Politics Archives - Wisdom & Folly

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. In a time when our national motto seems in danger of splintering, I am grappling with what it means to be one out of the many, how to maintain the strength of one’s convictions while seeking some sort of unity with those whose convictions are pulling them in the opposite direction. How do we all pull together for a secure and peaceful country that will last for future generations when, at the moment, we seem to be using our oars to bash one another over the head rather than as a means of propelling us forward?

In his recent interview with Joe Rogan, Secretary Robert Kennedy spoke of his surprise discovery that, to paraphrase, all Republicans weren’t greedy Bond villains, rubbing their hands together and only looking to line their pockets and oppress the poor. Despite being the descendant of Democrat royalty, he has found that they share many common aims. I’m sure that if you asked many Republicans, they would share equally hyper-stereotypical impressions of their impression of those on the left.

So I thought it might be a helpful exercise for me, and hopefully for you, to consider the values behind some of the most hotly contested issues of our day and see if, despite dramatically differing conclusions, there are shared principles somewhere in the middle. By doing so, I don’t seek to convince anyone of my conclusions but first to convince myself that my stances are a result of considered examination rather than knee-jerk party line adherences and, secondly, to show those who disagree with me that, despite our disagreement, we share at least some common goals or assumptions. Let us do battle in the arena of ideas rather than attempt to assassinate one another’s character and motives.

Misogyny is an evil reality and should be weeded out. I would define misogyny simply as a degrading attitude towards women as inferior, deserving of objectification and disdain. Surely this is something we can all agree is wrong. How can we be “unum” if we aren’t moral equals? While I am sure most can agree on the definition, the diagnosis and cure are where we differ. I see the masculinization of women in film and popular culture (the omni-competent female action hero who defies biology by besting men in physical as well as mental feats while maintaining a flat, near emotionless cool) as grossly misogynistic. I also believe the movement to include biological men in women’s sports and spaces to be a similar victimization based on sex. You can disagree, but hopefully you can see that a defense of this position doesn’t have to be rooted in hatred; it can be just the opposite—a deep respect and love for women who possess unique and distinct qualities that make them, yes, strong and capable in many ways, but also vulnerable and in need of protection in others.

Speaking of those we seek to protect, I think we can all agree that it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak and defenseless. As a conservative and a Christian, this principle is based on both the biblical mandate to protect widows and orphans and the theological principle that human beings are created in the image of God. It leads me to be pro-life, valuing the unborn as image bearers and seeking to protect them in their helplessness. It is also the basis of my stance on illegal immigration which victimizes so many: the working class who are forced to compete for jobs with those willing to accept lower wages, victims of the crimes committed by those in our country illegally, as well as the illegal immigrants themselves, especially women and children, who suffer horrific brutality on their journey northward, are often subject to trafficking and at a minimum find themselves living in the shadows of our society due to their legal standing, or lack thereof. You may share this desire to protect and serve these groups while landing at dramatically differing viewpoints, but let us together lay down the weapons of slander and gross misrepresentation to reason. Let us turn our ire to those who seek to exploit rather than on those who seek to defend.

Democracy is worth defending. What a noble and, frankly, obvious statement for all patriots to affirm. And yet I have heard this slogan pointedly leveled at the occupants of both sides of the aisle by those who believe themselves to be Lady Liberty’s knight in shining armor. For me, this is the basis of my position on voter ID laws, honoring our laws and those who enforce them, as well as the lawful exercise of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion. One’s exercise of these rights must be honored, while acknowledging and respecting the rights of others to do the same.

I would love to hear your honest thoughts on these principles. I know this has been a useful experiment for me, and I hope it has been for you as well. While writing, I have attempted to put myself in the shoes of those with whom I strongly disagree and, rather than dismiss their solutions, look at the foundation on which they are built. Perhaps by doing so, we can all agree to get in the same canoe, put our oars in the water and row together. If done correctly, we can course correct for one another, allowing neither to go too far in one direction or another. Many working to create and preserve the one. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

December 26, 2022

For Crown and Country

By Amy Spiegel

For years while living in Upland, I was a part of a women’s book club. I enjoyed the group for many reasons: it had a long history and I loved being a part of something that spanned decades. It was multi-generational and made up of women at all stages of life which added a depth to our discussions I really appreciated. We had varied tastes in books so it forced me to read books I never would have chosen, some of which I really enjoyed. One such book that I did not appreciate at the time was Elizabeth the Queen: The Life of a Modern Monarch by Sally Bedell Smith. This was definitely a book I would not have read on my own, and I never really warmed to it. It was very long and at the end, while I felt I knew a great deal more about Queen Elizabeth’s life, I didn’t feel I knew all that much more about her. My summary to the group was “She has met a ridiculous number of historical figures and led an extremely eventful and interesting life, but she doesn’t seem like a very interesting person.”

