Saturday, July 15, 2017

Religion and Progressive Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Religion and progressive politics have long been considered incompatible.  Secular politics consider that “man has a changeable nature and is thus able to achieve perfection.”  Religion considers “man flawed and incapable of perfecting himself without the help of God.”  The two views polarize our politics. The former supports the idea that government can perfect humanity, while the latter is skeptical of big government and more congenial to religious values.  

            To further complicate matters, religions resist progressive change to preserve the sanctity of their ancient scriptures, none of which mention democracy or individual rights.  Even so, the Enlightenment of the 18th century transformed politics and religion in the Western world with advances in knowledge, reason and the libertarian values of democracy and human rights.  Since then the American civil religion has provided common political values for religions in America.

            Robert N Bellah has described the American civil religion as “a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals,” drawn from American history that expresses national values and standards of political legitimacy.  It is grounded in the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, and includes those values expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance and in the lyrics of America the Beautiful.  

            Thomas Jefferson is a major prophet of the American civil religion.  He had little use for the church, but considered the moral teachings of Jesus as “the sublimest morality that has ever been taught.”  Those teachings are summarized in the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors—including neighbors of other races and religions—as we love ourselves; and that love command is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

            The increasing diversity of religion and race in America requires the altruistic values of the American religion and the greatest commandment to sustain progressive politics.  The greatest challenge of democracy is to balance individual rights with providing for the common good, and that requires an American civil religion that is grounded in the altruistic values of the greatest commandment—and Donald Trump represents the antithesis of altruistic values.

            The election of Donald Trump was the most regressive political event in America since the Civil War.  It was made possible by white evangelical Christians who were motivated by Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign theme—one that recalled a mythical past that was perhaps a utopia for many older white Americans, but not for most black Americans.  The Trump campaign was rude and crude, and had distinctly racial overtones

            Trump’s election will likely be a historical anomaly.  White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) have long been a dominant force in American politics, but the election of Donald Trump was likely their last Hurrah.  Demographic projections show WASPS becoming a political minority within 20 years, with white births already a minority of births in America.  But even without a white majority, political polarization will continue to plague American politics.

            History has shown that humankind can be improved through enlightened democratic governance, even if it cannot produce perfection.  And there is no evidence that humankind can achieve perfection through the Christian religion.  For religion and progressive politics to be compatible and promote political reconciliation, the altruistic values of the American civil religion and the greatest commandment must prevail over narrow religious and political values.


Notes:

In 1967 Robert N. Bellah defined [American] civil religion as “a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals,” drawn from American history and “institutionalized in a collectivity” that function “not as a form of national self-worship but as the subordination of the nation to ethical principles that transcend it in terms of which it should be judged.”  On how Trump is reshaping American civil religion, see https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/07/11/trump-reshaping-american-civil-religion/.

Thomas Jefferson 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

Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter S. Onuf consider Jefferson a prophet of American civil religion:
As a young man, Jefferson embraced the tenets of “natural religion,” or deism, rejecting conventional Christianity and any use of religious dogma as a tool to control people. As he aged, however, Jefferson undertook a spiritual quest that focused his attention intensively on the New Testament.
Through Bible study this self-professed “primitive Christian” sought to hear Jesus’ original, uncorrupted voice, imagining himself in his teacher’s presence. Jesus preached to the “family of man,” anticipating the humane and cosmopolitan precepts of the enlightened age that Jefferson was convinced would inevitably arrive. He adhered to the “philosophy” of Jesus while rejecting “mystifications” that offended his steadfast belief in science and were, in his view, the chief cause of religious strife.
Jefferson…insisted that his religious faith was nobody’s business but his own. But he believed that religion, stripped of the supernatural, should always be an integral part of American society. He even created a guidebook, of sorts.
In 1804, Jefferson took a razor to English, French, Latin and Greek versions of the New Testament to construct a clear account of Jesus’ original, uncorrupted teachings. Pressed by public business, he didn’t complete his painstakingly executed “Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” until retirement. Even then, Jefferson did not want to publicize his project — or even share it with his family. But he was confident that enlightened republicans and conscientious Christians could, and must, agree on the fundamental ethical precepts he gleaned from the Bible.
Far from being an atheist, Jefferson was a precocious advocate of what was later called “civil religion,” the moral foundation of a truly free and united people.

Progressive Christianity provides an example of religious belief compatible with the American civil religion and progressive politics.  See The Eight Points of Progressive Christianity at https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/.


On American Civil Religion is Dead, Long Live American Civil Religion, see https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/american-civil-religion-is-dead-long-live-american-civil-religion/.
  
On why Trump can’t reverse the decline of white Christian America, see https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/robert-jones-white-christian-america/532587/.

