Neither sacred nor naked - the oppressed now oppressors: denying a voice to blue-eyed redheads

Os Guinness proposes a global public square that is neither sacred nor naked.

In other words, the public square controlled by the Church squelches freedom of thought, and so does a public square that squelches expressions of faith. He points out unintended consequences: tolerance becomes intolerance; the oppressed become the oppressors and those who advocate freedom and diversity become illiberal.

Some of his excerpts in The Case for Civility follow:

In fact, the Enlightenment notion of a “rational consensus,” or an overarching rational standard of adjudication agreeable to all, is a fiction. There never has been, and there never will be, any rational consensus subscribed to by all reasonable people about what is the best way to live—least of all in modern pluralistic societies—unless this is taken to mean a consensus to which all good liberals subscribe. 

To be human is to have deep and abiding differences with other humans over worldviews and values. And, to underscore the point again, such differences are not private worldviews but entire ways of life that demand to be lived and heard as freely as the liberal and secularist ways of life. There are issues that cannot be settled by an appeal to reason or tradition, or by any higher standard common to all. As John Gray observes, “Contrary to the liberal idea of toleration, the fact of divergent ways of life is not a result of the frailty of reason. It embodies the truth that humans have reason to live differently.” 

In short, liberal talk of toleration and rational consensus is often fraudulent—though unwittingly so. It once again ends as a cover for the unofficial establishment of liberalism, and the cause of a curious liberal hypocrisy over diversity. Liberals trumpet the importance of diversity, but their commitment to diversity is no more consistent than nineteenth-century Protestant commitment to religious liberty for those who were not Protestant. In both cases, the principal victims of their selective toleration, also known as intolerance, are people with real differences from them. Liberals end up discounting the seriousness of difference and trashing the very diversity they tout.

Tom Paine, who is so often cited as the patron saint of secularism, was in fact nearer the mark: “Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but it is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it.”

Legal secularism is a denial of the principle of self-determination that lies behind human rights such as freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Fundamental to personhood and to freedom is the conviction of a free and responsible mind, and therefore the ability to think for ourselves, to define ourselves, and to act true to ourselves. Human rights therefore confer the freedom to be and to do what we believe is natural and right for us as humans. Thus unintentionally but no less drastically, liberals demean human personhood when they invite people freely into the public square, but only on the condition that they leave their faith behind—in other words, when liberals ask religious believers to jettison the deepest source that makes them who they are.

In the same way, the present alliance of secularists, strict separationists, and liberal proceduralists restricts religious believers to the segregated margins of private life on behalf of their self-interested liberal myth of a neutral public square. “Public reason” is the respectable alias for secularism, and all religious beliefs are unmasked as “private prejudices.” Only the religiously naked and bare, their religious identities stripped down and disinfected in the constitutional neutrality showers, are allowed to enter the naked public square, where the liberal reigns supreme—and remains fully clothed and in command with his constitutional bullwhip. Where is the justice in this? Between the German death camps and the American naked public square lies a chasm that is morally and physically immeasurable, but the difference is one of degree, not kind.

Liberals who carelessly pick up the charge that Christian conservatives are like Ku Klux Klansmen should look in the mirror with care. History shows an all too close tie-in between the rhetoric of church-state separation and the waves of Know-Nothing nativism and anti-Catholic bigotry. It would be outrageous and quite wrong to suggest that strict separationists are nativist. But the fact is that many were, including one of the leading architects of strict separationism—Justice Hugo Black—who was certainly a Baptist, but also a member of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and virulently anti-Catholic.

For many separationists, then and now, separationism is a handy way of suppressing religious beliefs with which one disagrees and keeping them out of the mainstream of American life. As such, it should be no part of the philosophy or the policies of liberals who truly champion freedom. The historian Michael Burleigh notes that in Europe secular intellectuals such as Régis Debray and Umberto Eco are now coming to the defense of the Christian faith against silly and politically correct attempts to deny or marginalize it. “There also seems no rational reason,” he adds, “to exclude Christians—to range no further—from political debate, any more than there is to deny the vote to people with blue eyes or red hair.”

