What Is Truth?

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            What is truth?  That was the skeptical response of Pontius Pilate to Jesus saying, I came into the world to testify to the truth. (John 18: 37-38)  Pilate’s question has echoed down through the ages.  Some, like the poet John Keats, have found truth in the beauty of art: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  But for Jews, Christians and Muslims, God’s truth came through their prophets. 

            The Jews had many prophets, beginning with Moses, and Jesus was a Jew who is considered the ultimate prophet and the last word of God by Christians, just as Muhammad is for Muslims.  Muhammad affirmed that the Jewish prophets, including Jesus, were messengers of God’s truth like himself, but considered most Christians and Jews to be unbelievers. (see Notes below)

            Religion can reveal mystical truths but it can also blind believers to new truths and reason.  Fundamentalist believers reject any new truths and reason that conflict with their ancient religious scriptures, and that included Galileo’s discoveries in astronomy and Darwin’s theory of evolution.  But the most serious problem with fundamentalist concepts of truth has been with religious laws.  Christians cited holy laws to mount the Crusades, conduct Inquisitions and establish a Puritan theocracy in colonial America, and today militant Islamists seek to create a caliphate based on ancient Islamic laws known as shari’a that are barbaric by modern standards of justice.

            Judaism and Islam are deontological religions that emphasize holy laws—Mosaic Law for Jews and shari’a for Muslims—as God’s truth and standard of legitimacy and righteousness.  The teachings of Jesus are more teleological and emphasize the supremacy of love over law as God’s truth; but fundamentalist Christians believe the entire Bible, including Mosaic Law, is the inerrant and infallible word of God, just as fundamentalist Muslims (Islamists) believe the Qur’an and its shari’a are the perfect and immutable word of God. 

            To support their exclusivist claims Christians cite John 4:16 where Jesus says, I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  It is one of the I am sayings that are unique to John’s Gospel in which Jesus is presented as the Logos, or word of God (John 1:1-14).  The symbolic Jesus of John’s Gospel is not compatible with the more historic Jesus of the other three Gospel accounts, where Jesus refuted religious exclusivism when he taught that all who do God’s will are his brothers and sisters in the family of God.

            Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are zealous proselytizers who believe that theirs is the one true faith and that God condemns all unbelievers; and they believe that they have a holy obligation to impose their religious laws on others as God’s will and truth.  That exclusivist idea does not comport with the forgiving, loving and merciful God revealed by Jesus, but it is the norm for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who consider their ancient scriptures to be the sole source of God’s truth and who measure their success by the number of their believers.

            Jesus was a Jew who never promoted any religion—not even his own—and he summarized God’s will in the greatest commandmentto love God and neighbor.  It is made up of two commandments taken from the Hebrew Bible that were conflated into one:  We love God by loving our neighbors as ourselves, and the story of the good Samaritan made it clear that our neighbors include unbelievers.   Islamic scholars have embraced the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.     

          

            The teachings of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad have many similarities, but also many differences.  The teachings of Moses and Muhammad emphasize obedience to God’s law as the standard of righteousness, and God’s rewards for the obedient and punishments for the disobedient.  By way of contrast, the teachings of Jesus emphasize love over law and the transforming power of God’s forgiving love and mercy, or grace, to reconcile and redeem sinners as children of God, rather than their obedience of holy laws.

             

            God is love, and no one can claim to love God and hate his neighbor (I John 4:16-21).  God seeks to reconcile and redeem us through forgiveness and love, while Satan seeks to divide and conquer us through fear and hate.  Unfortunately, Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some of his best work in the synagogue, church and mosque. 

            Our journey of faith is a search for truth—as to the meaning of life, the mysteries of death, and how we relate to our neighbors in a world of increasing religious conflict and violence.  Religion can give believers insight into truth or blind them to it.  To survive in a changing world, religions must conform their beliefs to advances in knowledge and reason, but throughout these changes, love remains.  God’s love is the only immutable truth in the world, and the only power that can save us from ourselves.  That is God’s truth.   

Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Jesus: A Prophet, God’s only Son, or the Logos? April 19, 2015; An Introduction to God Is not One(Stephen Prothero), April 26, 2015;  A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; and Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015. 

“When old age shall this generation waste,

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” (lines 46–50 from Ode on a Grecian Urn)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_on_a_Grecian_Urn.

