Posts

Posted on

Thanksgiving: open-hearted, open-minded gratitude

Fresno Bee, Nov. 27, 2025

Thanksgiving is a wonderful time to reflect on what we value. A useful place to start is with George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, which established the first American Thanksgiving. “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore his protection and favor,” the proclamation begins.

This points toward a variety of ethical and theological musings. Washington’s theology probably had more in common with enlightenment deism than with contemporary Christian fundamentalism. Washington was committed to a general faith in “Providence,” which is the idea that there was a rational and benevolent spirit guiding progress in history.

He suggested that this providential God should be thanked for granting the American people a variety of benefits. In his Thanksgiving proclamation, he called upon Americans to be thankful to “that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is or that will be.”

Among the things Washington was thankful for was the “peaceable and rational” way that the American constitutional union was formed. Washington also thanked the “Lord and Ruler of nations” for “civil and religious liberty,” indicating that we should be thankful for the kinds of liberties we find in the First Amendment. He also offered thanks for science and technology — as Washington put it, “the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge.”

Washington also called upon Americans to ask for forgiveness and pardon. We should humbly offer our “prayers and supplications,” beseeching God to “pardon our national and other transgressions,” as he put it.

Whether we thank the Christian God or the universe itself, there is power and value in being grateful, as well as in asking for forgiveness and admitting our own faults and flaws. Washington’s proclamation reminds us that as we think about Thanksgiving, we discover that gratefulness is related to other virtues, such as compassion, humility and truthfulness, as well as mercy and forgiveness.

The connection between gratitude and these other virtues is not always obvious, but ethicists typically view virtues as linked in a broader philosophy of life. Courage without wisdom can become reckless; honesty without empathy can become cruel; and love without prudence can end up enabling vice.

Similar connections appear in thinking about Thanksgiving. For example, gratitude without pride can be overly deferential, servile and sycophantic. It makes sense to be thankful for good things. But an obsequious kind of gratitude can be found among flatterers and slaves, who thank their masters as a way of sucking up or currying favor.

Of course, pride can also undermine genuine gratitude. To give thanks, you need a humble heart. At least you should be modest enough to acknowledge that others have contributed to your successes and well-being. Egoistic pride is an impediment to gratitude. If you believe you are so great that you deserve everything good, it is difficult to be grateful. In fact, pride is more likely to breed resentment than gratitude.

Gratitude also depends upon an open-mind that is able to recognize the good and see the beautiful. It is fairly easy to be grateful when good things come your way. It is more difficult to cultivate an attitude of gratitude when life is dark or disappointing. But even in the darkness it is important to try to see the light.

It has long been noted that gratitude is closely linked to happiness — and to the ability to see through the darkness and into the light. The great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas linked gratitude to a cheerful temperament that is more inclined to see good than evil. Aquinas said, in reflecting on the power of gratitude, “It is the mark of a happy disposition to see good rather than evil.”

Whether we think that good things come from God, Providence or from the world itself, it is wise to acknowledge all the goodness we enjoy. In giving thanks, we should cultivate a humble, forgiving, cheerful and open mind.

At Thanksgiving, we ought to think about all that we value, why we value it, and where it comes from.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article313145486.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Technology and ‘moral discernment’

Fresno Bee, November 16, 2025

Pope Leo XIV’s important warning on ethics of AI and new technology

It’s a long way from Silicon Valley to the Vatican, but the journey may be enlightening. Recently, Pope Leo XIV addressed a conference on artificial intelligence in Rome, where he emphasized the need for deeper consideration of the “ethical and spiritual weight” of new technologies. The pontiff said, “Every design choice expresses a vision of humanity,” and called upon technologists “to cultivate moral discernment as a fundamental part of their work — to develop systems that reflect justice, solidarity and a genuine reverence for life.”

Some tech-wizards responded to this pontificating (pun intended) with a disdainful shrug. Engineers and entrepreneurs are focused on building cool stuff, and some don’t think it is their responsibility to worry about ethics or spirituality.

