We can't trade freedom for security

GEORGE TEMPLETON

COMMENTARY

By George Templeton

Gazette Columnist

Poincare

“Every act should have an aim.  We must suffer, we must work, we must pay for our place at the game, but this is for seeing’s sake; or at least that others may one day see.  All that is not thought is pure nothingness; since we can think only thoughts and all the words we use to speak of things can express only thoughts, to say that there is something other than thought, is therefore an affirmation which can have no meaning.  And yet – strange contradiction for those who believe in time – geologic history shows us that life is only a short episode between two eternities of death, and that, even in this episode, conscious thought has lasted and will last only a moment.  Thought is only a gleam in the midst of a long night.  But it is this gleam that is everything.”

Jefferson

Like Poincare, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, favored human reason and experience over faith, dogma, and revelation, but having stubbed his toe on a rock he might have suspected that reality was more than just thought!

Jefferson was a deist who rejected much of traditional Christianity.  His 46 page Jefferson Bible edited out those portions that he felt were superstition, mythical, and the work of man.  Jefferson’s God created the laws of the universe, let it run, and was not a personal God controlling history. 

Though they believed in “Providence” and in the importance of a religious plurality for moral guidance, our founding fathers wanted to prevent the rise to power of any single dominating religion.  They had no intention of creating a Christian nation.  For example, the senate ratified the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that states “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”.  The approximately 175,000 word Federalist Papers, considered the best authority on the Constitution, never mentions “Jesus” or “Christian.”

Jefferson believed that a wall between church and state was necessary to protect us from political and religious oppression and that an alliance between church and state could evolve into the divine right of kings.  For Jefferson, religion was a private matter like marriage, not to be broadcast by boastful politicians who compete on the intensity of their religious devotion and faith. 

Conservatives claim the God of the Declaration is exclusively a Christian God and try to force public schools to teach their revisionist version of divinely inspired constitutional history.

Mountaintop

Perhaps you have climbed to the top of a mountain on a clear day where you could see forever and experienced exhilaration, awe, and wonder and then you tried to capture that on a photo.  No camera, lens, or film will replicate the experience.  We scan the surroundings, feel the cool breeze, smell the flowers, and hear the sounds.  The mind integrates the senses and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  So it is with our sacred constitution because “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Separation

The origin of the idea that church and state are different and should be separate can be traced to the teachings of Christ and to the persecutions endured by the early church.

The WWII German theologian, Bonhoeffer, in his notes on Ethics, explains “The American democracy is not founded on the emancipated man but, quite on the contrary, upon the Kingdom of God” and that it “… cannot be built by the authority of the state, but only by congregation of the faithful.”

When the church becomes part of government the rights of minorities are imperiled.  The danger is not unilateral.  As in Iran, government can bow to the tyranny of the clergy.

Politics

Fundamentalist politicians wrap themselves in the flag while proclaiming the cross.  They pick issues in order to promote a constitutional crisis.  Looking toward the clouds for guidance from on high, they find it unnecessary to understand the personal consequences of their decisions.  They use popular religion to boost their quest for power, claiming that they are the defenders of spirituality.  They ignore ambiguities and details and make evildoers of those who disagree, claiming that they are moral and represent the American people and you do not.  The American way is about religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.  We have a right to act on our beliefs, but not to construct “a Bible-based social, political, and religious order that .. denies the religious enemies of God.”

We cannot be a truly Christian nation even though many Americans find a unified source of meaning there.  The disputes between Protestants and Catholics, the persecution of Mormons, the fights between Sunnis and Shia, the Serbian-Muslim genocide, the Jewish holocaust, and Jerusalem disputed from the time of the crusades testify to this.  The truth is that when we think we can unite together to oppose abortion, birth-control and gay marriage, we are practicing politics, not religion.

Spiritual

Religion is about truth, not lies and exaggerations.  Politics is about the power of the few over the many.  Religious fervor can become a shield to deflect reasoned criticism of overly simplistic emotional policies that are not supported with factual information.  The intent of our Founding Fathers was not to claim a covenant with the almighty or create a “born again” sacred Christian nation that expurgates rampant secular drift.

Secularism is not a veiled ideology conspiring to persecute Christians that is legitimized by constitutional neutrality.  It is not Republican or Democrat, not conservative or liberal.  It makes no claim about the approaching battle for Jerusalem, provides no criteria for deciding between right and wrong, no personal vision of identity and no coherent program for concrete action.  Secularism forces nothing on religion and does not prevent individual prayer in public school.  The faithful are not being fed to the lions.  Government encourages and supports religion in many ways.

