Defending
Religious Freedom in a Secular Society
Neil J
Flinders /August 2015
A Synopsis
This
article is based on the premise that wisdom may come from looking
back for orientation and forward for direction. We know we are part
of an increasingly divided society. This is a valid concern. The
Founders of this nation proposed and implemented an inclusive
perspective that nurtured unity—E pluribus
unum. This
principle is now being challenged by some, and aggressively rejected
by others. The central contest is a tug-of-war between the sacred
and the secular.
Further, rhetoric
now rules in our confused and changing social order. Values, once
honored, are now ignored, despised or detested. Inclusive
worldviews have been set aside in academia and exclusive
philosophical propositions are now embraced and promoted. Answers to
the age-old questions of what is real,
how do we know,
and what is of value
are being revised. Standing in the wings are three other prevalent
enigmas: Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
What is my ultimate destiny? These
so-called “terrible” questions haunt everyone's life sooner or
later. The effort in this document is to illustrate how such concerns
impact contemporary social issues that threaten the life, liberty and
happiness of the citizenry.
There
is a self-evident connection between other civilizations that have
risen and fallen under the canopy of these same concerns. In the case
of Western Culture it is important to understand the Hebrew, Greek,
Roman, and Medieval epochs that lie on our doorstep and fashion our
varied lifestyles. There are things we can learn from understanding
previous efforts to push propositions
until they seem like probabilities
so people will accept them as certainties.
This is what rhetorical sophistry is all about. Hiding one's mental
and emotional contextual assumptions
so nearly the entirety of a people's focus is invested in discussions
of content,
process
(methodology), and structure.
This creates a fertile place for guile
to thrive, and it confuses the critical role of allegiance
in the family, education, law, and our political arenas. Definitions
of terms like: freedom, liberty, morality, ethics, absolute, and
conditional become obscured by the intellectual fog and the
inevitable behavioral free-fall that comes with the making of all
values relative. It threatens what some feel is a fairness
for all
doctrine.
My
intent is to frame specific issues in a way that might contribute to
desirable solutions. This requires the defining and revealing of
human views that permit inclusive
unity rather than forcibly institutionalizing exclusive
divisions among the populace. History helps us understand how the
world in which we live came to be like it is. This knowledge is very
helpful in determining what we can do about it. This seems to be the
case in the current struggle between adherents to the conflict over
the secular
vs. the sacred
world views in America and elsewhere. Factions may be ever-present,
but factions can also be united in matters fundamental to the body
politic. It is possible to seek fairness
for all citizens
if the goal is inclusion—not exclusion. Personal religious beliefs
and dis-beliefs need not destroy that which is vital to the greater
good in matters of personal conscience and civil liberty. The old
notion expressed in Edwin Markham's poem, “Outwitted,” provides a
simple illustration:
He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in!
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in!
The
question then becomes: Which of these two circles is the most
preferable? Context ultimately determines whether or not people are
willing and able to recognize self-evident evidence.
When
issues are contradictory and diametrically opposite in their nature,
it is still possible to seek after a choice that provides for the
greater good if this choice is governed by the preservation of
personal conscience and individual liberty. The. critical variable is
to establish relationships that enable the like-minded, to unify
sufficiently to join in drawing the circle that maximizes freedom
of conscience and liberty for all.
Without some semblance of unity there is little hope for peaceful and
successful resolutions. Establishing common ground is an important
step in nurturing unity and successful communication. This article
concludes with a list of thirteen suggestions that may assist in
bringing people together for the purpose of preserving personal
freedom and
contributing to collective liberty
for all who reside in these United States of America. The founders
made their effort; we now have the opportunity to make ours.
The
personal content of this article is rooted in the author's previous
efforts to probe “The Role of Values in Communicating Truth”1
I learned that the Founders of this nation anchored
their various documents in an Americanized version of certain
universal
values: Action,
Identity, Discipline, Respect, Development, Responsibility,
and Reliance.
All cultures embrace and pursue these elements. The Founders
intentionally modified (Americanized) these values as: Freedom
to
Act, Self-identity,
Self-discipline,
Mutual
respect, Self-development,
Personal
responsibility, and Self-reliance.
This is self evident as one reads their writings. These universal
elements may also serve as gateways
to facilitate helpful discussions involving differing views. They
provide entry points to finding common ground among people of
differing perceptions who are seeking to productively communicate
with one another. This avenue provides a way to move beyond both (a)
conflict
theory
and (b) strategically
competitive theory—both
approaches now very prevalent in contemporary communication
practices. The assumption underlying the gateway
model
is that “success” is more likely when it is consciously and
consistently pursued through these gateways to common ground. The
American Founders certainly stressed their modification of this
approach as a way to pursue fairness
for all.
Flinders, Neil J, “The Role of Values in
Communicating Truth,” Brigham Young University Language and
Intercultural Research Center Symposium Publication: Bridges of
Understanding, November, 1979. pp. 28. 1-7. See also Flinders,
Neil J and Tyler, V. Lynn “Towards a Global Philosophy of
Communication for Educators: A Model for Approaching Common Ground”
Proceedings of The Far Western Philosophy of Education Society,
December, 1985. pp. 192-198.
