It's an interesting question. Two parts, I'd say: 1) will it have harmful effects? 2) will it in fact help the Dems?
It's easy to imagine the harmful effects: appeals to "higher law" and scripture gain the imprimatur of the state, giving aspiring theocrats greater legitimacy and power. But we can only guess as to whether those harmful effects will come to pass. My guess: yes, but not because of displaying the ten commandments.
2 is also tricky. How do the Dems go about agreeing to this? By saying that religion in public life ain't so bad after all? Doesn't that really give up the game? It's not as if the religious conservatives are going to be appeased. Or by quietly agreeing, in order to get the issue off the table? Ok, sure, but I'd anticipate very little political gain there.
I guess my unsatisfying answer is, go ahead and do it, but it won't do much good. (I could be convinced that it's actually a horrible idea and will have catastrophic consequences. I'm easy that way.)
I have a gut "no" reaction to anything that will encourage people to repeat the claim that the US was "founded on Christian principles" or other such hooey.
I'm willing to bet that most people agitating for public commandments haven't actually put that much thought into it, but that's because I'm a liberal blue-state coastal sneering elitist prob.
Nope. Not at all. The religious right will just say "Thanks, infidels," and push forward on abortion, birth control, and the rest.
MY: if that kind of token gesture toward the concept that this is a Christian [...] country is what it takes to get support for a progressive political agenda, then sign me up.
Matt's a smart guy, but that's a pretty dumb statement. I don't get the feeling he's spent much time around the folks he thinks this will appease. Compromise isn't in their vocabulary.
Y'know, I could bend on the Ten Commandments things if we included all versions, plus representative sets of laws from other major religions--buddhism (multiple flavors?), islam, a few Native American religions, etc.). If we turned the whole thing into some sort of demonstration of the universality of the human quest for right living, yeah, OK. But let's not go putting one religion into a privileged position over others.
(I'm tempted to say that we need the Satanist One Commandment: "Do as Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.")
1) Separation of church and state isn't important anymore? I'm not at all comfortable with sanctioning the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation (see, the commandments are in our courthouses).
2) Conservatives aren't dumb. Really. And I don't think a token band-aid of an outreach (we use a blender on our metaphors here) is going to make them suddenly sign onto the rest of the liberal platform; if someone isn't voting for you because she believes, say, that your positions on abortion are equivalent to murder, she's probably unlikely to be fooled into thinking you're on her side because you let the commandments go up in a courthouse.
Apostropher is totally right here. The idea that this will make liberalism more appealing to religious conservatives is just horseshit. We'll just seem weak.
I've spent my life around religious fundamentalists, and they're not too trickly to understand. They're not "worldly," and so "worldly" actions don't matter for beans. It's the "spiritual" aspect. They'd see this capitualization as pure politics, with no soul behind it, therefore, it doesn't count.
And, Ogged's concern 1 is much more pertinent than he thinks. I get plenty 'o emails talking about god's role in our government and the judiciary. THERE'S BIBLICAL SCENES SCULPTED IN THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, DID YOU KNOW THAT?!?! No, these people would take the ball and run with it.
What really disturbs me are the "teaching creationism" numbers. Holy crap on a stick, are we that dumb?
I'm sure I'll get rightly killed for this, but I'm in exactly the opposite camp: I am more comfortable selling out abortion rights than putting the 10 Commandments up. There are a lot of reasons for that, inc. that I'm a man and therefore am likely wrong about the effect of selling out abortion rights, but I guess two are most important to me.
1. You can titrate your sale of abortion rights, but not really the right to put up the 10 Commandments. So you either completely allow what I think would ultimately be an important step on the road to a state sanctioned religion, or you compromise on abortion on the margins.
2. In some sense this is precisely because no one cares that much about putting up the 10 Commandments. It doesn't directly effect people in a super tangible way, but I believe that the day-after-day effect of allowing badges of a state sanctioned religion would be huge. At no point will it be important enough for lots of people to object; instead, like the frog in the pot, we'll comfortably boil alive. OTOH, abortion rights matter. So, if we're right, and it's an important public policy, over time we'll gain more converts to our side as increasing restrictions screw over more and more women. (NB: IIRC, we lost white women to GWB in 2004).
I'd rather sell out neither, but if one's got to go....
So, if we're right, and it's an important public policy, over time we'll gain more converts to our side as increasing restrictions screw over more and more women.
Plans that depend on letting things go to hell, so that people recognize that they were wrong and you were right all along, are probably not good plans.
I should be clearer that I don't just mean emails, here. I think what would happen is that this would work its way into most of the sunday sermons (and satruday, wednesday, and whateverelse sermons, too) in the country. Millions of people who don't otherwise give this much thought are suddenly going to be taught that "they put the commandments up because god's law is our law." They'll indoctrinate the members and the children, and then see what kind of motivated protests they start mounting.
Plans that depend on letting things go to hell, so that people recognize that they were wrong and you were right all along, are probably not good plans.
Yes and no. I mean, how different is my claim than simply saying, "People change their behavior when bad things happen," or, "Incentives matter"? It would be awfully important to titrate when and where we fell back on abortion rights, to limit the damage and to clarify the issue, I acknowledge. But I just don't think people can be argued into a new position without being forced to confront the problem with the old one.
I'm really uncomfortable with my position, but if we're really talking trades here, that's the trade I'd make. I'd be happy to be talked out of it.
Plans that depend on letting things go to hell, so that people recognize that they were wrong and you were right all along, are probably not good plans.
Swing on the Ten Commandments monument (in some awkward, Al-kissing-Tipper way) and the right will have its next pitch in hand. Liberals are making the Boy Scouts earn their fag badge, or Ward Churchill is teaching classes in which students who were once God's precious baby infants might conceivably enroll, or our congregation's Christian late-service light rock group hasn't been featured in the school cafeteria. It's an empire built on martyrs, and the Right has more where ugly court statues came from.
I didn't think the ten commandments thing was such a bad thing. I'd prefer that it be a locally decided issue and that citizens have to vote for the specific tax increase to pay for it, rather than just screwing Medicaid.
Where Yglesias shocked me was the school prayer line. Something like posting the ten commandments is a passive form of communication. You can look at them, think about them etc. But you don't have to interalize them. And in fact, making them part of the government somehow cheapens them in my mind. McReligion to think about while eating your McMuffin.
I'm also way uncomfortable with this, but Y's point wasn't that this would get the Christian Right to like us. It's that it might get people who aren't Christian Rightists, but who apparently agree with the Christian Right on this one issue, to like us. I'm really uncomfortable about the slippery slope as in 17--but I don't think we can refute Y's actual point just by saying "The people this is aimed at will never like us anyway"--that's not who it's aimed at.
Why don't they start by putting the Bible back in school libraries, instead of the same conservative supposed fundamentalists banning it for questionable content?
FWIW: I'm not sure how much this parallels prior arguments about an amendment disallowing flag-burning. I know I care a lot less about the right to burn a flag than either of these two issues, but there was a fair bit of sense to being against that amendment, too.
Weiner's right. But can someone tell me what the benefit is supposed to be, since I don't see Yglesias spell it out? That we no longer seem reflexively anti-religious to moderates?
"objections that it 'contains language and stories that are inappropriate for children of any age, including tales of incest and murder.' There are more than three hundred examples of 'obscenities' in the book." I recall reading about a principal & librarian who were sued for cutting pages of Song of Songs out at a parent's request.
SCMT is right in 21. Letting people put the 10C up in public places: Maybe not so bad. Amending the Constitution to permit it, which is probably what would be required: Absolutely awful. There's the rub.
I believe that the day-after-day effect of allowing badges of a state sanctioned religion would be huge. At no point will it be important enough for lots of people to object; instead, like the frog in the pot, we'll comfortably boil alive.
I understand what you mean, and I hate to see these lunatics win one... but here in the UK we have a state-sanctioned religion, with blessings and religious mottos on public buildings and bishops in Parliament and school prayer and everything, and we survive. In fact (except in Northern Ireland) obnoxiously political religion is a lot less of a problem here than it seems to be in the USA. And I'd feel a lot more confident about things like abortion rights and religious tolerance still being around in 20 years here than over there.
But ajay, the population in the UK is much more secular than that in the US, so there's not even a distant risk of the government becoming uncomfortably theocratic.
But that story is the opposite of fundamentalists wanting to ban the bible. It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just interested in reading these stories.
I was thinking along the same lines as Weiner's 25. Who, exactly, is MY's (and Kevin Drum's), post aimed at? The ACLU? The Alalbama Supreme Court? I honestly don't know. Certainly liberals are larely against such displays, but what have we actually done about it? Perhaps the suggestion is simply that a liberal group shouldn't lititgate such displays? (leave it to the libertrians?)
Another -- and this one, unlike the evolution thing, is really wildly popular -- is putting the ten commandments up in public buildings. You should look at the data yourself and see exactly how popular this is, because I think a lot of readers will have trouble believing it. Public support is totally overwhelming, opposition is very much a marginal view.
Looking at the data, the actual question is:
Q.16 Do you believe that it is proper or improper for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a government building?
The numbers are overwhelming that it is proper (roughly 75 -25) but Yglesias implies that this is the same as saying that Americans support putting up the 10 commandmants where they haven't been displayed. It seems more likely that this means most Americans simply don't see anything wrong with these displays wherever they happen to be.
This is a much better strategy for losing additional blue states than for gaining red ones. More than half of the women I know would vote 3rd party id the Dems did that.
here in the UK we have a state-sanctioned religion
Well, see, that happens to be the reason our forefathers left England.
The inference was that conservative politicians have so entirely hijacked Christianity for their own purposes, yet are notorious for disputing the decency & relevance of literature in schools. I don't doubt that it is possible conservative atheists or those of another religious persuasion are responsible for the continued challenges to the Bible in school libraries. Most schools have sidestepped the issue with "adaptations", although even those seem to be controversial.
"Kenneth Roberts was a fifth-grade teacher at the Berkeley Gardens Elementary School in Denver when in 1987 two parents complained to school principal Kathleen Madigan about two books -- "The Bible in Pictures" and "The Story of Jesus" -- included in Roberts' 240-book classroom library. Ms. Madigan ordered the books removed. She explained that "separation of church and state" made such action necessary."
I also found this interesting & pertinent, though recently the only perceptible difference between Catholicism & Protestantism is whether communion is wine or grape juice.
"The School Board in Cincinnati, Ohio, banned Bible-reading and required prayers in 1869 and was upheld by the state Supreme Court. A similar ruling was passed down by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1910. In both cases, Catholic parents had challenged common practices on grounds that public schools had no right to push Protestantism."
Apparently, Catholics additionally objected to the inclusion of the King James Bible on the grounds it was used primarily by Protestants. I object to the Living Bible for encouraging illiteracy, as I do English translations of Shakespeare.
1. If you basically think religous folks are dopes and rubes, and that "religious reasons" have no place in public debate, trying to delude people with minor concessions will not help. So in this sense, the Ten Commandments will not help the left wing of the democratic party. If the left wing of the democractic party could use the occassion of the Ten Commandments to figure out why state "advocacy" of religion is not so bad (when we are fine with state "advocacy" of other morally-loaded concepts, and other interest group satisfaction), then it might help plenty.
2. The Democratic party has a problem that the intellectual and financial leader of the party basically come from one group that is in a tiny minority on most social questions. GOP deployment of wedge issues like ten commandments is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
3. And, just as an aside, the United States *was* founded on Christian principles. Early America was a protestant culture. Further, the intellectual influence of Christianity on the American founding was profound. Just to take on example, the "transcendental" notion of equality mentioned in the Declaration is clearly a concept with a religious foundation. Also, as I am far from the first to point out, crucial arguments (like Locke's) for religious toleration only go through if you adopt a roughly protestant theology. I am wicked committed to enlightment rationalism, but we need to face facts on this.
As usual, what baa said, and also what Weiner said. I think MY's point was not that tacking up some shalt nots would convince the serious conservatives; his point is that a lot of people outside that group think that we of the liberal anti-10C-in-public crowd are kind of being dicks about something harmless, and-- perhaps-- that being dickish in this way is an electoral burden. All the usual qualifications tacked on, etc.
Baa, in (1), were you suggesting that the democratic lefties are being inconsistent? What other cases do you have in mind? (I'm not being confrontational; I'm asking for information so that I might slavishly take your position.)
the United States *was* founded on Christian principles
Um, no. The founding of the US begins with the ratification of the Constitution, wherein neither God nor Jesus rates a single shout-out anywhere. The *only* mention of religion is in the first amendment which, no matter how you slice it, clearly says the government must remain neutral in matters of religion.
You can make the argument that the United States was founded *by* Christians, but nothing anywhere in the Constitution is a specifically Christian principle.
