Religious liberty, atheism, and the question of faith

Fresno Bee, July 30, 2023

The atheists are coming out the closet. A new Gallup poll shows that 12% of Americans don’t believe in God. Only 74% of Americans say they do believe in God. The other 14% are not sure. Back in 2001, 90% of Americans believed in God, and the atheists and agnostics only made up 10%.

The Pew Research Center published a report last year suggesting that in a couple of generations about half of the population will be non-religious and Christianity will be a minority religion. Earlier this year, a Wall Street Journal poll found that only 39% of Americans said that religion was “very important” to them. That was down from 62% in 1998.

This radical shift in American values helps explain the Christian nationalist backlash among those who want to make American Christian again. As Christianity loses its dominance, it is understandable that some Christians want to demand that the U.S. be a Christian nation. But the idea of forcing religion on people seems doomed to fail in the modern world. The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of any religion. It also guarantees the free exercise of religion.

Religious liberty means that individuals are free to choose their faith. This idea is deeply rooted in a modern understanding of religious belief. Modern thinkers tend to agree that external conformity to religious rituals is not sufficient for genuine faith. Rather, faith is thought to require consent and subjective commitment.

In the late 1600’s, the British philosopher John Locke said, “All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing.” He suggested that people may go through the motions of religious life without genuine belief. But external conformity is not real faith. That’s why trying to use violence, force, or law to establish religious conformity is wrongheaded. Locke famously said that with regard to religion, “all force and compulsion are to be forborn.” In fact, Locke suggested that external conformity breeds hypocrisy.

Locke’s writings on government and religion had a profound influence on the American Founders, as I noted in a column earlier this month. The Declaration of Independence appealed to Locke’s idea of a right to revolution. And his thinking about religion appears to undergird the view of religious liberty found in the First Amendment.

Again, the issue is that when people are forced to go through the motions of faith because they fear punishment or social disapproval, they simply become liars and phonies, lacking in authenticity. The Danish philosopher Kierkegaard made this a central theme of his work in the 19^th Century. Kierkegaard understood faith as an inward or subjective experience. For Kierkegaard, faith was a passionate existential commitment. Kierkegaard was also critical of the hypocritical conformity of those who simply go through the motions of faith.

According to this modern understanding of faith, your religion is not about your ethnicity or your family identity. Nor is it a matter of which church you grew up in, or which Bible you have on your bookshelf. Nor is faith about what you wear, what you eat, or which holidays you celebrate. Rather, faith is about what you freely choose to believe in the depth of your soul and with the whole of your mind.

With this on the table, let’s reconsider the rise of atheism and agnosticism. If people don’t believe in God, isn’t it better that they are honest about that lack of belief? Do the Christian nationalists want atheists to just play along and pretend they believe? And if not, what would they propose to do about those who are not persuaded by the claims of Christianity?

It is best for people to be honest about what they believe or don’t believe. Only then can we have genuine and free conversations about faith. Of course, free and open conversations about faith may result in some people becoming atheists. But it’s better for people to make that choice freely than to try to enforce conformity and push nonbelievers back into the closet. The growth of disbelief is a sign of our liberty. It is also an opportunity for deeper discussions of faith, and of freedom.

November 17, 2019April 12, 2020

Tolerance, Liberty, and Thoughtfulness

Fresno Bee, November 17, 2020

Saturday is the International Day for Tolerance, which the United Nations has recognized since 1995. The United Nations explains that tolerance is “respect, acceptance, and appreciation” of diverse cultures and ways of life.

That’s a lovely idea. But tolerance is tricky. Do we have to tolerate intolerance? Can we censor those who express hateful and intolerant ideas? There are no easy answers here. And it is important to remember that censorship has often been used by churches and states to promote intolerance.

A guiding value for tolerance is liberty. To tolerate others is to leave them alone to pursue their own good in their own way. But harm provides a limit. If someone is harming you or violating your liberty, you need not tolerate them.

Is hateful speech harmful? That depends — on history, context, behavior, and intention. Hate is as complicated as love. And it does not exist in a vacuum. It is connected to anger, greed, impatience, violence and despair.

Nor does tolerance stand alone. It is connected to justice, courage, prudence, honesty and other virtues. These virtues ought to be woven together. But the goal of unifying the virtues is an aspiration that is difficult to achieve in our broken world.

Tolerance requires that we refrain from judging. But honesty requires that we speak our minds. Tolerance encourages us to leave others alone. But love compels us to intervene. And justice requires that we defend the innocent.

Genuine tolerance considers these complications and seeks a delicate balance. Intolerance operates differently. Intolerance simplifies. Intolerance reduces complexity to a binary choice between black and white.

