| 
by James
R. Birrell, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education, BYU
Standing
for right is not tyranny- it is compassion.
The revolution
of the 1960’s and 1970’s sought to establish a new relativist
framework for morality and reality in America- do your own thing.
This is the morality and reality of the self, i.e., each
man, group or culture individually determining the nature and purpose
of truth. In this view, truth exists as an individual and diverse
set of preferences and constructs, and not as a universally agreed
upon reality. The virtue of democracy, then, by this view is not
that it promotes absolute truth, but that it encourages individual
and diverse choice about truth. Put another way, relativism deifies
choice and difference; democracy is the guardian
of both. Freedom to choose is the virtue.
Here’s
a non-relativist look at choice. In the Book of Moses, Pearl
of Great Price, the Lord states his purpose in providing man--used
here in the biblical sense to describe man and woman, with agency
or the right to choose. The Lord said, “In the Garden of Eden,
gave I unto man his agency…and commanded that they should
choose me” (Moses 7: 32-33). In this reality, choice exists
that we might freely choose to become “agents” unto
God--to willingly present him to and fully represent him in the
unbelieving world. Lucifer would have denied us that right to freely
choose God. In the imposition of Satan’s totalitarian reign,
and the absence of choice, virtue would have escaped us. For choosing
God is an act of virtue that increases virtue in us and in the world.
Democracy, then, is a set of prerequisite principles that support
the conditions necessary to choose God and increase virtue in America-
in the world. Freedom to choose is the prerequisite to
virtue.
Both of these
views about the meaning and purpose of democracy are valid. Choice
is essential to freedom; but then, so is choosing virtue. Those
who lack virtue may enjoy the liberty afforded by law, but they
are not free in the truest sense. As Elder Scott reminded BYU students
in a devotional recently, those who make right- virtuous choices
will have the right to increased choices in the future. Those who
choose poorly, limit future choices. Virtue may well be the key
ingredient of true freedom.
Those who understand
human nature know that promoting unfettered freedom- apart from
virtue encourages irresponsibility and invites a host of attending
intended and unintended consequences. This is because human nature
is prone to err and at enmity with God (Mosiah 3:19). We see evidence
of this everywhere in America- in the world. Self-interest run amok
runs over the innocent, thereby creating victims who must bear the
consequences of the foolishness of others. Dr. Laura filled page
after page with examples of the ways, to borrow a phrase, the sins
of the parents are being answered upon the heads of the children
today in her book Stupid Things Parents do to Mess up their
Kids (2001); it is a sobering read.
Those who understand
human nature know that moral laws will more likely encourage moral
conduct than will relativist ideals- make your own rules. And they
know that moral conduct will usually not create victims, while pursing
relativist aims just might. An immoral society will always have
to protect itself from one another. Thus, less morality- among other
reasons, means more regulation and less freedom; 74,258 pages of
proposed and final rules and regulations were added to the Federal
Registry in 2000 alone (Twight, 2002) to further legislate our lives
for good or bad.
A democracy
that cannot produce morality and virtue cannot maintain freedom.
I heard a quote once that was attributed to the sociologist Emile
Durkheim. As I recall, he said, “When morals are sufficient,
law is unnecessary; when morals are insufficient, law is unenforceable.”
Only a people who want to be moral will freely choose to be moral,
and thus remain so. Otherwise, a reduction of morality will result
in a gradual restriction and elimination of freedoms and safety;
they simultaneously decline together. Our loss of freedoms since
9/11 is evidence of this truth, so are a host of other regulations
imposed upon us because of carelessness, greed, sin and such where
others have experienced loss, or to protect us from potential loss.
The Celestial Kingdom employs no police; we police our own conduct
as we truly embody virtue. Once embodied, we could not imagine being
otherwise.
In this segment,
I will argue the indisputable and indispensable relationship between
freedom and virtue. Together they flourish and thrive; apart they
may dwindle and die. And I will refute relativist explanations of
freedom- do your own thing. Unfettered freedom cannot guarantee
or sustain virtue no matter how well intentioned they are; any virtue
taken to extreme loses its virtue, argued Elder Boyd K. Packer (1996).
Since relativist societies always argue for the extreme, they eventually
lose the greater virtues while holding fast to the lesser ones,
and increasingly promote troublesome behaviors that result in new
forms of governmental regulation and assistance. Such societies
prove that demanding more choice is meaningless without increasing
virtue. As with the entertainment industry, choice without virtue
leaves us little worth choosing.
Freedom, Virtue and the American Founders
The rebellion
of the 1960’s and 1970’s left many Americans confused
about the reality of pure virtue and the meaning of true freedom.