I want more information on #2, baa; I couldn't speak to the "intellectual and financial leader"'s beliefs, but I'm fairly sure I'm in the bare majority on most social questions.
Really, baa should hold an "Ask the Conservative" forum one day. Because I've always wondered whether the killing of the cutest kittens in a litter is merely ritualistic, or whether there is a functional purpose.
Deists and masons and atheists (oh my!) were in the mix, but most of the signers were Christians. Also, mason and Christian aren't mutually exclusive categories.
3. And, just as an aside, the United States *was* founded on Christian principles. Early America was a protestant culture. Further, the intellectual influence of Christianity on the American founding was profound. Just to take on example, the "transcendental" notion of equality mentioned in the Declaration is clearly a concept with a religious foundation. Also, as I am far from the first to point out, crucial arguments (like Locke's) for religious toleration only go through if you adopt a roughly protestant theology. I am wicked committed to enlightment rationalism, but we need to face facts on this.
When people talk about how the US is a Christian nation, they aren't talking about the intellectual influence of Christianity or a general Christian or Protestant background on either the founders themselves or the philosophers that influenced the founders, are they?
I would jump up & down about that assertion, but Masons & Mormons are impossible to debate, regardless of sources, due to the clandestine nature of cults. Their public literature contradicts their private practices.
I predict that this conversation will go completely off the rails unless we're careful to carve out a common sense of "founded on Christian principles." Already baa and Apostropher seem to have different ideas in mind.
Re 50: I was thinking of apostropher's use, though it did occur to me as I was typing 2 that someone might interpret it as baa did. But I really don't think that's what most people using that phrase mean.
To say that many of America's founding principles have their origins in Christian ones, particluarly those of various forms of Protestant Christianity, is not the same as saying that America is or was a "Christian nation." In many ways it is really the declining antagonisms among Christian churches in recent times that has made it possible to imagine that the US could be Christian in a broad, non-denominational way.
There were indeed state-sanctioned, established (i.e. tax-supported) churches in most of the American colonies - most were Anglican, becoming Episcopalian after the revolution - but beginning in the 1780s movements began for disestablishment on a state-by-state basis. By 1820 or so, there were no state-established churches. (Virginia was the first to go, Massachusetts the last.)
Generally disestablishment involved a coalition of those inclined towards religious toleration as a broad principle and representatives of denominations who saw establishment as a threat to their own growth. In Virginia, along with Jefferson and Madison, the Baptists were a key force behind separation of church and state. (Aren't Baptists now the denomination most in favor of state support?)
There's a very powerful argument that disestablishment is one of, if not the main reason for the growth and continued vitality of American Christiantiy. Rather than have any one denomination dominate the field, various sects had to compete widely in order to gain new adherents. At the same time, the lack of a state-supported church meant the lack of a target for the kind anti-clericalism that became a feature of European secular-religious conflicts.
I would argue that the more religion becomes identified with government, the more anti-government animosity will be directed towards religion. It's possible that this is what is already happening.
The US cycles through evangelical revivals. If the revolution happened in the middle of a great awakening, it would be lot easier to find evidance for founding fathers seeing the US as an explicitly christian nation.
That isn't how it happened. The intellectual and financial leaders of the revolution came from a group that was in a tiny minority on religious questions: Deism. Jesus Christ was written out of the declaration. By the second great awakening, preachers were calling the founding fathers infidels.
Just to take on example, the "transcendental" notion of equality mentioned in the Declaration is clearly a concept with a religious foundation. Also, as I am far from the first to point out, crucial arguments (like Locke's) for religious toleration only go through if you adopt a roughly protestant theology.
Representative democracy isn't a Christian principle (also, I suspect there weren't too many Orthodox Church members in 18th century America). I'm talking textual references here, folks. As laid out in the Constitution, what derives specifically from scriptural origins?
I'm not trying to harangue anybody here, but I hear this expressed so often, but nobody ever identifies what any of those principles are and nobody I have asked has been able to state one.
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify a specific founding principle of America that has its origin in a Christian principle.
I believe the argument in the case of equality is that the conception embodied in the declaration comes out of the belief that all Christians are equal in the eyes of God.
But this doesn't mean that one has to be Christian in order to believe in equality, or that a nation has to be Christian in order to uphold this principle.
The Declaration of Independence does not found the United States; it simply separates from the British empire. By the time they got around to crafting the document *that founds the nation*, all reference to religion has been removed (save the 1st Amendment), which by the standards of the time, is a pretty radical move and can hardly be seen as anything but pointedly intentional.
The argument that the colonies were heavily Protestant, therefore the nation is founded on Protestant principles is akin to saying that an automobile factory in Bombay makes Hindu cars.
This is the point of 50. A particular notion of equality might be derived from religious traditions though it's formulated in nonreligious language; similarly, it might be true that a political principle about religious neutrality might be supported for theistic reasons, or unavailable to athiests.
Also, the hindu cars argument is lame insofar as the point isn't only about the origins of the content but about the conceptual resources needed (historically at least) to arrive at the content.
"...which by the standards of the time, is a pretty radical move and can hardly be seen as anything but pointedly intentional." Because this country is, and always has been, a puppet of the occult. :)
But look. People who want to make the claim the the US was founded on Christian principles aren't simply making an observation about the intellectual roots of claims for equality in the late 18thC. It's supposed to be a normative claim—this is a Christian nation, so we should enact explicitly Christian laws of such-and-such a sort. Or at least they mean that it's an explicitly or overtly Christian nation. If all they meant was that the bases for religious toleration and the understanding of equality that were current at the time of the Constitution's writing happened to have been influenced by and maybe even depended on a certain kind of Protestantism, people wouldn't make the claim so vehemently—for one thing, just because that particular notion of equality is derived from a religious tradition, that doesn't mean that one couldn't promulgate an equivalent secular notion, or one that came from another religious tradition.
FL, I took transcendental equality to be the argument that people are born with equal natural rights? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "political equality," which to me seems to suggest equality in the political system. Plato certainly didn't argue that, but, then, that wasn't true in the US, either.
I do think Plato argued the first, though, in books 3 and 5 of the Republic. One's role in the city was not determined by birth-rank or gender, but would be assigned after testing determined one's natural aptitutdes. There were no slaves in the just city, either. And he based this argument, I think, on transcendental grounds, because a la the theory of forms and the Good, pretty much everything in the Republic is justified transcendentally.
Good, Ben. My claim was only that, well, there's a way in which these claims about "christian nations" are true and a way in which they're false. To come back to Earth, we should ask how they're being used and, in particular, whether the senses in which they're true are sufficient to do that work.
to add on to Ben's; yes, and the other problem is conflicting christian accounts of equality. Not all christian theologians believed (believe) in it. So, saying that this country was founded on "Christian principles" is really too broad to be accurate, even if it turns out to be in some sense correct. It was, dubiously, founded on certain principles of certain Christian sects. Claiming "christian nation!" obscures that.
I didn't mean in (1) to assert *inconsistancy* at all. I think the lefter elements of the Democratic party are very upfront about the importance of a government that is explicitly secular. That's a highly respectable position.
It's also highly respectable to think, e.g., that the state should on no account name a school after a religious leader, or tack up a ten commandments on the walls, but could reasonably name a school after Malcom X/Caesar Chavez and support environmentalism and gay rights. I just believe it is a losing attitude as a matter of political tactics.
>this conversation will go completely off the rails unless we're careful to carve out a common sense of "founded on Christian principles."
That's so obviously correct that I retract my earlier statement. If we want to think of the American founding as a secular enterprise, inspired primarily by the secualr aspect of enlgihtment thought, that's fine. I think it's a craaaaaazy take on the history of ideas, but let's just agree to disagree on it. There's no hope, I think, in a comments section.
Ben, I completely agree, and I hope it doesn't look like I'm trying to say that the US was founded on Christian principles in the way that term is often used. But I don't think it's enough simply to deny those assertions without getting into the more complicated details of why they are wrong.
Well, I'm going to get all persnickety and (probably) humorless, because this happens to be one of my very biggest pet peeves. The Declaration of Independence, the document most often held up as evidence of America's Christian origins *isn't a legal document*. It does not establish one single law; it is a list of complaints to King George, ending with "and you ain't the boss of me no more."
the conceptual resources needed (historically at least) to arrive at the content
America's laws derive from the Constitution. I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires any sort of Biblical understanding to grasp, either then or now. It is a profoundly, radically secular document.
Let us agree for a minute to accept that the basic premises of constitutional and electoral freedom were forged in Christian thought.
Now explain please how it is that a Universal worldy truth, even if discovered by a particular religion, only be available to adherents of that religion?
Even if we did bequeathe the world democracy, where is the justification for shoving our scripture in the faces of those members of our society who possess a different spirituality to ours?
The not so subtle sub-text is disgusting. Oh, and I am a christian, on my own terms.
we should ask how they're being used and, in particular, whether the senses in which they're true are sufficient to do that work
Actually taking you up on this, isn't it a sort of public reason problem? Someone proposes legislation x (legalize gay marriage, for instance), opponents of x say that's wrong, proponents say "You're basing that entirely on something from the Bible," and opponents retort, "Christian nation, the prohibition on murder arises from the bible, etc." That's the main use I see being made of the claim, "America is a christian nation."
Michael. That rocked. Although I still somehow believe baa's underlying point might be correct. Plato and early christian thought had a fair bit of interplay if I recall. If you didn't get it from one you got it from another.
More to the point, the actual religious differences of the Quakers, Catholics, etc were a very big deal with major social consequences. So there was an effort made to have religious expressions be lowest common denominator. And at that
In fact, the whole discussion might have wrinkles of tautology, kind of like an Intelligent Design debate about the founding fathers. Is their product not so perfect and myriad in its complexities that it must be divinely inspired?
FL and baa (who wrote 72, I assume), I acknowledge that there's a way it's right and a way it's wrong. I mean: expanding on baa's statement that Locke's arg. for religious toleration only goes through on a protestant theology, there could be a government that was founded with the explicit demand that it be entirely secular, and founded in that way as a result of a certain kind of religious view, or for explicit religious reasons. You would then be justified in saying that it was founded on religious principles (in a sense) and in saying that it wasn't (in a sense). You just have to make it clear what you mean!
Apo, I agree with this too, in principle, but not so much as a political/rhetorical strategy. The Declaration is not law, but it is still important enough, and has had a stong enough influence, that how one sees it can affect how one votes.
All this discussion of whether we are a "Christian nation" or "founded on Christian principles" (which ones exactly?) or whatever is well and good, but I have to admit I find the Pew data, in at least one instance, to be either somewhat suspect or drasmatically depressing. How can it be that among the eight different political typologies identified by the researchers, not one opposes teaching creationism alongside evolution in school? The only group not to favor it is Liberals, and they split 49%-49% on it. Either the data is screwed up or the country is headed for the toilet.
So, Ben W is right about the many uses to which "a Christian nation" is delpoyed. Fontana is doing a better job elucidating my comments than I can, so I should let him have at it. But of course, I can't keep my big mouth shut.
Briefly. I think Apostropher's test for Christian influence is too strict. Absent a bible verse in the Constitution, you're out. The principle also leads to the somewhat pervese conclusion that the American founding is more influenced by Montesquieu than by the nation's dominant intellectual and cultural tradition. Montesquieu is an important guy, but that can't be right.
Here's a proposition I think is true: Americans at the time of the founding largely believed in a transcendent notion of equality for religious reasons --they thought equality stemmed from being equal before God. Any takers?
[[Aside on Locke. Religious toleration of the Lockean variety gets a *huge* intellectual boost from the notion that the beliefs relevant to salvation cannot be compelled. That's a highly protestant notion. ]]
I would have made the point Chopper made in 3 if it weren't already made. (Also agree on 7.)
I recognize that the problematic aspects of "displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings" are sufficiently subtle that most of the public will generally view those who try to point out the problems as arrogant, blind, dickweeds, but, you know, I'm used to that. And the principle that the State cannot be allowed to endorse specific religion isn't one I can see as "small" or one that can be particularly compromised, save on what are so sufficiently marginal issues that the main folks bothered by the issue will never be remotely satisfied.
I also agree with SCMT on 12.
In the end, would some sort of "compromise" theoretically help? Perhaps. But I see no possible way to significantly do it without surrendering absolutely crucial principles -- there's no way to pick one set of "Ten Commandments" without endorsing one particular religious sect over another, so it can't be done (and, no, I can't see allowing a patchwork of local communities where different local governments grant State endorsement to different religious sects; what a helpfully unifying thing that would be). Beyond that, what's to actually compromise?
