Bonus et Malus?

It occurs to me that today, we don't properly understand fully what "right and wrong" or "good and evil" mean. Without going into a lengthy discourse on the proper meaning of the terms (Jim Keenan defines actions as being "right" or "wrong" and people as being "good" or "evil"), and without going into questions of relativism (the endless debate among philosophers is what "good" is versus "evil" (Nietzsche says that "evil" is a cheap word to use in order to make what is "bad" universally so in The Genealogy of Morals)), I would like to discuss the simple fact of what seems to be ignorance.
In American culture, our obsession with the two-party political system dominates much of the rest of our lives. It used to be that Catholics were supposed to be good Democrats while Protestants though this has changed in recent years. People classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" (drawing from the old British party system) and often times allow themselves to be conscientiously defined as such or ideologically determined this way. People on the "right" tend to be more religious, and support more autonomy and less interference. People on the left tend to be more agnostic or atheistic and support more governmental interference. These stereotypes become so ingrained in people's minds that many Protestant Christians will be shocked to find Democratic Christians while anti-war protestors might be surprised to find in their midst registered Republicans. This is the problem of our system--we tend to polarize values and expect that people cannot be strongly in favor of one thing or another.
The very greatest problem with this is that our two political parties are full of blatant contradicting values. For example, Democrats tend to be against war and the death penalty, but are more likely to favor more relaxed abortion policies and even allow assisted suicide or euthanasia. Similarly, Republicans tend to be against increased taxation, but also tend to support military efforts which cost the nation billions, even trillions of dollars. This problem for the simple reason that political parties are comprised of politicians, each of whom has his own political agenda. The agenda upon which they agree is the basis for their party, but the remaining agenda on which they do not, they must compromise upon for the sake of party unity. Thus, though Catholicism's strong pro-life ethic had been a part of the Democratic Party's platform for many years, after Roe vs Wade Democratic politicians tended to favor looser abortion policies and Catholics, as a result, began to switch party allegiances. Because of many political decisions and compromises, neither political party represents a solid or coherent ethic.
Take, for example, Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political stance closest to Nietzsche's philosophy. The main idea of libertarianism is "live and let live." In other words, Libertarians favor small government (or no government), and laissez faire economics, similar to Republicans. However, Libertarians also tend to oppose war and religion in political situations, similar to Democrats. Their stance draws from values in both parties, but is entirely consistent, unlike either the Republicans or Democrats. Similarly, Cardinal Bernardin, former archbishop of Chicago, proposed a theology many Catholics today embrace called "the Seamless Garment" or "The consistent Ethic of Life." The main focus of this ethic is that life is sacred and thus anything that attacks it, be it abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, or war, is evil. This stance draws from both political parties but is entirely outside of them and is, as the name suggests, entirely consistent.
Whether or not one agrees with the Seamless Garment or the Libertarian ideology, what is impressive is their consistency. Unlike the two parties which we follow now, which are riddled with contradictions. The critical observer will realize the incongruencies within the parties. Those with strong convictions will ally themselves with and vote for whichever politician best represents their beliefs while those with less conviction will ally themselves wholeheartedly with a party. Often times, however, we confuse our own beliefs and ethics with those of political systems. This is the case not simply with political parties but even with political bodies.
Consider for example, if I ask the question, "Is America good?" The patriotic reading this will answer wholeheartedly "Yes!" The subversive reading this will answer with just as much gusto, "No!" If I ask the follow-up question, "Why?" however, the answers will be more muddled. The first camp will say things like "Because we have freedom," while the second camp will answer "Because we're doing X (keeping out immigrants, going to war, taxing the poor, denying gay marriage, or whatever hot-button issue one wants to use)." I could ask further follow-up questions, but I think the solution lies in something more basic. Those who think America is good do so because America is a very powerful nation, one in which any person (theoretically, though not practically speaking) can rise through the ranks of society and even become the leader. Those who think America is not good do so because with the power America possesses, there ought to be more efforts to create more good in the world.