Though I have strong opinions on the subject, I don’t intend to use this post to go into the credibility of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s claims of mistreatment and prejudice. I will leave that to the royal experts to publicly debate. But there was one statement by Prince Harry which has been rattling around in my brain for the last week that seems worth further explanation, whether you are Team Sussex or Whales.

In discussing his choice of a wife, Prince Harry said “I think for so many people in the family, especially obviously the men, there can be a temptation or an urge to marry someone who would fit the mold, as opposed to somebody who you are perhaps destined to be with…”

There followed clips of Katherine and Meghan, and the viewer, I suppose, is meant to draw the conclusion that Prince William made a calculated decision for someone who “fit the mold” and Prince Harry made the bolder, more courageous decision to follow his heart. This is certainly the advice that every modern day fairy tale would endorse: take a “leap of faith,” look beyond differences in personality, family backgrounds and plans for the future, and go with your gut. I couldn’t disagree more. Going with my gut leads to me sitting on the coach, eating improvised Rice Krispie treats from a bowl at 10 pm. Taking leaps of faith can sometimes lead to wish fulfillment, but it can also lead your life straight off a cliff if you haven’t first determined just where you will be landing.

I don’t believe it is necessary to make evaluative statements regarding the morality or wisdom of choosing a spouse with one’s head or with one’s heart, but rather that one should carefully consider the possible outcomes and accept the consequences of either choice, nor do I think this applies exclusively to one’s choice of life partner. In choosing a husband or wife, career or calling, it seems essential to one’s long-term happiness to accept that by choosing a particular person, profession, or path, one is naturally excluding other options. If I choose a job that pays well but requires long hours, I can’t complain about working overtime. If I choose to work a job with flexible hours and low stress, I can’t complain about lower wages or boredom. Prince Harry should be free to choose a wife who doesn’t “fit the mold,” but it seems unfair to then complain when she doesn’t fit in. Joining an institution steeped in tradition and hierarchy would definitely require loss of autonomy. Leaving that institution would involve loss of another kind. Life seems to be orchestrated with those types of trade-offs as part of the package. Our current cultural trends glorify victimhood in a way that tempts many to paint themselves as helpless. I don’t see the appeal of that mindset. Isn’t it better to take ownership of one’s decisions and their consequences?

This brings me back to Queen Elizabeth and my initial assessment of her as bland. I see now that this “blandness” was a choice on her part, an intentional suppression of personality in service to what she saw as her duty. Now I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the role of Queen of England is a worthy role to devote one’s life to, but I think we can agree that she believed it to be so and was willing to pay the price for a job well done. If, perhaps, more of us embraced our own duty, as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, community members and citizens, and were willing to pay the price required rather than demanding that we have our cake and eat it too, we would have more successful marriages, happier children, and peace between nations. We might not end our lives with millions paying tribute, but I think there would be more jewels in our crowns.

July 3, 2022

Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Equal

By Jim Spiegel

One of the most common pejoratives used these days is “conspiracy theory.” Media pundits often apply it as a term of derision to conveniently dismiss a person or view they don’t like, and this almost always goes unchallenged. Even otherwise nuanced intellectuals often categorically impugn conspiracy theories as foolish. Novelist Oliver Markus Malloy has said that “conspiracy theories are popular among the ignorant, because they offer simplistic answers to difficult questions” (Inside the Mind of an Introvert). And neuroscientist Abhijit Naskar insists, “all conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with tales of fantasy” (Mucize Insan: When The World is Family). While perhaps satisfying to the uncurious, superficial observer, such claims are remarkable for their dogmatic assumptions not only that all conspiracy theories are irrational but also that the root psychological cause of conspiracy theories is the same in every case. If for no other reason, such quick and haughty reproaches should give us serious pause to consider the possibility that they protest too much.

Like most cultural memes, the term “conspiracy theory” is rarely carefully defined. The Oxford Dictionary defines a conspiracy theory as “a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon.” Some examples of obviously absurd conspiracy theories include the claim that the U.S. moon landings were hoaxes, staged in a Hollywood backlot and that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by U.S. or Israeli operatives or didn’t happen at all, in which case it is claimed that bombs destroyed those buildings, not commercial jets. While it might be appropriate to say that such claims should not be dignified by a critical response, it should be with the understanding that a truly critical response can overwhelmingly demonstrate the ludicrousness of these theories.

But are conspiracy theories always without merit? And should we automatically condemn as irrational anyone who espouses a conspiracy theory? In fact, there are many significant historical events which are widely recognized to have involved conspiracies. The assassination of Julius Caesar was certainly conspiratorial in nature. The Watergate burglary involved a conspiracy of at least five people, probably many more than this, and the later cover-up expanded the circle of conspiracy even further. And numerous Mafia organizations have been exposed over the years, all of which constitute conspiracies of some kind, whether or not those infiltrated high echelons of government. It is an uncontestable historical fact, then, that some conspiracy theories have turned out to be correct. Moreover, many of these seemed absurd to most people at the time, until evidence eventually proved them to be true. The simple lesson, then, is that such theories should never be dismissed tout court. Each should be assessed on its own merits. And failure to do so, as is so typical these days, especially on the American left and in mainstream media, is manifestly a fallacy of faulty generalization.

So it seems that not all conspiracy theories are equal and that some are actually quite rational. Therefore, it is for good reason that certain conspiracy theories are accepted by those open-minded enough to carefully examine the evidence. Ironically, then, Oliver Markus Malloy’s condemnation of all conspiracy theories as problematic because “they offer simplistic answers to difficult questions” actually applies to his own categorical dismissal of conspiracy theories, as his is, indeed, a simplistic answer to a difficult question. Similarly, media pundits and cultural commentators who hastily apply the phrase as a convenient pejorative reveal their own failure to think critically even while accusing others of the same.

So why have such categorial dismissals of conspiracy theories become common parlance these days? Perhaps, at least in part, it is because of the widespread irresponsible appeal to conspiracies, due in turn to the fact that they are entertaining and more likely to draw “clicks,” “likes,” and website traffic. Perhaps also because of cognitive laziness and an impatience with the process of critical inquiry and the sometimes painstaking evidential scrutiny this entails. More likely, it is because dismissing all such theories is an easy way to further one’s own narrative and hamstring competing views. After all, a sweeping demonizing of all conspiracy theories is a very efficient way to rule out any such theory that threatens one’s political perspective. The problem is that this approach also effectively poisons the well against the discovery of actual conspiracies, however rare these might be.

So, setting aside the more obviously absurd conspiracy claims about flat earth, hoaxed moon landings, and the like, are there any diabolical conspiracies associated with, say, the World Economic Forum, the 2020 presidential election, a Chinese takeover of U.S. businesses, Covid-19 vaccine mandates, or recent U.S. riots? With regard to any of these things, might there be powerful people and organizations working behind the scenes to expand their power or bring about their preferred political aims? We will only know one way or another through critical inquiry. Rejecting all such theories from the outset not only closed-mindedly rules out the discovery of possible truths but also places us in greater danger of being victimized if one of these theories turns out to be true.

History has shown that sometimes evil people band together in secretive ways to do sinister things. And in many cases those who had veridical suspicions about these plots were ignored, ridiculed, or denounced as loony for the accusations they made. Might some of today’s “conspiracy theorists” be correct as well? Time will tell. But dismissing all of them as equally ignorant or psychologically twisted will only slow our progress toward the discovery of truth in each case, and to do so is no more rational than uncritical acceptance of flat earth theory or a moon landing hoax.

June 26, 2022

Being Pro-Choice

By Amy Spiegel

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court has been asked and has answered a fundamental question regarding personal autonomy and freedom: under the law, does one have the basic right to secure one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The Court has resoundingly denied that freedom. This decision creates two classes of citizens; one free to go about their daily lives unencumbered and often enjoying pleasure at the expense of the other, subjugated and less powerful class. This class is forced to carry the burdens of others without the right to determine their own future, unable to pursue their dreams and to develop their potential.

I am speaking of course of the monumentally misjudged case of Dred Scott vs Sandford (1857) in which the Court ruled that Scott was the property of another human being and therefore had no legal standing under the Constitution. To me, the parallels between this horrific blot on our nation’s legal legacy and the now overturned Roe vs Wade scream out for comparison. In both cases, the rights of one citizen were denied for the convenience of another. In Dred Scott, he, along with millions of other black Americans, were denied their freedom for the financial gain of their masters. As a result of Roe, tens of millions of children have been stripped not only of their legal rights but their very lives. In both cases, the vulnerable were left unheard and not seen as human beings, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

Another similarity between the two is that the arguments made in defense of the unjust actions of the Court often fail to address the fundamental issue being debated: is this a human being who, through no fault of his or her own, has been made dependent and at the mercy of another? Once one recognizes the undeniable fact that we are all one race of human beings, no matter what the color of our skin or the stage of our development, the argument is over. But, at the time of Scott, many argued about the financial devastation which would befall the South if slavery were to be ended just as now people argue about the economic consequences of an unplanned pregnancy for the mother and society. There were even arguments made that slaves were better off as slaves rather than fending for themselves just as many argue that children of unplanned pregnancies or those suffering from various genetic issues are better off dead than alive.