Defending
Religious Freedom in a Secular Society
Neil J
Flinders
August
2015
How
America Moved from Where We Were to Where We Are
The
documents fashioned by the founders of this nation—the so-called
American Experiment—are significantly unique. It is a pattern to
learn from. They begin with an honest statement of why
these individuals, speaking for the populace at large, were willing
to engage in the risks of creating a new form of government and
social life. They knew true power resides in the people, not an elite
council, emperor, monarchy or dictator. They did not try to hide the
beliefs and assumptions that shaped the intent behind what they
wanted the world to know and understand: “We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .” (The
Declaration of
Independence, July 4,
1776). Later, when they published the The
Constitution of the United States,
they followed the same pattern of revealing their intentions
as well as their explanations
of why
they believed what they were saying and doing. The first sentence is
a clear introduction to how they proposed going about this task:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
These
actions established a bulwark that marked the difference between
liberty and despotism. The founders formally acknowledged their
belief in a Creator, a Power, a Providence—and a Plan—for
humankind to succeed. They believed in certain innate
and self-evident
factors not of their
making—factors
put in place by the Creator. This type of laying bare Why
they were engaging in creating a new nation is not common practice in
most human communication. A more prevalent pattern is to hide the
deeper Why
part of an explanation and focus solely on the What,
How,
and When
of whatever desires are being pursued. This transparency by the
Founders was opposite the driving force behind traditional rhetoric;
using language to accomplish a veiled
purpose; hiding the real intent
until the goal is achieved. Rhetoric, often the opposite of
sincerity, has long been a tool used for nefarious purposes. Changing
definitions
that confuse values related to integrity is a hallmark of rhetoric.
For
example, freedom
is now often pandered as a synonym or substitute for liberty.
This creates confusion. It's more helpful to understand, as the
Founders recognized, that freedom
is what the Creator bestows upon humankind; it has to do with agency
and conscience.
Liberty
is what people bestow upon or steal from one another by how they
pursue their various relationships. Freedom is a gift. Our liberty
comes and goes, depending on the cultures in which we live and the
people with whom we associate. Furthermore the basic views of both
freedom
and liberty
that we embrace are rooted in what we discern to be good and evil,
right and wrong, better and best. Definitions need to be clear—not
foggy. A similar confusing perspective involves the terms morals
and ethics.
Traditional views of
morality
are related to standards given to humankind by their Creator (e.g.,
The Ten Commandments); ethics
are
rules that people generate, invoke and use to moderate behaviors for
the benefit of both themselves and others. Making these terms
synonyms is seldom helpful. Fuzzy definitions affect the entire
domain of moral
agency,
which is fundamental to the purposes for which this nation was
created.
If
we are moral agents, as the
Founders presumed—subject to our own decisions—and are in
this mortal realm to act, then we all enjoy a certain degree
of inherent freedom and a desire for liberty. This is the basis for
the belief in the power of the people, not just the “divine right
of Kings.” Numerous practical matters arise when these factors are
connected to education as well as politics and the Law. A
pattern is laid and promoted. Such patterns soon evolve into various
perceptions of learning, teaching, following and leading.
Every person is affected. Layer after layer of topics, issues, and
attributes come into view. These personal variations form the
foundations for each individual's agency-driven education, and
they determine whether learning and acting will be moral or
just ethical.
As
theories and counter-theories are proposed and implemented, items for
discussion abound. Ideas about justice or fairness come
into play. Greed and avarice are nurtured. Selfishness and
manipulative control are constant temptations. Hence we have the
modern playground for rhetoric, this prevalent element often
overlooked in our day-to-day lives. Our current circumstances,
however, are not new; they are just cloaked in a new wardrobe as
the following example illustrates.
Hugh
Nibley published a journal article in 1956 titled “Victoriosa
Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Fall of Everything Else.”
This was Nibley's effort to focus attention on the dire consequences
of institutionalizing the use of speech as a weapon in culture
wars—particularly evident in sick and dying cultures. He begins his
rather lengthy historical analysis with the observation that
addiction to rhetoric
is similar to
a
hopeless alcoholic's devotion to the bottle. Everywhere the ancients
give us to understand that rhetoric is their poison, that is ruining
their capacity to work and think, that it disgusts and wearies them,
and that they cannot let it alone, because it pays too well and,
having destroyed everything else, it is all they have left of
remembered grandeur.
Nibley
then concludes his treatise with a provocative observation: “Like
the residue of certain radioactive substances, rhetoric, leaving an
unmistakable mark on all that it touches, may yet prove to be the
surest guide to the history of our own times.” (see Western
Speech 20:2 (Spring 1956):57-82; CWHN
10:243-286.)
If
the nucleus of rhetoric
is, as Nibley suggests, simply a matter of persuasively turning
any proposition into a probability, which can
then be built into a certainty
by high-powered emotional appeal and exerting various forms of
authority, it certainly applies today—even in our science-driven
society. It is obviously true in politics and the law. I believe his
title captures an essence of the current erosion of personal
freedom and its effect on collective
liberty in
America. The war of words does matter when
its application erodes and destroys rather than enhances and builds
human culture. Today, our politics and our educational institutions
are laced with all sorts of probabilities
being fanned into certainties
in the minds of many in our society. Each person can easily make
their own list—they can start with vibrating concerns about the
physical environment and extend to the riveting controversies over
the treatment of unborn children—their tissues and organs—or
terrorist-driven atrocities. The unusual and unthinkable are so
prevalent that the shock factor is hardly relevant. The role of
rhetoric is pervasive in modern society—both historically and
currently. Any hope for retaining religious
freedom involves recognizing and refuting
ill-advised rhetoric. Consider some examples: The Affordable
Healthcare Act (Obamacare) (2010
̶ forward), Common Core Standards
Initiative (2009 ̶
forward), The Values Clarification
Curriculum movement in Public Education (1960s and 1970s). These
three well publicized instances of rhetoric-driven
public policy movements fit our current scene
and illustrate Nibley's foregoing formula at work.
Each
of these programs was based on propositions
endeavoring to become probabilities
with the hope of eventual certainties.
And in each case they shared a common context
that was cleverly veiled until critics forced the rationale into a
form of public clarity. The massive 10,000-plus pages of the ACA
document were filled with hidden and semi-hidden issues. These issues
were rooted in very technical language. Phrases like “You have to
pass it before you can understand it,” “the American public is
too dumb to understand,” and “You can keep your Doctor” came to
symbolize the socialistic
rather than the free market
orientation. The ensuing controversies still divide the nation. In a
similar fashion the “Common Core” movement in education
flourished in some circles, until its hidden origins and issues
became better understood; then it too divided the populace. Likewise,
the earlier Values Clarification movement gained rapid popularity
then floundered—even though, or perhaps because, this “encounter
training” was pushed by USOE National Training Laboratories in a
radical way.
