A seemingly ancient argument made by the religious right and their apologists is that “America is a Christian nation.” Therefore all sorts of theocratic nonsense is justified. Let’s see just how Christian this country is.
1. Greed
Perhaps the easiest and most straightforward measure of the un-Christian character of the US is the economic system that affects everyone’s life, is essential to its prosperity, and remains fundamental to the country’s self-identity (especially given the Cold War). Capitalism depends on many factors, but one of the most important is greed or self-interest. Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”
Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of how business works knows that a company doesn’t survive unless it makes profit. The same is roughly true of individuals in a free market setting. Self-interest, then, becomes a matter of survival for economic actors, other things equal. Government in the US does various things to level the playing field and help those who can’t help themselves, but the underlying framework of the system remains dependent on greed. One does not need to discuss arch-capitalist and atheist Ayn Rand in order to appreciate this.
Some would argue that Americans give plenty of money to charity. The response would be simply: where did that money come from? From a greedy process, of course. By definition, anyone who donates to charity today donated less than their total wealth yesterday. And donation is only possible if there is wealth to donate, which requires a wealth-generating system, of which America’s is capitalism. Little more needs to be said on greed, except a reminder of the recent financial meltdown caused in large part by unmitigated greed to the point of delusion on the part of some of the smartest players in the economy.
2. Envy
The strong individualism (which is itself un-Christian) and consumerism that lie at the heart of American society inevitably give way to envy, jealousy and coveting. Hence the tradition of “keeping up with the Joneses.” Indeed, an economy where 65 to 70% of the GDP is consumption almost by definition requires a significant feeling of want and a desire for more and better stuff. Consumption can even be estimated to be in the 80s or 90s percentage range.
The largely self-interested character of economic activity can be explained by greed. But only envy can adequately explain the huge rates of consumer debt ($2.5 trillion in 2009), the economic staple that credit cards have become, the entire phenomenon of the Christmas shopping season (very apropos) and the vast entitlements and services along with the low taxes that Americans demand from their government. This is envy not only of others who have more stuff than you, but also of what you could potentially be, and the kind of stuff you could have.
3. Pride
No one in the developed world is more proud of their country than Americans. This is not just a rhetorical twist of the word “pride.” Given the nature of the economic and social system, in a Darwinian fashion, we can expect that those who are more self-confident and aggressively self-interested will enjoy more success, on average, than those who are not. Just as confidence breeds success, success breeds confidence. An interesting take on the interplay between the two is written in Business Week here.
Much of this is subjective, of course. But will anyone honestly argue against the notion that confidence, pride, vanity, even narcissism are celebrated and rewarded in American society? A quick look at reality TV and its idolization of otherwise unimpressive personalities will dispel that idea. A glance at ESPN shows the kinds of personalities that succeed, and that are loved, in professional sports. A quick tour through YouTube will demonstrate that many people think themselves “experts” in this matter or that, rightly or wrongly. Personally, I think I am an intelligent person who has opinions that others may find interesting (hence this blog). I would not call myself vain or narcissistic, but obviously I am partaking of this overall phenomenon.
The spirit of individualism and independence inherent in the American social, cultural and economic character will almost inevitably lead to excess pride and vanity. How much pride is too much? Perhaps that can be answered with a question: how successful would Jesus be if he lived in the US today?
4. Wrath
American society on the whole cannot be characterized as particularly violent per se. However, it does occupy a unique place among developed countries in its level of violence. A ranking of countries by the number of murders per person places the US high among industrialized nations. According to the most recent data, the US has more murders on this measure than Armenia, India and Romania, as well as almost all other rich countries. For example, the US has 0.043 murders per 1000 people, while Italy has 0.013 and Switzerland has 0.009. Total crimes per capita also rank highly relative to the rest of the world, and especially (and most importantly) relative to other rich countries, as do assaults per capita.
The American justice system is characterized by greater emphasis on punishment and revenge than other rich countries. Accordingly, the New York Times reported in 2008 that 1% of the adult population was incarcerated. On the world ranking, it is clear that the US has one of the highest numbers of prisoners. (Reasonable questions can be raised on the number of Chinese prisoners, but the US clearly remains high internationally.) In addition, the US continues to execute certain criminals—an extraordinarily unChristian practice, and highly unusual in the rich world. All of this ignores the significant amount of violence in American culture and media, again relative to other industrialized countries.
5. Lust
Estimates of the total value of the pornographic industry vary wildly, but the LA Times reports that:
At least five of the 100 top websites in the U.S. are portals for free pornography, referred to in the industry as “tube sites,” according to Internet traffic ranking service Alexa .com… Sites like Pornhub, YouPorn and RedTube attract more users than TMZ and the Huffington Post.
