Nihilism as a Threat to Politics, Religion and Morality

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Twenty-five years ago the Cold War ended and the world proclaimed the victory of democracy over communism.  This year’s presidential primaries indicate that the declaration of victory for democracy may have been premature.  Our democracy of liberty in law is being challenged by the socialism of Bernie Sanders and the nihilism of Donald Trump.    

            Nihilism is defined as the denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge and the general rejection of customary beliefs in religion and morality.  In democratic politics, nihilism disdains all social, political and economic institutions.  Donald Trump exemplifies those principles, and could well make the Republican Party the Nihilist Party of America.

            Nihilism has revolutionized politics before.  Russian nihilists exploited fear and anger to undermine the legitimacy of the Czarist regime and pave the way for the Bolshevik revolution of 1917.  They created a political vacuum that was filled by Soviet Communism.  If American neo-nihilists are successful in putting Trump in power, our libertarian democracy will be in jeopardy.

            In the U.S. populist demagogues have gained political power using nihilistic tactics to exploit fear and anger.  At the end of the 19^th century “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman built a political dynasty on racism in South Carolina; and in the 20^th century, “the Kingfish”, Huey P. Long, did the same in Louisiana.  It’s not hard to imagine the damage that Trump could do to democracy in America with his nihilistic and nativist proposals if he were elected President.

            Nihilism can contaminate religion as well as politics.  Karen Armstrong has noted “…that there is an inbuilt nihilism in the more extreme forms of fundamentalism.”  She cited scandals of TV evangelists in the 1980’s as well as examples of Jewish and Islamic destruction and annihilation in the name of God/Allah.  Armstrong could have cited Jerry Falwell’s endorsement of the nihilism of Donald Trump this past year, as well as continued religious violence overseas.       

            Globalization and the increasing pluralism of America require that its politics reflect the ideal of reconciliation rather than the prevalent norm of divide and conquer.   Religion can help achieve that objective.  The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, including our neighbors of different races and religions, is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  Nihilism rejects such altruistic moral ideals and exploits fear and anger to promote a divisive politics that has become the norm in the U.S.

            The Democratic Party may look good relative to Trump’s Republican Party, but it has contributed to the political malaise that has given rise to populist demagoguery and nihilism.  Hillary Clinton and other Democratic politicians represent a corrupt wedding of partisan politics with special interest groups and the wealth and power of Wall Street.

            To combat the rise of nihilism in the U.S., our two-party system should be expanded. Instead of one party holding the reins of power and a single “loyal opposition” party, there would be other parties to provide shifting coalitions of power to prevent gridlock and provide more choices for voters.  Such multi-party systems have long been the norm in other democracies.

            In the realm of religion, history illustrates that Christianity and Islam have sought to divide and conquer rather than promote religious reconciliation.  Both religions have promoted exclusivist beliefs and a judgmental god who condemns unbelievers to eternal damnation.  That kind of proselytizing only leads to more interfaith division, anger and hostility.

            Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who promoted the moral principles taught by Jesus, but he had little use for institutional Christianity.  He wrote: “I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught; but I hold in the utmost profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of man.”

            Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers advocated individual rights beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech, but they understood that individual rights had to be balanced with obligations to provide for the common good to avoid populist demagoguery and nihilism.  Today, in their zeal to promote their individual freedoms and their exclusivist faith, Christians seem to have forgotten their communal obligations and argue that their religious freedom allows them to discriminate against those who do not share their traditional sexual preferences.

            A great irony of the current political season is that evangelical Christians have made Donald Trump the presumptive GOP nominee for President, even though his political views contradict the teachings of Jesus.  The most common rationale given by Trump supporters is: ”He stands up for what is right.”  Jesus defined what is right as sharing God’s reconciling love with others, and that reconciling love can defeat the divisive forces of nihilism.  There is no more important responsibility for Christians in a democracy than to apply God’s reconciling love to their politics, as expressed in the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors as themselves.  If they don’t do that, their faith is as dead as a body without spirit. (James 2:14-26)

                 

Notes and References to Related Blogs:

On The dangerous nihilism of Trump voters, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangerous-nihilism-of-trump-voters/2016/05/04/0cf3fbe8-1212-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines. On The rank nihilism driving the GOP’s acceptance of Trump, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rank-nihilism-driving-the-gops-accepatance-of-trump/2016/05/16/f6e02c14-1b9e-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines; on how fascism comes to America, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines; and on Lindsey Graham Backing a “Race-Baiting, Xenophobic Religious Bigot,” see http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-republican-party-decides-to-settle-again/483890/?google_editors_picks=true.

   

On nihilism in fundamentalist religions, see Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God (Random House, New York, 2001) at p. x in a New Preface, Chapter 10 and in Afterword.

         

On how obsessive individualism and a distrust in government has produced a nihilistic “Patriot” movement armed with guns and the Constitution and that sees America under threat, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/05/21/armed-with-guns-and-constitutions-the-patriot-movement-sees-america-under-threat/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On how a multi-party system might improve politics in the U.S. two-party system, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/26/we-really-have-four-parties-so-why-not-four-candidates/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns.

On the views of Thomas Jefferson on the teachings of Jesus and how religion shapes concepts of legitimacy in politics, see the Introduction of The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy (the J&M Book), at pages 10-15 and 332-335 and End Notes, posted in Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ and at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/.

References to related blogs posted in the Archives at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ and at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/: See Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015; May 10, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Confronting the Evil Among Us, June 28, 2015;  Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Faith, Freedom and Politics, February 27, 2016;  The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016; The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016; Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 7, 2016; and Religious Fundamentalism and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 21, 2016.

    

Religious Fundamentalism and A Politics of Reconciliation

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Religious fundamentalists who referred to themselves as evangelical Christians made Donald Trump the presumptive Republican nominee for President, but Trump’s arrogant and mean-spirited rantings and his narcissistic lifestyle do not even remotely reflect the teachings of Jesus.  Michael Gerson has gone so far as to characterize Republicans who support Trump as conservatives making a deal with the devil.

            Religious fundamentalists believe that their ancient scriptures and laws are the inerrant and infallible word of God and that their exclusivist religious doctrines define the one true faith.  Fundamentalism is not unique to Christianity, but among Christians fundamentalists are a minority while they are a majority among Muslims in Islamic cultures.  The fundamentalist belief that God favors one religion and condemns all others has been a divisive and hateful force throughout history and continues to cause much hate and violence today.

            How can fundamentalists believe in a god who orchestrates hate and violence?  Perhaps because their exclusivist religious beliefs negate the idea taught by Jesus and other great prophets that God loves all people, regardless of their religious beliefs. 

            In a globalized world of increasing religious pluralism, religions and the politics they shape are in need of reconciliation.  The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and the story of the good Samaritan makes it clear that our neighbors include those of other religions.  But that universality has been ignored by Christian and Muslim fundamentalists.

            In addition to Christian fundamentalists who have supported Donald Trump, Muslim fundamentalists have supported radical Islamist violence, and Jewish fundamentalists have used violent tactics against Palestinians.  For all of them religious fundamentalism has subordinated the moral imperative to love others to exclusivist religious doctrines that prevent reconciliation.    

        

            God’s will is to reconcile and redeem humanity, while Satan’s will is to divide and conquer; and Satan does a convincing imitation of God.  That is obvious with those “Christians” who support Donald Trump and those “Muslims” who support Islamist violence.

            Religious beliefs shape our politics, for good and bad.  Fundamentalists should be held accountable for subordinating the greatest commandment to love all others to exclusivist beliefs that condemn those of other religions.  That should be as much a political priority as one of religion to promote a reconciliation of the divisiveness caused by religious fundamentalism.

            In America political reconciliation should begin with voters rejecting the mean-spirited and divisive politics of Donald Trump and all Republicans who do not disavow them.  That does not mean supporting Democrats who promote partisan divisiveness with their own special interest politics coupled with the corrosive influence of Wall Street wealth.  Voters should consider third-party candidates who promote a politics of reconciliation and the restoration of legitimacy to American democracy.

            Religion is the primary source of the standards of legitimacy (what is right) that shape American domestic and foreign policies.  Islamist fundamentalism promotes distorted concepts of legitimacy that support Islamist terrorism.  To minimize religious divisiveness at home and to undermine Islamist violence overseas, America should promote religious and political reconciliation with a common word of faith, along with fundamental freedoms that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech.   

            The moral imperative to love others as we love ourselves doesn’t provide easy answers for the difficult political issues of our day, but it does provide moral parameters for elected officials.  Donald Trump has ignored those moral parameters, yet his supporters admire him for standing up for what is right.  Exit polls indicate that many Trump supporters consider themselves evangelical Christians.  That indicates a disconnect in their religion and politics.  They have confused God’s will with the will of Satan, and need to be reminded that Jesus taught reconciliation and redemption, not condemnation and division.   

References to Related Blogs at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ and Notes:

For previous blogs on related topics, see Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015; May 10, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016; and The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016.