A sophisticated way of saying this is to claim that technology is morally neutral or “value-free.” A version of this idea is found in the motto, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Defenders of this approach to technology point out that tools do not have a fixed meaning or purpose. Rockets and airplanes can kill people, or we can use them for peaceful purposes. Moral judgment, from this perspective, should focus on what people do with their tools — not on the tools themselves.

A different conception views tools as “value-laden.” From this perspective, technological innovation expresses some set of values. Machines reflect the values of their creators — individuals who build them, after all, with some purpose or function in mind. Guns are made for killing, as are nuclear weapons.

The value-laden conception of technology suggests that new technologies reflect or embody the web of cultural and economic values that supports their creation. New technologies also create new forms of culture, as we are witnessing in the era of social media and artificial intelligence.

Some critics of technology reject the whole modern world. So-called “primitivists” worry that we are stuck in a technology-driven doom loop involving fossil fuels, nuclear weapons, advanced biotech and super-intelligent machines. In response, “techno-optimists” argue that technological development has allowed humanity to thrive in previously unimagined ways.

Furthermore, advocates of technological “acceleration” suggest that the solution to technological problems is more advanced technology — they hope that smarter machines will solve the problems created by the previous generation of tools.

We have just scratched the surface here with regard to the complex issues discussed in the philosophy of technology. This begins with the insight that human beings are tool-using animals. Tools extend and amplify our operational power, and they can also either enhance or undermine who we are and what we care about.

Whether we are enhancing or undermining our humanity ought to be the focus of moral reflection on technology.

This is a crucial question in the AI-era. The AI-revolution should lead us to ask fundamental questions about the ethical and spiritual side of technological development. AI is already changing how we think about intellectual work, such as teaching and learning. Human beings are already interacting with artificial systems that provide medical, legal, psychological and even spiritual advice. Are we prepared for all of this morally, culturally and spiritually?

Our tools influence how we understand ourselves and the world. Before telescopes and microscopes, we had no idea of the vastness of the cosmos or the wonders of cellular life. Before the printing press, only elites had access to written knowledge. And the cyber-era has changed how we think about friendship, information and entertainment.

The idea of value-free technology ignores all this. It seems fairly obvious that tools express and influence what we value. That’s why we must employ critical moral judgment — what the pope called “moral discernment,” as we develop new technologies. At the dawn of the age of artificial intelligence, we need a corresponding new dawn of critical moral judgment.

Now is the time for philosophers, theologians and ordinary citizens to think deeply about the philosophy of technology and the values expressed or embodied in our tools. It will be exciting to see what the wizards of Silicon Valley will come up with next. But wizardry without wisdom is dangerous.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312903757.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Religious Liberty

Fresno Bee, Nov. 2, 2025

The Trump administration’s call for a religious revival is worrying

Religious freedom is the first liberty of the First Amendment. As we consider our rights in this time of crisis, we should ponder the meaning of these 16 words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Americans are free to believe whatever we want, but the government should not use its power to support or favor any particular religion.

One wonders then about the White House’s “America Prays” initiative. This is a call to prayer connected with the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. When he unveiled the program last month, President Donald Trump explained that “to have a great nation, you have to have religion.” He said, “When faith gets weaker, our country seems to get weaker.” And, “We’re defending our rights and restoring our identity as a nation under God.”

This top-down call for religious revival is worrying. Our political leaders have a “free exercise” right to pray. They are at liberty to discuss religion and promote it, as free citizens. But this becomes problematic when the government leads a religious revival.

Just this week, Sean Feucht, a pastor associated with the Trump administration, revealed that, as the 250th anniversary approaches, “We are planning and plotting to do revival meetings sponsored by the U.S. government all across the nation.” This would include a “giant, massive” worship event at Mount Rushmore.

Feucht may be speaking loosely here with regard to a government-sponsored revival. The government could permit citizens to meet in public for religious purposes. But if the government sponsored a revival, this would violate the First Amendment’s “establishment clause.”

A government-sponsored religious revival will inevitably end up picking sides in disputes about religion. What will non-Christian people think about their tax dollars being spent to sponsor a Christian revival? And even within Christianity, there are deep disagreements. Will the revival include Mormons and Methodists, Catholics and Congregationalists?