Rule of law or law as club? Democracy or Republic?

One of my in-laws, considering changing his career goal, asked another in-law, an attorney, what it was like being a lawyer. His reply: "Half the time someone is scaring the hell out of me. The rest of the time I'm scaring the hell out of them."

A good friend of mine gave up his successful career in law challenging and defending people in court. He then turned to his passion for conflict resolution. 

Physicians leave the practice of medicine because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

The owners of public swimming pools find themselves with no choice but to put up signs, "DO NOT BREATHE UNDER WATER."

More from The Case for Civility by Os Guinness:

Americans must face the embarrassing fact that just when the world is ready to notice the significance of the American way of being modern, many aspects of the American way are under severe stress and are hardly capable of being a model for anyone.

It is time for Americans to reforge a civil public square, to wrest back the culture wars from the domineering pundits and activists who have become the warlords of American public life—and then to debate such important issues as the uniqueness of humanity, the character of life and death, the importance of truth, the relationship between virtue and freedom, and what the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb described as “the collapse of ethical principles and habits, the loss of respect for authorities and institutions, the breakdown of the family, the decline of civility, the vulgarization of high culture and the degradation of popular culture.”

Americans again have to choose whether they still value the res publica (“the public thing”), the covenanted partnership whose goal is a common vision for the common good, a goal that lifts their republic above a democracy. If Americans do choose the republic, they must attend to civility, which is a form of republican “second nature,” a cultivated “habit of the heart” that lifts citizens above the Hobbesian “state of nature” and the war of all against all. If they do not, America will become a bare democracy, counting heads, brokering interests, and declaring winners and losers in a long-running grand game of nickels and noses.

So the question is: Are “we the people” still dedicated to abiding by a covenant of constitutional relationships that requires duties as well as recognizing rights, that gives weight to truth, justice, and restraint as well as to power, and that sees civility as a necessary and vital companion to freedom and justice for all?

Law and the rule of law are fundamental to freedom, just as politics is to republican democracy. But when it comes to settling cultural issues, law is a cudgel rather than a scalpel. It is not the right instrument for solving all the issues raised in the culture wars. Worse, the habitual resort to unrestrained law is producing a litigious spirit that is spreading across American civility like a cancer. Worst of all, the constant resort to rights-based, ultimate judicial solutions rather than a twin reliance on political debate and a robust popular civility is devastating American common life.

Grappling with grace over even the nastiest topics

Strong disagreement doesn't require me or you to skirt the issue in order to be civil. It means to cordially confront the matter in a friendly, winsome, bright, persuasive way with grace and even humor.

Here's what Os Guinness in The Case for Civility says (in part - more later):

"Most Christians would sooner die than think—in fact they do.” In my mind’s eye I can still hear Bertrand Russell delivering that favorite line of his with a deadpan face, betrayed only by the twinkle in his eye.

As his quip shows, he was more than willing to take sideswipes at any with whom he disagreed, but it was usually with grace and often with humor. Years later as a graduate student at Oxford, I shared a train compartment with the eminent philosopher A. J. Ayer—or Professor Sir Alfred J. Ayer, as he had become. My field was the social sciences, but I had read a fair amount of philosophy, and I certainly knew the fate of Ayer’s logical positivism and his celebrated “verification principle.” Only that which could be tested by the five senses, he had argued, could be verified as true. Theology was therefore “nonsense”; or, as it was famously argued, “The word G-O-D is less meaningful than the word D-O-G.” His was the ironclad atheism of a world without windows. The trouble for A. J. Ayer was that his verification principle was self-refuting. It could not verify itself and thus opened itself up to the charge of being nonsense, too. As he admitted, what he thought was a guillotine against faith turned out to be a “blind alley.” He was candid with me about the failure of his principle. “I wish I had been more consistent,” he chuckled. “Any iconoclast who brandishes a debunker’s sword should be required to demonstrate it publicly on his own cherished beliefs.”