Certainly it seems that the chain of events: Creationism gaining the upperhand---> Life science research declining---> profitability of pharma-science companies endangered---> import of skills (presumeably in this scenario, non-christian) is being set up. Mail me in a hundred years about the consequences.
The actual compromise would presumably be somehow convince the ACLU, Michael Newdow, and a series of other totally unrelated groups outside of the control of any Democratic politician to not challenge any of the existing displays of the ten commandments.
Well Kriston, if you dont errm believe in the processes of evolution, you'll have a hard time jiving to virus research and DNA-RNA-Protein transcription. It ll all be evil ya see.
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
-John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America
True, radical uneven political power once class is chosen (radically uneven economic power going the other way, I wonder if that's worth a shot in this day and age....) But, it makes me interested in what exactly was the argument we're discussing here, because, political power in the US was radically uneven. I suppose the argument is transcendental equality for everyone who counts? I can see that, and it is different from Plato who didn't have such a criterion inside his city.
"Rights" is tricky. On the one hand, Plato believed too much freedom caused corruption. OTOH, he didn't believe in legislating to limit freedom. (People should just be taught better) But not because he was against impiging on their rights. And while Plato didn't judge individuals in the city by any group they belonged too, their individual talents did determine which rights they got (there were always trade-offs). But this also meant there was no total disenfranchisement. Still, I guess this means I'll have to back off my earlier claim.
In cahoots?! Big Pharma's sins are myriad (you think we only use the cutest kitten, SCMT? We use *every* kitten!), but I think perhaps they can get a pass on funding creationism.
Austro, you are undervaluing to a large degree the power of compartmentalization. Few of us have consistant beliefs. A medicinal chemist could believe the precambrian explosion derived from shedding of Quetzacoatyl's skin and still do fab work on anti-histamines.
baa... Im sorry, but my tongue was actually firmly in my cheek. I d say it would be dishonest of the medicinal chemist in question, but I'd never be so silly as to attempt to back the claim that chain will hold. If nothing else the profit motive will see to that.
But honestly, the mendacity involved in making the compartmentalisation is astounding.
Mind you, I can't get through my day without at least 10 good rationalisations, so I'm not the best one to preach...
I agree this is getting off topic, so I ll shut up.
"The actual compromise would presumably be somehow convince the ACLU, Michael Newdow, and a series of other totally unrelated groups outside of the control of any Democratic politician to not challenge any of the existing displays of the ten commandments."
Laying aside the slightly surreal aspect that the vast majority of "existing displays" consist of leftovers from publicity props donated by Cecil deMille to promote his movie -- gosh, that's an awesome heritage of religiosity, innit? -- even if, hypothetically, someone waved a magic wand and all challenges to anything that isn't installed as new tomorrow ceased forever, how would that help anyone insofar as I think it's more or less a fact that, in that case, someone somewhere would be sure to move to put up a new display in a government building on Monday?
And, of course, I have no problem whatever with a display of the Ten Commandments in a context such as Chopper refers to in 7, and as more or less exist in some places. But the main thing is that if every good Christian (or bad) wants to put up a Ten Commandments display and a creche, and a cross, or whatever, on their lawn, roof, storefront, corporation entrance, farm, whatever, fine. You just can't (be allowed to) suceed in gaining government endorsement for your personal sect. It's that simple. (I'm still waiting for Bush or Cheney to visit a Satanic Faith-Based Charity, but never mind.)
While you cannot deny that the Founders embodied a Protestant tradition, it seems telling that they were perfectly aware of the Protestant nature of their intellectual influences--the Glorious Revolution and all its fruits being, of course, explicitly anti-Catholic--and yet they chose neutral secular language in crafting the Constitution. It would suggest conscious intent, conscious attempt at universality.
Absent a bible verse in the Constitution, you're out.
Nope, no Bible verses needed. But a scriptural antecedent for any sentence anywhere in the Constitution would be helpful. I know you've proposed agreeing to disagree (and I agree that neither of us is likely to sway the other), but I can't keep my big mouth shut either.
I think we're foundering on the difference between "Christianity was influential in 18th-century America" and "the nation was founded in Christian principles." The textual evidence argues very much against the latter formulation. Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli between the US and the Barbary States, which was approved unanimously by the US Senate eight years following the founding of the nation:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I'm having trouble demoting such pointed declarations as this one or the Adams quote above to a lesser importance than an assertion that early Americans "largely believed in a transcendent notion of equality for religious reasons."
The "disagreement" between apo and baa is over the meaning of "founded,' and ac gets it right in 98. Of course the founders were both Christian and influenced by Christian ideas. In that sense, as the work of Christian men, America was founded upon Christian ideals. Nevertheless, the document itself, and the founders themselves, deliberately and explicitly refuse to appeal to religion to ground the legitimacy of the government. In that sense, this is not a Christian nation. The question then, is whether public display of the Ten Commandments if consistent with either sense of "founded" and which sense ought to be the one that guides us.
"Of course the founders were both Christian and influenced by Christian ideas."
Up to a mixed point. Jefferson famously construced his own Bible in which he tore out every passage containing anything with "supernatural" elements or direct words "from God." This is not precisely an endorsement of what is commonly considered a "Christian" position today.
Those interested can always jump back tp picking on ogged in "I Don't Feel Special." There's some fertile soil there based on the most recent comment (52).
Why do you think most Americans of the founding era believed all men are created equal?
I don't think most Americans believed that (see: slaves=0.6*person).
the influence of Montesquieu
I think this question is irrelevant, but I have no idea as to the actual answer.
What kind of evidence would convince you that the founding was, in a relevant sense, grounded on Christian beliefs?
Any sort of scriptural antecedent in the founding document. The non-legislative writings of the biggies - Jefferson, Madison, and Adams - reveal, if anything, a pretty consistent distrust, verging on hostility, toward religion.
No, Chopper, picking on Ogged based on that one would be just too cruel. Plus I have reason to think that that comment was actually made by him, posting under a different pseudonym.
1st: is the idea of what "the document" says. And yep, the Constitution is not a Christian document. Fine. The Consitution not the Declaration is law of the land. Also true. It's like Lino Graglia day here.
2nd: is the fact that America, the nation, had a civic culture and intellectual life. And that the aspects of that civic culture and intellectual life that supported democracy, equality, etc., were influenced by Christianity to an enormous, enormous degree. I hope no one disputes this, as it would be kind of batty to do so.
Brief comment on 1 and 2. Imagine I say "prohibition in America was founded on Chrisitian doctrine." And someone comes along with the text of the 18th amendment and says: "no no, it the document is entirely secular." I kind of think that person is missing the point.
Point 3: no matter what we think about 1 and 2, it's absolutely not clear that the American tradition has been rigorous secularism or even non-denominationalism is government activity, nor is it clear that this is what the 1st amendment requires. Chaplains in the senate, etc. This is a long-standing debate, and the "wall of separation" position is not the only one with powerful supporting arguments.
Point 4: the interesting political/moral question is what obligations religious minorities and majorities have to each other in a liberal, democratic polity.
One view: the majority must do *nothing* that imposes any burdens on the minority. ["But wait," the religious majority might say, "other majorities in this country get to impose burdens sometimes, why not us?"]
Another view: the religious majority should not make the burdens on the minority onerous, but on small matters, the minority should *let it slide.* If you live in a town that's 90% Christian, let some money go for a town Xmas tree, just as in a town that is 90% Italian, let the city pay for a Columbus day parade.
I can identify with both views, as I held both as different times in my life. I once got very exercised about "in God we trust" being on the nickel. Now, as most have likely guessed, I incline to the latter view. Tolerance, as someone said, is a two way street. The majority has to tolerate the minority's strange practices, the minority has to tolerate the majority seeing some of their beliefs manifested in the public sphere.
Really, this is just a specific case, it looks like, of the general dispute between conservative interpretation and liberal interpretation. You think traditions matter; we know better.
For example, point 4 is just a question of how to run a pluralistic democracy. Should the city of O'Shaunessyberg pay for a Saint Patrick's Day Parade, or have Barry McGuigan vocational high school, or will that offend the small German community? One possbility: no ethnic nothing. Another: yes, but don't go crazy with it. This isn't a tradition vs. formalism question at it's heart.
as to baa's 4, the issue for secularists is preventing state sponser of religious thought/culture which are harmful to others. I don't have a problem with christmas trees or christmas parades. I'm not so easily persuaded about the 10 Cs at courthouses. And I don't understnd the impetus behind claiming "christian nation" except to force policies that are harmful (such as not allowing gays equal partner rights). But, fine, I'll concede to baa that, culturally, the people who founded this country were in the most part in some sense Christian. (though they held many different beliefs than Christians today) But we don't have a Christian government. And it seems to me that people who claim the former are often confusing it for that latter.
But isn't the reference to the Christian antecendents of the US intended to suggest that the answers to such questions regarding paying for the parade lie in tradition (or the vote, but I think that probably becomes a tradition question), where we might look more explicitly to policy?
"One view: the majority must do *nothing* that imposes any burdens on the minority. "
I think that one is a mischaracterization. I don't know anyone who objects simply to the burdens of being a member of a minority religion in the U.S. (I grant that there must be at least some small smattering.) There are plenty of "burdens" I could describe that I think members of minority beliefs have to deal with, but I think if I did, few would feel much sympathy because we all agree that it's not unreasonable to have to live with them. They're burdensome nonetheless. And not a political issue. It's only when government is yanked into the picture that the argument is made that government should do nothing, which is a way of saying "shall make no law respecting an establishment of...," which has a vaguely familiar ring to it.
"If you live in a town that's 90% Christian, let some money go for a town Xmas tree...."
Of course, a town is not embodied by its government. Few people object to a town getting together to put up a Christmas tree; I surely don't. I (and others) only object if the government is putting one up (and not equally celebrating equivalent and different religious views).
"The majority has to tolerate the minority's strange practices, the minority has to tolerate the majority seeing some of their beliefs manifested in the public sphere."
Absolutely. "Public" does not mean "governmental." Have as many Christmas parades as you like (so long as you also give permits for whoever wants to show up for the Shinto parade).
It's the difference between that sort of civic life you refer to in point 2, and governmental action, that is crucial, but I repeat myself.
And as soon as we have a constitutional Amendment says "Government shall make laws respecting establishment of religion so long as they don't go crazy about it," that would be different.
Tangentially, I have trouble feeling sorry for the horrible oppression people are put through simply because they can't manipulate government to endorse their personal sectarianism. Aren't conservatives supposed to believe in small government and government not intruding where it shouldn't?
By town, I meant government, and by impose, I meant impose via the government.
Is it a fair characterization of your view that the govenrment should not impose any burdens on the minority. Thus, no prayers at school football games, no ten commandments on the courthouse, no town $ for a Xmas tree. This is what I meant by view one. And yes, I do think it's better to let things slide a bit more than this.
SCMT,
I think arguments from tradition needn't be involved here. But clearly, I do think that nations have persisting civic cultures, and that those cultures are important to preserving values. When those values are basically good (like the US on toleration of minority religions), I tend not to want to rock the boat with ACLU-ish criticisms.
"And yes, I do think it's better to let things slide a bit more than this."
You don't think that if you want to change "shall make no law" you should have to change "shall make no law"? Or do you simply feel that if the Supreme Court ruled, that would be sufficient, which I'd find difficult to argue with?
What I don't get is that I completely agree with this: "But clearly, I do think that nations have persisting civic cultures, and that those cultures are important to preserving values. When those values are basically good (like the US on toleration of minority religions), I tend not to want to rock the boat with ACLU-ish criticisms."
And, as I said, no, I don't agree that towns should be forbidden to have Christmas trees (or creches, or sessions for Satan-worship, or any damn religious things they want. What I don't understand is how or why the government is required for any of these things to happen. It's obviously unnecessary. The only possible reason to desire government to put up religious displays you want is that you specifically require government to do it, not the civic society and leaders of the town. I don't know how this is arguable.
Gary, your establishment clause comment confuses me. Are you arguing about what the law of the land is, or what should be? I think the interesting question is the second one. And again, I think the answer is more of a go along get along than a "wall of separation."
I suspect that this is in fact how the United States functioned for most of its history.
Aren't conservatives supposed to believe in small government and government not intruding where it shouldn't?
these days, it seems that the federal power/state power dynamic has been so blurred by christian lobbies trying to get whatever they want, even if it means federal action, and liberals suddenly making cries for state sovereignty in the gay marriage issue that the big gov't/small gov't arguments look like a big joke.
you'll notice that the crazies have stopped railing against 'activist' judges and instead are complaining about 'liberal' judges, since they realize that some of the decisions they want judges to make are in fact quite activist (see terri schiavo, &c.).
