By Rudy Barnes, Jr.
In
1804 Thomas Jefferson opined that the moral teachings of Jesus were “…the
sublimest morality that has ever been taught.”
In 1831 Alexis DeTocqueville toured America and observed that its many Christian
sects shared a “Christian morality” that produced common standards of
legitimacy that defined what is right, and imbued American politics with its moral
authority.
Both
Jefferson and DeTocqueville understood that the moral standards of religion that
shape legitimacy and moral authority are relevant to politics, while those mystical
religious beliefs that relate to the supernatural should remain personal. Today America’s religion and politics are
polarized by conflicting concepts of legitimacy that have undermined moral
authority in politics—as has become evident in Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again politics.
Thomas
Friedman has cited Dov Seidman on the nature of moral authority, its rarity in
politicians, and what it should look like, since we see so little of it. Michael Gerson has described Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy of
promoting authoritarian leaders and denigrating human rights as a morally
repugnant path
of arrogance, mediocrity and insurrection. And Fareed Zakaria has noted a vast cultural
divide that seems beyond partisan reconciliation.
It
is time to reclaim moral authority in politics with the greatest commandment to love God and to love our
neighbors—including those of other races and religions—as we love ourselves. It is a
common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and it begins
with basic honesty, integrity and humility; but those virtues have been lost in
the polarization of American religion and politics with its conflicting standards
of legitimacy and moral values.
The
challenge is to translate the moral imperative to love others into altruistic standards
of legitimacy that define moral authority in politics, and then balance
individual rights with providing for the common good. In America individual rights have often been
emphasized at the expense of providing for the common good, while the opposite
has been true in Islamic nations.
Since
the Civil War, individual rights and common values have allowed freedom and
diversity to coexist in America. But
that is changing. Undue emphasis on
individual rights has eroded equal justice under law. Fundamentalist believers claim their
religious freedom allows them to discriminate against those they consider to be
sinners. And in Islamic nations apostasy
and blasphemy laws under Islamic Law (Shari’a) deny the freedoms of religion
and speech.
Despite
the polarization caused by religious fundamentalists, there is a growing
interfaith coalition of progressive believers who share the greatest commandment as a
common word of faith. Progressives
seek to reconcile diverse races and religions, while fundamentalists seek to
divide and conquer. It is a battle over
conflicting concepts of legitimacy and moral authority.
Human
rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech are essential to the
common good. Without those individual rights
there can be no real freedom, and such freedom is essential to the common
good. Without human rights for
minorities, even a democracy can produce a tyranny of the majority—and there is
no worse tyranny than a religious tyranny.
Jews,
Christians and Muslims should reconsider their standards of political legitimacy
that define moral authority. Too often
they contradict the moral imperative to love others as they love
themselves. That is evident in the lack
of moral authority of those entrusted with political power, and they must be
held accountable if political freedom is to coexist with diversity.
Notes:
Thomas Jefferson had great
admiration for the moral teachings of Jesus but little use for the doctrines of
the institutional church. He wrote Henry
Fry on June 17, 1804: "I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by
himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been
taught; but I hold in the utmost profound detestation and execration the
corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and kingcraft,
constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious
liberties of man." Thomas
Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible, edited by O. I. A. Roche, Clarkson H.
Potter, Inc., New York, 1964, at p 378; see also Jefferson’s letter to John
Adams dated October 13, 1813, at pp 825, 826; Jefferson's commentaries are at
pp 325-379. See also, Introduction to The
Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy,
at page 10, note 2, posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-aTJubVlISnpQc1U/view.
On how Jefferson’s Bible contributed
to America’s religious diversity in its early days, see http://www.npr.org/2017/06/28/534765046/smithsonian-exhibit-explores-religious-diversitys-role-in-u-s-history.
Alexis DeTocqueville, a French
aristocrat who visited the U.S. in 1831, astutely observed: Christianity,
which has declared that all men are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse
to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. But, by a singular concurrence of events,
religion is entangled in those institutions that democracy assails….
By
the sides of these religious men I discern others whose looks are turned to
earth more than Heaven; they are partisans of liberty...[who] invoke the
assistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be established
without morality, nor morality without faith.
The
sects which exist in the U.S. are innumerable.
They all differ in respect to the worship which is due from man to his
Creator, but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to
man. Each sect adores the Deity in its
own peculiar manner, but all the sects preach the same moral law in the name of
God.
Moreover,
almost all the sects of the U.S. are comprised within the great unity of
Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.
DeTocquevile, Democracy in
America, Vol. 1, The Cooperative Publication Society, The Colonial Press, N.Y.
and London, 1900 at pages 12 and 308.
