July 23, 2009 at 8:13 pm (American Thought, History, Politics)
We know that he is a Harvard historian (not bad in my book), but I pulled a few youtube clips to give a glimpse of the man. Many are trying to demonize him. Don’t fall for it.
I also found a very interesting clip of Gates discussing his documentary on Lincoln (which is wonderful). However, it will not allow me to embed it. So follow this link.
April 24, 2009 at 2:41 am (American Thought, History, Political Philosophy)
It is often noted that the late American political philosopher John Rawls had a great admiration for President Abraham Lincoln. While people often express admiration for Lincoln, there are many theoretical similarities between the thought and actions of Lincoln and the grand political philosophy of Rawls. For the purposes of this essay I would like to look at one particular aspect of Rawls’ work in which he can see parallels between his own theory and the thought of Lincoln. The aspect of Rawls’ work of which I speak is the idea of public reason. Below I will summarize the idea of public reason and then look at how public reason plays a role in Lincoln’s thought with particular focus on his second inaugural address.
The idea of public reason is rooted in Rawls’ later work about political liberalism, which for Rawls focuses on the hope that no matter what our religious or philosophical disposition we can all agree on a conception of justice that can form the basis of democratic legitimacy. Public reason within political liberalism places parameters upon the reasons that public officials can use in forming law and policy. Primarily, public official must appeals to publicly and commonly held ideas and concepts. Examples of such concepts would be the principles of liberty and equality found in the Declaration of Independence or the tenant of the Preamble of the Constitution (i.e. general welfare or common defense). Appeals to such concepts would be reasonable to all even if there is disagreement about the details or content of certain principles.
On the other hand, public reason limits or rejects arguments rooted solely in religious or philosophical doctrines that cannot be deemed reasonable in a public arena. One cannot support a policy position solely on the assertion that “the Bible says so.” Not only are such arguments tenuous because few policies can clearly be shown to be found in the Bible one way or the other, but such claims are meaningless and unconvincing to those the view the Bible differently or who find no meaning in it at all. According to Rawls, a policy lacks legitimacy if it is rooted in religious doctrine that not all could reasonably accept.
February 1, 2009 at 9:21 pm (American Thought, History, Political Philosophy, Politics)
In 1846 Abraham Lincoln wrote the following about his religious outlook:
To the Voters of the Seventh Congressional District.
FELLOW CITIZENS:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the “Doctrine of Necessity” — that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.
A. Lincoln
July 31, 1846
We see that Lincoln was at times accussed of either not being religious or even being hostile to religion. While he admits to not belonging to a church, he also does not express any particular belief. Instead, he denies having ever spoken poorly of scripture or religion in general. Essentially, he denies ever having denied it.
In the second paragraph, Lincoln expresses tolerance for religion. I think that Lincoln, who will later use Christian references and symbols in his speeches, largely values religion as a mechanism for expressing humanistic philosophical concepts.
Was Lincoln, like Jefferson before him, not a “scoffer” of religion because he was religious or because it would not have been very wise politically? I will come back to that question.