Each
of these programs was initiated in an attempt to obtain freedom
from some traditional practices, and to
foster more freedom to
obtain whatever the society wanted or whatever the individual's
desires permitted. The mechanisms used were speeches to prominent
constituencies, media proliferation, sensitivity training (T-Groups)
in Bethel, Maine, and even naked experiments in the hot tubs at the
Esalen Institute at Big Sur, California and elsewhere. The focus in
each of these widespread movements was to adjust personal values.
Parental and personal obligations were to be exchanged for government
responsibility; family determinations exchanged for standardized
federal-and State-driven schooling; the traditional moral code
exchanged for personal preferences that were relative to an
individual's self perceptions. And a most critical factor in each one
was the common hinge to these rhetorical
plans—the sacred
was to be subservient to the secular.
Freedom of religion is clearly at stake in such social environments.
The
lesson from past history—the longer view—is much the same as
these contemporary examples. A person could spend a professional life
studying the details of how rhetoric played a vital role that has
created a major shift that now undergirds nearly every academic
discipline. These dramatic influences have now moved America's
academic intellect from a sacred
to a secular focus. In
every case the strategy was to push propositions
into probabilities,
which then became apparent certainties.
Usually while hiding the full contextual
motivation. For my purposes, a superficial survey is sufficient to
recognize the significance of a more detailed exploration. Most
libraries are full of evidence for anyone who is interested in
probing further. Understanding this story has direct bearing on
preserving or retrieving America's religious freedom. We ignore it at
our peril, harsh as this may seem.
The Shift:
Sacred to Secular in the Sciences, e.g. Astronomy, Geology, Biology
In
science it was a shift from the contextual view of Novum
Organum (1620), by Francis Bacon who said his
purpose was to study “God's works” in order to augment, not
replace, “God's word,” or revelation. “Let us begin from God
and show that our pursuit from its (Science's) exceeding goodness
clearly proceeds from Him, the Author of good and Father of light”
(Book I: 93, 125). The then new contrasting movement was expressed by
Paul Heinrich Dietrich de'Holbach, whose volume System
de la Nature (1770) has been called the
“Bible of all Materialism.” He declared, “Man is unhappy merely
because he misunderstands nature.” He challenged those who would
claim to be scientific to banish the notion of God from any
scientific pursuit. For him there was nothing miraculous in the
world; the ignorant layman may believe in a personal God; but the
scientist who did so would place his reason below that of the
simplest peasant. His view was that astronomy, physics, and chemistry
has long banished the notion that some universal spirit could
interfere in natural processes. God is irrelevant.
The move away from the sacred to the
secular began centuries ago; so go the illustrations: Isaac Newton,s
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
(1686) vs. Pierrre Simon Laplace's Celestial
Mechanics (@ 1829); James Hutton's Theory
of the Earth (1788) vs. Sir Charles Lyell's
Principles of Geology: An attempt to explain
the former changes of the earth's surface by reference to causes now
in operation. (1830); William Paley's Natural
Theology: or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of Deity
(1821) vs. Charles Darwin's The Origin of the
Species: by Means of Natural Selection
(1859). The shifting view from the sacred to the secular grew until
it now overpowers the intellectual climate in Western culture—even
in Art, Music, and Literature. The stage was set, as one can see by
the birth and death dates of men such as those listed below, who
popularized new answers to some very old and basic questions. This
monumental shift flipped in American universities between 1880 –
1920. The following well-known students are some of those often cited
as helping form the new answers.
1748-1832 Jeremy Bentham (Law) What makes a good law?
1809-1882 Charles
Darwin (Biology) Where did man come from?
1818-1883 Karl
Marx (Economics) How should fruits of labor be distributed?
1856-1939 Sigmund
Freud (Medicine) What causes man's unusual illnesses?
1859-1952 John
Dewey (Education) What is Education?
1878-1958 John
Watson (Psychology) Why do people behave as they do?
1884-1976 Rudolph
Bultmann (Theology) What about those miracles in the Bible?
The
new answers all had one thing in common; there is no need to
include references to a spiritual domain or to a Divine Providence to
answer these or any other significant questions one might have.
Language (information) is the great medium in the modern world, and
rhetoric continues to play a dominant role. The pendulum has moved
far into the exclusive and divisive secular domain, and any
efforts to preserve or restore a more inclusive social
environment will not be easy. The contest is between believers in the
validity of both supernatural and natural domains
versus non-believers who hold to the view of a natural domain
only. The implications are cataclysmic for moral values. One view
allows both worldviews to participate; the other view is essentially
exclusive and restrictive.
Language
and its use—communication—is a powerful, indiscriminate weapon,
as well as a useful tool. Linguistics, spoken or written, is more
than symbolic. Language becomes part of an arsenal that creates and
controls the lives we live and influences the relationships of our
day-to-day affairs. Language is significant in all relationships, but
it can be particularly insidious and volatile in the family,
education and legal structure of a society. Sticks and stones can
break bones, but language can do more; it can infect and confuse as
well as heal or destroy human relationships and civil order. Like it
or not, aware or not, a battle is waging, and it does affect us all.
Significant changes in America have occurred, and these changes
continue to seriously affect the intellectual climate in
which we live and rear our children. Perhaps paying more attention to
history can help us avoid some of our progenitor's pitfalls. Wisdom
requires us to look back for orientation, while we look forward for
direction.
Rhetoric a
Cousin to Guile
There
is more to this story, however, than Nibley portrays. In addition to
historical rhetoric,
there is a personal nature
to the role language plays in our conversations. This topic needs
attention and clarification because of the tendency to hide important
beliefs and assumptions. The trending
practice of intentionally hiding or masking fundamental beliefs and
assumptions is common in our day-to-day communicative relationships.