Thankfully, that has not always been the case in America. Our Founders
were clear on the relationship between freedom and virtue; so, I
believe, were most Americans prior to 1960. We can be just as clear
today- and better activists in promoting virtue and truth. What
virtue comes from our silence on matters of virtue? In a letter
to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote that “without virtue,
there can be no political liberty.” He also wrote that the
principles that sustain our form of government “are easily
destroyed, as human nature is corrupted…. A government is
only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals. Private
and public virtue is the only foundation of Republics” (in
Federer, 2000). On July 4, 1821, John Quincy Adams said:
From the day
of the Declaration…they (the American people) were bound
by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel,
which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.
John Wingate
Thorton, in his book The Pulpit of the American Revolution,
1860, quoted John Quincy Adams as saying:
The highest
glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one
indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.
President John
Adams spoke to the U.S. military on October 11, 1798 and said:
We have no
government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge
or gallantry would break the strongest chords of our Constitution…[which]
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate
to the government of any other.
Earlier, on
June 21, 1776, John Adams wrote:
The only foundation
of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired
into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they
may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they
will not obtain a lasting liberty.
The religion
of Christ is, according to John Adams, “above all the religions
that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion
of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity” (July 26, 1796- the
above quotes and more are cited in Federer, 2000).
These quotes,
and I could note hundreds more, reflect the understandings and commitments
of our Founders- the greatest minds in matters of freedom and democracy
in these last days. The most enlightened among them knew, as do
we, that our God-given freedoms stem from our precious virtues;
preserving our virtues, then, maintains our precious liberties.
How could it be otherwise?
Relativism and the Decline of American Virtue and Freedom
Relativist thinkers
might resent arguments like I am about to make. When issues of morality
or virtue are raised, relativists are quick to respond- “whose
morality” or “whose virtue?” Or they might ask,
“Who are you to impose your morality on me?” Such arguments
will almost always favor the relativist. Christians, ever eager
to be tolerant of difference, may concede the point or abandon the
forum at the first sign of resistance (see Jim Nelson Black, 1994).
We do this at our own peril.
Here’s
an example of what I mean. Gather six people together and ask them
to grab hold of one of six strings tied to a rubber band. Have them
collaboratively pull on the strings to open the rubber band and
individually grasp the bottom of six upside down paper cups- one
cup at a time. Next, by pulling open the elastic with the string,
release each cup, stacking and forming them into the shape of a
pyramid - three cups at the base, two in the center and one at the
top. If all willingly cooperate, the task will likely be successful.
Then ask the
six individuals to list the attributes it took to successfully work
together. They will mention such qualities as cooperation, shared-vision,
communication, flexibility, accommodation, patience, and such. These
are the essential attributes of democracy that, when understood
and implemented, elevate our thinking above our differences and
allow us to work together in successful ways. It is highly unlikely
that you will hear participants refer to things like ethnic, cultural,
gender, sexual or political diversity, etc., while listing and discussing
the attributes of success. These are relativist attributes, in that
they can possess multiple meanings on earth; however, they may not
reflect eternal absolutes; only eternal absolutes are everlastingly
real and unchanging. These latter terms- so popular in cultural
arguments today are nonessential secondary attributes for success
in collaborative or democratic situations. Being Black, White, gay,
straight, American, Asian, male or female does not determine your
ability to work together- your character attitudes and skill attributes
do. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to get us to see
about race politics. A person is more than color or gender; our
common characters and values count more than our socially constructed
definitions of difference.
Now imagine,
gathering a second group of six individuals to complete the cup
activity. Five agree that a pyramid is triangular- three at the
base, two at the center, and one at the top. The sixth, a relativist,
believes that pyramids can be any shape or form; reality is only
a choice. “In America,” he proclaims, “we are
free to choose our own reality about pyramids. Arguing for absolutes
only offends our virtue of choice and diversity; this is un-American.”
The other five, believing that it is better to deny what they know
is true than to risk offending the minority member- or risk appearing
intolerant, consent to altering the nature of truth about pyramids
and allowing the minority member his way. After all, they reason
in a relativist fashion, who are we to impose our view of pyramids
on the world- ours is but one view, albeit the true one, they add
reassuringly. And they are reminded that America today is about
accommodation, not assimilation. To impose our reality would seem
superior- perhaps even intolerant tyranny; it may even be illegal.
Conditioned
to honor relativism- packaged as the celebration of diversity, the
majority silently allows reality to change. Like relativist pyramids,
traditional values begin take on new forms in society under the
guise of honoring other people’s right to make different choices.
