An under-reported item is the bill before the Missouri legislature (as reported by channel 4, KMOV, St Louis) which would:
- Make Christianity the states official "majority" religion;
- Recognize "a Christian god";
- "...protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs." (whatever that might mean, and with no similar protections for members of religious minorities);
- recognize that "..a greater power exists....";
- and, Proclaims that Christianity alone receives "...justified recognition..."
Now this report can lead us in several directions. The first would be to start a movement to de-accredit any and all christian colleges. Clearly they do a poor job of teaching anything, and should therefore be prohibited from conferring any form of degree. If you need proof, consider this: no torturous reading of the Bible could possibly account for the need to promote a law such as this.
But, more importantly we should look at what causes people to offer such silliness. There is a elected official in Kentucky who has taken it upon himself to poll the state legislators (with the help of a church youth group) regarding their acceptance of jesus christ. And, we have the blanket abortion ban voted into law in South Dakota.
What is this need to legislate one's personal religious values? How does it relate to policy creation and administration of a moral state? And why is it that the personal values so often advocated have such consistently narrow scopes (if we value life, for example, why would we not eliminate execution and adventuresome war?).
One can argue that morality is a gift from god(s). That is, morality is a code or set of rules determined by a higher being than ourselves. And, as such, we need to observe its strictures are face punishment.
This is not a position which can be proven. The existence of God, though widely accepted, cannot be proven. And the documents that the various religious consider to be his word, cannot be proven to originate from this unprovable god. Moreover, they cannot be reconciled to each other, and very often contradict themselves internally. So, this basis of morality is determined by individual beliefs. And while these beliefs are protected by various social norms, and sometimes law, they can also be considered delusional no matter how widespread the belief.
The science of logic and the science of factual observation cannot prove these beliefs. However, lack of proof doesn't prove compelling to most people as a reason not to believe.
Science can't prove that some "higher being", whatever its nature, doesn't exist. Religion, philosophy, and science, apart or together cannot explain the existential riddle. On the other hand, this riddle doesn't seem to be something that most adults spend much time contemplating.
Obviously a dictatorship (monarchy/junta/whatever) can pronounce morality by fiat. The willingness of its subjects to agree is less important than their willingness to obey. Merely changing the control to a majority of leadership doesn't make the imposition of morality on disbelievers any less odious. And when that "majority" is actually a vocal or powerful minority within a majority - this imposition is very much like that of a dictatorship for those members of society of differing moral beliefs.
A social compact theory of government suggests that for each of us to enjoy the opportunities we want and feel entitled to, we have to ensure that all of share in those opportunities. Only by protecting the rights of each other do we ensure the protection of our own rights.
The alternative to this is that each of us uses our skill, cunning, and force to protect our own rights, but then only a few individuals or groups have the strength to effectively protect themselves, and everyone else suffers.
A social compact theory of government, because its based on balancing the wants/needs/rights of the community, leads necessarily to a nuanced morality. What is considered moral and right at one point of time will not be so considered at another time. Mormans once believed in and protected polygamy, but do not do so today. It would be interesting to study what caused this change. Was it a need to better fit in with the larger society as a modern economy limited their isolation? Was it a need to make their religion more palatable in order to successfully carry out their missionary intentions? Or was it something else?
Abortion was not always considered a right in most countries, even though the evidence suggests that abortion has been and will be with human society for ever. Those who try to push back against abortion, though, choose not to understand its causes or drivers, rather they seek to punish those who would offer or obtain abortion. Some of this can be attributed to the natural tendency to trivialize most problems and create simplistic, although often ineffective solutions. But, many voices have been raised to offer understanding of what drives abortions, and what can be done to minimize the cases where abortions are sought. Yet the fiercest opponents of abortion will have nothing to do with this discussion, and their quiet supporters typically look away saying "...we can't solve every problem..."
To suggest that an abortion is a soulful act is silly. To suggest that a condom or a morning after pill is immoral is silly. Why does it seem that we can't find the bridges between differing positions that clearly have some common ground?
As the republicans further exercise their power, we find that they aren't in favor of states rights, if these are exercised to act independently from the republican agenda. We find the republicans don't believe in a true democracy, if it puts their power or agenda at risk. We find that the republicans are not strict constructionists of the constitution, nor do the hew to the pre-existing body of law unless it protects them and their interests.
Clearly republicans, as little as they may like to admit this, are moral relativists. Good law is what's good to me, not you. Now, this isn't meant to be a putdown of republicans. But they have been advocating a position that liberals and Democrats are moral relativists and that this is bad. They also have posited that these liberals and Democrats are moral secularists, and that this also is bad.
When a republican can advocate, justify, and protect the bloodbath of the war against Iraq, they can only be secular moral relativists. No god who says "thou shalt not kill" is going to be bamboozled for a moment that this war in any way supports his morality. No logician can possibly resolve that abortion is wrong but war (with the possible exception of self defense) and criminal execution are right. No, these simple cases prove that we are all moral relativists, and that most of the time most of us are secular moral relativists - no matter how literally we read our bible/koran/etc.
It's too easy to point out the irony of those moralists who would make Missouri an officially christian state - that buys us nothing. Moreover, if we have to give up a state, it might as well be hill-billy land - we aren't losing much there.
No, the question is what drives the creation of fascist nationalism, whether based in religion or not, and what drives the creation of a philosophical, rights-based nationalism. Our forefathers faced many similar influences to what we face today. Fanatic religionists are nothing new. Bamboozling the masses is nothing new. So what allowed a historic and globally inspirational democracy to form in our country, and what is now putting that same democracy at risk.
It is too easy to point at the various demagogues, but why are they so threatening today? Why has fundamentalism become so pervasive in this country? Just as abortion cannot simply be legislated away, neither can demagogues. What can we do to reinforce the common belief in reason, facts, shared values, and tolerance?
If I could simply answer these questions, I would have begun this blog at that point. But, something has raised the national level of angst, something is fomenting hatred of our fellow beings, and something is causing us to damage the various institutions which has made us so strong as a nation, and so free as a people. If we don't answer these questions soon, I fear we will fundamentally change our country in ways that we and our children will be hurt significantly and repeatedly.
