HISTORY RECALLS ITS TRAGEDIES: Our Job is to Forgive

Editor's Note: My homeschooled godson Ben, age 16, is studying history, and from that experience he took a great dislike to the British as they behaved in history especially toward the Irish. Ben is mostly Irish. I answered his questions regarding the pope and who killed Jesus Christ in this blog post Questions from a Godson: Who Crucified JesusAnyway? Is the Pope Really as Pure as He said? But I really couldn’t address the British-Irish question for him, so I called in my faithful British friend Christopher Woodford, Twitter Handle @Crimbo51, who describes himself as a “former atheist who has abandoned the arrogance of certainty.” He is so recently “former" atheist that we were just arguing about the existence of God two weeks ago! He lives in Southampton, England.

Ben's Original Question

Ben and I found a real Roman soldier to
answer his questions. Young Christopher
Woodford growing up in the British Isles.

The Romans originated from Italy, they took Britain from the Briton Celtic people around 60-78 AD. While the Romans took over and the Britons ended up accepting their new overlords, the other Celtic tribes kept struggling, refusing to give up so easily. The Romans/Brits were the ones to kill Jesus. In the end the Briton and Roman people mingled, so the modern day British people are mutts of the two, perhaps thrown in with a splash of other ethnic groups (Been a long time, after all.)

The Roman/Brit people continued to then fight the Insular Celts, enslaving them and selling them in the era of slaves for the U.S. to build their railroad.

The “Brit’s” Response

 Christopher Woodford: Hello Ben, In early 1946, my father and mother went to our rail station to meet her youngest brother at the train station. He was coming home from the Far East where he had spent 1942-45 in a Japanese prisoner of war camp in Singapore.  He saw them first and came up to speak. They did not recognize him. He was not much more than an emaciated skeleton, and this was his condition after spending months in rehabilitation.

Changi Prisoner of War, British or Australian

In the Changi Prisoner of War (POW) camp, he was beaten and subjected to the terror of possible instant or slow death on the whim of the Japanese guards. The prisoners were worked in 100-degree temperatures, eating only a handful of rice daily and some dirty water, supplementing their diets at night with snakes, insects and rodents unfortunate enough to pass through the camp.

I was born in 1951. From as early as I can remember I was taught to hate the Japanese, Japan and all things, which came out of it. I would never buy products from Japan, though they made good quality electronics, music systems, cars and motorcycles at reasonable prices. Hating them cost me money. This hatred lasted for decades into my adult life.

 

Japanese guard at Changi
POW camp

In 1993, I travelled to Dresden, Germany, which used to be part of Communist East Germany up to a few years before. As we approached the city, cranes dominated the skyline – more than I had ever seen in one place before.

The whole city was still under reconstruction nearly 50 years after it had been completely destroyed.  Walking around the city center, we saw it as a colossal jigsaw puzzle. We stood outside a fenced off area where a cathedral towered over us. Around its base were chunks of masonry, some no bigger than a football, all with numbers on them.

Only three months before the end of World War II, the British Royal Air Force (RAF) sent 800 Lancaster bombers at night over Dresden. This was followed the next day by two waves of US Air Force B-17s, each numbering 311 and 450 planes respectively.  Dresden was almost untouched until this date, its industry being the manufacture of fine china. On the night and day of the raids it was full of refugees fleeing the Soviet army. The purpose of the raid? “The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do,” according to an internal RAF memo. 

AFTERMATH DRESDEN BOMBING: An estimated 25,000 people
killed Feb. 13-15, 1945, by American and British bombers.
The German city was full of refugees on that date.

We went into a restaurant in the city after our walkabout. A young man about 10 years younger than I ran it. His hate toward us British was obvious from the start. 

This got me to thinking.  I was born six years after the bombing of Dresden.  I didn't bomb his city.  He was born 16 years after the bombing. He wasn't there when it was bombed. Maybe, in some odd way, the event led to his parents coming together and his life beginning. Who knows?

After that, I changed my attitude toward Japan. Why should I hate them? Most of the people involved in the conflict were dead or in their senile years. And who, if anyone, should apologize? After all, they were the victims of two atomic bombs.

