Our National Destruction Is a Failure of Boundaries
Article by Chuck Mawhinney in The American Thinker
Our National Destruction Is a Failure of Boundaries
We
have all been circling around the genesis of our society's ills since
the COVID epidemic struck and the riots and peaceful protests began. It
is not ironic that everything happened seemingly at once; rather, once
the wound appeared, it became inflamed and infected almost immediately.
On
the most fundamental level, we are suffering from a complete disrespect
for boundaries. The idea of boundaries is fairly simple, yet its roots
grow deep, indeed to the core of humanity. One of my favorite books
describes the entire book of Genesis from the Bible as an ironic story
about boundaries (The Book of J, Harold Bloom & David Rosenberg).
Genesis
describes the boundaries of the land of Canaan, but it also explains
the boundaries between neighbors, between enemies, between men and
women, between tribes, and most importantly between God and man, Heaven
and Earth. The boundary between God and man exists even for the atheist
because his faith is rooted not in a divine being, but in something
else. Whatever it is that he believes in matters not. Science,
anti-science, political ideology — something gives him sustenance, and
between him and that ideal, there lies a boundary. It may only be his
own misery he has faith in. That is enough to create a boundary.
A
crude explanation for the need of religion is that dogma explains
boundaries to us in no uncertain terms. You can believe wholeheartedly
in the right for women to have control over their own bodies, but you
cannot say that by killing an innocent living human being, you have not
crossed a boundary. So the argument is not whether the boundary exists
or not, but do you respect it? I can think of no prose where a more
fitting word has been chosen than in "forgive those who trespass against
us." Trespass. The fact that this word was chosen informs you that its author was keenly aware of boundaries.
How
we deal with boundaries is called "morality." You do not need to be
religious in order to adopt a code of behavior and respect for a moral
view of the world. You only need to see why morality is needed. As
Jordan Peterson observes, even within packs and herds of animals, there
is an instinctive morality that is observed lest the pack turn on the
outlaw. Mankind boasts a most sophisticated moral view whose subtitles
and gray areas have been adjudicated, been debated, and even led to war.
Our
founding fathers understood the reality and the need for
boundaries. They were tasked to create political limits among the
branches of government and also to define the boundary between
government and society. They could not make their population
moral. But they could and did apply a moral code to their
definitions. Those things that protect the individual from the State
were called "The Bill of Rights." These rights derive from a
commonsense notion that man is not the creator, but the
created. Whether you believe solely in evolution or solely in creation
or something between the two, humankind did not create
humankind. That's common sense. There is a boundary between us and the
nature of our creation. We did not create ourselves.
Therefore,
the logic goes, there are certain things within the human being that
make him sovereign, and those elements are endowed through creation in
us. They are not subject to state authority. They "belong" to the
individual.
Most
notably, the human mind is the sole property of the individual, given
him by creation. We did not create our minds or our bodies. Neither
did the government. This fact should be part of "gender studies" as
well as "race relations." Dialectic reason says that what comes from an
individual's mind — i.e., what he thinks — is therefore also a gift of
creation. It cannot be taken or abused or stifled by the
government. We call this "freedom of speech" because what we say
reflects what we think.
Freedom
of speech becomes freedom of the press. When we shout down or cancel
someone's speech, we are seriously crossing a boundary. In the old days
— say, two years ago — there was always someone to stand up for this
right. "Let him say his piece," we might say to a dissenter. "Then
you can have yours." Sadly, that is not the case today. Mob mentality
is taking over.
Why
do the feds usurp authority from the states, and why do the states
demand of the feds, and why do people trespass on someone's right to
speak? Why does the Executive Branch make law when the Congress is
constitutionally assigned that responsibility? Why are so many
boundaries being invaded, and why is trespassing no longer a crime?
The
answer is obvious. We no longer respect boundaries. We have become
that tribal human animal before religion awoke us to the necessity of
morality. The whole concept of existentialism rides on the concept of
organized and lawful conduct. Some say "social contract." Pick your
terminology; say it how you like. The ends are the same. This society
is fracturing at an alarming rate. Nothing can turn the tide until
boundaries are once again recognized and respected. There is no moral
code without them.
There
are other more powerful forces at work also. We call them Google and
Facebook and Amazon, a dozen companies seeking to strike down freedom of
speech on the altar of their self-righteous narcissism. They are
zealots, worshiping the ideological god of Critical Theory and insisting
you repeat their rhetoric lest you, the infidel, be canceled. They
wish to control your thoughts.
This
radical religion is devoid of wisdom from its founding
presupposition. Critical Theory should deconstruct (their favorite
word) its own thinking! Just as the ego of a narcissist knows no bounds
(by definition), Critical Theory does not acknowledge the universal
fact that boundaries exist. Move over, Google — you're crowding
me! Why they wish to control your thoughts and opinions is anyone's
guess. (Power, maybe?) How they are doing it is by algorithms,
keywords, and the beginnings of artificial intelligence. What they are
doing is crushing our right to hold thoughts that do not confirm to
their dogma.
Anti-trust
laws were put in place for this reason. Monopolies by their nature
invade the boundaries of other businesses trying to survive. They can
manipulate markets and apply irresistible pressure on groups and
individuals. It's always the zealots who will not permit debate or
dissension.
If
we are to open our national borders and forgo immigration laws, we will
no longer be a country. If we no longer protect the citizenry from
criminals by arresting them and prosecuting them, there will be no
justice, no peace whatsoever. If we allow Big Tech to censor the
digital world, there will be no intelligent debate or
truth-seeking. Without truth-seeking, we have no education, no possible
way forward. At that point, can we really call ourselves "civilized
human beings"?
