Seminary News 
      

Editorial

Voting for Moral Values

By Dr. Ian S. Markham, Dean of Hartford Seminary

Published in Conversations in Religion and Theology (edited by Ian Markham, Dean of Hartford Seminary).  Produced in partnership between Hartford Seminary and Blackwell Publishing.  This editorial is appearing in the May 2005 issue of Conversations in Religion and Theology.

It was values that won it for Bush.  So it seems as the pundits analyze the data collected on polling day.  For those of us with an interest in the business of religion and values, it is important that we reflect on this very significant moment.  What exactly is going on?  Why are values associated with the Right and not the Left? 

It seems so easy for George W Bush.  He invokes the language of morality with ease.  In foreign and social policy, he is clear about his moral universe.  The word ‘evil’ is used to describe Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.  The word ‘good’ is used to describe the marriage of one man to one woman.  Bush knows his right from his wrong; he has his enemies and his friends.  There is no gray in the Bush moral universe.

Perhaps it is because the Right is so comfortable with ethical language that the Left is hesitant to use it.  Ethics is so often associated with clarity, while the Left want to admit more complexity and ambiguity.  For the Left, the Right’s resort to ethical categories is the way to evade reason and good arguments.  When the Right denounces homosexuality as ‘unnatural’, the Left suspects that this is a way of avoiding issues such as orientation and rights.  And then there is the question – whose morality?  Those on the Right who are most vocal are the conservative Evangelicals, while the Left wants to recognize that we live in an ecumenical and interfaith world.  As a result, the Left surrenders the language of morality to the Right.  We are silenced.  We dare not comment.

Now these labels are endlessly contested: so what do I mean by Left and Right?  By Left, I mean a commitment to the liberal values of dialogue and rationality.  This is coupled with an appropriate stress on community (we are not just individuals), which means that the State has a role in ensuring a just society.  By Right, I mean a mix of cultural conservatism and economic liberalism.  By cultural conservatism, I mean the commitments to maintain the traditional ‘America’ cultural values; by economic liberalism, I mean the encouragement of individuals to make as much money as they can and keep as much of that money as they can.

What would a Center-Left approach to values look like?  I don’t think it is helpful to insist that it must entail that one is pro-choice, pro-gay, and anti-Iraq.  It is better to think of a Center-Left approach to ethical debate rather than insisting on certain positions.  So for example, those on the Left are willing to consider all the main options.  We are not afraid to look at well-stated arguments for a variety of positions.  It also means that we are committed to certain fundamental post-Enlightenment ethical assumptions.  So we are not going to argue against racism and sexism; instead we believe that anyone who wants to be part of the ethical conversation should recognize that racism and sexism are basic evils.  It is a condition to be at the table to talk ethics; it is not on the agenda for discussion.  However, while this sounds like a restriction on the conversation, we also recognize that we live in a pluralist world.  The wisdom of non-Christian traditions and the insights of the secular humanist are needed at the table.   Even though America is predominantly Christian, we welcome the insights of other traditions.  This is the Center-Left approach to ethics; it explores the issues in a different way from the Right.

At this point, this contrast between Left and Right might be contested.  So let us spend the rest of this editorial looking at two ethical discussions that are clearly on the Right.  The first is Sean Hannity of Fox News; and the second is the discussion of the Homosexual Agenda by Sears and Osten.  In both we shall a very distinctive approach to ethics that contrasts markedly to the approach outlined above.

Hannity’s book LetFreedomRing: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism is described by the back cover as ‘a love letter to America’.  And as befits a love story, the cover has the classic slightly blurred picture (much like a wedding photo) of Sean Hannity set against the American Flag.  The cover and the endorsement on the back cover are already suggesting a key virtue of the approach of the Right.  For the Right, one starts with the love of country and a commitment to defending the values of that country.  So the book describes an interview with Bernie Ward (a radio talk-show host) who is asked repeatedly, ‘Is this the greatest, freest, best country God gave man, Bernie?’  When Ward finally announces that it is not, Hannity retorts, ‘This is what’s wrong with liberal America today.’[1]