While the unmet needs of women and their children are certainly something we should consider and address, this does not justify the killing of one let alone millions of innocent and helpless children, any more than it justified the enslavement of millions of slaves. Look at the millions of dollars devoted to treating sick and injured children each year in this country; or the enormous economic cost we were asked to pay as a nation and individually through loss of income and other various government mandates during the pandemic. If those situations justify such great financial outlays, shouldn’t we be willing to do the same in order to save the millions of children aborted each year? I’m certainly willing to support various agencies designed to do just that; are you? One would certainly question that willingness on the part of some in the pro-choice movement given the recent wave of vandalism against crisis pregnancy centers.

I think it is also worth noting that the proponents of both slavery and abortion profited handsomely from its continuation. Planned Parenthood, the most recognizable abortion provider in the U.S., makes millions of dollars a year through the dismembering of the unborn. This is done at the expense of not only those children but also their mothers who, we can all agree, are often in a vulnerable place themselves. It is well-documented that not only do PP workers lie to and pressure women into abortions, but also fail to report those who are being exploited by sex traffickers and abusers. Those who call for the pro-life movement to step up and provide resources to pregnant women, as they should and often do, should be equally vocal in their condemnation of what is clearly not an isolated phenomenon. On the topic of Planned Parenthood, it should be noted that like slavery itself, this organization was founded by racists who sought to limit the influence of those they deemed subhuman.

The final comparison I will make between these two cases is the obvious one: they have both been overturned, righting the wrongs of decades of immoral behavior and illogical thinking. In the case of Dred Scott, it was overruled by the 14th amendment which granted citizenship to all those born in the United States regardless of their skin color. In the case of Roe, of course, it was overruled this month by Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The 14th amendment by no means brought immediate equality and was only accomplished after years of bloody battles, not in the courtroom but on the battlefields. But it did bring about an age when former slaves and their descendants were free to contribute mightily to our nation’s legacy. They were free to become lawyers and continue the fight for freedom; free to become doctors and advance our understanding of what it means to be human; free to enter civil service and even rise to the highest offices in the land, including the White House and, yes, the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the case of Dobbs, despite what some seem to think, this decision is very pro-choice. It has not made abortion illegal; rather it has sent the issue back to individual states who now have the freedom to stand on the side of justice and morality or to stand on the side of oppression and murder. The choice seems an obvious one, just as Dred Scott seems to us now. I hope that, in whatever state you may live, you will find yourself making the right choice: the choice to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, that we can truly become a nation “indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

November 2, 2020

An Antidote for Election Anxiety: Lessons from Proverbs 11

By Jim Spiegel

Reading through the book of Proverbs lately, I have been struck by how many passages are directly relevant to our times, especially heading into tomorrow’s elections. Among the many apropos themes in Proverbs, several are to be found in chapter 11. Here are some thoughts on some of these.

¹The Lord detests dishonest scales,
but accurate weights find favor with him.

There has been much talk of potential fraud and corruption with regard to the presidential election. While we all hope none of these worries will be realized, judging by the corruption elsewhere in the American politics, we cannot rule out the possibility that it will happen. But if it does, even if those who perpetrate such “dishonest scales” get away with it for now, they will eventually be found out and judged, if only in the next world. No one really “gets away” with anything.

²When pride comes, then comes disgrace,
but with humility comes wisdom.

During this election cycle, as always, there has been much ballyhooing by many candidates, touting their own capacity to achieve justice and goodness in this country. In some cases, it does seem to be vicious pride, which will only bring disgrace in the end. Sadly, real humility seems rare in politics (as well as throughout the rest of mainstream American culture), though as we are reminded here, humility is the way of wisdom.

³The integrity of the upright guides them,
but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.

⁵The righteousness of the blameless makes their paths straight,
but the wicked are brought down by their own wickedness.

In the age of the “me too” movement we have seen many popular and powerful people brought down or undermined by accusations of sexual abuse and harassment. This includes some prominent politicians, including both of our current presidential candidates. Surely many other perpetrators are living with anxiety over whether eventually they will be publicly accused. But those who have remained pure and lived with integrity are free of these worries.

⁴Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath,
but righteousness delivers from death.

⁶The righteousness of the upright delivers them,
but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.

Many are prognosticating serious unrest following tomorrow’ elections, whatever the results. Some business owners in major cities are boarding up their storefronts, while others are arming themselves. Such tangible means of preparation may be appropriate, but they are not sufficient protection “in the day of wrath.” God protects his own—those who faithfully obey and honor him—and even the strongest human bulwarks against attack are fallible. This goes for the formidable American military as well. God could quickly bring this entire nation to its knees if he so willed.

⁷Hopes placed in mortals die with them;
all the promise of their power comes to nothing.

For all of the passion we might have for certain politicians, religious leaders, or entertainers, they are all mere mortals who are destined to lie in a grave somewhere or be reduced to ash in an urn. Even the most powerful leaders eventually perish. All of the triumphs of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately achieve little for them. As Jesus said, “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?” (Mk. 8:36).