The palette of tolerance includes more colors. Tolerance grows when the imagination expands to see the depth of human diversity. Tolerance is taught through art, literature, history and philosophy. We learn tolerance when we study other languages, when we listen to new music, and when we read the poetry of other cultures.

Hellen Keller understood this. She said, “The highest result of education is tolerance.” She explained that genuine education “teaches us to unfold the natural sympathies of the heart.”

Those natural sympathies must be grounded upon a claim about human rights. Every human person has an equal right to respect. No person or group is inherently better (or worse) than any other. There is a kind of humility associated with tolerance that is quite different from the arrogant pride of racism and ethnocentrism.

Tolerance is also linked to curiosity and compassion. Tolerant people are interested in what other people think, believe, and experience. They put themselves in the place of the other. The Golden Rule of tolerance is to tolerate others as you would have them tolerate you.

Some 350 years ago, John Locke stated that toleration was “agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Intolerant religion demands external conformity. But Locke said that this was of no use in creating genuine religious belief. “All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing.” Each person’s salvation is up to her. As Locke explained, “God will not save men against their will.”

Locke’s thinking had an impact on the American founders. The founders were not perfect. They tolerated slavery. But they also gave us the First Amendment. And Thomas Jefferson boldly stated that he would never “bow to the shrine of intolerance.” He rejected the arrogance of those who would exercise “tyranny over religious faith.”

During the intervening centuries, we have learned to be more tolerant of differences of religion, as well as sexual orientation, ability and race. We have also become more intolerant of racism, sexism and religious intolerance.

We are still figuring out where to draw the line. Some fuzzy issues remain, which require us to think carefully about all of our values. And this is the point: tolerance requires thought. The United Nations Declaration on Tolerance says, we teach tolerance by helping young people “develop capacities for independent judgment, critical thinking and ethical reasoning.”

Tolerance is a virtue of thinking people. We are not born knowing how to be tolerant. Rather, we learn tolerance as we expand our imaginations and understand the complexity of our common humanity.

October 8, 2016October 16, 2016

Trust, Faith, and Democracy

Storm of political mistrust shakes our belief in democracy

Fresno Bee, October 8, 2016

A recent poll conducted by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that only four in 10 Americans “have a lot of confidence” that votes will be accurately counted this year. One-third of Americans have “little or no confidence” in this year’s vote count.

The skeptics are often supporters of Donald Trump. According to AP, “Half the people who have a favorable opinion of the Republican nominee say they have little to no confidence in the integrity of the vote count.”

Trump has asked his supporters to monitor the polls. His campaign website calls for poll monitors with the following headline: “Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election!”

In response, Democrats warn that Trump poll monitors could intimidate voters. Democrats also worry about other restrictions on voting rights. And back in the Bush era, some Democrats suggested that votes were not fairly counted in places like Florida and Ohio. Some Democrats claim George W. Bush was illegitimately installed in 2000 by a politicized U.S. Supreme Court.

We seem to be in the middle of a perfect storm of political mistrust. If we are not careful, this storm can swamp our democracy.

In the words of Trump

One solution is for us to better understand the duties of fiduciary ethics. This idea was invoked recently by Donald Trump himself. In response to reports about his taxes he explained that he has “a fiduciary responsibility to pay no more taxes than is legally required.”

Trump-haters may be surprised that Trump could use such a big word. But he is right that fiduciaries should faithfully manage other people’s investments, maximizing profit and minimizing expenses.

The word, fiduciary, is rooted in the Latin word for “faith,” which is fides. We confide in fiduciaries because we have confidence that they won’t betray our faith in them.

A fiduciary should set self-interest aside and act in the best interest of the beneficiary. A fiduciary should be loyal to the client and care for the client’s well-being. A fiduciary should disclose conflicts of interest and not extract unfair compensation.

When fiduciary responsibilities are violated, scandals erupt. Wells Fargo violated its fiduciary obligation by creating millions of bogus accounts. The feds are looking into Wells Fargo’s breach of its fiduciary duty. A class-action lawsuit claims that the bank violated its fiduciary obligation.

Fiduciary relationships create special obligations. In most cases the fiduciary has more power and knowledge than the client. With that edge, the fiduciary could easily take advantage. Ethical and legal guidelines prevent the fiduciary from misusing power.

Like banks and financial advisers, lawyers and doctors have fiduciary responsibilities. We hire lawyers or doctors because we lack expertise and experience. But an average person often has no way of knowing whether a lawyer is taking advantage. Nor can an average patient know whether a doctor prescribes unnecessary treatments to enrich himself. We trust doctors and lawyers to care for our interests.

At the highest level, governments have fiduciary obligations. We trust that the government is acting to defend our interests. Governmental agents should not seek to enrich themselves or take advantage of their position. Bribery, misappropriation of funds, and similar offenses violate fiduciary duty.