On Ireland:  Yes. The British have wronged the Irish. But who is a nation? Who is a Briton, or an Italian? Go back 2000 years to Rome. They weren't Italians. Go back to 1776. The Americans you would meet would be nothing like the people you see today.

 

Christopher Woodford with daughter Emma at Versailles Palace
He's a look alike for American singer and politician Sonny Bono,
who came to fame in the 1960s

I grew up in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The adults were oppressive and controlling. We broke out of that. We had a kind of revolution in music, fashion and behavior. Not all changes were for the better. But I guarantee I am a different man from my father and grandfather.

Ireland's oppression started 900 years ago. The Norman king, Henry II, was first to invade. But note the word “Norman.” These kings were foreign invaders in England. Their arrival in England in 1066 sparked an oppression of the Saxon English, which only eased slowly over two centuries. The English were suffering the same fate as the Irish.  It was only in the mid-1300s that the English aristocracy began speaking “English.” And the “English” they spoke is unrecognizable today.

All through the following centuries Ireland was a strategic problem for the rest of the British Isles (right up to the 1940s). The French were always angling to land forces there for a foothold to invade England and Wales. This problem

King Henry VIII messed
everything up.
"If" only he didn't want a divorce!

increased after Henry VIII abandoned the Catholic Church causing Spain, then the most powerful world power, to become our enemy.

Eire and “the six counties” which comprise Northern Ireland are to this day in the dying throes of an old enmity between Catholicism and Protestantism. Almost no one anywhere else in the world thinks too much about this difference any more, outside of Northern Ireland.

The British mishandling of the potato disease in the mid-1800s in Ireland, which resulted in Irish starvation and the consequent diaspora were typical of a thoughtless government run by the rich and aristocrats. If, at the same time, you could see the conditions the poor were living under in England, Scotland and Wales, it would be plain that their lives were given no value either. The average Englishman wouldn't have known the famine was happening. He might possibly be able to read, but would have no money to spend on the few news leaflets available, even if they mentioned the famine. And he couldn't turn on the radio, TV, or the Internet.

The Easter Rising of 1916 was dealt with in a heavy-handed manner typical of the time by a British military then in the middle of World War I. The mentality of the aristocrat generals of the time was such that British soldiers in France were executed for cowardice for suffering what is now recognized as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. And British soldiers suffered through the stupid tactics of mass infantry attacks, which poured away men's lives in the 1000s every day. That means the British generals would not see any alternative except violent repression to an Irish protest.

The Easter Rising was a missed opportunity. Properly handled it could have turned out well. But hindsight is useless and the judging of yesterday's actions by today's standards happens in all walks of life.

Forward to The (British-Irish) Troubles, a thirty year period of bombings and violence from 1968, starting with repressed civil rights marches for Catholic equality, aggravated by the intervention of the British Army, the formation of paramilitary groups, and ended by international pressure to form a consensus government.

A priest gives the last rites to a demonstrator shot on
Bloody Sunday. Thirteen people were killed when
British paratroopers opened fire on an Irish civil rights
march in Derry on Jan. 30, 1972. 

There was still that imperial mentality in government. Lessons were hard learned. A pivotal moment in thinking occurred with the aftermath of Bloody Sunday in 1972, when the Parachute Regiment shot dead 26 protesters. I remember it well. The shock of this day went through society and rebounded into politicians' thinking. “You can't just shoot civilians in the street!”

But at about roughly this same time, the Ku Klux Klan and other racially motivated groups were shooting civil rights protesters in the USA. Also at this time, protesters and strikers in England were being beaten by police, and by soldiers masquerading as police.

The separation of Eire and the six counties is an insoluble problem in the near future. It is a problem 900 years in the making, and it can’t be reversed overnight. But British and Irish governments have made great progress since the ‘90s. Prime Ministers  Bertie Ahern (Fianna Fáil of Eire), John Major (Conservative of Britain), and then Tony Blair (Labour of Britain) pushed through stubborn local opposition and forced the creation of a local government in Northern Ireland representing fairly both sides.

Sinn Féin  Catholic party members Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness sat together with Protestant party members Ian Paisley (Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party) and David Trimble (Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party). It would have been unthinkable 20 years earlier. Their arms were twisted -- not only by Westminster and Dublin, but also by U.S. Senator George Mitchell sent to represent the U.S. by President Bill Clinton.

Since then, a whole generation has grown up in peace. I don't think anyone of your age would want to return to the troubles of the recent past. Neither would any Briton.

I would like to know where your idea comes from that we wish to re-enslave Ireland, especially in the light of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. With an 84 percent voter turnout, the Scots chose to remain part of the United Kingdom 55-44.  They could have walked out of the United Kingdom last October, and they've suffered over the centuries too (Culloden/Highland Clearances).

The Protestant Orange Order, with its marches and Apprentice Boy Parades, seems to be fading out. It’s old men's stuff. It was and still is, the Protestant majority in the North, who insist on remaining in the United Kingdom.  And complete reunion with Eire is made more difficult still with Eire's whole-hearted plunge into the European Union and its use of the  Euro currency. That is something, which is a “NO, NO” to England, Wales and Northern Ireland in particular.

Pushing the Celts west: Consider the treatment Native Americans have received in the United States.

The Britons did resist the Romans. In 54 and 55 BC Julius Caesar was involved in two failed invasions of Britain (as usual, our lovely weather helped.) Claudius Caesar succeeded in 43 AD, but check out the actions of Boudicca, who conquered Roman-controlled Colchester, Verulamium (now St Albans) and London in 60-61 AD.

But remember, Rome was the USA of its day. Who could stand against its well-organized, state of the art, fighting equipment, legions and supply lines? And why resist, when acceptance of their superior system led to improved living standards. Being a Roman citizen had advantages, some of which the Apostle Paul exploited to his advantage when on trial in his homeland.

If Rome had survived, I have no doubt the moon landing would have happened 1000 years ago, and today we would be among the stars.

Christopher Woodford and
one of his favorite activities
drinking beer in the local pub 

Am I a heathen? Ask Susan Fox. She knows my religious background and the reason for my current thoughts. (editor’s note: Chris has an open, beautiful inquiring mind, but a heart bruised by being raised in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Therefore with respect to God, he has trust issues. But apparently, God values a person’s willingness to love, and in this department, Chris excels.)

Britain has many beautiful churches and cathedrals. Henry VIII's Church of England has slipped out of the minds of the average Briton. But the Catholic churches seem to be doing well.

This loss of religious enthusiasm has something to do with the age of the nation. Countries are like people; they age and change over time and we have been around longer than most. There's a certain tiredness in the minds of the indigenous people for religion. We've seen a lot of trouble, some of which we exported to America in the Mayflower flotilla. There is a lot of support for religion amongst immigrant communities, and not just Islam.

  

Do I hate Islam? That's a hard one. As it's an ideology and not a living person or persons, I suppose I do, in the same way, as I hate communism. Both stifle individuality.

Do I hate Muslims? No. They are people. I have worked with them over the years. Some have been good friends and colleagues. Our favorite local restaurant is Bangladeshi. The lads in there are great guys. Maybe I pity those Muslims who let the religion tear up their lives and rob them of their freedom.

One day a while back, Mike (my son) and I were in a city center Asian food shop. It is almost next door to the mosque and Friday prayers were just finished. The shop was busy and we arrived at the checkout at the same time as a Muslim man. I gestured to him to go first, but he put his clenched fist to his heart and looked into my eyes. He wanted us to go first. His eyes were wet with tears of joy and love for his fellow man. Islam must be doing him some good.

Am I, and other Britons, “cocky”? Some must be, as happens in all ethnic groups comprised of a multitude of individuals. Like all other nations, we have the full spectrum of good guys and bad guys. But if you don't take some pride in your country, then it's doomed. I bet you are proud to be a U.S. citizen, and proud of your Irish roots.

I'm proud of my country's achievements. We are still the 5^th power in the world. And I'm proud to be a friend of America, as are Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, all nations with the same values. Britain is a virtually guaranteed extra vote for the USA on the United Nations Security Council. We were involved in the birth of America, and we actually need a strong America. It worries me to see the US spending vast sums in military engagements around the globe whilst at the same time undermining its own industrial and commercial base. History repeats itself. Look at Britain's position 100 years ago.

A few words more, before you suspect this Brit of trying to bore an Irishman to death. Perhaps you would like to try this experiment at night because that’s our daytime.