Even accounting for the fact that these websites are open for the whole world, one must recall the significant number of Americans that are on the net relative to other countries.
In the area of real-world sex, over 90% of Americans have done it by age 23, and yet the median age at first marriage is several years later and has been rising for years. These two facts produce a situation in which a staggering 95% of Americans have had extra- or premarital sex by age 44, according to a widely-cited study from 2006 (reported here, here and here, among other places). And premarital sex has been the norm for generations.
Since Christianity demands delaying sex until marriage, it is clear this situation does not characterize a Christian society. (Interestingly, a google search for “sex before marriage” turns up an unusually high number of Christian and Christian-themed websites, overwhelmingly against it, of course. Though they would seem to be swimming against the historical and cultural tide.)
6. Gluttony
Americans love food. And it shows. The obesity epidemic barely needs mentioning, but estimates are that the majority of American adults are overweight, including a third that are obese. Significant numbers of teens and young people are also overweight (17% in 2006), as well as about 15% of low-income preschool-aged children as of 2008. Accordingly, as of the year 2000, daily per capita calorie consumption was at or near all-time highs, and average daily calorie intake rose 25% from 1970 to 2000.
An unscientific but thought-provoking look at weekly food consumption around the world is provided in a series of photographs here. Note the high per person food consumption of the American family (just 4 people) relative to the Italian family depicted (consisting of 5 people) or the Egyptian family (12 people—none of whom seem particularly malnourished).
Needless to say, another vital component of the obesity epidemic is low physical activity. Hence…
7. Sloth
There are a number of ways to measure sloth. One is obesity. Another is the abundant anecdotal evidence in our lives of friends or family who take full advantage of labor-saving technology. One interesting thing we can consider is low rates of voter turnout, which have not exceeded 63% in the last 50 years, and have remained at right around half of eligible voters over the last few decades. Non-presidential election years have seen turnout rates even lower—typically in the 30s, and never greater than 40% (the last time a non-presidential election year saw over 40% turnout was in 1970).
Given the absolute essentialness of voter participation in the kind of sociopolitical system that the US has, the relatively low rates of turnout are significant. One must conclude that either huge numbers of Americans are thoughtfully considering the available candidates, and deciding not to support anyone, year after year, or they are politically sleepwalking.
Now many Americans work very hard on a number of levels, to be sure. And many statistics and studies can be generated supporting a vigorous work ethic and diligence on the part of much, if not most, of the American population. But sloth affects a significant enough proportion of the society and of American life to warrant its inclusion as a factor. On its own, it is not very compelling. But in conjunction with the other 6 sins, it helps to weave a picture of a basically secular population.
Conclusion
None of this is to argue necessarily that any of these things are bad. But given the significant attention accorded these themes in the Bible and in Christian tradition, the “sinfulness” of America on a number of levels should serve as strong supporting evidence that it is not a Christian society. To be sure, a large majority of Americans happen to call themselves Christians, but this is irrelevant as we must look at people’s actions and not their words. And that is precisely what we have done in this essay. Probably the strongest cases are for lust, greed, gluttony and envy. America is a basically secular society populated by basically secular people. So stop all that talk about a Christian country!
President Obama, always a good speaker, didn’t disappoint on rhetoric. The tone was upbeat and optimistic on continuing change. Inspiring words and ideas abounded. He spoke of strong values, of unity and the American character. However, in the area of policy, the speech came up short. As a general rule, Obama maintained his MO of emphasizing big ideas and high-level principles against which no one can reasonably argue (jobs, security, bipartisanship, etc), while serving up little in the way of substantive, original policy initiatives. Herein lies the asymmetry. On the one hand, Obama speaks of change, an overhaul of the status quo in government and new beginnings (even now, after a whole year in power). But on the other hand his policies, as I have argued before, are well ensconced within the established Washington common sense and economic and foreign policy convention wisdom.
He called for a freeze in spending outside of entitlement programs and defense—in other words, precisely the areas least in need of freezing. His other economic proposals were safely contained within the box of the establishment and orthodox economic paradigms. On foreign policy, no big surprises: a little less Iraq here, a little more Afghanistan there, and a net change of zero on the global American empire as well as America’s role in world affairs.
After a year in office, it would seem that we can characterize Barack Obama thusly: he is a man who is bright, well-spoken, personable, hard working and good-hearted. But when it comes to leadership, he is neither an iconoclast nor a revolutionary. He is a well-within-the-box policy maker who, although very left-wing as Presidents go, has the stuff of which compromise and incremental change is made—in ideological, intellectual as well as strategic terms. He would seem to have far too much respect and deference for established institutions and conventional wisdom. That’s not going to deliver “real” change in Washington D.C.
