Tag: Religion

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

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 Secular Declaration of Independence

Fresno Bee, July 6, 2025

“Declaration of Independence was rooted in Enlightenment ideals, not divinity”

Some suggest that the U.S. is a Christian nation.  That claim often rests upon an interpretation of American history that misunderstands the Declaration of Independence.  For example, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, said this week, that that the American Founders’ “creed” is stated in the Declaration.  Johnson believes that Thomas Jefferson was “divinely inspired” to write the Declaration.

Jefferson’s language is worth careful consideration as we celebrate the 249th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration.  The part of The Declaration that has been emphasized by Johnson and others is the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

The Founders understood the world as coming from a creator.  They thought that human rights were found in the “laws of nature” and “nature’s God,” to quote another earlier passage from the Declaration. 

But Jesus is not mentioned here.  Nor is the Bible.  Indeed, Jefferson had a decidedly unorthodox understanding of Christianity.  Like Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was a Deist who understood “nature’s God” as distinct from the God of the Bible.  He rejected the idea that the abstract “creator” could perform miracles.  Jefferson even revised the Bible to eliminate its miracles, including the resurrection of Christ.  Jefferson’s Unitarian colleague John Adams also doubted the divinity of Christ.  To suggest that these authors were inspired to create a Christian nation is simply false, as I discuss in my new book, Christian Nationalism and the Paradox of Secularism.

These Enlightenment-era thinkers were sympathetic to a rational, philosophical reconstruction of ancient revealed religions.  They also understood themselves as doing a very human thing by engaging in political struggle.  Just after that famous statement about the creator and our inalienable rights, the Declaration adds a second self-evident claim: “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The text says that governments are human constructions.  The legitimacy of governments depends upon democratic consent, not divinely ordination.  Building upon this point, the next self-evident truth of the Declaration is that there is a right to revolt against unjust government and to re-construct government according to our own best judgment. 

This makes the Declaration a secular or humanistic document.  Our rights may come from God, the creator, or the laws of nature.  But government is a human creation.  It is “we, the people” who create governments, and alter or abolish them.

This human process culminated in the creation of the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution was a second attempt to create a government, which built upon the failure of the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitution was a negotiated document that included the notorious compromise that allowed slavery to exist.  Americans fought a Civil War to further clarify and improve the Constitution.  None of this indicates divine inspiration. 

Indeed, the Constitution affirms a secular standpoint.  The only mention of religion in the Constitution itself occurs in Article 6, where religious tests for office are prohibited.  And the First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This means you are free to worship (or not) according to your conscience, and the government is not allowed to erect an official state religion.

This is a radically modern idea that broke away from the traditional way of conceiving church and state.  In England and other European lands, church and state were combined, and often still are.  The King of England is the head of the Anglican church, for example.  In the United States there is no American church.  Nor does the President lead a religious institution. 

The fact that the authors of the Declaration were Deists and Unitarians reminds us why they wanted a new form of government.  In another time or in another country, those men would have been persecuted as heretics.  But they created a country where such persecution no longer occurs.  The legal framework they created was not the result of divine intervention.  Rather, it was the result of human beings daring to imagine a new form of government in which religious liberty was broad enough to include their own unorthodox beliefs.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article309937295.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Seeking Wisdom in the Trump-Storm

It is easy to become anxious as political chaos churns. The present turmoil can cause us to lose sight of basic truths. But enduring values provide shelter from the storm.

The pursuit of wisdom offers tranquility in tumultuous times. Philosophy and religion are essential these days. Solace can be found in a wide variety of what I call (allong with my co-author Doug Soccio), “Archetypes of Wisdom.”

One useful source is Stoicism. Seneca explains: “It is only philosophy that makes the mind invincible, and places us out of the reach of fortune… This it is that reclaims the rage of our lusts, and sweetens the anxiety of our fears.”

The present moment is a time of misfortune, rage, and anxiety. Headlines blare with crises and scandals. Constitutional guardrails are breached, as a servile Congress plays patty-cake with its rubber stamps. Bizarre ideas are broadcast from the White House. Every day brings some new outrage.

