|
One of the themes developed over the years on Issues in Perspective is the Postmodern nature of our culture and the religious pluralism that pervades that culture. A current Supreme Court case illustrates perfectly the nature of this Postmodern pluralism. The case involves a strange New Age religious group, called the Church of Summum, which wants to place a Summum monument that contains the Seven Aphorisms of Summum next to a Ten Commandments monument in Salt Lake City. How should we think about this?
- First some background. Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal summarizes that several decades after a visit from “beings Extraterrestrial” inspired him to found the Church of the Summum in 1975, Summum Bonum Amon Re, born Claude Nowell and know as Corky, had another epochal encounter. [Incidentally, Summum Bonum Amon Re died earlier this year and is being mummified according to ancient Egyptian practices. The center of the Summum Church is in Salt City in a pyramid decorated with the mummified remains of various members’ pets.] He viewed the Ten Commandments on the courthouse grounds of Salt Lake City and believed it necessary “to have the Seven Aphorisms next to them.” The monument would be inscribed with the principles that, according to Summum doctrine, Moses initially intended to deliver to the Hebrews before deciding they were not ready to understand them. Various legal authorities in Salt Lake City consistently denied Summum his request. Last Wednesday (12 November 2008), the Supreme Court heard the case involving Summum’s plea to place a monument to his Seven Aphorisms. Specifically, the Court heard the plea of one Utah town, Pleasant Grove, to reverse a lower court decision requiring it to accept the Seven Aphorisms—or, perhaps, remove the Ten Commandments and a dozen other monuments from its Pioneer Park. At issue here is the goal of a New Age religion seeking the same treatment as a more established faith. Summum is a strange mixture of “UFO religion,” Gnosticism, and ancient Egyptian polytheism. So, we are left with these questions: Does Postmodern pluralism guarantee equal monuments? On what basis can a court legally deny any religion a monument in a public facility or park? Once Postmodern pluralism reigns supreme, you have no basis for denying any religious belief recognition.
- Second, how do we legally look at such a bizarre case? The Supreme Court has maintained that the First Amendment’s religion clauses prohibit the government from favoring one faith over another, or preferring religion in general to unbelief. [As an aside, Summum is classified by the IRS as tax exempt.] To show how widespread the impact of Postmodern pluralism really is, the Department of Veteran Affairs authorizes 39 headstone symbols for burial in national cemeteries, including the cross, the crescent, the Star of David, the Buddhist Wheel of Righteousness, the Mormon Angel Moroni and the atomic symbol for atheists. Last year the Department settled a suit with a group of Wiccans, adding the pentacle to the list. In short, the US has institutionalized Postmodern pluralism. You can believe in anything you want and the state will support and acknowledge that belief, even in a US national cemetery.
- Third, the Pleasant Grove argument that it will not display the Summum monument is rooted in what is called “government speech doctrine.” As Daniel Henninger demonstrates, “While the First Amendment won’t let government infringe a citizen’s private speech, its own speech has no limits—none. Government can say whatever it wishes.” This could, for example, permit government to silence anything it does not like. Recently, for example, the Fourth Circuit Court, using the government speech doctrine, permitted the Fredericksburg, VA city council to forbid a council member from invoking the name of Jesus in a session-opening prayer. There is a simple, basic point being pursued in Postmodern pluralism: Once a culture or a civilization loses its agreed-upon religious consensus, common sense wisdom goes out the door. There exists no basis for prohibiting any expression of any religious conviction; hence, the Summum monument case. But the corollary to this is that you cannot singularly invoke the name of one specific deity—e.g., Jesus—in this Postmodern culture. Inclusivism and tolerance of everything rules. This is the immense challenge Christians face in this Postmodern culture—a smorgasbord of religious choice. No worldview has a corner on truth. There are many “truths” and, since there is no certainty anyway, it does not matter which worldview you choose. Postmodernism stands for a radical pluralism and universalism. Since all religions are social constructs and none is inherently more superior than others, then all religions are equally valid and all paths lead to God. Religion, says the Postmodernist, is not based on something external but stems from internal needs and subjective personal experience. Religious people are therefore not discerning truth but rather are the source of their own truths, says the Postmodernist. Something is true if it is true for me! Such a tenet explains why Postmodern jargon is so pervasive in our culture. We use terms like “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “multiculturalism” as positives reinforcing the claim that there is no truth and no one can claim truth. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid and worthy. Hence, increasingly Christians are bombarded with charges of bigotry and hate mongers because of the claim that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) and that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which men are saved (Acts 4:12). This is exclusivistic truth penetrating an inclusive world. But it is exclusivistic truth, embodied in Jesus and proclaimed as such by His followers.
See Jess Bravin article in the Wall Street Journal (13 November 2008); Daniel Henninger’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal (13 November 2008); and James P. Eckman, The Truth about Worldviews, pp. 10-11. |