And it is particularly evident as we interface with professional or
semi-professionals—such as those related to the enforcement of
state and federal laws. We even hire lawyers to help us manage what
to say or not say. This brings us to another relevant factor. The use
of rhetoric is
often a by-product of personal
guile; both
foster the notion that ends
can justify means.
Both lead easily to concluding that “truth” is subject to
compromise, which is now deemed okay, because nearly everything can
be perceived as relative.
So goes the argument in values clarification
theory. Absolutes are now often considered
illusions, and ethics
are more popular and preferable than divinely revealed
moral standards. This hiding of basic beliefs
and assumptions can and often does complicate human communication.
(Just ask a friend or spouse for examples; they can tell when your
veil is showing.)
Our
cultural heritage is filled with commentary on the subject of guile.
The canonized scriptural record, for example, identifies guile
as a common element in the human personality. Personal guile is the
opposite of pure sincerity. Several terms are closely associated with
guile, such as crafty lying, envy, evil speaking, hypocrisy, malice
and even death. All these connections are linked to mouth, lips,
tongue, and speech. They play large roles in the Good vs. Evil story.
Check a concordance. It will also list opposite characteristics like
faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness,
service, honesty, and charity. Jesus praised as exemplary individuals
Nathanial, Edward Partridge, and George Miller because, as he said,
they were persons “in whom there is no guile.” (John 1:47; D&C
41:11; 124:20). Guile is a universal temptation. The goal is or
should be to get beyond guile in our associations. It is not a
helpful tool for pursuing Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Intent
of This Article
The
aim of this article is twofold:
first, to
illustrate
the significance of current social and legal applications of
language, and second,
to probe the nature of how this human process functions within the
individual. I believe it is possible to understand the basic nature
of conflict in human affairs. We should seek to know why
and how
circumstances, past and present, nurture the challenges we face in
order to recognize constructive solutions. Otherwise, ignorance and
apathy prevail, leaving us quite vulnerable to rhetoric, guile and
perhaps other weaknesses. Uninformed indifference prevents us from
becoming players in the events that shape the world in which we live.
Whatever will be, will be (“Que
Sera, Sera”) is not an adequate foundation for
defending or maximizing personal freedom or collective
liberty. There is abundant evidence that forces are now at work
to break down the
moral and spiritual strength of people at home and abroad. It is
important to become aware and not become an inadvertent victim. As
someone has said, “They do not know what is happening to them, and
that is precisely what is happening—they do not know!” This
ignorance is a major enemy for people who want fairness
for all.
It is a fatal weakness for a democratic republic form of government.
As
a beginning, consider the following example involving the US
Constitution and certain federal court decisions. Then follow a
second probe that attempts to make more clear and evident why
and how
such matters as these can and do occur. My intent is to suggest a
platform that might be useful in understanding how change can occur
in an intellectual
climate.
This transformation certainly happened in America. Cluttered
communication, infected with an abundance of guile,
has contributed significantly to the negative factionalism we face.
Understanding a problem is part of finding solutions to the problem.
And when it is a people problem, informed people need to participate.
Ignoring
or Interpreting the Constitution
An
important contemporary concern involves what seems to be an important
change in the views people hold regarding (a) our country's
Constitution and (b) the cultural heritage bequeathed to us by its
Founders. The value of a Constitution is largely determined by the
culture that envelops it. Recently a full-page ad appeared in our
daily paper. The ad was sponsored by Hobby Lobby, Hemispheres, and
Mardel Stores (Deseret News, July 5, 2015). The Heading reads:
“In God We Trust. Blessed is the Nation Whose God is the Lord –
Psalm 33:12.” The remainder of the text is filled with quotes from
the Founders, past presidents, Supreme Court justices, Supreme Court
rulings, Congress, early education institutions, and foreign
opinions. Collectively, the content explicitly declares that this
nation is a Christian nation and that the Bible should be read by its
citizens and their lives regulated by its precepts. Furthermore,
these should be conveyed by education to the rising generation. This
ad represents the fears that accompany America's drift in belief and
practice from then and there to here and now. The
intellectual climate in this nation has changed dramatically during
the past two centuries. The public power structure now in place would
dismiss this ad as “out of touch.”
Nevertheless,
one astute observer noted decades ago that for “130 years” our
country grew and thrived; then a combination of influences changed
the way Americans thought and acted:
It was during this first century and a quarter of our
history, that America, our great America, was built—politically,
industrially, economically—the America which has [now] made
possible the riot—domestic and foreign—which is now raging; the
America which would never have been built under the policies—domestic
and foreign—which now dominate us. . . . Some will say, “Oh, he
is talking about the past; but this is a new world, new conditions,
new problems,” and so on. To this I will content myself with
answering—human nature does not change; in its basic elements it
now is as it was at the dawn of history, as our present tragic plight
shows. Even savages inflict no greater inhumanities than are going on
in the world today. (J. Reuben Clark Jr., Stand Fast By Our
Constitution, 1962. pp. 96 ̶
97)
After the passing of more than fifty years, the
foregoing commentary seems quite timely, the point being that
dramatic changes have occurred and stark differences exist among the
citizenry.
As
a specific contrast to what appeared in the newspaper ad, consider
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent public dissing of
the US Constitution. Look at the alternatives she promotes: South
Africa's constitution, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or
the European Convention on Human Rights. She apparently heralds these
modern creations as superior to the US founding documents. Ginsberg
is typical of current adherents who favor a new view for governing
America. Books have been and are being written that clearly describe
the monumental shift in perspectives that now drive social
intercourse and interpretations of the law in America.
This
trend is significant and contributes directly to the increasingly
intense factionalism in this nation. An evident and powerful movement
has changed the public perception from sacred to the secular.
Many people are engaged in hiding their context and moving
propositions into probabilities in
hopes they will become certainties. This movement is
very clear in many decisions regarding what is acceptable and not
acceptable activity in the nation's public schools. It is an age-old
battle about who should be in charge, who should do the work, who
should pay the bills, and what should people believe.
