Title Page

Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE)
Proprie Peregrinus
Prepared for:
Dr. Jon Borowicz.
HU430-002 Epistemology – Fall 2005
Prepared by:
Kenneth Shelton
October 28, 2005
 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents. 2
Introduction. 3
Terminology Concepts. 4
Thesis Part I Discourse. 5
Thesis Part II Discourse. 7
Is Science Rational 10
Conclusions. 11
Bibliography. 12

Introduction

This paper discusses whether the Richard Rorty article titled: XI.4 Dismantling Truth: Solidarity Versus Objectivity[1] aliens properly the true, genuine, real or sincere. His thesis wants to redefine the meaning of concepts like truth, belief, and reality in order to cause a revolutionary paradigm shifting to satisfy pragmatist [post-modernist[2]] goals and aims using an evolutionary dishonest methodology and the tools of rhetorical persuasion. This indicates the evolutionary model of “change by definition”. The intention is to do away with the conflicting Christian worldview and all other worldviews in favor of State-ism and/or in favor of the terminology “better for us to believe”, as defined by the pragmatist ethnocentric solidarity; more clearly stated as the pragmatist determines what is “better”. The ideas shrouded in elitist highfalutin misdirecting language replete with innuendo, indignation and intolerance and yet he acknowledges this as the “fuzzies” metaphor.

This paper will attempt to unravel some of this milieu and make some sense out of it by terminology concept evaluation, Part I discourse, Part II discourse, followed by conclusive remarks.

Terminology Concepts

The pragmatist ethnocentric solidarity definition by this author as understood as the race [culture, since DNA has proven there is only one race the human race] or people placed in the center or middle [humanism] resistant to the impression [closed-minded] or penetration of others [secular, worldly rather than spiritual] belonging to the object; contained in the object [intrinsic, inherent].

The title term “dismantling”: Indicates destruction or at best reconstruction of some perceived obstruction. When concepts fail in the marketplace of ideas, the only alternative is redefinition of terms as the elite. It is always harder to build than to destroy.

The title term “solidarity”: The assumption is that solidarity [dynamic agreement] is achievable, necessary and the supreme solution.

Thesis Part I Discourse

Part 1 discusses “Epistemological Pragmatism”. The Pojman text prints the following[3], “Rorty argues that the truth means, not what corresponds to the facts, as is the dominant definition of truth in Western philosophy, but what it is better for us to believe. He describes truth as ‘what you can defend against all comers . . . what our peers will [all things considered] let us get away with saying.’ He defends the thesis that we should give up metaphysical and epistemological notions of reality and truth in favor of those built on ethnocentric solidarity.”

Interestingly the bold statement “all things considered” implies that the pragmatist can know all things. Who can know all things? Sounds like godly behavior. Pragmatism by definition is a method of solving problems by practical means according to the dictionary. Is it practical to deny the historical meaning of true?

Josh McDowell captures and addresses the meaning of the Rorty theses by writing the following[4]: “Rorty maintains, ‘For the pragmatist [post-modernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to reality, and so there is no need to worry what sort of reality, if any, a given sentence corresponds to – no need to worry about what `makes` it true’.”

McDowell also indicates that[5] “Rorty denies that truth corresponds to reality: [The pragmatist] shares with the positivist the Baconian and Hobesian notion that knowledge is power, a tool for coping with reality. But he carries this Baconian point through to its extreme, as the positivist does not. He drops the notion of truth as correspondence with reality altogether, and says that modern science does not enable us to cope. His argument for the view is that several hundred years of effort have failed to make interesting sense of the notion of ‘correspondence’ (Rorty, CP, xvii).”

Further McDowell expands that[6] “Rorty, in agreement with Kuhn and Dewey, states, ‘Kuhn and Dewey suggest we give up the notion of science traveling toward an end called `correspondence with reality` and instead say merely that a given vocabulary works better than another for a given purpose.’ (Rorty, CP, 193).”

McDowell concludes that[7] “Postmodernism Is Self-Defeating” because “Dennis McCallum sites two self-destructive aspects of postmodernism:

1. From the postmodern view, postmodernism itself can only be seen as another ‘arbitrary social construction’ like all other ideologies. As such, we have no compelling reason to accept the theory. We can simply dismiss it as the creative work of extremely cynical people.
2. If Postmodernism can be shown to be true, a world view with objective merit, then Postmodernism’s main thesis (rejection of objective truth) is wrong. It ends up teaching that there is at least some objective truth – namely that Postmodernism is right!