It wasn't addressed to me, but I understand Gary's distinction, which is between the city/parish government and the social makeup of the same area. Gary has no problem with people coming together and organizing religious celebrations, just so long as it is government-allowed but not government-backed. Why it needs government-backing is a good question, I think. It wouldn't bard difficult to set up a civic organization to oversee religious festivities, after all.
We live in a democracy. People want to use the government to advance goals that are important to them. Sometimes these are religious goals, sometimes ethnic goals, sometimes moral goals. So yes, the local drug store can put up the Xmas tree. But people will also want the city to have an Xmas tree. And I don't see this as a big deal (although, as I mentioned, I once did take a view much like Gary's)
Here's another rambling story. For a long time, my town gave city employees the day off on "evacuation day." This august holiday commemorates the evaucation of the Bunker hill. It also falls on St. Patrick's day, every year. The new solution -- which I endorse! -- is to give city workers floating holidays, and let them pick.
The old solution, however, wasn't a travesty, and indeed reclothing an ethnic holiday in a civic American guise is the kind of sharp and decent Boston pol move I heartily endorse. If a Mike Newdow equivalent had showed up to sue the city, I would've thought he was a big A-hole. And I would have thought that even if it has been frankly listed on the city calendar as "St. Patrick's day, brought to you by His Holiness, the Pope." That's because the town was 50% Irish. The other 50% was Italian, and wanted Columbus day. And I, as a rounding error, didn't really care if the city spent some pittance making sure that these two large (and very good natured + tolerant) communities using the city to endorse themselves.
"Gary, I'm not getting the town/government distinction."
Huh. A town is made up of people. They can do whatever they please so long as they don't violate the law, and they commonly do. Towns form endless organizations to accomplish endless tasks, particularly organizing Committees or other organizations forms to engage in parades, celebrations, business improvement, buy fire engines, form volunteer fire departments, clean up the streets, give out fruit baskets, have welcome wagons, whatever. Pretty much every religious organization in every town in America has an adjunct organization to Do Something Or Other, such as engage in charity, sing Christmas carols, help people deal with Passover, whatever. Not to mention the fraternal organizations, and just all sorts of endless organizations.
None of this is done by the government. Most things in America are not done by the government. Most things in America need not be done by government.
This is clear, right? And how about "some things must not be done by government"? And if it doesn't cause a problem, where's the problem?
Last I looked, people are utterly free to put up Christmas trees and creches. Individually, and in groups, including, if they all wish, 100% of the citizens of any town.
And children/teens/everyone (not in the course of being a public employee) are utterly free to pray in school (so long as they don't disrupt normal activities). (Every time there's a test, there's prayer!)
So where's a problem?
The only problem is when people feel that isn't enough. It's not good enough if they line every single piece of private property in town with crosses, and mutually chip in to buy the top ten largest properties in the town, and turn them into massive crosses/creches/Christmas trees/menorahs/crescents/whatever, for some, apparently. They only possible way their religiousness can be satisfied, it appears, is if they are able to get the government to endorse their preferred version.
That's clear, isn't it? Or is it, and if not, where not?
"Are you arguing about what the law of the land is, or what should be?"
It is what SCOTUS says it is, of course, unless they're overruled by known procedure. My own preference is simply for equal treatment. I have no problem with putting a creche/whatever in a school, town hall, court house, so long as if a single citizen also demands equal treatment for their belief and symbology gets it. I don't demand banishment of religion from government; simply equal treatment; so long as there's equal treatment, there's no "establishment of religion."
No, in general I'm fine with what you're suggesting, baa. And I'm fine if we're saying, "let it slide," rather than take a position that it's OK. But I think a law placing, for example, the 10 Commandments at every entrance to every school would be a Very Bad Thing.
I'm unclear why you mentioned that the US was founded on Christian traditions/influences if those traditions or influences are not important to arguments today. Do you just mean, "Well, the traditions aren't all bad"?
Oh, and if everyone in town is a member of a single sect, fine, let there be only one set of religious symbols used on public property so long as the principle is absolutely held to that if a single person wants their own religion, or lack of it, equally respected, they get it. I recognize that this is asking for adherence to an idealistic and strict interpretation, from one angle, but it also seems the only possible way to be fair, from my own angle, and I reiterate that I'll willing to allow 100% adherence to a single belief if that's the reality (albeit you lose the lawsuit if 99% of the town bullies the minority 1% into not asking for equal treatment under the law).
Again, that would be my preferred way to go, not the way I think current law is necessarily going to be practically interpreted.
I rather prefer the way Gary is proposing. People are free to express themselves, but there's less danger of them thinking that only they have the right to express themselves, which is a danger when your personal preferences start becoming legitimated by government. All the same, I'm not about to get upset (and I don't think Gary is either) about a city buying a christmas tree, which is only quasi-religious anyway. Since we're talking ideals here, I think the best way to approach something like this wouldn't be through authoritative courts but through a town council, or newsletter, or whaever. I realize, thought, that this would be a lot harder in larger cities.
I'm willing to go for posting the Golden Rule all over public buildings - that "Do unto others" sentiment is fairly universal to varying belief systems, and is really an ethical statement more than a religious one, tho' one could surely convince the Religious Right of the converse. I very much object to "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me", the exhortations in #2, and the creationist doctrine in #4. [We're going on the Episcopalian version of the 10Cs here.]
I object even more to Christian propaganda in the classroom, be it the 10Cs or prayer or teaching the misnomered "Intelligent Design". It's not the job of the state to indoctrinate my offspring with religious beliefs of any flavour. [Comparative religion class? Fine - just see to it that there's a fair representation of the diversity of beliefs, that no one system is taught as The One True Faith.]
Frankly, I see the gnawing away at church/state separation as the thin end of the wedge w/regard to women's reproductive rights - vide the recent spate of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, much less morning-after pills, on the grounds of "conscience" and the ability of the RR to get laws passed allowing this to happen legally.
What's next, refusing to fill prescriptions for AIDS patients on the grounds that they're sinners? Banning epidurals for childbirth because the Bible has that bit about "in pain you shall bring forth children"? [Not so farfetched; women were criticised by the Church as blasphemers for using anaesthesia when chloroform became available.]
That said, it doesn't bother me in the least if private citizens put up the money for an Xmas tree, a menorah, an Imbolc bonfire, or get a parade permit to practice Lupercalian fertility runs. Let 'em get permits and rent space in the park the same way families-in-reunion and the annual Lutefisk Festival do. I'm firmly in the government-allowed, but not government-backed, camp. But that means the state has to give access to all, be they Baptist or Ba'hai, Seventh Day Adventist or Santerian, Anglican or animist.
Somehow, tho', I don't think that's going to happen. We're headed blindly for a theocracy in this country, with the shadow of the Republic of Gilead looming ever closer. The "toleration of minority religions" of which baa spoke is simply not a reality in this country.
The hell with this. Tomorrow I cut it off and go with a hook. Though only if I also get a parrot as part of the deal. Must see my Christian Science healer about this.
After two codeine aspirins and four shots of vodka, it's faking being somewhat better. (Definitely bruised, not broken; just don't make me make a fist tonight.)
I may rethink the hook thing.
For a while.
Besides, it would go better with a peg leg, and I'm not ready for that.
Gary, if you're going to have these ailments, you need to play them up. Kids these days don't know better, so when you're walking down the street, you'll hear, "Don't fuck with Farber, he's got that hook and gout [shivers, the scattering of little children]."
All I can plead is that the folks at the bus stop (Broadway and 27th here in the not-so-vast Boulder metropolis) seemed impressed that I would stand and leap to smack myself flat on the concrete. (What can I say, different folks have different skills.)
Needless to say, the Dash bus pulled away, and by the time the Skip pulled up 30 seconds later, I was already swearing and clutching myself (though not in a, you know, good way).
Geez, I'm sure a little shockiness at least every month must be good for everyone, right? Because, afterwords, we have triumphed.
(The gout keeps cooperatively twinging me every other night, practically, but not worse, most of the time in recent months (on a smattering of occasions it's worse, but mostly not, at present); the guy who moved into the next building who has, literally, a party every other night, in the last few months (cute girls hanging out, to be sure, but off limits for reasons we've discussed in earlier threads) is about as annoying, since I have no prescription to keep him from shouting street name directions into his cell phone, like he's doing right now.)
They're down there (the involuntary listening comes through the window over my bed, which is to say, four feet behind me at my seat at my desk complex from which I'm typing this; to view, I back up a couple of feat and squat on my bed), as I write, as they were pretty much all night. My impression in the past month is that five people moved into the studio-sized party, which is why they have an almost continuous smoke, drink, and converse (with a couple of dogs, cats, and daily barbeque) string going at almost every hour I'm conscious.
Let me tell you, it beats last summer's 21+ foot diameter trampoline that the very next house over set up, and held bouncing contests on past 4 a.m.; the first three nights I thought it was cute; the next two months I didn't (it turns out that *boing* *boing* *boing* *boing* *boing* can actually be extremely loud).
Did I mention that even though I'm a college dropout, Boulder is a college town? (And I'm in a college neighborhood, although at least half my neighbors are older than me, too.)
(Right hand still only usable via fingers, not wrist, and it turns out my left knee is semi-immobile for the time being, but I won't bore with a full list of Today's Limitations.)
It's an interesting question. Two parts, I'd say: 1) will it have harmful effects? 2) will it in fact help the Dems?
It's easy to imagine the harmful effects: appeals to "higher law" and scripture gain the imprimatur of the state, giving aspiring theocrats greater legitimacy and power. But we can only guess as to whether those harmful effects will come to pass. My guess: yes, but not because of displaying the ten commandments.
2 is also tricky. How do the Dems go about agreeing to this? By saying that religion in public life ain't so bad after all? Doesn't that really give up the game? It's not as if the religious conservatives are going to be appeased. Or by quietly agreeing, in order to get the issue off the table? Ok, sure, but I'd anticipate very little political gain there.
I guess my unsatisfying answer is, go ahead and do it, but it won't do much good. (I could be convinced that it's actually a horrible idea and will have catastrophic consequences. I'm easy that way.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:17 AM
I have a gut "no" reaction to anything that will encourage people to repeat the claim that the US was "founded on Christian principles" or other such hooey.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:21 AM
The thing I just don't get: Which Ten Commandments?
The Jewish set? The Catholic set? The Orthodox set? The Protestant sect of your choice's set?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:23 AM
I'm willing to bet that most people agitating for public commandments haven't actually put that much thought into it, but that's because I'm a liberal blue-state coastal sneering elitist prob.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:28 AM
I have a gut "no" reaction
Part of Matt's point is that you are part of a very small minority with that reaction.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:30 AM
Ogged: will it in fact help the Dems?
Nope. Not at all. The religious right will just say "Thanks, infidels," and push forward on abortion, birth control, and the rest.
MY: if that kind of token gesture toward the concept that this is a Christian [...] country is what it takes to get support for a progressive political agenda, then sign me up.
Matt's a smart guy, but that's a pretty dumb statement. I don't get the feeling he's spent much time around the folks he thinks this will appease. Compromise isn't in their vocabulary.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:33 AM
Right.
Y'know, I could bend on the Ten Commandments things if we included all versions, plus representative sets of laws from other major religions--buddhism (multiple flavors?), islam, a few Native American religions, etc.). If we turned the whole thing into some sort of demonstration of the universality of the human quest for right living, yeah, OK. But let's not go putting one religion into a privileged position over others.
(I'm tempted to say that we need the Satanist One Commandment: "Do as Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.")
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:34 AM
I think it's a ridiculous idea for two reasons:
1) Separation of church and state isn't important anymore? I'm not at all comfortable with sanctioning the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation (see, the commandments are in our courthouses).
2) Conservatives aren't dumb. Really. And I don't think a token band-aid of an outreach (we use a blender on our metaphors here) is going to make them suddenly sign onto the rest of the liberal platform; if someone isn't voting for you because she believes, say, that your positions on abortion are equivalent to murder, she's probably unlikely to be fooled into thinking you're on her side because you let the commandments go up in a courthouse.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:37 AM
That sounds a lot like the sole rule of Kibology, Chopper: You're Allowed.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:38 AM
But nothing like the:
ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.
of Discordianism.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:42 AM
Apostropher is totally right here. The idea that this will make liberalism more appealing to religious conservatives is just horseshit. We'll just seem weak.
I've spent my life around religious fundamentalists, and they're not too trickly to understand. They're not "worldly," and so "worldly" actions don't matter for beans. It's the "spiritual" aspect. They'd see this capitualization as pure politics, with no soul behind it, therefore, it doesn't count.