A
simple Google search offers a quick summary of Supreme Court
decisions that contributed to the 1963 Court's ruling banning prayer
in public schools. Recent Courts have also determined that by law,
Atheism
and Secular Humanism
now have legal standing as “religions.” Subsequently, new twists
and turns have been added. Various court decisions and actions now
redefine what constitutes religion,
family
and legal marriage.
One writer expressed a typical confusing conundrum like this: Secular
Humanism
is
a religion "for free exercise clause
purposes," and it
is not a
religion "for establishment clause purposes."
This is a troubling example of the law of consequences—whether or
not they are unintended or unexpected. Confusion is the result. It
makes the common person scratch his or her head in wonderment.
Nevertheless, confusion is a likely and often inevitable outcome when
people manipulate conflicting assumptions for questionable purposes.
Rhetoric, once loosed, has a life of its own and it is hardly
fail-safe. Things happen that eventually prove to be undesirable if
not chaotic. This may be why President David O. McKay's observation
was so prophetic:
By making that [New York Regents’ prayer] unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States severs the connecting cord between the public schools of the United States and the source of divine intelligence, the Creator himself. (Relief Society Magazine, December 1962, p. 878.)
What
Changes a Culture's Intellectual Climate?
New
information widely disseminated and individual activity change a
culture's climate. Currently, massive amounts of opinion fills the
various forms of media. The content and tone reflects intense and
conflicting concerns regarding such topics as Personal Freedom,
Individual Liberty, Basic Values, Constitutional Rights, Legal
Interpretation, and Human Agency; also Theological, Philosophical and
Political Assumptions, Mores, Traditions, Religion, Family Structure,
Social Institutions, Racial and Ethnic Equality, Morality and/or
Ethics, Gender modification, Abortion, and the Harvesting of Unborn
Fetus Organs and Tissues are additional examples. These items spawn
individual activity. Consensus is spotty, trendy, mercurial and
temporary. People wander here and there, or run to and fro—turmoil
abounds. It is not a hopeful or comfortable environment and seems to
generate uncertainty, fear, frustration and even hate. Stability is
put at risk in many aspects of our lives.
These
influences are illustrative as they reveal competing desires,
allegiances and economic implications. Unity is factional and rarely
fixed. This typifies the Twenty-First Century now underway. The
public turmoil definitely helps shape the forces that impact each of
us, whether we realize it or not. Ignorance is a porous shield and
contributes little to our safety, or defense, or in constructing
viable responses or solutions. To some extent, everyone is affected
by the causes and the consequences of these prevailing issues. Hope
and despair seem to ebb and flow unnecessarily. Anxiety increases.
Focus can be difficult; distractions are plentiful and often
delusional. In these very best of temporal times, humanity is
experiencing much of the very worst of times. The tour, however, is
underway.
One only need
read some daily newspaper headlines, check the editorial pages,
listen a few hours to TV cable news, attend a few city council or
school board meetings, raise a question or two with the neighbors
about politics, religion, education, the economy, peruse a sampling
of Apps to the Internet with a computer or smart phone. Its all
there 24/7, day after day, week after week, year in and year out.
It's our world; it's the outflow from information and individual
actions of recent centuries.
Americans are
traveling through an intellectual jungle. We are blanketed under an
informational atmosphere that few if any understand but many cherish.
In a very real sense this is a new world, filled with ever-evolving
mystery—up for grabs with redefinitions as well as user addictions.
But the basics of human options remain: Good/Evil; Right/Wrong;
Helpful/Harmful; these all remain, though in flux. So how do we
function in such an evolving domain? How should we teach our children
to function? (Or in some cases, how can our children help us cope?)
Are we to feel comfortable with angst, despair, accidental existence,
unknown origins or destinations, oblivion and annihilation? This is
all on the modern menu. What should be done about the other words we
encounter, those that convey life, liberty, eternity, joy,
satisfaction, hope, faith, and limitless happiness? These are also
personal. Should they have a place and a voice in the secular tent?
If so, where is the strategy to help this happen?
I am now well
past my eightieth birthday. For many years, I taught a university
class that addressed two questions: (1) How did the world you are
living in get to be like it is? (2) What are you going to do
about it? The course involved many hundreds of students. I
suppose there were hundreds of answers to these questions. My
privilege was to witness the inquiry and some of the plans these
students shared. I learned what these participants chose to identify
as basic factors worth considering and why they felt these could be
helpful. Of course, only time would unveil how useful the tentative
answers these individuals formulated and applied would be. Some of
these factors may be helpful in our current struggle to cope with the
growing turmoil of a worldwide factional social topography. Knowledge
is essential if application is to be successful. The central quest is
what knowledge? The
rest of this article explores what I believe is most relevant and may
be essential to our religious freedom.
Item
# 1
Each
Person's Individual Context Is Important
“What
a Person Thinks with When They Think about Something Makes a
Difference”
I believe the
major tensions that now dominate our society are all rooted in
personal assumptions people make related to three great
questions. The answers to these questions underlie every culture.
This is what a culture is and what it does: (a) an
explanation of what is real; (b) a presentation of evidence that
justifies that explanation, and (c) a collection of provided methods
and skills that permit the people to survive in that culture.
Consider this contrast: think Eskimo culture and Polynesian culture.
The knowledge and skills needed to survive and function in
traditional Eskimo culture are different from those that are
necessary in the Polynesian culture. For example, what one needs to
know about snow and ice is not the same as understanding the Reef and
the tropical Ocean. Yet each is essential to obtaining food, shelter,
and clothing. In every culture, we strive to understand and act upon
our contextual assumptions but may seldom discuss them
formally:
What is
real? Some people probe this concern under the heading of
metaphysics.
How do we
know? Some people explore this
question by calling it epistemology.
What
is of value? Some people
consider these issues as matters of axiology.