⁹With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors,
but through knowledge the righteous escape.

¹¹Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed.

¹²Whoever derides their neighbor has no sense,
but the one who has understanding holds their tongue.

In our culture the “mouths of the wicked” are seemingly on display everywhere—from media distortions and fake news to slander and personal abuse on social media. The godless (as well as believers who act godlessly) are destroying their neighbors all over this country. Through what knowledge can “the righteous escape”? By refusing to partake in such destructive verbal practices.

¹⁴For lack of guidance a nation falls,
but victory is won through many advisers.

Perhaps one thing about which those on the left and the right can agree is that for many years the United States has suffered from a lack of wise guidance. We might also agree that because of this our nation is on the brink of collapse.

¹⁹Truly the righteous attain life,
but whoever pursues evil finds death.

²⁰The Lord detests those whose hearts are perverse,
but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.

These two couplets capture much of the essence of the Bible’s central moral message. Those who live righteously—who consistently obey and honor God with their thoughts, words, and actions—will flourish, if not in this world then at least throughout eternity. But those who live ungodly lives never find lasting peace in this world and are destined for destruction in the next world.

²¹Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished,
but those who are righteous will go free.

So whatever the election outcomes, and no matter how chaotic the unrest which follows, we can rest in the confidence that everyone will be held accountable. The wicked will ultimately not get away with anything. The righteous will ultimately be rewarded. God is a perfect, all-seeing judge. This is why we can trust the promises of this psalmist who echoes some of the themes from Proverbs 11:

“Be still before the Lord
and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when people succeed in their ways,
when they carry out their wicked schemes.

Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For those who are evil will be destroyed,
but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land” (Ps. 37:7-9).

October 27, 2020

Roadtrip for America

By Amy Spiegel

As voting continues in one of the most contentious elections in our nation’s history, I have seen many posts, tweets, and stories in which Christians are defending, some even celebrating, their choice to hold their noses and vote for Joe Biden. I say they are holding their noses because: 1) I can’t imagine a universe in which he would be anyone’s dream candidate and 2) many of them have expressed that this is a vote against President Trump rather than for the Biden/Harris ticket.

I can relate. Four years ago, I was faced with a similar dilemma: vote for a morally corrupt candidate who stood for everything I oppose, including participation in the physical assault and victimization of countless women or vote for Donald Trump. Nothing about Trump appealed to me—his personality, his appearance, his mode of communication, his history of adulterous behavior. But while these are all important characteristics to consider when choosing a friend or a spouse or somehow to take a cross country road trip with, I wasn’t sure how many of them should be criteria for choosing my President. In the end, providence intervened and the death of a close family member prevented me from voting, though I was heavily leaning toward voting for neither candidate and writing in a candidate whom I felt embodied my ideal leader. I have done this before: in 2008 I chose Condoleezza Rice.

This election, however, I will be voting for one of the two major party candidates, and with chaos in our streets, our civil liberties under attack and our most vulnerable being killed on a daily basis, I will be proudly voting for Donald J. Trump in hopes that he will continue to defend law and order, including the brave men and women in blue whatever the color of their skin, defend the Constitution and protect the sanctity of life. Four years ago, I was doubtful of his commitment to these values, but he has proven to be a man of his word in the face of historic challenges all while combating inexcusable treatment by the media and his political opponents. Coming to this decision has been a journey for me so I would like to share some of the thoughts and events that have led me to this position.

I know that for many of you, a vote for four more years of President Trump is an unforgivable sin so here is a brief list of the issues which compel me to make that choice.

Abortion: Do I really need to say more? Many say, “You can’t vote based on one issue.” Would you have said that to those who chose to vote Republican in 1860 when slavery was the primary issue? They are children and they are being murdered. Every day. By the thousands. Not only that but the lives of countless women, often young and often abused, are being ruined by this “choice.” President Trump attended the March to Life, cut funding to Planned Parenthood, and has promoted adoption and foster care reform.
Corruption: It seems clear that Joe Biden has enriched his family over his decades of time in government and is in fact guilty of the very quid pro quo behavior he has accused the President of while the President has donated his entire salary and has taken significant hits to his net worth while in office.
Enslavement of minorities: Government assistance has become government dependence and incentivized the destruction of the nuclear family in minority communities, not to mention the 1994 crime bill which led to the mass incarceration of blacks for non-violent drug offenses. President Trump has invested in black communities, historically black colleges and universities, and overseen the lowest unemployment rates for minorities in history.
Civil unrest and infringement of our basic civil liberties: I put these together because it has floored me to see on one hand the churches and businesses being closed, children being deprived of their education and the mental and economic health of millions being put at risk while rioters and vandals have been allowed to roam the streets and destroy and terrify communities.