On Michael Gerson’s assertion that Trump supporters are conservatives making a deal with the devil, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-cave-to-the-cave-man/2016/05/16/314bbf6e-1b89-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

The Arrogance of Power, Humility and a Politics of Reconciliation

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The arrogance of power and its aversion to humility is characteristic of politics.  That’s why it is so difficult to reconcile politics with the teachings of Jesus.  Michael Gerson has described the moral anomaly of evangelical Christians supporting Donald Trump:

“[Those who support Trump] detest weakness in themselves and others. The country, in their view, has grown soft and feeble. Their opponents are losers, lacking in energy. Rather than despising bullying — as Ryan, Romney and all the Bushes do — they elevate it. The strong must take power, defy political correctness, humiliate and defeat their opponents, and reverse the nation’s slide toward mediocrity.

…This type of leadership can motivate, usually through resentment and anger. What it cannot do is inspire. …In American history, inspiring leadership has often been informed by religion, which (at its best) universalizes our empathy.

…The Republican Party is not engaged in a policy argument; it is debating the purpose of politics. …Trump is attempting to place nativism at the center of U.S. politics. Those who resist are not enforcing the rules of a private club.  …They are opposing a candidate who mocks disabled people, demeans women, engages in ethnic stereotyping and encourages religious bigotry.

…Hating losers and the weak is fundamentally inconsistent with Christian ethics, and other sources of moral judgment, in every income quintile.  Make no mistake. Those who support Trump, no matter how reluctantly, have crossed a moral boundary. They are standing with a leader who encourages prejudice and despises the weak. They are aiding the transformation of a party formed by Lincoln’s blazing vision of equality into a party of white resentment. Those who find this one of the normal, everyday compromises of politics have truly lost their way.

…We are seeing, in the word of G.K. Chesterson, Lunancy dancing in high places.  None of this requires a vote for Hillary Clinton.  But it forbids a vote for Donald Trump.”

            Trump’s supporters have said they support him for standing up for what is right.  If they support Trump’s standards of legitimacy, they ignore the teachings of Jesus that describe the moral standards of legitimacy summarized in the greatest commandment.  Exit polls indicate that most Trump supporters consider themselves Christians.  If so, they need to be reminded that Jesus taught reconciliation and humble service rather than division and exploitation of the weak.  Christians who support Donald Trump have lost their way, and according to Dr. David Gushee they should repent and confess their resistance to Trump. (see Gushee's commentary in Notes below) 

A politics of reconciliation and humble service is needed to redeem a political culture pervaded by the arrogance of power.  Jesus made that point when he told his disciples: “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be the slave of all.” (Mark 10:42-44)  Earlier, Jesus had told his disciples, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

            The disciples believed that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah who would restore the power and glory of ancient Israel, and they wanted to participate in that power and glory.  Jesus disabused them of that idea, and distanced himself from those Jewish zealots of his day who were committed to overthrowing Roman rule.  According to Jesus the kingdom of God did not require a political revolution since it was not based on worldly power but instead on the power of God’s love to reconcile and redeem all people.

            Lord Acton’s observation that Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely continues to be validated in politics.  Power produces pride based on a sense of superiority over others, while humility—the antithesis of pride—is based on the belief that we are all equal in the sight of God.  Humility is not based on weakness, but on strength that enables us to follow the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors—even those we would rather avoid—as we love ourselves. It is a standard of legitimacy that can reconcile us and redeem our politics from the corruption of worldly power and pride.

            The ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican Party illustrates the relevance of religion to politics.  The support of so many Americans—many of them evangelical Christians—for Trump’s vulgar narcissism and nativism, with his mocking of disabled people, demeaning women and encouraging religious bigotry, illustrates how the arrogance of power has eroded political morality in the U.S.  It is in stark contrast to the moral imperative to reconcile and redeem humanity through the love of God and neighbor taught by Jewish prophets, Jesus and Muhammad.  Our democracy will fail without a renewed commitment to that moral ideal. 

References to Related Blogs and Notes:

For previous blogs on related topics, see Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015;  The Power of Humility and the Arrogance of Power, March 22, 2015;  May 10, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016; The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016; and Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 7, 2016.