In either case, postmodernism’s rejection of rational objectivity is self-defeating. It either denies the plausibility of its own position, or it presumes the reliability of reason and the objectivity of truth. (McCallum, DT, 53).”

Thesis Part II Discourse

Part 2 discusses “Solidarity Versus Objectivity”.  The Pojman text prints the following[8], “Rorty attacks the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity as well as the correspondence theory of truth. He sides with Thomas Kuhn in arguing that we can have no theory-dependent notion of reality and proposes to erase the essential difference between science, on the one hand, and the humanities and art on the other. Embracing the title of ‘the new fuzzies,’ Rorty further develops his thesis that a notion of social solidarity replaces the enlightenment notion of objective truth.”

R.C. Sproul text reports[9] “Locke embraces the ‘correspondence’ theory of truth, which eschew pure subjectivism or relativism. He defined truth as ‘that which corresponds to reality.’ This is what Francis Schaeffer calls ‘truth truth’. When he uses this phrase, Schaeffer is not stuttering or indulging in redundancy, but is speaking of truth that is objective and not dependent merely on the believing subject.” 

R.C. Sproul text also points to Sophism:[10] “From the Sophists of antiquity are derived the terms sophistry sophomoric, the pejorative use of sophisticated. The three most famous leaders of this movement were Gorgias, Protagoras, and Thrasymachus.

Gorgias is known for introducing radical skepticism. He turned his back on philosophy and practiced rhetoric instead. This discipline focused on the art of persuasion in public discourse. The goal of rhetoric was not to proclaim truth but to achieve practical aims by persuasion. Rhetoric in this sense functioned in antiquity as Madison Avenue does today.

Gorgias denies that there is any truth. ‘All statements,’ he declares, ‘are false.’ It doesn’t seem to bother him that if all statements are false, then the statement ‘All statements are false’ is also false, meaning that at least some statements must be true.  His views are not unlike those of modern relativists who proclaim that there are no absolutes (except for the absolute that there are no absolutes!). He bases his axiom on the premise that nothing exists. He hedges his bet, however, by saying that if something does exist, it is unknowable or incomprehensible. Even if it does exist and is knowable, he argues, it remains incommunicable.

The views of Gorgias and others served to arouse Socrates from the dogmatic slumber, as the skepticism of David Hume would awaken Immanuel Kant centuries later. Socrates realized that the death of truth would mean the death of virtue, and that the death of virtue would spell the death of civilization. Without truth and virtue, the only possible outcome is barbarianism.

Thrasymachus, who appears as a foil for Plato in the Republic,(2) is a Sophist who attacks the quest for justice. According to Thrasymachus, far from being an immoral person, the unjust person realizes that crime does not pay, is a superior person with superior intellect. Here Thrasymachus anticipates Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch (‘superman’). Justice, says Thrasymachus, is a concept for the weak-minded person who lacks the will to assert himself. Those who rise to the level of true masters are those who prefer injustice. Here is the philosophy of ‘might is right’ with a vengeance, the philosophy of barbarism. Anticipating Karl Marx, Thrasymachus sees law as nothing more that a reflection of the ruling class’s vested interests.”

The first point then is that Rorty’s re-definition of “truth as rhetoric” proclaims or preaches [Rorty, the non-priest preacher] that no truth exists and/or truth is false (except of course for the truth that there are no truths!). The second point then is that Rorty’s “ethnocentric solidarity” leads to the “true masters who prefer injustice”, which leads back to barbarism, controlled by state-ism.   

Turn attention now to Rorty’s comments concerning[11] “Worries about ‘cognitive status’ and ‘objectivity’ are characteristic of a secularized culture in which the scientist replaces the priest. The scientist is now seen as the person who keeps humanity in touch with something beyond itself. [. . .] So truth is now thought of as the only point at which human beings are responsible to something non-human.” The term “behavioral sciences” emerges relative to “values” instead of facts and practitioners considered “quasi-priestly.” Rorty is basically arguing that all these objectivity and subjectivity concerns are foolish and he wants to get rid of the model of the priest or models to imitate. 

