E Pluribus Unum

This is a splendid little piece by John S. Tanner, Academic VP at BYU.  I was going to post the article then follow with some personal comments, but I think anything I have to say would simply detract from the message.  Link to the article here.

About a year ago, BYU held a campus-wide symposium on academic freedom. The conversation often circled back to the need to accommodate the competing but legitimate claims of unity and diversity. It occurred to me as I listened to the discussion that the issue belonged within an older and larger conversation about how to reconcile the “many” and the “one” in a healthy society. The Founders wrestled with this problem as they set out to form a more perfect union. They captured this perennial challenge in a now famous Latin aphorism: e pluribus unum, “out of many, one.”

This saying expressed the Founders’ aspiration to forge a new nation out of disparate colonies and a new people out of diverse cultures. E pluribus unum resonated with an America engaged in the task of nation building. It continues to resonate with Americans today because it speaks to our ongoing national project of fashioning pluralistic constituents into a cohesive commonwealth.

We used to imagine this national project through the metaphor of America as melting pot, an image that goes back at least to Letters from an American Farmer (1782) by John Hector St. John Crèvecoeur. Crèvecoeur envisioned our nation at its birth as a place where “individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man.”

Today the metaphor of America as melting pot has largely fallen out of favor. It is considered too hegemonic and implicitly violent. Nowadays we tend to reach for metaphors of assimilation that preserve and celebrate our diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural identities—gentle metaphors such as “salad bowl,” “mosaic,” “tapestry,” or “patchwork quilt.” Such metaphors, however, lack the teleology of e pluribus unum. Instead of anticipating progression from the many to the one, they anticipate the continuation of the many within the one. They celebrate diversity rather than unity. In this small matter of metaphors, we can thus discern a larger disagreement over what constitutes America’s proper national ideal: diversity or unity.

As I’ve thought about this question over the years, it has seemed to me that healthy, flourishing social institutions require a mix of both “pluribus” and “unum” as it were. People need room to express individual differences, talents, tastes, and identities. They also need a sense of common purpose, norms, values, and ideals.

This is true of nations and schools, communities and families. It is even true of the church, which consists of many members but one body: “We have many members in one body. … So we being many, are one body in Christ” (Rom 12:4-5). The very term “member” is metaphorical; it harks back to Paul’s extended analogy in 1 Corinthians 12 to the church as a single body comprising many members with a diversity of valuable gifts and necessary functions. Paul’s analogy constitutes a sort of scriptural version of e pluribus unum applied to the church.

BYU also accommodates both individual diversity and institutional unity. A few years ago, we crafted an “Enriched Environment” statement articulating our commitment to diversity and unity for the students we admit. The statement, which has been approved by the Board, reads in part:

"[T]he university seeks qualified students of various talents and backgrounds, including geographic, educational, cultural, ethnic, and racial, who relate together in such a manner that they are ‘no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God’ (Ephesians 2:19). It is the university’s judgment that providing educational opportunities for a mix of students who share gospel values and come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences is an important educational asset to BYU.”

Notice the conjunction of diversity and unity: “various talents” but all “qualified”; divergent “backgrounds” but all comfortably gathered in the same “household”; a “mix of students” but all sharing “gospel values.”

BYU unites individuals possessing both a rich diversity of gifts and a shared commitment to the common good. We gather individuals with different talents, tastes, disciplinary expertise, interests, life experiences, creative abilities, and so forth. We cannot flourish without such individual diversity. We need experts in Management, Mathematics, Microbiology, Music, and even Milton. At the same time, BYU unites diverse individuals in a community bound together by a common commitment to our institutional mission and, for most, by an even deeper commitment to covenants that unite us as disciples in our diverse disciplines. We cannot flourish without a sense of common purpose. This admixture of unity and diversity makes life at BYU wonderfully enlivening for me. We are many and we are one.

Am I a Glenn-Beck-ificator Too?

So I got in a debate with some libertarian-types who were bemoaning the state of our country.  "How did we get here?", they ask.  "If we could just pull the government out of everything then our creative abilities would be set free to solve everything and we would reach the state of libertarian nirvana!"  So I pitched my now fairly firm belief that this is IMPOSSIBLE unless we start rebuilding the family and other institutions to take care of the social welfare needs of society.  Something has to take its place!  I added a bit about my view that social liberalism and its views on sexuality (I think I called it sexual anarchy in the debate) are incompatible with a free society.  Social liberalism participates in the destruction of families, churches and other institutions that HAVE to be strong if we ever hope to get off the government teat.  Here was Smitty's response:

SMITTY:You're a Fruit-Bat. What a bunch of Bunk. No wonder Mormons are persecuted... the sh** you're peddling doesn't square with reality.

You just invent non-sense to square with your non-sensical views. You just throw around terms; 'Leftist', 'Liberalism', 'Welfarism'... you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. This is the Glenn Beck-ification of American discourse. You just talk sh**.

Individualism is what the US is all about. Just because one is individualistic doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.. and sexual morality laid down by Mormons, would be a pretty comical, but deserving fate, for an America that would subscribe to your vacuous prattling.

Who are you, to be fit to determine what a 'norm' or a 'standard' would be?... You believe in 'fairy tales'... and follow a Religion invented by a two bit Con Man...

Anyone who brings 'sexual morality' and 'family values' into a conversation about the Constitution, is clearly a Dogmatic Bunko Salesman.

The Pea-Brains that are proliferating at an alarming rate...who follow to the nit-wittery that you subscribe to, are the primary reason the United States is becoming a laughing stock.


SAM: Pretty good for an ad hominem attack Smitty but you didn't even address anything I talked about, and I don't even think you tried to understand what I am saying.

In his initial post Occam despaired the loss of the constitution due to the fact that the government is doing too much for us now. A HUGE chunk of that is related to social welfare expenses. I see a direct connection between the breakdown of institutions such as the family, the church, community institutions and the rise of the government to fill those roles. Maybe that is a stretch...it seems pretty obvious to me. Anyone who wants to advocate a decline in government expenditure on welfare, but not propose anything to fill the void is kidding themselves. I'm proposing some things that are necessary to fill the void.

I'm all for an 'individualistic' society. Fine. But there are social welfare needs that can only be addressed collectively. We either choose to come together as individuals, or we let the government take over those social welfare needs. And when we give the government control over greater and greater pieces of the national wealth we shouldn't be surprised when they do things we don't agree with.


SMITTY: You post bunk.. I throw To-Mah-Toes... there are no rules.

There's no sense in debating your assertions. You put forth no evidence or logic... you simply make sh** up and present it as fact.

Like everything you post.. it's circular logic.. you believe things.. and you speciously substitute your beliefs, for something that could be debated.

Your POV is not an argument... you offer no facts to be debated.

This is the state of American discourse... people pull stuff out of the a** and run with it, as if it is something for debate... or as if they are seeking some sort of 'understanding'...

Basically, ideologues push their Dogma.. until you the shoot them. would I bother to have a debate with Mohammed Atta? Osama Bin Laden? Pat Robertson? Marshal Applewhite? No. There's no point in debating dogma or faith or non-sense...

You would just keep presenting more bunk.. and more dogma.. and more of your self acclaimed assertions, as being some sort of evidence... it would be pointless.

You get the point.  The more I thought about it though, he's kinda right.  I do just make assertions.  Most of my assertions are extensions of my gospel testimony.  They aren't open to refutation.  Now do not misunderstand me...there is nothing wrong with bearing a testimony or even advocating political postitions based on spiritual testimony of truth.  But, as Elder Oaks reminded us in his speech at BYU Idaho last fall,

"...religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

Smitty's criticisms of my argument actually reminded me of the criticism that the BYU professors (cited in an earlier post) made about Glenn Beck:

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."
I find in [Beck] a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

 So I suppose I am a bit of a Glenn-Beck-ificator...no apologies but definitely a wake up call to do better!