I recently came across an old video from 1997 of a debate between proponents of Intelligent Design and proponents of the theory of evolution. It is interesting to see the kinds of issues that were in contention back then (almost 13 years ago), relative to the knowledge and scientific advancements that we have now.
I’ve chosen the two parts that include an exchange between David Berlinski (supporting ID) and Kenneth Miller (supporting evolution) to highlight a few observations. One is that Miller articulately provides a good deal of evidence and solid reasoning (in these as well as previous videos in the series) that addresses Berlinski’s concerns, and subsequently the latter simply moves the goalpost, with the profound argument being, essentially, that he’s not convinced. Now, one must ask: how much evidence is enough to convince anyone of anything?
Obviously, absolutely nothing can be known with perfect certainty. Therefore the best we can do is to simply weigh all the evidence and data that has been gathered thus far and try to figure what is the most likely explanation. This approach will never, ever satisfy someone who demands perfect certainty, which is exactly what many proponents of ID demand vis-a-vis evolution, whilst nevertheless being exceedingly comfortable with less-than-perfect certainty in almost every other area of their life (including and especially their religious beliefs).
Another thing I noticed was that Miller says that there are roughly 100,000 genes in the human genome. Turns out that current estimates are significantly lower—mostly in the range of 20,000 to 70,000 genes that encode proteins, but nowhere near the 100,000 that was probably a reasonable estimate in 1997. (Some have recently put it at 150,000, but this is an outlier.) The importance of this is simply that if there are fewer genes that encode proteins, it necessarily takes fewer steps to get from a whale to a dog, or vice versa (especially given the abundant non-morphological similarities between these two vertebrate mammals), or from any given creature to any other, which was one of Berlinski’s issues.
Current Intelligent Design and creationist arguments have moved the goalposts once again, continuously demonstrating that it is their evidence-bereft religious beliefs that is really driving their agenda, not a true skepticism that questions ideas in the service of the quest for knowledge. Needless to say, they must be kept out of the schools.
President Obama recently announced new banking and financial reforms that indicate that while he clearly still doesn’t quite grasp the underlying economic and financial structures that fostered the crisis, he’s getting there. The Economist reports:
Though not a full return to Glass-Steagall, the law that separated commercial banking and investment banking in the wake of the Great Depression (and was repealed in 1999), [the new reform] is at least a return to its “spirit”, as one official put it. Reflecting the possible dent it could put in profitability, bank shares tumbled, pulling stockmarkets down sharply around the world.
Nowadays, if the big bank shares are tumbling, chances are you’re doing something right. That’s because their business models are shot through with flaws, and the kinds of things that benefit them (like unlimited state subsidies) are precisely the kinds of things that are anticompetitive and harmful to a well-functioning economic and financial system. Moving on, the Economist writes:
The first half of the plan concerns restrictions on the scope of activities. Banks that have insured deposits, and thus access to emergency funds from the central bank, would not be allowed to own or invest in private equity or hedge funds. Nor would they be able to engage in “proprietary” trading—punting their own capital—though they could continue to offer investment banking for clients, such as underwriting securities, making markets and advising on mergers.
The second part focuses on size. Banks already face a 10% cap on national market share of deposits. This would be updated to include other liabilities, namely wholesale funding. The aim is to limit concentration, which has increased greatly over the past 20 years, accelerating during the crisis as healthy banks bought sick ones. The four largest banks now hold more than half of the industry’s assets.
The first part has the right spirit—to limit the scope of activities, what a given institution can and cannot do. Here’s the problem: it’s backward-looking, not forward-looking. Note that institutions with insured deposits “would not be allowed to own or invest in private equity or hedge funds.” That seems perfectly reasonable, and it is, except for the inconvenient truth that in 20 years’ time, “hedge funds” may very well be obsolete. Financial and economic innovation ensure that over time, regulations that are tailored too closely to current conditions, current paradigms and current business models are inevitably rendered impotent. Given the relative infrequency of this kind of financial crisis, by the time something comparable is capable of occurring years from now, we can rest assured of two things, (1) that the character of finance, and of banking and investment practices, will have changed significantly, and (2) that the character of regulation will not have changed meaningfully at all.
That’s why a more explicit return to Glass-Steagall or something like it—which would deal with the basic kinds of activities (taking commercial deposits versus playing the stock market, for example), rather than the kinds of firms that do those activities (your local bank versus a Greenwich hedge fund)—would be much more effective and long-lasting. Indeed, Glass-Steagall seems to have been a quite successful piece of legislation, remaining relevant for many decades (from the 1930s until the turn of the century), despite the obvious changes in finance during that time.