John Keats’ Ode on a Grecian Urn (1819).  Keats must have had a glimpse of heaven.  In his letter of November 22, 1817, to Benjamin Bailey, Keats mentioned "another favorite Speculation of mine, that we shall enjoy ourselves here after by having what we called happiness on Earth repeated in a finer tone and so repeated."  See http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/k/keats-poems/summary-and-analysis/ode-on-a-grecian-urn.

Muhammad asserted that Allah/God was truth (See Surah 22:6), and that Jewish prophets and Jesus were messengers of God’s truth like himself (see Surahs 2:87; 3:3; 3:45-57; 3:84; 3:113-115; 5:18-20; 5:44-46; 5:110-511; 42:13; 43:57-61; 57:27; 61:6;  ); but Muhammad condemned most Jews and Christians as unbelievers since they were not obedient to their scriptures as perfected in the Qur’an (see Surahs 3:110; 3:187-188; 4:153-161; 5:12-16; 5:82-85; 7:159-169; 57:27; 62:5-6); and Muhammad condemned Christians who believed that Jesus was the Son of God as blasphemers, asserting that God/Allah has no family or son (see Surahs 4:171-172; 5:17; 5:72-75; 9:30; 10:68-70; 18:4-8; 23:91; 43:81; 46:100-101; 39:4).  See selected provisions of the Qur’an cited in The Teachings of Jesusand Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, at pages 470-485; 503-506; 528-542. 

For additional commentary, see the following topics in The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy:  The family of God and spiritual kinship (Mark 3:33-35) at page 21; The greatest commandment(Mark 12:28-33) at page 25; Love over law(Mark 2:27; 3:4; and 7:17-23) at pages 31 and 35; Criticizing self before others: the blind leading the blind (Luke 6:39-42) at page 214; Loving your neighbor: the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) at page 223; Jesus before Pilate (John 18:34-38) at page 330; Faith and eternal life (John 3:14-18) at page 394; and The way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) at page 416.      

Legitimacy as a Context and a Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The concept of legitimacy provides both a context for understanding religious conflict and a paradigm to resolve it.  Religions provide standards of legitimacy—what is right and wrong—and conflicting standards of legitimacy are the primary cause of religious conflict.
 
            Legitimacy includes both voluntary moral standards and the obligatory standards of law.  Progressive believers reject religious law in favor of secular law and accept advances in knowledge and reason in shaping their moral standards, while fundamentalists reject any challenge to the truth of their ancient scriptural doctrines and laws.  That contentious conflict must be resolved in order to find lasting peace in a world of increasing religiosity.

            There is little religious conflict when religious standards of legitimacy are considered voluntary moral standards and not coercive laws, but apostasy and blasphemy laws are criminal offenses under both Jewish Mosaic Law and Islamic Law (shari’a).  Those coercive religious laws suppress the freedoms of religion and speech that are first among the fundamental freedoms of libertarian democracy.
 
            The freedoms of religion and speech have been accepted as matters of faith as well as law by religions in libertarian democracies, even though they are not mentioned in the ancient scriptures.  Those freedoms provide religious tolerance, which is the reason why religious fundamentalists are a minority in libertarian democracies; but fundamentalists are a majority in Islamic nations where apostasy and blasphemy laws foster religious conflict and violence.

            Religious conflict and violence would decrease in Islamic cultures if shari’a were considered a voluntary code of moral standards rather than enforced as a code of laws; and if the freedoms of religion and speech were human rights, militant Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS would be denied their legitimacy since it depends upon apostasy and blasphemy laws.  Justice and law and order require more than criminal laws that protect against violence; they also require human rights that protect individuals from the oppressive powers of government.

            Devout Christians and Muslims believe the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on law and morality are the word of God and the heart of legitimacy.  Jesus taught principles based on love over law and the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor—even one’s unbelieving neighbors—that were echoed by Muhammad before he became a political leader and warrior.  The teachings of Muhammad, like those of Moses, included laws that may have been appropriate for their ancient time and place but that are not appropriate for our time and place.

            The teachings of Jesus were universal and timeless moral standards that were consistent with the teachings of other Jewish patriarchs and prophets, and even Muhammad—until he assumed political and military power.  In ancient times the legitimacy of those powers depended upon the divine right to rule and divine law.  But if Moses and Muhammad exercised worldly power today they would likely be more like other progressive modern leaders than religious fundamentalists, and accept advances in knowledge, reason and libertarian values as improvements in standards of legitimacy that are consistent with the greatest commandment.

