We hold certain truths; therefore, we can argue about them
A heritage of an essential truth, a tradition of rational belief, that sustains the structure of the City and furnishes the substance of civil life
For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand, - Anselm of Canterbury
I’ve continued my reading of We Hold These Truths by John Courtney Murray. It’s a 1960 book written as John Kennedy was running for President and faced significant resistance because he was a Roman Catholic. The book sought to reconcile American Roman Catholicism with basic democratic principles. Murray made the case that the "American Proposition"—a framework of natural law and objective truths—is fundamentally compatible with Catholic social teaching and essential for a pluralistic society. He saw the Constitution's religion clauses as "articles of peace" fostering a needed civil consensus. Murray thought that citizens didn’t need to agree on religious truths to achieve civic peace. The Constitution was the work of lawyers and statesmen not theologians. It provides a framework for people of different faiths to live together without civic conflict.
Last night Murray offered this in my reading: “We hold certain truths; therefore, we can argue about them.” So, apparently some form of agreement about truth is necessary. He had just quoted from Cicero’s De Re Publica which defines the Roman concept of a "commonwealth.” — “Res publica, res populi; populus autem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus.” Yes, he offered that in Latin without translation. I was annoyed but I did get the translation.
"A commonwealth is the property of a people [res populi], but a people is not any gathering of human beings brought together in any manner, but a gathering of a multitude associated by an agreement on law and by a community of interest."
Murray wrote, “The state of civility supposes a consensus that is constitutional, sc., its focus is the idea of law, as surrounded by the whole constellation of ideas that are related to the ratio iuris as its premises, its constituent elements, and its consequences. This consensus is come to by the people; they become a people by coming to it. They do not come to it accidentally, without quite knowing how, but deliberatively, by the methods of reason reflecting on experience. … The whole premise of the public argument, if it is to be civilized and civilizing, is that the consensus is real, that among the people everything is not in doubt, but that there is a core of agreement, accord, concurrence, acquiescence. We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. … On its most imperative level the public argument within the City and about the City’s affairs begins with the agreement that there is a reality called, in the phrase of Leo XIII, patrimonium generis humani, a heritage of an essential truth, a tradition of rational belief, that sustains the structure of the City and furnishes the substance of civil life. It was to this patrimony that the Declaration of Independence referred: “These are the truths we hold.” This is the first utterance of a people. By it a people establishes its identity, and under decent respect to the opinions of mankind declares its purposes within the community of nations.”
The life of the City requires argument. And for that debate to be fruitful, it must stand upon “certain truths.” Murray quotes the Declaration of Independence as an example.
What happens in the debates for the well-being of the City, when the parties have no shared “certain truths.”
This morning I read two articles that illustrate the dilemma. One in Philadelphia on the meaning of the word “genocide.” The other in Israel over whether if the fight with Iran stops at this stage it can be called a success?
In Philadelphia it appears to be a debate on one level over the meaning of the word genocide, but more deeply over the commitment of the participants over the much larger issue of a commitment to liberal democracy itself. Are we seeing in both the Democratic and Republican parties a struggle over “certain truths", truths that are at the heart of American democracy. In Israel, we see the kind of debate that can occur when the parties both agree on some “certain truths”about liberal democracy.
I’ll begin with Israel. In “Noon in Israel” journalist Amit Segal covers a disagreement between Tamir Hayman, former head of IDF Military Intelligence and Yuval Steinitz, a veteran cabinet minister and current chairman of Rafael, one of Israel's top three state-owned defense companies,
The question is “If the campaign stops here, was it a success?: Hayman looks at the overall balance of the campaign and “leans toward the negative.” Steinitz calls it “a massive victory” reminiscent of the Six-Day War. Segal thinks that the center of the argument is about Iran’s nuclear capacity. Steinitz makes the case that “by eliminating top scientists and destroying weaponization equipment, Israel bought itself significant time.” They have gone from months to years. Hayman believes that “blowing up weaponization labs and eliminating scientists doesn’t matter if the raw materials are still sitting safely underground.” He thinks that “Iran’s breakout time remains dangerously short.” They also have a different assumptions about the stability of the Iranian regime.
Segal writes, “There is nothing more Israeli than looking at the exact same rubble and arriving at two completely different conclusions. … We can end this argument with the Talmudic dictum, “These and these are the words of the living God”—which is an ancient Jewish way of saying they are both right.”
It’s a debate within the tradition and culture of Israel’s liberal democracy. It is concrete and not abstract. Each party accepts the facts while disagreeing on how to interpret them.
