Self-esteem -- it's for achievers

Inattentive has some insightful comments about Scientific American's piece debunking the self-esteem myth. It has taken me a long time to figure out how many people who have supreme confidence are just laboring under misapprehension of reality. Self-esteem is one of those things like bipartisanship and tolerance, that are good things, but can't be forced. Telling someone to be more bipartisan is just a roundabout way of trying to make him abandon his principles. That's why you hear Democrats criticizing Republicans for not being bipartisan like they were during Watergate.

I've been engaged in a debate in letters to the editor about prayer at public meetings, and it has made me realize that outlawing it on the grounds that we want to promote tolerance has resulted in greater division and intolerance. The only way to promote a virtue like tolerance is to practice it. But if courts just rule out all expressions of faith in public settings, where will we be allowed to practice tolerance? I'm not in favor of having prayers by a single religious tradition all the time. In Utah, if anything, I'd prefer prayers by Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or almost any non-Mormon group as long as Mormons had their turn and all were given with respect for what people have in common rather than what divides them. Of course, that would probably irritate atheists, but I'd still allow secular humanists time for an inspirational thought or moment of meditation. As long as they had substantial following, and didn't want to sacrifice a chicken or something like that, I'm all for learning respect for serious religions, even those of American Indian tribes, Buddhists and Hindus. For new age designer "faiths" and fringe religions like Wicca, Druidism, Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, etc. I'd probably want some extra evidence of their good will, sanity and support for principles of religious freedom, but that's about it.

Others say that prayers are only a way for the religious to assert that America is a theistic or Christian nation, which I can understand. However, insisting on exclusive recognition of your right to be atheist by denying others the right to express their faith strikes me as giving official sanction to that single point of view. That isn't an invitation to tolerance, even if it is couched in concern for those who might feel "stigmatized."

I have never been a real advocate of sectarian prayers in schools or elsewhere, but the more I think about it and observe how it has affected the public attitudes toward faith, the more I think the courts blew it.

Getting back to self-esteem, I see a similar problem, which I call the Oz Effect. Instead of brains you settle for diplomas. Instead of courage you settle for medals. And so on. Self-esteem should be the result of achievement and accomplishment, not the goal itself. It can be promote with love, examples and encouragement, but if it isn't accompanied by real accomplishment, it's just self-deception and misplaced confidence. We love heroes and champions, but we know that we can't all be Number One. Is the answer to pretend that we are, or is it that, even if we're not first in the class, we can all learn to read or do arithmetic and become contributors to society?

Like money in Gresham's Law, unfounded recognition drives out real achievement. We settle for diplomas without the skills they are supposed to represent.

There are other values or virtues like education, tolerance, humility and bipartisanship that cannot be approached directly or forced. It may be a blessing for people to be forced to be humble, but not if it ends there. Faith is another one. It can be urged, taught and given recognition, but it is ultimately a matter for each individual to learn. Still, the founders of the United States understood its value and sought to create a climate conducive to it. Our courts seem to have decided that they were a bunch of intolerant religious fanatics.