Rorty sees two senses of the term “rationality” as targets for removal: First, the “methodical”, and second “reasonable.” He insists on avoidance of doctrine assertion of opinion or belief of any kind in the terms of rationalism. He would like to “eradicate” the “hankering” toward rationality. He concludes[12], “We should not try to satisfy this hankering, but rather try to eradicate it. No matter what one’s opinion of the secularization of culture, it was a mistake to try to make the natural scientist into a new sort or priest, a link between the human and the non-human.”  Ultimately, advanced planning, goal setting, or measuring progress he thinks are bad ideas.

Is Science Rational?

Obedience to criteria and attachment to objectivity are the next Rorty targets for redefinition or removal. He would like the new language to be “solidarity” [dynamic agreement within the state] he writes[13] “From a pragmatist point of view, to say that what is rational for use now to believe may not be true, is simply to say that somebody may come up with a better idea…”

Rorty would like to negate the idea that the truth is “out there” waiting for human beings to find it. He keeps fighting the idea of religion, the creator God in the midst of the so-called “secular culture”. Perhaps his impression that we are a secular culture is overstated. Then he brings up what this author calls normalization. Rorty wishes to get rid of the metaphor of inquiry “[…] as converging rather that proliferating, becoming more unified rather that more diverse. On the contrary, we should relish that thought that the sciences as well as the arts will always provide a spectacle of fierce competition between alternative theories, movements and schools. The end of human activity is not to rest, but rather richer and better human activity.”

The Rorty essay offers several arguments and rebuttals that were interesting but not expanded farther here. Rorty ends the essay with statements that identify communities without boundaries or with continuous fluctuations based entirely on the ebb and flow of the interests of the community’s members. The purpose meaning everyone in the community acts for the sake of community preservation, self-improvement and enhancement.  This author considers the assertions of the preacher Rorty preaching all is well as a cynic.

Conclusions

This paper has discussed the Rorty essay at some length pointing out the inconsistencies where they seemed to occur. The important issues were the redefinition of concepts and the contradictions pointed out throughout the paper; like the conclusion that a rejection of rational objectivity is self-defeating. The other major finding was that Sophists like Gorgias, Protagoras, and Thrasymachus seem to be the foundations for Rorty’s essay conceptually[14]: “Gorgias is known for introducing radical skepticism. He turned his back on philosophy and practiced rhetoric instead. This discipline focused on the art of persuasion in public discourse. The goal of rhetoric was not to proclaim truth but to achieve practical aims by persuasion.” This strongly resembles Rorty’s essay, redefine truth making it false and community derives practical persuasion by rhetoric.

The author disagrees with Rorty and believes that the traditional inclusion of the creator makes more sense and that “truth is out there”, “value and meaning are out there” and science involves the discovery of the created order. The future is unbounded because the creator is unbounded as we all seek discovery of the secrets of nature and nature’s creator we experience truth.

Bibliography

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., Here’s Life Publishers, 1999.

Pojman, Louis P. The Theory of Knowledge, Third Ed. X1.4 Dismantling Truth: Solidarity Versus Objectivity By Richard Rorty, Wadsworth: Thomas Learning, 2003.

Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World, Wheaton IL: Published by Crossway Books, 2000.

Title Page

Todd’s Creative Design (TCD)
Social Compact
Prepared for:
Kenneth Shelton, United States Citizen.
Rhetorical Verse Definition “Social Compact” American History
Prepared by:
Kenneth Shelton
April 21, 2011

Table of Contents

Table of Contents i
Introduction 1
Preliminary Research Investigation 1
Summary Findings 3
Detail Findings 4
(1) John Locke lectured on Greek, philosophy and rhetoric. 5
(2) Thomas Jefferson indicates. 6
(3) John Quincy Adams stated. 7
Conclusion 8
Bibliography 7

Introduction

Why is president Obama starting to use the phrase “social compact“? And what exactly does he mean? Is president Obama attempting to use rhetorical verse in order to hide the truth of our economic situation? President Obama used the phrase “social compact” in a recent speech, while attacking Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan’s economic plan to balance the federal budget. Let us, as American citizens, investigate some American history as an applied research investigation:

Preliminary Research Investigation

First read my paper titled, “Proprie Peregrinus Epistemology Solidarity/Rhetoric Versus Objectivity“, in order to refresh understanding of the terminology of rhetoric.

Second read my paper titled, “Vivo Considerate Applied Rhetoric Approach Comparison: Living Deliberately Versus Not Getting Involved or Engaged; Benjamin Franklin Versus Henry David Thoreau“, in order to establish understanding of the consequences evident when citizens, men and women, decide to participate or not to participate in the government decision-making process; either approach involving use of rhetoric or objective analysis.