People do not
need to enroll in a philosophy course to engage in seeking answers to
these three questions. Everyone creates his or her own
answers—consciously or by trial and error. This is a natural
outcome of living one's life that everyone experiences in some way or
other. We all know we have beliefs. How well an individual may be
able to explain what he or she believes, however, varies from person
to person—but everyone assumes their own answers to these
three questions and then creates beliefs and actions
based on those assumptions. This is how a person forms a context
that largely determines and governs that individual's decisions and
choices. Most people do not engage in a serious self-examination of
their own assumptions; furthermore, they tend to hide the context
that undergirds their life experiences. The prominent pattern is
simply to not focus on or reveal their personal contexts;
they just immerse themselves in dealing with the content,
process, and structure of their lives—which includes
interacting with others. Nevertheless, it is the context we
formulate that shapes the answers to the Why? questions
of life that leads to the other basic concerns. In major ways our
context determines what happens to the use of the content,
process, and structure that frames our lives.
It is from
their contextual foundation that people seek, acquire and use
Content. Content focuses
on the What? questions—the information of life. And
this information leads to Process—our
methods for making use
of that resource of information. This is when the How?
or (methods) we use develop. Methods help a person to make use of the
content. Every parent, teacher and participant in all vocations
becomes aware of the importance of methods and skills. It is when we
are engaged in applying our methods that Structure emerges as
a concern; people intuitively begin to explore strategies of
When?/Where? This
is the
way
content
and methods are
put
to work in our daily decisions and affairs. We make decisions and
choices about when and where we will do whatever it is that engages
our actions. The process is universal: we all gather content, develop
methods and skills and try to figure out when and where to use these
personal resources—at home, school, work, and play. This is not a
mystery; people follow the pattern knowingly or unknowingly every
day. But these underlying elements are not the end of learning and
living. There are other fundamental questions to consider.
Item
#2
The
Great and Terrible Questions
Three
other questions also permeate the human experience and shape this
nation' s social order. Some historians have referred to these as the
“terrible” questions because they are so personal and significant
to our existence:
Where
did I come from? It's about origins
Why am I
here? It's about purpose
What is my
ultimate destiny? It's about
existence
Religious
belief systems have posed the most noted answers to these questions.
The various institutional sources appear in a variety of categories:
revelatory, cultural, mythological, mystical, and various so-called
superstitions. Beyond these classifications a more recent one has
surfaced—science. Since modernism gained its fame in
Western societies, reductionist science has offered its views
on the origin and destiny of humanity—all of which are limited to
hypothetical guesses. The limitations of these theories come
with little comment and no consensus, particularly regarding a
person's existence prior to birth or after death. The premises and
allegiance to science has become dominant in the academy. In one way
or another the major disciplines are interlinked. Theoretical
mathematics can be reduced to Physics, Physics to Biology, Biology to
Chemistry, Chemistry to Psychology, and Psychology to Education.
Great as this materialist notion is; that is, if we can take
something apart or reduce it to its various components, we can figure
out how it works and what to do with it. Yet life itself still
remains a mystery, despite all the detail we are now able to collect
and analyze. Serious limits to knowledge remain. Preferences and
speculation abound. The options run the gamut from the sacred
to the secular. The populace continues to mill around in a
divided society; Lo here! Lo there! seemingly beckon everywhere.
Meanwhile, personal agency usually succeeds in trumping it
all; but to what end?
A brief example may help illuminate why conflicts emerge in a society because of the answers people provide to these fundamental questions. Consider two critical historical indicators that frame our present circumstances in America.
Historical Indicator #1
The
Merging of Hebrew Religion and Classical Greek Philosophy
Story A. The Hebrew premise is
that God (a person—our Heavenly Father) created:
(1) man and woman (male and female),
(2) the Earth on which humankind
lives, and
(3) the Universe in which Earth is
situated.
(4) communication with and among his
children.
(5) provisions for the means by
which his children could obtain a physical body, experience birth
on earth, mature physically, procreate, die and return to a
heavenly state of continued personal existence.
Therein resides
the core emphasis of this worldview. It links (a) personal behavior,
(b) knowledge of the truth, and (c) freedom. The implication is that
without moral agency, a knowledge of the truth, and a
willingness to embrace it, there can be no freedom, and
without freedom there will be no liberty. These are requisites
for every individual; and in this story the traditional family
(male and female) is the intended social structure in which humanity
initially pursues this journey. Everything else is subsidiary. The
story line can be described like this:
Adam and Eve began the population of the earth.
God explained and gave
answers to the “terrible” questions.
God also gave
commandments to guide his earthly children.
Some accepted and
followed these rules for moral order.
Others rejected the
rules and substituted lifestyles of their own.
Counter-cultures based
on rejection and substitution were created; factions
flourished.
Men and women from
that time forth became (a) carnal, (b) sensual and (c) devilish,
(a) Seeking various
ways to satiate their physical appetites,
(b) Accepting as
valid knowledge only that which could be perceived by their
physical senses, and (c) Contriving ill-advised lifestyles
that were contrary to God's instruction.
Story B. The Greek story is
quite different. Ancient Greece had embraced the supernatural
characters described in the Iliad and the Odyssey—Zeus,
Hera his wife, and their twelve children, the gods of Mt. Olympus.
These individuals represented a cultural image that was ultimately
rejected by the intellectual community (ca. 500 B.C – 300 B.C.).
The philosophical ideal expressed in Plato's Republic and the
works of other Greek enlightenment theorists helped move Greek
society away from the concept of Deity as a person. The Golden Age of
Greece embraced a new view of authority, a type of secular
psychology founded on reason and rhetoric. Basically, it was the
notion implied in the Greek word encyclopedia: put your foot
in the center of the universe and seek knowledge, in order to admire,
appreciate, and celebrate the Cosmos. For many Greeks the concept of
human destiny changed.