And, Ogged's concern 1 is much more pertinent than he thinks. I get plenty 'o emails talking about god's role in our government and the judiciary. THERE'S BIBLICAL SCENES SCULPTED IN THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, DID YOU KNOW THAT?!?! No, these people would take the ball and run with it.
What really disturbs me are the "teaching creationism" numbers. Holy crap on a stick, are we that dumb?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:48 AM
I'm sure I'll get rightly killed for this, but I'm in exactly the opposite camp: I am more comfortable selling out abortion rights than putting the 10 Commandments up. There are a lot of reasons for that, inc. that I'm a man and therefore am likely wrong about the effect of selling out abortion rights, but I guess two are most important to me.
1. You can titrate your sale of abortion rights, but not really the right to put up the 10 Commandments. So you either completely allow what I think would ultimately be an important step on the road to a state sanctioned religion, or you compromise on abortion on the margins.
2. In some sense this is precisely because no one cares that much about putting up the 10 Commandments. It doesn't directly effect people in a super tangible way, but I believe that the day-after-day effect of allowing badges of a state sanctioned religion would be huge. At no point will it be important enough for lots of people to object; instead, like the frog in the pot, we'll comfortably boil alive. OTOH, abortion rights matter. So, if we're right, and it's an important public policy, over time we'll gain more converts to our side as increasing restrictions screw over more and more women. (NB: IIRC, we lost white women to GWB in 2004).
I'd rather sell out neither, but if one's got to go....
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:50 AM
So, if we're right, and it's an important public policy, over time we'll gain more converts to our side as increasing restrictions screw over more and more women.
Plans that depend on letting things go to hell, so that people recognize that they were wrong and you were right all along, are probably not good plans.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:56 AM
these people would take the ball and run with it.
I should be clearer that I don't just mean emails, here. I think what would happen is that this would work its way into most of the sunday sermons (and satruday, wednesday, and whateverelse sermons, too) in the country. Millions of people who don't otherwise give this much thought are suddenly going to be taught that "they put the commandments up because god's law is our law." They'll indoctrinate the members and the children, and then see what kind of motivated protests they start mounting.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:58 AM
Plans that depend on letting things go to hell, so that people recognize that they were wrong and you were right all along, are probably not good plans.
Yes and no. I mean, how different is my claim than simply saying, "People change their behavior when bad things happen," or, "Incentives matter"? It would be awfully important to titrate when and where we fell back on abortion rights, to limit the damage and to clarify the issue, I acknowledge. But I just don't think people can be argued into a new position without being forced to confront the problem with the old one.
I'm really uncomfortable with my position, but if we're really talking trades here, that's the trade I'd make. I'd be happy to be talked out of it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:09 AM
Plans that depend on letting things go to hell, so that people recognize that they were wrong and you were right all along, are probably not good plans.
Or, a bit more succinctly:
"Nach Hitler, Uns!"
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:10 AM
Swing on the Ten Commandments monument (in some awkward, Al-kissing-Tipper way) and the right will have its next pitch in hand. Liberals are making the Boy Scouts earn their fag badge, or Ward Churchill is teaching classes in which students who were once God's precious baby infants might conceivably enroll, or our congregation's Christian late-service light rock group hasn't been featured in the school cafeteria. It's an empire built on martyrs, and the Right has more where ugly court statues came from.
Yglesias doesn't get it. Michael Moore is fat.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:11 AM
I didn't think the ten commandments thing was such a bad thing. I'd prefer that it be a locally decided issue and that citizens have to vote for the specific tax increase to pay for it, rather than just screwing Medicaid.
Where Yglesias shocked me was the school prayer line. Something like posting the ten commandments is a passive form of communication. You can look at them, think about them etc. But you don't have to interalize them. And in fact, making them part of the government somehow cheapens them in my mind. McReligion to think about while eating your McMuffin.
But Forcing someone to pray? Not equivalent.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:14 AM
I'm also way uncomfortable with this, but Y's point wasn't that this would get the Christian Right to like us. It's that it might get people who aren't Christian Rightists, but who apparently agree with the Christian Right on this one issue, to like us. I'm really uncomfortable about the slippery slope as in 17--but I don't think we can refute Y's actual point just by saying "The people this is aimed at will never like us anyway"--that's not who it's aimed at.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:33 AM
Why don't they start by putting the Bible back in school libraries, instead of the same conservative supposed fundamentalists banning it for questionable content?
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:38 AM
FWIW: I'm not sure how much this parallels prior arguments about an amendment disallowing flag-burning. I know I care a lot less about the right to burn a flag than either of these two issues, but there was a fair bit of sense to being against that amendment, too.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:39 AM
conservative supposed fundamentalists banning it for questionable content
Really? This has happened?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:41 AM
Weiner's right. But can someone tell me what the benefit is supposed to be, since I don't see Yglesias spell it out? That we no longer seem reflexively anti-religious to moderates?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:43 AM
"objections that it 'contains language and stories that are inappropriate for children of any age, including tales of incest and murder.' There are more than three hundred examples of 'obscenities' in the book." I recall reading about a principal & librarian who were sued for cutting pages of Song of Songs out at a parent's request.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:49 AM
SCMT is right in 21. Letting people put the 10C up in public places: Maybe not so bad. Amending the Constitution to permit it, which is probably what would be required: Absolutely awful. There's the rub.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:50 AM
Do you have a link, Andrea?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:52 AM
Hey, are we supposed to know her first name?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:55 AM
Yes, she's posted it here before.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:56 AM
Ogged's in the doghouse!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:57 AM
Here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:57 AM
I believe that the day-after-day effect of allowing badges of a state sanctioned religion would be huge. At no point will it be important enough for lots of people to object; instead, like the frog in the pot, we'll comfortably boil alive.
I understand what you mean, and I hate to see these lunatics win one... but here in the UK we have a state-sanctioned religion, with blessings and religious mottos on public buildings and bishops in Parliament and school prayer and everything, and we survive. In fact (except in Northern Ireland) obnoxiously political religion is a lot less of a problem here than it seems to be in the USA. And I'd feel a lot more confident about things like abortion rights and religious tolerance still being around in 20 years here than over there.
Posted by ajay | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:58 AM
But ajay, the population in the UK is much more secular than that in the US, so there's not even a distant risk of the government becoming uncomfortably theocratic.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:00 AM
Well, there was this yesterday.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:04 AM
But that story is the opposite of fundamentalists wanting to ban the bible. It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just interested in reading these stories.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:07 AM
According to this order , it looks like Moses should have dropped the first tablet too. What is with the first 5 commandments. God is a little needy.
Here how I rank the ten commandments: 6,8,7,5,10,3,2,1,4
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:13 AM
I was thinking along the same lines as Weiner's 25. Who, exactly, is MY's (and Kevin Drum's), post aimed at? The ACLU? The Alalbama Supreme Court? I honestly don't know. Certainly liberals are larely against such displays, but what have we actually done about it? Perhaps the suggestion is simply that a liberal group shouldn't lititgate such displays? (leave it to the libertrians?)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:13 AM
MY:
Looking at the data, the actual question is:
The numbers are overwhelming that it is proper (roughly 75 -25) but Yglesias implies that this is the same as saying that Americans support putting up the 10 commandmants where they haven't been displayed. It seems more likely that this means most Americans simply don't see anything wrong with these displays wherever they happen to be.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:35 AM
selling out abortion rights
This is a much better strategy for losing additional blue states than for gaining red ones. More than half of the women I know would vote 3rd party id the Dems did that.
here in the UK we have a state-sanctioned religion
Well, see, that happens to be the reason our forefathers left England.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 10:59 AM
The inference was that conservative politicians have so entirely hijacked Christianity for their own purposes, yet are notorious for disputing the decency & relevance of literature in schools. I don't doubt that it is possible conservative atheists or those of another religious persuasion are responsible for the continued challenges to the Bible in school libraries. Most schools have sidestepped the issue with "adaptations", although even those seem to be controversial.
"Kenneth Roberts was a fifth-grade teacher at the Berkeley Gardens Elementary School in Denver when in 1987 two parents complained to school principal Kathleen Madigan about two books -- "The Bible in Pictures" and "The Story of Jesus" -- included in Roberts' 240-book classroom library. Ms. Madigan ordered the books removed. She explained that "separation of church and state" made such action necessary."
I also found this interesting & pertinent, though recently the only perceptible difference between Catholicism & Protestantism is whether communion is wine or grape juice.
"The School Board in Cincinnati, Ohio, banned Bible-reading and required prayers in 1869 and was upheld by the state Supreme Court. A similar ruling was passed down by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1910. In both cases, Catholic parents had challenged common practices on grounds that public schools had no right to push Protestantism."
Apparently, Catholics additionally objected to the inclusion of the King James Bible on the grounds it was used primarily by Protestants. I object to the Living Bible for encouraging illiteracy, as I do English translations of Shakespeare.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:09 AM
Let me try to be helpful.
1. If you basically think religous folks are dopes and rubes, and that "religious reasons" have no place in public debate, trying to delude people with minor concessions will not help. So in this sense, the Ten Commandments will not help the left wing of the democratic party. If the left wing of the democractic party could use the occassion of the Ten Commandments to figure out why state "advocacy" of religion is not so bad (when we are fine with state "advocacy" of other morally-loaded concepts, and other interest group satisfaction), then it might help plenty.
2. The Democratic party has a problem that the intellectual and financial leader of the party basically come from one group that is in a tiny minority on most social questions. GOP deployment of wedge issues like ten commandments is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
3. And, just as an aside, the United States *was* founded on Christian principles. Early America was a protestant culture. Further, the intellectual influence of Christianity on the American founding was profound. Just to take on example, the "transcendental" notion of equality mentioned in the Declaration is clearly a concept with a religious foundation. Also, as I am far from the first to point out, crucial arguments (like Locke's) for religious toleration only go through if you adopt a roughly protestant theology. I am wicked committed to enlightment rationalism, but we need to face facts on this.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:13 AM
As usual, what baa said, and also what Weiner said. I think MY's point was not that tacking up some shalt nots would convince the serious conservatives; his point is that a lot of people outside that group think that we of the liberal anti-10C-in-public crowd are kind of being dicks about something harmless, and-- perhaps-- that being dickish in this way is an electoral burden. All the usual qualifications tacked on, etc.
Baa, in (1), were you suggesting that the democratic lefties are being inconsistent? What other cases do you have in mind? (I'm not being confrontational; I'm asking for information so that I might slavishly take your position.)
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:22 AM
the United States *was* founded on Christian principles
Um, no. The founding of the US begins with the ratification of the Constitution, wherein neither God nor Jesus rates a single shout-out anywhere. The *only* mention of religion is in the first amendment which, no matter how you slice it, clearly says the government must remain neutral in matters of religion.
You can make the argument that the United States was founded *by* Christians, but nothing anywhere in the Constitution is a specifically Christian principle.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:29 AM
figure out why state "advocacy" of religion is not so bad
It only happens to be the very first Amendment, y'know.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:30 AM
I want more information on #2, baa; I couldn't speak to the "intellectual and financial leader"'s beliefs, but I'm fairly sure I'm in the bare majority on most social questions.
Really, baa should hold an "Ask the Conservative" forum one day. Because I've always wondered whether the killing of the cutest kittens in a litter is merely ritualistic, or whether there is a functional purpose.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:31 AM
If by Christians you mean deists & masons, then yes.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:33 AM
Deists and masons and atheists (oh my!) were in the mix, but most of the signers were Christians. Also, mason and Christian aren't mutually exclusive categories.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:35 AM
3. And, just as an aside, the United States *was* founded on Christian principles. Early America was a protestant culture. Further, the intellectual influence of Christianity on the American founding was profound. Just to take on example, the "transcendental" notion of equality mentioned in the Declaration is clearly a concept with a religious foundation. Also, as I am far from the first to point out, crucial arguments (like Locke's) for religious toleration only go through if you adopt a roughly protestant theology. I am wicked committed to enlightment rationalism, but we need to face facts on this.
When people talk about how the US is a Christian nation, they aren't talking about the intellectual influence of Christianity or a general Christian or Protestant background on either the founders themselves or the philosophers that influenced the founders, are they?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:37 AM
Rituals have a functional purpose, Tim.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:40 AM
I would jump up & down about that assertion, but Masons & Mormons are impossible to debate, regardless of sources, due to the clandestine nature of cults. Their public literature contradicts their private practices.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:41 AM
I predict that this conversation will go completely off the rails unless we're careful to carve out a common sense of "founded on Christian principles." Already baa and Apostropher seem to have different ideas in mind.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:45 AM
Their public literature contradicts their private practices.