However, America is not necessarily "good" or "evil." Just now I labeled the US as "powerful," but power can be used in various ways. For most American citizens, life here is better than it would be in any other nation. For many other nations, America is not doing enough globally. However, even in the midst of all this, America itself is not a moral agent. The citizens of the country are. "America's policies" cannot be defined as all necessarily right or wrong. In other words, the United States is a conglomeration of compromising political figures, each of whom influences the nation in either a positive or a negative fashion. The US itself is not a moral authority nor a moral actor.
We often historically forget this fact. World War I erupted as a result of strong nationalistic feelings in Europe. The aftermath of both World Wars resulted in the nation of Germany twice being punished as if a moral agent, first by essentially bankrupting the country and second by dividing it. Similarly, when Muslim extremists attacked a few prominent American buildings, the nation went to war against the entire nation of Afghanistan. Since the rise of the nation state, "national values" have often been confused with ethical systems. I have mentioned before that positive law is not identical or necessarily based on ethical norms, but I think that it bears repeating. The policy of a nation cannot be confused with what is good.
Because of this, we are unlikely to see recognize the good when the good is presented to us. Jesus was killed by his own people. Martin Luther King, Jr was shot by an American. Dorothy Day was disliked by many Catholics. Harvey Milk was killed for his efforts to further gay rights. We tend to only be able to see goodness in the mirror. The same is true for evil. We recognize now that Hitler was evil, though we did not stop him before 1944. The United States and the Soviet Union built up massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons before anyone protested. We were in Vietnam for nearly ten years before pressure from both within and without convinced congress to stop. The point is, we are not always good at recognizing what is good and what is evil when it happens, though we are always good about seeing it later.
Thus, it seems to me that within our nations policies and cultural norms, we often ignore what is good and embrace what is evil.
Rather than seeking to follow party lines or obey orders, we should be willing to evaluate our decisions and our judgment calls based on the question, "How will this support the good?" Things that encourage life are good. Things that bring about justice are good. Things that encourage people to serve others are good. Things that increase oppression or poverty are bad. Things that prevent education or increase ignorance are bad. Things that cause harm or illness or increase the risk of such things are bad.
The world may not be "black and white," but individual actions can be evaluated as such, and personal action ought to be determined more on this criteria than on anything else.

The Question of Authority Pt 2

In the previous post, I described the overall phenomenon of authority as well as the specific context of academic or scholastic authority. In this post, I would like to examine political authority as well as ecclesial (Church) authority--specifically wherein the authority lies, who acknowledges this authority, what is good or bad about it and how we ought to be aware of these things.
The state has been the subject of much philosophical thought and writing. Philosophers from as far back as Plato to even contemporary political scientists and philosophers have taken up the task of understanding political authority. Most college students are familiar with, even if they haven't read, works such as The Republic, Leviathan, Treatise on Government, The Communist Manifesto, etc. Nearly every "Civics" student has read the Declaration of Independence as well as the US Constitution and probably the Magna Carter as well. It would be pointless and futile to attempt to discuss what all of these documents state, but let it suffice that they all treat of proper governance.
All history (written history) speaks of the existence of political powers. However, what is not made clear by much history is how or why political entities exist. What is much more clear, based on histories about wars or revolutions, is that governments are subject to overthrow or replacement if occasion arises and necessitates. Such occasions are usually a matter of unjust governing, though sometimes they are mere facts of more powerful entities entering into conflict with the powers that be.
Suffice it to say, then that no single government, as history has shown us, has been unimpeachable. The revolutions in France throughout the nineteenth century as well as the rise and fall of Communism in Russia in the twentieth are two recent examples of this fact. Our own nation seems stable and solid. It is, however, important to realize first that the United States is only 235 years old (give or take) and that if there is anything to be learned by assassinations, political protests and riots, it is that we do not live in a utopia. Granted, we are not undergoing political unrest like Egypt is currently, but that is no indication of the permanence of the relative peace we have.
It should be acknowledged, then, that political authority is arbitrary authority. The fact of it is that the people ruled by the powers that be accept it as authoritative. As previously mentioned, from time to time the people reject the forces in power. When this takes place on a large enough scale, revolution is the general course of action. Political authority, then, lies, in a certain way, in the complacency of the people.