In addition, the continued ability for deposit-taking institutions to engage in investment banking (precisely one of the hallmarks of Glass-Steagall was to separate the two) is troubling, because investment banking is not a particularly low-risk activity.
***
Some of the biggest problems with the Obama and Democratic reform plans currently in play have to do with a knee-jerk reaction toward bigger government, new agencies, more regulators and increased power. As Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute has argued, the best ideas for regulation are often the old ones that have been around for a while, and that simply need to be updated, reinforced or just plain executed for once.
Some of her reasonable suggestions include the following:
… the government must once again insulate the core economic functions of long-term borrowing and lending from potential short-term excesses. The government can do this by requiring financial institutions to hold uniform levels of capital against all of their investments — cushioning them from some losses — so that firms cannot game the system by structuring some securities to avoid robust capital requirements. Government regulators should also require financial firms that depend disproportionately on short-term lenders for their own funding to hold more capital.
Note that this kind of an approach would be ingenious in the sense that it would allow government officials to adjust the percentage level of capital requirements in the same way they adjust tax rates, for example. Depending on new analysis or changing priorities, regulators could quickly, efficiently and straightforwardly alter the capital requirements. Just as tax rates are tied to the amount of income or the type of activity, the capital requirements could be tied to the amount of assets or the type of investment or financing activity, rather than what the firm is called or how its business model or prospectus reads. Remember that we already have a strong precedent for management of capital requirements: the central bank already imposes such rules on commercial banks as a tool of monetary policy.
Consistent with activity-based rules, as opposed to firm-based rules, Gelinas says:
… the government must re-impose clear, well-defined limits on activities such as borrowing for speculation. Financial firms should not be able to make hundreds of billions of dollars in promises with negligible cash down, as the insurance giant American International Group did through unregulated financial instruments called credit-default swaps. Nor should regular Americans be able to purchase homes with zero cash down, leaving them — and their lenders and the economy — unduly vulnerable to declines in the values of those homes.
So it looks like straightforward, common-sensical rules for lenders and borrowers of all sizes and scopes can be found being discussed on both sides of the political divide. One hopes that the powers that be are listening. Otherwise, we can all safely rest assured that a new, equally destructive financial crisis is looming on the historical horizon.
Tonight, Republican Scott Brown has won the senate seat formerly held by the late Edward Kennedy. It is the first time in a very long time that that seat will be occupied by a Republican, or by a non-Kennedy. It is also a very important development because of the staunch left-of-center character of Massachusetts. For that reason alone, this election should be seen as a clear message to the Congressional Democratic leadership that likely voters (which is a very different group from the general populace) are souring on their plans as well as their style of leadership. 62% of the Massachusetts vote went to Obama, and now, in the very next federal election, the tables have turned in unequivocal fashion.
Given Brown’s apparent emphasis during the campaign on the healthcare issue, his election from one of the first states to enact universal health coverage underscores the disillusionment with the proposals the Democrats have been offering. His association with the tea party movement, emphasis on his independence, and talk of “the machine” and “the people’s seat” also show the first clear indication that the tea parties and the general ideological and philosophical vibe they represent have the stuff from which electoral victories are made. And that is terrible news for the Democrats. It looks like those angry senior citizens at town hall meetings aren’t so inconsequential after all, Ms. Pelosi.
The liberals like to cite polls showing huge numbers of Americans want “healthcare reform,” without caring to discern what kind of reform it is they want. Confident they had a mandate after the November 2008 elections, the Democrats in D.C. have blundered their way through 2009, plowing ahead on healthcare and the “stimulus” in amateurish fashion, and now the electorate has begun to show it’s payback time.
In my humble opinion, the sheer incompetence of the Democrats in straightforward issues of governance and fiscal management is alone justification to give them a black eye this year. Despite this clear signal from the bluest of blue states, I fear that it will take a lot more Republican victories to convince the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama that before anything, the job of government is to govern effectively—regardless of its priorities or policy program—and not to manage an endless network of bureaucrats, unions and special interests that view the Treasury as an ATM.
If this was about health care, even though they get coverage in their commonwealth, the people of the Bay State will have sided with insurance companies and drug manufacturers over the the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, as well as the tens of millions more suffering from increased premiums and decreased coverage.
Etcetera, etcetera. The blind partisan progressives who judge a man by his carbon footprint have, disappointingly, consistently failed to come to grips with the fact that, as fantastic and beautiful their vision for the country may be, it is all for squat if their team just can’t run the country well. Then again, this is probably the permanent condition of partisans and ideologues (think of the Bush Republicans and their base). Obama himself is the perfect example of this: long on sizzle, but short on steak. In their euphoria, the Republicans and conservatives would be well advised to remember this lesson.
