Across my social media feed come ex-evangelicals criticizing various aspects of their former churches, along with ex-Mormons, ex-scientologists, and atheists, all of whom make charges of hypocrisy, and of quoting or misquoting their Bibles. I see ordinary citizens calling out politicians for failing to follow the constitution, and politicians and pastors decrying the rise of Christian nationalism.
Among all the arguments about religion in politics, feigned and genuine victimhood, about which group’s ideology should prevail, do we really not know that love and respect for one another are basic moral principles, or that mercy, forgiveness, generosity, hospitality, and the empathic application of the “golden rule” are the most desirable?
It all puts me in mind of the development of our constitution, for which the signers came together to discuss in a deliberate way how people should treat one another, and they attempted to define the relationships among people, states, and the federal government.
So we don’t get distracted from my point, let’s set aside the ironies and inadequacies that the discussion only included men, that protection of the privilege of white male property owners was a prime consideration, that much of its democratic strength was copied or adapted from native peoples this government sought to destroy, and that many of its promises have yet to be fulfilled or have been subverted by a wealthy elite.
What I’d like to focus on here is the idea that moral principles were developed based on agreement – not on an individual’s authority, some divine right of kings, brute power, or reference to scriptures. The authority was in the agreement of those who would be subject to its provisions (again, tainted by their privilege).
This was a higher level of moral development than submission to authority or avoidance of punishment or promises of later reward.