This past week, "What We're Fighting For: A Letter From America" was released. It was put out by the Institute of American Values, according to their website, "a private, nonpartisan organization devoted to contributing intellectually to the renewal of marriage and family life and the sources of competence, character, and citizenship." The letter was an attempt to explain why they believe the "war on terrorism" is not only necessary, but just.
The letter's writers say it attempts to speak for Americans as a whole. I can say with some certainty that it fails on many points. There is much in the letter with which I agree (and you can read the full text here), but several items jumped out at me as being a bit off.
In point of fact, nothing I'm about to comment upon really has anything to do with the justification of the "war on terrorism." But I do disagree with their assessment. In short, I have no problem with military retaliation against those who attacked us. But I don't consider the way we're doing it to be either proper or effective. Since this forum is about religious things, I'll focus on the religious content of the letter. And as you'll see, IAV provided a good bit of it.
The first indication I had that this letter would hold disagreeable things was found on the very first page of the letter, in which it is stated:
"We affirm five fundamental truths that pertain to all people without distinction:1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
2. The basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing.
3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life's purpose and ultimate ends.
4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person.
5. Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith."
In truth, I don't agree with any of these. Let's look at them in order:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Hm. Really? Obviously, this is idealistic but not realistic. The truth is that some human beings are not born free. Some are born into slavery. Happily, this isn't as common now as it once was. Equal in dignity? The American Heritage dictionary gives this definition of dignity: "the presence of poise and self-respect in one's deportment to a degree that inspires respect." So I suppose it's true that all beings are born with the same amount of dignity, which is none. Babies do not act with poise and self-respect. Certainly no infant I've ever met has acted in a way I would "respect." Frankly, using the term "dignity" in association with a newborn is silly beyond words. Equal in rights? Again, what sort of rights? Given rights? Obviously not true, since different countries afford different rights to minors. So, inherent rights? What rights would those be? The mythical "inalienable rights" Jefferson spoke of? I think not. The only rights any human beings have are the ones we are willing to make for ourselves. No one gives them to us, at birth or at any other time.
"The basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing." This one I can come closest to agreeing with. Certainly the role of government should be this. But how often is this government's primary mission? Never, from what I can see.
"Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life's purpose and ultimate ends." An assertion. I know plenty of people who haven't the desire to seek the truth about anything beyond whether they won last night's lottery drawing. This kind of grandiose claim sounds good, but how in the world would you go about backing it up with any evidence?
"Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person." What does freedom of conscience really mean? That we're free to make up our own minds about things? That's about the only sensible thing this list has said. But religious freedom is certainly not inviolable. This socially granted right is frequently violated in all parts of the world.
"Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith." This goes right along with something stated later in the letter: "We are united in our belief that invoking God's authority to kill or maim human beings is immoral and is contrary to faith in God. Many of us believe that we are under God's judgment. None of us believe that God ever instructs some of us to kill or conquer others of us." And these statements are ridiculous. No one who's given an honest reading of religious texts can agree with this. Some, including the Judeo-Christian Bible, show several instances where it is quite clearly indicated that killing in the name of God is exactly in keeping with the word of God, not a betrayal of faith whatsoever. The Old Testament is rife with examples of God ordering his followers to kill his/their enemies. So if God could tell people thousands of years ago to kill, why not now? (See The Good Book on this site.)
Another point with which I take issue is the statement, "universal moral truths… exist and are accessible to all people." Morality is not universal, therefore "moral truths" cannot be universal. Subjectivity is far more prevalent in morality than these sixty individuals seem willing to admit. (See Evil and Morality.)
The above statement was second in a list of four American values. The first was, "…all persons possess innate human dignity as a birthright, and that consequently each person must always be treated as an end rather than used as a means." The third was, "because our individual and collective access to truth is imperfect, most disagreements about values call for civility, openness to other views, and reasonable argument in pursuit of truth." And the fourth was, "freedom of conscience and freedom of religion." When referring to these statements, the paper states, "To us, what is most striking about these values is that they apply to all persons without distinction, and cannot be used to exclude anyone from recognition and respect based on the particularities of race, language, memory, or religion."
I beg to differ.
Yes, these values should "apply to all persons without distinction," but the sad fact is that they can and are used to exclude some on the basis of religion. For some reason that escapes me, many in our nation do not consider freedom of religion to include freedom from religion. But without freedom from religion, one cannot truly have freedom of religion. (See On Freedom of Religion.)
A few other points of contention:
The letter states, "Christian religious wars and Christian sectarian violence tore apart Europe for the better part of a century." Here, the writers grossly underestimate the extent of Christian violence over the ages. The Crusades alone lasted from Pope Urban's speech in 1095 to the crusade of Frederick II, which ended in 1229. That's over a century right there, and doesn't include what we refer to as the various Inquisitions, or the witch-hunts, which spanned a few more centuries. Christian mayhem has been virtually unending since its inception. (For a good overview, read The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe.)
The letter states, "Some of the signatories to this letter believe that human beings are by nature 'religious' in the sense that everyone, including those who do not believe in God and do not participate in organized religion, makes choices about what is important and reflects on ultimate values." This is simply offensive. These signatories appear to be among that group of people who simply can't abide the idea that some people have no religion. So they re-define "religion" in such a way as to include such things as making "choices about what is important." How convenient. If such a definition were accepted, it would be much easier to push for religion in government. If "everyone is religious," one doesn't have to be so concerned with offending non-believers. They're religious, too! Please. This is a horrid case of twisting definitions for a purpose. (See Is Atheism a Religion?.)
The letter states, "What will help to reduce religiously based mistrust, hatred, and violence in the 21st century? There are many important answers to this question, of course, but here, we hope, is one: Deepening and renewing our appreciation of religion by recognizing religious freedom as a fundamental right of all people in every nation." Gee, I don't know. If the recognition of "religious freedom" includes the aforementioned freedom from religion, then this might be okay. But the bit about "[d]eepening and renewing our appreciation of religion" seems to indicate that this isn't what they mean. (Support the Freedom From Religion Foundation.)
In conclusion, I must say that nothing I read from these folks surprised me. While the organization may be non-partisan, they are certainly not without their blatant biases. After all, this is an organization devoted to, as they put it, "the renewal of marriage." I won't go on my rant about marriage as an institution, but I will point out that when it comes right down to it, the only reasons for pushing for such a renewal are religious ones. Sociologically speaking, there's not a significant reason to do so. (Visit the Alternatives to Marriage Project.)
The Institute for American Values is a neo-conservative group, deeply pro-marriage, and anti-cohabitation of any sort, especially where children are involved. Unsurprisingly, they are against the idea of gay marriage, which betrays again their religious bigotry.
I don't know about anyone else, but I quite resent an organization like this one claiming to be speaking on my behalf.
