Wednesday, May 5, 2021

Is E Pluribus Unum Viable Now?

In 1776, two centuries and 45 years ago, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson proposed a Great Seal for the United States. The only words on the proposed seal were E PLURIBUS UNUM, a Latin phrase meaning “one from many.”  

Viable for the United States?

According to the E Pluribus Unum Project of Assumption College (now University), e pluribus unum “offered a strong statement of the American determination to form a single nation from a collection of states.”

That phrase also indicates “America's bold attempt to make one unified nation of people from many different backgrounds and beliefs. The challenge of seeking unity while respecting diversity has played a critical role in shaping our history, our literature, and our national character.”

But is that motto still viable in the U.S.? After all these years, it seems that the nation is hardly one/unified on anything.

Oneness/unity does not depend on sameness or the denial of differences. But surely it does mean having mutual respect for those with whom we disagree and treating each other civilly. In addition, any sense of unity means people with differing views working together for the common good.

Originally, I was intending to list some of the great political, social, and religious differences now harmfully dividing USAmerican society. But perhaps those divisions are too evident to need further elaboration here.

Viable for the World?

This blog post was largely prompted by the ubuntu emphasis on the inherent oneness of humanity, which I wrote about on April 24. Even though a South African word and concept in its origin, proponents of ubuntu now speak of “the global family” and the basic oneness of humankind.

There have been many individuals and organizations longing for and working for the idea expressed by e pluribus unum to be descriptive of the whole human race.

The World Federalist Movement and One World, one of its associate members, are good examples.

The latter says on its website, “Inspired by such visionaries as Einstein and Gandhi, we regard inclusive federal democracy at the global level as a necessary precondition for justice, peace and prosperity for all of humanity.”

And they cite these words spoken by Einstein in 1945: “With all my heart I believe that the world’s present system of sovereign nations can only lead to barbarism, war, and inhumanity. Mankind’s desire for peace can be realized only by the creation of a world government.”

That assertion takes the idea of e pluribus unum to a whole new level.

What Can We Hope For?

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Those words, based on a statement by Theodore Parker, a 19th-century clergyman, were most notably emphasized by MLK, Jr. and later by President Obama. They have been powerful words of encouragement for many justice-seekers.

But I wonder if we can also say that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward unity/oneness. Teilhard de Chardin wrote about the universe moving to a future Omega Point, meaning that everything is spiraling towards a final point of unification.

In a helpful February 20 article, a religion professor in South Africa wrote,

As a philosopher and theologian, [Teilhard] developed a unique synthesis of science and religion based on an evolutionary understanding of what he called the ‘cosmic Christ’ – the idea that the universe and everything in it is constantly moving towards a point of perfection defined by unity and love.

That is what Teilhard later called the Omega point. And that is why the author titled her article, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: prophet of cosmic hope .

Well, whether considering the current situation here in the U.S. or the world as a whole, it is abundantly evident we still have a long way to go. Omega of course is the last letter of the Greek alphabet, and it seems that at present we may be no further than at beta (the second letter).

Still, grounded in cosmic hope, we can dream of and diligently work for the goal of e pluribus unum not only in the U.S. but for the whole world.

20 comments:

  1. There have been few comments as yet about today's blog post, but in addition to Anton, before 7 a.m. I also received the following positive comments from local Thinking Friend Marilyn Peot:

    "Leroy, I am deeply moved by your words...broad but succinct, hope-filled but honest, insightful yet challenging. What you offer demands our pondering.

    "You did it again: revealed the truth which brings tears, but at the same time you recognize the Light that deepens our desire for what will be...someday!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, Marilyn. I wish all my Thinking Friends could have understood and affirmed the cosmic hope I wrote about as much as you did!