And what about the growing number of non-religious people? Around 30% of Americans are not affiliated with any religion. A recent survey from the Pew Center found that 68% of Americans think that religion is “losing influence.”

This general decline of religion helps explain the rise of Christian nationalism. In my recent book on this topic, I explain Christian nationalism as “post-secular backlash.” Some Christians worry that the First Amendment system has allowed too much freedom of religion. They blame our growing lack of religious commitment on a world in which religious liberty has gone too far.

Proponents of Christian revival push back against the way the First Amendment has been applied and understood. Some want to bring back school prayer and teach Bible lessons in schools. But First Amendment cases have often been driven by Christians who want to practice their faith in their own way. Christians have been plaintiffs in recent cases opposing the promotion of the Ten Commandments in schools in Louisiana and the Bible in Oklahoma schools.

These Christians don’t want the government to impose a preferred text, prayer or interpretation of faith. It is worth asking whether we trust government officials — with all their flaws — to shape the faith of the nation.

The American Founders did not. That’s why they emphasize religious liberty. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson authored a “Statute on Religious Freedom” for the state of Virginia. This was passed into law in 1786 with the help of James Madison, who went on to author the First Amendment. The Virginia Statute says, among other things, that it is an “impious presumption” for “fallible and uninspired men” to assume “dominion over the faith of others.”

The word “dominion” is important. History records many struggles for power among religious sects. When governments get involved in these power struggles, it antagonizes some parties, while privileging others.

Perhaps a religious revival could help a nation lost in loneliness, addiction and violence. But which faith will lead the revival? And those who have left religion behind may imagine a different sort of revival: of science and rationality. If there is to be a revival, this should be the work of free citizens. It is not the business of the government.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312711431.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Right to Peaceful Assembly

Fresno Bee, October 19, 2025

Trump’s federal crackdowns risk eroding peaceful assembly rights

Now is a crucial time to think about our basic rights. Among the rights listed in the First Amendment are the rights to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right to petition and assemble allows us to gather in protests, marches and demonstrations.

It is antithetical to the idea of liberty to prevent people from gathering in public. But the right to assembly has often been at risk. Recent crackdowns against protest and dissent risk violating that right, as well as freedom of speech.

At a recent roundtable discussion of “antifa” and anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests, President Donald Trump celebrated his ban on flag burning, saying, “we took the freedom of speech away.” A Supreme Court precedent from the 1980s, however, allows flag burning. Trump’s policy is justified by appealing to an issue involving the right to assemble. He explained, “When they burn a flag, it agitates and irritates crowds, I’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots. So, we’re going on that basis.”

The right of peaceful assembly is not a right to rampage. The government can stop riots as a matter of public safety. But the threat of a riot can be used as a pretext for violating people’s rights.

The tension between liberty and public safety is real. We saw this during the COVID pandemic, when public gatherings were limited. National guard deployments could be justified in terms of public safety. If there really were riots, the right to assembly could be curtailed.

But this depends on the facts on the ground. And as a federal judge recently ruled, the president’s claims about protecting what he calls “war ravaged” cities is “untethered to the facts.”

Legal authorities should protect both protesters and counter-protesters, who each have a right to protest. But the presence of troops and the threat of arrest can have a chilling effect on ordinary citizens who are scared away from assembling. Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said of these deployments: “It risks chilling the rights to speak and to assemble. In other words, that very fundamental American right to protest.”

The right to peacefully assemble has been called a “forgotten freedom.” This right may seem so obvious that it is almost not worth thinking about. The right to assembly is about what we do with our bodies, where we gather and how we associate with other people. To limit this fundamental right to move our bodies and occupy space without good reason is tyrannical.

The American founders understood this, which was why they ratified the First Amendment. In the background was the case of William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. As a young man, Penn was arrested in England for meeting in public with other Quakers. England had banned such “conventicles” in an attempt to harass dissenters.

