The Acoustic Candidate

Mark Shea

by Mark Shea on January 2, 2008 · 0 comments

Chesterton remarks in the Everlasting Man:

One of my first journalistic adventures, or misadventures, concerned a comment on Grant Allen, who had written a book about the Evolution of the Idea of God. I happened to remark that it would be much more interesting if God wrote a book about the evolution of the idea of Grant Allen. And I remember that the editor objected to my remark on the ground that it was blasphemous; which naturally amused me not a little. For the joke of it was, of course, that it never occurred to him to notice the title of the book itself, which really was blasphemous; for it was, when translated into English, 'I will show you how this nonsensical notion that there is a God grew up among men.' My remark was strictly pious and proper; confessing the divine purpose even in its most seemingly dark or meaningless manifestations. In that hour I learned many things, including the fact that there is something purely acoustic in much of that agnostic sort of reverence. The editor had not seen the point, because in the title of the book the long word came at the beginning and the short word at the end; whereas in my comment the short word came at the beginning and gave him a sort of shock. I have noticed that if you put a word like God into the same sentence with a word like dog, these abrupt and angular words affect people like pistol-shots. Whether you say that God made the dog or the dog made God does not seem to matter; that is only one of the sterile disputations of the too subtle theologians.

I am reminded of this when I read the following from one of our GOP candidates, a Christian no less:

Well, let’s remember that all law establishes morality. That’s what law does. The law of speeding is saying that it’s immoral to go at 85 miles an hour. The morality is that we have established a 65-mile-an-hour limit. So that’s what all law does: It establishes that it is wrong for me to murder you. ~Mike Huckabee

I think this wins the prize for Stupidest Thing Said by a Candidate This Month, perhaps This Year.

Here's the thing: law does not establish morality. Morality is the basis of law. And morality is derived from that fact that men and women are creatures made in the image and likeness of God. It is not derived from what Caesar happens to approve or disapprove.

To say "law establishes morality" is to say "If Caesar says it's good or evil, then it is." This particular moral theory was tried out with some vigor in places like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, and Mao's China. It didn't pan out. More recently, Law established abortion as a Good Thing and Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus as a Bad Thing. Does Mr. Huckabee agree? By all reports, no.

 Huckabee means well, of course. Stumblebum politicians usually do. He’s responding to the stupid complaint trotted out by postmodern dunces like an old nag ready for the glue factory: the idiotic sentiment that “You can’t legislate morality”. He's trying to say that law is (or is supposed to be) rooted in the Good, including the Common Good: that law, properly understood, is nothing but legislated morality and that the only question facing a society is not whether we shall legislate morality but which morality we shall legislate, on what basis, and with what limits.

But that's not what he said. He was trying to parrot "values talk" but his carelessness (not to say recklessness) led him to say the exact opposite of what a Christian would actually say.

Now, I'm one of those picky people who thinks this matters. Some people are genuinely puzzled by this. “He meant well,” they say, “Isn’t that enough? And besides, he’s a Christian!” This reminds me of nothing so much as Mark Twain’s remark, “The music of Wagner is better than it sounds.”

The reason this matters so much is that words are a politician’s stock in trade, just as sound is a musician’s. Sonny Bono may have had the soul and good intentions of Beethoven, but what came out was still the music of Sonny Bono. As a picky person, I believe two things about the bumbling use of the one thing a politician is supposed to be good at using:

First, it’s vital for somebody who claims to articulate “Traditional (i.e. Judeo-Christian) Values” to actually be able to coherently do so, precisely because there are so many postmodern dunces running around who believe that morality is simply and solely whatever the strongest declare it to be. Huckabee’s remarks are a complete and total confirmation of this postmodern lie rather than, as they should have been, a refutation of it.

Second, I believe it's rather important for a statesman and a crafter of laws to actually know what the hell he is talking about since the laws he makes will be composed, not of good intentions, but of words—words that mean things. It matters whether the law is the ground of morality or morality is the ground of the law, just as it matters whether God made the dog or the dog made God. I don't expect Lady Macbeth or Giuliani to be honest enough to care about the relationship of law and morality and I don't expect most of the rest of the field on either side to much know or care either. The Dems have made clear since Roe that they have no interest in the matter beyond expedience and the GOP embrace of torture and the widespread and ongoing Giulianification of the party indicate things are going south in that sector as well.

But a Christian who consciously flaunts his Christian faith as Huckabee does should really have some clue what he's talking about. Otherwise, he winds up saying demented things like "law establishes morality". And such demented ideas can have grave consequences.

  • Guest

    Oh, I don't really want anything to keep others from voting — just being rhetorical.  But I sure would love to see more Catholics talkin' sense — like you, Solagratia.