When you are alone in your room, shut your eyes tight, clench your teeth, and with all the power you can muster, send hate to all the British and Italians.

Somewhere in Italy, there will be a man on the Fiat truck assembly line, and somewhere in Liverpool, there will be a woman working on a supermarket checkout stand, and they will feel nothing. They, and everyone else in the two countries, won't even know you exist.

Hate is acid in your soul. It exists only in your mind. You are the only person it can erode and burn away. Love is cool neutralizing spring water. Forgiveness brings a joy to your heart, which is worth more than anything else you could achieve. Why do you think forgiveness is at the core of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

 

Mural painted in Changi POW camp by a prisoner.
It says, "Father, forgive them for they know not
what they do."

A thought came to me whilst pondering all this. My Uncle Charlie spent three years in that Japanese prison camp. I spent nearly forty in it (hating the Japanese). The man in the Dresden restaurant turned a key in the door of my cell and released me.

I hope he's not still in his prison.

Best wishes for your life,

Chris.

BEN’S RESPONSE: LET IRELAND GO! AND THEN I WILL BELIEVE YOU.

He (Chris) sounds like a nice man, however I stand by my point. I did not hear explicitly “the British want to re-enslave the Irish.” I'm basing such a suspicion on the fact they still haven't just let go of Ireland. If they truly had no wish to impose, seize control of the island, why persist? If they wanted to make amends, let bygones be bygones, they could just start by backing out. Regardless of what the polls in “Northern Ireland” say, back off.

But with Chris' information, it really was the British officials at fault, not the common British man, and it’s probably still like that today. It'd still be an amazing gesture for them to let it go, and then I truly would have to reconsider my stance.

So Chris, Why Not Let the Irish Nation, North and South, Together Decide Their Fate For Themselves?

Chris and Ben decide the fate of IRELAND in the next post British People are Like All People: We Want Peace

Who is Father John Paul Shea? From Mormon to Catholic Priest

"The Blessed Virgin Mary Called Me"

By Fr. John Paul Shea

Saints Peter & Paul Parish, Tucson, AZ

(editor's note: Rev. John Paul Shea regularly contributes his sermon to this blog. This Sunday the deacons are preaching so there is no sermon. This piece was written when he was still in seminary. Reprinted with his permission from The New Vision, official newspaper for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson.)

I was born and grew up in Mesa, Arizona. As a child, I lived with my mother, sister, grandma, and four uncles. I did not know my biological father. We were a close family and did many family activities. Unlike many men who enter the seminary to become a priest, I was not raised in the Catholic faith. I grew up as a Mormon and received what is a Mormon baptism at age eight.

I can remember really enjoying church and learning about Jesus as a child. However, during my teenage years I began to doubt the Mormon teachings and lost my desire to learn about religion. I stopped going to church and practiced no religion for several years. Like many teenagers today, I had adopted an attitude that fun and entertainment was more important than learning about God. I converted to the Catholic Church through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Fr. John Paul Shea dressing for ordination 

In 1994 a good friend of mine was told that he was dying. He was Catholic but had not been to church in several years. He was a father figure to me. I considered him as my dad and he considered me as his adopted son. I had been close to his family since I was a teenager. With the fear of his death, I had begun to question the purpose of my life and begun the search for God. In my search for God, I began to listen to different radio programs and watch television shows that focused on miracles and the supernatural. One night I had heard a show on the radio that spoke about an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I had an instant attraction to her and soon bought a Rosary. After praying the Rosary for

a couple of years, I knew that God was calling me to become Catholic. I came into the church in 1998 after receiving Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion and my dad, whom I adopted,  came back to the Catholic Church and went to confession. He died about a year later.

When did you first think about becoming a

priest?

John Paul Shea Ordained by Tucson
 Bishop Gerald Kicanas in 2013

My first thoughts about becoming a priest began while I was in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). During that time, several people asked me if I was going to be a priest. It happened so much that I knew there was no possibility that it could be a coincidence. I had discovered that it takes eight years of school to become a priest. I had dropped out of school in the tenth grade, so eight years of school seemed like a tremendous challenge. Yet, I was falling in love with the Catholic faith, and I did have a desire to devote my life in service of God. I earned my GED in 1999 and received my General Associate degree from Mesa Community College a couple of years later. In 2001 I joined the Discalced Carmelite religious order. After being in the order for a little over two years, I left because I felt that God was calling me to be a diocesan priest. I worked for a few years as a caretaker for people who are developmentally disabled, and then I became a seminarian for the Diocese of Tucson.

Did you have a priest you looked up to in your youth?

On the left: John Paul Shea before ordination
led by Fr. Domenico Pinti his pastor
St. George of Apache Junction  

Since I did not become Catholic until my 20s, no. However, since becoming a Catholic, many priests have inspired me for their faith and devotion to God. While I was in the Carmelites, I saw how some of the priests devoted their life to prayer and service. My novice master was a great influence in my vocation. I also admire my current pastor at St. George of Apache Junction, Father Domenico Pinti. Among other things, he has shown me an example of how important it is to be personable with people. He is a very welcoming and generous priest. He always acknowledges and encourages people. At my seminary, I see the dedication of love and sacrifice that the priests give to us seminarians.

Fr. John Paul Shea right
after his ordination
We often use this photo
with his sermons

What do you envision your priesthood to be? I envision my priesthood as making a difference in people's lives. Life is sacred and blessed. Yet, we live in a world and culture where many are unaware of the love and joy that is available to each of us. I desire to serve people and be a witness that Christ lives within the heart of every individual. God has made himself present to me in my life, and I desire to make him present to others. The church offers healing and joy to the world through its sacraments, and I envision myself to be an instrument of these sacraments.  I want to share Christ with those who are facing death or difficulties. I have a desire to allow God to use my hands to consecrate the bread and wine. As a priest, I hope to bring healing and comfort to the sick and elderly through Christ working in me.

What is your greatest joy as you contemplate the priesthood? I think my greatest joy is that, as a priest, I will serve the church in the person of Christ. I can be a special part of the lives of many individuals, and I can allow God to use me to my fullest potential. As a priest I will be free to serve everyone. I find joy knowing that as a priest I can become the person who God has called me to be. I can fully give myself to God in the service of our church.

What do you tell someone who is considering the priesthood? I suggest for anyone who is considering the priesthood to seriously consider entering the seminary. The seminary is a wonderful place for one to learn about himself and get closer to God. The seminary is a time of discernment. One would have nothing to lose by entering the seminary but would have much to gain. I have spoken with many men who have entered the seminary and later decided that God was calling them to a vocation of marriage. The time they spent in the seminary helped them to become a better husband in their marriage. Men who enter the seminary and become priests find much joy because they are fulfilling God's call.

Do you have a favorite devotion? My favorite devotion is the Rosary. I prayed the Rosary before I became Catholic, and it will always be part of my daily prayers. I also pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy each day. I believe that prayer is very important for my

Brown Scapular
The Arms of God

vocation. I have had a devotion to the brown scapular since before I became Catholic also.

How do you relax? I like to go driving to my favorite stores on a Saturday afternoon. I also have my favorite restaurants that I enjoy. When the weather is nice, I enjoy riding a bike. I love to exercise and run. When I get the chance, I like to ride the train to downtown Chicago. Every once in a while I like to go see a movie at the theater or relax with a movie in my room. Every Wednesday night I get together with the seminarians on my hallway to talk, watch a movie, or go out to eat. I also get together with the other guys from my diocese once a week to pray and eat together. Right next to our seminary there is a shrine called Marytown. I enjoy going there!

Describe a good day at the seminary. I think that every day is a good day at the seminary. I have better days than others, but each day is filled with many graces. God is present everywhere at the seminary. We have Mass every day, I get to hear wonderful lectures from great teachers, and I have a chapel near my room that I can pray in.

Finish this sentence: "It would surprise people to know… I fought some amateur boxing matches in my earlier days.

This is Fr. John Paul Shea's most recent sermon: MARK'S GOSPEL: The Power and Authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ! 

THE BATTLE FOR THE IDENTITY OF MAN: A House Divided

By Christopher Ziegler

Find Christopher Ziegler
@CZWriting on Twitter

Abraham Lincoln celebrated his final birthday 150 years ago this Thursday. 

For certain Americans, however, February 12 is not remembered as Lincoln’s birthday, but as the birthday of Charles Darwin. In fact, earlier this month, 12 U.S. House Democrats led by Rep. Jim Hines (D-Conn.) sponsored a bill to nationally recognize February 12 as “Darwin Day.” It was the fourth such attempt since 2011.

These congressmen may argue there is no reason Americans cannot honor two men on the same day. And I would agree with them, were it not for this fact: the belief Darwin is remembered for, and the belief Lincoln died for, are antithetical to each other.

Lincoln repeatedly said his beliefs were grounded in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

That these words were dear to Lincoln is evident from his speeches and actions: not least of all his most famous speech, the Gettysburg Address, and his most famous action, the Emancipation Proclamation. One declared that all men are created equal and the other freed 3 million slaves.

Feb. 12: Darwin vs Lincoln
Both have the same birthday

 In contrast, Darwin’s theory denies the very premise that men were created at all. To create something is to undertake conscious, purposeful activity. When a novelist creates a novel, he performs a conscious, purposeful action. But according to Darwin’s theory, man is the result of a blind, undirected process.

Other theories of evolution allow for degrees of purpose and direction, but these are not Darwin’s theory. If you believe that man evolved according to the process described by Darwin, then this is tantamount to saying that man is not the result of conscious, purposeful activity.

The United States is not like most other countries, which are founded on a genetic and cultural inheritance stretching back to time out of mind, such as Japan or Sweden. Instead, the United States is founded on an idea, and that idea is expressed in the words of the Declaration of Independence.

But if Darwin’s theory is true this means men were not created. It follows that they have no Creator and the words of the Declaration are false. Hence, you can be a Darwinian, or you can be a patriotic American, but you cannot be both. No patriot would claim that his country is founded on a mistake.

The claim that all men are created equal does not mean that all people have equal talents and abilities. This is self-evidently not the case. It also does not say all men are equal. It says they are created equal. That is, they are equal in that they are created.

All people have equal dignity and worth, and they share this dignity and worth by virtue of the fact that they have a Creator. Just as all the works of Picasso, though different in quality, share a certain worth just because the artist made them, so do all people share a certain worth just because the Creator made them. As Lincoln put the matter: “Nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

But if Darwin’s theory is true, then men do not have a Creator and do not bear a divine image and likeness. Therefore, their dignity and worth -- if they have any -- must be based on something else. The most obvious rationale would be their usefulness. A person’s value is based on the fact that he is valuable to another person because he can be useful or helpful in some way. But if my worth is based on my usefulness, then I am no longer an end in myself—I am a means to an end. If I am a means to an end, then I do not have inherent worth as an individual. 

If men do not have inherent worth as individuals, and their worth is predicated on their usefulness, then people who have no use have no worth. This group would include, among others: the homeless, the insane, the deranged, the severely handicapped, the severely mentally impaired, unwanted children, the very sick and the very old. Even though these people meet every objective standard for being human, we would have no reason to regard them as equal in dignity and worth. If we have no reason to regard them as equal, we cannot, without contradicting ourselves, afford them equal status under the law.

The word “inalienable,” as used in the Declaration, shows a deep understanding of rights. It does not mean that a man’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away from him. Obviously they can. Rather, it indicates that to take any of these away from him is to commit an act of violence against his essential nature. These rights may be taken away, but if they are, then he cannot become what he was meant to become.

But if men are the result of an undirected process, that process, being undirected, could have had a different result. Therefore, all of man’s qualities and properties are accidental, and none are essential.

This means there was nothing he was meant to be and he has no rights that can be described as “inalienable.” Therefore, rights, such as they are, are nothing but legal fictions conferred by the powers that be. If rights do not precede government, but originate in government, then it follows that government is more important than individuals, for without the government people would have no rights as individuals. 

If governments are more important than individuals, then we cannot say that they “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” for their power cannot be contingent on the consent of a being that has no natural rights. But if governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, they cannot be altered or abolished by the removal of that consent. Hence, no one has the right to protest, to petition the government for redress of grievances, or to abolish their government—no matter how oppressive it may be.

If Darwin’s theory is true, then men are the result of blind forces that operate without purpose. Free things act with purpose. Things that act without purpose, such as wind or erosion, cannot be described as free. But how can human freedom be the result of something, which is not free? If Darwin’s theory is true, then, at the very least, the reality of free will is thrown into doubt. But if my free will is an illusion, it follows that my political freedoms are an even bigger illusion. Therefore there is nothing wrong with depriving someone, anyone, of their political freedom—because it is an illusion.

