November 12, 2004
SOCIETY AND STATE VS. SOCIETY OR STATE:
Why Religious Voters May Be More Inclusive than Seculars (Frederick Turner, 11/11/04, Tech Central Station)
Judeo-Christian religion -- and the deepest traditions of all religions -- insist that there is a threshold of understanding before which the human mind must fall silently to its knees and acknowledge a mystery, and accept. We cannot know the mind of providence. The Dao that can be spoken is not the Dao. We must love our neighbor and renounce our pride and recognize humility as a virtue and strength, not a weakness. And at the same time the great religions insist on the unique value and dignity of every human soul, and the importance of the drama of our actions, and even the mystery that we are redeemed in the very recognition, and thus in the very existence, of our sinfulness. Religion lets us off neither the hook of our submission to a higher mystery, nor the hook of our responsibility to act and be ourselves in all our ignorance."Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," said Jesus, in the full tradition of the Hebrew prophets. The context of this injunction is very interesting: he has been tested by the intellectual deconstructionists of his time, who want to know if he advocates the paying of taxes (and thus the participation in a political economy). He asks to see a coin, and inquires whose head is on it. On being told it is Caesar's, he gives his answer. The deeper point is this: if we pay taxes to Caesar because Caesar's image is on the coin and Caesar coined it, what is it that bears the image of God and must also be rendered up to the image-maker when the law requires? Since God made humankind "in his image and likeness", then human beings themselves are the tribute that God levies upon his citizens. We render coins to Caesar, and the divine part of ourselves -- God's image in us -- to God. Again, the necessary doubleness.
But secular ideologies, noble and beautiful as they often are, are always in danger of becoming pure individual selfishness, in which case the vote becomes the way that the majority loots the wealth of the minority. On the other hand, if they do postulate a higher unity (race, class, the human race, Gaia), they are in danger of dissolving the individual in the collective, "liquidating" the individual "false consciousness" that stands out from the "masses". And that postulated higher unity, that "popular Will", being the conception of human beings themselves, is in theory understandable by an elite which is thus mandated to rule.
It is no coincidence that democracy was invented by religious people -- the Greeks, the Icelanders, the Dutch, the British, the Americans. It was not invented by atheists and secular humanists, though democracy may be the environment most hospitable to atheists and humanists, and most liable to benefit from their own valuable insights. But perhaps democracy is safer in the hands of those who believe both in a higher unity whose values are finally unknowable to us, and in the personal caring and love of that higher unity for us, that values our individual decisions and our freedom. Those who are best accustomed to the pain and tension of religious "doubleness" may be those who are best qualified to handle the two paradoxes of free societies: the contradiction between my valuations and the valuations of the free market's pricing system, and the contradiction between my necessary political opinions and the verdict of the election.
Now That You've Got Political Power, What Are You Going to Do with It?: History offers warning and hope for our modern-day Christian populism. (Collin Hansen, 11/12/2004, Christianity Today)
Christian reaction to President Bush's election victory has been mixed. While many believers are expressing joy and relief at the election's result, a vocal minority worries publicly that the 'values' discussion has been too narrowly constructed. In a nation where the separation of church and state has been so beneficial for the church, Christians are not sure how to take pundits' proclamations of a new era of political power for the faithful.America's curious political alliances remain a gray area for Christians accustomed to the Bible's black-and-white certitude. Sitting at the top of each party, wealthy elites call the shots, representing business interests (predominantly Republican) and the entertainment and media industries (predominantly Democratic). But thanks to the democratic process, these elites compete for the votes of millions of ordinary Americans, dependent on them to enact their agenda.
Christians are caught in the middle, presently divided. According to recently released polling data, born-again whites supported President Bush by a 72-27 margin. The contrast was even more dramatic, but reversed, among born-again blacks, who supported Senator Kerry 85-15. Each constituency is vital to its political sponsor's survival. Born-again Hispanics, composing nearly 50 percent of voters in that emerging swing ethnic group, supported Bush 56-44. In general, Christians who vote Democrat tout the government's obligation to promote economic equality, but downplay the political leadership's impact on sexual norms and abortion. Conversely, Christians who vote Republican know well the government's cultural impact. But they frequently brush aside the structural impediments to economic fairness.