However, in the United States, unlike many other nations, national identity is of chiefest importance. The notion of "being American" is one of the most widely touted virtues of our society. The War in Iraq was a highly controversial military campaign in which anti-partiotism was a chief charge used against those who would not support the invasion. Similarly, radio, TV, and billboard ads suggest that we ought to vote, join the military, pay our taxes and do other things that connect us with the state. We don't always realize it, but this subtle psychological manipulation shapes our attitudes and our dispositions. Being "un-American" is almost the worst thing a person can be in our society. The question we ought to ask, however, is why that is the case and what exactly it means to be such.
There is also a bit of intimidation in practice. Normally when we think of political intimidation we think of tyrannical "democracies" (such as the political structure in Iran) or fascist regimes.We should also think of any case of police or military brutality. Even without the brutality, is it not true that we often obey certain laws, not because we believe they're correct or just, but merely because we fear the consequences?
The effect of the state as authoritative can be seen most clearly in American culture. As I said above, patriotism is, perhaps, the highest virtue in American popular consciousness. Because of this, certain positions taken by the state or actions done by state agencies can be justified in the name of patriotism. The "Patriot Act," for example, is an instance in which Americans allowed their privacy and freedom to be restricted in exchange for a sense (note: no guarantee) of safety. Similarly, at US airports, passengers trade their sense of decency and privacy for an imagined peace of mind. True, there are some protests, but the voices are nearly muted.
Additionally, any skilled rhetorician can appeal to patriotism with the vigor of Cicero and use it to bolster his case, however unsound or irrational it may be. Take Glenn Beck, for example. This talk show host never attempts to provide real evidence or logical arguments for his positions, yet he constantly attacks "left-wing nutjobs" as being inherently anti-American (and often with the implication that some dramatic course of action ought to be taken against the targets of his rage).
Furthermore, we can lose sight of our other virtues or values if we attend to closely to our allegiance to political authorities. Take, for example, the Cold War, wherein the entire American psyche was focused on building more armaments than our supposed enemy, the Soviet Union. How many people questioned the fact that the US and the USSR were enemies? What was the ground for the dispute? Was an economic system really a viable excuse for threatening the debilitating and dehumanizing act of war? Finally, was there any viable excuse for building enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire world? Few were the voices of protest during this time, and often they were blacklisted or otherwise shunned. The rational mind SHOULD have realized that the political structures in place were a liability to not just Americans or Soviets, but to the entire human population.
The risks, then, of adhering too closely to political authority can range from a mere wrong order of virtues to the much more pernicious risk of global annihilation. Often a voice of dissent is in order. John Locke, one of the foremost thinkers on political theory suggested that should a government become a liability to the people, the people are obligated to overthrow it. On the other hand, for the time being, many governments help bring peace and order to certain regions. It is important to remember, however, as I have stated in previous posts, that anarchy itself is not necessarily an evil, though chaos, some of which exists within, and sometimes because of, political structures, is.
Much of what has been said about political authority is applicable to ecclesial authority. There are a few points to be observed, however. While history AND political theory agree that political power is subject to the agreement of the people, as far as ecclesial authority is concerned, history suggests it requires agreement while theology, canon law and ecclesiastical documents suggest otherwise.
Ecclesial authorities claim that their authority is divinely imbued. Religious figures, such as popes, prophets, caliphs, archbishops, high priests and dalai lamas all claim a privileged authoritative role granted by supernatural powers. The extent to which people follow a specific religion or at least adhere to the religious leaders of their faith shows how much they believe their specific ecclesial authorities have this divine call.
Ideally, a person will follow a specific faith because, after rational inquiry and investigation he finds that the faith provides for him whatever it is he feels he needs in his life. With his conversion, a person will also grant his religious leaders a certain amount of authority. One does not become Catholic if he thinks the pope has no credibility.
However, more often than not, people are born into a specific faith, and, because of their upbringing and the amount of indoctrination they experience, the authority of religious leaders will be a result of psychological manipulation. The unquestioning Catholic, for example, who thinks every word from the pope's mouth is the word of God, is a product of this psychological manipulation. Fortunately, many religions are increasingly emphasizing informed dissent and genuine investigation of authoritative positions. Thus, Catholics are encouraged to follow their conscience, even when it stands against official Church teaching, and are also advised to question any magisterial teaching. Unfortunately, some religions, such as Mormons and Evangelicals, believe that the leaders of the faith must be correct 100% of the time and to doubt their veracity is a grave sin.