The new idea
of the individual was that the ultimate destiny of a person is to
become a disembodied transient intellect, capable of fusing with the
Cosmic Mind, rather than an eternal, embodied personality, such as
the Hebrews espoused (see Acts 17:16–34). This concept flourished.
Society changed because basic beliefs changed. The new view for the
Greeks was exhilarating; secular excitement in Greek culture
stimulated admirable temporal achievements that dazzled not
only themselves and later Rome, and ultimately modern Western
culture. Science, art, music, and a great variety of divergent
schools of thought flourished. The power and the fruits of the human
intellect were compelling. As a consequence, influential people
reveled in the idea that humanity's ultimate positive destiny was to
abandon his or her personal identity and become one with the
Cosmic Mind. For the Greek intellectual community, it was the
Cosmos that was eternal—the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow—not
the individual or a personal God. The old mythology waned as
Greece experienced a dramatic change in its intellectual climate. The
stage was set for a new merger. During a period known as the meridian
of time the ancient Hebrew view merged with the philosophical
influences of the Greek Enlightenment.
Soon after the death of Jesus Christ,
a well documented movement began to merge ancient Hebrew theology and
the new Greco-Roman philosophy. This process occurred two thousand
years ago, following the mortal life of Jesus Christ (ca. A.D. 300 –
A.D. 1300). Philosophy was mingled with scripture in what was
then known as the: “Christian” religion. A new static
theology emerged during this period. It was static
because Deity became a mystery rather than a person; the Creation was
deemed Ex nihilo—created out of nothing; a new norm arose:
God had finished delivering doctrine, ongoing Divine revelation
ceased. Existing revelation was canonized. The biblical library was
printed and widely distributed. Deity had said what needed to be
said; the common reference was various versions of the
Judeo-Christian biblical
records. Eventually, for differing reasons, protest movements
began; numerous sects were formed and promoted in a series of
religious reformations. Collectively, this static
Christianity became a dominant world religion and assumed
its place as a major source of answers to the “terrible”
questions. This was one great epoch. Another epoch was pending that
was to cause similar dramatic changes in what became known as the
“Modern” world.
Historical Indicator # 2
The 20th
Century Shift from a Sacred to a Secular Society
As the various Renaissance(s) and the
Enlightenment joined the Reformation movements, another
stage was set, this time for the birth of contemporary modernism.
Between 1880 – 1920 a great shift occurred in America's academic
community; the intellectual climate experienced a dramatic change.
Traditional views, with their sacred connotations, were
challenged and publicly ignored. Acceptable “reality” was
redefined as explanations regarding what is real were reduced
to physical matter acting on physical matter. The old dualism of two
building blocks in the nature of reality was rejected; that there is
both spirit stuff and physical stuff from which reality
is composed became suspect. This old premise was rejected among the
academic elite, and many of the concepts based on that view were also
set aside. Spirit stuff was deemed not measurable or
controllable by accepted scientific methods; the old view was
increasingly ignored, rejected, or considered not relevant to what is
central to humanity's pressing concerns. It was discarded first by
the intellectually elite and subsequently by most of higher
education. As John G. Machen put it, the cathedrals of learning
became citadels of secularism. The new idea was that when
reality is properly defined, there is only one building block; it has
to be some form of physical matter acting on physical matter. This
established a new premise. Though often hidden, the secular
hypothesis became quite standard in the various disciplines of
academia: “The more we learn about the secular the less need
there is for the spiritual.” Numerous
speeches, thousands of articles, and hundreds of books document this
shift that now controls much of the social power structure. A long
list of debates and a persistent push led to the 20th
century embrace of secular humanism's
dominant role in the public sector and at all levels of education,
and gradually in the law and the policies by which our society is
governed. The trend continues more or less unabated and is seldom
examined in public education at all levels.
[Note for Latter-day
Saints. These two Historical Indicators
are related to the topic of “Defending Religious Freedom in a
Secular Society,” much like a knowledge of the Apostasy
helps one better understand and appreciate the Restoration
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Religious freedom does not come and go
in a vacuum without a context.]
Summary:
Defending Religious Freedom in a Secular Society
It is vital to
understand the intellectual climate if one hopes to defend, promote
or eliminate whatever is nurtured therein. In the case of American
culture, the contexts
people previously used to think with when they thought about life
changed; now they are often cleverly kept hidden. Rhetoric
has deep roots and is comfortable when draped in the camouflage of
guile. Increasingly,
the public spotlight on most conversations, programs, and policies
now shifts the focus almost entirely away from context
to matters of content, process (methods)
and structure. This
seems to be normative in most media bias. This practice is now, or
may soon become, the major challenge in education, government, the
law, and in public discourse of nearly all varieties. People seem to
freely express themselves regarding content,
process and structure,
but they seldom share their personal
context—this remains
covert and can be a strategic dodge. The Why?
that determines, shapes and drives what they are saying and doing is
shielded. Keeping this critical domain largely hidden can foster a
pervasive amount of guile.
We may hear some truths
but not all the truth
when this occurs. If religious freedom is to be preserved and
successfully defended, we need to seek all truth—not just its outer
shell. This will not be easy. It may be very difficult. And if we
cannot defend religious freedom, we will lose vital liberty.
In the academy of
modern education, for example, rank advancement usually depends on
research, publication, and creation. These elements house the
rewards. Yet in our quantifying, measurement, cost-oriented culture,
addressing personal context
has become toxic. It
is rare. Focusing primarily on Why
the contributors acted and where their personal contextual
allegiances lay is largely
ignored or summarily rejected by editorial
bias. This creates a
chilling effect; it pushes both intellectual liberty and true honesty
aside. Professional journals as well as public meetings are filled
with studies, observations, findings and proposals that are centered
in content, process,
and structure. Seldom
is there an open effort to reveal, express or publish an examination,
critique, or challenge to the validity of the personal
contexts. These factors that lie
hidden behind the speeches or articles that are accepted and promoted
are shunned as being private and politically incorrect. This trend
corrupts the debate and cultivates guile.
