Humanity, irrespective of time, place, beliefs, or any other point of difference, seems incomprehensibly blind to the experiences of those who have gone before us, even (and sometimes especially) where these are amply documented, as well as somewhat indifferent toward those who will come after us, and who have to deal with the messes we make.
We repeat, again and again, the tragedies of the past, sometimes at immeasurable, and enduring, cost, assuming that we could never be like, think like, act like, those who got things so terribly wrong.
We are simply smarter, more moral, more enlightened, more oppressed, more noble, more culturally, or ethnically, superior, or even especially called.
We take risks because we think we can always rein things in when, and if, we need to.
We think the cost is worth it, without the faintest idea of what that cost might be.
In psychology this is called denial. We point the finger at others, while suppressing, sublimating, displacing, intellectualizing, transferring and projecting our flaws, our insecurities and our self-interest. We do this as individuals, as groups, as cultures and as nations. Our points of difference, rather than points in common, our better side, rather than our shadow, our words, rather than our actions, become the things that define us, and that inoculate us to any sense of risk.
The authors of the American Constitution well knew the tension between the duty of the state to maintain order, and the need for it to remain clear of enforcement (legislative or otherwise) of matters of conscience. They realized that the state must necessarily set boundaries on conduct (action), but not in relation to matters of thought. When the former makes incursions into the latter, as it so easily can, and increasingly is, the result is the impoverishment of thought, the fracturing of social order, the possibility of social unrest, and, ultimately, persecution.
In January 1801 George Washington, replying to a letter from a representative of the Danbury Baptist Association congratulating him on his presidential appointment, and requesting clarity with respect to his position on religious liberty, responded that civil (state) interference in matters of faith, and personal conviction, would constitute a violation of the inalienable rights of free men and would never have his support.
In January of 1802 Thomas Jefferson, in response to a similar letter, commented as follows:
... that matters of personal faith and conviction were matters between man and God,
... that accountability was to none other,
... that the legislative powers of government were with respect to matters of action and not opinion,
... that a "wall of separation" must necessarily exist between church and state.
The sentiments above were enshrined in the American Constitution, in what came to be known as the establishment clauses, one prohibiting the government to establish a state religion, and the second establishing the separation of both.
James Maddison wrote as follows with respect to the First Amendment:
"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject that I have wholly supported religious freedom."
In a letter to EL Schaeffer in 1821 Maddison commented further:
" ... that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical religion, to social harmony and to political prosperity."
In a further letter written in 1822 Maddison commented:
"An adherence or coalition between government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance ... religion and government will exist in greater part without rather than with the aid of government."
And in 1832, in a letter to Jasper Adams, Maddison, acknowledging the inevitable tensions between the realms of government and matters of faith, commented as follows:
"... it is not easy to trace a line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collision and doubt on essential points. The tendency of usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupted coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an active abstinence of government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights to others."
Religion, to the founding fathers, was broadly defined. It specified no creed. They were referencing beliefs derivative of conviction, more than of evidence, beliefs dearly held but also contestable ... they just happened to coalesce mostly in organized religion at that time.
I would contend that the meddling in matters of personal thought in the modern age, a near pathological aversion to matters of conscience, the vociferous promotion of some ideas over others, often without good evidence, or common sense. The denial of contrary voices and viewpoints, the misrepresentation of the motivations and character of those striving to draw attention to alternatives, represent an incursion into the domain of thought, and reason, that is anti-intellectual and ultimately dangerous.
As Christianity has become less a feature of the West, and as its appeal has diminished to many (but certainly not all), there has been a fascinating proliferation of (displacement by) "religious type" (sacred) systems of belief, and the unrelenting promotion of these by the media and agencies of state. Critical theory, Marxism, gender theory, climate change ideologies. These perenially maleable, and amorphous, belief systems often have pseudo-doctrines, priests, creeds, rites of passage, sacred dogmas, conditions of membership, end time prognostications, and leanings into the mystical.
Despite allusions to the contrary, they are often devoid of reason, of clear scientific evidence, or of any fundamental or functional coherency.
People can believe what they choose, but when the state, and media, conspire to promote one opinion over another, to pronounce on matters of thought, of personal conviction, and truth, to uplift the beliefs of some, and marginalise, and malign, those of others, they have crossed the line, they have gone too far.
The words of Thomas Jefferson stated above are worth repeating ... that matters of personal faith and conviction were matters between man and God (matters of conscience) ... that accountability was to none other ... that the legislative powers of government were with respect to matters of action and not opinion ... and that a "wall of separation" must necessarily exist between church and state.
The state and media have no mandate to pronounce on matters of conscience, to promote ideas that have not been tried in the public domain, or to criticise those whose views conflict with their own. Opposing views are the very boundaries that prevent ideas from going too far, and "truth" is often encountered only in the integration, not denial, of contrary views.
We inevitably serve, and are served by, two masters, the civil (by general consent of the governed), and the voice of higher calling (the voice of conscience). These two domains must remain separate, at least to the extent that this is possible, and the reconciliation of these two domains is a personal matter. The American founders, not far removed from the internecine conflicts of the preceding centuries, knew why, we have forgotten.
The present stand-off in New Zealand between the teacher unions and the government over education policy is an object lesson (among many) of what happens when these two jurisdictional domains converge, when ideology becomes embedded in policy design and delivery, when the ambitions of idealogues displace reason and custom, and when a clear line has failed to be drawn. This current stand-off perfectly exemplifies the core of our dilemma, and the outworking of decades of political trade-offs and partisan compromise.
Across the West we are seeing the emergence of something akin to a state (and perhaps global) religion. A religion whose ideological adherents view their ideologies as sacred writ, and who see themselves, their ideas, and those of like mind, as untouchable.
When the state ventures from matters of action (the mundane) into matters of conscience (the almost sacred), it knows not the monster it might unleash ...
... and we give history yet another throw of the dice.
Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.
2 comments:
Most key debates about how to create political systems hashed out in the USA 1760s-1780s, but not studied in History or Political Science at any NZ university....
"Matters between man and God" and "the voice of conscience" are both meaningless to me because they do not specify what is meant by 'God' and 'conscience'. I suspect that they both refer to subjective aspirations which cannot be substantiated or communicated. We need to do better and try our best to express issues in rational terms using evidence and logic.
Post a Comment