Religion As An Activity Engaged In By Consenting Adults In Private
The American Interest, January 23, 2013 by
columnist Peter Berger
www.the-american-interest.com/berger/2013/01/23/religion-as-an-activity-engaged-in-by-consenting-adults-in-private/
Peter Berger’s thesis
is catchy: “religion is to be an activity engaged in by consenting adults in
private.” The statement lacks consideration of children. But I want to address four
issues: “secular,” the preamble to the United States Constitution, a people as
defined therein, and the sexual analog to Berger’s idea. I think Berger is
premature in his predictions about America, where a people is emerging but few people know about it.
Berger cites four court
cases then states, “An aggressive secularism seems to be on the march in all
these cases.” I suggest that “secular” is a circular
idea imposed on a people by religion, perhaps Christianity. “Secular” means
first “not religious.” Not religious is meaningless until you define religion.
But a civic people does not need to debate religion. A civic people need to
civically, candidly discuss civility: the law. By accepting the label “secular”
a people unintentionally isolate the people in the religious domain of public
debate: mere personal opinion. Both
theists and non-theists, persons, want peace so that they can each pursue the
happiness they perceive, not their government’s idea of happiness. However,
their institutions keep them from discovering this commonality, by prejudicial
meanings such as “non-religious,” “under god,” “god bless,” when religion is
not the object of civic accommodation. The preamble to the United States Constitution
is a civic sentence.
The preamble to the US
Constitution lies fallow, perhaps because it is maligned as a secular idea in a
country that in 1790 had 100% Christian citizens, 99% Protestant. However, in
2014, 227 years after 70% of the delegates to Philadelphia signed the preamble
along with the articles that follow, a 77% Christian population has 51%
Protestants. A minority holds a new view of that civic sentence, and it like
everything else in the US Constitution can be amended or merely employed in its
new meaning by a people. The new view may be expressed in paraphrase: A people
agree to govern on three levels in order to fulfill eight civic goals in
negotiating civil order. Our goal is for 70% of citizens by September 17, 2017,
to be pursuing the cooperative happinesses they perceive in every decade of
their lives and using the preamble to
compromise with each other so as to accommodate fellow citizens in civil order
(the law and its institutions). Dissenters may reform or risk the rule of law
as it stands, as always.
Berger argues that “The
new American secularism is in defense of the sexual revolution. Whether one approves or deplores the new
sexual culture, it seems unlikely to be reversed.” Berger’s conclusion, when
viewed from a civic perspective
instead of the non-religious
perspective seems predictably false. America, with 319 million people, has over
110 million who suffer sexually transmitted disease (STD) with 20 million new
cases each year, primarily among the young. Some STD increase rates are highest
among same-sex partners. Marci Hamilton’s work suggests that over 30% of
Americans are involved in child abuse. A people cannot continue such neglect of
its posterity. Two concepts are expressed by the people who support use of the
preamble as described above: first, benefitting
from the ethics of physics and second, use of that ethic to civically provide a
community that is welcoming to both the children and the children to be born.
Berger would influence
more than observe when he asserts:
Yet Christian churches
(notably the Catholic and Evangelical ones) are in the forefront of those who
do want to reverse the libertine victory. Its beneficiaries are haunted by the
nightmare of being forced into chastity belts by an all too holy alliance of
clerics and conservative politicians. No wonder they are hostile!
It is novel for a same-sex advocate to admit to
hostility; but maybe Berger is just throwing daggers. Berger’s liberal hyperbole
perhaps reflects the difference between European acceptance and American
determination, maybe resulting from America’s colonization by European powers
and the European inability to relate to American independence. Transcending an
unrecognized “too holy alliance of clerics and . . . politicians,” Americans, fortuitously
pursue the benefits of the ethics of physics. Take, for example, vehicular
regulations. An ethical nation continually improves the efficiency of vehicular
technology and limitations in order to protect the safety of citizens. The ethics of physics requires both 1)
drivers to know and observe vehicular regulations and 2) the nation to provide
the best facilities and regulations. In a “soft” example of the ethics of
physics, conversation-efficiency is lost when people lie to each other and the
consequences are inevitably costly: The ethical practice is not to ever lie, so
that people may communicate.
Americans deliberately
manage their religious institutions in privacy. However, so far, the people
have brooked politicians who, upon election, claim divine authority through “legislative
prayer” and “ceremonial religion.” But Americans have the means to govern of by
and for a people any time Americans decide that a people will emerge.
Burger did not give his
brilliant idea the balance it needed. His idea mimics “sex is to be an activity
engaged in by consenting adults in private.” This statement is limited by
civics. For example, if the activity subjugates one of the parties, causing
physical harm or death, it is a civic matter. If the adults have the intent to
procreate, it is a civic matter. If procreation occurs, it is a civic matter:
The conceiving adults are both civically obligated to the child for life. Civic
equality and dignity begin with the ovum, which should not be abused. If one
party would expose others to STD, it is a civic matter. These points relate to
the STD and child abuse issues I raised earlier, and civic matters must be negotiated by a people to arrive at civil order. If these arguments are
accepted regarding sex, what is the implication for the religious analog?
Repeating, “Religion is
to be an activity engaged in by consenting adults in private.” A first concern
is the exclusion of children, which I need not resolve, since Berger did not
support his claim. The tendency to restrict religious expression in public is
understandable, based on past abuses of non-religious minorities. Another
approach is appreciation of religious
and cultural diversity among a people who nonetheless attend to their civic
obligations--govern selves civically so as to accommodate all other citizens.
This requires the integrity of
appreciation of the other citizen’s private sources of motivation and
inspiration. The result is separation of church and state, but not separation
of citizens. Religious institutions aggressively negotiate civil order that
fulfills a people; there cannot be governance under theism. As a consequence,
international religious institutions that oppose American law must have American
leaders who do observe American law. If the international organization
separates from its American leaders, it is a private issue. Moreover, government must give up the notion
of “legislative prayer,” and election to divine authority. A people must
impress elected officials that a people does not brook claims of divine
authority: Authority to govern comes from a people, even when a mistaken
majority has voted. In America, a people is defined by the preamble to the
United States Constitution, and governance of by and for a people pursues
benefits from the ethics of physics.
These ideas are
developed more fully yet incompletely on the blog promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
The purpose of the blog is to expand the idea of mutual civic accommodation by
a people, which can happen efficiently if people (candidly) comment: please
comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.