George Washington's Eulogy

Washington’s Eulogy

George Washington was America’s greatest man. After hs death on December 14, 1799, he was eulogized across the nation. The greatest of these eulogies was offered Feb. 8, 1800, by Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, who had been instrumental in gaining his state’s ratification of the Constitution. As a Federalist, Ames defeated Samuel Adams to serve the first four terms for Massachusetts in the House of Representatives.

Commemorating Washington’s life, Ames said, Countless witnesses attest that, however astonishing Washington’s many… qualities of mind and character might be, the sum was even greater than the parts.

Ames described his courage, energy, high principles, and steadfastness; his impartial justice and utter trustworthiness; [his]calm in the face of danger. He proclaimed him dauntless in adversity; one of that small number…who acted through life as if they were born, not for themselves, but for their country and the whole human race.

 
Echoing the young officers who served with Washington in his youth, Ames said that, even as a young man, Washington had "acquired a maturity of judgment, rare in age, unparalleled in youth. Washington served for five years, ages 21 to 26, as commander of the army of Virginia. “At a time when youth is almost privileged to be rash, Virginia committed the safety of her frontier, and ultimately the safety of America, not merely to his valor…but to his prudence. . . ."

From his earliest days, "The soul of Washington... appeared firm in adversity, cool in action. . .fearless of dangers that were personal to him, [yet]hesitating and cautious when they affected his country; preferring …duty before fame"
In the great crises of the American founding, "some man was wanting who possessed a commanding power over the popular passions, but over whom those passions had no power. That man was Washington. [The] office took honor from his acceptance… never was confidence in a man and a chief magistrate more widely diffused, or more solidly established. . . .

"The best evidence of reputation is a man’s whole life. [Washington] was the patriot without reproach; he loved his county well enough to hold his success in serving it an ample recompense…when his country needed sacrifices that no other man could or perhaps would be willing to make, he did not…hesitate. This was virtue in its most exalted character. . . .

"His preeminence is not so much to be seen in the display of any one virtue as in the possession of them all, and in the practice of the most difficult.

"His prudence was consummate…as a soldier, he was more solicitous to avoid mistakes that might be fatal than to perform exploits that are brilliant; and as a statesman, to adhere to just principles, however old, than to pursue novelties…his qualities were singularly adapted to the interest…of the country.

If he had strong passions, he had learned to subdue them, and to be moderate and mild. If he had weaknesses, he…excluded them from…his temper and conduct…the fame he enjoyed is of the kind that will last forever.

"Such a citizen would do honor to any country. The constant veneration and affection of his county will show, that it was worthy of such a citizen. . . As a nation, we are grateful for George Washington.

The Value of Opposition- Can we Just Cooperate?

The Value of Opposition

 Conservative, Liberal or What?

Conservatives bash liberals and liberals rant against conservatives. The diatribes continue unabated in the media and often become decidedly uncivil. Occasionally temporary exhaustion sets in and the rancor cools, but inevitably it surges again, fueled by a new topic. While I plead for civil conversation, the need for dialogue is very important.

It is easy to forget that we often gain the most from those who disagree with us. Those who challenge our way of thinking open our minds and create open dialogue. Without opposing views, civic conversation can easily become bland, boring reiteration. Those who disagree with us render us great service.

The willingness to evaluate, consider, and tolerate opposing points of view is a sign of maturity. There is a critical purpose to differing opinions—they give us choices, without which we grow narrow. They make us think, and provide a springboard against which we can strengthen our own ideas and convictions. It is an act of courage to put yourself “out there” with an opposing point of view and then take the heat for your opinions. 

In order for opinions to make a significant difference, others must hear them. Writers write so that readers may read, and speakers speak so that listeners may listen. They need not, however, agree with each other. The exchange of ideas takes place to consider new information. We sift, sort, evaluate, and keep what’s useful to us. Contrasting opinions, like exercise, strengthen our mental, moral and psychological muscles as we push against them.

Some fear contrasting voices. Unless the ideas presented by those voices are debauched, that is unwise. Provincial and immature though it is, we often want everyone to agree with us because we think we are right. In the end, however, contrast heightens the look and feel of ideas and brings them into focus. The strong are made stronger by contrast. Conservatives, for instance, can become more secure in their conservatism when they nibble at the liberal banquet fest.

For many conservatives, it is unlikely our well-tested, tightly screened ideas will change. They are part and parcel of our life experiences, woven into our core. There is, then, a real danger of sinking into the boredom of sameness and apathy. We need people with opposite views to give variety and expansion to our horizons. Not all of us take the same journey and watch the same scenery, therefore we end up at different destinations. Who can begrudge that—the world is full of destinations. We need not, do not want to be, and must not be all the same. We can benefit greatly from asking ourselves, “What is it about this opposisng opinion that unsettles me, and how can I justify my disagreement?” That exercise is invaluable.

Ronald Reagan once said, ”This is a wonderful time to be alive. We’re lucky not to live in pale and timid times. We’ve been blessed with the opportunity to stand for something.” Those who challenge our conservative opinions help us determine what we believe and why. There is a place in our lives for gratitude to those who disagree with us. Without them, we would be less than we are.

Losing Privacy

Losing Privacy

With the news that government is violating our basic rights by spying on us and storing our private data, the issue of privacy has become very important. Some believe there is no problem with violating privacy if we are doing nothing wrong; we need not fear being watched. In fact, our well-being demands privacy.

  

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution declares "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Warrants are issued only "upon probable cause . . . describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  These constitutional rights to privacy distinguish us from all other people on earth.

Privacy affects our right to free speech. Fear of reprisal shuts our mouths, even when we have done nothing wrong, and makes us increasingly concerned that what we say, do, and think will be misunderstood or misrepresented. Inevitably, this leads to self-censorship. We would ultimately be afraid to be who we want to be, losing a vital part of what it is to be human. Personal growth and our personhood would become constricted because our thoughts would be constricted.  

This constriction of privacy would ultimately spread to the business and economic world to affect free enterprise and business dealings. Confidential information intended for companies, stockholders and administrators could potentially become public knowledge—a matter of state administration.

Those who say there is no need to fear government surveillance if we are doing nothing wrong must consider the question, who decides right and wrong?  What if the definitions of right and wrong are changed? For instance, what happens if Christian worship is declared to be wrong? This is, in fact, now happening. The Christian Seniors Association reports that the Obama administration has declared war on Christianity. For example, the U.S. Army’s written policy now states that any Christian in the military who discusses his faith in Jesus Christ will be court-martialed. Additionally, army training manuals now list Evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists, along with the Ku Klux Klan, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. This would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, but as our constitutional freedoms deteriorate, the unthinkable has become reality.

Journalist Peggy Noonan, in her Wall Street Journal article: What We Lose If We Give Up Privacy on August 16, 2013, offers another reason to protect privacy. “An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. Intrusive surveillance will…put government in charge,” reversing the self-governing principles upon which America was founded. We, the People, are to be in charge of government, but the lack of privacy would put government in charge of us. This shift would change the power base of government and alter our national character.

Some say they don't care what government does as long as it keeps us safe. The insight of Benjamin Franklin is pertinent here, “They who…give up essential liberty to obtain…temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The threat of terrorism is real, but those who run U.S. intelligence and security must be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. Again quoting from Noonan”s article, "There has to be somebody supervising [those in charge of security] who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away…we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution." We might add, that someone must also follow the Constitution.

As technology increases, the ability of the government to take away freedoms will grow broader and deeper. It is imperative that government not embrace the philosophy of Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, who said, “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.” Privacy is a basic right, given by God. We must not allow that right to be taken from us.