"If we find an answer to that
(why we and the universe exists),
it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason
for then we would know the mind of God."
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Monday, June 22, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Friday, June 19, 2015
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion by Jim Walker
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion by Jim Walker
Originated: 11 Apr. 1997
Additions: 26 Dec. 2004
Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting
that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our
Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does
not hold to the historical evidence.
Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many
believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although
they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to
Christianity.
The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and
indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a
secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus,
or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution
contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government
derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the
people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The
omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but
rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government
separate from religion.
Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church
& State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st
Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January
1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it
a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that
"Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the
Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this
interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion
and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches
than Seven-Elevens.
Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the wall
of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion
from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group
attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society.
Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice
their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without
government intervention.
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually
present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America.
The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that
some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the
United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government
(the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of
America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The
Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen
united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold
today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty
thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations,
it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about
rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of
our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author
aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based
on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are
created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our
rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are
instituted among men
."
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only
that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this
freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we
wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the
Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the
personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the
majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and
might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the
Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
The Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a
government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular
government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew
this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into
international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S.
For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in
the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to
a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between
the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,"
most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion
; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the
said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries." [bold text, mine]
Click here to see the actual
article 11 of the Treaty
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of
George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat
served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty
negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the
revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read
Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism
and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original
English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the
treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the
secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his
presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the
treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams
signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of
Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public
through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our
government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of
Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the
Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]
Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no
longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding
Fathers at the beginning of the American government.
Common Law
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . .
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury,
shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according
to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations
and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from
Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of
England, and therefore from its common law heritage.
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about
the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10,
1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by
proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which
terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about
the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the
seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy
having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here
then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in
existence, and Christianity no part of it."
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed,
and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and
became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part
of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the
introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a
part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having
their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to
find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though
contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither
is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about
Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had
occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to
common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had
incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth
that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that
'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi
surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The
essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the
case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and
leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and
according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential
principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all
hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one
another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The
nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of
Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also
prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the
institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.
For another article on this subject visit The Early America Review: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
Note 1: The end of the Constitution records the year of its ratification,
"the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven." Although, indeed, it uses the word "Lord", it does
not refer to Jesus but rather to the dating method. Incredibly, some Christians
attempt to use this as justification for a Christian derived Constitution. The
term simply conveys a written English form of the Latin, Anno Domini
(AD), which means the year of our Lord (no, it does not mean After Death). This
scripted form served as a common way of dating in the 1700s. The Constitution
also uses many pagan words such as January (from the two-headed Roman god,
Janus), and Sunday (from the word Sunne, which refers to the Saxon Sun
god). Can you imagine the ludicrous position of someone trying to argue for the
justification of a pagan god based Constitution? The same goes to any Christian
who attempts to use a dating convention as an argument against the
Constitution's secular nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as
dishonest and deceiving. (For a satire on using calendar words to support pagan
Gods, see The United States: A Country founded
on paganism
.)
Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting
that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our
Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does
not hold to the historical evidence.
Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many
believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although
they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to
Christianity.
The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and
indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a
secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus,
or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution
contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government
derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the
people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The
omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but
rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government
separate from religion.
Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church
& State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the
Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st
Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January
1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it
a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that
"Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the
Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this
interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church &
State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects
their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion
and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches
than Seven-Elevens.
Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the wall
of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion
from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group
attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society.
Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice
their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without
government intervention.
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually
present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America.
The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that
some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the
United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government
(the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of
America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The
Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen
united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold
today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty
thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations,
it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about
rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of
our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author
aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based
on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are
created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our
rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are
instituted among men
."
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only
that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this
freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we
wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the
Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the
personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the
majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and
might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the
Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
The Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a
government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular
government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew
this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into
international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S.
For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in
the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to
a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between
the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,"
most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion
; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the
said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries." [bold text, mine]
Click here to see the actual
article 11 of the Treaty
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of
George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat
served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty
negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the
revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read
Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism
and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original
English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the
treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the
secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his
presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the
treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams
signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of
Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public
through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our
government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of
Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the
Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]
Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no
longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding
Fathers at the beginning of the American government.
Common Law
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . .
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury,
shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according
to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations
and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from
Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of
England, and therefore from its common law heritage.