The Dumb Conservative

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."    - John Stuart Mill

That statement made in the 19th century rings (alas) somewhat true in our ears today.  My thoughts today are inspired by a variety of recent events:  Sarah Palin's performance at the Tea Party Convention, , a Deseret News article dated 12/4/09 about Glenn Beck (link here), and Jon Stewart's interview of Newt Gingrich (link here).

Let's start with Sarah Palin.  I do not know a lot about her.  I have listened to a speech or two, heard some soundbites, and watched a couple of interviews.  The truth is she has not caught my interest.  Can someone please help me understand the fascination??  She has that kind of down-home, hot mom next door (sort of) thing going, but I really do not get it.  She strikes me as, well, not that smart.  Or better said, she strikes me as someone with a native intelligence, but who has never taken the time to read books.  Maybe ill-informed is a better descriptor.  And even when she does speak on an issue it all seems a bit rehearsed, like someone told her what to say.  Or to put it another way, I sense that I have a better grasp on history and the current issues than Sarah Palin does.  That may or may not be true, but nevertheless I feel that way when I listen to her.  And to me, that is a problem. 

If Sarah Palin is the next great hope of the Republican party, conservatives are in trouble.  To me she is the embodiment of the anti-intellectual thread that runs through the conservative movement.  In the previously referenced Deseret News article, several BYU professors address this issue as it relates to the wild popularity of Glenn Beck (not coincidentally, Beck is a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin).  Here is the most relevant piece of the article:

The discussion organized by BYU's Tocqueville Project included three BYU professors and Paul Skousen, the son of the late, prolific political writer who was formerly best known for his best-selling book "The Naked Communist."

However, Skousen has gained renewed interest since Fox News pundit Beck began touting Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Principles of Freedom 101."

"It's easy for me to see why (Beck) would have picked up on Cleon Skousen's book and found it inspiring," Davis said. "It fit in with his own performance."

And that's a lot of what Beck does — perform, the professors said.

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."

Hancock said he agrees with some points made by Beck and Skousen but overall finds their arguments lacking in substance and scholarly research.

"I find in both a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

Hancock told students that if they are serious about conservatism, they, and he, need to "study diligently to increase our confidence that our intense feelings are common sense … and can be rationally articulated."

"(There are many) superior alternatives to the kind of proof-texting, quote-listing approach that too many LDS stop with," Hancock said. "I wish (Skousen's books) would point a little more beyond themselves to this literature that is more substantial and sound and teaches us how to do battle with a certain intellectual mainstream in a more substantial and coherent way."   (a list of recommended reading is provided in the article)

I think this is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks had in mind when he spoke at BYU Idaho last fall on the topic of religious freedom.  He said:

"The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

So with all of these thoughts running through my head, I watched an interview that Jon Stewart did with Newt Gingrich a few days ago.  Newt is a guy that is clearly informed, very articulate, and a passionate conservative.  I do not know much about his stands on particular issues, but I certainly do not feel like I know more than him.  And for me that is a starting point.  And when conservatives are looking for the next leader of the free world, is asking for the whole package really all that unreasonable?  Newt for president in 2012?  Hmm....

Law and Morality

After finishing my last post, the voice of Robert P. George was ringing in my ears.  If you have read any of my previous posts about marriage, you know what a fan I am of Professor George.  He has made headlines recently as one of the authors of the "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience" (link here), and as the subject of a piece in the New York Times Magazine December 20th entitled "Robert P. George, the Conservative-Christian Big Thinker" (link to article here).  Professor George is a tenured professor at Princeton where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties, and the philosophy of law.

In my last post I castigated racial-discrimination laws because they violate private property rights.  I was not arguing that racial discrimination is okay.  I was arguing that government should not regulate this because it is a matter of moral interpretation and not the place of the government.  Here's a clip from a talk that Professor George gave to BYU students in 2008 (link to speech here) where he comments on this topic of law and morality (italics added):

 "It is a profound mistake to suppose that  the principle of limited government is rooted in the denial of moral truth, or a putative requirement for governments to refrain from acting on the basis of judgments about moral truths.  For our commitment to limited government is itself the fruit of moral conviction.  It is a moral belief.  It is not a belief founded on the idea that nobody can know the moral truth.  Quite the opposite.  It is an assertion of something held out to be 'the moral truth.'  This conviction is ultimately founded upon truths that our nation's founders claimed as self-evident, namely: that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  At the foundation is the proposition that each human being, every member of the human family, possesses a profound, inherent, and equal dignity simply by virtue of his nature as a rational creature. 

Now to speak of truth frightens some people today.  In the type of University environments that I usually spend my time people get very nervous when you talk about 'the truth'.  They evidently believe that people who claim to know the truth about anything, and especially about moral matters, are fundamentalists and potential totalitarians.  But as my friend, Professor (??), has patiently explained, those on the other side of the great moral debates make truth claims all the time.  They assert their positions with no less confidence and no more doubt than one finds in pro-lifers or defenders of conjugal marriage.  They proclaim for example, not as some mere matter of abstract opinion, but as something true, that women have a fundamental right even to elective abortion.  They maintain, with all the conviction you can have when speaking something you believe to be true, that love makes a family.  The question then, is not whether there are truths about such things as the morality of elective abortion and the nature of marriage.  The question in each case is, "What is the truth?""

So regarding my stance on private property rights, I think Professor George would ask me this: Why should the government respect property rights?  I would answer that it is wrong for the government, or anyone else to tell me what to do with my property.  In other words, I would be asking the law to recognize my moral right to my property.  Since we have established that I am okay with the law enforcing this particular moral truth, why am I opposed to the law enforcing another moral truth? Namely, the truth that all men are created equal, regardless of their race, and deserve equal treatment as such.  Even on someone's private property.

Darn this Professor George and his superior intellect.  So now I ask myself these questions:  Are there certain moral truths that the government should enforce, and others that it should not?  If so, how does a society determine which moral categories are fair game for legal enforcement?  And beyond that, what happens when laws enforcing morality come in conflict with each other (i.e. private property rights vs. right to not be discriminated against)?  I think a strict libertarian would answer that since the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, the government can only enforce morals on the citizenry that an individual, in the absence of government, could enforce on his neighbor.  In other words, people can only lend to the government powers that they themselves possess.

For example, we all recognize stealing as wrong.  If my neighbor steals one of my cars, I have the right to force my neighbor to give it back to me.  Since I posess this power, I can empower my agent, the government, to take the car back for me.  Now think of a racial discrimination example:  What if I observe that my neighbor never lets black people on his property.  Do I have the right to force him to let black people on his property?  It does not seem so.  Therefore I do not have the right to empower my agent, the government, to force my neighbor to allow black people on his property.

It is for this reason that libertarians limit the powers of government to the defense of life, liberty, and property.  It all seems quite reasonable until you start reading where this logic takes you by hard core libertarians.  A few years ago I was listening to a libertarian podcast entitled Free Talk Live.  The host of the show was defending abortion, and even infanticide if I remember right, on the grounds that an embryo, or small baby is not yet a rational creature with the capability of defending its rights.  Therefore, an infant cannot logically empower its agent, the state, to defend its rights.  Therefore the infant is not guaranteed protection under the law.  Or something like that.  Like I said, it gets pretty bizarre.

I think Professor George would argue that the libertarian view is nonsense.  He would agree with President Obama that, "our law is, by definition, a codification of morality. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." (link to Obama speech here) In his talk to the students at BYU, Professor George says this:

"We must not adopt a merely pragmatic understanding, or speak only of practical considerations, in addressing the pressing, morally charged issues of our day.  Sound positions cannot be effectively advanced by citizens and statesmen who are unwilling, or unable, to engage moral arguments.  That is why we should, in my opinion, rededicate ourselves to understanding and making the moral argument for, for example, the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, and the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman. 