The chaos of the present appears to be strategic. Trumpism has been described by The Guardian as a “chaos machine.” The chaotic strategy was explained by Steve Bannon as “flooding the zone with shit.” Bannon more recently said that every day of the new Trump regime should be a “day of thunder.” Keeping people in a defensive and reactive posture prevents organized response.

Anxiety is an impediment to wisdom. Careful, deliberate thought supplies a source of calm in the blizzard of bullshit. For some it may help to have the anchor of faith. But nonreligious people can find serenity in philosophy, even as the tempest rages.

Pope Francis offered a recent bit of serene sagacity. In a letter to American bishops he repudiates a narrow and mean-spirited approach to immigration. Francis insists that the essence of Christianity is universal love: “Jesus Christ, loving everyone with a universal love, educates us in the permanent recognition of the dignity of every human being, without exception.”

The Pope appears to be replying to Vice President J.D. Vance’s defense of Trumpian deportations. Vance had invoked the Catholic concept of ordo amoris (the ordering of love) to defend his “America First” ideology. Vance explained, “You love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus [on] and prioritize the rest of the world.”

The Pope rebutted Vance, explaining, “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups… The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

Much more could be said about Christian love and the parable of the Good Samaritan (I’ve discussed some of this here and here). But what I want to emphasize is the temperate, transcendental tone of the Pope’s remarks—and the importance of this philosophical debate about love and dignity.

Philosophy and religion look beyond the squabbles of the present moment. In speaking of the “infinite and transcendent dignity” of the human person, the Pope invokes a set of values that rises above the petty disputes of the day. The Pope’s cosmopolitan ethic transcends national borders and political parties. His focus is on fundamental claims about universal human rights.

Pope Francis also rebukes political power. In his letter, he says, “What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly.” He explains that it is a distortion of genuine social life to focus on “the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth.”

These ideas are not unique to Francis or Catholicism. Plato also rejected the idea that power was the criterion of truth and justice. And the call for love of the neighbor and respect for human dignity can be found in other religious traditions, and in the secular notion of human rights. Eleanor Roosevelt tied these ideas together, saying, “We can establish no real trust between nations until we acknowledge the power of love above all other power.”

Let’s conclude with a call to seek insight in religion, philosophy, and the great archetypes of wisdom. The antidote to chaos is wisdom that transcends the moment. When the zone is flooded with shit, we rise above by remembering that true and good things endure. We should love our neighbors and strive to be just. The bullshit of the powerful, and the thunder of the loudmouths can be overwhelming. But when the storm is over, wisdom, truth, and justice will remain.

Posted on

The Second Coming of Donald Trump and The Temptation of Hyperbole

Trump 2.0 will no doubt be as chaotic as Trump 1.0. But despite the hyperbolic effusions of the political class, the country will likely stumble along, divided among red and blue partisans and another third who simply don’t care (as I discussed in a recent column). The American Republic will not collapse with Trump’s political resurrection. Nor has the messiah returned with Trump’s second coming.

We would be wise to avoid hyperventilating and to keep things in perspective. On both left and right, the tendency to exaggerate can undermine critical thinking. 

Trump is among the worst of those who exaggerate and embellish. In his victory speech Trump said, “God spared my life for a reason.” And, “This will truly be the golden age of America.” Trump’s Christian followers were even more direct. Christian nationalist firebrand Charlie Kirk saw in Trump’s victory the “Grace of God.” And Trump’s former spiritual advisor Paula White-Cain said of Trump, ““I declare tonight that your victory is found in Jesus Christ! Rest in Him – He has you, in the name of Jesus!”

Among the less zealous right-wing commentary, there was a tendency to exaggerate the significance of Trump’s victory. Consider, the smug conclusion reached by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, who claimed that Trump’s victory meant that “America, after its long journey through the 2010’s and 20’s, is becoming more conservative again.” 

On the other side, Trump’s victory brought forth lots of dire doomsaying. In The New Republic a column by Edith Olmsted proclaimed, “Americans just elected a fascist to the White House.” Another column by Ray Marcano said democracy “died on Nov. 6, 2024. It was 248 years old.” 

Pundits and politicians are often loose with their language. Everyone can be tempted by hyperbole. But it behooves us to be more careful and precise, and to avoid the Trumpian trumpet.