      Delete
  2. Here are comments from erudite Thinking Friend Vern Barnet:

    "A reformed United Nations or successor organization growing out of what Secretary of State Blinken calls rules-based international relationships is imperative. Bertrand Russell pointed out an essential feature of world government is that only it should have the power and capacity to make war. I believe Teilhard was agnostic about whether the human race was the vehicle through which the Omega Point would be manifested. Thanks for reminding us to keep the vision of E Pluribus Unum for the world in our hearts and minds and works. (What a shame that our original de facto national motto was replaced by In God We Trust.)"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Vern. Here are some quick responses to what you wrote.

      I hadn't heard that statement by Sec. Blinken, but I certainly agree that a (stronger) United Nations organization is imperative.

      I don't agree with Russell that the power and capacity to make war should be the only essential feature of world government. What is more important is a world government working for peace and justice in a variety of ways for the good of all.

      It has been a long time since I read Teilhard, but I would be surprised if he did not see the human race as having anything positive to do with movement toward the Omega Point.

      "In God We Trust" would be a good motto, if that were to be interpreted as trusting God to continue to move the arc of the universe toward unity/oneness.

      Delete
  3. Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico wrote,

    "Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson were idealistic when they chose our motto; realistically, Mr. Franklin said at some point, 'If we don't hang together, we shall all hang separately,' which could have literally happened if our rebel army had not out fought the Red Coats."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing this, Virginia. I am embarrassed to say that I didn't know that the words about hanging that you referred to went back to Franklin. I have heard those words from time to time, but I thought they were maybe said by Abraham Lincoln, so I am glad to know they are, apparently, from Franklin.

      I found this on the HistoryCentral.com website: "Having declared their freedom, the American patriots had to win it in battle. By signing the Declaration of Independence, the delegates were putting their lives on the line. If they were to lose the war for independence, then the British government would execute them in a very painful and nasty way. Thus, although we do not know if Benjamin Franklin actually said, 'we must all hang together, or ... we shall all hang separately,' it is likely that that idea was in the minds of the delegates that day in July."

      But maybe the three men who proposed the Great Seal were not idealistic enough; that is, perhaps they needed a concept of oneness that included the British rather than pitting them against the British. Could there have been a better way than rebellion and war to solve the issues confronting the colonialists in the 1770s? Probably.

      Delete
  4. A local Thinking Friend commented,

    "A final state of social movement is but a sincere ideal. The reality is that we humans shape the future. History teaches us that this bend is a mix of forward and backward movement."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no question but that we humans shape the future. But is the future shaped only by humans? Does God have anything to do with the movement of history, or is the bend of the arc only an unending mixture of forward and backward movement with no progress to a desirable end? Is hope baseless and talk of a cosmic hope only deluded way of thinking?

      Delete
  5. And then these comments from Dr. Jerry Jumper, my relatively new Thinking Friend in Joplin, Missouri:

    "'One from many' is a noble concept but was a bit aspirational, and hypocritical, for our founding fathers. I think it's just as aspirational today. In 1787--women were not part of the many. Nor were slaves. Nor folks who didn't own land. So it was property owning, white males who were the 'One.' In many ways the fight in 2021 is about restoring that white preference."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thought-provoking comments, Jerry.

      Yes, I think "one from many" was both noble and aspirational. And in terms of what was actually practiced, somewhat hypocritical in the ways you indicated. But perhaps it was partly because of that aspirational motto that eventually women did get more equality, slaves were freed, more and more people who were not land-owners or white did get equal rights--although, certainly, the work for equity and unity/oneness is not over. But while there are those who are fighting to go back to the past days of oppression/submission with white supremacy, perhaps the greater fight in 2021, and the one that will eventually be victorious, is being waged by those who are working for liberty and justice for all. They are the ones, I believe, who are on the right side of history. In Christian terms, this is the "Kingdom of God" that we work for and wait for.