Only a fool would think that the Bay State has suddenly had rightist awakening. This isn’t about politics anywhere near as much as it’s about governance. Accordingly, anybody who is interested in retaking Congress or the White House should look to competent technocrats. If that means saying “thanks, but no thanks” to an Obama or a Palin, no matter how sexy they may seem, then so be it. This country needs leaders who can accomplish something, independent of whatever policy program, and the electorate may be starting to realize that.
In light of the ongoing recovery efforts in Haiti, David Brooks offers several observations regarding Haitian development as well as development in general. I certainly don’t agree with all of his analysis, but he makes some important and thought-provoking points. One is that development aid, which has amounted to trillions of dollars over the past several decades, has failed to deliver on its promises:
The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not… There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth.
There is no question that the whole approach to development aid needs to be rethought. The many millions of dollars the US has spent on Haiti in the last 20 years alone demonstrate that. But that does not mean a William Easterly-style approach of doing away with it altogether is the proper solution. The key is not to stop investing, but rather to radically change the priorities of the investment. Brooks, for example, points out that small-scale development projects are necessary, but clearly insufficient by themselves: Haiti may have the highest number of NGOs per capita on the planet.
Another issue he raises is culture:
Why is Haiti so poor? Well, it has a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. But so does Barbados, and Barbados is doing pretty well. Haiti has endured ruthless dictators, corruption and foreign invasions. But so has the Dominican Republic, and the D.R. is in much better shape… Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.
Now, these are tough words, and he does not cite any sources for these claims. Brooks has also demonstrated a pretty simplistic attitude toward culture in the past (for example, on China). However, he makes a salient point that forgives the lower-level inconsistencies, and that is the importance of seeing culture as an active component of the development process, not a neutral non-issue that has no consequences on the fate of a people. Witness, for example, the dramatic changes in English culture and social dynamics from the 16th century to the 19th century. In some ways, of course, this is a chicken-and-egg problem (does development cause changes in culture, or do changes in culture cause development?). But more attention and appreciation for culture and cultural attitudes would do a great deal of good as Haiti is rebuilt.
Finally, and equally politically incorrect as culture, is the importance of “locally led paternalism”:
…the programs that really work involve intrusive paternalism.
These programs, like the Harlem Children’s Zone and the No Excuses schools, are led by people who figure they don’t understand all the factors that have contributed to poverty, but they don’t care. They are going to replace parts of the local culture with a highly demanding, highly intensive culture of achievement — involving everything from new child-rearing practices to stricter schools to better job performance.
A tough, no-nonsense and results-oriented approach has been lacking from most approaches to international economic development, Brooks argues. I would add that this is related to the overall lack of accountability and responsibility that is by now a cliche in most development efforts. If a given NGO helps to improve people’s lives somewhere, that’s great. But if they spend millions of donated dollars, recruit dozens of locals into some project and get the seal of approval from the UN, but ultimately contribute absolutely nothing to anyone’s life, what happens? Do any heads role? Is anyone held responsible? Is there any guarantee that this expensive mistake is not repeated?
In addition to these issues of cultural, social and financial strategy, large-scale economic realities need to be taken into account. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned in the past, the Obama administration does not seem to be taking the opportunity of the economic crisis to revisit some of the fundamental assumptions surrounding economic policy, either domestically or developmentally. How about protectionism vs free trade? How about infant industry protection? How about outsourcing cheap labor and the false doctrine of “comparative advantage” (which, in many ways, has the effect of perpetuating underdevelopment and dependence)? Brooks, being a conservative, is not allowed to raise these issues (if he even sees them as issues at all). But the destructive historical impact of economic policies pushed by the rich countries on the poor are extremely important to consider in Haiti going forward.
So these are unusual ideas, to be sure. Certainly unusual as far as traditional development strategies are concerned. And that is precisely the point. No one can reasonably argue that the traditional approaches to development and poverty elimination have been a success. They have helped to alleviate some of the harshest suffering, they have been effective (as they are now) at managing crises and calamities, and they have enabled average people to keep their heads above water generation after generation. This is not success, and this is not development. This is life support. It is obviously vital in emergency situations, but it has proven to be profoundly insufficient for actually transforming societies, which should be our real ultimate goal from a moral, financial and logical point of view.
A sure-to-be extensive and grueling legal struggle has gotten underway in California, as pro- and anti-gay marriage factions begin the long and winding road toward a widely-predicted Supreme Court decision on that issue. As with many other things in life, who will win? That’s right, the lawyers. We can all rest assured of that. Too bad nobody realizes that there is a much simpler, more elegant, fairer (to all parties concerned) and cheaper way to resolve this issue once and for all: simply get the state out of the business of marriage.
This one is blindingly simple. Marriage is a religious institution at its heart; in the United States, we have a little thing called the separation of church and state. Therefore, it follows that the state has no business getting involved in marriage. It remains a matter for religious communities and their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to deal with as they see fit. And thus it remains an essentially private matter, right where it belongs.
The state’s concern lies in contracts. In centuries past, the state wormed its way into the marriage business for the sake of consolidating its authority over individuals’ lives. But regardless of the history, today the state is mainly concerned (or should be concerned) with who is due how much money when someone dies, who enjoys what hospital visitation rights, and who gets a tax break on what basis—the stuff of contracts and legal arrangements. And note that there is absolutely nothing inherent in any of these things that relates directly to love, companionship, commitment—the types of things normally associated with marriage in the popular and the traditional mind. That is why those types of legal arrangements have been, are and will continue to be created for non-romantically involved individuals.
The state is concerned with contracts, and should remain concerned with contracts. The recent rash of controversy surrounding gay marriage points to the fact that the state has no natural role in observing, registering, regulating or legitimating the kinds of private phenomena that give marriage its real significance.
Regarding the legal consequences, Elisabeth Eaves has given some insight:
Abolishing state marriage would raise a number of questions of the who-gets-what-when variety. Throughout much of history, marriage was a business contract, and though we eschew that notion in our romantic times, money is still pretty much what the legal paperwork is about: Who inherits, who gets dental benefits, who gets what when a relationship is dissolved.
These things, though, aren’t that hard to work out. We already legally recognize next of kin, and write wills to determine inheritance. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to allow every person to declare a benefits-receiving partner of his or her choice–who could be a romantic partner, an elderly relative or an ailing friend.
Under the new regime, if someone wishes in the future to register with the state the kinds of legal rights and the type of legal relationships that now characterize heterosexual marriage, they will be able to do so, between themselves and one other person of the same gender (whom they may or may not be romantically involved with), with multiple other adults (thereby dealing with the issue of polygamy, which is surely on the historical heels of the current gay marriage debate), with relatives, etc. The government shouldn’t care who wants to establish what arrangement with whom, just that it’s registered for public knowledge and benefit.
Those who would raise complaints about this “astounding assault on tradition” (which isn’t even as much of a tradition as they like to think), simply need to be pointed in the direction of Sweden and Holland. Not exactly failed states.
A very common argument of many religious people is that a secular, humanist or materialist worldview leads inevitably to moral relativism. Since, on this way of thinking (they argue), there is nothing inherently special or unique about human beings—we are just bags of water and proteins who happen to have evolved some tendency toward helping each other—there cannot be any basis for an absolute or objective morality. Furthermore, unlike in the religious mindset in which the divine invests the universe with a certain fundamental moral order, a materialist or naturalist universe has no such inherent moral order. Humanity provides no basis for morality, and the universe provides no basis for morality, so in the materialist world there simply is no basis for morality, hence moral relativism—anything potentially goes.
I recently made a post arguing that religion, in fact, leads to moral relativism. Similarly, I will now argue that secularism or secular reason can lead to moral absolutes. And the argument is just as simple: evidence. Or more precisely, fidelity to objective evidence. Secular reason has it, and religion doesn’t.
Absolute truth
If secular reason is defined as a tool for understanding the world that is based on objective evidence and arguments derived thereof, then we see that by its very nature it necessarily leads to absolute truths. Based on certain mathematical facts, verifiable scientific observations and internally consistent arguments, people were able to determine conclusively that the earth is round, against all previous assumptions as well as long-established common sense. In the same way, absolute truth about the world and how it operates has been consistently revealed over the centuries by this kind of secular reasonable methodology.
Why should the methodology for answering moral questions be any different than for other questions? Many religious people accept that science can help us explain what the stars are made of, how fast the earth spins on its axis, or what causes sickness and disease, but suddenly begin to have doubts about the potential for evidence-based reason to answer whether murder is right or wrong, or when violence is justified.
But the only way human beings can know anything is through the application of reason, no matter how intangible or abstract the nature of the question is. Everyone comes to conclusions based on some thought process. A religious person, for example, will answer the question of whether or not we should murder by appealing to god, to the moral order of the universe created by god, and to theological arguments dealing with free will. Thus, they use a certain kind of evidence and a certain kind of argument to answer those questions. And so, in spite of themselves, they are using evidence-based reason to understand things, although in an incomplete and ultimately self-defeating manner.
