On looking back upon the idyllic past with rose-colored glasses

What happened with Trayvon Martin was not vigilantism in the classic sense. I’ll not go into details on the case because that would cause a rabbit trail. Remember Vigilance Committees were born in San Francisco. Do not conflate them with a lynch mob or person.

I agree on the question of anti union violence. E.g. just ask anybody who had kin living in the coal fields of Kentucky and West Virginia.

As for violence on American citizens of African descent, I find the toleration of Jim Crow laws and Klan (lynch mob) appalling.

Back 100 years ago and even earlier, street prostitution and brothels were legal. Over 200 brothels were located in lower Manhattan right before the turn of the 20th century.

The Wild western frontier was engulfed with violence. Genocide among Native American Indians, Range wars, and even vigilante violence was the norm in western towns such as Tombstone Arizona 125 years ago.

Our inner-cities of America with all of the gang and drug violence is pretty bad too. I have students that Jesus changed that were former drug-dealers and gang-members who have lost somewhere between 20-30 of their friends to the streets of Grand Rapids because they were murdered.

So I believe that it was bad then and it is bad now.

It can be difficult to know what “people” thought back whenever, because much of our historical evidence comes from an era’s cultural elite, whose values influence the broader populace but may not match it. For example, we know that the cultural elite in colonial and post-revolutionary America were Christian, with some heterodox theist and deist views thrown in. But it’s not entirely clear that that the American populace was deeply committed to Christianity.

In The Churching of America by Finke and Stark, statistical evidence abounds that church membership rates were very low in the colonial era. In fact, they have for the most part trended upward since America’s founding to the present day. In 1776, only 17% of the populace were registered church members. In 1860, 37% were. In 1980, 62% were. So… that’s interesting. (To be fair, I think these numbers actually indicate registered membership in any organized religious group.) Here’s a tiny article summarizing some of the points of the book: http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/pdf/the-freeman/skousen0402.pdf

I wonder how these rates are measured? Modern historians have an agenda, too, and a good bit of the time it’s the very thesis of the OP… They have a goal of creating the impression that moral direction of the civilization is “progressive.”

At the same time, the “elites” who lead the formation of the nation were leaders because people followed them. This in itself tells much about how people thought. What they were reading and listening to was reflective of their values and what they read and listened to was mostly Christian.

It’s important too when looking at pretty much any group or period, not to think that what stands out as a dramatic example was typical of the time. Though murders occurred, sometimes heinous ones, this is not evidence that most people believed the behavior was right. All the murders that did not happen (despite everyone pretty much leaving their houses unlocked) don’t make the history books.

But these are, in any case, categorically different from abortion. In the case of the former, you have a failure in the administration of justice—the law not being properly applied. In the case of abortion, you have murder of helpless humans being exalted to the level of law of the land and precisely because of a rejection of the idea that there is a moral code that transcends human opinion. Legalized abortion is a fruit of modern ideas about “progress” —specifically anti-Christian ideas.

I suppose some will never believe that the good ole’ days may not have been so good. I could probably give dozens of examples with no hope of changing a person’s mind. But you Aaron could not be more illogical on this. Look at the chart in the article I linked to of murder rates during the history of the US. A clearer trend could not be evident and that chart shows what is “typical of the time.” The fact that some murders “did not happen” has nothing to do with it. What we know is that the murder rate has dropped very dramatically.

And of course, people as a rule did not believe that murder was OK. But they were much more callous on the issue of human life. That is why for example, a few centuries ago in Europe, people took their children to view disgusting executions of people and considered it entertainment. The very fact that the people in our country put up with the large scale murder of African Americans, Native Americans and groups (such as union workers) tells us that the people did not value life as we do.

It seems to me that for many, the only yardstick is abortion. While legalized abortion is a very bad thing, it is far from the only thing that should be considered. There has been real progress in our country on the sanctity of life. Denying that fact is an insult against all the groups that have been violently abused through our history.

[Aaron Blumer]

I wonder how these rates are measured? Modern historians have an agenda, too, and a good bit of the time it’s the very thesis of the OP… They have a goal of creating the impression that moral direction of the civilization is “progressive.”

If you read their book, they have a whole chapter on methodology. But it’s pretty simple. All the major religious groups since colonial times kept really good records, and most of those records are readily accessible. So, any inaccuracy is more likely the fault of the records than the historians. They do have an axe to grind, but it’s in their interpretation of the data more than in their hard numbers. They think religion obeys the laws of free market economics.

[Aaron Blumer]

At the same time, the “elites” who lead the formation of the nation were leaders because people followed them. This in itself tells much about how people thought. What they were reading and listening to was reflective of their values and what they read and listened to was mostly Christian.

I think you unreasonably discount the level of disconnect between a progressive cultural elite and the majority of the populace. This is true especially in early modern Protestant countries, which remained majority Catholic for several generations after complete Protestant takeover of the government and educational systems. It’s true in America because of the frontier effect; most of the people coming to America were not pious Puritans. Finke and Stark discuss the demographics of colonial America to explain the low church membership rates.

[Aaron Blumer]

It’s important too when looking at pretty much any group or period, not to think that what stands out as a dramatic example was typical of the time.

I agree. One example would be rampant economic exploitation. For example, the old mill town or mining town was a horrific affront to human dignity. Corporations built an artificial town around a valuable resource, then recruited people to work for them. The company business was the only work in town. The workers lived in company housing, purchased all their goods from the company store, and were paid in company (not federal) currency. The system was rigged so that the “money” the workers earned was a bit less than the cost of living. So, the company drained their own employees of money quite like how the employees stripped the landscape of resources. When the resources were exhausted, the company just moved elsewhere, leaving their employees broke and with no recourse. Today, economic exploitation still exists, but there are more opportunities to fight it.

I agree with the OP- there is nothing new under the sun. There may be an ebb and flow, but it’s all the same thing. Our ability to communicate quickly with other parts of the world gives us a bigger picture, and possibly the impression that things have gone downhill morally like a ball-bearing on a greased plank. We know that ‘when the wicked bear rule, the people mourn’, and when the ‘righteous’ are in charge, things are better. But what has really changed on the ground, so to speak?

Nothing much. Man’s heart has the capacity to be wicked and deceitful beyond measure, and we have many examples, from Cain to Susan Smith to Ted Bundy, that when the opportunity to commit evil knocks, some people are happy to answer the door.

Greg, I think you’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’ve already granted that the “good old days” were not as good as some think. What I’m saying is that the nation has undergone an ideological shift. We do have more law and order in most places—hence lower murder rates.

The ideological shift is real as is a correlating moral change.

[Aaron] The glaring inconsistencies of the past don’t alter the fact that at one time nearly every American believed several things:

• God exists and created the world
• God is the moral authority over the world
• Everybody will stand before God some day and answer for how he lived
• The Bible communicates right and wrong to us
• The role of government is to protect the security and property of its citizens
• The role of government is not to secure an artificial equality of outcomes on its citizens

Along with these, a solid majority believed for a long time that fornication and adultery are serious sins, that marriage should be for life, that certain kinds of language constitute bad manners and are not suitable for ears of children and ladies, that men should lead in their homes as the primary providers and protectors, that wives should be the primary care providers for children, that reputable women should not be seen in public with 2/3 of their skin exposed… and much, much more.

There is no longer any strong consensus on any of these things.

Is the quoted part really in dispute?