This isn’t even mentioning the steps the President has taken to improve our national security, avoid foreign wars, bring our service men and women home, ensure the proper care of veterans through VA reforms, renegotiate numerous international trade deals, and strengthen federal laws against animal cruelty.

I hope that my defense of my choice for President doesn’t mean we can’t be friends. I know that your choice certainly won’t mean that for me. We can argue and scratch our heads at one another’s reasoning or perceived lack thereof, but for my part, I don’t doubt the sincerity and good intentions of many on the other side of the aisle. I know that we are all on a journey of thought, keeping some positions, changing others and it is important to respect that process. Maybe when it’s all over, we can go on a road trip across this beautiful country of ours. Maybe we can invite the President, though I’m guessing Trump will call shotgun.

June 22, 2020June 22, 2020

Open-mindedness, Civility, and Our National Crisis

By Jim Spiegel

During the last month turmoil around the nation has been dizzying. From Officer Derek Chauvin’s hideous killing of George Floyd to the wave of protests and riots which followed to BLM’s calls for defunding the police to the CHAZ/CHOP protest occupation of downtown Seattle to a rash of firings and public shaming of college professors and other professionals who have critiqued some of BLM’s tactics. More recently, Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe has been charged in the murder of Rayshard Brooks, and protesters have begun to topple statues and monuments all around the country.

While these events seem to highlight a deepening rift in our nation, one thing about which nearly all Americans agree regarding all of this is that Officer Chauvin’s killing of Floyd was a horrific act which warrants severe punishment. And we should all agree that racism in this country has been and remains a serious problem. But there is disagreement over whether Chauvin’s act was racially motivated or a manifestation of systemic racism, whether Chauvin should be charged with manslaughter or second-degree murder, whether this heinous act is symptomatic of widespread police corruption in the U.S., whether such corruption warrants a fundamental restructuring of law enforcement, whether there is Edward Colston statue toppled in Bristol any merit to the Black Lives Matter call for defunding the police, whether the Black Lives Matter protest tactics are morally legitimate, whether local law enforcement responses to the protests and riots have been appropriate, whether Officer Rolfe’s killing of Brooks was justified, and whether Rolfe should be charged with murder. It is tragic that despite the gravity of these questions, cool-headed, rational discussions have been rare over the last several weeks. Many insist that high-pitched emotions are understandable and appropriate, given the issues at stake. While this may be true, none of us should allow our emotions to cloud our judgment or prevent us from a rational appraisal of evidence and coming to logical conclusions about these issues. Allowing feelings to reign over reason can only lead toward more division and turmoil as many of the residents of cities impacted by the rioters can attest.

Oxford University ethicist Neil Levy has observed that “part of the reason that controversial moral and political questions are controversial is that there is something to be said on each side.” Levy says that a belief is controversial when “conflicting beliefs are held by a significant number of relevantly well-informed, intelligent, and rational people over an extended period of time” (from Open-Mindedness and the Duty to Gather Evidence, Public Affairs Quarterly, p. 56). It is interesting to note that while everyone will readily admit that the above noted issues are controversial, many people will refuse to admit that there is, as Levy says, “something to be said on each side”—and by this I suppose Levy means that there is something reasonable to be said on each side which should be acknowledged and respected by those who disagree. There are, after all, intelligent and well-informed people on all sides of the current debates over racism and law enforcement in the U.S. So why are we seeing so much hysteria and so little respect between people who disagree on these issues?

In recent years I have published several articles and book chapters on open-mindedness and am currently working on a book on the subject. Most people believe, as I do, that open-mindedness is an intellectual virtue. It is a trait which, as virtue epistemologist Jason Baehr would say, involves a willingness to transcend one’s default cognitive standpoint on an issue. This means that the open-minded person is willing to consider that her view on an issue might be false and to seriously entertain evidence which contradicts her perspective. Open-mindedness seems especially appropriate when it comes to controversial issues, for the reasons that Levy notes: whatever view you hold—on say, the nature of racism in America and how it should be addressed—there are well-informed, intelligent people who disagree with you. So, as difficult as it is, you have an intellectual duty to listen carefully, respond patiently, and proceed respectfully as you engage the debate. To do otherwise is uncivil and does little to advance dialogue and productive work toward solutions. If we are going to remain (or return to being) a rational and civil culture, we absolutely must conduct ourselves with at least a modicum of intellectual virtue, especially open-mindedness.

I have despaired at the level of dogmatism and foreclosure when it comes to many of the above noted issues. This is especially dismaying when I consider how many important moral and epistemic questions are being ignored or particular answers to them are being taken for granted (despite the fact that intelligent, well-informed people would demur at those assumptions). Here are just some of those questions. As you read each one, ask yourself: How would I answer that question? And what are my evidence-based reasons for my answer?