Religion, by its nature, is ultimately unreliable for moral questions (and all questions) because it lacks an objective standard of knowledge. But secular reason has such a standard: evidence. That evidence can come in many forms, tangible or intangible. Arguments can be made that rely heavily on physical observations, or on intangible deduction or induction. But the basic nature of the process remains the same.
Religion fails on moral truth for the same reason it fails on all truth, and secularism succeeds for the opposite reason.
So, then, what is the basis for morality in a secular world?
William Lane Craig argues in the following video that in a naturalist or materialist worldview (which assumes that only this world exists) there is no basis upon which to claim that humans are inherently special or unique or deserving of some special treatment, relative to anything else in existence.
But this is simply not true. Without going too deeply into the details of a secular objective morality, we can say, for example, that humans are special because they are us. That is, we want to survive and thrive and continue to improve our lives and enhance our existence. Therefore we should do the things that further those goals. So while the religious perspective ultimately justifies humans by pointing to god, and then justifies god by pointing back to god, this secular approach would do the exact same thing, except replacing god with humans. Note that the religious have no problem at all with a basis for morality that is justified by itself—they just have a problem with that basis being humans.
The student in the video asked why humans themselves can’t simply be the basis for morality. Craig responded that “it’s arbitrary. There’s simply no reason to invest homo sapiens and their herd morality… with the kind of objectivity that you want…”
Allow me to reshuffle this scenario, and turn it against Craig: Craig asks a secular person why God itself can’t simply be the basis for morality. And a secular person responds “it’s arbitrary. There’s simply no reason to invest God and God’s morality with the kind of objectivity that you want, Dr. Craig.”
Note that the logic works both ways! And this indicates that, when it comes to first causes (for morality or anything else), regardless of the philosophy in question, logic and the normal rules of causality break down no matter what the first cause is designated to be. This is a permanent problem for any moral philosophy, religious or secular.
So any religious person, like Craig, who would ask “on what basis do you invest humans with such specialness?” should be answered with a question: “on what basis do you invest god with such specialness?” Again, the answer must come back: the thing itself. And if that is an adequate explanation for god, then it is an adequate explanation for humans. Except, not really. It is much more legitimate for humans, because we know that humans exist. The same cannot be said for God. For that reason alone, a morality based on humans is superior to a morality based on God.
The idea of a “war on terror” was created after September 11th by political leaders seeking to rally the country, and responding to an unprecedented attack on the United States. It made sense for a little while. Then, when reason and clearheadedness came back on the scene, and emotion and passion receded back to their proper place, the stark inadequacy of that concept became manifestly obvious.
Firstly, it is totally illogical to wage a war on “terror.” Terror is typically taken to mean extreme fear or anxiety, in common parlance. Therefore, unless American leaders plan on banning horror movies, it’s not going to happen. People will always be scared of something (rationally or not). ”War on terror” has often been rephrased as “war on terrorism.” This, too, is problematic. Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t wage war on a tactic. We may as well be waging a war on guerrilla fighting.
Semantics, many on the other side would argue. The point, they would say, is that we are engaged in a war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who want to destroy our civilization. And here is where real problems arise (although the narrow-minded emotionalism and woodenheadedness embodied in the concept of “war on terror” is disturbing in its own right, to be sure).
There are wars, and then there are wars
Traditionally “war” has been a country-to-country phenomenon. Military machines were mobilized on a large scale, entire populations sacrificed, all governmental policy was impacted to some degree, geopolitical realities were altered and global economic dynamics were disrupted or remade. Can anyone honestly say that any of these things have come to pass, over 8 years after September 11th and the proclamation of this “war”? Is the world or the America of January 10th, 2010 meaningfully different than that of September 10th, 2001?
Of course there have been important changes during that time, many of which were already underway years before September 11th, some of which were not. But it would seem wishful thinking to assert that America or the world has been significantly remade during this time specifically as a result of this conflict. Any changes that the US has experienced have not been the stuff of which “war” is made. Now we have to arrive at the airport an hour earlier. This is war. Yawn.
Aside from the real, painful, armies-versus-armies type of war, any other use of the word “war” has usually been metaphorical in nature (the war on drugs, war on crime, etc). Yet many people have and continue to take the metaphorical idea of a “war on terror” (such as it ever was metaphorical) to another level and really, truly consider this a matter of war, comparable to the war waged against Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan (the Islamists even have their own kamikazes).
The nature of the enemy
Aside from the inconvenient truth that no war has been declared in this war (isn’t there something in the Constitution about that?), if the US were at war, a quick question: which country is it warring against?
