October 6, 2002

• E Pluribus Unum Vs. Multicultural Reality

  
  

  From the inception of our nation, we embraced an uncomfortable notion, "out of many - one."  The American Experiment demands that each generation redefine the "one" into which we are United.  Early on, there was an understanding that the "one" was the worldview of Protestant Christianity.  Oh, yeah, we had that first amendment thing about Freedom of Religion, but no one involved understood that as a referent to anything other than freedom to choose your own denomination of Protestant Christianity. 
  
  Even as the Constitution was ratified, three of the original thirteen states had laws on the books disallowing Catholic Christians from holding public office, exercising the vote, and entering certain professions.  Several states aligned themselves officially with a particular denomination and the phrase "Congress shall make no law" was seen as endorsing the right of states to affirm their religious conviction and affiliation without Federal interference. 

  
  

  When Horace Mann toured New England in promotion of his "Common School" plan, he assured one and all that the schools would teach Christianity through daily reading of the Bible without note or commentary.  In Mann's opinion, this completely addressed any possible concerns various religious groups might raise.  In actual fact, it touched off the first of an unending series of public policy debates about the relationship between common culture and private conviction.

  
  

  200 years down the road the question remains to vex us and demand that we bring thoughtful consideration to the table of discussion.  How can we be "one" when we are so "many?"  What is it that unites us and can we be united without being unanimous in our worldview.  What commonality bonds the rural farmer to his urban counterpart?  What statute offers the fundmentalist and the atheist equal protection under the law?  What tax structure best protects one individual's right to property while also providing for the needs of those who are the poorest and least able to care for themselves and their families?  What lending policy will best accomplish the goal of helping developing nations without imposing American cultural values on those with differing conviction?  These are questions that every nation will face in some form or another through the 21st century. 

  
  

  Nowhere is the dilemma of public vs. private more emotionally charged than the arena of religious freedom, the subject of Norman Rockwell's fourth freedom painting.  I was thinking when I sat down here that I would be writing my ideas on religious freedom and ending last week's series. 

  
  

  Instead, my mind has been turning over the concepts of "public" vs. "private."  The word public refers to a people with common interests or characteristics.  How can we be a public when we are all so different?  Does cultural cohesion demand that the individual conscience be subsumed by the tyranny of the majority voice?  What if there is no majority voice?  Without a clear majority, and social scientists tell us that within the next 25 years there will be no single constituency (by which I'm referring to ethnic, racial, cultural, language, or religious groups) comprising a clear majority of the public, is the house doomed to fall apart?

  
  

  I hold it as self-evident that each individual has the right to decide religious conviction for himself.  But, the very tolerant sounding muliculturalism preached in the marketplace seems often to be a thin mask hiding an agenda to limit my religious freedom by insisting that I behave according to a standard, a worldview which I reject.  Maybe the first paragraph of my Religious Freedom essay is that I am learning to dissent.  I am a conscientious objector to the notion of cultural "tolerance" as the highest virtue.

  
  

  Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Fear, and Freedom from Want, these have played out in my life as a journey to the place where I own them for myself.  I have had to grow and understand the unspoken rules that have both helped and hindered me in my quest for authentic human experience.  When I consider Freedom of Religion, I move into a realm where more than any other, my convictions impact those around me.  Most of the people I meet could care less whether I have learned to meet my needs, to conquer want.  But, I talk daily with those who (rightly) have an intense interest in the truths I hold about the nature of reality, humanity, the material world, history, and ethics.  All these grow out of my religious convictions.

  
  

  It is no solution to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" standard in regard to religious ideas.  They come out in everything we do and say.  How then do we affirm religious freedom for one person without thereby delimiting the freedom of his neighbor?

  • 2:06 pm
  • 19 Comments