Who Are The Silent Majority?
The silent majority is, as we understand it, a large group of people who do not express their opinions publicly. The term goes back, at least, to President Nixon who, in a November 3, 1969 speech, said, “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.”
So then, the silent majority are those of people who do not complain publicly about issues, conditions or situations with which they may actually feel discomfort, distrust or even anger. For example, back in 1969, a relatively few young people were protesting against the war in Southeast Asia while the greatest percentage of Americans simply went about their daily lives without getting too dramatically involved.
In reality, the silent majority is made up of us, collectively us, the ones who pay our taxes, love our country and try to live decent lives. Us, 0r to paraphrase a Walt Kelly cartoon featuring Pogo, “We have met the silent majority and they are us”.
As a group, we go to church, we shop at local stores, we follow various sports teams, we raise our kids, we do not necessarily become too involved in things which we feel may be out of our control or grasp.
This silent majority issue has been an interesting observation for hundreds of years…
Edmund Burke was an Irish statesman in the late 1700’s, he was also an author and philosopher, after moving to London, served as a member of British parliament. He made an observation, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
On this side of the pond, the same general concept was articulated by William Penn when he stated that, “Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”
Taken together, it becomes clear that if all “we” do as the silent majority is nothing, then we are directly responsible for the damage which is wrought.
If we do nothing, we may continue to have a president(s) and vice-president(s) who want to have no restrictions on the murder of children. While both vice-presidential candidates of the major parties this election cycle (2016) are Catholic in name, only one of the two is Catholic in views. Mike Pense describes himself as an evangelical Catholic while Tim Kaine describes himself as a Catholic. A brief review of either of their positions and it becomes clear who is simply not a CINO ( Catholic In Name Only ).
Archbishop Fulton J Sheen
“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” -Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, 1953
The murder of children is wrong, even if a president thinks it is fine and should be unrestricted. Perhaps, at some point, a future president may advocate post-birth-abortion for any period until the age of political majority. A child makes it through pregnancy, birth, elementary school, gets a driver’s license, goes to prom, and gets killed because the parent tires of the child. Why not? It will save all of the money for college tuition.
Can’t happen?
All that is required is for the silent majority to remain silent and there is no telling what can happen.
Preaching to the Choir
Frequently, in this particular web site, I get the feeling that many of us are “preaching to the choir.” That may appear to be true, after all, we are on a Catholic website, the largest percentage of writers are Catholic, the largest percentage of articles present information or views from a Catholic perspective yet there are perhaps many readers who may not be Catholic.
The visitors are also part of the us who make up the silent majority. They may be exploring what it is that those whacko mackerel snappers ( a term a Baptist friend uses to describe Catholics as many of us refrain from meat on Fridays ) actually believe and perhaps why we believe it.
The collective we must take it upon ourselves to stand up, speak out and correct the situations, views, laws with which we have concerns or issues. Should we fail to take action, the result will be much as described in a brief poem which appears on the web, or motivational sites from time to time:
This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done
The Non-Negotiables
Catholics hold that there are a small number of issues which are non-negotiable. That is, they are always wrong, going back to Archbishop Sheen, “Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”
Leading the list of these non-negotiables is abortion. The reader may be tempted to say that he/she works onefull-time and two part-time jobs, has x number of kids, is involved in these various things and does not have time to go to an abortion clinic for 73 hours per week ( the numbers and conditions presented here are all simply to give an extreme example ). In reality, each of us who make up the silent majority has a wonderful opportunity to affect change.
It is very simple, when in a store, bus stop, metro rail station, or anywhere, if you find yourself near a pregnant woman just approach her and say, “Thank you for caring about the child enough to bring it to term.”
She may smile, she may not. Others may not hear, some may. If someone hears the comment, it may plant a seed that this parasitic blob of cells that women carry is a child, not an inconvenience to be expelled.
Lao Tzu is the source of an often repeated quote: “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”
5 thoughts on “The Thunderous Din of the Silent Majority”
Dan – great post.
Brendan – here’s more along the lines of what Dan’s talking about – https://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
Brendan, No, there is one truth. No, no one can be “reasonable” and be proabortion. There is not a truth of reason and a truth of faith. The truth is that it is murder, murder most heinous and despicable, to kill an innocent child, happy and warm one moment in his or her mother’s womb, and the next screaming unheard in unimaginable pain as he or she is burned to death with saline solution, or cut to pieces by a surgically sharp cuvette. The truth is that many children are partially removed from the womb, and organs are harvested for sale; or they are removed and body parts taken-you cannot sell an organ taken from a dead body. This being the truth – it is impossible that anyone who is an “abortion advocate” is reasonable. Issues “serious enough to concern us”? How about over 60,000,000 dead children, over half of them minority members who were targeted? This issue concerns all of us – and no issue, not war, not crime, not hunger, not human trafficking, not ______lives matter, not poverty – is more serious. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas
I too am pro-life, but I don’t believe in activism in support of one cause only. Abortion is a life-terminating evil, but we have more than a few problems dealing with all sorts of life terminating violence here and abroad and should consider all of them. Social conservatives usually advocate quietism, so it’s entirely appropriate that someone like Nixon would appeal to those who are the “silent majority,” though, by definition the opinion of the silent majority can only be inferred by its silence. The “few good men” of the Burke quote need to be placed in context. Their activism would have been always on the part of the established social order as in Burke’s time no uppity non-landholders would get a say.
However, this article seeks to turn the “non-activist” or “established order” stance that Nixon and other conservatives appeal to on its head by suggesting that we should indeed become activists, but only in support of the anti-abortion cause. On other issues we should continue to simply go about our daily routines, go to church, support our teams, raise our kids etc. I think that we must consider many issues that have an impact on life when deciding how to vote and if they are serious enough to concern us we should seek constructive ways of speaking out about them.
The argument that retrospective abortions may be performed on people up to the age of political majority is an untestable extremist claim that will not convince reasonable people and believe it or not, many abortion advocates are reasonable.
Unfortunately, the art of making unprovable claims is currently being perfected by at least one of the candidates. That person’s deliberate distortions, outright lies, simultaneously held opposing positions and advocacy of the leader of a foreign gangster regime are a real concern for all of us. It is not clear who the writer is advocating, though it appears that he is thinking or hoping that one of the vice-presidential choices may come to power eventually. Well, we are all mortal and subject to the “nature’s changing course untrimm’d,” but we will have to make a choice at the moment to vote for one of the less desirable ones — and this properly involves examining their stances, not those of their running mates.
As for the proposed action of going up to strangers and thanking them for carrying a pregnancy to term: this may make some people feel righteous, but it strikes me as offensive and rude. Surely if I can see that she is pregnant, I can infer that she has made a decision that does not require my comment or thanks. How is it my business that a stranger is carrying a child? Should I offer financial or other support to ensure that she can keep it? Should I also congratulate her on having a husband who is willing to contribute and be responsible ( and if not, why not)? Obviously I should not do any of these things.
Would she be right to be offended and tell me to mind my own business? Obviously she would.
“There will be no peace in the world until there is peace in the womb”, St. Theresa of Calcutta.
I disagree. The claim has been tested historically and found to be true. Such was law in ancient Rome before the Empire was Christianized. We live in an age of many abandoning Christianity; thus a reversion to such un-Christian practices is entirely possible.