Which is precisely why it's possible to be both a christian and a mason, at least in one's public persona.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:46 AM
Re 50: I was thinking of apostropher's use, though it did occur to me as I was typing 2 that someone might interpret it as baa did. But I really don't think that's what most people using that phrase mean.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:47 AM
To say that many of America's founding principles have their origins in Christian ones, particluarly those of various forms of Protestant Christianity, is not the same as saying that America is or was a "Christian nation." In many ways it is really the declining antagonisms among Christian churches in recent times that has made it possible to imagine that the US could be Christian in a broad, non-denominational way.
There were indeed state-sanctioned, established (i.e. tax-supported) churches in most of the American colonies - most were Anglican, becoming Episcopalian after the revolution - but beginning in the 1780s movements began for disestablishment on a state-by-state basis. By 1820 or so, there were no state-established churches. (Virginia was the first to go, Massachusetts the last.)
Generally disestablishment involved a coalition of those inclined towards religious toleration as a broad principle and representatives of denominations who saw establishment as a threat to their own growth. In Virginia, along with Jefferson and Madison, the Baptists were a key force behind separation of church and state. (Aren't Baptists now the denomination most in favor of state support?)
There's a very powerful argument that disestablishment is one of, if not the main reason for the growth and continued vitality of American Christiantiy. Rather than have any one denomination dominate the field, various sects had to compete widely in order to gain new adherents. At the same time, the lack of a state-supported church meant the lack of a target for the kind anti-clericalism that became a feature of European secular-religious conflicts.
I would argue that the more religion becomes identified with government, the more anti-government animosity will be directed towards religion. It's possible that this is what is already happening.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:47 AM
The US cycles through evangelical revivals. If the revolution happened in the middle of a great awakening, it would be lot easier to find evidance for founding fathers seeing the US as an explicitly christian nation.
That isn't how it happened. The intellectual and financial leaders of the revolution came from a group that was in a tiny minority on religious questions: Deism. Jesus Christ was written out of the declaration. By the second great awakening, preachers were calling the founding fathers infidels.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:53 AM
To say that many of America's founding principles have their origins in Christian ones
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify a specific founding principle of America that has its origin in a Christian principle.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:54 AM
Representative democracy was practiced by the Orthodox Christian church until the Catholics split.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:00 PM
A, why isn't baa's
sufficient?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:08 PM
Representative democracy isn't a Christian principle (also, I suspect there weren't too many Orthodox Church members in 18th century America). I'm talking textual references here, folks. As laid out in the Constitution, what derives specifically from scriptural origins?
I'm not trying to harangue anybody here, but I hear this expressed so often, but nobody ever identifies what any of those principles are and nobody I have asked has been able to state one.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:10 PM
I'm still waiting for somebody to identify a specific founding principle of America that has its origin in a Christian principle.
I believe the argument in the case of equality is that the conception embodied in the declaration comes out of the belief that all Christians are equal in the eyes of God.
But this doesn't mean that one has to be Christian in order to believe in equality, or that a nation has to be Christian in order to uphold this principle.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:12 PM
57,
Arguably, because any mention of transendental equalitydoesn't count because we still had slaves.
Alternatively,
Arguably because Plato thought of it first.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:12 PM
The Declaration of Independence does not found the United States; it simply separates from the British empire. By the time they got around to crafting the document *that founds the nation*, all reference to religion has been removed (save the 1st Amendment), which by the standards of the time, is a pretty radical move and can hardly be seen as anything but pointedly intentional.
The argument that the colonies were heavily Protestant, therefore the nation is founded on Protestant principles is akin to saying that an automobile factory in Bombay makes Hindu cars.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:14 PM
I'm not familiar with Lock and religious toleration, though. What's the argument behind that and why is it necessarily christian?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:15 PM
This is the point of 50. A particular notion of equality might be derived from religious traditions though it's formulated in nonreligious language; similarly, it might be true that a political principle about religious neutrality might be supported for theistic reasons, or unavailable to athiests.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:17 PM
Also, the hindu cars argument is lame insofar as the point isn't only about the origins of the content but about the conceptual resources needed (historically at least) to arrive at the content.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:19 PM
Plato had an ideal of political equality?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:20 PM
"...which by the standards of the time, is a pretty radical move and can hardly be seen as anything but pointedly intentional." Because this country is, and always has been, a puppet of the occult. :)
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:27 PM
But look. People who want to make the claim the the US was founded on Christian principles aren't simply making an observation about the intellectual roots of claims for equality in the late 18thC. It's supposed to be a normative claim—this is a Christian nation, so we should enact explicitly Christian laws of such-and-such a sort. Or at least they mean that it's an explicitly or overtly Christian nation. If all they meant was that the bases for religious toleration and the understanding of equality that were current at the time of the Constitution's writing happened to have been influenced by and maybe even depended on a certain kind of Protestantism, people wouldn't make the claim so vehemently—for one thing, just because that particular notion of equality is derived from a religious tradition, that doesn't mean that one couldn't promulgate an equivalent secular notion, or one that came from another religious tradition.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:28 PM
FL, I took transcendental equality to be the argument that people are born with equal natural rights? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "political equality," which to me seems to suggest equality in the political system. Plato certainly didn't argue that, but, then, that wasn't true in the US, either.
I do think Plato argued the first, though, in books 3 and 5 of the Republic. One's role in the city was not determined by birth-rank or gender, but would be assigned after testing determined one's natural aptitutdes. There were no slaves in the just city, either. And he based this argument, I think, on transcendental grounds, because a la the theory of forms and the Good, pretty much everything in the Republic is justified transcendentally.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:29 PM
Good, Ben. My claim was only that, well, there's a way in which these claims about "christian nations" are true and a way in which they're false. To come back to Earth, we should ask how they're being used and, in particular, whether the senses in which they're true are sufficient to do that work.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:31 PM
to add on to Ben's; yes, and the other problem is conflicting christian accounts of equality. Not all christian theologians believed (believe) in it. So, saying that this country was founded on "Christian principles" is really too broad to be accurate, even if it turns out to be in some sense correct. It was, dubiously, founded on certain principles of certain Christian sects. Claiming "christian nation!" obscures that.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:33 PM
Right, but we're radically unequal politically-- hence the breeding experiments. Is the claim about rights anachronistic?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:33 PM
FL,
I didn't mean in (1) to assert *inconsistancy* at all. I think the lefter elements of the Democratic party are very upfront about the importance of a government that is explicitly secular. That's a highly respectable position.
It's also highly respectable to think, e.g., that the state should on no account name a school after a religious leader, or tack up a ten commandments on the walls, but could reasonably name a school after Malcom X/Caesar Chavez and support environmentalism and gay rights. I just believe it is a losing attitude as a matter of political tactics.
>this conversation will go completely off the rails unless we're careful to carve out a common sense of "founded on Christian principles."
That's so obviously correct that I retract my earlier statement. If we want to think of the American founding as a secular enterprise, inspired primarily by the secualr aspect of enlgihtment thought, that's fine. I think it's a craaaaaazy take on the history of ideas, but let's just agree to disagree on it. There's no hope, I think, in a comments section.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:34 PM
Ben, I completely agree, and I hope it doesn't look like I'm trying to say that the US was founded on Christian principles in the way that term is often used. But I don't think it's enough simply to deny those assertions without getting into the more complicated details of why they are wrong.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:35 PM
Well, I'm going to get all persnickety and (probably) humorless, because this happens to be one of my very biggest pet peeves. The Declaration of Independence, the document most often held up as evidence of America's Christian origins *isn't a legal document*. It does not establish one single law; it is a list of complaints to King George, ending with "and you ain't the boss of me no more."
the conceptual resources needed (historically at least) to arrive at the content
America's laws derive from the Constitution. I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires any sort of Biblical understanding to grasp, either then or now. It is a profoundly, radically secular document.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:37 PM
Let us agree for a minute to accept that the basic premises of constitutional and electoral freedom were forged in Christian thought.
Now explain please how it is that a Universal worldy truth, even if discovered by a particular religion, only be available to adherents of that religion?
Even if we did bequeathe the world democracy, where is the justification for shoving our scripture in the faces of those members of our society who possess a different spirituality to ours?
The not so subtle sub-text is disgusting. Oh, and I am a christian, on my own terms.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:38 PM
we should ask how they're being used and, in particular, whether the senses in which they're true are sufficient to do that work
Actually taking you up on this, isn't it a sort of public reason problem? Someone proposes legislation x (legalize gay marriage, for instance), opponents of x say that's wrong, proponents say "You're basing that entirely on something from the Bible," and opponents retort, "Christian nation, the prohibition on murder arises from the bible, etc." That's the main use I see being made of the claim, "America is a christian nation."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:39 PM
Michael. That rocked. Although I still somehow believe baa's underlying point might be correct. Plato and early christian thought had a fair bit of interplay if I recall. If you didn't get it from one you got it from another.
More to the point, the actual religious differences of the Quakers, Catholics, etc were a very big deal with major social consequences. So there was an effort made to have religious expressions be lowest common denominator. And at that
In fact, the whole discussion might have wrinkles of tautology, kind of like an Intelligent Design debate about the founding fathers. Is their product not so perfect and myriad in its complexities that it must be divinely inspired?
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:41 PM
FL and baa (who wrote 72, I assume), I acknowledge that there's a way it's right and a way it's wrong. I mean: expanding on baa's statement that Locke's arg. for religious toleration only goes through on a protestant theology, there could be a government that was founded with the explicit demand that it be entirely secular, and founded in that way as a result of a certain kind of religious view, or for explicit religious reasons. You would then be justified in saying that it was founded on religious principles (in a sense) and in saying that it wasn't (in a sense). You just have to make it clear what you mean!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:42 PM
Apo, I agree with this too, in principle, but not so much as a political/rhetorical strategy. The Declaration is not law, but it is still important enough, and has had a stong enough influence, that how one sees it can affect how one votes.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:42 PM
All this discussion of whether we are a "Christian nation" or "founded on Christian principles" (which ones exactly?) or whatever is well and good, but I have to admit I find the Pew data, in at least one instance, to be either somewhat suspect or drasmatically depressing. How can it be that among the eight different political typologies identified by the researchers, not one opposes teaching creationism alongside evolution in school? The only group not to favor it is Liberals, and they split 49%-49% on it. Either the data is screwed up or the country is headed for the toilet.
Posted by Dan Someone | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:46 PM
*I* favor the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools.
A caveat: all discussions of creationism must begin with the phrase "And then we've got the idiots over here..."
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:48 PM
Whoops, missed a lot there.
So, Ben W is right about the many uses to which "a Christian nation" is delpoyed. Fontana is doing a better job elucidating my comments than I can, so I should let him have at it. But of course, I can't keep my big mouth shut.
Briefly. I think Apostropher's test for Christian influence is too strict. Absent a bible verse in the Constitution, you're out. The principle also leads to the somewhat pervese conclusion that the American founding is more influenced by Montesquieu than by the nation's dominant intellectual and cultural tradition. Montesquieu is an important guy, but that can't be right.
Here's a proposition I think is true: Americans at the time of the founding largely believed in a transcendent notion of equality for religious reasons --they thought equality stemmed from being equal before God. Any takers?
[[Aside on Locke. Religious toleration of the Lockean variety gets a *huge* intellectual boost from the notion that the beliefs relevant to salvation cannot be compelled. That's a highly protestant notion. ]]
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:50 PM
I would have made the point Chopper made in 3 if it weren't already made. (Also agree on 7.)
I recognize that the problematic aspects of "displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings" are sufficiently subtle that most of the public will generally view those who try to point out the problems as arrogant, blind, dickweeds, but, you know, I'm used to that. And the principle that the State cannot be allowed to endorse specific religion isn't one I can see as "small" or one that can be particularly compromised, save on what are so sufficiently marginal issues that the main folks bothered by the issue will never be remotely satisfied.
I also agree with SCMT on 12.
In the end, would some sort of "compromise" theoretically help? Perhaps. But I see no possible way to significantly do it without surrendering absolutely crucial principles -- there's no way to pick one set of "Ten Commandments" without endorsing one particular religious sect over another, so it can't be done (and, no, I can't see allowing a patchwork of local communities where different local governments grant State endorsement to different religious sects; what a helpfully unifying thing that would be). Beyond that, what's to actually compromise?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:51 PM
#80
Certainly it seems that the chain of events: Creationism gaining the upperhand---> Life science research declining---> profitability of pharma-science companies endangered---> import of skills (presumeably in this scenario, non-christian) is being set up. Mail me in a hundred years about the consequences.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:51 PM
Wait, how's Big Pharma in trouble? In cahoots, maybe.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:53 PM
The actual compromise would presumably be somehow convince the ACLU, Michael Newdow, and a series of other totally unrelated groups outside of the control of any Democratic politician to not challenge any of the existing displays of the ten commandments.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:55 PM
If 86 sounds really impractical, there's probably a reason.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:56 PM
and "convince" should be either "to convince" or "convincing"
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:57 PM
Well Kriston, if you dont errm believe in the processes of evolution, you'll have a hard time jiving to virus research and DNA-RNA-Protein transcription. It ll all be evil ya see.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:57 PM
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
-John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:59 PM
FL,
True, radical uneven political power once class is chosen (radically uneven economic power going the other way, I wonder if that's worth a shot in this day and age....) But, it makes me interested in what exactly was the argument we're discussing here, because, political power in the US was radically uneven. I suppose the argument is transcendental equality for everyone who counts? I can see that, and it is different from Plato who didn't have such a criterion inside his city.
