QUOTE THOUGHT #2

Dr. Richard Price gave a sermon in 1789, later published as A Discourse on the Love of Our Country.

In his Reflection on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke described the sermon as "a very extraordinary miscellaneous sermon, in which there are some good moral and religious sentiments, and not ill expressed, mixed up with a sort of porridge of various political opinions and reflections: but the Revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the caldron." 

At one point in his sermon, Dr. Price says ""Those who dislike that mode of worship which is prescribed by public authority ought, if they can find no worship out of the Church which they approve, to set up a separate worship for themselves; and by doing this, and giving an example of a rational and manly worship, men of weight from their rank and literature may do the greatest service to society and the world." (pg. 18)

To this, Burke observed:

"It is somewhat remarkable that this reverend divine should be so earnest for setting up new churches, and so perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be taught in them. His zeal is of a curious character. It is not for the propagation of his own opinions, but of any opinions. It is not for the diffusion of truth, but for the spreading of contradiction. Let the noble teachers but dissent, it is no matter from whom or from what. This great point once secured, it is taken for granted their religion will be rational and manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all the benefits which the calculating divine computes from this "great company of great preachers." It would certainly be a valuable addition of nondescripts to the ample collection of known classes, genera, and species, which at present beautify the hortus siccus of Dissent. A sermon from a noble duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increase and diversify the amusements of this town, which begins to grow satiated with the uniform round of its vapid dissipations. I should only stipulate that these new Mess-Johns in robes and coronets should keep some sort of bounds in the democratic and levelling principles which are expected from their titled pulpits. The new evangelists will, I dare say, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them. They will not become, literally as well as figuratively, polemic divines,—nor be disposed so to drill their congregations, that they may, as in former blessed times, preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons and corps of infantry and artillery. Such arrangements, however favorable to the cause of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquillity."

While they are clearly speaking about religion, I am nevertheless caught by the possible parallel between Price's call and appraisal of apparently any worship is good worship and helpful to the society, and the modern phrases "dissent is patriotic" or "protest is patriotic." It seems to me that the critique could be similar, that "it is taken for granted their [protest] will be rational and manly." 

Freedom of speech is good, but dissent and protest do not imbue patriotism. Not all speech, all reforms, or all causes are patriotic, and unpatriotic causes are not made patriotic be being the topic of a protest. Being able to express oneself is good, but it does not follow that everything is equally good, either moral, or equally prudent for the community at the time. It is true that Government ought not to control speech, but this does put additional responsibility on the heads of the individuals to use exercise that responsibility prudently.  

QUOTE THOUGHTS#1

"Those who cultivate the memory of our Revolution, and those who are attached to the Constitution of this kingdom, will take good care how they are involved with persons who, under the pretext of zeal towards the Revolution and Constitution, too frequently wander from their true principles, and are ready on every occasion to depart from the firm, but cautious and deliberate, spirit which produced the one and which presides in the other." (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790)

I understand that when Mr. Burke speaks of the "Revolution" and the "Constitution" in this quote, he is speaking about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Constituion. And yet, without editing the quote, beyond admittedly removing it from its context, I cannot help but feel that it could used just as well by me to advise my fellow citizens regarding the American Revolution and the Constitution of the United States. 

LETTER TO A MISSIONARY#1, 7/7/2019

Dear ---,

I wanted to share an experience I had on 4th of July this year. 

First, the setting: We ourselves did not buy fireworks to light off ourselves, for two reasons: 1) they are expensive, and 2) we still don't quite trust our kids at close proximity to fireworks. Besides that, Child1 was up at Gram-E Fun Days, Child2 feel asleep as 7:30p after a holiday of hard playing, and Child3 is too young to understand. So, Wife and I shared a Martinelli outside on our front swing, getting glimpses of near-by fireworks, both ground-based and aerial, lighting off. I was carrying Child3, whose head was turning every which way trying to see what was making the popping sounds. For the record, I had gone in to try and wake up Child2 for fireworks (because he had been asking about fireworks for the last week, and we didn't want him to miss them if we would help): he opened his eyes, even sat up, but then laid back down and went to sleep, and didn't wake up again until mid-morning next day. 

