Welcome, Blue Blazer!

The new post below is presented by a guest contributor.

The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 1

Progressive zealots bite the hand that feeds them

Many who claim to be devoted to the ideals of human progress are unknowingly chipping away at the very foundation upon which those ideals rely. As anti-religious zealots attack all public acknowledgement of any principle or symbol that is tied to religion, they are undermining the philosophic underpinnings that allow them the freedoms they take so much for granted.

A couple years ago (2003) a young man filed a lawsuit against the city where I live, Everett, Wash., to force the removal of a stone monument that depicted the Ten Commandments. The monument is a 6-foot, engraved granite slab that stands near the entrance to a city office building. It was paid for and placed there in 1959 by a local fraternal organization. See news story.

The young man, Jesse Card, seemed to be arguing that, because the Ten Commandments represent the religious traditions of Jews and Christians, the monument serves to promote those religions and, by being on public property, violates the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion. The arguments in this and other such cases focus on the basic principals of individual autonomy established in the U.S. Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1791).

Of course the idea that individual freedom could not be trumped by monarchs or states was not invented in America. The Magna Carta limited the power of the English king, basing those limits on the notion that the law applies to all, due to the equal dignity of the individual under God. Again, this concept of kings being subject to higher laws was not new in the Christian West. From Constantine to Charlemagne, monarchs had humbled themselves before the God of David and Moses.

It is, in fact, the Law of Moses that began the revolution that gives the young man in Everett the right to free speech, to sue the government, to observe his own religion or no religion at all. The Hebrew innovation that would help shape Western law and politics is the idea that even Moses was not above the Law that bears his name. Even King David was culpable under Hebrew law for his transgressions. This was a radical departure from all ancient civilizations for whom the ruler was the law and “might made right.” It is still a radical idea in non-Westernized nations. Why? Because without the cultural influence of Christian thought, it does not occur to the human mind.

The irony of the lawsuit in Everett was that the limited view of the monument as a religious symbol seemed to blind this zealot for individual rights to its much larger significance as a symbol of human rights that transcends the whims of individuals to control the freedoms of others. For unless there is an acknowledgement that ALL individuals are equal under a higher law, then the way is open for an elite class of individuals to claim sovereignty over everyone else. Our system of law and justice can only respect all equally because it requires all individuals to extend equal respect to everyone else. And those concepts come from where? The law of Moses, symbolized by the Ten Commandments.

I might point out as an aside that the concept of division of church and state can be seen in the ancient Jewish and Christian tradition of showing the commandments related to our duty to God on one tablet and those related to our duty to other people on the second tablet. Those tablets are very rich symbols that the basic concepts of liberalism are not modern innovations, but are rooted in a unique ancient innovation.

Mr. Card stirred up a great deal of vitriol by those who interpreted his lawsuit as an attack on their religion and values. Their response was to condemn his action as anti-Christian bigotry. I thought that was an unfortunate reaction. I do not know what Mr. Card’s real motives were, but I will take him at his word that it was to protect individual liberty as demanded by our Constitution. I felt that the best argument against his action was that it was internally inconsistent to defend one liberty, guaranteed in one document, by dismissing the philosophic pillar holding up that liberty by seeking to drive all symbols of its origin from the public square.

This episode is just one example of the so-called progressives battling against all appearances of religious symbols and concepts in public in the name of basic human rights principles, without realizing that by doing so, they are undermining the very foundation of those principles.

Before going any further, it is important to articulate some of the key progressive ideals we are talking about:

• Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
  
• Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
  
• The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good

A moral value – or even an imperative – to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

I will not attempt to argue that these are key “progressive” ideals. I will take that as a given (until I hear from someone who disagrees). I would point out only that the first two are philosophical imperatives of modern democracy. What bears examination, however is the origins of these concepts in Judaism and their blossoming in Christianity, because I think that THIS idea may not have occurred to many progressives.

In fact, many progressive thinkers resist or even harbor hostility to Christianity and Christian institutions. Apparently in ignorance of the fact that these ideals were sown and nurtured only in the unique World View that emerged from the Judeo-Christian religious experience and its resulting philosophic mind-set, a mindset commonly referred to as “Western Civilization.” Recently, there have been a number of popular books following this theme. Examples include: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

More disconcerting than their apparent ignorance, is the prospect that anti-Christian progressives will continue to drive anything openly religious (at least openly Christian or Jewish) out of the public square and thus out of the culture. Their “success” in this endeavor would have the predictable consequence of burying any hope that those espoused values could survive in the public square and the new “reformed” culture. Essentially, their hostility to Christian values, virtues and culture, is a rejection of Western Civilization itself. And I will argue that the attack on Western culture – if it ever succeeds – could only result in a replacement culture that will have little or no use for the basic “progressive values” mentioned above.

The first phase of this discussion will begin in part two of this series where I will explain how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights and on the roles of social institutions to serve people, rather than the other way around. I will also show how these values cannot be sustained in a culture that rejects the basic philosophical assumptions upon which they rest. For, indeed, the hope of social, economic and technological progress is based upon Christian ideals.

Finally, in part three of this series, I will attempt to understand why so-called “progressives” seek to undermine the very foundation of their espoused values. I will explore a couple of possible motives. I think that some (probably most) truly believe in the ideals but are foolishly ignorant of the historic and philosophic origins of those same ideals. They are easily misled by notions that religion (particularly Christianity) is anti-progress and even barbaric. But I believe there are others who hold a “progressive agenda” that has nothing to do with embracing liberal values of human dignity and progress. It is an agenda that requires a deliberate effort to eliminate Christianity for the very fact that it opposes human dignity and progress. I will discuss what this agenda is and why they must hide the origin of the progressive ideals to create a “progressive” smoke-screen to lend moral legitimacy to what is really a frightening – and quite un-progressive – future society.

(Coming installments)
Part 2:
How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

Part 3:
Why do “Progressives” seek to undermine the values of Western culture (thus undermining Christianity, democracy and human rights?)