Editor's 'Duck Dynasty' analysis was for the birds

In his Dec. 29 letter to the editor, Richard E. Wackrow expressed his distaste for Managing Editor Frank Miele’s Dec. 22 column (“If it talks like a duck: Is America at war with itself?”), which Mr. Wackrow took as an example of right-wing Christianity’s ongoing attempt to impose a “Christian theocracy” upon the nation.

While I do not agree with every aspect of Mr. Wackrow’s argument, his concern is understandable, particularly considering his perspective as a secular humanist. I too took great issue with Mr. Miele’s message; however my concern and dismay stem from what I consider to be a spiritual perspective, and I wish to demonstrate that it is not only secular humanists with a distaste for religion who find Mr. Miele’s words alarming and in poor taste.

My misgivings with Mr. Miele’s argument begin, as well, with his assertion that homosexuality is “either moral or immoral; it cannot be both.” Mr. Wackrow is right to characterize this as insipid, but it is also misinformed. Not only does Mr. Miele neglect the third option, that of “amoral,” existing outside of moral judgment, but he presents this assertion as an empirical fact, as if such a moral classification were not, as all issues of morality are, part of an ever-evolving conception of morality, entwined in living humanity.

This regretful concept is reinforced and expanded in Mr. Miele’s appalling assertion — placed, with no apparent irony intended, in the middle of an article decrying the fallen state of American morality — that: “...every society which has existed, including 18th-century America, has had a set of shared rules and mores which are taught from a very early age so that every new member of society is indoctrinated to believe without question the truth of that society’s values, morals, and cultures.” If there is anything in this column that should make one fear for the welfare of American society and culture, it is the fact that Mr. Miele could write, and then publish, such an appalling statement in good conscience.

“Indoctrinated to believe without question” could not, in my opinion, be a more toxic notion for the health of religion or democracy, and it should inspire fear in any who profess to love such things, including Mr. Miele, who often portrays himself as the lone defender of both. This is not the language of freedom or democracy but of cults and dictatorships.

The healthy practice of religion — or democracy — must allow for and encourage an ongoing effort to continually question ourselves and our world with the hope of attaining an ever more enlightened understanding of what is right and what is wrong, of what it means to be humans living on this planet. How are we ever to make such progress when we are told to believe without question? Does Mr. Miele think that those men and women who have shaped his religion, and many religions, over the centuries — saints and martyrs and theologians and scholars — have not suffered from questions and uncertainty?

The “dark night of the soul,” a phrase used to refer to an acute crisis of faith, has been attested to by our most revered spiritual and cultural leaders — men and women now held as pillars of our religious and democratic tradition — and has led not to downfall but often to greater clarity and heightened understanding, yielding much of what we now consider as given: our current moral foundations.

“Indoctrinated to believe without question” is the way of the cult because the foundation of the cult cannot withstand scrutiny. And any group or person that advocates for morality or religion based on this principle is doing a disservice to whatever true value may lie at the heart of that religion, culture, or society. To take this tack, as Mr. Miele does, is to reduce any real, applicable value to the hollow, inconsistent posturing of the cult. I do not believe that Christianity is a cult, but arguments like this make it unfortunately easy to criticize, and dismiss, as such.

Certain actions and the people who practice them have always been deemed “immoral” by the standards of the day. Not long ago, women and people of color were denied rights — rights which are now, thankfully, mostly a given — on grounds that now seem archaic and shameful. There was also a time when many Christian churches — Lutherans and Anabaptists, for instance — were deemed heretical, their faith practices immoral, and were consequently denied rights and privileges granted to others. At the time, the very questioning of this judgment, a willingness to even discuss their point of view, would have been considered dangerous and forbidden; no doubt there were those who felt that their civilization was divided against itself and could not stand. These groups now coexist, in our own valley, with those same that would have once persecuted them, due to ongoing questioning and soul-searching, both theological and secular. Our sense of right and wrong, our morality, has grown over time to encompass an ever-greater understanding and complexity — abolition of slavery and voting rights for all people being just two examples — and we must pray that it will continue to do so.

But this can only happen if each member of a society is willing and encouraged to question herself, continually and earnestly, to see if the prevailing standards still resonate with her conscience, if the general morality still feels moral. If a member of a young generation finds a commonly held view — that a group of people such as homosexuals are living an immoral life, for instance — to ring false, she must not say, “I cannot question that,” but rather must engage with this doubt and enact serious examination of herself, her beliefs, and her society. In this probing she will hopefully make use of all available sources and insights — religious texts included — and be made aware of opinions that differ from those with which she was raised. If anything, the protection of free speech — something we must truly take for granted, judging by how ignorantly we are given to debating it — is valuable for allowing and encouraging us to experience the vast array of differing, often conflicting, opinions and beliefs in our society; this, hopefully, then will allow us to emerge with a viewpoint, or morality, that is based on understanding and honesty, not on indoctrination and blind belief.

Mr. Miele’s use of the dictum, a “house divided against itself shall not stand,” is apt, but, I think, better applied to the concept of Christianity exemplified in his column. Christianity, as I understand and attempt to practice it, advocates, first and foremost, peace, forgiveness, and compassion. Its rich history has survived and evolved due to the endless, living exploration and questioning of those who have embraced and struggled with it; from scholars to theologians to congregants, from Paul to Calvin to King Jr. to Tutu and so on.

And yet there is another face of Christianity, this one driven by anger and fear and hatred, nourished not by questioning and open-mindedness, prone not to query and soul-searching, but fired by inflexibility, unwilling to discuss, forbidding of questions. The first form has endured for millennia, weathering countless storms of faith and the worst, thus far, of humanity, because it has opened itself to questions and yielded truth and value to many who look for understanding, including those who criticize its very foundations. The second form, as advocated here by Mr. Miele, denies the very possibility of question, out of apparent fear that if we look too closely the whole thing will collapse. Here I see a house divided, and this, I fear, shall not stand.

Mr. Miele is right: all people are unlikely to always agree on what is moral or immoral. And he is right in saying that “from time to time we will meet or hear from people who don’t share our personal opinion.” We should be aware of these facts and be prepared to greet them with an open mind, compassion, and an attempt at understanding. But he is in dangerous territory, territory that threatens the very institutions that he seems to hold dear — his religion and his country — when he suggests that the welfare of our society is dependent on an unthinking adherence to a doctrine that we do not question and, therefore, in my opinion, presumably do not understand.

A religion that has existed as long as Christianity — or any of the major religions in our world; Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, perhaps even secular humanism — cannot have done so because people simply never questioned it; to imply as much is to undermine any true value or insight these world views may contain. If religion and democracy are to survive, let alone to thrive and coexist — something they have done exceedingly well in the past — let us assume that these institutions, and our beliefs, are not only capable but are worthy of our highest scrutiny; and let us not fear what we may find.

Brenneman is a resident of Kalispell.