Religious liberty is a key value for all Americans
Data on religious affiliations point toward the need for secularism
As presidential candidates use religious rhetoric, it’s important to keep sight of core American value

Many Americans want a president of their own religious persuasion. The Pew Center reportsthat 41 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans say it is “important for a president to share their religious beliefs.” Given this demand for confessional conformity, it’s no wonder that politicians weave religious language into their campaign rhetoric.

Nor is it any wonder that our political parties are sorted by religion. Republicans tend to be openly evangelical. Democrats tend to be more ecumenical.

Bernie Sanders provided a good example of Democrat inclusivism in the debate Sunday in Flint, Michigan. In response to the God question, Sanders said, “when we talk about God whether it is Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, what we are talking about is what all religions hold dear.” Hillary Clinton said she prays regularly. She explained, “I pray for the will of God to be known that we can know it and to the best of our limited ability, try to follow it and fulfill it.”

Republican evangelism is more forceful. Ted Cruz once said, “Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander in chief of this country.” Ben Carson went further, suggesting that a Muslim could not be president.

Perhaps the only one who breaks the mold is Donald Trump, who seems to lack the religious literacy of most Republicans and the religious sensitivity of most Democrats. But Trump still talks religion. He has suggested, for example, that Obama feels more comfortable in a mosque than in a Christian church.

All of this religious talk may come as a surprise to those who think that the U.S. is a secular country. In a more secular country, politicians would avoid speaking of religion. French secularism seems to point in that direction.

But in the U.S., religion remains important. Many Americans don’t like atheism, for example. According to the Pew Center, more Americans are willing to support a Muslim than an atheist for president. A sign of American anti-atheism is that there is only one representative in Congress who is not religiously “affiliated.” There are 2 Muslims, 2 Buddhists, 1 Hindu, 1 Unitarian and 28 Jews. The rest are Christians of various sorts.

IN A PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY A CANDIDATE’S RELIGIOUS RHETORIC IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING EVERY PERSON’S RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

Maybe someday a candidate will refuse to answer the God question on constitutional grounds. Such an unlikely candidate would point out that her religious beliefs are no one’s business but her own. She might add that privacy and freedom are essential for genuine religiosity. She might suggest that political sound bites produce clichés that float on the surface of genuine soulful religious reflection.

Our imagined secular candidate might point out that in a diverse religious society, politicians serve all of the people – not merely some of the people. And she might remind us that partisan religious squabbling further polarizes us.

We continue to play politics according to a script that ignores the fact of our ever-increasing religious diversity. In addition to about 6 percent of Americans who are not Christian, more than 22 percent of the population is not affiliated with any religion.

But it is still difficult to imagine a president who does not routinely say some version of “God bless America” at the end of every speech. Presidents didn’t always use that phrase, of course. Ronald Reagan added it to the standard script for political speeches during the culture wars of the 1980s.

Religious clichés and ritual religious affirmations do not necessarily have any deep religious significance. Politicized discussions of religion often seem to be more about polling than piety. And so despite all of this religious rhetoric, we are quick to question the authenticity of the religious affirmation of candidates we don’t like.

But how would any of us know what transpires in the soul of a stranger? It is hard enough to figure out your own spiritual commitments. Half of Americans change their religious affiliation at least once.

That’s why the Constitution is important. Other people’s religious beliefs are none of our business. Religious liberty includes the freedom to change religions. There is no religious litmus test for office. And in a pluralistic democracy a candidate’s religious rhetoric is less important than the commitment to protecting every person’s right to religious liberty.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article65550027.html#storylink=cpy

February 27, 2016

Civility and the Presidential Campaign

When it comes to civility, do as we say, not as we do

Fresno Bee, February 26, 2016

We all benefit from common courtesy
Civility is not innate; pop culture and political life undermine it
First Amendment freedom should be accompanied by considerate speech

Civility is a great and fragile good. Liberty allows our lips to flap. Common courtesy causes us to keep our mouths shut. Some bristle at the idea of political correctness. But without civility, political life becomes a fistfight.

Donald Trump recently said he would like to punch a protester in the face. Trump extolled “the old days” when a protester like that would be “carried out on a stretcher.” At an earlier rally, Trump repeated an obscene insult directed at Ted Cruz.

Opponents of Trump also use inflammatory rhetoric. More than one pundit has called Trump a fascist. The Fresno State student newspaper even ran a picture withTrump’s face imposed on Hitler’s body in front of the White House.

Political rhetoric often generates more heat than light. But we seem to be rounding a corner, where vulgarity and vitriol trump reasonable argument.

In some parts of the world, politics quickly becomes pugilistic. Fistfights have broken out in legislatures in Japan, Ukraine and elsewhere.