In the city of Brotherly Love the primary election for a seat in the US House of Representatives isn’t about concrete policy issues but an abstraction - whether to use the word genocide. On the one side is State Rep. Chris Rabb, a progressive and an opponent of the Israeli government who is campaigning alongside Hasan Piker - the left wing’s Nick Fuentes - who has said that Hamas is “one thousand times better” than the Israeli government. He has also said that America “deserved” the Sept. 11 attacks that he doesn’t “have any patriotism in my heart for [America],” and has frequently referred to the U.S. as the “American empire” which he believes will “inevitably fall”. He’s suggesting China’s system is “the closest” to his ideal socialism, called the Republican Party the “biggest terrorist” organization in the country and has argued that the Democratic Party establishment is “controlled opposition.” He has made remarks justifying violence against political opponents, e.g., “Let the streets soak in their f*** red capitalist blood” and making comments about “killing landlords.” Piker said that it “doesn’t matter” if victims were raped on Oct. 7, 2023, saying “that doesn’t change the dynamic for me.” After the attack on Jewish Australians in December Rabb’s media accounts posted a claim that it was a “false flag” attack perpetrated by Israel to generate sympathy. “We all know the [gunmen] were likely Zionists themselves,”
Others in the race are State Sen. Sharif Street, a Muslim who has been critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but is relatively moderate in his views on Israel, defending its right to exist as a Jewish state and Ala Stanford a pediatric surgeon who served as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President Biden. They both responded to Rabb’s statement on the Bondi Beach attack. Street said,“it is deeply wrong to use this despicable act of terror as an opportunity to advance an antisemitic trope and conspiracy theory about one of the most deadly attacks against Jews since the Holocaust.” Stanford said that the post amplified an antisemitic trope and is “disqualifying.” “Jewish families were murdered at Bondi Beach on Hanukkah, and Ahmed Al Ahmad, a Muslim man, risked his life to disarm the attacker. Both deserve our grief and our respect.”
To see what is happening in that one congressional race we need to step back and look at the whole board. John Macquarrie spoke of our need to see the big picture, the connection among people, circumstances, and events. He sought a capacity to see a wholeness. Today we see the traditions of liberal democracy, including democratic norms, institutional trust, and the peaceful transfer of power being challenged from both the left and the right. Positions challenging the right of Israel to exist as a liberal democratic Jewish state are common from both sides. Is that just a coincidence or are we seeing another historical example of the Jews being the canary in the coal mine?
We see both sides pressing for drastic changes in how American democracy works in order to create structures that end up supporting the political outcomes desired by the left or right. The integrity of our elections is challenged as one group questions the election outcomes and the other calls for abolishing the Electoral College. There is questioning the legitimacy of judicial bodies and proposing ways to make the courts more agreeable to the ideology of one side or the other. We see rhetoric classifying political opponents not just as political rivals, but as existential threats to democracy. A study of the Harvard Kennedy school saw both sides engaged in eroding trust in liberal democracy with the right tending to question election security, while the left tends to target the structure of governing institutions.
Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes, [1] representing extreme ends of the political spectrum and are frequently cited as challenging the traditions of liberal democracy. In the 1930s we had Father Charles Coughlin and Earl Browder.
Both far-right and far-left movements have historically used the language of democracy, rights, and popular will to undermine democratic institutions and seize power. It’s called “killing democracy with democratic tools.” Both authoritarian extremes have exploited the freedoms guaranteed by liberal democracies to undermine those systems. Adolf Hitler often framed the Nazi movement as a "true" or "beautiful" democracy, promising a national community that would embody the will of the people against the weakness of parliamentary democracy. Communist countries often adopt the label "Democratic Republic" or "People's Republic" despite lacking competitive elections. The Nazis used their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly to attack the state, disrupt democratic processes, and spread hate, often accusing their opponents of being the "true" threats to liberty. In the Cold War, communist movements often used moderate-sounding language to manipulate liberals, progressives, and unions. The phrase "useful idiots" characterizes people who, often with good intentions, end up doing the work of authoritarian ideologies.
The methods of reason reflecting on experience
Murray won how citizens hold onto “certain truths” and nurture civic life wrote, “They do not come to it accidentally, without quite knowing how, but deliberatively, by the methods of reason reflecting on experience.”
Human beings naturally attribute authority to their experience. They listened to a podcast that aligns with their political ideology, and it claims that a country is involved in genocide. They accept that narrative and share it at the dinner table that night. They're unaware of the formal definition of genocide. They don't know about the need for official statements of intention. They are unaware of the military experts in Britain and the US who speak of Israel as fighting the most moral war in history. In fact, they laugh at and automatically discount such talk. Once embedded in their narrative, they see it as meaningless and even immoral to listen to other perspectives. They're not intentional manipulators themselves, but they do fail to realize that they have not seen the whole board, the big picture.
So for us, Anglican Christians, we might return to our way of engaging Macquarie's “wholeness.” First by the rhythms of weekly Eucharist and daily office. And secondly, in our traditional sources of authority. We reflect on our experience through the lens of scripture, tradition, and reason. (More - here, here, here)
Adam Dalgliesh: My father was a parish priest. When I lost my faith he said, “If you find you can no longer believe just act as if you still do. If you feel you can no longer pray just go on saying the words.” — P. D. James, in A Taste for Death
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
The Feast of Monica, Mother of Augustine of Hippo, 387
Parish development - Social ethics - Spiritual life
RELATED