Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Ricochet member Tom Lindholtz was kind enough to suggest a topic a few weeks ago when our James Poulos solicited them with his Assignment Desk post. Tom wrote, in part:
I would like to see some thoughtful discussion on the nexus between religion/morality/ethics and politics/jurisprudence/economics/policy. Is it possible to be great -- which I take for granted we all want America to be -- without being good? Is there a fundamental, unwritten (?) assumption on the part of the Founders that demands freedom of religion for religions that are antithetical to religious freedom?Commentators? Anyone, but especially Dave and Victor and Mark (if he's ever around anymore.)
My apologies to Tom. I haven‘t forgotten his request, but it was a pretty tall order. Then again, no one else has taken a stab at it, so I might as well put some thoughts on the table for discussion, or dispute, or slaughter, as the case may be.
Is it possible for America to be great without being good? I don’t think so. I think it is possible for individuals to be great without being good, depending of course on your definitions of goodness and greatness. It is generally believed, outside of the White House these days, that Winston Churchill was a great leader. He was also an insatiable boozer. There was a story that a group of ladies met with the Prime Minister to voice their concerns over his alcohol consumption during WWII. If all the liquor he had consumed during the war to that point were poured into the room, they told him, the level would go up to his waist. Churchill reportedly looked at the ground, then at his waist, and then up to the ceiling before replying, “So much already done. So much left to do.” Some would argue that this made Churchill less than a good man. I disagree, but the case can be made. His greatness as a leader, however, is beyond reasonable dispute.
In the case of America, I think that we invite trouble precisely to the extent that we cease to be a good country. Our Constitution is based on “self evident” truths championed in the Declaration of Independence, and those truths are tethered to the Judeo-Christian experience. When we cease to think of our rights as having been authored by the Creator, we leave them vulnerable to the avaricious designs of dangerous men. That is when our right to property, self defense, free speech, the fruits of our labor, etc., cease to be self evident or divine in nature, becoming instead the playthings of utopians. In fact, a convincing case can be made that our current maladies are exactly the result of severing the ties between “religion/morality/ethics” on one hand, and “politics/jurisprudence/economics/policy” on the other.
As to the question about a, “...fundamental, unwritten (?) assumption on the part of the Founders that demands freedom of religion for religions that are antithetical to religious freedom,” I think Claire Berlinski has made a compelling argument in this regard. As regards Islam and its practice in the West (if I goof this up, Claire, please correct me), we already have laws on the books that if properly enforced, would deal effectively with any religious (or non-religious) practice that infringed on the rights of other people. This would necessarily foreclose the practice of sharia in America, as that savage code embodies the unconstitutional denial of human rights, but would permit Muslims, Buddhists, and even Alabama football fans, to believe as they wish and practice their faith so long as it doesn’t infringe on our rights and laws.
President Obama’s singular lack of courage led him to announce the obvious, namely that Islamic leaders in the US have a right to build a mosque in lower Manhattan at Ground Zero (assuming the funding and logistical mechanisms are legal). What he didn’t have the fortitude, or leadership, or understanding to say was that the American people have a corresponding right to make their voices heard on the subject, and that there is a critical difference between permitting an action and granting our approval of that action (especially when it is of such a provocative nature).
Thomas Jefferson’s willingness to tolerate even the voices of those who advocated the repeal of our system of government was, essentially, a testament to the good judgment of the American people to discern between sound and unsound ideas and boldly identify them as one or the other. While people in the US enjoy the right to believe and speak as they wish (within the law), Americans do not have a commensurate obligation to quietly and sublimely endure intolerant hostility to our Constitution, our rights, or our traditions whether in the name of religion or political correctness.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
One of the traits of good honest people is, they give the benefit of the doubt to others. Their own motives are benign, so they assume other people--most of them--are just like themselves, and trying to do the right thing. The dishonest also tend to believe that other people are just like them, and therefore they don't give other people the benefit of the doubt. When I was young, America was definitely the former kind of place. As a kid, if my bicycle was not by the side of the house, I assumed that I forgot where I left it. The last thing that would occur to me was that somebody stole it. Now, my first thought would be that somebody stole it. I don't know if that's me changing, or the world changing. I think the world, or my corner of it, has changed.
Aug '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
In fact, etoile, you've given a very good example of one of the few traits good, honest people can fruitfully learn from dishonest people. Not everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt by default. Good, honest people often learn this lesson too late.
For this reason prudence is one of the seven virtues.
Edited on Aug 21, 2010 at 11:07pmAug '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Tocqueville made a pretty compelling argument that American goodness is a necessary component of American liberty.
