Too few words for America’s many faiths

BenjaminFranklinIn celebrating its 150th anniversary, The Atlantic invited writers and artists to discuss the future of the American idea. The results, while not entirely disheartening, leave the impression of a people largely ill at ease with their nation’s future and, in a few cases, openly contemptuous of the country’s elected leaders (or, in the words of Greil Marcus, “those who presume to rule the nation”).

The Atlantic asked writers to limit themselves to 300 words, and it ended up with exercises in tourism-bureau boosterism (Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona), self-promotion (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California), platitudes worthy of a high-school commencement address (the Rev. T.D. Jakes) and mau-mauing about America’s “niggerization” of the world (Cornel West, naturally).

When religion is mentioned at all, it is usually as a divisive force that must be controlled, as in this sentence by Napolitano: “This modern frontier also encompasses a sense of endless personal possibility, unconstrained by color, background, religion, caste, or any of the myriad labels we humans use to dehumanize each other.”

The most direct confrontation on religion occurs on page 44, in which Sam Harris delivers his astounding claim that four-fifths of Americans “believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers” and Tim LaHaye quickly shifts from the nation’s founding by God-fearing forefathers to the near-destruction of American ideals by — wait for it — godless public schools. The essays by Harris and LaHaye are equally facile in blaming a blob called they, shaped more by the authors’ ideological presumptions than by reality.

Some authors (Joyce Carol Oates, Edward O. Wilson, John Hope Franklin, Robert Pinksy) were so tiresome in their ax-grinding that by page 49 I was tempted to abandon the symposium in favor of an ad — “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” — that recently sent The Nation‘s Barbara Ehrenreich into a tizzy.

Eventually, though, two voices delivered rewarding words. One selection came from an online-only essay by Michael Novak, who struck the right balance on religion’s place in American history:

Ben Franklin proposed as the national motto “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” The Virginians defined liberty of conscience as a natural right. They based “the first secular nation” on Judeo-Christian premises about God and conscience — that is, acknowledging not the right of Americans alone, nor of Christians and Jews alone, but of all human beings, including “Mahometans, Hindoos,” and atheists.

The other came from Tom Wolfe, who defied the editors’ 300-word limit, but whose 2,100-word essay appeared anyway:

America remains, as it has been from the very beginning, the freest, most open country in the world, encouraging one and all to compete pell-mell for any great goal that exists and to try every sort of innovation, no matter how far-fetched it may seem, in order to achieve it. It is largely this open invitation to ambition that accounts for America’s military and economic supremacy and absolute dominance in science, medicine, technology, and every other intellectual pursuit that can be measured objectively. And it is absolute.

Yet from our college faculties and “public intellectuals” come the grimmest of warnings. The government has assumed Big Brother powers on the pretext of protecting us from Terror, and the dark night of fascism is descending upon America. As Orwell might have put it, only an idiot or an intellectual could actually believe that.

Print Friendly

  • Jerry

    The Atlantic survey of the future of the America idea is behind a web pay barrier so I can’t read it, at least online. From the review, I’m not missing anything.

    But, that aside, I read a book recently that I really liked that is in this realm. I don’t think I mentioned here before. In The Idea That Is America. the author discusses she feels are

    essential principles on which our nation was established: liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith.

    For example, her chapter on faith discusses not only the religious faith of the early settlers but also what she calls an Enlightenment humanism faith, to use the word faith in it more general sense. She approves of the fusion of the two and says:

    At its best, American faith fuses our religious traditions with our secular principles. The American faith that emerges is powerful, greater than the sum of its parts. It combines a spiritual connection to something larger than ourselves with a belief that our destiny rests in our own hands. It demands commitment to ideas so big and so challenging that we cannot see precisely how to realize them, so we suspend reason and proceed on faith…

    I think she’s right. We see every day how some want to exalt either religious or the humanistic sides of America rather than seeing how they fuse to create something special. That is documented in 10,000 news stories. What very rarely shows up in the media of all kinds, is a view that honors the role of both sides of America’s structure.

  • Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Too few words for America’s many faiths

  • http://www.msu.edu/~chasech5 Christopher W. Chase

    They based “the first secular nation” on Judeo-Christian premises about God and conscience — that is, acknowledging not the right of Americans alone, nor of Christians and Jews alone, but of all human beings, including “Mahometans, Hindoos,” and atheists.

    Really? I’m willing to hazard a guess that Maria Monk, Samuel Morse, Ursuline nuns, and many Roman Catholics caught up in the anti-”Popery” frenzy of the early to mid-1800′s might take issue with that.

  • Richard Collins

    Dyspepsia and indeed this web site cannot seem to credit people who have issues with religion with the intelligence to understand the subject. This has to be one of the weakest arguments believers can advance.

    What is there to not understand? All the Abrahamic religions have systematically and viciously opposed anyone who would not bend their knee. Their holy books are full of intolerant hateful instructions to murder non-believers. They systematically oppose free inquiry and insist knowledge only comes from on high.

    What is there to not understand?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X