What is the primary carrier of human sin? Is it systems and institutions or is it individual human hearts?
What exactly is “systemic racism”? What are the criteria for ascertaining when a system or institutional structure is racist? Are these criteria statistical? If so, then what are they? If not, then what is the nature of these criteria? In any case, how are they established?
Given one’s view on whether the sin of racism is fundamentally rooted in individual human hearts or institutional systems, how does this impact our approach to addressing this sin? In either case, what are the prospects for fully eradicating racist sin from society?

These are just some of the more foundational questions which are being widely overlooked, ignored, or only dogmatically addressed. There are many other questions that are not as foundational but still very important, such as these: Why is it no longer acceptable to question or critique some of the tactics and precepts of the Black Lives Matter organization, even if one emphatically affirms, as we all should, the understatement that black lives matter? Since many college professors and other professionals are being fired for critiquing BLM, how might this affect our national conversation about racial issues? Is the firing of people for raising critical points about BLM likely to make people more or less sympathetic with the BLM cause? Also, what criteria should be used to evaluate the continued display of historical statues and monuments? And how can we balance historical relevance with a desire to atone for past injustices?

Again, these are just some important questions. No doubt other questions come to your mind, perhaps even questions about why I list the questions that I do. That’s fine. The point is that we need to address these and other vital questions in a rational, evidence-based, and open-minded way. Such is essential to the maintenance of a civil society.

In closing, it is fitting to recall the standard set by Martin Luther King, Jr., who consistently demonstrated an evidence-based, rational, and civil approach. It is also noteworthy that he grounded his civil rights work methodology in the biblical themes of imago Dei, unconditional love, and non-violent resistance. (See my recent article on the subject here.) Why are these ideals not prevailing during our current unrest? What would it take for these values to take root (again) in our society? Without these values becoming preeminent today is there any real hope for pervasive racial justice and reconciliation in this country? These, too, are challenging and controversial questions, and they are more urgent than ever.

May 9, 2020

Covid-19, Churches, and Hardware Stores

By Jim Spiegel

Here is another point about the issue of government bans on Church worship services that in my two previous posts I have taken for granted but which I evidently need to make explicit. Do these bans really accomplish much given how little time each week is devoted to corporate worship? And does the small reduction of risk achieved by such bans compensate for the loss of religious freedom they entail?

Consider the fact that during the pandemic hardware stores like Lowe’s, Home Depot, and Menards are open every day of the week for 11-14 hours each day with thousands of customers coming and going throughout the week, while church services, which average just 75 people, are not permitted to meet for even one hour each week. When it comes to presenting a real danger to a community in terms of spreading the Covid-19 virus, the risks at a small church service are negligible compared to those at such large hardware stores. Yet the former are closed while the latter are bustling with activity all over the country.

One might argue that our society needs hardware stores to stay open far more than we need weekly worship services. First, such a response presupposes that corporate worship is not necessary for human flourishing, which begs the question of my original argument in my April 25 post. Secondly, even if one grants that corporate worship services are not as essential to human flourishing as home improvement supplies, then can we not at least grant that worship services are 1/60^th as valuable as hardware stores? If so, then this would warrant permitting a 90-minute worship service once per week (to maintain the proper value ratio vis-à-vis a Lowe’s, Home Depot, or Menards, which are open 80+ hours per week).

So, fellow Christians, if you support the ban on church worship services while you’re supporting keeping open such hardware stores (and your shopping at one of these stores during the week is a tacit admission that you do), then this would seem to imply that you have a rather low view of the importance of corporate worship. For some of my critics, perhaps that is the real crux of our divergence on this issue, and that is fine. But for those who say they place a high value on corporate worship, something has to give here.

If you are really that concerned about human contact hours and the risk this presents regarding spreading the virus, then it would be far more efficient to create a stricter limit on the operating hours of retail stores. Therefore, I would suggest this modest compromise: Reduce the operating hours of large retail outlets by just one hour per day and lift the ban on corporate worship services. This would create a net reduction in the number of contact hours during which the virus can be spread while preserving the public good of corporate worship. Everybody okay with that?

May 3, 2020

More Thoughts on Government Bans of Worship Services

By Jim Spiegel

In his powerful plea to keep churches open during the Coronavirus pandemic, First Things editor R. R. Reno declared that “the massive shutdown of just about everything reflects the spirit of our age, which regards the prospect of death as the supreme evil to be avoided at all costs.” It is interesting to note, however, that in this country we don’t take this approach with any consistency.

Let’s suppose we could be confident that Covid-19 is, say, three or even five times as deadly as seasonal flu and thus likely to kill tens of thousands more Americans if the bans on corporate worship are lifted. Would this justify these mandates? Well, consider some other legal behaviors in this country which result in the deaths of large numbers of people. Every year approximately 40,000 Americans die in traffic accidents. This figure could be greatly reduced by simply lowering the speed limit 10 or 15 mph. But no one is clamoring for this in the interest of saving innocent lives. Why? Because we cherish our freedom to drive fast and arrive at our destinations quickly, even though doing so endangers ourselves as well as others.

