Common Conviction

For this Holiday Season, on the eve of America’s “semi-quincentennial” year, a tracing of the relationship between religious belief and the Declaration’s founding creed feels appropriate.

On paper, the Declaration’s creed sees rights endowed by a “Creator,” but does not say “God.”  Nor does it name Christianity, nor any other religion.  Further, as we all know, the Constitution, that codification of creedal precepts for our nation’s state, bars establishment of any state church or prohibition of any other.  But, as we also know, religion is essential to our society and culture.  That Creator of the Declaration’s creed is denoted with a capital “C.”

The focus of the Declaration is on personal rights, for each to pursue their happiness, in freedom.  What we too often forget, perhaps a reflection of the 21^st Century’s politicized discourse, is that for many, maybe all in at least a subliminal way, ultimate pursuits come down to a high quest for truth, spiritual peace, ultimate joy, or some other deep yearning.  This is each person’s right to pursue by their own lights, unencumbered by king, priest, creditor, or any other worldly power.  

Indeed, according to scholar Joseph LoConte, John Locke actually conceived of the unalienable rights to support and enhance religion.  

For Locke, the ultimate objective of religious worship is the attainment of eternal life. His insight is to use this religious premise to support a political conclusion: that the only state worthy of political loyalty is one that permits every citizen to pursue this spiritual goal on his or her own terms.

Whatever anyone’s ultimate objectives in the post-modern world, their freedom to pursue it in their own terms lies at the heart of America’s founding purpose – Jefferson’s appropriation of Locke’s construct fits that exact aspiration, and defines the point of personal liberty, even today.

To be sure, we have a problem with religious pursuits that would enforce someone’s sectarian tenets on others against their will.  As LoConte cites Locke,

… the state must protect equally the rights of every person to pursue his religious obligations. “The sum of all we drive at,” [Locke] wrote, “is that every man enjoy the same rights that are granted to others.” Here are the defining doctrines of liberal democracy: government by consent of the governed, equal justice under the law, and the separation of church and state.

Many Americans see Islam as an enemy.  Most react to Islamist sects that claim Quranic sanction for political action, even violence, against transgressors of the sects’ favored tenets.  Here we need to be clear.  Any one of us will be offended if an ISIS or al Qaeda terrorist is targeting Christians or Jews.  We all oppose terrorist violence.  But the specific transgression against America’s creed resides in the threat to life and liberty, and the violation of others’ rights to pursue their lives by their own lights.  

Anyone, ISIS adept included, has a right to hold their beliefs, but no one has the right to suppress others’ rights.  Our national injunction against such violence, whether mounted for ISIS or any religious claim, is not for the sake of the targeted religion, but for our civic faith that all must be free for their pursuits.  The world has waged religious wars for millenniums as political contests.  We set religion above the political; America’s commitment is not to any institutional church but to every human’s right to live – and to worship – in their own personal inspiration.

This distinction highlights what is deeply revolutionary about America.  Our national identity rests on a principle, of the Declaration’s creed, not on inherited ties or ordained loyalties, including of blood, soil, confession, tongue, or traditional authority.  And the principle of individual rights means that “we,” this People of self-declared free persons, not only take over the political power of traditional rulers, but also the authority to make ourselves by our own choices.  Many of us do choose to follow established religions, but we choose freely, which makes our following personal; it also means we have a hand in our self-creation.  No national identity had ever been based on principle and choice before, and few are even today.  

As the world changes, as humanity reaches new findings about the nature of existence and as people devise unheard of new ways to affect each others’ consciousness, this identity of ours also gives us an ability to digest the disruptions.  If quantum theory contradicts scriptural tenets from a thousand years ago, we are not forced to choose between the two – I am not tied to old interpretations, unless I so choose.  Adaptation to modern discovery does not put my social and national identity at risk as and if I adapt.  I decide how to observe the faith that underlies the confessional language, in my American rights.  

In the context of today’s upheavals, again as LoConte has noted,

Consider the political landscape in places such as Hong Kong, China, North Korea, Russia, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Venezuela. In each case, Lockean ideas about human equality and self-government are being devoured by the Hobbesian Leviathan. In each case, the rule of law cannot be counted on to protect the rights of minorities and political dissenters. The result—as Locke predicted—is social unrest and revolution. When both sides are armed, the stage is set for civil war.

America’s identity is tied to rights, as a matter of principle.  The Declaration’s creed is not religious per se, but ensures our right to observe as we see fit, and divorces the profane stakes of vested interest and politics from our spiritual aspirations.  If we live by that identity, we promote individual freedom and discovery.  We also preserve civic peace and order.  As we mark a quarter millennium of nationhood in this identity, as we celebrate the holidays today, may we also celebrate this blessing.