On Michael Gerson’s commentary, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-victory-inspires-lunacy-in-high-places/2016/05/09/16048aa2-160b-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

The Rev. Dr. David Gushee is Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University and President-Elect of the Society of Christian Ethics.  Gushee helped draft a statement on why Christians are Called to Resist Donald Trump:

…Our statement is not a mere declaration of political preference or candidate taste. It is about something much more fundamental.  This line from early in the document summarizes the heart of our concern:

The ascendancy of a demagogic candidate and his message, with the angry constituency he is fueling, is a threat to both the values of our faith and the health of our democracy. Donald Trump directly promotes racial and religious bigotry, disrespects the dignity of women, harms civil public discourse, offends moral decency, and seeks to manipulate religion.

Our analysis is that Donald Trump has gained the following that now puts him on the brink of the Republican nomination by exploiting the economic stresses and cultural tensions that exist in our rapidly changing society. He has risen to power by deliberately inflaming resentment, in particular white, male, working-class, “Christian” resentment. We say it this way:

Donald Trump…is manipulating…anger for his own political advantage – at the expense of the common good. Trump is shamelessly using racial resentment, fear, and hatred – always dangerously present in our society – to fuel a movement against “the other,” targeting other races, women, cultures, ethnicities, nations, creeds, and a whole global religion.

These offenses go as far back as his playing the “birther” card against President Obama many years ago, and include his attacks on Mexicans and other immigrants, his statements about American Muslims celebrating after 9/11, his mocking of a disabled reporter, his numerous calumnies directed against particular women, the atmosphere of violence at some of his rallies, his attacks on certain media members and the threatening environment for reporters at his rallies, and his tendency toward making threats and personal attacks on his political opponents.

…The situation appears especially threatening to many who are members of religious and ethnic minorities in the US, and to many women as well. They live with the direct or feared consequence of a candidate who has taken the low road so frequently and effectively, and created a movement around him in doing so.”

…Think about it. As of May 1, 2016, a man who has done and said these things is the likely candidate of one of our two political parties for president of the United States. This is astonishing. It is a moment in which everyone must stand up and be counted.

Our children and grandchildren will one day ask what we did in election year 2016, when Donald Trump was running for president.”  See http://religionnews.com/2016/05/01/christian-resistance-donald-trump/

Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The problem with America is not Donald Trump.  He is only evidence of the problem.  The real problem with America is that so many Americans support Trump.  To avoid a disaster for our democracy, Americans must reject the politics of suspicion, divisiveness, anger, vulgarity and moral depravity that are exemplified by Trump and embrace a politics of reconciliation.   

            For American democracy to continue to be a beacon of light for the rest of the world it must reject Trump’s vulgar demagoguery and be reconciled to a communal vision based on the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves, with the understanding that our neighbors include those of other races and religions. 

            On November 8, Americans will go to the polls.  It will be the only poll that counts for the next four years.  The prospect that Trump can gain the support of a majority of Americans in November is terrifying to those who support a progressive democracy that honors traditional values.  Andrew Sullivan has described the Trump phenomenon as “…precisely what the Founders feared about democratic culture: feeling, emotion, and narcissism, rather than reason, empiricism, and public spiritedness.” (see the URL for the Sullivan article in Notes below) 

            Sullivan believes that elites can save democracy from the likes of Trump, but the health of our democracy ultimately depends upon ordinary citizens rejecting demagoguery with a broad-based standard of moral legitimacy sustained by faith.  That is where the greatest commandment comes in as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  For secular humanists, that moral imperative is expressed in Kant’s categorical imperative.   

            The ugliness of human depravity and political divisiveness of the current political season has underscored the need for political reconciliation based on a sound moral foundation.  Better education and economic reform are continuing needs, but they are not the root cause of our problems in America, or of the religious hate and violence that has prevented libertarian democracy in Islamic cultures and that now threatens the rest of the world.  Only reconciliation based on the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors can save us from ourselves.

            Plato, Edmund Burke and other notables have warned us of the dangers of democracy.  Plato recommended a philosopher king over self-rule, and Burke warned Americans that in a democracy we forge our own shackles.  Perhaps Walt Kelly’s Pogo the Possum said it best when he observed, We have met the enemy and it is us.  It was an acknowledgment of the human depravity that threatens any democracy that gives everyone the right to vote.

            Despite the reservations of Plato and Burke, democracy is still the best alternative for governance when it is coupled with human rights and the secular rule of law.  But a healthy democracy requires that its politics are based on sound moral principles, even if there are major differences on how to apply those moral principles to political issues.  Such differences require the freedoms of religion and speech and a modicum of manners to sustain lively public dialogue on religious and political issues.

            One of the biggest challenges for American democracy is to balance our individual rights with the collective obligation to provide for the common good.  Providing equal justice under law, the national defense, domestic law enforcement and public welfare are all essential to the common good and require coercive taxes to pay for them, and those taxes, laws and government regulations are necessary constraints on individual freedom.     

            America’s democracy has depended on a strong middle class, and its strength has been based on free enterprise.  The middle class is now in decline, the victim of the unrestrained greed of big business.  Capitalism is a particularly challenging conundrum for libertarian democracy since it is motivated by personal ambition, selfishness and greed.  Because big business and banks exploit the public for profit, they require government regulation; but regulations that discourage free enterprise hurt the common good.  Therein lies a daunting moral dilemma.

            America the Beautiful is a great hymn of faith that celebrates the goodness of American democracy and the need for political reconciliation to …crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.  Christians have a special responsibility to resist the demagoguery of Donald Trump since evangelical Christians supported him in the GOP primaries.  To preserve American democracy from dangerous divisiveness and demagoguery we need to balance our individual rights with promoting the common good.  That means making the greatest commandment the moral common ground on which we reconcile the divisive nature of our politics.

            Religion is the primary source of our standards of legitimacy, which include moral and legal standards.  Religious rules cannot be made law without violating human rights, which is evident in Islamic cultures where apostasy and blasphemy laws violate the freedoms of religion and speech.  Americans have been reluctant to even discuss mixing their religion and politics, but to prevent the corruption of their democracy they must embrace the moral imperative of the greatest commandment as common ground for political reconciliation.  It allows people of faith to relate their religion to their politics in a positive way that respects their many differences.

           

Notes and References to Previous Blogs on Related Topics:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015; May 10, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; and Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy, and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; and The  Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016.

Andrew Sullivan describes the Trump phenomenon as “…precisely what the Founders feared about democratic culture: feeling, emotion, and narcissism, rather than reason, empiricism, and public spiritedness.”  See  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html#. 

The categorical imperative of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is a deontological ethical theory developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism.  It is based on the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will, and that an action can only be good if the principle behind it is duty to the moral law.  Kant’s moral law acts on all people, regardless of their interests or desires.  It requires that for an action to be permissible, it must apply it to all people without a contradiction occurring. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics.

Kathleen Parker has noted the moral deficiencies of democracy articulated by Plato and exploited by Trump at  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/plato-would-have-predicted--and-been-horrified-by--trumps-rise/2016/04/26/3805cb80-0bec-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html.

On Why Christians are “Called to Resist” Donald Trump, see http://religionnews.com/2016/05/01/christian-resistance-donald-trump/.

The Relevance of Religion to Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Is religion relevant to politics? As long as I can remember, I was cautioned to avoid mixing religion and politics.  It has been a taboo topic in polite conversation, better left to newspaper columnists and others who were not subject to the decorum of polite society. 

            That should change.  Our religions shape our politics and we should discuss openly how they do that.  For believers, religion shapes their standards of legitimacy, or what they believe is right and wrong, and those standards govern their political views.  In a democracy where a majority of people are religious, their standards of legitimacy are a major factor in the making of laws and public policy, so that religion is as relevant to politics for unbelievers as for believers.

            Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment does not require a separation of religion and politics; it only prohibits government from establishing or promoting a religion.  In a healthy democracy people of faith should openly discuss how their religion shapes their politics and avoid either proselytizing or condemning those of other religions.          

            Not all Christians have been reluctant to mix their religion with their politics.  Evangelical Christians gave Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz their enthusiastic support in the GOP Presidential primaries, and black Christians gave Hillary Clinton their support in Democratic primaries.  But mainstream white Christians had little impact on election results in either party, perhaps because they were reluctant to allow their faith to inform their politics.

            Black Christians have never been reluctant to mix religion and politics.  The separate but equal political culture of the Jim Crow South made the black church a place where blacks could comfortably discuss their politics, and since then the black church has produced many leaders and decided many elections.  White evangelical (fundamentalist) Christians began mixing their religion with politics in the 1980s as part of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, but mainstream Christian denominations have remained reluctant to mix their religion and politics.

            America’s diversity is its greatest strength, but in matters of religion diversity has been a weakness.  That’s because Christianity and Islam advocate conflicting standards of legitimacy, and fundamentalists in each religion seek to impose their standards of morality on others, doing more to divide us than to unify us.  That influences every aspect of democratic politics, from making laws to defining our individual rights and providing for the common good.  In Islamic cultures, apostasy and blasphemy laws effectively preclude the freedom of religion and speech.   

            Even in the U.S., democracy is a fragile fabric that can unravel with disastrous consequences.  That happened 156 years ago when U.S. democracy came apart at the seams, caused by the greed of slaveholding aristocrats and the fear of poorer whites that freed slaves would take over Southern politics and their livelihood.  The Civil War resulted because religion was unable to end the peculiar institution of slavery.  Today greed and fear again threaten the stability of our democracy, with the future of the middle class in jeopardy; and politicians exploit that fear and stoke the resulting anger, with religion often aiding and abetting their cause.

            In a pluralistic democracy, religious exclusivity and conflicting standards of legitimacy must be reconciled to maintain political stability.  When politicians exploit contentious issues of race or religion to motivate their constituents, the resulting fear and anger poisons politics, polarizes races and religions, and threatens the stability of democracy.  American voters need to consider how their religion should influence their politics and balance their individual interests and rights with providing for the common good.  The politics of divide and conquer must be replaced by a politics of reconciliation to preserve our democracy.

            In Islamic cultures, religion and politics are in transition.  While the media emphasizes Islamist violence, there are subtle changes in Islamic cultures that could have an even greater impact on world politics.  Islamic law (Shari’a) seems to be giving way to libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law, and Secretary of State Kerry has emphasized the importance of religion to U.S. foreign policy objectives.        

            The ultimate standard of legitimacy for Jews, Christians and Muslims is the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, with our neighbors including those of other races and religions.  It is a common word of faith that can reconcile conflicting standards of legitimacy; otherwise, we risk being polarized by our religious differences, much as racial issues have polarized our politics in the past.  And if we allow our religions to become polarized, as has happened in Europe, we can expect unstable democracies and continuing religious violence.

            It’s time for Americans to recognize the relevance of their religion to their politics and promote a politics of reconciliation, making the greatest commandment the guiding principle of their faith and politics.  If most Americans were to embrace that moral imperative of faith, our racial and religious differences would no longer threaten the stability of our democracy, and political demagogues like Donald Trump would have little chance of being elected.  Let’s open our hearts and minds to the politics of reconciliation and reject the politics of division, strengthening our democracy by loving our neighbors—all of them—as we love ourselves.

References to previous blogs on related topics:          

See Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Racism, Religious Exclusivism and Reconciliation, July 5, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; and Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016.

A poll by the Pew Research Center indicates Americans are reluctant to talk about religion.  See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/15/many-americans-dont-argue-about-religion-or-even-talk-about-it/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=8cba27b006-Religion_weekly_April_21_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-8cba27b006-39997110.

Another poll of the Pew Research Center indicates that Islam is in transition and that Muslims are divided over whether their national laws should strictly follow the Qur’an or Shari’a.  See http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the-divide-over-islam-and-national-laws-in-the-muslim-world/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=ffe66553c3-Religion_weekly_April_28_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-ffe66553c3-399971105.

Secretary of State John Kerry has underscored the importance of religion to U.S. foreign policy.  See http://www.sltrib.com/home/3826722-155/kerry-explains-why-religion-can-play.

Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

           

            Politics in America has never been known for its gentility and decorum, but this political season has been unusually rude, crude and even nasty.  Political nastiness goes beyond bad manners and becomes immoral when it shows intentional disrespect for others, and that has been evident in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns; but Donald Trump has set new standards of political nastiness with his personal insults and crude vernacular.

            Michael Gerson has referred to political nastiness in politics as bad manners, and said that “Manners are not the same thing as morality.  They are practical rules for living together.  Unlike morality, manners vary greatly by country and tribe, as well as across time.”  But morality, like manners, are practical rules for living together that “…vary greatly by country and tribe, as well as across time.”  Impugning another’s character and integrity is more than bad manners anywhere.  While it may not be unlawful, it is certainly immoral.

            Law, morality and manners are all standards of legitimacy that define what is right and wrong, and they vary among different cultures and religions.  It is important to distinguish the obligatory standards of law from the voluntary standards of morality and manners.  Libertarian democracy and human rights cannot exist when religious prohibitions like apostasy and blasphemy are made law and enforced by the state since they preclude the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech.  That feature of Shari’a has distorted human rights in Islamic nations. 

            The distinction between morality and manners is not as important as the distinction between law and morality, but morality is more important as a standard of legitimacy than good manners or etiquette.  Moral standards are at the foundation of what we define to be legitimate, while manners are limited to decorum and politeness.  Gerson has cited Miss Manners:

“America has — in theory — the best code of manners the world has ever seen.  That’s because it is based on respect for the individual, regardless of his or her origin. Good manners in America are about helping strangers. They’re also about judging people on their qualities rather than on their backgrounds. These are principles that were deliberately worked out by our Founding Fathers to assure the dignity of the individual and to keep society nonhierarchical.” 

