After taking a \"dog's-eye view\" of law and freedom, I wanted to delve deeper. The relationship between law, authoritative truth, and freedom is complex and thorny. Which of them is primary? Disagreement on that question is central to much modern-day polarization and bitter name-calling. Today we'll touch on just a bit of this topic. <\/p>\n
I recently read two thought-provoking articles in First Things magazine. One was by French author Pierre Manent. Lamenting the decay of political culture in the West, Manent observes: \"For us, freedom is a world without commandment or obedience.\" <\/p>\n
The second article, by R. R. Reno, ponders the weakening of the \"strong gods\" of nationalism, universal truth and traditional values. He cites Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo, who approvingly describes this \"disenchantment of strong truth.\" Reno summarizes Vattimo's position: \"If there are no strong truths, nobody will judge others or limit their freedom. ... Any form of moral authority or regulation represents an evil regression back to fascism.\" <\/p>\n
Reno understands why many fear the return of \"strong gods.\" When they run amok, bloodshed and injustice often result. Isn't it sensible to beat back their slightest recurrence, as if they were cancer cells? <\/p>\n
Thus, there are calls from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum to weaken or eliminate legal or moral restraints on various issues. \"Market forces\" will provide just wages and pollution abatement, so abolish government regulations. Any restriction on abortion signals renewed war on women. \"Standard English\" should be scrapped because it denigrates the speech patterns of minorities. You can supply other examples. <\/p>\n
Fear of \"strong gods\" demands strongly condemning them; working for their destruction; and ensuring that freedom is situated in a world \"without command or obedience.\" This mindset views law as a weapon with which the powerful impose their will upon the weak. It is inherently coercive, and is the enemy of freedom, not the necessary (though fallible) framework within which human freedom and dignity may flourish. <\/p>\n
There's enough truth here to be plausible. We've all seen the effects of law's heavy hand. Political philosophers ponder how to balance the coerciveness of law with individual freedom. One popular idea is a sort of \"least common denominator\" methodology. It argues that the justification for law's coercion must not only be intelligible to, but also accepted by, all who will be affected by it. Private or sectarian notions of truth may not be used as justification for or against coercion by the state, even when they are proven to be factually true. Belief in authoritative truth must be kept leashed and muzzled; being a \"strong god,\" it is deemed exclusionist and authoritarian, even when proven. <\/p>\n
This methodology has merits; it allows a complex, pluralistic society to function. But it comes at a high price. It refuses to seat \"belief in authoritative truth\" at the conversation table when weighty matters of communal concern are debated. But most people do have strongly held values and beliefs on many aspects of communal and private life. They do perceive \"certain truths to be self-evident,\" universal, and of compelling value in matters public and communal, not merely personal and private. As Reno observes, people do push back against efforts to unseat foundational \"strong truths\" that provide meaning and direction to their lives. And the more they push back, the more stridently do \"disenchanters\" denounce their recalcitrance. <\/p>\n
Ironically, the very attempt to create a world devoid of \"strong gods,\" \"without command or obedience,\" free of \"authoritarian coercion,\" involves commanding compliance from dissenters and coercing their obedience. \"Strong gods\" like nationalism, religious beliefs and universal truths are replaced by the \"stealth gods\" of tolerance, relativism and public secularism. Those \"stealth gods\" are no less demanding than the strong ones they supplant. In their service, coercive laws may multiply, restricting the expression of certain freedoms to purely private venues and compelling the acceptance of public expression of others. It hasn't been an altogether happy exchange. <\/p>\n
Can we locate freedom and human dignity within a larger framework of Law or Truth without summoning the dark side of those \"strong gods?\" In a broken, fallen world, it's not entirely possible. But the solution isn't throwing out the dirty \"baby\" of Law along with the even-dirtier \"bathwater\" of its abuse! Though we disagree widely and strenuously on specifics, most people believe that some things are inherently true and universally valuable, and provide a worthy framework for human freedom and flourishing. In future articles, I hope to explore that. <\/p>\n
Cathy Ammlung is a pastor in the North American Lutheran Church and a resident of Sykesville. You can contact her at cathycarrollcountytimes@gmail.com<\/a>. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n See original here:<\/p>\n Ammlung: A second look at law and freedom - Carroll County Times<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After taking a \"dog's-eye view\" of law and freedom, I wanted to delve deeper. The relationship between law, authoritative truth, and freedom is complex and thorny Continue reading