      Delete
  6. There is a oneness/unity in the world today, albeit a negative one, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic. It has brought to the forefront the historical injustices and divisions in the world. Perhaps an increasing global consciousness of these injustices and divisions are a seed for major future reforms leading to a more just, peaceful world. There is no peace without justice. And, as Hans Kung and others have formulated it: There can be no peace in the world without peace among the world's religions. We do have a long way to go. However, where there is life there is hope, and my ultimate hope is in God and the "Kingdom of God" which, as you say, we work for and wait for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting your comments here, Garth. I hadn't thought about the negative aspect of unity such as we have now with the covid-19 pandemic, which is worldwide. There is certainly not unity, though, in the way or the speed with which the pandemic is being combatted. Sadly, the availability and use of vaccines is much greater in the U.S. and much of Europe than in southern Asia, Africa, and South America. And while I like and basically agree with Küng's wise words, the disparity in the treatment of covid-19 patients and using means for preventing covid-19 seem to have little to do with disunity among the world's religions.

      Delete
  7. Yesterday, local Thinking Friend Bob Southard emailed me these comments:

    "Recently I heard an illustration that resonated relating to unity in the face of white nationalism that might apply here. A racial uniting could look like a neighborhood potluck dinner with each person contributing their own special recipes to make a fun, great-tasting dinner. If everyone brought the same dish it would be boring. If everyone celebrates and appreciates the various gifts brought, we could be a very successful potluck nation. At the core of such a dinner is mutual respect."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Bob, for your comments, and I like the emphasis that unity includes diversity. Oneness doesn't mean sameness. In your example, it is one meal, but there is a diversity of dishes. A similar idea about the U.S., which you likely have heard, is that it is far more like a tossed salad than a melting pot. A tossed salad is one salad, but the parts of it remain diverse. Can that idea be expanded to include all of humankind and not just the United States?

      Delete
    2. A few minutes ago I received the following comments from local Thinking Friend Bill Ryan (who most likely had not read the comments posted above a few minutes ago).

      "You are reminding me of the Protestant ecumenical movement of the 60s when the motto was 'unity not uniformity,' which was useful when Congregationalists and E&Rs -- from very different historic backgrounds and with contradictory governing philosophies -- merged into the United Church of Christ. I'm also reminded of what a Canadian friend once told me, namely that whereas in the U.S. we talk about a melting pot, in Canada they refer to the nation as a mosaic, which is a clearer image to me of what the U.S. might be."

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments, Bill. Yes, I have been saying that oneness does not mean sameness, but the motto "unity not uniformity" is also a good emphasis.

      I like the image of the U.S. as a mosaic much more than it being a melting pot--but how can we move on to seeing that as a viable image for the whole world?

      Delete
  8. Bro. Leroy,
    I throw these thoughts in late as I am sure you are about to post again. The Kingdom of God represents a unity beyond human ability, yet the Kingdom on earth must remain a goal until its ultimate fulfillment is reached with the full revelation of the Living Lord. The OT prophets dreamed of more than they could understand in my thought. The words of our Founding Fathers could fall into the same category. All men/mankind are created equal. Our culture today has a far clearer insight into the heights and depths, lengths and breadths of those words than their original authors.

    MLK, Jr said, I believe, "America is essentially a dream." Its idealistic goal of all mankind as being created equal is still a dream worth seeking. Unity without uniformity is a dream most western democracies would like to see in reality. A large part of our world is under leadership that demands uniformity.

    As a final note, can any of these dreams be possible without a world language? On a local level, during a mission trip in western Canada, a resident said he wished there was a way Quebec and the French speakers could all be sent to France. How many languages are spoken in Russia, in China? Can there be unity when there is potential for misunderstanding in language? The Roman Empire and Paul had Greek. What is our possibility?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your significant comments, Tom.

      With regard to your last paragraph, when I was a young man, I thought that there would be a significant growth of Esperanto speakers, and I wanted to learn it myself but never did even get started on it. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot less talk about a world language now than there was 60 years ago--maybe partly because of the increase in recent years of translating devices, although the online translations of English to Japanese and vice versa are pretty bad--and partly because the growing use of English as a second language in so many countries of the world. The latter is not necessarily a good thing, as it is an indication of the widespread nature of American economic imperialism.

      Delete