Some people will say that they believe in Darwin’s theory but that it should not be applied to ethics. Whence this “should?” Darwin’s theory has always been controversial precisely because it purports to give an account of human origins. What I believe about my origins must affect my opinion of what I am. This will in turn affect my opinion of other people. My understanding of myself and other people will inevitably influence my ethical decisions.

As an account of human origins, Darwin’s theory is either true or false. If true, then on what basis can someone tell me that I should not take it seriously and embrace all its implications? If I really believe the theory is true, I would be hypocritical if I did not factor it into my decisions. If someone seriously advocates that people should believe in Darwin’s theory, but that they should not act on that belief, then he is advocating intellectual schizophrenia. He would have no argument against someone who advocated the exact opposite: that people should not believe it, but that they should nevertheless act upon it. Both are unfair requests. Intellectual schizophrenia may come easily to one man, but that does not mean it will come easily to another. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

People will swear that their belief in Darwin’s theory does not affect their ethical thinking. But if you keep questioning them you’ll find that it does—they just don’t realize it. For example, very often you’ll find that these same people support abortion and euthanasia.

Both these views are justified according to a worldview that says people do not have inherent worth just for being human, but that their worth is predicated on whether they are wanted. If they are not viewed as valuable, then they have no value despite their humanity. No one ever tells himself that, “I believe in X because it is wrong.” But how you view the world will inevitably determine your sense of right and wrong. It has to.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is one of the best-known defenders of Darwin’s theory today. Yet he once publicly admitted that he would not want to live in a country governed by Darwin’s ideas because “a Darwinian state would be a fascist state.” From the 1860s to the 1930s, Germany’s elite was saturated with Darwinian theory. The Germans who supported the Nazis did not say to themselves, “Wouldn’t it be great to be really evil?” Rather, they had certain principles, which -- like good Germans -- they followed.

Everything that happened in the Holocaust was justified in the name of “race health.” In other words, it was honestly seen as being for the greater good. The Nazis loved their children just like everyone else. They were not horrible men without principle. They were principled men with horrible beliefs.

Very recently, someone asked Dawkins an ethical question on Twitter: If they found out they were pregnant with a baby with Down’s syndrome, what should they do? Dawkins’ answer: “Abort it and try again.” There is no difference in principle between this thinking and Nazi thinking. The Final Solution (to exterminate the Jews) was the same advice carried out on a national level. That Mr. Dawkins and his admirers do not see this—is scary.

People will swear that belief in Darwin’s theory does not make people less moral because their own behavior is manifestly decent and acceptable. But if this is the case, then their behavior cannot be the result of their moral reflection and intellectual commitments (unless they’re schizophrenics). It must be the result of something else.

Most likely it is the result of their successful assimilation into an environment where a high standard of behavior is expected. Their behavior then, is not really virtue but conformity. This may work for them so long as their environment never changes for the worse. But should they be suddenly plunged into a frightening new situation, such as the German people faced after World War I, their superficial virtue would be put to the test. Eulogizing the dead at Gettysburg, Lincoln said that we should “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion.” But you cannot devote yourself to something you believe is untrue.

The views of these two men born on the same day—Lincoln and Darwin—are irreconcilable. Insofar as we think Darwinian evolution true, we must think the Declaration of Independence false. Insofar as we think the Declaration true, we must think Darwinian evolution false. Lincoln would not have cared if we forgot about his birthday altogether. But he would have cared very much if we forgot about the Declaration of Independence. I know of no better way to illustrate this than by taking a quote from the man himself. It comes from a speech he gave at Lewistown, Illinois on August 17, 1858, a year before the publication of On the Origin of Species: 

“My countrymen…if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me—take no thought for the political fate of any man whatsoever—but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing. I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity—the Declaration of American Independence.”

Into the Woods: Christopher Ziegler

Did you enjoy this piece? You might like to read: Philosophy's Gift to Catholic Moral Theology

Would you like to read more by Christopher Ziegler? To Be Human or Not to Be: That is the Question About Abortion