Those of us on the Left would concur that patriotism is an appropriate and understandable feeling.  Almost everyone in the world has a bond with the place that they were born; the shared language, culture, and history create a connection of deep affection.  However, it is absurd for Hannity to insist that the patriotic bond entails the empirical claim that ‘America is the best country in the world’.  It is absurd for lots of reasons.  First, for most patriots, love of country does not depend on its status in the family of nations.  There was a time when America wasn’t the ‘greatest’ nation (defining it for the moment as ‘the most powerful’); and there may well be a time in the future when America isn’t the greatest nation.  But I trust that Hannity will still love America.  Second, these three terms  – greatest, freest, and best - are difficult.  One must ask with all three: in respect to what?  America is the greatest nation, in terms of power, baseball, and fast food; but America is not the greatest nation, in terms of historical sites, permitting long vacations for employees, and soccer.  And America isn’t the only country in the world with a free press and the freedom of speech; lots of other countries share these commitments.  And the third, and most important, reason why this is absurd is that many millions of people feel the same way about their own country.  It is because the Left understands the principle of universality (what is true for you in this situation is true for anyone else in an equivalent situation) that the Left worries about patriotism as a virtue. 

For Hannity, these considerations are irrelevant.  His patriotism is always right; and the patriotism that drives people in other countries is irrelevant.  In chapter two, Hannity explains why Americans must support the CIA.  So Hannity writes:

“Is it time to get rid of the CIA?” asked a post-9/11 story by Ted Gup in the left-wing magazine Mother Jones.  In the face of the death of heroes like Mike Spann, how do liberals have the gall to ask such questions?’[2]

Mike Spann, Hannity had already explained, was the CIA operative who became a field officer and died in Afghanistan during the prison riot where John Lindh was held captive.  So what is the argument here?  It seems to run like this:

1. Mike Spann served the CIA and died a tragic death in Afghanistan.
2. Therefore the CIA is beyond all criticism and must be supported by all Americans.

Now if Sean Hannity had done any logic in his liberal arts degree at College, he should know that this is a classic example of a non sequitur.  The fact that some people served the CIA honorably does not mean that there are not others who might not have been as honorable.  And the central criticism of the Left (which he does, to his credit, explain in his chapter) that the CIA is an organization born for the Cold War struggles against communism and, perhaps, is less well suited to the needs of the modern world is increasingly vindicated.  It is clear that 9-11 was partly caused by an intelligence collection (and dissemination) failure. 

But all of this is part of the approach of the Right.  One does not construct good arguments; instead one creates a cultural impression that appeals to the ‘heart’.  The book is a love letter.  It is written for Americans who feel the same way about America as he does.  It is a book that connects with the inner emotional and cultural life of the American.  The fact that its equivalent is being written in every nation in the world (calling on people to defend the ‘values’ of the homeland) is totally ignored.  And the fact that these books are inspiring much of the behavior that is opposed to America is also completely ignored.

Sometimes Hannity does provide ‘reasons’.  He gives, for example, three reasons why Liberals are hostile to the teaching of the Declaration of Independence in public schools.  He explains:

‘First, liberals absolutely abhor and militantly reject the Founders’ belief in absolute truth.  America’s Founders believed deeply in certain fundamental truths about life, liberty, and the nature of man.  In fact, they believed – they weren’t just inserting lofty-sounding but meaningless platitudes in the document – that such truths were “self-evident.”  By sharp contrast, the Left embraces moral relativism with an arrogant tenacity.  . . . Second, liberals flat-out reject the Founders’ belief that we were “created” and “endowed by our Creator” at all, much less with unalienable rights.  To teach children that we were “created equal” requires teaching them that we were created in the first place.  And teaching children that there is a Creator – an all-powerful, supernatural God – is abhorrent to the Left. . . . Third, and perhaps most prevalent, liberals condemn the Founders for preaching equality while refusing to end the hideous inhumanity of slavery.’[3]