Which leads to the use of intimidation in authoritative positions for religious leaders. While religions don't often use actual violence, especially in the last couple centuries, to reinforce authority, they do often use soteriological (salvation-oriented) intimidation. Points of faith that must be taken as undeniable or infallible for one's salvation illustrate the use of intimidation as a tool of retaining authority. The very notion that the pope can be infallible is enough to keep many Catholics from questioning magisterial teachings. No one wants to go to Hell. Some religious leaders, however, use the threat of Hell to give weight to their teachings or positions.
Of course, there are also many who are simply complacent in their faith. I've met many Jews who maintain their Jewish faith as part of their ethnic identity as well as a marker of who they personally feel that they are. Many Irish Catholics stay Catholic because of this, and many Utah Mormons also fit in this category. Family history and tradition can be a major influence on one's trust in one authority over another.
Religious authorities increasingly seek to promote rational thought and dialogue over unquestioned obedience. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II has encouraged questioning. The Dalai Lama has consistently promoted rational and informed decision making. Protestant churches, since the time of Martin Luther, have always questioned the notion of being unquestionably correct. There is nothing wrong with informed obedience. As followers of whatever faith we follow, it is our duty, as rational beings, to try to understand the tenets of our faith.
On the other hand, blind obedience can have detrimental effects. One has only to think of David Koresh, Jim Jones or the Heaven's Gate Cult to realize how blind obedience to religious authorities can have deadly effects, even today. Because of instances like this, or Imams encouraging their faithful to perform "suicide bombings," many have turned a skeptical eye towards religious authority in general, some even labeling it as wholly destructive.
It is important to understand that if we believe that God COULD have given authority to a certain person or institution, we also ought to believe that God endowed us with a spirit of discernment and rationality. If something seems to be counter-intuitive, it ought to be questioned. If something flat out rejects the precepts of reason, it ought to be rejected. If something seems right, it might be. Just like a political authority there are times when we ought to support the authority and follow it, and times when we need to realize the error of choosing such a path.

Civitas contra religionem

So many people laud the founding fathers' decision to establish a policy of separation of Church and state. But I have to ask: is this really the best thing for us?
A lot of the argument for the separation of Church and state lies in the fact that with a government tied with a church, there will be no freedom of religion. We have plenty of examples in the history of the world to draw from: England, Rome, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, etc. Some countries have failed to allow religious diversity, but not all. England no longer does. Israel and Lebanon have always allowed religious freedom. None of these countries are considered disasters (though, to be fair, none of them are really driven by the Church anymore).
So what does separation do for us here in the states? First and foremost, anybody can join whatever faith they'd like, for better or worse (viz Heaven's Gate, David Koresh and Jim Jones). Furthermore, politics supposedly isn't influenced by religions (like Hell it's not). But if politics is supposed to be fair, and representative, why is it that the most dominant Christian religion in America (the Catholic Church) has only ever had one of its members become president?
But what I really get upset about is this: American Christianity is so often influenced by the state. What does this mean? How many churches today in America are predominantly war-like? How many good Christians are afraid to protest what they think is unjust? How many Christians view the Beattitudes as a higher standard than political practice? How many consider the command to love one's neighbor more important than the constitution? How many people consider Jesus to be a more important political figure than George Washington?
The problem is that we live in a world affected by World War I nationalism that we have never overcome. Christians, in word, proclaim a life that is independent of the state. Jesus proclaimed "My kingdom is not of this world." The early Christians suffered at the hands of the state, often to imprisonment and even death.
Now, we live in Kierkegaard's Christendom. We don't actually need to be Christ-like in order to be Christians in our world. We go to war, we impose taxes on the poor and increase the wealth of the poor. We turn against our neighbor and engage in unvirtuous enterprises. Christianity in America is like a new Rome. We have lost our sense of Christianity for our sense of politics. We worship the God of the state, the God whose name is printed on our money, not the God of Christianity.