Families reconfigure to validate the choices of others. Parental
roles diminish with new dimensions imposed upon society by so-called
diverse thinkers. What was once deviant sexuality is now merely
diverse sexuality- equality is freedom; freedom is the right to
choose for myself the shape of my world. In the chaos of arguing
the shape of pyramids, that which was historical and traditional
common sense now becomes controversial and judgmental to publicly
support, e.g., children need a mom and a dad. In the relativist
world of round pyramids, morals- and moralists are now square. And
so the five people who agreed to “tolerate” round pyramids
could not have known how the shape of everything would change once
the relativist camel was in the tent. Allowing the camel in did
not honor difference, it dishonored tradition; tradition was not
included in the diverse possibilities and explanations worthy of
celebrating. After all, celebrating diversity means celebrating
anything but historical tradition.
Like the parents
of the rebellious children of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s,
these five traditionalists could not have known how relativistic
ideals would alter society. In their tolerance for relativism, they
lost their children and order. They clearly knew the shape of things-
but their children are confused. Perhaps these individuals thought
that in time their children would see the truth about pyramids and
other things, i.e., that families require a legally married mom
and dad, sex is to occur after- not before or outside of marriage,
and such as they exemplified at home and fought to preserve through
wars. Alas, their children were taught in school to respect all
pyramids, because all pyramids are equally valid and valuable, as
are belief systems about family, sexuality, and such. And they were
scorned for thinking that pyramids were only triangular- this was
the mythology of the majority, designed- some allege, to oppress
those with alternative views about pyramids.
Today many in
the majority are reluctant to suggest that the greater purpose of
the American founding was to unite a diverse populace under a certain,
self-evident set of moral absolutes. Such would allegedly oppress
the modern day relativist who assumes the role of the modern day
founder- each one determining the meaning of America, and
deciding if- for example, they’ll say the pledge or support
the nation through war, and such. Each one is taught to question
what was once held dear by past Americans who knew what it meant
to be loyal Americans, as opposed to “useful idiots,”
a term Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin once called Western liberals
who knowingly or unknowingly helped his Communist cause (see Charen’s
new book, Useful Idiots: How Liberals got it wrong in the Cold War
and Still Blame America First, 2003).
When majorities
impose their collective wisdom on minorities, they are sometimes
accused of tyranny. How often does this really happen? The Book
of Mormon asserts that it is uncommon for the majority to support
wrong if they are living right (see Mosiah 29: 26). Accordingly,
not everything the majority stands in agreement on is wrong; it
is not oppressive to argue that pyramids are triangular. Standing
for right is not tyranny- it is compassion. Certain pathetic individuals
within a majority may tyrannize a minority member, but rarely do
entire majorities. Our American history is full of examples of the
sensibilities of the majority, beginning with the Civil War to-
among other things, end slavery. In a roundabout way, the goodness
of the majority was also evidenced in Roe v. Wade. The backers of
unfettered abortion did not appeal to the sensibilities of the majority.
They knew better. So they appealed to the courts to force a minority
opinion on the majority; this was the tyranny of the minority, and
we see it more and more in the corruption of our legal system (see
Catherine Crier, The Case Against Lawyers, 2002) and society.
In conclusion,
I have argued the illustration of pyramids to make a point. Relativism
does not increase freedom- it breeds chaos. Chaos invites regulation-
regulation always demands taxation. Regulation and taxation limit
freedom. As Christians, we must be far more diligent about standing
up to this relativist ideology in all its shades and shapes, and
not fall prey to the new rules of tolerance being forced upon us.
Too many of us, in our efforts to be fair and sensitive, may affirm
relativism in our thinking and actions. Being tolerant about the
wrong things will cost us our virtue- then our freedoms. I will
say more about this in my next article on the shifting nature of
tolerance in America.
References
Charen, Mona (2003). Useful Idiots: How liberals got it wrong in
the Cold War and still blame America first. Washington, D.C: Regnery
Publishing.
Crier, Catherine
(2002). The Case against Lawyers. New York: Broadway Books.
Durkheim, Emile
(1961). Moral Education. New York: The Free Press.
Federer, William
(2000). America’s God and country: Encyclopedia of Quotations.
St.Louis, MO: Amerisearch, Inc.
Nelson Black,
Jim (1994). When Nations Die. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Schlessinger,
Laura (2000). Stupid Things Parents do to mess up their Kids. New
York: Simon & Schuster. (a.k.a. Parenthood by Proxy).
Twight, Charlotte
(2002). Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the
lives of ordinary Americans. New York: St. Martins Press.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2002Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