Keeping the faith

Breaches in governmental ethics are especially serious because they undermine public confidence in the system. Voting irregularities, lying, nepotism, and other corruption causes us to lose faith in the system.

The Roman philosopher Cicero warned that society breaks down when the guardians of political life only care for themselves or their own party, while neglecting the good of the people. John Locke, the early modern English philosopher, went further. He suggested that when a government fails to live up to its fiduciary responsibility, a revolution could be justified. The American colonists followed Locke’s advice.

Which brings us back to that worrying AP-NORC poll. Our system is in serious trouble if we do not trust the most basic component of democracy – the voting process. It is also in trouble if we don’t trust the character of our leaders.

Without faith in fiduciaries and in the integrity of the system, society cannot function. Let’s hope that we survive the election-year hurricane, that we can rebuild bulwarks of good faith, and rediscover a reason to believe in our democracy.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article106599897.html#storylink=cpy

June 11, 2016

Political Correctness and Free Speech

We need to hear bad ideas so we can argue against them

Fresno Bee, June 11, 2016

Free speech is the best cure for bad ideas
Political correctness gets in way of genuine dialogue
Americans don’t like political correctness

People don’t like political correctness. A February poll by CBS’ “60 Minutes” found that 55 percent of Americans think that political correctness is a danger to free speech. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans don’t like political correctness.

Donald Trump has made this a theme. In a January speech Trump said, “We’re going to protect Christianity, and I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct.” In a recent response to the backlash about his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Trump said, “We have to stop being so politically correct in this country.”

Trump supporters agree. In a story about a Fresno kid who was not allowed to wear a Trump hat to school, Brooke Ashjian said, “If he wants to wear the hat, he should. If people are disturbed, too bad. There is so much political correctness people are afraid to rally.”

Democratic dialogue depends upon liberty, honesty and accountability. Without sincerity and freedom we end up with hypocrisy and duplicity. This is not good in a democracy.

Nor is it good for the pursuit of truth. Philosopher John Locke once said, “the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself.” Speech codes that limit the free exchange of ideas undermine the pursuit of knowledge.

When people say what they mean and mean what they say, we have a basis for judgment and evaluation. Without free and honest speech, we do not know what anyone really thinks. That’s a problem in democracy, in business, and in life.

Frank and forthright speech is revealing and occasionally disturbing. Consider what Trump’s unconstrained speech teaches us about him. He has admitted he is suspicious of Mexican-Americans and Muslims. It is better that we know this than if he kept those ideas to himself.

WE SHOULD HOPE THAT LIBERTY PROVIDES THE BEST CURE FOR STUPIDITY.

Free speech allows for education and progress. Consider the case of Leslie Rasmussen, who wrote a letter in support of a friend who was convicted of rape at Stanford. Rasmussen blamed her friend’s conviction on political correctness. She wrote, “Stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”

To claim that rapists are not always rapists is a contradiction. The complaint about political correctness is a red herring. But that’s why we need free speech. If we don’t know what people think, we cannot evaluate their ideas – or criticize their logic. Nor can we change their minds.

Rasmussen’s remarks provoked a backlash. Her band was dropped from a number of concerts. Some may see this as an example of the stifling effect of political correctness. But it’s part of the free market of ideas. And the backlash allowed Rasmussen to clarify her position. She recently apologized for her remarks.

That’s an important lesson. Unconstrained speech can result in dumb things being said. No one is perfect. Sometimes our tongues outpace our brains. When we say something dumb we ought to correct it and apologize. Honesty and liberty require accountability.

WITHOUT SINCERITY AND FREEDOM WE END UP WITH HYPOCRISY AND DUPLICITY.

We learn and grow through free, sincere and accountable dialogue. When people say what they believe, we can evaluate them accordingly. We can even try to persuade them to think differently. But when discourse is constrained and people don’t say what they mean, we cannot have a productive dialogue.

In the best of all possible worlds there would be no hateful words. But in our flawed world, the next best thing is for bad ideas to come out of the closet. Political correctness can cause people to say the right thing for the wrong reasons, while remaining committed to dumb or indecent ideas.

Genuine civility remains an important good for social life. But genuine civility is not mere political correctness. Authentic civility is grounded in respect, compassion and commitment to the common good. Gandhi explained, “Civility does not mean mere outward gentleness of speech … but an inborn gentleness and desire to do the opponent good.”

Eloquent courtesy can mask cruelty and violence. Political correctness can be oppressive. And inhibited speech prevents genuine dialogue.

Americans have the right to say what we believe. We need to hear bad ideas, so we can argue against them. And we should hope that liberty provides the best cure for stupidity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article82987487.html#storylink=cpy