Then define the origins of the terminology “social compact”; in order to discern what is really real truth truth and subsequently identify appropriate political action; not simply what is appropriate for the politic, but to discern philosophically what are the Redeemer’s Godly morally right things to do:

Summary Findings

(1) John Locke lectured on Greek, philosophy and rhetoric.
(2) Thomas Jefferson indicates falsehood of the tongue (rhetoric) leads to that of the heart.
(3) John Quincy Adams stated, “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth?”

Detail Findings

(1) John Locke lectured on Greek, philosophy and rhetoric.

Locke, John (August 29, 1632-October 28, 1704), was an English philosopher, diplomat and educator, whose writings had a profound influence on America’s Founding Fathers. He received his master’s degree from the Christ Church College of Oxford University, 1658, and lectured there on Greek, philosophy and rhetoric. He served as a diplomat to Madrid, 1665, moved to France, 1675, then Holland, 1683, and returned to England, 1688. His works include: A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689; Two Treatises of Government, 1690; An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1693; Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 1693; and The Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695. Of nearly 15,000 items of the Founding Fathers which were reviewed; including books, newspaper articles, pamphlets, monographs, etc., John Locke was the third most frequently quoted author.<289> In his Two Treatises of Government, 1690, he cited 80 references to the Bible in the first treatise and 22 references to the Bible in the second.

Footnote:

289. Locke, John. Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” American Political Review 189 (1984): 189-197. (Courtesy of Dr. Wayne House of Dallas Theological Seminary.) John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, A Mott Media Book, 1987, 6th printing 1993), pp. 51-53. Stephen K. McDowell and Mark A. Beliles, America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Press, 1988), p. 156. [1760-1805], Origins of American Constitutionalism, (1987).

John Locke elaborated on fundamental concepts, such as: parental authority, separation of powers, private property, the right to resist unlawful authority, unalienable rights, and government by consent, whereby governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Concerning the idea of a “social compact,” a constitution between the people and the government, John Locke trace its origins to:

That Paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge.<290>

Footnote:

290. Locke, John. John Locke, Of Civil Government, Book Two, II:11, III:56; V:25, 55; XVIII:200. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, A Mott Media Book, 1987, 6th printing 1993), p. 61.

John Locke classified the basic natural rights of man as the right to “life, liberty and property.” This not only influenced Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence, but also elements in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
In his treatise Of Civil Government, 1689, John Locke stated:

Great and Chief End, therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the preservation of their property….
For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker: all the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his Order, and about his Business, they
are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s Pleasure….
Those Grants God made of the World to Adam, and to Noah, and his Sons…has given the Earth to the Children of Men, given it to Mankind in common….
God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best Advantage of Life and Convenience.<291>

Footnote:

291. Locke, John. 1689, in his work Of Civil Government. John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Government (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1903) Book 2, p. 262. John Locke, The Second Treatise Of Civil Government 1690 (Reprinted Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 77. Frank Donovan, Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration (New York: Dodd Mead & Co., 1968), p. 137. Pat Robertson, America’s Dates with Destiny (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986), p. 66. Verna M. Hall, Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1975), pp. 58, 63-64, 91. Marshall Foster and Mary-Elaine Swanson, The American Covenant – The Untold Story (Roseburg, OR: Foundation for Christian Self-Government, 1981; Thousand Oaks, CA: The Mayflower Institute, 1983, 1992), pp. 111-112.

On August 23, 1689, in his work, Of Civil Government, John Locke wrote on natural law and natural rights:

The obligations of the Law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation.
Thus the Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must…be conformable to the Law of Nature; ie.
to the Will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental Law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.<292>

Footnote:

292. Locke, John. August 23, 1689, in his work Of Civil Government. John Locke, The Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690 (reprinted Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986), p. 75. John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Government (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1903), Book 2, p. 262. Verna M.Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America – Christian Self-Government with Union (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1976), p. 58. Marshall Foster and Mary-Elaine Swanson, The American Covenant – The Untold Story (Roseburg, OR: Foundation for Christian Self-Government, 1981; Thousand Oaks, CA: The Mayflower Institute, 1983, 1992), p. 108.