It is true that Lord Russell was an aristocrat and that A. J. Ayer had been knighted and was retired when I spoke to him. But in countless other cases in those days, there was a civility to atheist arguments that matched the force of their logic and rigor. Anyone who reads Russell’s “A Free Man’s Worship” can still enjoy the pathos and beauty that offsets the bleak bravery of its vision of a world leading from “accidental collocations of atoms” to “extinction in the vast death of the solar system.”1 And Ayer was usually as polite as he was formidable in his decisive dismissals of beliefs with which he disagreed.

I have known many secularists over the years, many of them as dedicated as Russell and Ayer, though not so well known. I have also read the books of many others, both those living and those who no longer grace the earth. But to put it charitably, when I read the current dismissals of faith from the new atheists published in America today, I do not get the impression of the same calm assurance, strenuous logic, and passion for truth. We are closer to the wild atheism of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, back to barnyard debating, with ungrounded assertions, irresponsible accusations, ad hominem arguments, and reasoning that repeatedly slumps into ranting... [It gets better; stay tuned]

Not a victim, and it ain't skivvies unless I say so

Remember the Hanes underwear commercial? "It's not Hanes unless I say it's Hanes. Good advice: if something is said about me, it's not valid unless I say it's valid. Unless I validate it. Otherwise forget it. Shrug it off.

I am NOT a victim. Have I heard insults, mockery, put-downs? Of course. It's part of life. Too much censorship comes at the expense of loving, well-meaning people simply because one or two individuals' feelings might somehow be hurt, no matter how ill-informed. Most barbs come from people who love me.  

If I find my identity in Christ, how can I be offended?

Labeling oneself as a victim has the opposite of the intended effect. So, let's rip up the victim card. 

Knock it off.

Here's what Os Guinness, a Brit, says in The Case for Civility:

As one who believes that the call of Jesus is to a path of suffering that shuts the door to every form of victim-playing, I am angered by organizers of the Religious Right who play the victim card and appeal openly to Christian resentment. Recently, senators and representatives addressed a conference in Washington, D.C., called “The War on Christians,” with book titles and topics such as “The Criminalization of Christianity.” “Of course, there is a war on Christianity,” the former Republican majority leader in the House declared to a rousing ovation. “You guys are the Jews of the twenty-first century,” a Jewish activist and sympathizer said.

Do they not know that those who portray themselves as victims come to perceive themselves as victims and then to paralyze themselves as victims? In the late 1980s, when the Moral Majority was faltering, certain leaders of the Religious Right deliberately passed around the slogan that Christians were a “small persecuted minority,” victimized by the liberal elites—and did so just as other activist groups were giving up the rhetoric of the victim card.

Such tactics of the Religious Right are foolish, ineffectual, and downright anti-Christian.
Christians are as close to a majority community as any group in America; what their fellow Christians are facing today in China, North Korea, Burma, and Sudan is real persecution.

Psychologically, victim-playing is dangerous because it represents what Nietzsche called “the politics of the tarantula,” a base appeal to resentment. But worst of all, it is spiritually hypocritical, for nothing so contradicts their claim to represent “Christian values” as their refusal to follow the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth by playing the victim card and finding an excuse not to love their enemies. Shame, shame, shame on such people; and woe, woe, woe to such tactics.

This changes everything for me (and you)

My fellow planet-travelers, we've messed up. I've messed up.

Instead of the classic approach of calmly considering all sides of a question and discussing the wisest alternative, I/we have drifted and succumbed to culture wars.

I/we (on both sides) have gone so far as to refuse to acknowledge common ground or good ideas from the other side.

I have a new passion: to conduct an experiment offered by author Os Guinness: to promote civility in the crucial issues of our time. Guinness says this:

How we live with our deepest differences is a question that lies at the heart of American freedom, and soon it may be a matter of survival for the planet. Americans have both high ideals and a wealth of experience to share with the wider world.

