Volume 7, Issue 15
In one great arena is the philosophical debate of capitalism versus socialism. In the other arena is religion versus secularism.
What we confuse in the debate about government policy is that somehow all ideologies can be incorporated into one compromise and purpose of government structure. They cannot. Capitalism and socialism are based on principles that cannot be implemented in part. Both demand total commitment. Religion and secularism cannot be reconciled in reality. Why? Because religion is based upon eternal principles and laws of morality that do not change. Secularism is based upon the current wisdom of mankind in the times in which humanity lives. In secularism, morality changes with the needs of society as analyzed by an intelligentsia that believes each generation is more advanced in intellect than the last. Morals, therefore, are relevant. They are changing.
Every societal issue generating the great divide in society today, is, in its foundation, based upon the irreconcilable differences in the theories of these two great arenas of philosophical ideology.
The first attempt to change the policy of government by other means was led by William Wilberforce. He found slavery detestable. Through the support of evangelical Christian movements, leaders of Great Britain were persuaded to end the practice of slavery. Christian morality was applied to government purpose to achieve righteous results.
Karl Marx, later in the same century, found what he termed the inequality of the working class, detestable. He believed that class struggle would always be exacerbated by capitalism. He advocated proletariat revolt to overthrow the bourgeoisie to produce a classless society with collective ownership. Marx sought revolution to achieve righteous results.
William Wilberforce used morality to change government. Karl Marx used government to change morality.
In today’s debate about the role of government, the different approaches of Wilberforce and Marx are still the center of the controversy plaguing any pursuit of common ground. In 1776, the United States achieved what most academics at the time thought was impossible. A government established for the purpose to facilitate citizens’ individual freedom. This principle was revolutionary, rather than the form of all governments prior to that time, that the citizen existed to serve the greater purpose of the state. God entered into the equation by the Declaration of Independence that all rights were unalienable as granted by the Creator. Conflict in these theories persists in that, for all rights to be unalienable, they must be eternal and unchanging. Marxist socialism dictates changing morality as the state priorities necessitate.
These two operating elements of changing versus unchanging and absolutes versus no absolutes, cannot be reconciled even in theory. Again, the acrimonious discord on every issue, raising tempers to unacceptable levels in public dialogue, finds its differences stemming from dependence upon one of these two great areas of principle definition.
It represented the collective efforts of the generations to produce an edifice so beautiful that peace could be found in the spiritual unselfishness of its cognitive magnificence. The Notre Dame Cathedral had no political purpose other than to glorify God in His relationship with man. And, in so achieving this, society was unified. We all gasp at the loss of a physical symbol of the possible in the good of mankind.
As visions blur and emotions produce Movement Conflicts in Times of Turbulence, the seed of righteousness is determinative in the course of morality. Seeds will sprout in different soils. Different soils will produce different fruits. But for the plant to remain healthy and for the fruit to reach its full potential, one must understand one’s own purpose for the fruit of the seed, and the choice of the soil for nourishment.
Ultimately, the decision of purpose in society must be reconciled with the purpose of freedom.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?