The faithful in America have not always tolerated this dichotomy. Grassroots Christian activism spurred the great reforms of the Progressive Era and civil rights movement, simultaneously combating economic injustice and moral relativism. Evidenced by 53 percent of the electorate claiming a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the grassroots support is there. With history's help, Christian leaders can harness this tremendous influence and direct it for the holistic good of the church and all our neighbors. [...]
The limitations, not to mention the dangers, of Christian engagement in politics are familiar. In his landmark work, Christ and Culture, H. Richard Niebuhr warned, "If Romans 13 [obedience to political authority] is not balanced by 1 John [warning against loving the world] the church becomes an instrument of state, unable to point men to their transpolitical destiny and their suprapolitical loyalty; unable to engage in political tasks, save as one more group of power-hungry or security-seeking men."
Yet for Niebuhr, the danger of inaction is greater, for the culture shaped by political leaders affects every Christian and the neighbors we love. "Man not only speaks but thinks with the aid of the language of culture," Niebuhr observed. "Not only has the objective world about him been modified by human achievement; but the forms and attitudes of his mind which allow him to make sense out of the objective world have been given him by culture. He cannot dismiss the philosophy and science of his society as though they were external to him; they are in him . … He cannot rid himself of political beliefs and economic customs by rejecting the more or less external institutions; these customs and beliefs have taken up residence in his mind."
Bryan's populists and the civil rights movement show the power of the mobilized masses in American democracy. Now in our own day, the masses have gathered once again, mobilized by a desire to see their government promote righteousness and justice. With faith in God and a healthy skepticism of government's limitations, we can channel this power to love our neighbors.
What Judeo-Christians uniquely understand and live is Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous dictum: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society, The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture to save it from itself." The libertarian/paleoconservative Right finds the latter point inexplicable, which is why they are so disaffected from modern America. The Left can not accept the former, which is why they find it unacceptable that they not control the State. However, the Third Way that Bill Clinton briefly espoused and the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush proceed from the fusion of these two insights, which is why the mainstream conservatism that Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and George Bush have created over the last thirty years, co-opting most conservative and even moderate Democrats, is populated by such well-adjusted citizens and why the loss of an election or a legislative battle is not the catastrophe for the Right that it is for the Left.
MORE (via Tom Morin):
Election Fallout: Faith in democracy, not government (Victor Davis Hanson, 11/07/04, San Francisco Chronicle)
After landmark legislation of the last 40 years to ensure equality of opportunity, the public has reached its limit in using government to press on to enforce an equality of result. In terms of national security, the Republicans, more so than the Democrats after the Cold War—in Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq—oddly are now the party of democratic change, while liberals are more likely to shrug about the disturbing status quo abroad. Conservatives have also made the argument that poverty is evolving into a different phenomenon from what it was decades ago when outhouses, cold showers and no breakfasts were commonplace and we were all not awash in cheap Chinese-imported sneakers, cell phones and televisions.Posted by Orrin Judd at November 12, 2004 8:39 PMLike it or not, the public believes that choices resulting in breaking of the law, drug use, illegitimate births, illiteracy and victimhood can induce poverty as much as exploitation, racism or sexism can. After trillions of dollars of entitlement programs, most voters are unsure that the answers lie with bureaucrats and social programs, especially when the elite architects of such polices rarely experience firsthand the often unintended, but catastrophic results of their own well-meant engineering.
So we all know the cure for the Democratic party: more moderate, populist candidates who don't talk down to voters or live one life and profess another; more explicit faith in American democracy and values; and a little more humility in accepting the tragic limitations of human nature.
Fantastic, Orrin. Thanks.
Posted by: Peter B at November 12, 2004 7:15 PMNo matter what you may think of secular voters, nobody who grew up in the South would buy this guy's idea.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 12, 2004 9:39 PMHow'd the South vote?
Posted by: oj at November 12, 2004 11:50 PM"We cannot know the mind of providence. The Dao that can be spoken is not the Dao."
"liable to benefit from their own valuable insights. But perhaps democracy is safer in the hands of those who believe both in a higher unity whose values are finally unknowable to us, and in the personal caring and love of that higher unity for us, that values our individual decisions and our freedom. "
Which is it? Are the values of the higher unity unknown to us, or do we know that the higher unity's values include personal caring and love for us? It is either a mystery or it is not. If you say "God is a personal being who created us from his own image and who loves us", then you are denying the mystery and naming the Dao.
