This question came to me when I was thinking about the Republican conception of freedom that I loosely outlined in the post below. What this conception (which guides our government's ethos of Liberty) states is that to be free, we need a non-dominating dominator, someone who can protect us without infringing on our freedoms. How is this possible? One answer is that a ruler can simply be benevolent and let the citizen have free rein like a horse whose rider lets it go wherever it may please, but the Republican conception of freedom regards the presence of an arbitrary will, irrespective of it being invoked, as infringing upon one's liberty. This train of thought comes from classical democracy where such a relationship was only thought of in slave-master terms, and he who has a master is never free just as the horse with free rein is in constant peril of being jerked back by the rider. So long story short, government by the people is a way to have each person rule themselves, in some form or another, to prevent an arbitrary dominating will from ruling.
Given this essential American value, how can a ("devout") American regard the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious premises as just or fair beliefs? I know that is a strange way to phrase the question, but having a god with an arbitrary will who may either control your life 100% of the time or may be like the rider letting the horse wander is submitting to a tyrannical regime. If your god is all-powerful, etc., then you are at the mercy of an arbitrary will and thus unfree. While the separation of church and state in this country may provoke many to not conflate their thoughts on government with those on religion (although it doesn't seem to deter some from applying religious beliefs to government) I find this apparent contradiction worth pressing. Maybe this is why our founding fathers were deists rather than Christians, since reconciling these beliefs doesn't seem to be an easy task.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment