"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
But we really cannot help ourselves because none of us are beyond reproach. It is in our nature to examine the sins of our brothers and sisters when we, as mere flesh, often have a difficult time finding the fortitude to look inward and contemplate our own misdeeds. This is yet more evidence of our inadequacy to judge one another's sins and good reason to err on the side of caution when we are tempted to legislate conscience, which falls within the purview of faith, not governments.
The recognition of religious freedom is what secures and guarantees our right to choose our own way from amongst the almost endless number of paths to the same basic objective truth that if we love God (or nature or life or whatever manifestation of being inspires our faith) and love one another as we do ourselves that everything else will take care of itself and we will have peace — in theory, at least.
Realistically, of course, we are limited in practice by our own nature and mortality, but we do have the quality of faith to help us to seek the wisdom that can help us to distinguish transient social conventions from the unchanging, unalterable truths of conscience so that there is no blurring of the line that is supposed to separate the organizations of mortal humans we elect to protect, serve and bring order to society from the various spiritual institutions, traditions and ceremonies in which we celebrate our faith in the mysterious natural and/or supernatural forces of creation from which we draw our moral clarity.
"Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"
While we are busily engaged in the practice of evaluating and judging one another's alleged sins, we comfortably avoid reflecting upon our own the detriment of truth and justice. We do not create an harmonious society by attempting to dictate that other people live by some subjective code of ethics, but rather by seeking the truth and justice in our own actions and deeds.
Courage is the human virtue that inspires our natural need for liberty, while our fear of liberty as it applies to human nature imprisons us and impedes our progress toward the goal of achieving the promise of freedom. And there is much to fear at the prospect of living in a truly free and open society — especially one whose people are so diverse — because a free people must be possessed of the self-discipline to deal with the unavoidable temptations of a free society, not the least of which is the temptation to limit those temptations via the legislation of conscience.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bennett Dawson
Margaret, What an inspiration you are to me. The clarity of your writing, and the focus of your piece encourages me to wark a lot harder on the posts I have planned for BC.
This in particular stood out as something that should be carved in stone at the base of the Washington Monument.
"...because a free people must be possessed of the self-discipline to deal with the unavoidable temptations of a free society, not the least of which is the temptation to limit those temptations via the legislation of conscience."
Thank you for taking the time to pen this well thought out work.
Bennett
2 - SFC SKI
Is morality political or cultural?
I have more to add, but not until I have had a decent sleep and some coffee, lots of food for thought here.
3 - Aaman
Margaret, I suggest you read other texts like the Bhagavad Gita in the Mahabarata for a detailed study of morality, the causes of evil, and when righteous action in the cause of good is necessary to flush out evil.(Mahatma Gandhi's commentary on the Gita
To cite or even call out the judeo-christian viewpoint exclusively is insular, which does not seem to be uncommon on this giant island/city-on-the-hill - this approach is not very indicative of free thought.
4 - MDE
Well done, Margaret.
Aamon - thanks for the excellent link to Gandhi's commentary. I did not read any disparaging or discounting comments about other religions in the piece. The author clearly had an audience in mind and was not out to present a thorough 'history of religions'.
Mark
5 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Thank you, Bennett. Knowing that I have touched just one person is the reason why I keep doing what I do.
SFC SKI asked, "Is morality political or cultural?"
It is both and neither, depending upon the context in which it is discussed. My article is mainly about the political aspect of morality as it applies to the legislation of conscience and the separation of church from state.
Aaman, there are many different paths to the same basic truths and each of us must find our own, which is a large part of the argument against state intervention in matters of conscience.
I write about what I know and understand, so my perspective is that of an American who has studied traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and the Bible.
Our capacity for free thought should not be evalutated on the basis of the paths we choose, but rather our ability to choose our own way while respecting that others may choose differently.
6 - Bennett Dawson
Aaman, What I like about this piece is not that it comes from the bible, but that Margaret has distilled some of the principles from the bible and presented their relevance in a non religious fashion.
I am not at all religious, yet I do have firmly held beliefs about how I should conduct family, business, and relations with my friends and neighbors. As one of many Americans who have no use for organized religion, I welcome any voice that counters the rise of fundamentalist propaganda. The concept of civilization starts with some form of moral foundation. What is right? How can we live together to the benefit of all? What expectations should we have when considering governmental policies?
If the bible contains some of these principals of morality, I'm fine with that. However, I was raised with Hindu or Buddhist philosophy as the primary answers to these questions. Laws of Karma, and a sense that "all teachings serve their purpose - as paths toward personal spiritual development".
That Margaret writes about what she is familiar with is natural. I enjoy reading the well thought out, clear and focused ideas she brings to the table. I would be equally happy to read similar distillations from the Koran, the Jewish bible, or any other source.
