I am reading Dr. Gordon Livingston's newest book, "And Never Stop Dancing." This is Dr. Livingston's follow up book to his best selling first release, "Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart." Dr. Livingston, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine certified and practicing psychiatrist, tragically lost both of his children when each was very young. These tragedies and his years of attempting to minister to hundreds of mentally perplexed individuals, has served to shape him as a complex individual, highly intelligent, keenly insightful about the human condition, but seemingly devoid of any sense of faith in a supreme being. I do not agree with everything he has proclaimed as "truths" in his two books, but I find his observations thought provoking and worthy of personal contemplation.Dr. Livingston, in both volumes, chapters his content as "Thirty True Things You Need To Know Now." One of the chapters is entitled "The Primary Difference Between Intelligence And Stupidity Is That There Are Limits To Intelligence." The opening paragraph reads, "People tend to put a lot of stock in the ability of human beings. We think it's what makes us special among the creatures of earth. So why does so much of our national discourse sound like the debating society of a confederacy of dunces?" Dr. Livingston proceeds to harpoon a number of social topics passionately being debated across America that indisputably continues to create deep divisions among we citizens. It is my intent to comment on a select few of Dr. Livingston's statements and agree or refute in full or in part.
Dr. Livingston's opening salvo addresses the long-running debate regarding the Ten Commandments; whether they can be permitted to be housed and displayed in public venues underwritten with tax supported dollars, or should they be restricted from these locations. The pivotal arguments encompass the issue of the freedom of religious expression and the establishment clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore, tested those parameters when he ordered that a 5,300 pound monument containing the Ten Commandments be permanently displayed in the courthouse in which he presided. Judge Moore lost the argument, but the debate rages on.
Judge Moore proclaimed the Ten Commandments to be "the moral foundation of American Law." Dr. Livingston adamantly refutes that contention by stating, in effect, that seven of the ten "bare little relation to American law," whereas except for the prohibition against killing, stealing, and bearing false witness, the balance of the commandments have never been the "subject of contemporary legislation." That observation, in my opinion, when scrutinized factually, can hardly be refuted. I tend to side with Dr. Livingston's argument. However, whereas it may be an ill-reasoned stretch to contend that the Ten Commandments represent the "moral foundation" of American law, I have no difficulty in suggesting that these same decrees should be no less than a significant if not the guiding moral compass for formulating and underpinning our laws.
It is no less than pure, unadulterated intellectual folly to deny that in our country's short history that staunch adherents of the Ten Commandments have not liberally misapplied these religious tenets for their own narrowly defined agendas, as was the case when religious fundamentalist cloaked themselves reprehensibly in the hoods and sheets of the Klu Klux Klan and propagated any number of illegal acts and immoral rationale to subvert the equality of the races. On the opposite side of the struggle were the equally devoted and dedicated proponents of racial equality that held just as steadfast to the religious convictions that were no less tied to the adherence to the Ten Commandments. To deny any person or segment of American citizen equality purely on the basis of race is reprehensible. To adhere to the woefully misguided belief that such a social position was religiously sanctioned was and is morally indefensible.
The drawn battle lines then bare little difference now in this same on-going struggle of ideologies. Dr. Livingston defines the two warring sides not as liberal verses conservatives, "but between extremists and moderates." I wholeheartedly agree, as I, for the most part, count myself a moderate. Caught in the middle of this war of ideological wills is the majority of the American public who have grown increasingly tired, angry, and to a large degree, generally apathetic to this shrill tug-of-war. Moderation, in the market place of ideas, is the bedrock of civility in a pluralistic society. As an example, religious freedom need not and should not be narrowly defined as either freedom of religion or freedom from religion, but both. Individuals of like mind should have just as much liberty to practice their religious beliefs without fear, ridicule, or persecution as should be the guarantee for other individuals who abstain from religious influences of any variety. One need not and should not make demands on any fellow citizen that they must abide by their faith-based criteria for moral living any more than their opposite number should demand that they relinquish their personal beliefs so as to not unduly influence or manipulate theirs. There need not be an arrogant division between the two view points, but there should be an armistice of acceptance that both points of view and selected life styles could and should co-exist in our pluralistic society. Such is the ideal, but reality attest to the entrenched and unwavering agenda of both factions that prevent such a conciliatory mindset.
Dr. Livingston's views the extremism on each end of the political spectrum as being detrimental to social order, but expresses his greatest displeasure and distaste for the religious conservatives, whom he sees as being unwilling at best or incapable at worse to seek middle ground; being "so sure that they are right that they believe they must convert or compel those who disagree with them." Dr. Livingston labels such individuals as "true believers," holding so forcefully to their opinion on how the world should operate per their strict guidelines that any deviation from their core beliefs is tantamount to heralding in Armageddon. I personally recognize that such arrogance of opinion and belief can most assuredly be found in the more conservative proponents of strict religion doctrine, but I recognize also an equal degree of radicalism in those individuals who view religion utilized to promote social order as being antiquated and of no intrinsic value. Neither side, as I view it, has a monopoly on either rational thought or stupidity.
The founders of our nation readily recognized the assumed existence of a "creator" who imbued mankind with rights that in and of themselves were to be regarded as being beyond reproach or ambiguity, citing predominately the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our nation's constitution, which followed on the heels of the Declaration of Independence, was most carefully devised to iterate these stated rights. Although not specifically delineated in this august document, implicit in its scope is a right which Americans cherish as equally as they do their freedom; the right (and the expectation) to be left alone! Just as Americans wish to be free of needless government intrusion and interference in their lives, they too expect to be free to select or reject ideology that does not correlate with their innate desire to promote and maintain their personal well-being. Religious beliefs, or the absence of same, is at base a personal choice. When it ceases to be so, it is no longer religion based on personal faith and trust, but institutional socialism.
Maintaining my moderate approach to life, I choose to live my life as I recognize, by conscience faith, that my God compels me to do so...to live a life that adheres to the very best of my ability to the tenets of the Ten Commandments, and to "invite" others within my sphere of influence to consider coming of the own volition to know Him as well. For me, that requires that I knock on my neighbors door...not cave it in. By contrast I do not want my neighbor to run roughshod through my domestic tranquility in order to either promote their ideologies or to refute mine. In this country, governed by rational laws and personal civility, every citizen must be permitted the right to say, "No, thank you" and leave it at that.