In The Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690, John Locke stated:

Human Laws are measures in respect of Men whose Actions they must direct, albeit such measures they are as have also their higher Rules to be measured by, which Rules are two, the
Law of God, and the Law of Nature; so that Laws Human must be made according to the general Laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive Law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill
made.<293>

Footnote:

293. Locke, John. 1690, John Locke, Of Civil Government, Book Two, XI:136n. John Locke, The Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690 (reprinted Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986), p. 76, n. 1. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 1, section 10. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, A Mott Media Book, 1987, 6th printing 1993), p. 62.

John Locke wrote paraphrases of the books of Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians. In 1695, he published A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, in which he stated:

He that shall collect all the moral rules of the philosophers and compare them with those contained in the New Testament will find them to come short of the morality delivered by our
Saviour and taught by His disciples: a college made up of ignorant but inspired fishermen….
Such a law of morality Jesus Christ has given in the New Testament, but by the latter of these ways, by revelation, we have from Him a full and sufficient rule for our direction, and
conformable to that of reason. But the word and obligation of its precepts have their force, and are past doubt to us, by the evidence of His mission.
He was sent by God: His miracles show it; and the authority of God in His precepts can not be questioned. His morality has a sure standard, that revelation vouches, and reason can not
gainsay nor question; but both together witness to come from God, the great Lawgiver.
And such a one as this, out of the New Testament, I think, they would never find, nor can anyone say is anywhere else to be found….
To one who is persuaded that Jesus Christ was sent by God to be a King and a Saviour to those who believe in Him, all His commands become principles; there needs no other proof for the
truth of what He says, but that He said it; and then there needs no more but to read the inspired books to be instructed.<294>

Footnote:

294. Locke, John. 1695, John Locke, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud of Witnesses (Portland, OR: American Heritage Ministries, 1987; Mantle Ministries, 228 Still Ridge, Bulverde, Texas), pp. 289-290. Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Inc., 1987), pp. 51, 85-86.

Our Saviour’s great rule, that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, is such a fundamental truth for the regulating of human society, that, by that alone, one might without difficulty
determine all the cases and doubts in social morality.<295>

Footnote:

295. Locke, John. 1695, John Locke, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, a paraphrase of the books of Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians. John Churchill, The Works of John Locke, Esq., 3 Vol. (1714). Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America – Christian Self-Government with Union (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1976), Vol. I, op cit, 56. Russ Walton, One Nation Under God (NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1993), p. 22.

John Locke stated:

The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. – It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. – It is all
pure, all sincere; nothing too much; nothing wanting.<296>

Footnote:

296. Locke, John. Statement. Tryon Edwards, D.D., The New Dictionary of Thoughts – A Cyclopedia of Quotations (Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1852; revised and enlarged by C.H. Catrevas, Ralph Emerson Browns and Jonathan Edwards [descendent, along with Tryon, of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), president of Princeton], 1891; The Standard Book Company, 1955, 1963), p. 46.

(2) Thomas Jefferson indicates falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart.

On August 19, 1785, in a letter to Peter Carr, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the
world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.<1175>

Footnote:

1175. Jefferson, Thomas. August 19, 1785, in a letter to Peter Carr. John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1855, 1980), p. 388.

Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia were also part of the Republican Notes on Religion and an Act Establishing Religious Freedom, Passed in the Assembly of Virginia, in the Year 1786 :

Our rulers can have no other authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them (in a social compact). The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not
submit. We are answerable for them to our God…<117>

Footnote:

1176. Jefferson, Thomas. 1781, in Notes on the State of Virginia. Republican Notes on Religion and an Act Establishing Religious Freedom, Passed in the Assembly of Virginia, in the Year 1786 H.A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson – Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, 9 vols. (NY: Derby & Jackson, 1859, Washington, 1853-54. Vol. 8, Philadelphia, 1871), complete text, Vol. III, pp. 358-406. Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete Jefferson, Containing His Major Writings, Published and Unpublished, Except His Letters (NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943), p. 675. Norman Cousins, In God We Trust – The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (NY: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 123. The Annals of America, 20 vols. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), Vol. 2, p. 571. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution – The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, A Mott Media Book, 1987; 6th printing, 1993), p. 239.

(3) John Quincy Adams stated, “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth?”