Or consider the fact that there are approximately 480,000 deaths in the U.S. each year due to tobacco use. We have chosen to keep tobacco use legal despite this high mortality rate. Why? Again, because we cherish our freedom to use these products. Similar points can be made regarding the legality of alcohol and fatty foods in this country.

The point is that there are many activities which cost hundreds of thousands of American lives every year, but we keep them legal despite this because of the pleasure we get out them and simply because we cherish freedom. So why not permit religious worship services even if this costs more lives? Is not the freedom to engage in the corporate worship of God at least as valuable as the freedom to drive fast, smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, or eat a cheeseburger?

Here many Christians appeal to the alternative of on-line worship as a reasonable alternative to traditional corporate worship. Aside from the fact that on-line worship is an inherently poor substitute for worshiping in the physical presence of fellow believers, there is the further problem that two church sacraments—baptism and communion—cannot be administered via on-line services. For those church traditions where communion is done on a weekly basis and necessarily administered by an ordained minister, this is a serious loss. Even in those traditions where communion is administered monthly, as the corporate shutdowns continue, the loss is felt there as well. Perhaps your particular church tradition is not highly sacramental, but for tens of millions of Americans communion is a means of grace. This is vital spiritual nourishment, and government mandates are depriving them of this. That is a big deal, a serious blow to their relationship with God. This is another reason why I am surprised that more Christians aren’t challenging the shutdowns of corporate worship services.

April 25, 2020

Are Government Bans on Religious Worship Services Morally Appropriate?

By Jim Spiegel

During the Covid-19 pandemic many state governments across the country have banned church worship services. Some states have prohibited religious services altogether, while others have placed severe restrictions on the number of people who may gather to worship. While the constitutionality of this unprecedented move is certainly open to debate, one may question whether such bans are morally appropriate. Thus, we may ask, do religious practitioners have a moral obligation to abide by these mandates even if they are constitutional?

Here is an argument which challenges the moral appropriateness of the bans on religious services:

Civil government has a moral duty to permit what is essential to human flourishing.
The corporate worship of God is essential to human flourishing.
Therefore, civil government mandates which forbid corporate worship are immoral.
Christians do not have a duty to abide by immoral government mandates, particularly those which proscribe fundamental aspects of their religious practice.
Therefore, Christians do not have a moral duty to abide by a government mandate to abstain from corporate worship.

What follows from the conclusion here is that congregants at local Christian churches don’t have an obligation to abide by the government mandate to avoid meeting for corporate worship.

This is a logically valid and, I believe, sound argument. That is, the conclusion follows from the premises and, it seems to me, each of the premises is true. I assume most Christians will grant the first and fourth premises, as would all Christian ethicists and theologians I know of. So that leaves the critic with the burden of demonstrating that the second premise is false. Presumably, many atheists and religious skeptics will reject this premise, in some cases because they believe that religious practice of any kind is actually harmful. That’s fine. My main audience with this argument is fellow religious practitioners.

But is the Covid-19 pandemic somehow serious enough to justify a qualification to the second premise and thus warrant certain bans on worship services? In other words, might this pandemic provide a special exception to the general truth that corporate worship services enhance human flourishing? This question naturally leads us into a discussion of a whole nest of issues that are epidemiological, immunological, microbiological, economic, and statistical in nature. This is why we must pay close attention to recent reports and scientific studies showing the mortality rate of the Coronavirus is much lower than previously thought. Several recent studies suggest that the mortality rate of this virus is comparable to that of common strains of flu. Other reports suggest a higher mortality rate than seasonal flu, though still no more than .08%. But is this difference significant enough to warrant a general ban on religious services? It’s difficult to see how it could be when other options are available. For example, why not rather encourage high risk people (i.e., the elderly and those with pre-existing medical problems) to stay at home while allowing others to resume practice of corporate worship?

If Covid-19 mortality rate data is inconclusive in terms of justifying general bans on corporate worship services, then the social harms caused by the shutdowns should give us further pause as regards warranting an exception to the general good of corporate worship. There is also the economic dimension of shutdowns, which some economists believe could trigger a depression. Furthermore, the shutdowns are taking a serious public mental health toll in our country.

All things considered, there is evidence to suggest that the shutdowns, not just of worship services but other sectors of society, are more harmful than helpful, potentially more devastating to American society than any flu virus could be. This creates strong supplemental support for my argument’s second premise, which given any reasonable Christian view of government already enjoys a strong presumption in its favor. Therefore, only very strong empirical evidence could nullify it’s applicability to our current situation. And that, I submit, no one has provided, despite what our political leaders and the American mainstream media have been telling us.