Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
Don't get me wrong. I desire for people to follow Christ, but the Christian faith is one of personal choice, not of persuasion or force. This is directly at odds with the role of government, whose sole distinguishing characteristic is coercion.
Certainly, moral tension between our spiritual and political spheres continues today. We have long been a nation of people who identify themselves mostly as Christian, and that is certainly changing in our time with the growth of those who do not identify with Christianity or commit to any faith system. The question, then, is where are people to look for morality?
The worst possible answer, although the seeming reality, would be that our society is receives its moral cues from government. To many it seems that government funding determines right and wrong (embryonic stem cell research, abortion) and jails are crowded with government’s judgment on private personal activities of a morally dubious nature. This happens while America's citizens are increasingly not only educated, but raised and supported by the government dole, graduating or flunking out to work at some level or other of multinational corporation XYZ, which exists in large part through government influence and protection. Thomas Jefferson's words ring prophetic:
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Seeing the government as the barometer for morality is a trap that both the religious and irreligious fall prey to. It is at least a part of the reason social conservatives, who have little problems with heterosexuals that destroy the sanctity of marriage, are now decrying homosexuals seeking equal government recognition. It is also a big reason why the social engineers on the left look to government to redistribute wealth and solve every problem instead of defending liberty and the rights of its citizens.
I see virtue ethics as the best way forward. In How to Argue like Jesus (which Mrs. Hommes gave me as a Valentine's gift!), the authors offer an observation, one that I like very much. In the introduction, they bring attention to the fact that throughout history scholars have drawn parallels between the philosophies of Greece and the teaching of Christianity. They go on to state an intention of their book is to "to solidify the link between those conclusions reached through reason (by means of philosophy) and those reached through revelation (in the person of Jesus)."
Virtue ethics, as set forth by Aristotle (and Christianized by Aquinas), then, can offer a way for people of every religion, and of no religion, to reasonably agree on a set of virtues that should guide our public and private lives, and the education of our youth. Lists of virtues already exists that aggregate the virtues common to the world's faith traditions, and sites exist that can put virtue and moral decision making into language acceptable for atheists. But first, we as a society must decide to recognize the vital role and social importance of virtues, the need for more virtuous citizens, and the inability for big government to provide either. We are not there, but I would like to be optimistic and add a word - yet.
10 comments:
If government is, itself, a compact among people, then government will, necessarily, reflect the values and virtues of its subjects. If we don't like the [FILL IN THE BLANK WITH CHOSEN ASPECT] of the government, we must first take a look at ourselves and our peers.
No, the real problem with government is not that it is too big or too small, nor that it is too invasive or oppressive, but rather that government is the creation of man, and, therefore, it has already failed. Easter Sunday is a reminder to the faithful and the bureaucrat alike that the powers of this world (including the government) are, in fact, powerless and their days are numbered. Of course, the same can also be said for all human institutions.
Now with regard to the "virtues:" Virtues are learned, and it is up to the virtuous to do the teaching. But forget not that even the virtuous are mere mortals. Accordingly, we must be careful that we don't end up deifying mortals, no matter how virtuous they may seem. You are wise to cite Aristotle and Aquinas reference points and role models, but we must be careful not to turn them into something more than men (and I fully understand that you're not proposing to do so).
So we agree that government, as a result of human involvement, is destined to mistakes and failure. I would say, however, that based on that reality, the size of government is incredibly important, as the bigger the government, the bigger the size of its mistakes, failures, and in most cases, ultimate destruction.
Aristotle and Aquinas are not the point. The point is to understand truth and live accordingly. THE truth, THE way, and THE life has been perfectly revealed only in Christ. He alone is worthy of deification. But wise men before and after Christ, created in God's image, can understand and reason at least some part of truth.
I posit only that Aristotle and Aquinas offer a true way for imperfect humans to live a more fulfilled life, and that is by virtue of setting the mind to control and improves one's self and their relationship with others.
Some random observations:
Justus - I think you are arguing with a straw man by selectively quoting the Treaty of Tripoli. I looked up the full text of Article 11. The passage you snip reads in full,
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Quoted in context, and considering that US merchant ships were under attack at a time when America did not yet have its own naval fleet (the construction of which began under Adams, if memory serves), this passage doesn't quite say what I think you suggest it does. Besides, show me the person that says that our government is (or was) a Christian government. The argument generally goes that we are a Christian "nation," right? (A much longer discussion with reasonable points of view from many angles.) I have some similar criticisms of Meacham's article - a lot to agree with, but also a lot of straw men. By my lights, there is nothing controversial at all about saying that the government is not founded on a particular religion. It clearly is not. But I could also cite chapter and verse from the Founders about the need for faith (of the Christian variety) and virtue (which you rightly point to) as necessary attributes of a self-governing people.