            Religious fundamentalism is based on the false assumption that the ancient scriptures are the last word of God for humankind.  God’s standards of legitimacy are not frozen in ancient and immutable scriptures, but accept advances in knowledge, reason and the libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law so long as they comport with the moral imperative to love others.  God has never favored any one religion over others.  All religions have been a source of good and evil.  The final accounting must be left to God’s judgment.

            God has given humanity the free will to determine its own fate, for good or bad.  Even though political freedom is not mentioned in the ancient scriptures, it is like the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  It allows humankind to determine its own destiny, either to liberate the oppressed or to allow the powerful to oppress the vulnerable.  The challenge for people of faith in libertarian democracies today is to learn how to balance individual freedom with providing for the common good, and to promote freedom as a means to liberate the oppressed.   
                
            How can ISIS attract young Muslims from libertarian democracies with its distorted ideals?  Ebrahim Moosa is an Islamic scholar who has described ISIS as a toxic version of political Islam on steroids, but has acknowledged that  …today Islamic orthodoxy is in serious need of a makeover.  Mainstream theologians…are unable to address…the meaning of sharia in a modern nation…because theological education is steeped in ancient texts with little attention to reinterpretation.  The ISIS ideal of a caliphate that imposes religious laws that are hideously illegitimate will ultimately fail, but not without causing more violence and suffering.

            The majority of Muslims, not ISIS, will determine the future of Islam; and when Muslims interpret shari’a in the light of advances in knowledge and reason, then Islam will become compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  The concept of legitimacy provides both a context and paradigm to do that by establishing the primacy of love over law; and it is expressed in the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  Like Judaism and Christianity before it, Islam will over time evolve into a religion that accepts the freedoms of religion and speech as a matter of faith and law, and will embrace those libertarian values and standards of legitimacy that are essential to world peace.


Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Religion as a Source of Good and Evil, February 1, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law, April 12, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015.

 

The Introduction to TheTeachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacyexplains how the concept of legitimacy is related to the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad, with an emphasis on love over law and the greatest commandmentas a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike (see pages 10-15, 25-30 and 31-38).      

Roger Cohen has asked:  How does ISIS attract young Muslims from libertarian democracies? (See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/roger-cohen-why-isis-trumps-freedom.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0.).  Ebrahim Moosa is an Islamic scholar who has joined Cohen in responding to that question:  How could this have happened? Islamic orthodoxy, which controls mosques and institutions worldwide, is out of step with the world in which the majority of Muslims live. In few places is orthodox Islam independent of the state; it is often a political tool used by authoritarian regimes, which explains why the Muslim intelligentsia does not respect it. Its hallmark is archaism in theology and ethics, and its reach covers most of the global community of faith. Once a robust intellectual tradition, today Islamic orthodoxy is in serious need of a makeover. Mainstream theologians who cater to the majority of lay Muslims, both Sunni and Shiite, are unable to address such critical moral and theological challenges as evolution, gender and sexuality, or the role and meaning of sharia in a modern nation. That’s because theological education is steeped in ancient texts with little attention to reinterpretation.  Moosa says, …thankfully, some orthodox elements are prepared to rethink issues.  Sadly, they are a minority. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-madrassa-classmate-hated-politics-then-joined-the-islamic-state/2015/08/21/b8ebe826-4769-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns.)

How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Last week’s blog addressed the conflict between individual rights and the collective obligations all people have for one another.  Fundamentalist religions and secular authoritarian regimes resolve that conflict by eliminating individual rights with a religious or political ideal and imposing oppressive laws.  So it was with Cotton Mather’s 17^thcentury Puritans in New England, with Communists in the 20^thcentury, and with today’s radical Islamists like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

            Roger Cohen has asked: What leads young European Muslims in the thousands to give up lives in France, Britain or Germany, enlist in …the Islamic State, and dedicate themselves to the unlikely aim of establishing a caliphate backed by digital propaganda?  Cohen acknowledges that we don’t know the answer why the violent rejection of modernity and the extreme, literalist interpretation of certain teachings of Sunni Islam have “…proved of unquenchable appeal.”  He suggests one reason may be that the freedoms of libertarian democracies have all but eliminated traditional moral boundaries, allowing people to do what they want without concern for others.

