Volume 5, Issue 33
Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists are repugnant and immoral. Hate, racism and bigotry must be confronted, denied, and resisted from all levels of civil society. As repulsive as the KKK and other such groups are, why have we not been able to stamp out their footings?
It is because, as a nation, we have not embraced a set of canons of universalism.
We live in a universal society. It is a fact of existence. If we are to live together in peace and with love for one another, we must adhere to, respect and understand canons of coexistence. A body of rules, principles and standards, accepted as axiomatic, that universally bind us through fundamental principles in good behavior resulting in equality and freedom for all.
Such a declaration may seem naïve and fanciful. It is not. It is constitutive to a personal creed.
Universalism is a unique word in the English language. It is one of the few words that has no known synonyms. In the secular sense, it represents the range of all knowledge, interests or activities. It is an aberration to come to the conclusion that any person created by God, regardless of race, gender or cultural identity, is exempt from the benefits of a universal society. What continues to be absent from the debate among divisions and movements of citizens is the argument for inclusiveness in one’s definition of universalism. In other words, how are all peoples to benefit from one’s individual worldview? Racism and bigotry exempt others from the attributes of a particular worldview. This is, by its admonition, in direct conflict with a proper attitude of universalism.
When the realization is manifested that we are all cast into this reality of a universal society, by chance or divine creation, a canon or code of responsible attitude and behavior must be maturated to lay the foundation for civil activity and discourse. The Canons of Judicial Ethics is an example of a body of rules and axioms for the conduct and behavior of judges to dispense blind justice. Every individual should therefore define for themselves canons of civil responsibility that are inclusive for all of their fellow citizens. Without this, no gap of dissension can be bridged with those with whom you disagree if your code of universalism excludes their right to all benefits of societal security and prosperity.
In reference to Charlottesville, it is critical to start with the declaration that racial hatred and bigotry is always unacceptable and deplorable. Once that principled conclusion is reached, by what canons of universalism then does one seek to relate to their adversary in common purpose and principle?
If one is an atheist, one believes that mankind and the universal society in which one lives is the result of a series of random occurrences, as generated by the physics of a cold, dark, inorganic universe. In the evolution of society, tribal inclinations have at times been dominant. Tribal influence can be a composite of race, regional culture, familial hierarchy, nobility or intellectual propensities. Any worldview that is so myopic that it can only see society through its own limited view point, without the comprehensive broader lens of the bigger picture, is in fact part of the problem.
If one is an atheist, one must conclude that somewhere throughout this series of random accidental occurrences, the intellect of mankind somehow evolved to a point of ultimate understanding to design the architecture of sustaining universalism. If one is a Christian, one believes that God created man and supplied the necessary information, through the Prophets and Jesus Christ, for the laws and guidelines of peaceful coexistence and rules of civil behavior. Regardless of one’s foundational premise of origin for binding attitudes, canons should be inclusive, unbiased and projected with respect and love.
There is concern now about where the ongoing debate about issues presented in Charlottesville will culminate. Will it be necessary to dismantle the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC? How could Thomas Jefferson, in isolation without help, have penned the Declaration of Independence? He is the Founding Father who originated the words, “…all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…” when he was a slave owner. Perhaps he was inspired by the Creator to write words that projected a character even greater than his own character. Or, inherently, he was inspired by the evolution of an intellect that perhaps he himself didn’t understand at the time that personified an ethic greater than himself. In either case, he was inspired beyond his own attitudinal perspective.
It is easy to understand how African-Americans today might question the application of Constitutional rights historically in the United States when Thomas Jefferson most likely had an affair with his slave, Sally Hemings. What is absolutely essential for each of us to do today is to get past the character deficiencies of each citizen, past and present, into the inspiration of the premise of unalienable rights for all.
For a Christian to be fully obedient to a biblical body of canons of universalism necessitates that they in fact become born again. In Christian theology, you lay down your old life and emerge anew, completely dependent upon a higher calling and trustful that God will lead.
Regardless of your worldview of the purpose of the universe, a proper prescription of a viewpoint of universalism is based upon the simple fact that it is not all about you or your tribe. It is about equal rights to the construct of the universe and all its resources for individual desires of pursuit of happiness.
Determining the constituent principles of canons of universalism that result in societal inclusiveness is not only a basic obligation of all citizens, but of each of us as members of the human race.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?