Anyway, so I'm still thinking about the meaning of the experience, so bear with me. I hope I can explain it properly. I was standing with Child3, watching the fireworks, during which the lyrics "And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air" came to mind. Then I thought, whereas these 'rockets' and 'bombs' are actually fireworks, that the rockets and bombs would have been provided by cannonfire at the battle where these word were written (Fort McHenry, 1814). At that point, the words of Isaiah came to mind: "swords into plow-shares" (Isaiah 2:3-4; 2 Nephi 12:3-4)  -- the fireworks are in a sense reenacting the artillery of that battle, but this time in celebration and peace. I realize that fireworks are not exclusively an American invention or tradition, and the Fourth of July was not the first holiday for which fireworks were used (as far as I know); but this thought nevertheless stood out to me. I'll continue to ponder it, but would of course welcome your insight. 

In addition, at a time when the people of the United States struggle to identify common ground between the factions, I realized that the fireworks may be one of those traditions that we could look to in order to help bridge the gaps. I acknowledge that this may seem a shallow contribution to a purported solution to such a deep problem. May I answer that by sharing an experience from my mission: Looking back, there was a stretch right around my one-year mark where I was depressed and my self-esteem was very low. It was a struggle to go out and work. I knew that something had to change. During the Mother's Day phone call, Mom told me two things -- 1) discouragement is not a gift of the Spirit, and 2) when you struggle moving forward, it is important to look back where you've been to see how far the Lord has brought you. I remember taking two or three days' worth of personal study sessions dedicated to making a list of ten things I liked about myself. And, in my opinion, those first reasons I came up with were shallow but undeniable. For example, I like that I like music so much. I'm not embarrassed to use the words "shallow" or "simple" to describe those first items on my list. They nevertheless were the first steps towards healing from the low and forging a new sense of self-worth. Perhaps we could say that civility in the United States, the mood of her people, is low. And something so simple as fireworks may seem trivial, but it could also be tapping into a tradition, an established stitching in the design of the social fabric, where people can come together and have positive experiences together. Like the song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's," "and I said, 'well that's one thing we've got.'" Finding these things in common will be important for the future. 

"[...]The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. [...]"

(John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776)

I have since been burdened with a question: How do we make the Spirit of the 4th of July last all year long, in the tradition of the desire to devise how we might make the Spirit of Christmas last all year round, or the Spirit of Remembrance during Easter time? I have no definitive answer, although I did find that the Declaration of Independence on audiobook is only ten to eleven minutes, and the Constitution under an hour including amendments. Perhaps a more frequent reading of them would help us to remember them better. I am not sure what your mission rules are, but you might ask whether some limited study of these documents would be appropriate, since the documents have historically been praised by the Church as 'inspired documents.' Just as the Book of Mormon is not greater than the Bible but it nevertheless has particular relevance to the Restoration and to the member's testimony of the reality of Joseph Smith's calling and the truthfulness of the restored Gospel, the United States is not greater than other nations in the sense that being in the United States improves chances of salvation (of in this sense, God without a doubt is no respecter of persons), but there is no doubt that the United States holds a special heritage as the location furnishing the circumstances necessary to allow the Restoration to both take place and take root. 

I hope that you will absorb your surroundings -- the people of Arizona, those of the Native American reservations, the immigrants, their history, their culture, their values, their concerns. Knowing the people helps you know how to teach the Gospel.

"History is the record of Providence at work[...]--mysterious though God's ways often are for us." -- Russell Kirk, summarizing the belief of Edmund Burke, Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered, Ch.2

I love you lots. Think as deep as possible, use as few words as possible, but as many as necessary, as the Spirit whispers. Be careful in the heat.

Me


P.S. I also wanted to share the following story, told during the US Bicentennial. The first paragraph is an introduction I wrote when I posted this story on my Facebook:

We draw close again to the 4th of July, which will be the 243rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, originally signed in 1776. While readers will note that this quote is about the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, not the Declaration, I think it is nevertheless just the sort of quote to kindle healthy patriotism in the heart's stove of gratitude, yet also provoke the quiet introspection that is sweet to the reasoning mind. The quote is lengthier, but worth I hope. Enjoy!

"That product [of the Convention of 1787] did not contain that portion of the Constitution that most lawyers have occasion to invoke with any frequency, the Bill of Rights, that was added, as you know, [in 1789] on the proposal of the First Congress as the first ten amendments. Although the understanding that something like that sort would be added was almost a condition of ratification by several of the States. Nonetheless, it is paradoxical, is it not, that what was an afterthought should have before the most celebrated feature of the Constitution. Because in the commemorations of the Bicentennial that have been going on and that will continue for a few more years, the specific provisions of the Constitution that are normally given the most extensive if not indeed the exclusive praise are not the bicamerality of the Legislature, or the separate election of the President, or the presidential veto power, or life tenure for judges, or the brief two-year term for members of the House, or the six-year term for the members of the Senate, or any of the other expertly crafted provisions that pertain to the structure, that is to say the constitution, of the government; but rather, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so forth, provisions of the subsequently adopted Bill of Rights -- so completely does that portion of the document attract the affection and devotion of the people. But the fact is that if the virtue of the Constitution is to be assessed on the virtue of that feature, one must admit that the Constitution of the United States fares rather badly.

Take, for example, protections against governmental intrusion upon privacy. The United States Bill of Rights contains no more explicit protection than the following: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Compare that with the much more explicit and extensive guarantees of a modern constitution, which reads: "Citizens...are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator. Citizens...are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law."

Or consider freedom of religion. Our first amendment says no more than the following, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]"

Compare that the prominent modern constitution, which reads: "Citizens ... are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited."

Or freedom of speech and assembly, as to which the United States Constitution says only "Congress shall make no law ... 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."

Compare that poultry guarantee with the modern constitution I have been describing, which says: "[Citizens] ... are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations[.] [Citizens] ... have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests[.] Persecution for criticism [of state bodies and public organisations] is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account."

You will see the point that I have been driving towards, in fact I suspect you may have guessed it, when I tell you that the 'modern constitution' I have been describing is that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I would not trade our old Constitution for that in a million years. And if I had to pick a country other than my own in which I thought my individual rights would be most secure, I might well select England or Australia, both of which are among the significant holdouts in the universal movement toward Bills of Rights, they have none. The reason, of course, is that a Bill of Rights only has value if the other part of the Constitution, the part that really constitutes the organs of government, establishes a structure that is likely to preserve against the ineradicable human lust of power the liberties the Bill of Rights expresses. If the people value those liberties, the proper constitutional structure will likely result in their preservation even in the absence of a Bill of Rights, which is what Madison argued at the Convention. And where that structure does not exist, the mere recitation of the liberties will certainly not preserve them.

So while it is entirely appropriate for us Americans in this Bicentennial of our Founding as a nation to celebrate and decorate our wonderful Bill of Rights, we should realize that it represents the fruits, and not the root, of our Constitutional Tree. The rights that it expresses ... are the reasons that the other provisions exist. It is those other provisions, however, those hum-drum provisions, the structural mechanistic portions of the Constitution, that in James Madison's words, "pit ambition against ambition and make it impossible for any element of government to obtain unchecked power." It is those hum-drum provisions that convert the Bill of Rights from a paper assurance to a living guarantee." 

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, "Reflections on the Constitution," held as part of the 200th Anniversary Celebration of the Constitution, delivered at American University on November 20, 1988, lecture sponsored by the Kennedy Political Union, broadcasted as part of C-SPAN series, America & The Courts