defenses of slavery lasting a century after the Enlightenment really undercuts any claim that biblical tradition naturally leads to equality. I've noticed how often modern religious apologists retro fit Enlightenment values back into ancient texts and call it tradition. The Stoics' articulation of shared rational capacity was genuinly ahead of its time even if incomplete. Dunno why we keep pretending theological frameworks are necessary when they've historically been the main obstruc tion to universal rights.
Soloveichik is openly admitting that, stripped of religious faith, he sees no objective reason why all men are created equal. His "equality" is not derived from man's nature as a rational, volitional being, but from divine fiat—a gift from a supernatural authority that could, in principle, be withdrawn or granted selectively. This is a naked lust for power, cloaked in piety.
Our current mixed economy is the practical result of this premise: a system blending freedom with controls, where government and cronies (bankers, lobbyists, "pull peddlers") dispense privileges, bailouts, subsidies, and regulations. The genuine producer is punished, the connected are rewarded—all justified by the altruistic demand for "sacrifice" to the "common good" or "divine order."
Using faith as the 'reason' for anything is like playing tennis with invisible lines. You can always make up where the lines 'really' are with every shot.
Excellent analysis, superb sourcing. Rightly rejects the false choice of theism vs nihilism. To add: this is about recognizing equal human capacities (reason, free will) and upholding equal treatment under law, not equality of result or the alleged “equal dignity” of every human (whether Washington or Stalin).
And on this Sunday morning, hundreds of millions of kids are getting their religious philosophy =
Epistemology = Faith, Feeling, Believing
Ethics/Morality = Living for God, living for Others
Metaphysics = Magical universes of unseen forces for Good and Evil, Evil is powerful
Religion = giving the exact opposite philosophy they need to flourish on this earth
And think about the concept = "give me the kid until the age of seven".... true? If so,
even when the child later grasps new concepts in philosophy... do they integrate, somehow messy as hell, into their new philosophy ... I know I did. Crippling.
Please don't cripple the next generation with billions, yes, billions, being raised religious, philosophically speaking.....
Happy Sunday, Keep up the good work
Which is why children need to be protected from irrational religious mystics. They commit the greatest crime against children possible by destroying their minds!
Human beings are born tabula rasa — brand new people in the world. What we each have at birth individually and equally is innocence.
Humans may be born enslaved, with developmental problems, “normal” or exceptional.
The actual goal of good governance is “liberty and justice for all” — that we keep what we earn, and we get only what we deserve: JUSTICE.
I think you’d enjoy Matthew Stewart’s “Nature’s God: the Heretical Origins of the American Republic.” The answers to many of the questions you’re discussing here lies in Epicureanism and Lucretius.
But Stewart (and this column) overlook the influence of the American Quakers and other dissenting religions on applying the golden rule in the colonies.
The unique blend of Enlightenment values, atomism, and dissenting Christian faiths is the true mix which enabled equality under the law.
Sharp takedown of Soloveichik's argument. The part about Christian defenses of slavery lasting a century after the Enlightenment really undercuts any claim that biblical tradition naturally leads to equality. I've noticed how often modern religious apologists retro fit Enlightenment values back into ancient texts and call it tradition. The Stoics' articulation of shared rational capacity was genuinly ahead of its time even if incomplete. Dunno why we keep pretending theological frameworks are necessary when they've historically been the main obstruc tion to universal rights.
It's so encouraging to see a defense of equality based on natural rights, rather than on irrelevant scripture.
Equality under the law cannot be achieved by turning to an imaginary deity for guidance.
An adjunct is “ Peace Without God” . Check it out 😊
Soloveichik is openly admitting that, stripped of religious faith, he sees no objective reason why all men are created equal. His "equality" is not derived from man's nature as a rational, volitional being, but from divine fiat—a gift from a supernatural authority that could, in principle, be withdrawn or granted selectively. This is a naked lust for power, cloaked in piety.
Our current mixed economy is the practical result of this premise: a system blending freedom with controls, where government and cronies (bankers, lobbyists, "pull peddlers") dispense privileges, bailouts, subsidies, and regulations. The genuine producer is punished, the connected are rewarded—all justified by the altruistic demand for "sacrifice" to the "common good" or "divine order."
Using faith as the 'reason' for anything is like playing tennis with invisible lines. You can always make up where the lines 'really' are with every shot.