Next point - Sounds like the good Doctor could easily have been reading up on Federalist 51...Madison's "Men are not angels" blather and all. I continue to be baffled by the contradictions - acknowledging that we are all crooked timber, yet firmly in support of an ever-expanding State. At the risk of being presumptuous, I am guessing that the motivation is Matthew 25. Of course, I missed the part about government redistribution of wealth in any of the Gospels ;-). How's that for a non sequitor.
Next, I think you both make good point about Aristotle. He argues in part that we become virtuous by DOING virtuous things. Of course, that requires first setting our mind to the doing. I, like Justus, don't trust government to be the final arbiter of what is "virtuous," which I think is where all this is headed.
(Huff huff, out of shape) The problem IS that the government is too big, invasive and oppressive. I firmly believe that when government's becomes large enough that its overarching mission is to deaden the sting of all of life's difficulties and make "life" simply a time of leisure, then a very real, personal sense of caring for one's next-door neighbor, voluntarily giving your own money to charity, having children, etc. all become distractions from that leisure and ultimately become markers of a by-gone era (cf. modern Europe). Organic development of virtue is one of the first things lost when there are no longer any tough choices to make. It becomes much easier to accept that the State will handle all your compassion and caring for you. This line of thought, frankly, disgusts me.
I am working through putting onto paper my thoughts about the connection between classical liberalism, virtue and government. It's quite a vain exercise, but I suspect it will help me sound a bit more cogent in future discussions like this.
JB,
Great comments. I admit to using the Tripoli Treaty text selectively. And you are right that I should have been more careful with my wording and used "government" in place of "nation."
Certainly, dozens of quotes from the founding fathers make it clear that America's government, as they designed it, requires virtuous people. And there was, and remains, no truer revelation of virtue that Jesus, so that is why even Jefferson modeled his ethics after Christ while rejecting most of organized Christianity.
What I am struggling with, and I look forward to your writings on the subject (perhaps a guest post is in order?), is how to infuse our society with the same "Christian" values that our founders so valued, but not force feed the Christian religion. The beauty of using the language of virtues is that moderation, compassion, and self-disciple, and most other virtues are almost universally accepted by all religions, including secular humanism.
There will always be tension between groups in society, and utopia is not around the corner, but adopting a social language of individual virtue ethics can become a "public God" that maintains a separation of church and state. Of course we believe Christianity has more to offer than how to live our lives, but that certainly is a component.
Obama has actually talked a lot about virtue and ethics, but listening to his latest "sermon" at Georgetown (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/14/business/econwatch/entry4944206.shtml) made me cringe. Not only is this not the right tone for a President, he preaches about saving and investing while launching an unprecedented expansion of government financed purely through "borrow and spend."
One last comment on Matthew 25, I find the "sheep and goats" section really interesting, but even more so when you consider it follows the parables of the "10 virgins" and "talents." Consider:
7"Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps.
8"The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
9"But the prudent answered, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.'
10"And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.
11"Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.'
12"But he answered, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.'
Why weren't those who had oil not admonished for not sharing with those who did not?
Many thanks to JB for pointing out my inconsistencies. I hadn't stopped to think about the fact that mine is a life of cognitive dissonance. If only I could be as consistently consistent in my thoughts and rationale as others among us.
Also, its nice to realize that I've been reduced to blathering. I hope my clients haven't noticed yet. Although I will say that I try not to make a habit of simply regurgitating what I read from other sources.
I fear that my perspective has been misjudge by some (probably attributable to the fact that I'm not as logical or consistent as I should be). I don't support an ever-expanding state. However, if the state is going use my tax dollars to confer benefits or "redistribute the wealth" as so many like to say, I say redistribute it to those individuals who have the least resources, not to the corporations, not to the wealthy, not to the privileged. I don't want a nanny state or a dole, but rather if I must pay taxes, I would prefer that my tax dollars reflect my personal priorities - and that means I'd prefer my tax dollars to go to directly to programs intended to assist the less fortunate. If that's disagreeable or troublesome or inconsistent, I apologize. That's how I'm wired, that's how I was raised, and that's how I'll always be. I guess that makes me one of those fearsome progressives - or worse - a bleeding-heart liberal. Having said that, I say this: even if government programs exist, that's not an excuse for me to sit on the sidelines, a point that Justus rightly hits from all angles on this blog. Now tell me, have I made myself clear enough, or is there still some latent inconsistency that I should address? Or is my real problem that I'm simply channeling my inner Fascist and my irrepressible bent towards eugenics?
