To the Editor:
I can’t express my appreciation enough for the essay written by Jack Fruchtman this past week (“When rights and liberties clash,” Feb. 14), for its intuitive insight into the struggle that undergirds many of the nation’s civil issues. The question he posed is a valid and relevant one for our time, and its solution will inevitably affect a large number of Americans whichever way it may be resolved, if it’s possible to do so.
That is the reason I thought it necessary to write this letter, not to refute but to expound on what really is the issue at hand. What can be sure is that the problem goes much further than a proper reading of the Constitution or a just ruling from the Supreme Court. The problem is that of a worldview conflict, or the meta-narrative of our society today, which the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year designation in 2016 said is “post-truth.”
Post-truth, in its basic definition, would be the belief that there is such a thing as truth to be obtained, but it is set aside whenever it may conflict with an individual’s agenda or desires. In other words, it matters very little in our society today what is and what can be proven, in light of our autonomy. It is no stretch of the imagination to see that Western culture in general and American culture in particular has been striving for generations now not for the best of what is reality, but for giving the ability to as many individuals to decide what they want reality to mean for themselves, irrespective of reason, logic, or even scientific evidence.
I’m aware that this is a big subject, and even to cite the word reality imparts a worldview of my own. However, that is precisely the point in contention. Any claim to an “ought” requires a framework for that idea. Any claim for what should be the rights or duties of a person requires a worldview in which to operate and justify the compulsion for such a claim, especially in conferring an obligation to another person. So deciding on whether or not a Christian organization should be required to allow staff or students that contradict their core beliefs included as participants in their institution is tantamount to requiring that a Republican be the head of the DNC or a Muslim the chairman for a Jewish synagogue’s board of trustees in the name of inclusion and protection of rights. The reason is that the association, religious institution, or political organization would lose all purpose and distinction for even existing if conflicting ideologies or persuasions were allowed to operate within them.
In our rush to make everyone equal by forcing everyone to not only tolerate (not requiring anything but allowance) but affirm and celebrate (which requires a productive participation from the individual), we have trampled over any semblance of disagreement, which is the basis of any beliefs. To be a Christian is to disagree with the atheist, to be a materialist is to disagree with the spiritualist, etc.
To navigate all these differing points in the course of human events requires a framework in which to operate. That is precisely the goal the framers of the Constitution set out to achieve. The respecting of a person’s intrinsic value and their beliefs is why we have the possibility to even talk about such things. The problem is not the law, but what are we as a nation going to let guide us in any aspect of life? Will it be pure autonomy, which renders any law irrelevant, or will it be reason and holding fast to a framework which by definition has limitations by which we will be governed?
Unfortunately the question isn’t about defining laws, but life itself. The Constitution was made to allow as many worldviews as possible to operate with as many freedoms as possible. To tamper with or redefine will unleash us from the anchor of freedom and send us adrift in an ocean of anarchy where some will sink and others swim, and whoever has the most power or clout will be the definer of life for the rest.
Myles Goodwin
West Tisbury