Burke sure had something to say on this topic:
“What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves.
“Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and
the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Burke's quote does a lot to explain why those who want civil freedom (that is, freedom under the law) so often also want a degree of social or moral restraint (that is, restraint that comes from social bonds independent from the law, like family, private business codes, philosophy, or religion). It pretty much explains conservatism.
Edited on Aug 21, 2010 at 11:15pmJun '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Dave, you make no allowance in your argument for sphere of influence. In general, the wider that sphere of influence the better the person has to be in order to be considered good, and given the politics around good, the wider the sphere the harder it is to be considered good by those affected. Contrast Churchill the boozer against Hitler the tea-totaller, which man was truly good? The odd thing is that people who knew Hitler on a personal basis all seem to report that he was to them kind and considerate. Had Hitler’s sphere of influence not grown beyond this small circle he might had died well remembered. Had the boozer Churchill’s sphere of influence not grown beyond his close friends the world would be a very different place. The point is that no man is either good or bad he is both good and bad. I may run a stop sign and get away with it one day and no one cares, yet the next day I may kill a family of four, in the latter case I have expanded my sphere of influence in a most gruesome way.
May '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
The culture of self-congratulation has hollowed out the meanings of words. As mama said, "If it's easy, it ain't tolerance."
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Etoiledunord, do you think this motive explains the tendency on the left to give the benifit of the doubt to people such as Imam Rauf?
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Exactly!!
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Cas, you make a very good point that goes back at least as far as the Biblical observation that, "All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." As I said, it is possible for less than good men to be considered great, and vice versa. Not so true with nations, however.
In the case of individuals, where do you draw the line? I tend toward the distinctions of malum in se versus malum prohibitum. Where on that spectrum does the fellow who drives drunk and kills a family fall in your opinion? Do we stay with the legal standards of neglient homicide versus first degree murder?
Jun '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
God gave to man a free will. It's a self-evident truth, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to ask why this condition is an essential characteristic of our existence. God gave to us minds capable of discerning the natural laws that guide His universe, and the added trait of being curious by nature. I conclude from the conditions that God wishes us to know Him. What's more, he wishes us to follow Him voluntarily. And so we are faced daily with choices to act for good or ill, to pursue virtue or vice, or to serve or be self-serving.
It follows logically that human liberty is necessary if we are to exercise the free will given us by our Creator. The Founding Fathers recognized this great metaphysical truth and enshrined it as a foundational pillar of our society. They also saw that liberty is not license. Liberty if properly used leads to the path of righteousness. License is the road to error and sin.
What of those who would deny us our God-given liberties? They would be thieves. This is reason enough to resist them.
Jul '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Jul '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Dave Carter
Etoiledunord, do you think this motive explains the tendency on the left to give the benifit of the doubt to people such as Imam Rauf? · Aug 22 at 5:48am
I think it also explains the tendency among those in the Bush administration - particularly Condoleeza Rice - to believe that if we brought the structures of democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, their people would behave virtuously.
Jun '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Dave Carter
Etoiledunord, do you think this motive explains the tendency on the left to give the benifit of the doubt to people such as Imam Rauf? · Aug 22 at 5:48am
But, the Left's benefit of the doubt is rather selective. If Americans have principled disagreements with their President these days, they're likely to be labeled "racist." That's not giving people the benefit of the doubt. I suspect the Left's tolerance for Cordoba House is more of an anti-tradition reflex than a religious tolerance reflex. Their love of religious freedom is rather selective too.
May '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Thanks. That's the quote I was trying to remember.
The Constitution is only useful so long as it represents the values of our culture. Human beings, not words on a piece of paper, decide our actions. The surest path to restoring the Constitution is to restore its underlying morality within the hearts of individual Americans. Our society can render the Constitution moot by pursuing errant philosophies like materialism and hedonism. That document has already lost some relevance.
Roll Tide!
May '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
I've been told by many Baby Boomers that they can remember not locking their doors when they slept or left the house. Now, I know many people who lock their doors even when they are in their homes.
There has been a change, and I blame that change largely on the emerging values that have enabled government expansion. There was a time when people did not look to the police to protect them from run-of-the-mill crimes. They owned shotguns and rifles. Neighbors relied on each other to guard the neighborhood and stand up for each other. Now, citizens with the means to protect themselves cower in fear and watch in impotence because government forbids them to act.
Complete vigilantism is not good. But there should be a balance. Government should not have a monopoly on force.