7 - sydney
I had an argument with a friend once over the practicalities of separating church from state. Naturally, GWB was at the center of the discussion.
My friend argued that if elected based on your Christian beliefs, you were free to cite that religion and publicly acknowledge its direct influence on your efforts to shape government policy or legislation.
In other words, with the abortion issue, a President could say "As a Christian, and one who was elected by the people, I can only in good conscience act in accordance with my religion. As a Christian I cannot support pro-choice doctrine." (This is not to suggest all Christians are against abortion. I am Christian and am pro-choice)
To me this is unconstitutional. In this situation the president is not using a transparent logic to govern his decisions, rather he is simply extending his religious doctrine to affect public policy.
Another situation:
GWB and Ashcroft etc… talked openly, in the first term, about how they have daily prayer sessions in the oval office. These prayers are Christian, and of Ashcroft’s own composition.
To me this is a private matter and should not be discussed openly with the media. I think, rather, this is an attempt to merge church and state and to create associations between the white house and Christian doctrine. To me the Christian right in the United States has taken politics to a new low.
8 - Steve S
Excellent post from Margaret as always.
9 - WTF
Margaret,
I applaud your work...
But, what does the term Judeo-Christian actually mean?
If the Jews did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah, and railed against him, which ultimately led to the fulfillment of his anointing. Why do we now call it Judeo-Christianity? The term Judaism is not synonymous with Christianity and visa-versa, has churchianity in an effort to please the PC crowd, deemed it appropriate to co-mingle divergent thought?
Yes I understand that Jesus was from David’s lineage, and thus he was from the tribe of Judah, thus making him Hebrew and a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which fulfills the prophetic requirements of the messiah. If that is the reason for the hyphenated terminology, it may be correct. But one has to keep in mind, that Jesus was a radical thinker, who challenged the corrupted context of Hebrew religiosity, the traditions of men " who corrupted the original “religion” through amalgamation with Babylonian and Edomite philosophy, cabalism, and a few other digressions from the original, pure Hebrew context.
It’s rather confusing, and perhaps dropping the hyphenation and sticking with the term Christianity would clarify the terminology. From what I’ve read, the hyphenated term has really only been in use the last 50 to 75 years, and doesn’t really pass the test of theological application. Yet, it has been generalized to mean exactly what you and I have held it to be, that is correct, when after scrutiny, doesn’t necessarily convey exactness.
10 - Bennett Dawson
I think it has to do with circumsision...
Which reminds me...
How do you circumsize a whale?
Send down four skin divers.
11 - Duane
When you quote, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," what do you think the word "judge" means?
12 - Victor Plenty
Magellan circumcised the Earth with a 100-foot clipper. Or so I read somewhere.
Calling North American and European values "Judeo-Christian" is partly an attempt to appeal to both the Jews and the Christians of modern society, in the movement to think of these societies as primarily religious in character, rather than primarily secular.
In this cultural movement, the goal is for the differing beliefs about Jesus Christ to fade into abstruse and minor points of debate between Christian and Jewish theologians. For Jews and Christians to work together in the day to day management of governance and commerce, as natural allies who share the same key ethical principles.
The same basic goal, more broadly applied, animates the increasingly popular alternative term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic."
13 - sydney
Will someone pleae respond to my query a few posts back??? PLEASE.
It's been buggin me for along time now and I'd like to hear some opinions. I think, also that its relevant to margaret's post.
The dilemna put in my terms can reveal alot about what each of us feels the role of christianity should be in American policy making.
14 - Victor Plenty
What question in your earlier comment, Sydney? All I'm seeing there are some statements about differing opinions.
15 - sydney
ya well which side do you take?
In the first instance about the abortion scenario; does the Christian President allow his religion to dictate his policy shaping with regards to abortion? (ex. It says so in the bible so it will be so while I run the country) or does he have an onus to provide a clear and secular logic.
In the second scenario: Should Bush and Ashcroft have turned the white house (the highest of public, and secular, offices in the country) into a place of prayer? I have no objections to him saying a personal prayer there, but making it public knowledge that the boys all get together, hold hands, and say Christian prayers in the white house each day, was crossing the line.
Where do you stand?
16 - SFC SKI
I wanted to stay out of this but I can't.
In the first instance, the 3 branches of government will have to make the system of checks and balances work. He can do certain things, executive orders, etc, but in they can all be addressed through the Congress or the Supreme Court. In specific, if Pres. Bush is against abortion, he can express his opinion, but he is still ultimately bound by the law.
If a personal has a personal belief, but acts against that, is he a hypocrite in this instance?
IN the second instance, what is the harm of people praying in public? Is prayer mandatory? Were the people who chose not to pray forced to pray, or were they held off to the side and huniliated, or asked to resign?
As I understand it, many Christians pray together and separately.