This reminds us that the right to assemble is related to religious liberty (religion is a communal practice that involves public gatherings). The right to assemble is also important for political parties, social clubs, labor unions, and other gatherings of people.

This right has often been understood in relation to freedom of association, thought and expression. Freedom of assembly and association are linked with science and education. The advance of knowledge depends upon freedom of speech and of the press. Knowledge also develops socially. To learn wisdom, we must be able to meet and argue with other people. In the digital era, it is not only bodies that gather in public but also minds who should be free to meet together in cyberspace.

In his last speech, Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the attempt by the government to prevent protests during the Civil Rights movement. He remarked that liberty is routinely stifled in China, Russia and other totalitarian countries. But in the U.S., we have freedom of speech, press and assembly. King said, “the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.” The rights to assemble, speak and petition are an important part of what makes American great.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312530253.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Freedom of Speech and Press

Fresno Bee, Oct 5, 2025

The American Constitution wisely limits the law in ways that prevent authoritarianism.  These limits are reflected in the separation of powers, and in the fundamental rights and liberties set forth in the First Amendment and other Constitutional amendments.  The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.

These rights are increasingly at risk.  A federal judge, William G. Young, argued in a recent ruling that the Trump Administration is engaged in a “full-throated assault on the First Amendment.”  The case involved the question of whether the government can deport noncitizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech.  The result of the Administration’s efforts, according to the judge, has been to “chill” the exercise of basic rights. 

Adding to this chilling effect are Trumpian lawsuits against newspapers and the threat that broadcasters could lose their licenses if they cross the President.  The President even suggested that it is “illegal” for reporters to write negative stories. 

This week, when the President suggested using American cities as “training grounds” for American troops, he warned military leaders of an “invasion” by “the enemy from within.”  He also attacked the press as “sleazebags” and “really corrupt.”  Trump has often referred to the press “the enemy of the people.”

  In this chilly environment it might seem wise to keep your mouth shut.  But if we remain silent, the chill will deepen.  Now is the time to speak up in defense of the Constitution and our basic rights.

One important part of this task is to recall that the liberties we enjoy today were not always ours.  The background condition for understanding American liberty is the bad old world of medieval authoritarianism, when heretics were burned, books were banned, and freethinkers were censored. 

As we all learned in school (or should have), the American colonists often came here to escape persecution in the old world.  But there was also censorship and persecution in the new world.  Benjamin Franklin’s brother, James, was jailed in 1722 by authorities in Massachusetts for publishing a controversial newspaper.  While his brother was in jail, Benjamin took over, publishing the following famous remark, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” 

This point is a common one made by modern philosophers, who assert that liberty is needed for progress and enlightenment.  John Stuart Mill said that attempts to limit freedom of speech and of the press are “noxious” and “illegitimate.”  The attempt to silence people ends up “robbing the human race” of the opportunity to argue and think.

Even after the Constitution was ratified Americans struggled with the temptation to censor.  The Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790’s punished those who questioned the government.  One congressman, Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, was jailed for criticizing President John Adams in a newspaper he printed.  Lyon had said that President Adams had “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp.”

During this time, Thomas Jefferson worried that his mail would be intercepted and his political ideas would be punished.  He said in a letter, “the circumstances of the times are against my writing fully & freely.”  He added, “I know not which mortifies me most, that I should fear to write what I think, or my country bear such a state of things.” 

The chilling effect of censorship makes us think twice about expressing our opinions, thus undermining our liberty and stifling debate.  If someone with Jefferson’s stature was afraid to write candidly in a private letter, ordinary people will likely also fear to express themselves freely. 

History shows that bad ideas do not last forever.  James Franklin was released from jail.  Benjamin Franklin went on to play a vital role in the Revolution.  Matthew Lyon was re-elected to Congress while imprisoned.  After John Adams was voted out, his Federalist party eventually disappeared.  The Sedition Act expired when Thomas Jefferson took office. 

Progress can and does happen.  Bad laws can be repealed. Bad leaders can be voted out. And wisdom can replace stupidity.  But this can only happen if we are free to express ourselves.

Read more: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312355327.html