This is huge, brother-sister. I'll falter at times, but my goal is to share (I hope) daily excerpts from Guinness' brilliant proposal.

As such, I must make some bold and courageous changes in myself.

Recalling two revered personal friends who have found truths in both the "left" and the "right" - Dr. Roy Swanstrom and Gene Swensen, among others, including my vanpool driver - I will make three changes:

1. Consider me politically an independent.

2. Regard me not as by any religious label such as fundamentalist (misused and changed, as Guinness explains), but as interdenominational - a follower of Christ who agrees with Guinness that religious freedom protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and secularists in the public square.

3. As my friend Jack Kennedy suggests, it is not left or right; it is either wise or unwise.

Yours for a more civil discussion - more in (nearly) daily excerpts. If you do nothing more this year, stay with this. Read the book. Be changed. Be transformed.

Alternative to Trump, but vegetarians stand in the way!

Someone has proposed a brilliant alternative to Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering America. Challenged as to how to determine whether one was a Muslim, Trump said to simply ask. If the person says "yes," then no, that person is refused entry.

Problem: Muslim doctrine encourages a devotee to lie to an infidel. You can read about permitted lying here: LYING: JUST DO IT

Solution: And so the brilliant alternative to asking: require them to eat a bacon sandwich.

Problem: This is discriminatory - to Jews and vegetarians.

Partial solution: As an option, allow them to pray a Jewish prayer.

So, sadly, vegetarians screw up the plan.

I'm mostly vegetarian, because I am diabetic. Oh, and the real reason: you are what you eat; accordingly I don't want to be a chicken, turkey, ham, shrimp or fruitcake. There are, however, those who say I'm nuts. 

PROOF: Thursday, someone told Wifey that her husband is quite the wit.

Her humbling response: "You're half right."

So, you see, vegetarians are the reason we cannot prevent Muslims from entering the United States. Sorry about that, Trump.

TOP SECRET (please don't disseminate): We just might offer those wanting entry a bacon sandwich that the CIA, unbeknownst to anyone, has replaced the bacon with a vegetable bacon-imposter.

My own remedy: bacon roulette: Offer the bacon sandwich. Only one out of three is real bacon. That way, vegetarians can take the chance in good conscience, that they were fakin' bacon.

And peace on earth descends upon the land. [end of Harris remarks - source to follow]
------
Why take the Trump stunt seriously?

By Charles Krauthammer The Washington Post

So how exactly does this work, Donald Trump’s plan to keep America safe from Islamic terrorism by barring entry to all Muslims? He explained it Tuesday on TV. The immigration official will ask the foreigner if he’s a Muslim.

“And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?”

Brilliant. And very economical. That is, if you think that bloodthirsty terrorists — “people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” as Trump describes them — will feel honor-bound to tell the truth to an infidel customs officer. They kill wantonly but, like George Washington, cannot tell a lie. On this logic hinges the great Maginot Line with which Trump will protect America from jihad.Trump: “That’s correct.”

I decline to join the chorus denouncing the Trump proposal as offensive and un-American. That’s too obvious. What I can’t get over is its sheer absurdity.

Here’s a suggestion (borrowed from my Fox News colleague Chris Stirewalt) to shore it up. At every immigration station at every airport in America , we will demand that every potential entrant — immigrant, refugee, student or tourist — eat a bacon sandwich. You refuse? Back home you go!

True, the Stirewalt Solution casts the net a bit wide, snaring innocent vegetarians and Orthodox Jews. But hey, as Trump said Tuesday , “We’re at war — get it through your head.” Can’t get squeamish about collateral damage.

Dozens of others have already pointed out how strategically idiotic is Trump’s exclusion principle. Absent a renewed Christian crusade against radical Islam — with those fabulous Hollywood-wardrobe tunics — the war on terror will be won only in alliance with moderate Muslims. Declaring them anathema is not the best beginning to coalition-building.