Historically, prayers have been sid in the White House and the press has printed stories about for the last 200+ years, and we still manage to survive.
17 - Victor Plenty
Your questions are still not very clear, Sydney. What part of the Constitution causes you to feel the way you do?
18 - sydney
In response to SFC ski,
I understand the whole checks and balances system but I don’t think it works.
I think in a country founded on the Judeo-Christian doctrine, and which continues today to have a large Christian membership, that a president in this context can push his Christian agenda thru a majority government without having to justify it outside the context of his faith.
In other words, Abortion might be legitimized in terms of his faith, but not in terms of the objective rationale that secular society demands.
Secondly, as I said with the prayers, I have no problem with the president praying in the white house. However, when he makes his praying a spectacle by reporting it to the media and alluding to god all the time, he is creating associations between the white house and Christianity.
In effect, he is intimidating all those non-Christians out there. HE is saying, we (Christians) represent the faith of the governing body of this country. He is saying "god willing" we will implement my (Christian) agenda (for he has fore-grounded his faith and we have no reason to believe that his agenda is not based on his faith). He is creating a dominant discourse of Christian values and morality, and a subordinate discourse for those who don't subscribe to Christianity.
In my opinion, his religion should be private and he should leave any allusions to this faith out of the political discourse.
19 - Tom French
What Judeo-christian priciples was this country founded on? Probably any priciple you state is contained in most religions.
Secondly, Bush can base his decisions on anything he wants, he simply has to answer to the people in the form of a vote. A majority of voters in this country agreed with him, therefore, Bush II.
Separation of church and state means the church cannot run the country. If we vote in a born again zealot, we should expect no help from the constitution.
20 - sydney
Tom French,
"Separation of church and state means the church cannot run the country."
This is not what separation from church and state means. I was looking for help from someone who knew. Looks like you need some help from me. So I'll offer what little I have to give...
If, in America, we could elect a Christian and push through Christian policies and simply say tough luck to all those who don't believe, then we'd be discriminating against those who want nothing to do with Christianity.
In a pluralistic society, it is important that, though there is necessarily one dominant view, this view cannot infringe upon the religious beliefs of others in the society.
I take this to mean, that religious doctrine has no place in the white house and whatever influence it has on parliament’s elected leaders, it should be private. Once you start talking openly about your religion to the media and to the other members of congress, you are in effect intimidating those who don't share that majority view.
The Republicans have taken this much, much, further by actually arguing the merits of policy in a faith based context. Imagine if congressman of Arab descent justified his stance on abortion in the context of his religion.
Abortion issues, etc, are always grounded in Christian rhetoric. Despite this, if you were to take some of these members of the Christian right and ask them what they thought of separating ‘church from state’, they would agree, in principle, with what I am saying. In reality though, they are blind to their hypocrisy because the dominant view is one they subscribe to.
It’d be interesting to situate one of these republicans in Indonesia for the remainder of their life, and see how comfortable they feel as members of the minority view. They'd be afraid for their fucking lives, and they'd sure as hell demand that there is a clear and thorough separation between church and state.
A fantasy: Sometimes I wish the extreme Christian right would leave the country and form the homogenous culture that they so badly want. Wouldn't it be great to see how crazy it got? How similar, in some respects, they are to those Islamic cultures they tend to trash?
The reality: The Christians in America occupy the positions of power. They fee they have an obligation, to their lord and to us non-believers, to make this country a homogenous Christian hole. Of course they don’t believe they can convert everyone, but at the very least they wont this country and it’s policies to reflect Christian beliefs and values.
Given historical realities, and demographics, a certain amount of this is to be expected. However, the Christian right has wielded far too much power and made Christian doctrine acceptable in political discourse. More than acceptable, it has made the two synonymous in America.
Hell, I just noticed I called myself non-Christian a few time in this article, yet I am Christian, was raised as one, and still go to catholic service every second Sunday. Yet I hate my religion when I see it’s current practical application in America…
21 - Margaret Romao Toigo
sydney wrote: "...if elected based on your Christian beliefs, you were free to cite that religion and publicly acknowledge its direct influence on your efforts to shape government policy or legislation."
The Christian Right must have some pretty savvy PR people as they have somehow managed to convince a good number of people that George W. Bush was re-elected on the basis of his piety and that our last election was some sort of a referendum on "moral values," when, in fact, the vast majority saw terrorism, the war in Iraq and the economy as the highest priority issues.
Say what you will about Karl Rove's conscience -- or the lack thereof -- but that man is a PR genius who quite effectively managed to get the 4 million fundamentalist voters who stayed home in 2000 to show up in 2004 to vote against same sex marriage and for George W. Bush's re-election.