That’s right, there is none. The greatest military power the human race has ever known is waging war against a religious movement and the groups that compose it. They may be deadly dangerous, and they are. But that doesn’t mean a war is called for.
More importantly, there is a profound danger in continuing to think of this conflict as a “war.” That danger lies in the fundamental nature of the enemy. Al Qaeda, its allies and their movement do not have a country (indeed, the kind of political order they seek is antithetical to the nation-state system altogether). Unlike the foolish assumptions inherent in the “war” effort in Afghanistan, they need ownership over not one inch of land to succeed in their effort to undermine western civilization. They move outside, between and within nations, including the United States itself.
Insofar as war has traditionally been waged outside a nation’s borders (as a nation cannot logically wage war against itself), against targets that could only be outside, it could never harm itself in any way. But since the Islamic terrorists can be inside the country, harm can potentially be done to the country itself. Like cancer treatment that kills healthy cells along with the cancerous ones, this kind of approach can be lethal. Of course, the crucial difference between cancerous cells in the body and the terrorists in question is that one is permanently stationed within, while the other can move in or out.
So, although perhaps a bit esoteric, this is an extraordinarily fundamental issue. War, along with all of its other characteristics, has only ever been a matter of violence, strategy and attention directed outward from a nation. Now there is the unsavory potential for it to be directed inward, into the nation. This is the stuff from which martial law is made.
Though unsavory, this potential is not, strictly speaking, unprecedented. Massive campaigns have been and are waged by governments against “enemies within” all over the world. And this has occurred either after a society is poor and underdeveloped, or as a prelude to its decline.
A very common argument of many religious people is that a secular, humanist or materialist worldview leads inevitably to moral relativism. I will deal with the fact that secular reason can, in fact, produce moral absolutes in another post. For now, I will take the religious’ assertion and turn it on its ear: religion, in fact, leads to moral relativism in many ways. How can this be? Simple: evidence.
In a framework of secular reason, evidence can be used to support or refute arguments of all kinds. For a long time, people thought that the sun went around the earth. Then new evidence arose indicating that the earth goes around the sun. So one idea, one well-established and long-held assumption, was thrown out because the objective observations no longer supported it. Naturally, the Catholic church in medieval Europe refused to accept the scientific evidence—and here is where the rubber meets the road. Whereas it was impossible to believe rationally that the sun went around the earth after the overwhelming evidence was made clear, the religious nonetheless continued to believe that for a long time. We see that in a religious world, many possible explanations can be held by many people, because there is no fundamental standard of knowledge. By contrast, in the world of secular reason, there is a fundamental standard—objective evidence.
That objective evidence can be misunderstood, practitioners of secular reason can be mistaken, errors in analysis can be made during experimentation, etc. But the essential, inherent nature of science and secular reason ensure that only claims that meet a certain standard are ultimately accepted as legitimate knowledge. Religion has no such standard. Much of religious knowledge comes down to what “God” wants or decrees. But how are we supposed to know when god is really talking to someone, and when they are just hallucinating? If someone claims to have special knowledge of what god wants, how do we know they’re telling the truth, or if they are lying through their teeth?
There is absolutely no way of knowing, because there is absolutely no objective standard of knowledge inherent in religion. And here is where moral relativism comes into play.
In religion, one person can claim that “God told me to stop committing violence and to become peaceful and to work tirelessly to help the poor,” while another person can claim “God told me to stop being peaceful and working to help the poor, and to start committing violence.” How do we know which one is telling the truth? How do we know what god really wants people to do, if anything? We cannot. Therefore, both claims are equally legitimate. Moral relativism.
Many religious people will say “this is an illegitimate argument because it is an established fact that god wants specific things.” Really? How do you know? How do you know that a special messiah arose thousands of years ago, as opposed to someone hallucinating thousands of years ago?
It becomes a matter of faith. And that is precisely the point. If one is to operate one’s belief system on the basis of faith, then anyone can have faith in anything, and no one will ever be able to refute their argument. If I truly, deeply believe that God desires for me to kill, rape and destroy, how can anyone prove me wrong?
Sure enough, history bears this out. There have been many religions that have supported violence, and many religions that have supported peace. More significantly, within particular religions, there have been countless individuals that have supported violence, and used their holy texts to justify it, and there have been countless individuals that have supported peace, and used the same holy texts to justify it! The fact that no final, binding and unequivocal moral standard can be provided by religion is demonstrated by the continued emergence of violence and oppression securely within the walls of religions that many claim are “basically peaceful.” Islam has its transnational terrorists and burqas, Christianity has its abortion clinic bombers and witch hunts, Judaism has its Israeli settlers.
So if religion can’t give us binding moral answers, what can? Secular reason, and that is the subject of another article.