The first quote describes me. That is what Atheism means to me. I deny God because "God" is naming the Dao. God is an image, a personal image. To worship a personal god is as idolatrous as worshiping a golden sheep god.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 13, 2004 3:04 AMIt has always disturbed me when modern atheists deny that their religion's attempt at creating a state (the spawn of Voltaire and Marx) have been such miserable failures, and in such a short period of time.
The Mosaic law was God's gift to man -- all men, including unbelievers. It is a perfect social order that in many ways is the basis for the American Constitution.
You can be as libertarian as you want, but you are only as free as the surrounding society allows you to be. If we cannot agree on common ground, the minority (atheists, nonconformists, &c) will be rightfully destroyed. It should be obvious how even a small group of nonconformists can make the lives of non-violent people miserable (ie, terrorists). So it is the very survival of the society that is at stake.
Tolerance by the majority is earned, not some sort of inalienable right. Equality means being given the same opportunity to conform to society as the next guy, not the right to tear down the very society he benefits from.
If you are an atheist, then you do not believe God exists, so living in a society that worships God should be immaterial to you. If someone says you are going to Hell, why does that bother you? Unless you somehow think that person has the ability to send you there. (To a place you adamantly state does not exist).
As untenable as faith may be to the atheist, American society, founded upon the belief in God and conforming to Judeo-Christian laws, is the best compromise he will ever see.
But always remember, no matter how much you deny it, you are the heir of Moses, not Robespierre or Voltaire. (Unless you are willing to move to France, of course. Godspeed.)
Posted by: Randall Voth at November 13, 2004 6:12 AMBe careful here. Using politics to transform society is Caesar grasping at what is God's. Doesn't anybody read J.R.R. Tolkien?
You start by thinking that is would be just peachy for the state to brainwash people away from racism and you are tempted to use the Ring of Power to do good. Then straigtaway the power starts to be used for other, darker purposes. We used to Ring to suppress racism; let us now change the way people think about buggery, or about having children, or about life which is unworthy to be life.
Then put down Tolkien and pick up Russel Kirk. How is it that real conservatives were "soft" on Southern thought? It was not because we admired slavery or hated Black people, although that slander is widely accepted. It was rather that we recoiled from using state power to work on "hearts and minds."
This is why the "reform" of education, "as we know it," is the decisive battle of the culture war. Re-establish "school choice" and you will have cast the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 13, 2004 6:56 AMLou:
Can't do vouchers. You'd be transforming society with politics.
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2004 7:59 AMRobert:
It is not given to Man to know why God does things or why Creation is at ii is or why He commanded certain things. But we know what He commanded.
Reason/materialism/secularism/whatever you choose to call it tells us any individual human life is of little value. God tells us each is precious. It is not left to us to elevate our reason over His command.
http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1193/
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2004 8:37 AMReason/materialism/secularism/whatever you choose to call it tells us any individual human life is of little value.
Wrong.
Reason/materialism/secularism/whatever you choose to call it tells us every individual human life has the same value.
This stands in stark contrast to universalist/salvationist/monotheistic belief systems which accord a strikingly inferior value to the lives of non-believers.
If you give the Bible a careful reading, I'm sure you will see what I mean.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 13, 2004 9:10 AMJeff:
Abortion, euthanasia, homosexualism, Darwinism--do you hold any belief that comports with valuing human life and dignity (other than your own life, of course)?
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2004 9:12 AMJeff:
Not to mention your tendency when we discuss abortion, infanticide, etc. to dig way into the past and suggest it's really ok because people somewhere, sometime also did it.
Posted by: Peter B at November 13, 2004 12:29 PMOJ
If by "why God does things" you mean why those things that are outside of the power of men to change happen the way they do, and by "why He commanded certain things" you mean why certain things are the way they are, then I agree with you. You just choose to name the Dao that you cannot explain, and I don't.
To your second point, as Jeff pointed out, nonsense. When you say "God tells us each is precious", since you cannot know what God says or wants or intends, you are really saying "I believe each is precious". Without the knowledge of what God wants, you are asserting your own belief as to what is right, which is no different than what I or any other believer or nonbeleiver does.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 13, 2004 3:09 PMRobert:
No. Not why things are the way they are, why he commanded us to behave certain ways.