            Absolute freedom is anarchy, but the absence of freedom is tyranny.  The challenge for libertarian democracies is to balance individual rights with providing for the common good.  Religion can help the process by providing the moral standards of legitimacy that balance individual freedom with collective obligations to provide for the common good, but fundamentalist religions distort the process with sacred ideals and laws that eliminate freedom. 

            Secularism is an antidote for religious fundamentalism.  It does not exclude religion from politics, but prohibits government from favoring any religion to protect libertarian human rights.    Secularism considers advances in knowledge and reason in shaping standards of legitimacy that balance religious ideals with the secular ideals of politics.  Human rights are critically important, but they only define what government cannot do, not what government can or should do to provide for the common good.  That is the province of democratic politics and religion.

            Fundamental human rights begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, and they are defined and protected as universal human rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  Economic and social needs are also treated as human rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); but government benefits cannot be universally enforced as rights since they depend on a nation’s capability to provide them.  As a result government benefits must remain a national political responsibility.

            The U.S. is a party to the ICCPR (signed in 1977 and ratified in 1992), but not to the ICESCR.  Most Islamic nations in the Middle East and Africa embrace Islamic law, or shari’a, and have an Islamic version of human rights law that subjects human rights to shari’a.  The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990 condones apostasy and blasphemy laws that deny the freedoms of religion and speech, and shari’a condones discrimination against women and religious minorities.  Islamic scholars have debated issues of justice and human rights in Islam, but there is no consensus on providing libertarian human rights or eliminating discrimination against women and non-Muslims, so shari’a reigns supreme over libertarian human rights.

            Unlike Muslims in Islamic cultures, those in libertarian democracies have come to appreciate the freedoms of religion and speech and equal treatment of women and religious minorities.  Those progressive Muslims have not lost their religion, they have only secularized it—much like their Jewish and Christian neighbors.  They consider politics and law the province of man, not God, and know that if government is controlled by any religion there can be no freedom of religion or speech.  The secularization of religion thus allows the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of libertarian democracies, but that are missing in Islamic cultures.

            Secularism acknowledges advances in knowledge and reason as sources of truth, while religious fundamentalism rejects any advances in knowledge or reason that challenges the truth of God’s will as revealed in its holy scripture—the Hebrew Bible for Jews, the Christian Bible for Christians, and the Qur’an for Muslims.  Such a conflict came to a head in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, where the teaching of evolution challenged the Biblical creation story.  And the issue is not resolved; Christian fundamentalists continue to promote the teaching of Biblical creationism along with scientific evolution in public schools. 

            In their search for truth, progressive believers use inductive reasoning to accept advances in knowledge and reason, but also use deductive reasoning to retain belief in ancient mystical truths such as eternal life that remain beyond knowledge and reason.  By way of contrast, fundamentalists rely entirely on the unyielding truths of their ancient holy scriptures.

           

            Religions are expected to grow worldwide even as they shrink in libertarian democracies, and secularism is necessary to enable Islam to embrace the freedoms of religion and speech that are necessary for Muslims to debunk the demagoguery of ISIS.  While the excesses of liberty can be a license for immorality, liberty in law is essential to enable reason and truth to prevail over religious demagoguery.  That is why religious fundamentalists are a minority among believers in the U.S., while they are majority in Islamic cultures that have no freedom of religion or speech.  Secularism can provide the needed balance between libertarian human rights and the moral imperative to provide for the common good.  It is expressed in the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself—even one’s unbelieving neighbors.

             

Notes and References to Resources:     

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015. 

Roger Cohen has asked why the propaganda of ISIS trumps the freedom of libertarian democracies for many young Muslims.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/roger-cohen-why-isis-trumps-freedom.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0.

On religion and secularism, Alan Wolfe has argued “…religion’s priority of belief and secularism’s commitment to individual rights are not in opposition; rather they complement each other.”  He believes that secular values are essential to the survival of religion in the modern era.  See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/and-the-winner-is/306654/. 

Ken Gibson has stated that Islam is not the problem.  Islamism is.  “Secularism, the separation of politics and religion, is the only force that can deliver a peaceful accommodation [of politics and religion].”  And Gibson concludes, Extremism is religion’s enemy.  Secularism is its ally. See http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ken-gibson-secularism-is-religion-s-ally-against-extremes-1.2305739. 