We like to think of ourselves as more evolved. But without civility, are we any better than Kosovo, where legislators set off tear gas bombs in parliament?

Civil and honest speech are essential for democratic life. But civility is not innate. It takes a lot of effort to teach kids to keep their mouths clean, their hands to themselves, and their minds focused on truth.

Pop culture and political life undermine these lessons. Fists and foul language are not normal or acceptable. Crude, rude and obnoxious behavior remains rare and exceptional. Most of the time, most people don’t exchange insults or threaten violence. Profanity and violence are not permitted in schools or in business meetings.

Our schools work hard to curtail bullying and create safe and civil places for children to thrive. Businesses require anti-harassment training. These lessons in political correctness work. Most of us behave civilly most of the time. Those who misbehave get suspended, fired, sued or jailed.

Fear of punishment is not the only thing guiding civil behavior. Most people don’t view life as a competition. We don’t use words as trump cards. We don’t focus on winning. Rather, we exchange ideas.

Civil people engage in dialogue in order to build community and seek understanding. Civil dialogue requires self-restraint and an open mind. An old saying says that we have two ears and one mouth because we ought to listen twice as much as we talk.

BULLIES WANT AN AUDIENCE. BLOWHARDS ONLY BLOW WHEN SOMEONE IS LISTENING. THE BEST RESPONSE IS OFTEN AVOIDANCE. MOST PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED TO IGNORE THEIR ORNERY UNCLE, CRANKY COLLEAGUE OR NOISOME NEIGHBOR.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, including the right to be offensive. But civil people do not say everything that is on our minds. We learn to hold our tongues out of respect for decorum. This may sound old-fashioned and uptight. But tact and discretion are useful skills.

One kindergarten cliché has a kernel of truth: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” A more advanced lesson teaches us to speak low, speak slow, but always speak the truth.

Civil discourse is a fragile fruit, easily destroyed by hot air. One obnoxious boor can ruin a picnic, a party or a political season. Bullies and blowhards infect families, school and the workplace. They rarely stop talking long enough to listen. If they do pose a question, it is usually only to catch their breath in order to continue their harangue.

Bullies want an audience. Blowhards only blow when someone is listening. The best response is often avoidance. Most people have learned to ignore their ornery uncle, cranky colleague or noisome neighbor.

When avoidance is impossible, we can invoke the basic rules of the kindergarten classroom: don’t threaten violence, don’t call people names, tell the truth and be kind to strangers. A more advanced lesson teaches that civility keeps the peace, protects freedom, shows respect for humanity and helps us discover the truth.

Donald Trump has hinted that he can be more civil and play nice. He said that he would be “more presidential” when the time comes. That’s good news. Let’s hope the time comes soon. But until that happens, we should remind our kids that what they are seeing and hearing in the world of politics is behavior that would not be permitted in the boardroom or on the playground.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article62657502.html#storylink=cpy

December 9, 2015February 11, 2016

Morality and the drought

Moral lessons from the drought

Fresno Bee, December 9, 2015

Special Report: From drought to El Niño
Columnist Andrew Fiala says drought exposes conflicting ideas

Scarcity prompts moral reflection. Imagine a group of hikers lost in the desert with limited water. How do they share the water? Perhaps you should share the water equally. Or maybe the thirstier person should get more water, or the person who owns the bottle – or the youngest or weakest.

There are conflicting intuitions about such cases. Drought exposes conflicting ideas about property rights, liberty, justice and communal good. Here are some moral insights that can guide our thinking about droughts and other conditions of scarcity.

1. Droughts challenge civilization. The oldest written code of law in the world – Hammurabi’s Code – contained rules and punishments for maintaining a system of irrigation. Agricultural civilizations require a complex division of labor, bureaucratic control and obedient citizens. Droughts challenge this system. Droughts have caused civilizations – such as the Anasazi of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico – to collapse. Drought prompts reflection on the fragility of civilization and the importance of stable, resilient social systems.

2. Environmental justice matters. Droughts create suffering, poverty, unemployment and homelessness. Successful responses must be fair. We owe special care for the weak and vulnerable. Resentment grows when some go thirsty while others thrive. Drought reminds us to focus questions of fairness and justice.

3. Egoism is immoral. A thirsty egoist may feel resentful or envious. Those with money and water may feel a similar sense of entitlement. But egoism is immoral. A selfish desert hiker who sneaks a drink is stealing water from the mouths of others. It is immoral when selfish owners of water refuse to share – or engage in price-gouging or wasteful water use. Drought shows the insufficiency of egoism.