 
Related commentary posted at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/:

(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
(2/15/15): Is Religion Good or Evil?
 (4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy
(5/3/15): A Fundamental Problem with Religion
 (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
(6/18/16): A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/a-politics-of-reconciliation-with.html (8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
(9/17/16): A Moral Revival to Restore Legitimacy to Our Politics
(11/5/16): Religion, Liberty and Justice at Home and Abroad
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(12/3/16): Righteous Anger in Religion and Politics
(2/25/17): The Need for a Revolution in Religion and Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(3/18/17): Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics
(5/6/17): Loyalty and Duty in Politics, the Military and Religion
(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.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy

Saturday, July 8, 2017

July 4, 2017: A Sad Day in the U.S.A.

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            July 4, 2017, should have been a day of celebration, remembering the origins of our freedom and democracy and giving thanks to those who risked their lives to protect them.  But for me July 4, 2017 was a sad day of mourning the degradation of American values.  I felt out of touch with the America I thought I knew.

            The election of November 2016 was an ugly watershed in U.S. politics.  Christians, long a bulwark in American politics, elected a “bizarre, absurd, ridiculous and embarrassing” man as president of the U.S.  Ironically, that was made possible by white Christians whose values are shaped by their faith.  Despite Trump’s political victory—or perhaps because of it—Robert P. Jones has asserted that white Christian America is in a decline that cannot be reversed.
           
            Trump’s degradation of American values was evident when he spoke in Poland on July 6:   “The fundamental question of today is whether the West has the will to survive and defend its values,” and then he asked, “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at all costs?”  Beware when Trump speaks of defending our values.  America’s values should not be those exemplified by Donald Trump, and it’s a sad day to think they could be.

            Trump’s degenerate values are not just a partisan political issue.  Religion is the source of our values and our moral standards of legitimacy, so they are as much an issue of faith as of politics.  The Christian religion was in decline well before Trump’s election, and it has since lost its legitimacy among those whose faith is based on following the teachings of Jesus.  It’s time for a religious and political reformation to reestablish the priority of American values.

            The problem for American democracy is not so much Trump as it is those who support him.  Those Christians who support Trump are apparently motivated by a distorted form of Christianity that is closer to the objectivist teachings of Ayn Rand than to the altruistic teachings of Jesus.  Their “prosperity gospel” reflects materialistic and hedonistic values that have made America the Beautiful ripe for a fall from the grace that God supposedly shed on her.

            Faith, freedom and democracy are interwoven in our culture, but that has been ignored in many churches.  Mainline denominations have avoided political issues and allowed fundamentalist evangelical churches to control the “Christian” political agenda.  Apparently things have to get really bad before respectable Christians recognize the relevance of their faith to their politics.  Well, hello!  In case you haven’t noticed, things have gotten really bad.

            Freedom and democracy are subject to shifting tides in the cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil.  When the church subordinates the teachings of Jesus to church doctrines conducive to the worldly objectives of prosperity and power, it throws Jesus under the bus and puts Satan in the driver’s seat.  Those who supported Donald Trump subordinated God’s will to reconcile and redeem people of all races and religions to Satan’s will to divide and conquer.

            How do we put Jesus back into the driver’s seat of the church bus and restore the values that made America great?  We need to put the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves—and that includes our neighbors of other races and religions—at the heart of our faith.  That love command provides the moral imperative needed for political issues ranging from health care to immigration and national defense.   

            If Americans lose their freedom it won’t likely be at the hands of an outside enemy, but forfeited from within.  Edmund Burke warned Americans before the Revolution: In a democracy you will forge your own shackles.  Pogo the Possum echoed that warning when he said: We have met the enemy and it is us.  Americans must rejuvenate their religious and political values by next July 4, or it will be another sad day to mourn their loss.  


Notes:


On Robert Jones’ assertion that Trump can’t reverse the decline of white Christian America, see https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/robert-jones-white-christian-america/532587/.


 
Related commentary posted at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/:

(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
(2/15/15): Is Religion Good or Evil?
(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
(8/30/15): What Is Truth?
(9/20/15) Politics and Religious Polarization
(11/22/15): Dualism: Satan’s Evil Versus God’s Goodness
(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
(6/18/16): A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/a-politics-of-reconciliation-with.html (8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
(9/17/16): A Moral Revival to Restore Legitimacy to Our Politics
(11/5/16): Religion, Liberty and Justice at Home and Abroad
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(12/3/16): Righteous Anger in Religion and Politics
(2/25/17): The Need for a Revolution in Religion and Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(3/18/17): Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics
(5/6/17): Loyalty and Duty in Politics, the Military and Religion
(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.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy

  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.

Related commentary posted at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/:

(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.