Although they were just enough to push Mr. Bush over the top (and fulfill Mr. Rove's obligation), they hardly created a "mandate" on their set of "values" issues, seeing as how the 50 million some-odd other people who voted for Mr. Bush were thinking mainly about our foreign and economic policies.
Now those 4 million people are so filled with a sense of self-importance that they actually believe that the President is free to acknowledge Christianity's influence on his policies and actions -- and secularists have been all too willing to continue to support that notion with their theophobic ranting and raving.
sydney wrote: "GWB and Ashcroft etc… talked openly, in the first term, about how they have daily prayer sessions in the oval office. These prayers are Christian, and of Ashcroft’s own composition."
Yes. So? What's the big deal with that? Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft are Christians, why shouldn't they pray? Religious freedom applies to people in government, too.
sydney wrote: "To me this is a private matter and should not be discussed openly with the media."
That's what Christ said in Matthew 6:5, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
There is truth and wisdom in that Scripture and the politicians who pander to the fundamentalists should probably take heed before they begin to feel the sting of the backlash, but it is not my place to judge.
sydney wrote: "I think, rather, this is an attempt to merge church and state and to create associations between the white house and Christian doctrine."
Well, that's been the secularists' boogeyman ever since the Religious Right hijacked the GOP over the abortion issue back in the 1970s.
But fear of the spectre of Christian dogma replacing our Constitution is actually helping to erode that wall that is supposed to separate church from state because of the universal truth that judgement beget judgement.
It is an interesting dynamic in which fundamentalists make their assertions about morals, values and faith as they discuss issues like abortion, prayer in schools, same-sex marriage, 10 commandments displays on courthouses, abstinence-only sex education, the content of television and radio programming etc., all of which are offensive to non-Christians who respond with disparaging remarks about Christianity and religion in general, questioning the intelligence of people of certain faiths and following with Chicken Little rhetoric about the threat of our constitutional representative republic becoming a Christian theocracy.
The mass confusion and turmoil of the "Culture War" is the result and it isn't doing any of us any good because it has caused a cultural shift in which matters of conscience are seen as being within the purview of the state, which has actually diluted the power of the churches as arbiters of morality.
sydney wrote: "To me the Christian right in the United States has taken politics to a new low."
It isn't them, its the politicians who pander to them. The Christian Right are not evil people with plans to take over the country, they are confused and tormented souls who have somehow lost their faith in God.
That loss of faith has rendered them unable to effectively deal with the temptations of the modern world, so they are now looking to the government for salvation -- and the politicians are only too happy to play the role of their new god.
22 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Duane asked, "When you quote, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged,' what do you think the word 'judge' means?"
It is the act of presuming oneself to be qualified to determine whether or not condemnation is deserved in regard to matters of conscience.
Why do you ask?
23 - Margaret Romao Toigo
sydney wrote: "I understand the whole checks and balances system but I don’t think it works."
When did it fail?
sydney wrote: "...a president in this context can push his Christian agenda thru a majority government without having to justify it outside the context of his faith."
Since when? The only real agenda our current President seems to have is the rather unpopular plan to overhaul Social Security. And the Religious Right is feeling pretty shortchanged because of it because those poor misguided people think that the Federal Marriage Amendment -- which currently has the proverbial snowball's chance -- should take priority over economic issues. Whether they deserved it or not, the fundamentalists were duped on that one and some of them are beginning to figure that out.
sydney wrote: "...he is intimidating all those non-Christians out there."
Only if non-Christians allow themselves to be intimidated, which is exactly what many of them have been doing. Or do such people actually believe that railing against the Christian Right's alleged overtaking of America is an effective means of persuasion?
BTW, non-Christians are not the only people dismayed by the politicization of the Christian faith. Plenty of Christians are getting sick and tired of being associated with that fanatical fringe element's rather unChristian political machinations.
24 - Tom French
"This is not what separation of church and state means",writes sydney. He/She then goes on to say,"I take this to mean...(followed by his or her opinion)"
I feel sorry for people who discount another's opinion with unkind words, then cite their own opinion as proof.
25 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Tom French wrote: "What Judeo-Christian principles was this country founded on? Probably any principle you state is contained in most religions."
I think you just answered your own question. My point here is about the way that people confuse ethics with morality as if they are one and the same.
There are rules and then there is conscience and I submit that this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian morality -- yes, the Bible does reveal the same basic truths as most other religious texts -- even if a good number of the rules are impractical, obsolete and unconstitutional.
When you strip the dogma away from the universal truths, what's left is the basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"If we vote in a born again zealot, we should expect no help from the constitution."
What? Is our nation's current bout of theophobia really so bad (we're to the point of banning Christmas-themed displays that were put up on our city streets for decades with nary a complaint, for crying out loud!) that the secularists ability to reason has sunk to the level of the fundamentalists who frighten them so? Talk about a loss of faith!