Aug '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
etoiledunord
Dave Carter
Etoiledunord, do you think this motive explains the tendency on the left to give the benifit of the doubt to people such as Imam Rauf? · Aug 22 at 5:48am
But, the Left's benefit of the doubt is rather selective.
All people's benefit of the doubt is -- or should be -- selective.
Between the Left and us is a fundamental disagreement about who has earned the benefit of the doubt, how one should earn the benefit of the doubt from others.
Edited on Aug 22, 2010 at 9:44amJun '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Dave one of the reasons the old westerns were and remain popular is that they are all about malum in se, the good man seeking justice outside of society. Society, as with all large organizations, is amoral and therefore skews to malum prohibitum. Regarding the drunk who kills and where on the spectrum whose antipodes are malum in se and malum prohibitum I place him, I would say that the spectrum is not the only way to conceive the question. In my view there are two spectra involved: 1) the malum in se, and 2) the malum prohibitum. By this what I am trying to say is that there is a natural wrong and a societal wrong that must be addressed when a drunk kills an innocent. In forming ourselves into societies we have voluntarily passed the need to address, by means of prosecution, any malum in se to society as we do not have the mechanism to make the plea outside the courts. To the near relatives of the innocent victim no punishment is enough, but they accept any punishment meted out because it is society’s punishment.
May '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
One reason that Jefferson was so keen to allow free expression of ideas and actions, was his belief that only a person able to speak and act according to his own conscience would develop good character, and the "good judgment" of which you speak, both in civic and religious life. This brings to mind a question related to the issue of "goodness" being discussed.
Should a man who is compelled to a life of good behavior through force and threat be considered "good"? In other word, can strict enforcement of moral codes create a "good people"? Or should we judge a person, or a people, by how they behave when the authorities aren't looking, or perhaps what they say when they think the microphones are off?
Aug '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
G.A. Dean
Should a man who is compelled to a life of good behavior through force and threat be considered "good"?... Or should we judge a person, or a people, by how they behave when the authorities aren't looking, or perhaps what they say when they think the microphones are off? · Aug 22 at 3:01pm
Legal, not moral, codes are enforced by coercion. Moral codes are sometimes enforced by coercion, but often they are enforced in subtler ways -- slight estrangement, loss of standing...
Humans are trainable but also autonomous. Strictness helps train us to a moral path, but strictness that utterly crushes autonomy stifles moral growth, as it gives no opportunity to make moral choices.
We're not only trainable, we need training to evoke a moral sense. It's like developing language skills. All normal children are born with an innate capacity for language, but language can't develop in a vacuum. Feedback is vital.
A perfect adult could be judged by how he acts when nobody's looking. Those less mature get "partial credit" for just following the rules. It's hard to know another person's situation in this respect, and who is perfect?
Jun '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Aaron Miller
The Constitution is only useful so long as it represents the values of our culture. Human beings, not words on a piece of paper, decide our actions. The surest path to restoring the Constitution is to restore its underlying morality within the hearts of individual Americans.
Matthew Spalding's We Still Hold These Truths has a good chapter called "The Virtues of Self-Government" that speaks to this subject. At the close of the chapter he writes:
"Self-government is possible only if citizens acquire and practice the moral qualities that help them remain free, independent, and responsible, not only in the political sense but also in the personal sense of not being dependent on others, whether the government or the wealthy and powerful for their well-being. ... So in their project of creating a self-governing constitution, it was paramount that the people also be able to govern themselves."
This chapter speaks volumes on the link between the American republic and the virtues of its citizens. The founders felt that knowledge (classical education), family and faith were each critical to maintaining the moral basis of the republic model of self-government. These pillars must be strengthened.
Aug '10
Re: Goodness And Tolerance: A Belated Assignment Desk Reply
Mr. Chase's comment at 19 is so right but it raises numerous unanswered questions crucial to a full understanding. First, what is "greatness" and what is "goodness?" What are the necessary virtues or moral qualities that help citizens "remain free, independent, and responsible ...?"
Moving on to the mosque, it seems like the proper response is something along the lines of "why yes, in our society, muslims have a right to build a mosque near ground zero. But, it may not be wise to do so and please understand that allowing the mosque is neither an explicit nor implicit approval of Islam, which, at its core is inimical to the values of a free society."
Culturally, we have gutted the term "tolerance" of any substantive meaning and now it means simply "approval without criticism." Similarly, we are cowed by cries of "intolerant, intolerant" (think, "She's a witch, she's a witch") and don't take time to explain how the thing about which we are asked to be tolerant, is bad. Finally, it seems that those who demand tolerance are the first to be quite intolerant of the adverse consequences of the tolerance of that very behavior.