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about
the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10,
1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by
proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which
terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about
the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the
seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy
having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here
then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in
existence, and Christianity no part of it."
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed,
and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and
became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part
of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the
introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a
part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having
their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to
find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though
contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither
is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about
Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had
occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to
common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had
incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth
that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:
'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi
surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The
essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the
case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and
leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and
according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential
principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one
another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The
nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of
Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also
prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the
institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.
For another article on this subject visit The Early America Review: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
Note 1: The end of the Constitution records the year of its ratification,
"the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven." Although, indeed, it uses the word "Lord", it does
not refer to Jesus but rather to the dating method. Incredibly, some Christians
attempt to use this as justification for a Christian derived Constitution. The
term simply conveys a written English form of the Latin, Anno Domini
(AD), which means the year of our Lord (no, it does not mean After Death). This
scripted form served as a common way of dating in the 1700s. The Constitution
also uses many pagan words such as January (from the two-headed Roman god,
Janus), and Sunday (from the word Sunne, which refers to the Saxon Sun
god). Can you imagine the ludicrous position of someone trying to argue for the
justification of a pagan god based Constitution? The same goes to any Christian
who attempts to use a dating convention as an argument against the
Constitution's secular nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as
dishonest and deceiving. (For a satire on using calendar words to support pagan
Gods, see The United States: A Country founded
on paganism
.)
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Friday, June 12, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Sir Christopher Lee - Rest in Peace
Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee, CBE, CStJ (27 May 1922 – 7 June 2015) was an English actor, singer, and author. With a career spanning nearly 70 years, Lee initially portrayed villains and became best known for his role as Count Dracula in a sequence of Hammer Horror films. His other film roles include Francisco Scaramanga in the James Bond film The Man with the Golden Gun (1974), Saruman in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (2001–2003) and The Hobbit film trilogy (2012–2014), and Count Dooku in the final two films of the Star Wars prequel trilogy (2002 and 2005) and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008).
Lee was knighted for services to drama and charity in 2009, received the BAFTA Fellowship in 2011 and received the BFI Fellowship in 2013. Lee considered his best performance to be that of Pakistan's founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the biopic Jinnah (1998), and his best film to be the British horror film The Wicker Man (1973).
Always noted as an actor for his deep strong voice, Lee was also known for his singing ability, recording various opera and musical pieces between 1986 and 1998 and the symphonic metal album Charlemagne: By the Sword and the Cross in 2010 after having worked with several metal bands since 2005. The heavy metal follow-up titled Charlemagne: The Omens of Death was released on 27 May 2013. He was honoured with the "Spirit of Metal" award in the 2010 Metal Hammer Golden God awards ceremony. (read more) (christopher lee filmography)
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Monday, June 8, 2015
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Friday, June 5, 2015
Distributism - Third Way Politics
Distributism
A third-way that works.
Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton
Distributism is an economic and political philosophy that is an alternative to both capitalism and socialism.
Opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, which distributists argue leads to a concentration of ownership in the hands of a few, and to state-socialism, in which private ownership is denied altogether, distributism was conceived as a genuine Third Way, opposing both the tyranny of the marketplace and the tyranny of the state, by means of a society of owners.
Distributism is an economic system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by as many private owners as possible for the purpose of self-reliance for its citizens.
Distributism is concerned with improving the material lot of the poorest and most disadvantaged. However, unlike socialism, which advocates state ownership of property and the means of production, distributism seeks to devolve or widely distribute that control to individuals within society, rejecting what it saw as the twin evils of plutocracy and bureaucracy.
The ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralised under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). As Chesterton said, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by a commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses).
Naturally, it follows that Distributism favours the principles of industrial democracy and the cooperative model of business.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
The Words of Leopold Kohr
“Wherever something is wrong, something is too big. If the stars in the sky or the atoms of uranium disintegrate in spontaneous explosion, it is not because their substance has lost its balance. It is because matter has attempted to expand beyond the impassable barriers set to every accumulation. Their mass has become too big. If the human body becomes diseased, it is, as in cancer, because a cell, or a group of cells, has begun to outgrow its allotted narrow limits. And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations, have been welded into overconcentrated social units such as mobs, unions, cartels, or great powers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)