On how the U.S. has promoted democracy, human rights and the rule of law in its foreign policy, see generally, Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium, chapter 4 in the Resources.  On the differing opinions of Islamic scholars on justice and human rights, see Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights at pages 10-17 in the Resources.  On the separation of church and state from a Christian and Muslim perspective, see Church and state: conflicting concepts of sovereignty in The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: the Heart of Legitimacy at page 57 in the Resources. 

Craig Stern has explained why libertarian or negative human rightsunder the ICCPR are enforceable, while economic entitlements or positive human rights under the ICESCR are not, and why the latter can corrupt the former as part of the rule of law.  See Craig A. Stern, Human Rights and the Rule of Law—the Choice for East Africa, SSRN, March 6, 2015, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574823.  On democracy, human rights and fundamentalism, and differing views of Islamic scholars, see Barnes, Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a,Democracy and Human Rights at pages 2-18.  Mark R. Amstutz  has noted “The limited consensus on human rights doctrines, coupled with the ever-expanding list of rights, has had a deleterious effect on the moral foundations and priority of international human rights claims.” And that human rights provide “…norms that if not fulfilled by a state can undermine its international legitimacy.” Amstutz, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories and Cases in Global Politics, Third Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, pp 97-99.  

Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provide for the freedom of religion and free expression, and Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the ICCPR make those rights a matter of international law.  The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990 has no provisions comparable to Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the ICCPR, but following a Preamble that asserts the primacy of Shari’a in defining human rights, Article 11 provides in part: Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High….  Article 18 provides in part: Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property….  Article 22 provides: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.  (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. (c) Information is a vital necessity to society.  It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. (d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.  Article 24 provides specifically what the Preamble implies: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.  Article 25 provides: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was an American legal case in 1925 in which a substitute high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.  Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposely incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant.  Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 (equivalent to $1,345 in 2015), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial publicized the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy, which set Modernists [Secularists], who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion, against Fundamentalists, who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether modern science regarding the creation–evolution controversy should be taught in schools. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial.

Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The Enlightenment of the 18^th century was akin to the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.  Its libertarian political theories and advances in knowledge and reason were the forbidden fruit that opened the eyes of humanity to a secular truth that debunked traditional religion.  Since then libertarian democracies in the West have evolved into more secular cultures in which individual rights have been given primacy over the collective obligations of traditional religion. 

            Progressive believers in the libertarian democracies of the West have adapted their faith to advances in knowledge and the libertarian values of the Enlightenment, and they outnumber religious fundamentalists who have resisted any modernization of their religion by insisting on the absolute truth of their ancient scriptures.  Progressive believers are a minority in the Islamic East, where most Muslims are literal fundamentalists who believe the Qur’an is the perfect and immutable word of God and that God is the only lawmaker, so that Islamic law, or shari’a, precludes the man-made law of libertarian democracies.  

 

            Ancient Jewish and Islamic laws emphasize the collective responsibility of all believers to provide for the common good, especially caring for the poor and needy, but do not mention individual human rights, probably because individual rights were irrelevant in those ancient times.  But today individual rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech, are recognized to be as essential to the common good as social welfare programs, and in libertarian democracies religions have made individual rights a matter of faith as well as law.  That is not the case in Islamist regimes where shari’a imposes apostasy and blasphemy laws that deny the freedoms of religion and speech.    

            Reconciling any fundamentalist religion—whether it is Jewish, Christian or Islamic—with individual rights requires that its religious rules are voluntary moral standards rather than coercive laws.  Both moral standards and laws are standards of legitimacy that reflect the norms of right and wrong.  Apostasy and blasphemy laws prevent the freedoms of religion and speech, and any meaningful political freedom must begin with those freedoms.  Likewise, true faith requires the freedoms of religion and speech.  Religion cannot be mandated or protected by law.

            Like Jews and Christians, most Muslims in libertarian democracies support individual rights and a secular rule of law and do not seek to impose shari’a on others.  Libertarian values have reformed fundamentalist religions in the West, and they could do the same in Islamic cultures.  Such a libertarian reformation could counter the violence of radical Islamism since its legitimacy depends upon the acquiescence of a silent majority of fundamentalist Muslims.

            But there is a fly in this ointment.  The individual rights of libertarian democracies are invariably associated with ugly excesses of liberty and immorality.  That is the nature of a free society, and it understandably offends devout believers.  Fundamentalist religions make immoral acts like adultery crimes that are often punished by death.  That may prevent immoral acts, but it also prevents any real freedom, and history has shown that the suppression of individual freedom with religious laws has done more harm than good.