4. Collective action limits liberty. A world of egoists left alone to pursue their own self-interests could end up destroying shared resources or creating resource wars. That is why law and regulation are needed. However, in a free country and a capitalist economy, we value liberty. Regulation limits liberty, including imposing limits on what we can do with our own property. Free people resent such limitations. Others suspect that regulation is manipulated by the rich and powerful. Drought exposes the conflict between individual liberty and collective action.

5. Cooperation is important. The optimal solution is cooperative self-regulation. People must limit their own liberty out of concern for others. Sharing and cooperation may sound naive. But the thirsty desert hikers will each do better if they cooperate and share. Sharing and caring are taken for granted within stable communities – and they help sustain community spirit. Drought demonstrates the importance of building and maintaining community spirit.

6. Consumption can be reduced. There is more to share when we each consume less. The lost desert hikers quickly learn that it is wrong to squander water. Scarcity causes us to reassess about how we use – and waste – things. We’ve discovered that we don’t need green lawns and long showers. We’ve learned to wash dishes, brush teeth, and flush toilets in new ways. Drought forces us to conserve water and to understand the difference between a need and a luxury.

7. Democracy is the key. When our needs are considered and our voices heard, we find it easier to cooperate – and we feel that justice prevails. Whatever way our thirsty desert hikers decide to share their water, they should each be consulted. Democratic deliberation creates cooperation and community spirit. Democratic values are tested in times of crisis, when leaders are tempted to revert to authoritarian policies. Drought should strengthen our commitment to democracy and inclusion.

8. There are reasons to hope. The good news is that 40 million Californians survived another arid summer. Moral action depends upon hope. To be inspired to do the right thing, you have to hope that others will do the right thing – and that doing the right thing will lead to good outcomes. To survive drought, you need moral hope.

So far, so good. We have limited egoism. We have developed community spirit. We have reduced consumption. We have attended to justice. And we have kept true to principles of democracy. There is always more work to be done. The rainy season provides a chance to hone our moral intuitions as we plan for the future of our hot, crowded state.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article48833525.html#storylink=cpy

May 1, 2015May 5, 2015

Mind Your Own Business

Love, death and the spice of life

Fresno Bee, May 1, 2015

Gay marriage, assisted suicide and marijuana reform point in libertarian direction
Meddling busy-bodies often breed unhappiness
Liberty and diversity allow for human flourishing

We would all do much better if we would learn to mind our own business. Sometimes we need help and guidance. Children certainly do. But with regard to the moral and religious commitments of adults, it’s best to keep your opinion to yourself.

Recent issues point in this direction. Lawmakers in California are considering new legislation that would legalize physician-assisted suicide. The U.S. Supreme Court is debating gay marriage. Marijuana has been legalized in a variety of places.

Our multicultural society is becoming more complex as we work our way through the question of how much liberty we ought to permit. Liberty breeds complexity, creativity and conflict. When we leave people alone, the world becomes more interesting.

But it is not easy to leave others alone. We have a natural compulsion to meddle. If I believe that my ideas are right and good, it is reasonable to think that others can benefit from them. All true believers have the urge to evangelize.

But in a pluralistic society, our evangelical urges collide with the equal and opposite energies of those who have different ideas. Disagreement is a natural law of liberty. We can measure our freedom by the extent of our disputation.

Some like alcohol. Others like marijuana. And others abstain. A similar diversity is found with regard to the question of who we love and how we want to die. There is no consensus about these topics. The best we can do is agree to leave each other alone.

A friend and mentor of mine, the philosopher John Lachs, wrote the recent book “Meddling: On the Virtue of Leaving Others Alone.” Lachs encourages us to “curb our desire to rule over other people.” He says we must abandon the supposition that ours is “the only natural or worthy way to live.” We must resist the evangelical urge.

For that to happen, we need humility and a bit of historical perspective. People have disagreed about religion, morality, culture, and politics for millennia. Most attempts to impose rigid homogeneity have produced suffering. The solution is to allow as much liberty as possible.

In the end Lachs suggests, most of what other people do simply doesn’t matter. Does it really matter what other people do in the bedroom, who they love, how they recreate, how they pray, what they eat, or how they end their lives? It’s obnoxious to think that your neighbor’s private choices are your concern.

Of course there are some difficult questions. There are risks and benefits that must be weighed. It is possible, for example, to imagine insurance companies profiting from permissive suicide laws. Drug addiction and intoxicated driving are serious concerns on the marijuana frontier.

Such problems should make sense to everyone involved, even proponents of these ideas. Legislation and regulation should aim to minimize these risks. But the most significant goal of a secular political system is to prevent government from meddling in our moral and religious beliefs.

