The Governor Is Wearing No Clothes
The headline at http://wcbstv.com/politics/eliot.spitzer.resigns.2.674646.html reads:
“RESIGNED TO DISGRACE”
“Eliot Spitzer Steps Down Following Biggest Scandal In Modern New York Political History”
I have not been following the Eliot Spitzer story too closely, because I live in Tennessee. However, I feel that people would do well to observe how this whole thing is playing out, because it is reflective of the mind set of people on a national level.
Before I go there, however, I need to say this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is not a Liberal or Conservative issue. It is a moral issue, in which an ordinary man somehow got caught up in the immoral and illegal world of prostitution. Although he was governor, and a rising political star, he is still just an ordinary man. He has lusts, desires, dreams and goals, like we all do. Ironically, the laws this ordinary man helped create and enforce in his state were also the same laws which brought him down. Because of the position he held as governor, he is not being offered a plea deal. Also, this is appropriate because of the moral position he took in passing laws to eradicate these very crimes in his state.
However, I was perplexed about one thing. It seems as if there was a question of whether or not he should resign. Why was there any question at all? This is no different than the situation conservatives have found themselves in, namely Senator Larry Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard. A situation of this magnitude requires moral clarity. However, when there is no standard of morality, and when the concept of absolute truth is tossed out the window, quick action that is normally required for such issues as Spitzer found himself in is not easily arrived at.
And therein lies the topic of this article: moral authority is lost when a moral foundation is absent. As our great nation “progresses” into post-modernism, we find ourselves trying to reconcile post-modern thought with the principles of our Founding Fathers. Be they Deists, Theists, Baptists, or otherwise, the majority of the Founding Fathers still held on to one common thread: the authority of scripture as the basis for personal and national morality. Scattered throughout their writings were words like “divine providence”, “God”, and “Creator”. They recognized the Godly foundation of all life, and swore to hold it high in the public sector. As we have continued toward a multicultural society, the foundation of our society has shifted from an absolute authority (scripture) to a pseudo-foundation based on humanism and relativistic morality. The categorial imperative is no more: it’s all relative.
Which leads me back to the Spitzer issue. We are no longer basing our decisons based upon principles, we base them on conditions. The decision moves from clear decisive language such as “I have done X, therefore I must do Y.” to language more like ”What decision should we make in this situation? Well, that depends on…”
Sure, we must bring as many factors as we can into our decision making, because factors affect them. However, there are times for decisions when principles outweigh factors, and Spitzer’s decision was one of them. What should have been a fast and quick decision instead took handwringing, contemplation, and consideration. Well pardon my unbending, unyielding self, had this ordinary man been a moral man, he would would not have found himself in this situation. Furthermore, had he been a man with any sort of moral foundation (even if he did not do the moral thing) he should have some basis for his decision, and not have taken such a long time to come to it. And before any liberals attack my words, I feel the same way about Senator Craig and Rev. Haggard. Why do I feel that way? Because principles based on scripture are neither Republican or Democratic, they are just right. It so happens that these principles declared that the governor is wearing no clothes. These principles are indeed right, figuratively and literally.
Powered by FireStats
Perhaps I’m wrong, but do I detect a sleight-of-hand?
Yes, our forefathers were “Deists, Theists, Baptists, or otherwise”. But how you in the same sentence acknowledge this and then assert that the absolute they agreed on “the authority of scripture” I do not know. Deists — who acknowledge an impersonal unmoved mover rather than the biblical God — definitely don’t rest authority on scripture.
So, assuming that by scripture, you mean biblical inerrancy or — if not that — then biblical ethics (neither of which provide a consistent model to judge future behavior upon), there really is no basis for this claim.
You are correct that our the founders were not relativists. But, a product of the enlightenment, I would argue that reason was their absolute.
Nicky Cheese — March 12, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Good response, Nicky. While I acknowledge that they all did not agree on everything, they did acknowledge the Source of liberty- God Himself, as revealed in Scripture. As a matter of fact, Benjamin Franklin was a Deist through and through. However, it was the Deist Franklin that urged Thomas Paine not to publish his “Age of Reason”. Thomas’ Age of Reason railed against the idea and principles based in the belief of a providential God. He wrote to Paine, saying, “I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person;” Quite a contradiction, isn’t it?
theconservatarian — March 12, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Nicky,
I’m with TC on this one. There is somewhat of a disconnect between the professed beliefs of some of our Founding Fathers and their motivations for doing some of the things that they did.
One thing they were not, however, were products of the enlightenment with reason as their absolute. They were rational men, without question, but they were not humanists who made man the measure of all things. That particular cosmology gave the world the French Revolution with its horrors and excesses.
The American Revolution sprang from men’s heads AND their hearts. Who can read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and not marvel at the brilliance found in the men who conceived and created it. Yet in the midst of their creation, they took time to acknowledge their Creator as well.
One of my favorite books ever, ‘How Should We Then Live’ by Francis Schaeffer deals with this exact issue. He traces the development of Europe and America from the French and American Revolutions and examines the result. Europe, springing from the Renaissance produced the French Revolution. America, grounded in the Reformation, produced ours.
The history, cosmology, values, tenets and results of those two Revolutions are different because their roots were different. For all their brilliant thinking, the Founding Fathers were men of faith, too. We ought to be glad they were. Our country would be far different had they been different.
Blue
Blue Collar Muse’s last blog post..Ripples in the Sub-Prime Bailout Pond …
Blue Collar Muse — March 12, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
I guess I just have to disagree with you guys. When I hear the word “scripture”, I don’t think of the abstract theistic/deistic perspective. I think — and I think rightly so — of the the personal God from the Bible. And that is a loaded term that includes a whole bunch of theology, metaphysics, ethics and historical claims. Deists by their very definition (and all theists not Christian) don’t accept the God of “scripture” because the God of scripture refers to, in its most broad sense, the Judeo-Christian God.
The word “God” isn’t even in the Constitution — not once — and the Declaration of Independence refers to the abstract understanding of God that “scripture” is not. “Scripture” may include this abstract creator concept but it also includes A LOT more. All religions recognize the “creator” concept. Even some secularists find it inclusive as they recognize basic philosophical concepts as being and nothingness; they simply don’t attribute personality to it (which, neither do deists).
In any case, as my “About me” section concludes, practically speaking, it doesn’t really matter anyway. We all respect each other’s rights.
Nicky Cheese — March 14, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Hey Nicky,
I welcome disagreeing points of view as long as they are posted in the thoughtful way, as your posts have been. We may not agree, but that is to be expected from time to time. Continue posting away!
theconservatarian — March 14, 2008 @ 6:46 pm