            Miss Manners has blurred the distinction between manners and morality.  The standards of etiquette and decorum are more superficial than those of morality, which are based on the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself.  It is morality, not manners, that motivates us to help strangers and judge people on their qualities rather than on their backgrounds.  That moral imperative of faith was a guiding principle of “our Founding Fathers to assure the dignity of the individual and keep society nonhierarchical,” and it remains at the foundation of libertarian democracy and human rights.

            Political correctness is in a category by itself.  It refers to standards of legitimacy that are considered important to some but offensive to others.  It began with an emphasis on accepting diversity in cultural values on race, sex and sexual preference in colleges and universities, and has evolved into the prohibition of any activity deemed objectionable by self-proclaimed public censors.  There is widespread public opposition to such political correctness as a limitation on the freedom of speech, and that has provoked a great deal of political nastiness.

            Standards of political correctness, like those of manners and morality, vary from place to place.  In Great Britain students representing Black Lives Matter at Oxford University demanded that a statue of Cecil Rhodes be removed from their campus; but the Chancellor of Oxford, Chris Patton (Lord of Barnes), not only refused their demand but in a letter addressed to those “Scrotty Students” he excoriated them for trying to rewrite history.

            Chancellor Patten’s sentiments and candor would be out of place in U.S. academic circles, but they resonate with many outside academia.  At a speech in Philadelphia on April 7, President Bill Clinton, himself a Rhodes scholar, berated a Black Lives Matter heckler for criticizing his 1994 crime bill as being racially discriminatory, as well as Hillary Clinton’s 1996 remark that the new law would rid the streets of thugs as “super predators.”    

            There is deep-seated public resentment to standards of political correctness that demand the redaction of history to suit the preferences of those aggrieved by it, and that stifle open and candid discussion of controversial issues that might upset the delicate sensitivities of today’s students—and that public resentment is not limited to Trump and Cruz supporters.

            Conflicts over issues of legitimacy in law, morality, manners and what is considered to be politically correct reflect a deeply divided America that is in need of political reconciliation.  The spirit of inquiry and lively debate should not be discouraged by standards of political correctness, but public debate should meet the criteria of morality and good manners.  Contemporary politics has provided examples of how not to do this.  Our religious and political leaders can do better.  They should exemplify how we can carry on a civil discussion of controversial issues.

Notes and References to Related Blogs:

On related blogs, see Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11,2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Moral Restraints on the Freedom of Speech, May 17, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad Today, June 14, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag, July 19, 2015; What Is Truth?, August 30, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015; Resettling Refugees: Multiculturalism or Assimilation? December 26, 2015; Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; and The Freedom of Religion and Providing for the Common Good, April 2, 2016.

Michael Gerson’s commentary on manners is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-election-proves-why-manners-matter/2016/04/04/92748de0-fa8f-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

Chancellor Patten’s response to the demand of black students at Oxford University is at https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=36afc48405&view=pt&search=inbox&th=153d8b3fb15d9597&siml=153d8b3fb15d9597.

For President Clinton’s response to a Black Lives Matter demonstrator in Philadelphia, see

http://nypost.com/2016/04/08/oops-bill-clinton-accidentally-told-the-truth-and-paid-the-price/.

For a more comprehensive account, see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/opinion/campaign-stops/unlocking-the-truth-about-the-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0.

Catherine Rampell has described the pernicious effect of political correctness on higher education as a form of liberal intolerance at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

  

Religious Violence and the Dilemma of Freedom and Democracy

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

If radical religion is the primary cause of religious violence, as asserted in last week’s blog, then political freedom and democracy are essential to lasting peace and justice.  But what if radical Islamists are radical (violent) before they are religious, as suggested by Fareed Zakaria; or what if the violence is not related to Islam but caused by poverty, underdevelopment and despair, as asserted by the Aga Khan?

A recent survey taken in the Middle East “…suggests that religious fervor plays a secondary role” in regional violence, and that Arab youth “…use religion mostly as a rationalization” for joining ISIS.  It also found that “…respondents tended to rank stability over democracy as a coveted virtue for an Arab state.”  If radical Islamism is not at the root of Islamist terrorism, and if stable government and economic well-being are more important to Arabs than freedom and democracy, then promoting freedom and democracy should not be a strategic objective of the U.S. in the Middle East and Africa—or should it?