Science is not anti-religious bigotry.  We pay the high price of ignorance when we ignore respected scientists, instead believing politicians, nonprofessionals, and special interest organizations.

Keeping religion out of public life does not amount to an assault on spirituality, though it hinders proselytization.

Dilemma

Our culture seems infatuated by moral decadence and confused about whether we are the problem or the solution.  We seek redemption through undemocratic acts.  It is ironic that the forces of greed, envy, and fear are used to condescendingly promote intolerant coercive laws in the name of freedom, and morality, and that deception is used to sow discord.

Mixing government and church runs the risk of church abuse by government and facilitates the moral and theological legitimization of unholy federal programs.  America’s power does not justify a messianic mission to remake other nations in our image, or vindicate a moral duty to enforce world-wide justice.  The constitution may be an example of God’s grace, but does that give us license for torture and unilateral preemptive war?  America is proclaimed an exceptional nation that owes no apology to anyone.  When patriotism becomes pride, the greatest of the seven deadly sins, humility, empathy and diplomacy are falsely claimed to be signs of weakness.   In the lyrics of Jim Reeves, “Forget everything that’s decent have a ball … Ain’t it funny how pride goes before a fall.”

Slippery Slope

Natural law, representing a higher duty and common sense, is more central than man’s law.  However, no particular measurement fully represents justice, liberty, happiness, and prudence.  Comprehensive, clear, consistent, Natural Law, discovered or proclaimed by divine revelation, does not exist though it provided a good argument for defiance of the tyrant King of Great Britain.

Politics is like religion because it is about sacredness.  Morality is commonly linked to religion and through politics shapes laws.  Virtue exists without either.

Philosophic idealism treats morals.  David Hume, who felt that knowledge comes from experience, and Immanuel Kant, who believed in the existence of truths apart from experience, influenced ethical thinking at the time of the Founding Fathers.  Thomas Hobbs, the father of modern political philosophy, and John Lock, the father of liberalism, can be seen in the Declaration of Independence.

Biblical Law has permanent validity, but science, evolutionary thought, historical-critical Biblical analysis, and the study of comparative religions contribute to our quandary.  Culture influences moral ideas even for Biblical literalists who selectively use or ignore religious teachings.  Psychology investigates conscience, arguing that morality varies between cultures and even political parties and that evolution has pre-programmed the brain with feelings that come from the experiences of our ancestors. Moral reasoning is not to find the truth but rather to get ammunition and attack the character of others.  The moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt finds that liberals emphasize care and fairness much more than conservatives who have a more pessimistic view of human nature.  They value group loyalty, respect for tradition, legitimate authority, and purity.

Constitution

Everyone agrees on what the Constitution says but not on what it means.  The Tea Party reads the Constitution to confirm their pre-existing beliefs and to argue for dismantling the federal government.  They claim they know the intent of the founders and would take us back to an 18^th century interpretation, allowing our nation to be frozen in time.

The purpose of the Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation with a charter that increased federal powers and that allowed necessary future revisions that no one could foresee.  If we followed the intent of the Founding Fathers, and recognized today’s reality, that America must compete globally, we would modify the Constitution to create a federal senator, not beholden to traditional parochial state interests.  Retired presidents could volunteer for this.

Constitutional idolaters have proposed that the source of constitutional authority must be identified for all new legislation.  Unfortunately, the Constitution often raises more questions than it answers and its interpretation is up to the judiciary, not the House.

It is not about rights and wrongs or the explicit condemnation of fundamental research but rather about rights and laws.  It is not about laws insinuating a non-existent problem to provide a future legal foundation for the prohibition of abortion and birth control.  It is not about government passing religious laws concerning marriage or imposing religious dogma on the nation.  The Constitution is not like the Saturday Night Live “church lady” who sees and fears Satan behind every liberty.  It is about being able to make fun of and to laugh at ourselves.  It is about the definition of life, death, and person, organ transplants, surrogate parents, and the implications of understanding the human genome.  It concerns stealth drone terrorism and environmental sustainability.  What decisions will be made by the tyranny of the majority without regard to personal situations? How will power be apportioned between the individual, the doctor, government, and the church?  Can we rely on the courts and Congress?

We must remember that we can’t trade freedom for security or retreat to the past to avoid a heathen present and future, because in the end we will lose everything.