I’ll leave an extended critique of the theological bluster for another column (and my forthcoming book on Christian nationalism). But suffice it to say that the American Constitution is a secular document whose First Amendment prevents the establishment of anything like Christian nationalism. I might add that God must work in quite mysterious ways to have hand-picked someone like Trump as an instrument of His will.

Now let’s think critically about the hyperbole of the secular press. Consider Peggy Noonan’s claim about the triumph of conservatism. To say that Trump’s election is a conservative victory requires lots of qualification. Conservatives like Mike Pence  and other never-Trumpers refused to endorse Trump, whose lack of moral fiber and indifference to truth is far from conservative.

The hyperventilating of the left-wing commentariat is also problematic. To say that democracy died as a result of this election is absurd. This election was fair—despite the fact that it was Trump who kept warning of rigged elections and who threatened the existence of democracy when he disputed the 2020 election. His victory in 2024 was a democratic result.

I understand the fear that Trump will undermine this system. He certainly challenged our democracy in 2020. He was wrong then. But so far, the electoral system continues to work. Trump left office then. He returned now through a legitimate process. We ought to have faith that this system will continue to operate in the future. Trump has made threats that may undermine the Constitution. The Supreme Court has offered a broad kind of immunity that might facilitate wrongdoing. And Trump will most likely prevent further investigation into his first administration. This is dispiriting. And we should remain vigilant. But democracy ain’t dead yet. 

Left-wingers also ought to be cautious in invoking words like tyranny or fascism—and the idea of “resistance” to Trump 2.0. In a post-election column Robert Reich called for “peaceful and nonviolent” resistance to Trump. He said, “We the people will resist tyranny.” And, “We will resist Donald Trump’s tyranny.”

In my book on Trump and tyranny I argued for caution with the T-word. Trump was at most a would-be tyrant with a flawed personality. But he was (and is) constrained by our Constitutional system from consolidating power into full-fledged tyranny. 

These Constitutional brakes may be wearing thin. But the system worked to prevent Trump 1.0 from subverting democracy. I agree when Reich calls for a peaceful and nonviolent response to the threat of tyranny. But it would better to describe this simply as adherence to the Constitution and its anti-tyrannical fundamentals. The separation of powers was designed to resist tyranny. This system should be embraced and strengthened. But we should be careful with loose talk about tyranny and resistance, lest our thinking become less peaceful and more extreme.

Which brings me to the F-word. During the 2024 campaign each side accused the other of fascism. The term has become a catch-all pejorative divorced from its original significance. Fascism is an authoritarian political movement that desecrates fundamental liberties in the name of ethnic-nationalist ideology. It is militaristic and state-centered. And it is dependent upon fanatical true-believers and ideologues.

It is true that Trump called his opponents (including the press), enemies of the people and that he hinted at violence and threatened his enemies with revenge. That essay in The New Republic that said a fascist has been elected to the White House lists a long litany of Trump’s dangerously transgressive language. There may be some MAGA true believers who want to see Trump embrace violent ideas that even he described as “dark.” And some Christian nationalists do in fact dream of overthrowing our secular system.

But I doubt that the majority of the Americans who voted for Trump are fascists who would support a Trump regime that tore up the Constitution, fomented violence, and persecuted religious minorities. There are Christian nationalists in our country, as well as sexists, racists, and other sordid characters. There always have been. But it is hyperbolic to suggest that the majority of Trump’s voters would support or tolerate the creation of a MAGA gestapo or the overthrow of the Constitution. 

I could be wrong. History and human nature are unpredictable. In a symposium on my Trump book, a number of my critics suggested I was naïve and overly sanguine in my analysis of the Trump era. With Trump’s second coming, those critics might prove to be right. So let me conclude by saying that while I think we ought to be moderate and careful in our language, we also ought not be naïve. The danger of tyranny is as old as Plato, who pointed out that the moronic masses can end up voting a tyrant into power. This problem is real. No democracy lasts forever. Nothing human does. 

But there is stability in the American system, which was designed to prevent tyranny. It also helps to know that many conservatives agree with liberals that Trump 2.0 will be dangerous. I suspect that those conservatives would also agree with me that the theological fervor around Trump is both blasphemous and un-American.

Democracy is not dead yet. But we must remain vigilant.