  • Guest

    You are overly generous, but thank you even so, mkochan! 

    (BTW, I am glad to hear that you are feeling better, too.  Our whole family got hit with a bug just before Christmas that left us with no energy – to say that our celebration was subdued would be an understatement.  My sympathies!) 

  • Guest

    Okay, I have no desire to sound triumphalistic or anything, but this sure seems like one of those God-incidences:

    (From Huckabee's Iowa speech last night)

    "G.K. Chesterton once said that a true soldier fights not because he hates those who are in front of him, but because he loves those who are behind him."

    So you may not vote for him, but how can you not like a man who likes Chesterton? Cool

     

  • Guest

    I think the news this morning was very heartening.  I just want for there to be a clear choice regarding abortion in the national election.

  • Guest

    I don't know about dictionary.com, but I use Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. They make no mention of Jesus in deriving sheesh. The word, interestingly enough, has its origin around 1972 and has no etymology listed. According to Webster, gosh and golly are euphemism's for God originiating around 1757 and 1775 respectively. Both are considered to be used as expressing a mild oath or surprise while sheesh is used to express dissappointment, annoyance and/or surprise.

    Gee, when used as an interjection, is a euphemism for Jesus dating back to 1884. Again, often times used to express enthusiasm or surprise-gee-whiz and gee-willakers.

    What I have gleaned from this discussion is that to most people words matter. Whether they apply to laws or conversation. In Germany, to say grusse Gott in the north, to some, may be offensive. The same could be said about guten tag in the south. Always, one needs to consider the source and the reliability of the same. The importance of words and their placement within a law or rule can have devastating effects. For example, using may vis-a-vis shall leaves much to the discretion of the the person exercising the authority given by a rule or law.

    I would like to second the accolades given to CE, its editors and writers, as well as commending the participants, for making this and most threads informative and entertaining. 

    There, I have provided a couple of little Abe Lincolns.

    In Christ,

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Very interesting.

    I learned somewhere long ago, that the terms "for heaven's sake" and "for Pete's sake" as well as "dog gone" and "dad burn" were all euphemisms to avoid using the name of the Lord in vain.

    The root problem is that while technically not using the Lord's name in vain, they are euphemistically using the Lord's name in vain. Kind of like the Levite in the Good Samaritan story who obeys the law by avoiding touching a possible dead body. It's flawed somehow. The mental process is the same as using the Lord's name in vain, it's just easier on the ear in mixed company, as they say.

    But is that good enough? Is that the point God was making in prohibiting our using His name in vain?

    Jesus, who rightly placed adultery not under the bedclothes but in the heart calls us to a higher place. 

  • Guest

    PTR,

    Actually, to the Hebrews, the name of God was not to be even spoken aloud lest it was said in prayer. Nor is it to be written it is so sacred. Hence G-d or L-rd. To understand the way the modern world uses the name of God in expressions of anger or amazement would be baffling to an ancient Israelite in terms of using His name in vain. They understood it more as to not invoke the name of the Lord when making an oath, it was understood that by doing so, if your conviction was not up to the task, this would displease the Master.

    While I do not condone the Oh MY G-d's and Jesus H. Christ utterances, it is not in vain that men call out but in stupidity and ignorance.

    By the way, what does the H stand for?

    In Christ,

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Hmm. I am imagining an ancient Hebrew hanging out in the mall or watching television or something and I don't know if the way our culture uses the Lord's name would be baffling or so sacreligious that the ancient Hebrew would simply try to get away from it.

    Stupidity and ignorance can mitigate one's level of responsibility, but they do not make a wrong thing right. By uttering an oath, even a vain one, we are calling God into the situation.

    I agree that the whole idea of "uttering an oath" is not understood. After recently viewing "A Man for All Seasons" I think we ought to take effort to realize what we are saying when we say something as ubiquitous, "I swear this is the worst ink pen I have ever seen!" and so forth.  I could be wrong, but I think the high priest could utter the Lord's name once a year in the Temple in Jerusalem on the day of Atonement.

  • Guest

    PTR,

    It would be baffling because an ancient Hebrew wouldn't be 'hangin' at the mall', 'chillin' in front of the tube', or 'jellin' watchin the Saints rip into the Seahawks'. It would be baffling because it would not happen as it does today, in much the same way that the previous comments would be baffling to the ancient Israelite as well.

    You have hit the nail on the proverbial head with, '…we are calling God into the situation'. Herein lies the crux of the commandment as it was understood by the Israelites. Not that you should not say OH  MY  G-D because this would have never been uttered by the Israelites. Again, I am not saying that this is acceptable, just that it is not what was understood by the Israelites.

    In Christ, 

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Merry Christmas!!

    I have been enjoying this discussion, as I am in need of researching the candidates and have learned about one of them here.