To take but the most obvious example: Our closest and most effective allies on the ground in the Middle East are the Kurds. Trump would turn them back at the Orlando airport. No Disney World for them. Or does he not know that they are Muslim?

It is embarrassing even to embark on such arguments. To treat “no Muslims allowed” as a serious idea is to give credit to what is little more than a clever stunt by a man who saw Ted Cruz beating him for the first time in the Iowa Monmouth poll and five hours later decided it was time to seize the stage again.
This got the thinkers going again. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, whom I (otherwise) hold in considerable esteem, spent 1,000 words trying to tart up the ban in constitutional and statutory livery, stressing — hilariously — that he is dealing with the Trump proposal “in its final form.” As if Trump’s barstool eruptions are painstakingly vetted, and as if anything Trump says about anything is ever final.

Take his Syria policy. In September, he said we should wash our hands and just let Russia fight the Islamic State. Having, I assume, been subsequently informed that Vladimir Putin’s principal interest — and target — is not the Islamic State but the anti-Assad rebels, Trump now promises to “bomb the s---” out of the Islamic State.

I’m sure there’s a Trump apologist out there working to explain the brilliant complementarity of these two contradictory strategies. Just as a few months ago there was a frenzy of learned scholarship about the constitutional history of the 14th Amendment following another Trump eruption — the abolition of birthright citizenship.

Whatever the final outcome, Trump’s campaign has already succeeded, indelibly affecting both this race and the Republican future. At a time of economic malaise at home and strategic collapse abroad, Trump has managed to steer the entire GOP campaign into absurdities, like mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants, and impossibilities, like the exclusion of Muslims from our shores.

“No Muslims allowed” is the perfect example. President Obama’s Oval Office address on Sunday night marked a new low in his presidency. The shopworn arguments, the detached tone, the willful denial that there might be anything wrong with his policy were deeply unsettling for left, right and center. Even the New York Times had to admit “Obama’s Plans to Stop ISIS Leave Many Democrats Wanting More,” which is Timesese for Democrats Stunned by Vacancy in the Oval Office. Here was an opportunity for the Republican field to launch an all-out takedown of the Obama (and Hillary Clinton) foreign policy.

Within less than a day, that opportunity was wiped out. Once again, it’s the Donald Show.

Peace...by my side

I never cease to be amazed by the writing of Max Lucado. Here's another of his masterpieces:

Once a monk and his apprentice traveled from the abbey to a nearby village. The two parted at the city gates, agreeing to meet the next morning after completing their tasks. According to plan, they met and began the long walk back to the abbey. 

The monk noticed that the younger man was unusually quiet. He asked him if anything was wrong. “What business is it of yours?” came the terse response. Now the monk was sure his brother was troubled, but he said nothing. The distance between the two began to increase. The apprentice walked slowly, as if to separate himself from his teacher.

When the abbey came in sight, the monk stopped at the gate and waited on the student. “Tell me, my son. What troubles your soul?” The boy started to react again, but when he saw the warmth in his master’s eyes, his heart began to melt. “I have sinned greatly,” he sobbed. “Last night I slept with a woman and abandoned my vows. I am not worthy to enter the abbey at your side.”

The teacher put his arm around the student and said, “We will enter the abbey together. And we will enter the cathedral together. And together we will confess your sin. No one but God will know which of the two of us fell.” Doesn’t that describe what God has done for us? When we kept our sin silent, we withdrew from Him. We saw Him as an enemy. We took steps to avoid His presence. But our confession of faults alters our perception. God is no longer a foe but a friend. We are at peace with Him.

He did more than the monk did, much more. More than share in our sin, Jesus was “bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). “He accepted the shame” (Hebrews 12:2 NCV). He leads us into the presence of God. (From In the Grip of Grace by Max Lucado) 

Question: What sin do you need to bring into God’s presence today and confess?