Liberty destroys conformity. There is no denying that. Those who value a dull, bland sameness will be disappointed by what happens when liberty is unleashed.

We often forget that libertarian political systems are new and innovative. In the old-days, a priest-king would decide what everyone had to do. Conformity was often enforced under penalty of death. And even when busy-bodies don’t have political power, meddling moralists make life miserable.

In a free, pluralistic society, we will often dislike the choices that others make. But as long as we leave each other alone, we’re making progress. We don’t have to agree about sex, marriage, death, dying or drug use in order to get along. We simply need to stay out of each other’s business.

Living, loving and dying are hard enough for each of us. Tending your own garden is work enough for a lifetime. And when we are left alone to cultivate our gardens in our own way, we may be pleasantly surprised by the result. Some will plant tomatoes. Others will grow carrots. Some will invite the wildflowers to bloom.

Freedom gives birth to variety, which is, as they say, the spice of life. Liberty, diversity and social conflict make life exciting, nutritious and often unexpectedly beautiful.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/05/01/4504941/andrew-fiala-on-ethics-love-death.html#storylink=cpy

December 13, 2014December 19, 2014

Peace and Love at Christmas

Embrace the Deeper Meaning of Christmas

Fresno Bee, December 12, 2014

The state of Texas recently passed a law making it legal to say “Merry Christmas” in schools. The law grows out of a misguided worry that secular schools should not even mention Christmas. Some even fear that there is a secular war against Christmas.

The Reverend Franklin Graham, for example, recently wrote: “The war on Christmas is a war on Christ and His followers. It’s the hatred of our culture for the exclusive claims that Christ made.” This dispute is not surprising given the history of religious conflict and ongoing divisions in our diverse culture.

It might help to recall that disputes about Christmas have a deep history. There is no consensus about Christmas, even among Christians. Eastern traditions celebrate Christmas on January 6. The manger scenes we see around Christmas take liberties with the story. Jesus was most likely born in a cave, not in a stable. The animals are also a later addition, not found in the Bible. The Gospels themselves contain different stories.

This is not surprising for people who study religion. Religions and religious stories evolve over time. This helps us gain some perspective on the so-called war on Christmas. Christmas and Christianity itself has never been just one thing.

But the point of Christmas, it seems to me, is to find a way to look beyond our disputes. We celebrate peace, love, hope and joy during the Christmas season. It would be great to focus on those shared valued and leave the divisiveness for the rest of the year.

In our diverse world, not everyone accepts the exclusive theology behind Mr. Graham’s interpretation of Christmas. But we can all benefit from peace and love, joy and hope. Indeed, it is those values that allow us to coexist despite our deep theological differences.

You don’t need to take the nativity story literally to understand values celebrated at Christmas. We can all understand the dramatic moment when Mary and Joseph are turned away from the inn. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand that this story shows us the need for hospitality and that giving birth is momentous joyous and mysterious.

In some sense, Christmas has already become a secular holiday. It is a regular part of our yearly round of holiday closures and vacation scheduling. We all know that “winter break” coincides with Christmas. Charles Haynes, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, made this point in a recent essay discussing the difficulty of managing religious holidays in our multi-religious culture. His solution is to be equitable, hospitable and respectful of our differences.

I corresponded with Mr. Haynes about this. He pointed out that schools should be free to teach about Christmas, while also teaching about other holidays in an academic fashion. Such teaching might include historic debates over the meaning of Christmas among Christians themselves. The colonial Puritans, for example, banned Christmas because they viewed its pagan elements as un-Christian.

While Christmas is inextricably linked to a celebration of the birth of Christ, the holiday is much more than that — it includes Santa and his reindeer, jingle bells and evergreen trees. These later additions have no connection to the Bible story. Christmas has evolved to be a secular — and universally accessible — celebration of joy, peace, love and hope.

The First Amendment guarantees that conservative Christians like Mr. Graham have a right to point out that Christmas originates in stories about the birth of Christ. Atheists also have a right to argue against Christmas and Christianity, if they like. But the Christmas spirit is more inclusive and welcoming than any exclusive religious or anti-religious diatribe. The values of Christmas encourage us to be warmer, gentler, kinder and more friendly. Inclusivity, hospitality, peace and love are important values for all of us.

The deep and universal message of Christmas is the hope that in an inhospitable world, we might find a peace, love and refuge. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand that. Christians layer theology onto the nativity scene, directing hope beyond this world. But the magic of Christmas is found here on earth in the joyous love of mothers and in the peaceful and hopeful faces of children, who have not yet been hardened by the world and its divisions.

Tag: Liberty

Religious Liberty in the American Political Campaigns

Fresno Bee, March 13, 2016