"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Who said this?
 A. Thomas Jefferson
 B. Charles Darwin
 C. Sigmund Freud
 D. Adolf Hitler
 E. Abraham Lincoln
The answer is given at the end of this post.

It appears (from the limited research I have done) that many people want to focus on "the existence of a god" as the key phrase in this quote. And I agree that this phrase stands out (as if in bold print) and likely influences most interpretations. But after some thought, I believe the key phrase to be "Question with boldness". Consider the quote as it is rephrased below:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of [an authority]; because, if there be [a legitimate authority], he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Be the authority natural or supernatural, for me the word "even" points back to and clearly encourages one to "Question [all things] with boldness" and the appearance of "a god" merely emphasizes the prominent significance of (and the method for) said 'Questioning'. The original quote may or may not have meant to question the existence of a god. My suggested 'authority' perspective is meant to unmuddy the waters and allow for a less-controversial, more in-depth, common-ground examination of recent written thought surrounding partisanship, ethical decision-making, and the individual/group delusion of (and desire for) superpowers.

I believe it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to find an individual who has never experienced the negative impact from an abuse of power. I believe there to be some (perhaps many) who are oblivious to these abuses of power, and I believe that within this group there are some (perhaps many) that are oblivious because they wield the power. I believe that the more power one wields (or the more one benefits from the powers that be) the more likely they are to be oblivious to potential and actual resultant abuse. (I believe I have said much of this before; which requires me to dig deeper...)

So what is power? In this context it is the ability or authority to act on a decision or a choice (made as an individual, an individual in the name of a group, or formal or informal group consensus), that has the potential likelihood to influence or impact the decision-maker(s) and/or other heretofore unknowing individuals. By this definition each one of us has power. If I decide to play a solitaire game of Go instead of watching HBO and I follow through, then I have had impact on myself. If I decide to go to Starbucks for coffee instead of Subway for lunch and I follow through, then I have had impact on myself and a few other individuals. In these two examples I have not abused my power. An abuse of power is when an individual or group who wields power (as defined above) benefits at the expense of another individual or other individuals, AND the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) acted without utilizing an ethical decision-making process (as suggested in this post from 3 weeks ago). Some might argue that simply benefiting at the expense of others would be an abuse of power and there is some subjective validity to this argument; however, it is the nature of the beast that some pain and adversity must accompany progress which means that there will be circumstance where harm is inevitable - hence, the necessity of an ethical decision-making process to mitigate and minimize the harm.

Additionally individual responsibility for this ethical decision-making process is consistent with questioning all things ("every fact, every opinion") with reason and boldness. We cannot passively accept 'statements of fact' and 'opinions' simply because they originate from within; and 'within' applies to both within a like-minded group, and within one's own gut, heart, or mind. Misunderstandings, false or misleading information, indoctrination, emotional attachments, personal agendas, and other subjective interpretations can influence and discredit rational consideration, and encourage belief that one (or one's group) is more deserving and/or more powerful.

In the rephrased quote above I inserted 'an authority' for the original 'a god'. I am not questioning the existence of authority (defined as the power to decide and act), but I am questioning the legitimacy of 'an' authority. Does a simple exercise of authority (acting on a decision) legitimize one (individual or group) as an authority? I don't believe it should, but I see that it too often does; perhaps less frequently in the eyes of the beholders than in the mind of the beholden, but enough in both directions to maintain a delusion of noble legitimacy.

So far in this (somewhat convoluted) thought, we have:

1. The ability to wield power;
2. The authority to wield power;
3. The abuse of power;
4. The necessity of questioning power and authority (with boldness and reason); and
5. The legitimacy of authority.

We have determined that each one of us has the ability to act on a decision or choice, thus wielding power. I believe this ability to wield power to be different from authority in that authority is determined by varying degrees of fortuitous and/or purposeful circumstance, which is further determined by many factors including capabilities, responsibilities, perceived urgencies, and personal (and/or organizational) degree of compassionate vs. tyrannical strengths. I also believe that authority is necessary to legitimately abuse power. 'Legitimate abuse' sounds like a contradiction but by recognizing the line between ability to wield power and acknowledged authority to wield power we can see that one who can (ability) abuse power (by for example robbing a bank) is by consensus not legitimate, whereas one who has been granted power (authority) can abuse power (by for example discriminately choosing which rules to enforce, when) and be considered legitimate (at least by those who agree, and often by neutral or apathetic bystanders) because they have in some way been authorized.

The question now becomes, can any one (individual or group) be considered a legitimate authority? I believe the answer to be an emphatic "No!" I believe any one (individual or group) who considers themselves to be a legitimate authority has crossed the line into delusions of (and desire for) superpowers. Please note: I do not mean authority as in the context of 'expert' but rather as previously defined - one (individual or group) who decides and acts. And though this granting of authority by allowing an individual or a group to become the personification of authority is necessarily unavoidable, one's (individual and/or group) humanity will forever deny Perfect legitimacy. Regardless of the safeguards (such as the aforementioned responsibility for ethical decision-making) some subjectivity will always creep in, creating the potential for some unforeseen harm; and regardless of effort and intention, subjective ignorance is still an abuse of power.

The quote at the top of this post was written by Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr in a letter dated August 10, 1787. I think Mr. Jefferson would agree that subjective ignorance is as much an abuse of power as is any degree of fear-mongering tyranny, though the latter is potentially more egregious. I also believe that by seemingly questioning the existence of a god, Mr. Jefferson was encouraging us to find common ground amongst all of our own in this empirical reality.

...An admonition we should heed.