American Sharia
Fundamentalism is about unwavering attachment to irreducible beliefs. What is an irreducible belief? Whatever someone wants it to be to serve his purpose. And that purpose can be for the greater good or it can have a high coefficient of self-interest, usually cloaked in false righteousness. What would we define as American fundamentalism? Technically, it represents the views espoused by the Niagara Bible Conference in 1897 that tried desperately to build a wall around traditional family values that defined roles between men and women, parents and children and even man and God. It was all about countering the trend toward social liberalism that accompanied the heresy of Charles Darwin and his On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection. What an irony that the play about the famous Darwinian trial, the infamous “Monkey” trial, was called Inherit the Wind.
Reaping the whirlwind is what we see underway in slow motion. He that sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind. This was said of the Nazi bombing of London, of the advancement of slavery westward in the U.S. and most recently by one Mr. Brett Kavanaugh during his furious response to his confirmation antagonists. Whenever someone invokes the whirlwind, something big and bad seems about to be happening.
Natural selection was a fundamentalist Christian’s challenge to the omnipotence of God and the veracity of the Bible as God’s word. How funny that natural selection underlies the very concept these days of conservative doctrine. How else can one justify leaving the traveler (immigrant) at the gate and the fallen man (without health insurance) at the roadside? It is, dare I day, fundamental to conservative doctrine today that these people need to fend for themselves no matter what the Bible says about how we are supposed to care for them. We are not our brother’s keeper.
There is a distinct desire by liberals to hold back fascism at any cost as there is by conservatives to hold back liberalism at any cost. It is the history of mankind at work, but I wish I could understand the dichotomy better. Moderation is denigrated by both extremes despite its peaceful intentions. I want to distill the equation down once again to grace versus nature. There is little grace in conservatism. By the same notion, it is argued that liberalism is totally impractical.
It’s hard to argue against the concepts of universal healthcare or universal pre-K education, but then the topic turns to paying for it and everything breaks down. Separating families is hardly a strong case for family values. Letting people with pre-existing conditions but no wherewithal die horrible deaths when help is available, seems clearly un-Christian. But the incessant need for humans to feather their own nests and those of their families causes them to worry that paying for the troubles of others (through tax or charity) will lower their standards of living. There is some degree of reasonableness to that view, but when wealth accumulation vastly exceeds lifetime needs and gets into the domain of total or ultimate power and/or intergenerational or dynastic power and wealth, it is hard to justify in any religion.
Shakespeare declares through Portia that, “The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath.” She declares this in court against Shylock and his claim for practical recompense. Shakespeare repeatedly favors grace and mercy over nature, while accepting the inevitability of natural instinct and even natural selection. He seems to accept that this is an eternal struggle much like good versus evil.
Now we get down to America. There is simultaneously so much and so little to say. I fear that the forces of nature will be with mankind as long as he walks this earth. And yet, enlightenment is supposed to be man’s point of differentiation from beasts. I find it best to check enlightenment as a concept at the door, and focus, instead, on reason. Men are big believers in the power of reason and the ability to think critically. America is supposed to be unbound by the constraints of the old world where monarchy and dynastic wealth prevailed. America is supposed to be about free will and accomplishment. As I guy who managed a global private banking business, I can say unequivocally that happiness does not follow inherited wealth. I feel that enlightened wealthy people know that they are not helping their children lead happy lives by robbing them of achievement motivation. This is certainly a debatable subject, but all I am arguing is that some portion of that wealth is better spent insuring the stability of your world.
I have said many times that you cannot build your walls high enough to ignore the failing world around you. If the air and water are foul, if social unrest abounds, if insufficiency of others is literally at your doorstep every day, it’s much harder to be happy. We are raised to think tax minimization is shrewd and smart. That may be because we feel government wastes more than it successfully deploys. Or perhaps we feel others aren’t pulling their weight when they could. So what we need is a simple and transparent tax system that provides enough and distributes sufficiently efficiently to solve for the most significant problems and needs. Making it possible for people to know that others have paid their fair share would help our sense of justice. We cannot solve all societal ills or turn slackers into achievers, but we can take the edge off and level a lot of the playing field. That should be our goal.
I am a fundamentalist. I have unwavering attachment to irreducible beliefs. I believe in natural selection, but I also believe that the difference between my dog and me is important. My dog begs me for food even when his dish is full. He operates on natural instinct. I am capable of more. I can accept that I have an ability to earn more than I need and more than he can. I am also aware that my life is improved if my dog is happier despite his inability to provide for himself. If I help him I help myself. I don’t need my dog for any “economic” purpose, but his value is to my wife’s heart and therefore, to my soul. My soul is important to my happiness. I believe the analysis is that simple.
America needs to return to fundamental beliefs that go beyond self-interest. True self interest thinks more expansively about what is needed both short and long term and accepts that doing the right thing for all human beings (and perhaps animals and plants too) is, indeed, in our self-interest.