In
the field of professional education, for example, this transition
intensified mid-twentieth century, when the role for Philosophy
of
Education
was set aside in favor of the role for Psychology
of Education.
Psychology was designed to foster measurement criteria and
statistical inference—Philosophy not so much; it often probed for
context. The role for deception increases dramatically when it is the
norm for people to hide their primary
allegiances
and focus on applications and methodological aspirations. It becomes
much easier to compartmentalize values and seek to turn propositions
into probabilities
and then certainties.
In this environment rhetoric, not truth, is likely to rule. It is an
invitation to guile. This is increasingly apparent in the law and
seemingly evident in many if not all other disciplines. But everyone
is not happy about this—nor should they be. It would be well for
people in every discipline to search themselves and determine how
their field or specialty got to be like it is. It is not a stretch to
recognize that if, as the secular model demands, there is no
reality
beyond the physical then the person who believes otherwise could be
considered insane—because
they admit to believing in things that do not exist. This view of
insanity has been used to justify putting people to death. It
encourages compartmentalizing.
Context does matter.
Sharon
Salzberg, a Buddhist teacher and author of
Lovingkindness:
The Revolutionary Art of Happiness,
provides her simple and alternative view:
In order to live with integrity, we must stop fragmenting and compartmentalizing our lives. Telling lies at work and expecting great truths in meditation is nonsensical. Using our sexual energy in a way that harms ourselves or others, and then expecting to know transcendent love in another arena, is mindless. Every aspect of our lives is connected to every other aspect of our lives. This truth is the basis for an awakened life.
Dangers do lurk in the compartmentalized life.
Hypocrisy is not a firm foundation. There is good reason to explore
better options. Believers in the premises of America's founding
documents, those who are convinced of the reality and value of a
spiritual domain and moral imperatives, need to be courageous. It
is not sufficient for people who love freedom and liberty to be
content with the notion that these founding documents contain only
rational guidelines that leave people as free as possible in their
social interaction—their lifestyle. This is the moral debate.
That last premise is too exclusive, and it is inadequate to sustain
the most positive options for defining the ultimate destiny of
humankind. There are many topics to talk about, issues to evaluate,
and attributes to acquire. We need to seek after these with vigor.
Most of our lives would be improved if three hinges were installed on
each individual's doorway to life:
Attach the temporal to the spiritual;
This will change one's priorities
Place others beside or ahead of self;
This will change one's attitudes
Connect one's present with the future;
This will change one's behavior
Because
a substantial degree of personal agency is universal, as these three
factors come into play impressions occur that reveal things to us,
about our self and others, things we should know, respect and value.
This process may well be the keystone for successful agency-driven
education. This is where America's Founders believed human power
resides—in the people. Perhaps this pattern is most relevant to The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their
history and the theology of the Restoration offers poignant meaning
to a people who have both suffered and prospered under that banner.
There
are dozens of references to the view of Joseph Smith regarding the
need for religious freedoms and liberties. And he repeatedly
expressed his tolerance toward the beliefs of others, “so long as
their religion did not interfere with the civil rights of men,
according to the laws of our country? None at all…. I have the most
liberal sentiments and feelings of charity towards all sects,
parties, and denominations; and the rights and liberties of
conscience I hold most sacred and dear, and despise no man for
differing with me in matters of opinion.” (PWJS, 419, 423-424.)
This feeling is also clearly manifest in the Articles of Faith he
penned for publication in a newspaper. (see A. of F., 11, 12, and D&C
134: 1-2, 4). The emphasis and opportunity is clear. In order to
succeed, like-minded people must come together in a common cause of
unity in order to protect and preserve religious freedom—whatever
their denomination or belief system might be. It is a civil
necessity, not a theological issue. Thus, the continuing admonition
of Latter-day Saint leaders to members and citizens alike who desire
to retain religious liberties: join in the defense and preservation
of those God-given and constitutional rights with all who are willing
to seek after and work for the blessings that flow therefrom.
A Few
Suggestions for Those Interested in Defending Religious Liberty
- Be a willing witness. This may be our greatest power. Develop and use your own way of expressing the primary context that governs your life. Find it, understand it, and share it.
- Invite, and expect those with whom you interact, to express their contextual allegiances as they present and promote material in the way of content, process, or structure.
- Make an effort to personally understand how our society came to be like it is. Become familiar with the path that led to the present. Understand the basic consequences.
- Gain a clear understanding of why believers in an exclusive secular society would be inclined to dismiss, persecute, and even destroy those who favor an inclusive sacred worldview.
- Learn the limitations of a purely secular society; practice expressing them.
- Learn why some belief systems claiming religious status are counter-productive. “By their fruits” is a valid mechanism on which to base judgment.
- Recognize the value of distinguishing between morality and ethics. It matters.
- Understand the heritage bequeathed by the Founders, the moral order inherent in our founding documents; compare this foundation with the various relative alternatives espoused in contemporary society. Chart it by contrast and comparison.
- Acknowledge that exclusive secularism robs our nation of the moral code the Creator provided to ensure success in the quest for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
- Discuss with others why guile is not a helpful quality of character.
- Seek to understand proper covenant-making in our society. Find your answer.
- Recognize that morality and spirituality are not synonyms. Traditional Morality is adherence to principles that protect and preserve the well-being of others as well as self—sometimes at the expense of self. Spirituality is the result of religious practice usually involving authorized rites, rituals, and ordinances sponsored by a specific organization. These sectarian practices are what the Founders believed should not be established by the Government. They were for the moral order implied by the Ten Commandments—not against it. Honoring Providence and parents; avoiding murder and adultery; stealing, lying, cheating, resisting covetous greed are all helpful—not harmful—to America.
- If you believe in a power higher than the human intellect, pray for help and seek confirmation in behalf of yourself and others. This was the American way.
No comments:
Post a Comment