"Rights" is tricky. On the one hand, Plato believed too much freedom caused corruption. OTOH, he didn't believe in legislating to limit freedom. (People should just be taught better) But not because he was against impiging on their rights. And while Plato didn't judge individuals in the city by any group they belonged too, their individual talents did determine which rights they got (there were always trade-offs). But this also meant there was no total disenfranchisement. Still, I guess this means I'll have to back off my earlier claim.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:02 PM
In cahoots?! Big Pharma's sins are myriad (you think we only use the cutest kitten, SCMT? We use *every* kitten!), but I think perhaps they can get a pass on funding creationism.
Austro, you are undervaluing to a large degree the power of compartmentalization. Few of us have consistant beliefs. A medicinal chemist could believe the precambrian explosion derived from shedding of Quetzacoatyl's skin and still do fab work on anti-histamines.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:04 PM
So Apostropher, can we go to question time?
Why do you think most Americans of the founding era believed all men are created equal?
Do you think the influence of Montesquieu was on the American founding was more important than the influence of protestantism?
What kind of evidence would convince you that the founding was, in a relevant sense, grounded on Christian beliefs?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:11 PM
baa... Im sorry, but my tongue was actually firmly in my cheek. I d say it would be dishonest of the medicinal chemist in question, but I'd never be so silly as to attempt to back the claim that chain will hold. If nothing else the profit motive will see to that.
But honestly, the mendacity involved in making the compartmentalisation is astounding.
Mind you, I can't get through my day without at least 10 good rationalisations, so I'm not the best one to preach...
I agree this is getting off topic, so I ll shut up.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:11 PM
"The actual compromise would presumably be somehow convince the ACLU, Michael Newdow, and a series of other totally unrelated groups outside of the control of any Democratic politician to not challenge any of the existing displays of the ten commandments."
Laying aside the slightly surreal aspect that the vast majority of "existing displays" consist of leftovers from publicity props donated by Cecil deMille to promote his movie -- gosh, that's an awesome heritage of religiosity, innit? -- even if, hypothetically, someone waved a magic wand and all challenges to anything that isn't installed as new tomorrow ceased forever, how would that help anyone insofar as I think it's more or less a fact that, in that case, someone somewhere would be sure to move to put up a new display in a government building on Monday?
And, of course, I have no problem whatever with a display of the Ten Commandments in a context such as Chopper refers to in 7, and as more or less exist in some places. But the main thing is that if every good Christian (or bad) wants to put up a Ten Commandments display and a creche, and a cross, or whatever, on their lawn, roof, storefront, corporation entrance, farm, whatever, fine. You just can't (be allowed to) suceed in gaining government endorsement for your personal sect. It's that simple. (I'm still waiting for Bush or Cheney to visit a Satanic Faith-Based Charity, but never mind.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:13 PM
The upside to compartmentalization: I believe it's all matter and the void, and I haven't killed anyone for days.
And it ain't because of my sentiments, I guarantee you...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:14 PM
baa,
re your 93: Where does the answer you're looking for get us? I believe my 75 applies.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:14 PM
baa --
While you cannot deny that the Founders embodied a Protestant tradition, it seems telling that they were perfectly aware of the Protestant nature of their intellectual influences--the Glorious Revolution and all its fruits being, of course, explicitly anti-Catholic--and yet they chose neutral secular language in crafting the Constitution. It would suggest conscious intent, conscious attempt at universality.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:15 PM
baa--- #96. OK I ll bite. I just ordered. Thanks.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:20 PM
Ac, in a sense, that doesn't matter—if you have to attempt at universality consciously, you've been influenced by something. (Eg, protestantism.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:21 PM
Absent a bible verse in the Constitution, you're out.
Nope, no Bible verses needed. But a scriptural antecedent for any sentence anywhere in the Constitution would be helpful. I know you've proposed agreeing to disagree (and I agree that neither of us is likely to sway the other), but I can't keep my big mouth shut either.
I think we're foundering on the difference between "Christianity was influential in 18th-century America" and "the nation was founded in Christian principles." The textual evidence argues very much against the latter formulation. Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli between the US and the Barbary States, which was approved unanimously by the US Senate eight years following the founding of the nation:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I'm having trouble demoting such pointed declarations as this one or the Adams quote above to a lesser importance than an assertion that early Americans "largely believed in a transcendent notion of equality for religious reasons."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:22 PM
96: Annette! Annette! Annette!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:22 PM
Apostropher, you're my hero.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:25 PM
I'll not bother to voice my conspiracy theories again, but I fully concur with Chopper on 81.
Posted by aspyre | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:31 PM
The "disagreement" between apo and baa is over the meaning of "founded,' and ac gets it right in 98. Of course the founders were both Christian and influenced by Christian ideas. In that sense, as the work of Christian men, America was founded upon Christian ideals. Nevertheless, the document itself, and the founders themselves, deliberately and explicitly refuse to appeal to religion to ground the legitimacy of the government. In that sense, this is not a Christian nation. The question then, is whether public display of the Ten Commandments if consistent with either sense of "founded" and which sense ought to be the one that guides us.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:33 PM
Oh, look, I can do my usual trick, and point out this from a couple of years ago. (Note also the quote from Jefferson on the left sidebar of my blog.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:35 PM
ac gets it right in 98
Beautiful! Now, who's for tea? We can start our next topic in, say, an hour and a half.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:35 PM
"Of course the founders were both Christian and influenced by Christian ideas."
Up to a mixed point. Jefferson famously construced his own Bible in which he tore out every passage containing anything with "supernatural" elements or direct words "from God." This is not precisely an endorsement of what is commonly considered a "Christian" position today.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:37 PM
Those interested can always jump back tp picking on ogged in "I Don't Feel Special." There's some fertile soil there based on the most recent comment (52).
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:38 PM
I'm not sure why I'm continuing to push this, but FWIW anti-blasphemy laws (state and/or local) did exist in the US into the 19th century.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:39 PM
So Apostropher, can we go to question time?
Always, mi amigo.
Why do you think most Americans of the founding era believed all men are created equal?
I don't think most Americans believed that (see: slaves=0.6*person).
the influence of Montesquieu
I think this question is irrelevant, but I have no idea as to the actual answer.
What kind of evidence would convince you that the founding was, in a relevant sense, grounded on Christian beliefs?
Any sort of scriptural antecedent in the founding document. The non-legislative writings of the biggies - Jefferson, Madison, and Adams - reveal, if anything, a pretty consistent distrust, verging on hostility, toward religion.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:41 PM
No, Chopper, picking on Ogged based on that one would be just too cruel. Plus I have reason to think that that comment was actually made by him, posting under a different pseudonym.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:43 PM
Wasn't me.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:44 PM
Ben, when you accept that I'm exactly right, I'll buy you tea.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:45 PM
You can buy me tea this weekend if you like, ac.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:49 PM
Not really though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:50 PM
113: Why you wanna rain on my parade?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 1:58 PM
picking on Ogged...too cruel
Matt, the words you're saying all make sense individually, but when I put them together, they just turn into gibberish for me.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:02 PM
Four points are coming together here.
1st: is the idea of what "the document" says. And yep, the Constitution is not a Christian document. Fine. The Consitution not the Declaration is law of the land. Also true. It's like Lino Graglia day here.
2nd: is the fact that America, the nation, had a civic culture and intellectual life. And that the aspects of that civic culture and intellectual life that supported democracy, equality, etc., were influenced by Christianity to an enormous, enormous degree. I hope no one disputes this, as it would be kind of batty to do so.
Brief comment on 1 and 2. Imagine I say "prohibition in America was founded on Chrisitian doctrine." And someone comes along with the text of the 18th amendment and says: "no no, it the document is entirely secular." I kind of think that person is missing the point.
Point 3: no matter what we think about 1 and 2, it's absolutely not clear that the American tradition has been rigorous secularism or even non-denominationalism is government activity, nor is it clear that this is what the 1st amendment requires. Chaplains in the senate, etc. This is a long-standing debate, and the "wall of separation" position is not the only one with powerful supporting arguments.
Point 4: the interesting political/moral question is what obligations religious minorities and majorities have to each other in a liberal, democratic polity.
One view: the majority must do *nothing* that imposes any burdens on the minority. ["But wait," the religious majority might say, "other majorities in this country get to impose burdens sometimes, why not us?"]
Another view: the religious majority should not make the burdens on the minority onerous, but on small matters, the minority should *let it slide.* If you live in a town that's 90% Christian, let some money go for a town Xmas tree, just as in a town that is 90% Italian, let the city pay for a Columbus day parade.
I can identify with both views, as I held both as different times in my life. I once got very exercised about "in God we trust" being on the nickel. Now, as most have likely guessed, I incline to the latter view. Tolerance, as someone said, is a two way street. The majority has to tolerate the minority's strange practices, the minority has to tolerate the majority seeing some of their beliefs manifested in the public sphere.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:16 PM
baa -
Really, this is just a specific case, it looks like, of the general dispute between conservative interpretation and liberal interpretation. You think traditions matter; we know better.
Snark aside, am I missing the meat?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:20 PM
I don't think it is the meat in this case, Tim.
For example, point 4 is just a question of how to run a pluralistic democracy. Should the city of O'Shaunessyberg pay for a Saint Patrick's Day Parade, or have Barry McGuigan vocational high school, or will that offend the small German community? One possbility: no ethnic nothing. Another: yes, but don't go crazy with it. This isn't a tradition vs. formalism question at it's heart.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:32 PM
as to baa's 4, the issue for secularists is preventing state sponser of religious thought/culture which are harmful to others. I don't have a problem with christmas trees or christmas parades. I'm not so easily persuaded about the 10 Cs at courthouses. And I don't understnd the impetus behind claiming "christian nation" except to force policies that are harmful (such as not allowing gays equal partner rights). But, fine, I'll concede to baa that, culturally, the people who founded this country were in the most part in some sense Christian. (though they held many different beliefs than Christians today) But we don't have a Christian government. And it seems to me that people who claim the former are often confusing it for that latter.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:33 PM
But isn't the reference to the Christian antecendents of the US intended to suggest that the answers to such questions regarding paying for the parade lie in tradition (or the vote, but I think that probably becomes a tradition question), where we might look more explicitly to policy?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:40 PM
"One view: the majority must do *nothing* that imposes any burdens on the minority. "
I think that one is a mischaracterization. I don't know anyone who objects simply to the burdens of being a member of a minority religion in the U.S. (I grant that there must be at least some small smattering.) There are plenty of "burdens" I could describe that I think members of minority beliefs have to deal with, but I think if I did, few would feel much sympathy because we all agree that it's not unreasonable to have to live with them. They're burdensome nonetheless. And not a political issue. It's only when government is yanked into the picture that the argument is made that government should do nothing, which is a way of saying "shall make no law respecting an establishment of...," which has a vaguely familiar ring to it.
"If you live in a town that's 90% Christian, let some money go for a town Xmas tree...."
Of course, a town is not embodied by its government. Few people object to a town getting together to put up a Christmas tree; I surely don't. I (and others) only object if the government is putting one up (and not equally celebrating equivalent and different religious views).
"The majority has to tolerate the minority's strange practices, the minority has to tolerate the majority seeing some of their beliefs manifested in the public sphere."
Absolutely. "Public" does not mean "governmental." Have as many Christmas parades as you like (so long as you also give permits for whoever wants to show up for the Shinto parade).
It's the difference between that sort of civic life you refer to in point 2, and governmental action, that is crucial, but I repeat myself.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:41 PM
"Another: yes, but don't go crazy with it."
And as soon as we have a constitutional Amendment says "Government shall make laws respecting establishment of religion so long as they don't go crazy about it," that would be different.
Tangentially, I have trouble feeling sorry for the horrible oppression people are put through simply because they can't manipulate government to endorse their personal sectarianism. Aren't conservatives supposed to believe in small government and government not intruding where it shouldn't?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:44 PM
Gary,
By town, I meant government, and by impose, I meant impose via the government.
