- Cuomo deceitfully attacks America’s founding principles
- Christopher Cuomo denies the moral basis of justice
- Cuomo rejects America’s just consensus
- America’s premise of justice is the Creator’s will
- Family and the exercise of rightful human sovereignty
- All that may become a man
- Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God
- Freedom means having the choice, Liberty means using it to do right
[Part 4 of eight]
At various times in my life I’ve delved into the Essays of Michel de Montaigne, the French aristocrat widely known as one of the early progenitors of secular humanism. In his essays he dwells at some length on the wide disparity of moral codes that have governed societies, at different times and places, in the experience of humanity. He aims to make it hard to avoid the conclusion that there is hardly an evil under the sun that has not been considered to be noble and praiseworthy, or at the very least normal and acceptable, in some society or other, at some point in that experience.
Some would argue that this observation casts doubt on the assumption that there are any “laws of nature and of nature’s God” that reflect a standard for human existence. Be that as it may, (and I hold, with the prevalent view of America’s founding generation, that it is egregiously false) the self-contradicting variety of human societal norms undoubtedly invalidates the assumption that a good standard of justice can be erected upon the shifting sands of human consensus and compromise.
The 20th century is littered with examples of massive evil perpetrated by people who were celebrated, at the time, as heroes of the “volk” or of the “Revolution”, as just avengers, or godly warriors, for perpetrating what we now call “crimes against humanity.” But even when thusly described, it is necessary to ask how humanity becomes a standard for just action when whole societies of men are capable of applauding characters of unimaginably depraved criminality, and/or revering them as living stelae that mark the way to higher planes of human existence?
The people of the United States are in the midst of an era of threatening turmoil that questions our judgment in exactly these terms. In the name of human equality, love and compassion a supposedly enlightened elitist clique is abusing the name of law to force the people at large to accept sexual and other practices deprecated by human reason and/or banished from the public mind, even before the end of ancient times, as degradations of human nature, unbecoming a human person. In all the courts of government where they have sufficient power, this elitist clique is advancing to honor child sacrifice, homosexuality, and self-murder. Pedophilia, sadism and law enforced religious persecution are commencing to petition for equal pride of place. In the course of this campaign, the understanding of law that insists upon its moral purpose and effect is being poisoned at the root.
Christopher Cuomo’s attack against the Declaration of Independence is a bolder manifestation of this campaign than I have seen before. The elitist faction’s strategy against the Declaration has heretofore aimed to inflict death by a thousand cuts, inflicted indirectly. or sapping the ground of principle on which it stands (as in promoting, for example the scientific validity of the anti-Creation mythology of evolution. Using the remnants of evidence as the basis for spinning tales and fabricating graphic images, when no database exists against which to test one’s speculations about them, consisting of the systematically recorded results of direct quantitative observations of the phenomena under study (which the modern scientific method requires), hardly qualifies as empirical science. Even astrology does better than this.
So do the disciplines described, in modern terms, as non-scientific but which require evidence drawn from experience that is validated, in some way or another, by the reports of human witnesses who actually lived to observe and report on what they had seen. Of which of the dinosaurs and other theoretical figments of evolution can this be said? As humanly valid history, the theory of evolution has no weight at all in comparison, for example, with the Bible. Why then are we willing to suffer pundits like Christopher Cuomo to dismiss out of hand the premise of the Creator’s authority, which is vital to the logic of our Constitutional government, of, by and for the people of the United States?
Of course, some Americans are shortsighted enough to believe that the political exile of God enlarges their “freedom”. They at least tacitly applaud the understanding that freedom is the license to do as we please, and prevent others from interfering with, or even disapproving, our actions. Even as individuals we generally outgrow the conviction that such freedom is really consistent with our happiness. However, when it comes to society as a whole gravely salient questions arise: What is the price of such licentious freedom? Will it still be possible to impose any effective limit upon the activities of those who can afford to pay that price?
It is a mistake to read the first question as if it were the basis for some kind of social science research project. It is meant literally. The rich and powerful often say, as if from their own experience, that everyone has a price, a form of remuneration in exchange for which they will do whatever some purchaser demands. The fact that prostitution is as old as the cavernous hills (and not just in the sexual sense) leads common sense to nod reflexively in agreement. But it should also warn us of the degradation of the human person the maxim implies. Once it is simply allowed to be true, those who have sufficient wealth and power will be free to procure marionettes to service all their whims and passions, with no a priori limit except the extent of their resourceful power and will.
That’s because, for what they regard as sufficient remuneration, people will gratefully sell themselves or others into slavery, even unto death. It is a fact proven true so often, in the event of conquest, that it has falsely been regarded as a source of right. If you think this through it soon becomes evident that the rule of “consensus and compromise” actually masks the domination of those who have the wealth to buy consensus, and/or the power to impose submission, by force and intimidation, and proclaim it compromise. Discard the God-acknowledging principles of the Declaration and this is what America will be left with. Which is exactly the powerful forces are at work in politics, the courts and the media, to produce that result. (“Let’s compromise,” the conqueror says. “You’ll agree to do as I say, and I’ll agree not to kill despoil you and yours, so long as I’m pleased with the result.”)
The result (when it finally rises above a chaotic war of all against all) is some species of gangsterism, whether the gangsters are clothed in loin cloths, flowing robes or the latest contemporary fashions. Almost all the glorious empires in human history began when some gang of outcast thieves, rapists, and murderers stumbled upon better equipment, or a cult that enforced group loyalty and discipline more effectively, than that of their nearest neighbors. Such empires evince what Thomas Hobbes observed when he reported what was said about the Roman Empire:
…it was the speech, I say, of the public [people]…that all kings are to be reckoned amongst ravenous beasts. But what a beast of prey was the Roman people [public], whilst with its conquering eagles it erected its proud trophies so far and wide over the world, bringing the Africans, the Asiatics, the Macedonians, and the Achaeans, with many other despoiled nations, into a specious bondage…both sayings are true; that man to man is a kind of God; and that man to man is an arrant wolf. [De Cive, or The Citizen, Epistle Dedicatory]