    The Huckabee interview appeared in Salon on Nov. 9, 2007 (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/09/huckabee_interview/index.html) and is available on-line in 3 pages. The second page contains the quote being examined. Here are two question and answer pairs from the interview, showing Huckabee's full answer in its original context:

    Would the morning-after pill and the abortion pill both count in your mind as abortions?

    [Huckabee:] Anything that ends the life after it has been fertilized to me is problematic, because it is a life at that point. At that particular stage, some people say, "When does it become a life?" The very people who hammer me all the time about saying I am unscientific, I would say, well, the science is that it is a life. There is only one kind of life. It's a human life. It may not be as developed as it would be two or three or four months from then. But that's what it is.

    So are we going to arrive at this perfect solution tomorrow? No. But it took us a long time to come to the conviction that slavery was fundamentally wrong, and it was not a political issue, but a moral issue.

    And that's why when Senator Thompson made his comments the other day, and I know he was very unhappy that I questioned him. But here's the issue: One has to decide, is this a political or a moral issue? If it is a political issue, then you can argue that each state could have its own political solution to it. If you believe it's a moral issue, then you really have to believe that morality does not change at the state line. That idea that morality is different in Massachusetts than it is in Texas is the rationale of the Civil War.

    Do we want the federal government imposing morality? You are comfortable with the federal government playing that role?

    [Huckabee:] Well, let's remember that all law establishes morality. That's what law does. The law of speeding is saying that it's immoral to go at 85 miles an hour. The morality is that we have established a 65-mile-an-hour limit. So that's what all law does: It establishes that it is wrong for me to murder you. We've determined that that's not a good idea. I'm sure you are happy to hear that. So if I go over that law and murder you anyway, then society is going to punish me because I have violated a moral code, which we have all agreed to. So that's what law does. When people say you can't legislate morality, I am thinking, actually that is exactly what you do every time you pass a law. Now you don't legislate behavior. That's true. You can't legislate people's behavior. But all legislation legislates morality by its very nature. It defines the right and the wrong of the people.

    [end quote]

    1. Reading the full interview transcript clearly shows this is a verbal exchange, with sentences being composed and redirected midstream.

    2. Nonetheless, Mike Huckabee makes it quite clear that pills that kill pre-born human beings are as bad as surgical abortions because both destroy innocent, human life.

    3. The next interview question is about, "the federal government imposing morality." Huckabee explains and demonstrates that government legislation naturally imposes morality. It teaches and informs what behavior is desired, required, or not tolerated.

    4. Mark Shea alludes to the important concept that to be good (and even to be valid), human law must resonate (and not conflict) with the perfect divine law. However, the question was effectively whether the government should be in the business of morality, not how to do so properly or well. Huckabee actually answered the question! (Are politicians allowed to do that?) His answer is a valued contribution towards correcting the misconception that law must be morally-neutral. It cannot be, because, by definition, "all law establishes morality," a system of conduct relating to right and wrong behavior.

    • http://www.m-w.com/dictionary
      morality – 1a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson; 2a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct;
      moral — 1a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior; 1b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

    5. By the way, I agree that if Huckabee opposes abortion but supports capital punishment, he is not 100% pro-life. Using 1977 – 2006 U.S. figures for executions (1057) and reported, induced abortions (34.8 million), I calculate he is only 99.997% pro-life. Close enough for government work! Wink

    Happy New Year!

    – Tim

     Smile You really don't know how much God loves youSmile

    Executions:

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cp/2006/tables/cp06st15.htm

    Abortions:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm

  • Guest

    This may offend but here goes:

    To complain that a word that has come into common parlance as an interjection rather than a vulgarity is etymologically derived from a euphemism originally used to avoid strict blasphemy seems to be taking thing a bit too far. “Zounds,” “bloody,” “bugger” and numerous other words have become grammatically different from their original use, and I think that “sheesh,” “golly,” “gee,” et al. are no different. While some words used as interjection are patently offensive because they have not lost all vestige of “bad language” or are blasphemous, I don’t see any of the above fitting that category. If, however, one were to use these words with the intent of a vulgarity or blasphemy but to avoid “the letter of the law” then PTR’s comment above should apply. But the word “sheesh” itself, divorced from knowledge of its original etymology or even with knowledge but distinct from the intended use of it as euphemism, in my opinion, has no “magical” power to invoke the Name of God in oath, vanity, or otherwise.

    That said, noting the delicate sensibilities of some, I will attempt to avoid any word which may be derived from the “potty mouth” of previous generations (and centuries).

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  • Guest

    My intention was not to complain, but to explain.

  • Guest

    Well said, Pristinus Sapienter.  But I don't think it is playing in Elmhurst.