On January 1, 1837, at age 71, John Quincy Adams entered in his diary:

Whether I am or shall be saved is all unknown to me; I know that I have been, and am, a sinner…but I cannot, if I would, divest myself of the belief that my Maker is a being
whose tender mercies are over all His works…<1594>

Footnote:

1594. Adams, John Quincy. January 1, 1837, in a diary entry. Charles Francis Adams (son of John Quincy Adams and grandson of John Adams), ed., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1874-77), IX:341. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Glory of America (Bloomington, MN: Garborg’s Heart ‘N Home, 1991), 1.1.

On July 4, 1837, in An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, John Quincy Adams proclaimed:

Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the
Gospel dispensation?
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth?
That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies
announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.<1595>

Footnote:

1595. Adams, John Quincy. July 4, 1837, in his work entitled, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6. Marshall Foster and Mary-Elaine Swanson, The American Covenant – The Untold Story (Roseburg, OR: Foundation for Christian Self-Government, 1981; Thousand Oaks, CA: The Mayflower Institute, 1983, 1992), pp. 18-19. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Glory of America (Bloomington, MN: Garborg’s Heart’N Home, Inc., 1991), 12.25. D.P. Diffine, Ph.D., One Nation Under God – How Close a Separation? (Searcy, Arkansas: Harding University, Belden Center for Private Enterprise Education, 6th edition, 1992), p. 12. Russ Walton, One Nation Under God (NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1993), p. 20. Stephen McDowell and Mark Beliles, “The Providential Perspective” (Charlottesville, VA: The Providence Foundation, P.O. Box 6759, Charlottesville, Va. 22906, January 1994), Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 6.

In 1838, in a speech before Congress, John Quincy Adams spoke:

Sir, I might go through the whole of the sacred history of the Jews to the advent of our Saviour and find innumerable examples of women who not only took an active part in
politics of their times, but who are held up with honor to posterity for doing so. Our Savior himself, while on earth, performed that most stupendous miracle, of raising of Lazarus from
the dead, at the petition of a woman.<1596>

Footnote:

1596. Adams, John Quincy. June 16; July 7, 1838, in speaking before Congress. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud of Witnesses (Portland, OR: American Heritage Ministries, 1987; Mantle Ministries, 228 Still Ridge, Bulverde, Texas), p. 3.

On May 27, 1838, in Washington, D.C., John Quincy Adams entered into his diary:

The neglect of public worship in this city is an increasing evil, and the indifference to all religion throughout the whole country portends no good. There is in the clergy of all the
Christian denominations a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality, as wide from the Gospel as it is from the intrepid assertion and indication of truth.
The counterfeit character of a very large portion of the Christian ministry in this country is disclosed in the dissension growing up in all the Protestant churches on the subject of
slavery….<1597>

Footnote:

1597. Adams, John Quincy. May 27, 1838, in a diary entry made while in Washington, D.C. Edmund Fuller and David E. Green, God in the White House – The Faiths of American Presidents (NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

In his diary which he kept meticulously, John Quincy Adams made note of his church attendance:

Scarcely a Sunday passes [that I fail to] hear something of which a pointed application to my own situation and circumstances occurs to my thoughts. It is often consolation,
support, encouragement – sometimes warning and admonition, sometimes keen and trying remembrance of deep distress. The lines [of Isaac Watts' hymn sung] are of the cheering
kind.<1598>

Footnote:

1598. Adams, John Quincy. In a diary entry. Charles Francis Adams (son of John Quincy Adams and grandson of John Adams), ed., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1874-77), IX:289. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Glory of America (Bloomington, MN: Garborg’s Heart ‘N Home, 1991), 11.7.

On April 30, 1839, John Quincy Adams spoke to the New York Historical Society on the fiftieth anniversary of Washington’s inauguration:

The signers of the Declaration further averred that the one people of the united colonies were then precisely in that situation – with a government degenerated into tyranny
and called upon by the laws of nature and of nature’s God to dissolve that government and to institute another.<1599>

Footnote:

1599. Adams, John Quincy. April 30, 1839, in speaking to the New York Historical Society on the fiftieth anniversary of Washington’s inauguration. The Jubilee of the Constitution, A Discourse, (complete text), pp. 13-118. The Annals of America, 20 vols. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), Vol. 6, p. 474.

And thus was consummated the work commenced by the Declaration of Independence – a work in which the people of the North American Union, acting under the deepest
sense of responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, has achieved the most transcendent act of power that social man in his mortal condition can perform.<1600>

Footnote:

1600. Adams, John Quincy. April 30, 1839, in speaking to the New York Historical Society on the fiftieth anniversary of Washington’s inauguration. The Jubilee of the Constitution, A Discourse, (complete text), pp. 13-118. The Annals of America, 20 vols. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), Vol. 6, p. 475.