Our task, as I see it, should be to understand the moral truth, and speak it.  In season, and out.  Speak it lovingly, speak it civilly.  Engage those with whom one disagrees in civil discourse, open to hearing counterarguments.  Open to hearing the other side's point of view.  Yes, speak it lovingly, speak it civily, but speak it firmly, and vigorously.  Because so much is at stake."

Elsewhere, Professor George has written (article link here):

"Christians and other believers are right to defend their positions on key moral issues as rationally superior to the alternatives proposed by those who have abandoned traditional moral principles.  Opponents of these traditional principles can be shown to be stuck.  Not because they have been beaten over the head with the bible, but on the plain where they have made the argument: the plain of rationality."

I am not certain which moral categories are, and are not, fair game for legal regulation.  I do know that law will inevitably represent a 'codification' of public morality.  Since it is impossible to keep the law out of the moral sphere, it is imperative that we strive to ensure that the law embodies the moral truth.  It is imperative that we are able to articulate the rational argument for traditional morality.  LDS scripture teaches us about an ancient civilization facing similar circumstances:

"For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."    Helaman 5:2

Laws become 'corrupted' when they embody a false morality.  We should rededicate ourselves to understanding the argument for traditional morals because, as Professor George stated, "so much is at stake."

A Defense of Traditional Marriage

When the leaders of my LDS faith came out in support of Prop 8 last summer, I initially questioned their involovement. I understand our theological position on marriage, but my libertarian leanings led me to the conclusion that the best solution to the marriage question politically might be to get the government out of the business of regulating it entirely. Make it a private matter, like a baptism or bar mitzvah. I continued to think that way through the election. Earlier this year I came across a talk given by Robert P. George from Princeton University at BYU last fall (link to the speech: here )  The talk is entitled On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government. In this speech he touches briefly on what I have since learned are his major themes: the proper role of government, defense of marriage, defense of life, and a warning against the dangers of judicial activism. This is one of those rare speeches that has given me reason to completely rethink my political footings. Particularly my beliefs about the proper role of government and how that relates to the marriage question

The strict libertarian position holds that the government's role ought to be limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. Any departure from this role represents an unjust usurpation of the rights and liberties of the people. When it comes to issues like marriage, they would say that this is a private matter and the government should stay out. I recall listening to Ron Paul address a group once. He was advocating the abolition of certain Federal agencies like the Department of Education and Health and Welfare I think. Some of the listeners were asking him who would take care of those responsibilities if the government stepped out. He told them these were responsibilities of the family. Later I learned that Ron Paul was against the idea of a constitutional ammendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. I was troubled by the idea that a strict libertarian like Ron Paul could assign responsibility to the family, but deny the government the ability to support the family through the defense of marriage. And yet I found it hard to argue with him.

Then I listened to Professor George. What the libertarian position misses, he argues, is the subsidiary, but just as critical, role that the government plays in promoting what he calls a 'healthy moral culture'. This includes promoting and defending, through incorporation into the legal structure (not necessarily financially supporting) those institutions that shoulder the primary responsibilities of educating, nurturing, and caring for the members of a society. These insitutions include churches, the family, and other civic and charitable organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

Why is this subsidiary role so crucial you might ask? Well, as our founding fathers rightly saw, the key to a free society lies in keeping government limited. For government to remain limited to its primary role of defending life, liberty and property, the citizenry must take care of their primary roles of educating, nurturing, and caring for each other. As the institutions that fill these needs break down, the result is predictable: demand for government grows. When families and churches break down, there are still children that need to be fed, educated, and nurtured. There are mothers, expecially in many of our inner cities, that cannot afford, or emotionally manage the responsibilities. There are still poor people that can't take care of themselves. These unfortunate souls become fodder for eager politicians who seize the opportunity to win votes by promising them that the government will take care of their problems. So government grows, and our liberty is threatened.

So why is it important that the government continue to support traditional marriage? Because our liberty depends on the formation of strong families. The family is founded on marriage. The debate on gay marriage is really just the final act in the destruction of the traditional family that started in the 1960's with the divorce culture. Rather than continuing the madness, its time we reinforce the institution of marriage and restore it to its proper place.