As for the parable of the 10 virgins or bridesmaids (depending on your translation) - I confess that I have trouble with this parable - I find it enigmatic. I don't think it was Jesus' point to address the issue of sharing because that wasn't necessarily the focus of the parable. Not every part of a parable is significant. But then again, maybe its an intentional omission. I simply don't know. Remember also that there may be a reason the parable occurs only in Matthew and none of the other synoptics. I don't know why, but its likely the writer of Matthew intended to make a particular point to his audience, a point that this parable would have illustrated, and the others in chapters 24 and 25 hammer home.
Dr. RosenRosen,
I like your bleeding heart, just keep it away from my carpet.
I strongly agree with you that the LAST place I want government money to go is to corporate and lobbying interests. I also want a tax code free of the "incentives" that benefit the wealthy, privileged, and morally dubious.
As libertarian as I am, I am a Ropke libertarian, skeptical of both government and unfettered capitalism. I support social safety nets to a degree, and our differences are probably limited to scale and method of execution. I look to individuals, families, and communities first, counties, states, and regions next, and national government last, but there is a role each should play.
Seeing the parable of the virgins and talents contrasted with the sheep and goats in Matthew, to me, drives home that the way of Christ is not an either/or proposition. I must commit both to being good/wise personally, and doing good socially.
I heart you, RR.
Come on, puddin’. Before I started dying, I apparently caused offense. I apologize, though I do point out that I said “contradictions,” not “inconsistencies.” Life is far too complicated to expect consistency. Still, I remain baffled by the contradictions between Dr. RR’s very evident reverence (which I share) for the accumulated wisdom of the ages and the acquiescence to (specifically government) initiatives that would more closely be aligned with the philosophies of, say, Rousseau or William Godwin, whose beliefs in their day have been cleverly summarized to suggest that “the dead have no right to rule beyond the grave.” I guess in the legal realm, it would be like revering Oliver Wendell Holmes but practicing like Earl Warren. Just confusing is all. Not sayin’, just sayin’.
As for the implicit accusation that I don’t think for myself, I plead guilty as charged – especially when it relates to things like human nature, social causation, the development of virtue, etc. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that very few, if any, of us ever actually do have original thoughts when it comes to topics such as these, and it is pretty vain to think otherwise (see my last comment). Edmund Burke put it this way (I know, I know - not an original thought):
“I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation, and which indeed are so worked into my mind, that I am unable to distinguish what I have learned from others from the results of my own meditations.”
As for the development of virtue, Justus, I suggest that it used to be apparent how such organic development occurred (both inside and outside the Church, that is). Edmund Burke saw it originating from little platoons. Tocqueville certainly saw it in the entrepreneurial and self-organizing spirit of towns and villages across America. I fear that by arrogating such responsibilities to a State wholly unequipped to be an arbiter of virtue or dispenser of charity, no matter how well-intentioned, we end up destroying the civilization that facilitated the development of virtue in the first place. I could defend that idea, but I’d have to quote dead guys. And that, apparently, is no longer allowed. ;-)
JB,
I hope you are feeling better.
I have adopted the position of many a dead Catholic in stating the importance of subsidiarity on the entire process of personal and social development. Virtue and self-control, as outlined in my more recent blog post, develops first and foremost in the family. Until we fixed the breakdown of the family, all other discussions are almost irrelevant. Next would come community (church, clubs, social and professional orgs, neighborhoods, villages) as Tocqueville mentions. Only then should we look to the state.
But there is a role for the state. Our founding fathers appealed to a public God or god of some sort, and every political/military leader seeks to assure the public that they are leading on the right side of God and history. While you and I may want it to remain our Christian God, I am saying it is possible to have a unifying public god based on shared virtues in today's poly/non-theistic culture.
Public pantheism, private monotheism? Maybe, but I don't see it that way. I see it more as rolling out the Greek altar to the UNKNOWN GOD (Acts 17:22-31) and then allowing Christians to follow Paul's steps in affirming him as our Lord in Christ.
Fair enough. The military example occurred to me as well, but I need to think a little more about it since our military leaves very little room for individual freedom within its ranks. That said, I am not sure that public pronouncements by political leaders or invocations of God's favor get us much of anywhere in the virtue department (at least not when it comes to changing individual behavior). After all, that sort of thing has been going on since the founding and look where we are.
I look forward to reading your impressions of Adam Smith, who was very clear-eyed about our bent nature and thought the only way (absent religion) to get citizens to behave virtuously and/or in the public interest was through systemic incentives - a position you have disagreed with, albeit subtly, in the recent past.
I'll try to clarify my thoughts on incentives soon. In short, I agree with most all things Adam Smith, including (carrot and stick) incentives, but disagree with how incentives are used in the tax code. If incentives are easily exploited for personal gain or are riddled with loopholes, then the least virtuous can simply game the system. For example - if a group of rich friends can start a REIT with a portfolio solely of their vacation homes to turn all mortgage payments, insurance, and upkeep into a tax-free "business loss," something ain't right.
Post a Comment