Thomas Friedman has cited Dov
Seidman on the need for moral authority and political legitimacy: With shared truth
debased and trust in leaders diminished, we now face a full-blown “crisis of
authority itself,” argued Seidman, who distinguishes between “formal authority”
and “moral authority.” While our system can’t function without leaders with
formal authority, what makes it really work, he added, is “when leaders
occupying those formal positions—from business to politics to schools to
sports—have moral authority. Leaders with moral authority understand what they
can demand of others and what they must inspire in them. They also understand
that formal authority can be won or seized, but moral authority has to be
earned every day by how they lead. And we don’t have enough of these leaders.”
In fact, we have so few we’ve forgotten what they look like.
Leaders with moral authority have several things in common, said Seidman: “They
trust people with the truth — however bright or dark. They’re animated by
values — especially humility — and principles of probity, so they do the right
things, especially when they’re difficult or unpopular. And they enlist people
in noble purposes and onto journeys worthy of their dedication.”
Think how far away Trump is from that definition. In Trump we not
only have a president who can’t lead us out of this crisis — because he has
formal authority but no moral authority — but a president who is every day
through Twitter a one-man accelerator of the erosion of truth and trust eating
away at our society. See
Friedman, Where Did “We the People Go”?
at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/where-did-we-the-people-go.html.
Michael Gerson has questioned the
moral authority of U.S. foreign policy, asking:
Is the world now fundamentally different? Is the spiritual ideal
now outdated or overmatched by distorted but powerful appeals of nationalism
and religious fundamentalism?
It is the theory of “America first” foreign policy that this ideal
is outdated. The urgency of defeating terrorism, in this view, requires the
active cooperation of Middle Eastern leaders, and it matters little or nothing
how oppressive they are at home. “We are not here to lecture,” President Trump
said in Saudi Arabia. “We are not here to tell other people how to live.” Trump
has extended this approach, in various forms, to President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi
of Egypt (doing a “fantastic job”), to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey
and to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines (doing an “unbelievable
job”).
This foreign policy approach assumes that the current order in
oppressive countries can be indefinitely preserved — as long as it is not
destabilized by meddling outsiders. In reality, the instability of oppressive
governments emerges from within. They prevent the diffusion of choice and power,
which is the source of economic and social success in the modern world.
Monopolizing power encourages cronyism, corruption, resentment and discontent.
Strongmen can succeed for a time by feeding hatred of enemies, real and
imagined. But this is the path of arrogance, mediocrity and insurrection.
The message is thereby sent
that the United States values the good opinion of strongmen more than the
dignity and liberty of the people they rule. This is resented, and remembered.
Fareed Zakaria has noted that America’s
polarized politics are cultural, going beyond partisan political issues and
undermining civility and essential democratic values with conflicting concepts
of legitimacy. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-democrats-problem-is-not-the-economy-stupid/2017/06/29/50fb7988-5d07-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1; See also,
Michael Gerson at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-hacking-away-at-its-own-democratic-limb/2017/06/29/d5210204-5cea-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
Moral authority begins with
honesty. For a compendium of Trump’s Lies, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html.
(12/8/14): Religion and Reason
(12/15/14): Faith and Freedom
(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith
(1/18/15): Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy
(2/22/15): Religion and Human Rights
(3/22/15): The Power of Humility and the Arrogance of Power
(4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy
(5/3/15): A Fundamental Problem with Religion
(5/10/15): Religion, Human Rights and National Security
(5/17/15): Moral Restraints on the Freedom of Speech
(8/9/15): Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities
(8/16/15): How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human
Rights http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html
(8/23/15): Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict
(8/30/15): What Is Truth?
(9/20/15) Politics and Religious Polarization
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(2/27/16): Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Faith, Freedom and Politics
(5/14/16): The Arrogance of Power, Humility and a Politics of Reconciliation
(8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/08/how-religion-can-bridge-our-political.html
(8/20/16): The Freedoms of Religion and Speech: Essentials of Liberty and Law
(9/17/16): A Moral Revival to Restore Legitimacy to Our Politics
(11/5/16): Religion, Liberty and Justice at Home and Abroad
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(3/18/17): Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics
(4/1/17): Human Rights, Freedom and National Security
(5/13/17): Voices of Reason and Hope in the Cacophony over Religion, Human Rights
and Politics http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/05/voices-of-reason-and-hope-in-cacophony.html
(5/20/17): The Freedoms of Religion and Speech: Where Human Rights Begin
(6/3/17): When Winning Trumps Mercy and Losing is Evil
(6/24/17): The Evolution of Religion, Politics and
Law: Back to the Future? http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/the-evolution-of-religion-politics-and.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment