{Pascal the existential Russian blue cat has been immersed of late in Konrad Heiden’s biography of Hitler (‘The Fuhrer’). For today’s post, he has dragged this piece out of the archives and refreshed it a bit. Contemporary conservatives, after all, have not changed their tune in the last decade; they just sing it louder and toss in more epithets.}
In a 2018 article (for The Gospel Coalition), Joe Carter and Collin Hansen recalled how, having been named to the Supreme Court in 1988 by Ronald Reagan, the putatively conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, a mere four years later, “joined Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice David Souter in writing the court’s plurality opinion in the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.”
Carter and Hansen disagreed with the Court’s ruling, of course, but their deeper complaint was with Kennedy’s assertion that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This passage has become notorious in right-wing circles, with the late Justice Antonin Scalia once mocking it as “the famed ‘sweet mystery of life’ passage.”
It was with palpable indignation that Carter and Hansen accused Kennedy, “more than anyone else,” of having “moved to the wrong side of the law all who recognize authority in the divine lawgiver or even in our nation’s own legal history.” In this new legal atmosphere, God cannot violate the sovereign self. Tradition may not bound the sovereign self. Whatever the self determines is right; whatever the self determines must be acknowledged and accepted by every other self.”
Thirty years after Kennedy’s opinion, Joe Carter and Collin Hansen today remain free to “recognize authority in the divine lawgiver,” just as I remain free not to do so. Carter and Hansen, as sovereign Selves, can define for themselves the meaning of existence, which means, for instance, that they can accept the Bible as an authoritative guide; I, on the other hand, prefer Philip K. Dick’s VALIS. I am baffled by Carter’s and Hansen’s allegation that they have somehow been “moved to the wrong side of the law”; they retain the same legal standing as everyone else, within the same limits as everyone else (i.e., believe what you want, but don’t impose your religious beliefs on other people).
You would think Anthony Kennedy had written "God is dead" or something equally blasphemous:
You’d search in vain to find a more apt description of our secular age. It’s not as though Kennedy invented our culture of expressive individualism. No one would fault him for introducing our “age of authenticity,” to borrow a phrase from philosopher Charles Taylor. But Kennedy gave language to this age’s turn to self as ultimate authority. And then he codified that authority at the nation’s highest legal level through his interpretation of the Constitution.
Despite their disapproval of “this age’s turn to self,” Messrs. Hansen and Carter are expressive individuals themselves. Joe Carter authored a book called “The Life and Faith Field Guide for Parents,” which not only expressed his values but, one assumes, attempted to persuade others to adopt them. As for Collin Hansen, “He has published with the New York Times and the Washington Post and offered commentary for CNN, Fox News, NPR, BBC, ABC News, and PBS NewsHour,” which suggests he has not been shy about airing his opinions on the sweet mystery of life.
It is all well and good, then, for Carter and Hansen to have, and to voice, opinions about what Paul Tillich called “matters of ultimate concern,” but what if everyone got in on the act? Chaos would ensue:
Sovereign selves across the political spectrum now regard their political enemies as existential threats to their “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” And society cannot long endure when every Self wields this right as a bludgeon against every other Self that reaches different conclusions on the meaning of the universe and its very own life. We need a society that recognizes the self is a cruel taskmaster and incompetent peacemaker.
The author is certainly correct that society suffers when rights are wielded as bludgeons against others. Justice Kennedy, of course, did not advocate such wielding of the right to self-definition; in fact, he spoke for quite the opposite view, i.e., the view that we ought to respect each other’s “sovereign Self” so long as the Self does not oppress or suppress the self-expression of others. In other words, Kennedy did not object to those who choose, as sovereign selves, to follow what they believe is God’s command; he only objected to those persons attempting, through legalistic bludgeoning, to force others to follow the same command.
“The genius of America,” Carter and Hansen solemnly remind us, “is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In a misguided effort to expand liberty, Kennedy thwarted the pursuit of happiness by saddling the self with impossible demands. The self cannot possibly carry this burden.” 1 There is a kernel of truth in this critique: modernity indeed makes unprecedented (albeit not impossible) demands on the individual, simply by allowing for choices—choices of values, of religion, of career, of relationships, of lifestyle, of sexual partners and sexual orientation, of geographic location, etc. Constantly having to choose, and to be responsible for one's choice, can be exhausting. Of course, what some people experience as demands, others perceive as opportunities; burdens are in the eye of the beholder.
In any case, no one is prohibited from following tradition or from preferring the ‘old ways’; no one is obligated to adopt “Make it new” as a credo. Disdain modern art, modern music, modern literature, modern media, DEI, CRT, and ESL all you like; condemn the latest fashion styles, lament the decline of religion, rue the very existence of transgender persons, and rage at the presence of plus-size women on the cover of Sports Illustrated. You are free to do all that, and others are free to ridicule you for it.
Carter’s and Hansen’s real complaint is that (a) too many people are making choices of which Carter and Hansen disapprove, and (b) when Carter and Hansen vilify those people, they are in turn frequently and sometimes publicly rebuked for their rudeness.
Which is exactly how it should be.
_____________________________________________________
Anthony Kennedy’s ‘Sweet Mystery of Life’ and the Self’s Impossible Demands (thegospelcoalition.org)
1 You would think that these two prominent figures at The Gospel Coalition would know an impossible demand when they hear one: after all, "Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."
What? You want me to think for myself?
Posted by: |