Now the virtue which had been infused into the Constitution of the United States, and was to give to its vital existence the stability and duration to which it was destined, was
no other than the consecration of those abstract principles which had been first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; namely, the self-evident truths of the natural and
unalienable rights of man, of the indefeasible constituent and dissolvent sovereignty of the people, always subordinate to a rule of right and wrong, and always responsible to the Supreme
Ruler of the universe for the rightful exercise of that sovereign, constituent, and dissolvent power.<1601>

Footnote:

1601. Adams, John Quincy. April 30, 1839, in speaking to the New York Historical Society on the fiftieth anniversary of Washington’s inauguration. The Jubilee of the Constitution, A Discourse, (complete text), pp. 13-118. The Annals of America, 20 vols. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), Vol. 6, p. 475.

In writing of Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Quincy Adams stated:

For many years since the establishment of the theological school at Andover, the Calvinists and Unitarians have been battling with each other upon the atonement, the divinity of
Jesus Christ and the Trinity. This has now very much subsided; but other wanderings of mind takes the place of that, and equally lets the wolf into the fold. A young man, named Ralph
Waldo Emerson, and a classmate of my lamented son George, after failing in the everyday avocation of a Unitarian preacher and schoolmaster, starts a new doctrine of
transcendentalism, declared all the old revelations superannuated and worn out, and announces the approach of new revelations and prophecies.<1602>

Footnote:

1602. Adams, John Quincy. In writing of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Edmund Fuller and David E. Green, God in the White House – The Faiths of American Presidents (NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

Ralph Waldo Emerson commented concerning John Quincy Adams:

No man could read the Bible with such powerful effect, even with the cracked and winded voice of old age.<1603>

Footnote:

1603. Adams, John Quincy. A comment by Ralph Waldo Emerson concerning John Quincy Adams. Edmund Fuller and David E. Green, God in the White House – The Faiths of American Presidents (NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

On July 11, 1841, his seventy-fourth birthday, John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary:

My birthday happens this day upon the Sabbath. Every return of the day comes with a weight of solemnity more and more awful. How peculiarly impressive ought it then be
when the annual warning of the shortening thread sounds in tones deepened by the church bell of the Lord’s Day! The question comes with yearly aggravation upon my conscience,
“What have I done with the seventy-four years that I have been indulged with the blessings of life!”<1604>

Footnote:

1604. Adams, John Quincy. July 11, 1841, in a diary entry on the occasion of his seventy-fourth birthday. Edmund Fuller and David E. Green, God in the White House – The Faiths of American Presidents (NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 53.

In 1843, at seventy-six years of age, John Quincy Adams officiated at the laying of the cornerstone for an astronomical observatory in Cincinnati:

The hand of God himself has furnished me this opportunity to do good. But, oh how much will depend upon my manner of performing the tasks! And with what agony of soul
must I implore the aid of the Almighty Wisdom for powers of conception, energy of execution, and unconquerable will to accomplish my design.<1605>

Footnote:

1605. Adams, John Quincy. 1843, in officiating at the laying of the cornerstone for the astronomical observatory in Cincinnati. Edmund Fuller and David E. Green, God in the White House – The Faiths of American Presidents (NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 56.

On February 27, 1844, at the age of 77, John Quincy Adams was not only a U.S. Representative, but also the chairman of the American Bible Society. In addressing that organization, he proclaimed:

I deem myself fortunate in having the opportunity, at a stage of a long life drawing rapidly to its close, to bear at this place, the capital of our National Union, in the Hall of
representatives of the North American people, in the chair of the presiding officer of the assembly representing the whole people, the personification of the great and mighty nation – to
bear my solemn testimonial of reverence and gratitude to that book of books, the Holy Bible….
The Bible carries with it the history of the creation, the fall and redemption of man, and discloses to him, in the infant born at Bethlehem, the Legislator and Saviour of the
world.<1606>

Footnote:

1606. Adams, John Quincy. February 27, 1844, as a U.S. Congressman, addressing the American Bible Society, of which he was the chairman. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud of Witnesses (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries, 1987; Mantle Ministries, 228 Still Ridge, Bulverde, Texas), p. 4. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Glory of America (Bloomington, MN: Garborg’s Heart’N Home, Inc., 1991), 2.27.

Returning to politics after having served as the nation’s sixth president, John Quincy Adams spoke to the House of Representatives, where he led the fight against slavery for nearly fourteen years before seeing results:

Oh, if but one man could arise with a genius capable of supporting, and an utterance capable of communicating those eternal truths that belong to this question, to lay bare in all
its nakedness that outrage upon the goodness of God, human slavery! Now is the time, and this is the occasion, upon which such a man would perform the duties of an angel upon
earth!<1607>

Footnote:

1607. Adams, John Quincy. Serving in the U.S. House of Representatives after his term as president. Edmund Fuller and David E. Green, God in the White House – The Faiths of American Presidents (NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

When asked why he never seemed discouraged or depressed over championing the unpopular fight against slavery, John Quincy Adams replied:

Duty is ours; results are God’s.<1608>

Footnote:

1608. Adams, John Quincy. In reply to an inquiry as to his unpopular stance against slavery. David Barton, The WallBuilder Report (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, Summer 1993), p. 3.

Conclusion

I would suggest that we listen very carefully to president Obama and determine exactly what he means when he uses the rhetorical verse, “social compact”. Where is the objective evidence concerning our country’s economic situation? Is it with Paul Ryan from Wisconsin or with president Obama? Let us use rational objectivity and watch out for rhetorical verse and the possibility of being misled or falsely persuaded. My concern is that the stakes are high, and our future as a sound and properly functioning economy hang in the balance. Perhaps I should do some investigating of Paul Ryans proposal in the near future. What do you think?

Bibliography

American Quotations © 1997 by William J. Federer
AMERICAN QUOTATIONS
Version 1.3
A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Quotations
Influencing Early and Modern American History
Referenced according to their Sources in
Literature, Memoirs, Letters,
Governmental Documents,
Speeches, Charters,
Court Decisions &
Constitutions
WILLIAM J. FEDERER
©1997 by William J. Federer. All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America.
American Quotations

Post Scripts

P.S. I put this paper together in about an hour tonight because I had some concern in my mind and was wondering where the term “social compact” originated. My hope is that American citizenship includes diligent study, context examination and comprehension.

P.S. Always remember: “my feet are my understanding” LOL todddude…

P.S. The following comment by Verducci@stanford.edu concerning “amazing tips” stated, “Most I can say is, I don’t know what to say! Except certainly, for the amazing tips which have been shared on this blog. I’m able to think of a million fun strategies to read the content on this site. I do think I will finally make a move making use of your tips on those things I could not have been able to handle alone. You’re so careful to let me be one of those to benefit from your practical information. Please know how great I am thankful.”

My RESPONSE

I would like to personally and symbolically thank; the author of this comment, Verducci@stanford.edu and all participating country-citizens around the world whom have commented on Todd’s Creative Design (my blog), for the following stated ability, “I’m able to think of a million fun strategies to read the content on this site.”. And further, this author (todddude…) hopes, they all will intelligently engage their friends, families and cultures by means of objective analysis with intent to understand the creative design we all participate within.

My feet are my understanding…
What exactly do I think? And why?
And emphatically “YES” “it” (what you think and I think) does matter!
It matters to us all!
You are not alone!
And is “it” (what I think, feel, and believe), truth-truth & really real & supported by objective evidence…
Therefore, this is a call to do right actions!
Agreement with the Redeemer Creator…
Take on this challenge…
Question whether or not this “it” is rhetoric…
Otherwise, the mind is a terrible thing to waste… todddude…

Additional Research Investigations

[...] read my paper titled, “Proprie Peregrinus Epistemology Solidarity/Rhetoric Versus Objectivity“, in order to compare declared truth to decerned truth truth based on objective evidence [...]

[...] read my paper titled, “Vivo Considerate Applied Rhetoric Approach Comparison: Living Deliberately Versus Not Getting Involved or Engaged; Benjamin Franklin Versus Henry David Thoreau“, Perhaps Thoreau could have prevented the civil war with involved participation and authority of applied superior intellect if he had taken Franklins advice and participated in the government decision-making process. [...]

Promotions

Music Man Jeremy Jayson | Travel Shopboard | Shopboard Mall | Shopboard GVO | Green Shopboard | Shopboard TCD | Earn By Promoting Clickbank Products