Is it a fair characterization of your view that the govenrment should not impose any burdens on the minority. Thus, no prayers at school football games, no ten commandments on the courthouse, no town $ for a Xmas tree. This is what I meant by view one. And yes, I do think it's better to let things slide a bit more than this.
SCMT,
I think arguments from tradition needn't be involved here. But clearly, I do think that nations have persisting civic cultures, and that those cultures are important to preserving values. When those values are basically good (like the US on toleration of minority religions), I tend not to want to rock the boat with ACLU-ish criticisms.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 2:53 PM
"And yes, I do think it's better to let things slide a bit more than this."
You don't think that if you want to change "shall make no law" you should have to change "shall make no law"? Or do you simply feel that if the Supreme Court ruled, that would be sufficient, which I'd find difficult to argue with?
What I don't get is that I completely agree with this: "But clearly, I do think that nations have persisting civic cultures, and that those cultures are important to preserving values. When those values are basically good (like the US on toleration of minority religions), I tend not to want to rock the boat with ACLU-ish criticisms."
And, as I said, no, I don't agree that towns should be forbidden to have Christmas trees (or creches, or sessions for Satan-worship, or any damn religious things they want. What I don't understand is how or why the government is required for any of these things to happen. It's obviously unnecessary. The only possible reason to desire government to put up religious displays you want is that you specifically require government to do it, not the civic society and leaders of the town. I don't know how this is arguable.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:00 PM
Gary, I'm not getting the town/government distinction.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:02 PM
Gary, your establishment clause comment confuses me. Are you arguing about what the law of the land is, or what should be? I think the interesting question is the second one. And again, I think the answer is more of a go along get along than a "wall of separation."
I suspect that this is in fact how the United States functioned for most of its history.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:03 PM
Aren't conservatives supposed to believe in small government and government not intruding where it shouldn't?
these days, it seems that the federal power/state power dynamic has been so blurred by christian lobbies trying to get whatever they want, even if it means federal action, and liberals suddenly making cries for state sovereignty in the gay marriage issue that the big gov't/small gov't arguments look like a big joke.
you'll notice that the crazies have stopped railing against 'activist' judges and instead are complaining about 'liberal' judges, since they realize that some of the decisions they want judges to make are in fact quite activist (see terri schiavo, &c.).
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:03 PM
130 is me. and oh yeah, i think MY is off his rocker on this point.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:03 PM
It wasn't addressed to me, but I understand Gary's distinction, which is between the city/parish government and the social makeup of the same area. Gary has no problem with people coming together and organizing religious celebrations, just so long as it is government-allowed but not government-backed. Why it needs government-backing is a good question, I think. It wouldn't bard difficult to set up a civic organization to oversee religious festivities, after all.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:12 PM
We live in a democracy. People want to use the government to advance goals that are important to them. Sometimes these are religious goals, sometimes ethnic goals, sometimes moral goals. So yes, the local drug store can put up the Xmas tree. But people will also want the city to have an Xmas tree. And I don't see this as a big deal (although, as I mentioned, I once did take a view much like Gary's)
Here's another rambling story. For a long time, my town gave city employees the day off on "evacuation day." This august holiday commemorates the evaucation of the Bunker hill. It also falls on St. Patrick's day, every year. The new solution -- which I endorse! -- is to give city workers floating holidays, and let them pick.
The old solution, however, wasn't a travesty, and indeed reclothing an ethnic holiday in a civic American guise is the kind of sharp and decent Boston pol move I heartily endorse. If a Mike Newdow equivalent had showed up to sue the city, I would've thought he was a big A-hole. And I would have thought that even if it has been frankly listed on the city calendar as "St. Patrick's day, brought to you by His Holiness, the Pope." That's because the town was 50% Irish. The other 50% was Italian, and wanted Columbus day. And I, as a rounding error, didn't really care if the city spent some pittance making sure that these two large (and very good natured + tolerant) communities using the city to endorse themselves.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:13 PM
"Gary, I'm not getting the town/government distinction."
Huh. A town is made up of people. They can do whatever they please so long as they don't violate the law, and they commonly do. Towns form endless organizations to accomplish endless tasks, particularly organizing Committees or other organizations forms to engage in parades, celebrations, business improvement, buy fire engines, form volunteer fire departments, clean up the streets, give out fruit baskets, have welcome wagons, whatever. Pretty much every religious organization in every town in America has an adjunct organization to Do Something Or Other, such as engage in charity, sing Christmas carols, help people deal with Passover, whatever. Not to mention the fraternal organizations, and just all sorts of endless organizations.
None of this is done by the government. Most things in America are not done by the government. Most things in America need not be done by government.
This is clear, right? And how about "some things must not be done by government"? And if it doesn't cause a problem, where's the problem?
Last I looked, people are utterly free to put up Christmas trees and creches. Individually, and in groups, including, if they all wish, 100% of the citizens of any town.
And children/teens/everyone (not in the course of being a public employee) are utterly free to pray in school (so long as they don't disrupt normal activities). (Every time there's a test, there's prayer!)
So where's a problem?
The only problem is when people feel that isn't enough. It's not good enough if they line every single piece of private property in town with crosses, and mutually chip in to buy the top ten largest properties in the town, and turn them into massive crosses/creches/Christmas trees/menorahs/crescents/whatever, for some, apparently. They only possible way their religiousness can be satisfied, it appears, is if they are able to get the government to endorse their preferred version.
That's clear, isn't it? Or is it, and if not, where not?
"Are you arguing about what the law of the land is, or what should be?"
It is what SCOTUS says it is, of course, unless they're overruled by known procedure. My own preference is simply for equal treatment. I have no problem with putting a creche/whatever in a school, town hall, court house, so long as if a single citizen also demands equal treatment for their belief and symbology gets it. I don't demand banishment of religion from government; simply equal treatment; so long as there's equal treatment, there's no "establishment of religion."
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:19 PM
No, in general I'm fine with what you're suggesting, baa. And I'm fine if we're saying, "let it slide," rather than take a position that it's OK. But I think a law placing, for example, the 10 Commandments at every entrance to every school would be a Very Bad Thing.
I'm unclear why you mentioned that the US was founded on Christian traditions/influences if those traditions or influences are not important to arguments today. Do you just mean, "Well, the traditions aren't all bad"?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:19 PM
Also, why do you hate America?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:21 PM
Oh, and if everyone in town is a member of a single sect, fine, let there be only one set of religious symbols used on public property so long as the principle is absolutely held to that if a single person wants their own religion, or lack of it, equally respected, they get it. I recognize that this is asking for adherence to an idealistic and strict interpretation, from one angle, but it also seems the only possible way to be fair, from my own angle, and I reiterate that I'll willing to allow 100% adherence to a single belief if that's the reality (albeit you lose the lawsuit if 99% of the town bullies the minority 1% into not asking for equal treatment under the law).
Again, that would be my preferred way to go, not the way I think current law is necessarily going to be practically interpreted.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:24 PM
I rather prefer the way Gary is proposing. People are free to express themselves, but there's less danger of them thinking that only they have the right to express themselves, which is a danger when your personal preferences start becoming legitimated by government. All the same, I'm not about to get upset (and I don't think Gary is either) about a city buying a christmas tree, which is only quasi-religious anyway. Since we're talking ideals here, I think the best way to approach something like this wouldn't be through authoritative courts but through a town council, or newsletter, or whaever. I realize, thought, that this would be a lot harder in larger cities.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 3:32 PM
I'm willing to go for posting the Golden Rule all over public buildings - that "Do unto others" sentiment is fairly universal to varying belief systems, and is really an ethical statement more than a religious one, tho' one could surely convince the Religious Right of the converse. I very much object to "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me", the exhortations in #2, and the creationist doctrine in #4. [We're going on the Episcopalian version of the 10Cs here.]
I object even more to Christian propaganda in the classroom, be it the 10Cs or prayer or teaching the misnomered "Intelligent Design". It's not the job of the state to indoctrinate my offspring with religious beliefs of any flavour. [Comparative religion class? Fine - just see to it that there's a fair representation of the diversity of beliefs, that no one system is taught as The One True Faith.]
Frankly, I see the gnawing away at church/state separation as the thin end of the wedge w/regard to women's reproductive rights - vide the recent spate of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, much less morning-after pills, on the grounds of "conscience" and the ability of the RR to get laws passed allowing this to happen legally.
What's next, refusing to fill prescriptions for AIDS patients on the grounds that they're sinners? Banning epidurals for childbirth because the Bible has that bit about "in pain you shall bring forth children"? [Not so farfetched; women were criticised by the Church as blasphemers for using anaesthesia when chloroform became available.]
That said, it doesn't bother me in the least if private citizens put up the money for an Xmas tree, a menorah, an Imbolc bonfire, or get a parade permit to practice Lupercalian fertility runs. Let 'em get permits and rent space in the park the same way families-in-reunion and the annual Lutefisk Festival do. I'm firmly in the government-allowed, but not government-backed, camp. But that means the state has to give access to all, be they Baptist or Ba'hai, Seventh Day Adventist or Santerian, Anglican or animist.
Somehow, tho', I don't think that's going to happen. We're headed blindly for a theocracy in this country, with the shadow of the Republic of Gilead looming ever closer. The "toleration of minority religions" of which baa spoke is simply not a reality in this country.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 4:15 PM
Ben, dear, don't forget to comment on the missing serial comma...
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 4:19 PM
I'm out of the conversation for now; sorry; see my blog why (fell on my right wrist a bit ago).
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 4:53 PM
Shit Gary, that sucks. Hope it's not broken and heals quickly.
(Yes, Farber will do *anything* to get you to click through to his site.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 4:55 PM
Ouch.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 5:00 PM
Thanks.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 5:04 PM
Ah, who needs two hands, anyway?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 5:06 PM
No one on the internet, that's for sure.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 5:07 PM
The hell with this. Tomorrow I cut it off and go with a hook. Though only if I also get a parrot as part of the deal. Must see my Christian Science healer about this.
Better than getting plague, anyway.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 5:18 PM
True dat, Gary.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 6:26 PM
After two codeine aspirins and four shots of vodka, it's faking being somewhat better. (Definitely bruised, not broken; just don't make me make a fist tonight.)
I may rethink the hook thing.
For a while.
Besides, it would go better with a peg leg, and I'm not ready for that.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 6:56 PM
Gary, if you're going to have these ailments, you need to play them up. Kids these days don't know better, so when you're walking down the street, you'll hear, "Don't fuck with Farber, he's got that hook and gout [shivers, the scattering of little children]."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 7:03 PM
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk
Posted by Fritz | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 7:19 PM
A religious freedom quiz.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:39 PM
Just remember the parrot diapers
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:39 PM
All I can plead is that the folks at the bus stop (Broadway and 27th here in the not-so-vast Boulder metropolis) seemed impressed that I would stand and leap to smack myself flat on the concrete. (What can I say, different folks have different skills.)
Needless to say, the Dash bus pulled away, and by the time the Skip pulled up 30 seconds later, I was already swearing and clutching myself (though not in a, you know, good way).
Geez, I'm sure a little shockiness at least every month must be good for everyone, right? Because, afterwords, we have triumphed.
(The gout keeps cooperatively twinging me every other night, practically, but not worse, most of the time in recent months (on a smattering of occasions it's worse, but mostly not, at present); the guy who moved into the next building who has, literally, a party every other night, in the last few months (cute girls hanging out, to be sure, but off limits for reasons we've discussed in earlier threads) is about as annoying, since I have no prescription to keep him from shouting street name directions into his cell phone, like he's doing right now.)
I knew you wanted to know.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:44 PM
Hell is jack ass neighbors who have more fun and less pain than we do.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 9:49 PM
They're down there (the involuntary listening comes through the window over my bed, which is to say, four feet behind me at my seat at my desk complex from which I'm typing this; to view, I back up a couple of feat and squat on my bed), as I write, as they were pretty much all night. My impression in the past month is that five people moved into the studio-sized party, which is why they have an almost continuous smoke, drink, and converse (with a couple of dogs, cats, and daily barbeque) string going at almost every hour I'm conscious.
Let me tell you, it beats last summer's 21+ foot diameter trampoline that the very next house over set up, and held bouncing contests on past 4 a.m.; the first three nights I thought it was cute; the next two months I didn't (it turns out that *boing* *boing* *boing* *boing* *boing* can actually be extremely loud).
Did I mention that even though I'm a college dropout, Boulder is a college town? (And I'm in a college neighborhood, although at least half my neighbors are older than me, too.)
(Right hand still only usable via fingers, not wrist, and it turns out my left knee is semi-immobile for the time being, but I won't bore with a full list of Today's Limitations.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-14-05 11:38 AM
And I should have said: how are you?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-14-05 11:39 AM