We do know what God wants: love one another
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2004 3:14 PMRandall,
You make a very eloquent argument, which I mostly agree with. Athiests are not necessarily followers of Voltaire. In most cases they are just theist dropouts, people who just can't imagine that a personal being is behind the working of the universe.
No social order is perfect. The Mosaic law, which is just that Judeo-Christian version of a set of laws that have been enacted in other cultures and civilizations under other religious revelations, is a good foundation, primarily because it covers the bare minimum of essential rules that any successful society must follow. But American society emphasizes the Mosaic lineage of its version of these universal societal norms, so fine, I accept the rule of Mosaic law as embodied in the US Constitution.
I am heir to more than just Moses, as our American traditions have more fathers than he. There are the traditions of individual liberty and democratic self governance originating from pagan Greece and Anglo-Saxon commom law that predate Christian influence. But as with family surnames, we trace our cultural paternity through a single line and leave our other ancestral lines unnamed.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 13, 2004 3:31 PMThere is zero difference between Christians and secularists as regards the spiritual/philosophical justifications they use to murder outsiders.
They murder different groups of outsiders; neither refrains from murdering anybody.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 13, 2004 5:02 PMHarry:
Yes, it's not the killings that are wrong but the purposes of the secularists.
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2004 6:30 PM"Abortion, euthanasia, homosexualism, Darwinism--do you hold any belief that comports with valuing human life and dignity (other than your own life, of course)?"
Yes--people make their own decisions for themselves, which, if followed eliminates both the Holocaust and the Inquisition. Among many other similar horrors.
And persecuting people for thought crimes is always wrong, as your flirtation with moral relativism ("Yes, it's not the killings that are wrong but the purposes of the secularists.") highlights.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 13, 2004 7:56 PMReason/materialism/secularism/whatever you choose to call it tells us every individual human life has the same value.
C'mon, Jeff, no one with a mental age greater that 8 believes that every human life has the same value. Your wife and Saddam Hussein? Your children and Hitler? George W. Bush and me? If secular humanism were really that jejune, no one would spend any time on it.
You might ask yourself, though, why secular humanism is compelled to lie about this. One of the advantages of the Abrahamic religions, among others, is that they are designed for use by actual human beings before we are perfected, rather than requiring forcible perfecting first.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 13, 2004 8:09 PMJeff:
People making decisions for themselves is what made the 20th century the most murderous in human history. Man isn't fit to decide.
Posted by: oj at November 13, 2004 8:32 PMDavid:
C'mon yourself. What is the famous Jewish mother's question: What makes you think you are so special?
Pardon my perhaps excessively choosing brevity--I thought "in the eyes of the law" was implicit.
Religions, on the other hand, are quite happy to award groups of people going about life essentially the same way with entirely different, and frequently fatal, consequences.
Your analysis excuses every crime, and there are many, the Abrahmic religions have inflicted.
OJ:
Newsflash. People make decisions for themselves all the tiem. Putting a God-gloss on it changes that fact not in the the least.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 14, 2004 2:04 PMI don't cheat on my wife, steal, or lie.
Those are moral decisions I make without benefit of God-gloss, because never mind the hereafter, life is a heck of a lot better as a result.
Making God-gloss irrelevant.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 14, 2004 9:24 PMJeff:
You're goiing to kill her if she becomes inconvenient and have no compunction about having her abort an inconvenient child. That's what comes of thinking morality is choice. You can choose to be moral or not. You don't get to choose what is moral.
Posted by: oj at November 15, 2004 12:34 AM"What is moral" is chosen by cultures, and not by God.
Perhaps God may have chosen a culture to showcase what She regards as moral.
Within a culture, for almost any decision, individuals have the ability to choose among many options generally regarded as being moral actions, although there is frequently a "best" choice.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 15, 2004 7:17 AMMichael:
That's silly, of course. When the Chinese crush the skulls of their daughters they aren't being different, but evil.
Posted by: oj at November 15, 2004 7:37 AM"You're goiing to kill her if she becomes inconvenient and have no compunction about having her abort an inconvenient child."
Liar.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 15, 2004 9:20 PMoj:
That's silly, of course.
The Chinese live in a different culture, and worship different Gods.
If you want to make killing girls evil in China, then conquer them, or convert 'em.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 16, 2004 1:59 AMWe are, because their culture is immoral.
Posted by: oj at November 16, 2004 7:07 AM