 

            The individual freedoms in libertarian democracies should provide equal opportunity for all to share the privileges of power, but wealth and power in the U.S. has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a privileged few whose unrestrained greed now threatens the political stability of democracy.  The health of any democracy depends on a strong middle class, and the traditionally healthy middle class in the U.S. is now threatened by a particularly aggressive and obnoxious form of neo-libertarian demagoguery exemplified by Donald Trump.      

            Trump’s bombastic politics appeal to neo-libertarians who want to make individual rights absolute and avoid any obligation to provide for the common good.  They are joined by Christian fundamentalists who have sullied the freedom of religion by using it to justify discrimination against those who they consider to be sinners, including homosexuals.  It appears that the altruistic Christian ethic in the U.S. is being superseded by the sanctimonious selfishness of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, now represented by the realty-show politics of Donald Trump. 

            The fabric of American democracy has always depended on a strong middle class to hold together the many diverse threads of its population.  That fabric could become unraveled, as it did in the Civil War, with the decline of a middle class that shares common values.  To ensure a future for American democracy people of faith and reason need to restore a sense of collective responsibility for the common good that is threatened by an emphasis on individual and group rights, and prevent any further erosion of America’s middle class. 

            Neo-libertarian politics that favor special interests, whether defined by wealth, race, political party or religion and that seek to trumpthe collective responsibility to provide for the common good with individual or group rights are morally wrong.  For the U.S. to preserve the fabric of its democracy and represent a model of libertarian democracy for the rest of the world, it must demonstrate that it has the moral strength to balance individual rights with the collective responsibility to provide for the common good; and religion can help in the effort by emphasizing a common word of faith in the greatest commandment to love God and neighbor.   

Notes and References to Resources:      

Previous blogs on related topics are: Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Wealth, Politics, Religion and Economic Justice, March 8, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015.  

The Qur’an provides: Let there be no compulsion in religion.  Truth stands out clear from Error.  Whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.  And Allah hears and knows all things.  (Qur’an, Al Baqara 2:256)  All laws enforced by the state are compulsive and coercive.  Shari’a imposes both apostasy and blasphemy laws that deny any freedom of religion or speech, which is compulsion in religion.  Shari’a also imposes other forms of compulsion or coercion that deny equal rights with laws that discriminate against women and non-Muslims. 

In Secrets of the extreme religious right: Inside the frightening world of Christian Reconstructionism, Salon, July 31, 2015, Paul Rosenberg has described how fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionists promote a concept of religious freedom derived from the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision that justifies otherwise unlawful discrimination.  See        http://www.salon.com/2015/07/31/secrets_of_the_extreme_religious_right_inside_the_frightening_world_of_christian_reconstructionism/. 

                   

Freedom and Fundamentalism

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Freedom and fundamentalism were both latecomers to religion.  The individual freedom that has become a sacred political and religious value in libertarian democracies is derived from natural law, not theology, and came with the Enlightenment more than 250 years ago.  Religious fundamentalism was a reaction to the threat of change posed by the advances in knowledge and reason of the Enlightenment.  Moses, Jesus and Muhammad taught a collective ethic and never mentioned individual freedom; and since religious fundamentalism is based on maintaining the absolute truth of ancient scriptures, fundamentalists give short shrift to individual freedom.

            Moses and Muhammad taught the primacy of God’s law as the standard of righteousness, while Jesus planted the seeds of freedom with his teachings on love over law.  Even with their differences, the greatest commandmentto love God and neighbor is a common wordof Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  John’s first letter goes further to equate God with love (I John 4:16), and John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the Logos, the word of God [or love] made flesh (John 1:1-14). 

            The principle of love over law taught by Jesus opened the door to individual freedom for ancient Jews, and the Apostle Paul affirmed that in his letter to the Roman church: “The commandments…are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no harm to its neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10)  Paul struggled with the relationship of free will and Jewish law, and understood that true faith and love for others could not be made obligatory by law. (Romans 3:19-28; 7:4-60; Galatians 5:1-14)  Paul never mentioned human rights, but he recognized that true faith required freedom of choice.  It required choosing to repent and to accept the transforming power of God’s forgiving love and grace.    