Leaving aside the third, which Hannity concedes has some force, the first two are a classic example of the ‘Straw Man Fallacy’.   There are plenty of Left leaning liberals who are left leaning liberals because they believe in absolute truth and God, for example, the author of this editorial.  He creates an imaginary liberal (the straw man) because it is easier to attack.  However, it is true that Liberals are not afraid to face the challenge of relativism.  There is a legitimate argument that needs to be heard that points to the ethical diversity of the world and wonders whether there really are moral absolutes.  It is also true that the Left welcomes the perspective of those who are secular humanists.  There are plenty of people who provide a powerful, prophetic witness within the secular tradition.  Modern discoveries, such as religious toleration or feminism, have their roots in the European secular Enlightenment.  Even the separation of Church and State is a modern secular idea.  A Left approach to ethics is strongly hostile to the presumption that only Christians (or theists) have a monopoly on ethical wisdom.  It is good that Hannity wants his children to discover the ‘joy of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ’.[4]  However, other parents might want their children to grow up practicing Muslims or thoughtful secularists.  The Right dismisses such pluralism; the Left accepts it and welcomes it to the table.

The current hot topic is homosexuality.  Needless to say, Hannity is opposed to sex-education in schools, especially if it attempts to make ‘schools safe and hospitable for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered students and employees.’[5]  But this is nothing compared to our second example of the ethical approach of the Right. 

This is The Homosexual Agenda: exposing the principal threat to religious freedom today, by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.  The idea of the book is to expose the deliberate manipulation of the American people by the homosexual community.  This community is, claims the book, attempting to force Americans to consider homosexuality as a legitimate option instead of the ‘sin’ it really is.  The steps in this are carefully documented.  It started with gay groups becoming vocal and visible.  Then Hollywood started cooperating: ‘the breakthrough film for the homosexual agenda was Philadelphia (1993) starring Tom Hanks.  The makers of the film deliberately went out of their way to find the most likable actor possible… in order to push their agenda that AIDS was a civil rights rather than a public health issue and that homosexuals are victims of discrimination.’[6]  From gay movies, the homosexual agenda was imposed on schools.  Sears and Osten are deeply critical of a school that celebrates an eight-year old girl who is proud of her lesbian parents.[7]  The next problem area is the liberal tendency in some of the Churches to question the standard interpretation of Scripture.  Even the evangelical Tony Campolo is criticized.  Sears and Osten explain, ‘Like Lot in Genesis 19, they have chosen to associate themselves with the radical homosexual movement and have focused on love without repentance.’[8]  And now the radical homosexual agenda is challenging corporate America to introduce anti-discrimination laws and regulations.  For Sears and Osten, this is all part of a gay plot. 

Although the authors are careful to repeatedly warn against prejudice or abuse of homosexuality, this is a shrill and irrational book.  Homosexuals are no longer people, but a vast conspiracy that is threatening to undermine normal, healthy American life.  This is so typical of the Right.  We start with a prejudice (homosexuality is unnatural and sinful); then we identify a conspiracy (homosexuals are forcing America to turn a sin into a normal option); then we issue the call to arms (we must fight back).

In this respect Sears and Osten are the same as Hannity.  This ‘war mentality’ is a characteristic of the approach to ethics from the Right; it is the call to arms against liberals who are damaging the moral fiber of America.  So Hannity is equally apocalyptic about the ‘war’ against liberals.   

So instead of an apocalyptic tone, the Left worry more about good arguments than a shrill appeal to rhetoric or prejudice.  You can be on the Left and believe that abortion is problematic; you can be on the Left and believe that the traditional marriage is important.  The difference with the Right is that you are open to good arguments and willing to concede validity wherever you find it.

We need the advocates of the Center Left approach to contest the values territory.  We need to illustrate by our approach that we have good arguments for our positions.  We need to undermine the rhetoric of the Right and witness to a different way of approaching the complexity of the world.  Hopefully before the next Presidential election, those of us with an interest in Religious Social Ethics need to make this priority.  Never again should the Left be identified with relativism and ethical indifference.  We also believe in values; and we want to shape the values that dominate American society.

Ian Markham

 

Search our Site   Hartford Seminary Sites The Web

About Us | Admissions | Programs | Faculty | Alumni/ae | Giving | Library | Bookstore | For Students | Search | Site Map | Contact Us

Hartford Seminary  77 Sherman Street  Hartford, CT  06105   860-509-9500  info@hartsem.edu