If lasting peace and justice could be achieved in Islamic cultures without the secular rule of law and libertarian human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, then strict enforcement of secular or religious laws that prohibit violence should be sufficient.  But when authoritarian regimes use strict laws to prohibit violence and deny fundamental human rights, history teaches that there can be no lasting peace and justice.  If Arabs don’t consider the freedoms of religion and speech a priority for their political stability and economic well-being, history indicates that they are mistaken.

To defuse the violence of radical Islamism in the Middle East and Africa, most Muslims must embrace a form of Islam that is compatible with libertarian democracy and human rights.  The first step is to eliminate apostasy and blasphemy laws that preclude the freedoms of religion and speech, the first of those fundamental freedoms essential to libertarian democracy; but the survey indicates that Arabs prefer social and economic entitlements over libertarian freedoms as fundamental human rights. 

The preference for economic and social rights (benefits) over political freedom is reflected in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  The economic benefits of the ICESCR contrast sharply with the fundamental freedoms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  As a standard of human rights the ICESCR is preferred over the ICCPR in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, where Islam is the dominant religion and there is widespread poverty coupled with political oppression.  The public preference for government benefits over political freedom in those regions may be explained by the lack of any experience with libertarian democracy.

The U.S. provides a poor example of libertarian democracy for the Middle East and Africa.  The current political season has produced obnoxious and mean-spirited candidates for President like Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz.  There is nothing new about such populist demagogues, but what is new and alarming is the number of their supporters.  They reflect a growing self-centered decadence in U.S. politics that is interwoven with a corrupt form of evangelical Christianity that opposes communal ideals.

While mature democracies in the U.S. and Europe seem moribund by the fear of immigrants and an emphasis on individual rights at the expense of providing for the common good, political freedom in the fledgling democracies of the Middle East and Africa seems stymied by an emphasis on economic security (which is part of providing for the common good).  The future of libertarian democracy is in peril in both the West and the East.  Religion should provide a moral balance between individual freedom and communal obligations, but Christianity in the U.S. has evolved into sanctimonious individualism based on personal salvation that has neglected communal needs, while Islam neglects individual rights.

For there to be lasting peace and justice in a world of pluralistic religions, some of which assert the supremacy of religious law over secular law and human rights, religions must embrace fundamental human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech.  While libertarian democracy is preferable to authoritarian or theocratic regimes, any government that provides law and order and protects fundamental freedoms with human rights can be legitimate and provide a measure of peace and justice.

An authoritarian government that provides law and order and economic benefits for its people but denies them religious and political freedom cannot provide lasting peace and justice.  Wealthy Arab nations can provide economic benefits, but when they maintain apostasy and blasphemy laws and deny women and non-Muslims equal justice under law they are oppressive regimes, even if most Arabs do not recognize that.  On the other hand, when a democratic government like that of the U.S. emphasizes individual freedom at the expense of providing for the common good, it is corrupt and destined to fail.

Whether or not Islamist violence is caused primarily by radical religion or by secular causes, it highlights the dilemma of freedom and democracy in the modern era.  In a world of pluralistic religions and violence, the legitimacy of any government requires that it provide law and order and fundamental human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, and it must balance individual freedom with providing for the common good for lasting peace and justice.  That is a challenge for both fledgling Islamic democracies and more mature libertarian democracies like those in the U.S. and Europe.

Notes and References to Related Blogs:

On related blogs, see Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 2, 2015;  Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Moral Restraints on the Freedom of Speech, May 17, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad Today, June 14, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Taking Lives and Liberty in the Name of God, December 19, 2015; Resettling Refugees: Multiculturalism or Assimilation? December 26, 2015; Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; The Freedom of Religion and Providing for the Common Good, April 2, 2016; and The Causes of Religious Violence and Ways to Combat Them, April 9, 2016.

On Arab views that religion plays a secondary role in regional violence, next to criminality and economic deprivation, and that stability is favored over democracy as a coveted virtue, see

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/islamic-state-getting-trounced-in-battle-for-arab-hearts-and-minds-survey-finds/2016/04/11/71c32774-0024-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On Fareed Zakaria’s commentary on terrorists who were radical before they were religious, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/todays-new-terrorists-were-radical-before-they-were-religious/2016/03/31/9cb8e916-f762-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On the commentary of the Aga Khan that “Islam and terror have not the slightest thing in common” and that poverty is a major cause of religious violence, see https://www.instagram.com/p/BDi1gCLvNqN/.

On the conflicting models of democracy and human rights represented by the ICCPR and ICESCR treaties, see Barnes, Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, at pages 6-9 and end notes, posted at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of.