            St. Augustine elaborated on the theme of faith and love over law: “…If a commandment is kept through fear of punishment and not for love of righteousness, it is kept slavishly, not freely, and therefore is not [truly] kept at all.  For fruit is good only if it grows from the root of love.”  The writings of Paul and St. Augustine are based on scripture; but the Enlightenment challenged ancient scriptural truth with the new secular values of individual rights and freedom.

 

            Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and John Locke (1632-1704) were both theologians and political theorists who invoked natural law and reason rather than revelation as the guiding principles of political theory.   Grotius is considered the father of international law, and in The Law of War and Peace (1625) he debunked the divine right to rule with the secular concept of sovereignty that provided for the political independence and integrity of each nation.  Locke developed the social contract theory of democracy, with constitutional civil rights to have primacy over more dynamic laws to protect minorities from the tyranny of a majority. 

            Both Grotius and Locke acknowledged that natural law and reason were distinct from Christian theology, but they saw no conflict between natural law, reason and God’s moral law.  The natural law of the Enlightenment liberated people from the divine right of royalty to rule with democratic governance and asserted the right of all people to inalienable human rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech.  Democracy, human rights and reason required that religious norms be voluntary standards of legitimacy rather than coercive laws.              

           

            In 17^th century America, the Puritans ignored the primacy of love over law and established a fundamentalist theocracy in New England, complete with blasphemy laws.  Roger Williams reacted to this oppression of religious freedom by advocating a “wall of separation between the Garden of the church and the wilderness of the world (or government).”    Williams believed that the church had been corrupted when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire in the 4^thcentury.  Williams promoted freedom of religion to save the church from the corrupt powers of the state.  It would be another century before Jefferson took up the cause to protect individual liberty from the powers of both church and state. 

            In his tour of America in 1831, Alexis De Tocqueville noted the oppression of Puritan fundamentalism: “The legislator, forgetting completely the great principles of religious liberty he himself demanded in Europe, forces attendance at divine service by fear of fines, and he goes as far as to strike with severe penalties, and often death, Christians who wish to worship God according to a form other than his.”

           

            The fundamental freedoms of the Enlightenment are consistent with the love of God and neighbor, but those freedoms have evolved into a culture of self-centered greed, materialism and hedonism that conflicts with the moral imperative to love others.  It is understandable that the excesses of freedom have caused Muslim fundamentalists to be skeptical of freedom, but their apostasy and blasphemy laws have done more harm, preventing the free will needed for true faith, as in 17^th century New England and in Islamic cultures today.  Faith cannot be coerced by outlawing immorality; the freedom to sin is a prerequisite for true faith. 

            Fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East today is similar to 17^th century Christian fundamentalism in New England, with its blasphemy laws and execution of unbelievers.  But there are progressive Islamic scholars like Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im who recognize that true faith requires religious freedom, and that the coercive laws of shari’a must be considered voluntary standards of legitimacy in order to be compatible with the fundamental freedoms of international human rights law, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech.

            Freedom cannot coexist with religious fundamentalism, but freedom without religion can be carried too far.  Libertarian democracies have emphasized individual rights to the detriment of providing for the common good, but Islamic cultures are at the other end of the spectrum, denying the freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws in the name of protecting Islam and providing for the common good.  Both cultures need to balance individual rights with providing for the common good, and both have a long way to go.

Notes and References to Resources:

Related blogs: Religion and Reason, posted January 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, posted January 11, 2015; Love over Law, posted January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? posted January 25, 2015;  Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; and Fear and Fundamentalism, posted July 26, 2015.

On Saint Augustine, see The Spirit and the Letter, pp 11, 26, 64, cited in Tony Lane, Harpers Concise Book of Christian Faith, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984, pp 43, 111, 112.

On Cotton Mather’s Puritan fundamentalism, the reaction of Roger Williams, and the observations of Alexis De Tocqueville, see Jon Meacham, American Gospel, Random House, New York, 2006, pages 52-56.

On freedom of choice in faith, Abdullahi Ahmed On An Na’im has said: “There should be no penal or other negative legal consequences for apostasy and all of the related concepts [e.g. blasphemy] from an Islamic perspective, because belief in Islam presupposes and requires the freedom of choice and can never be valid under coercion or intimidation.” Na’im, Islam and the Secular State, Harvard University Press, 2008, p. 122.  For a discussion of free will and religion and the divergent views of Na’im and other Islamic scholars on democracy and human rights, see Barnes, Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and HumanRights, pages 3-5 and 10-17, in Resources.