Asymmetrical Information

Liberalism need not be anti-religion. It just seems to be in America. I moved from the US to Ontario, Canada four years ago and was struck by some of the differences along those lines. Canada is perceived by many Americans as being quite liberal. And it is in some ways (gay marriage is legal for example). But the separation between Church and states is not as severe. We do have nativity scene in downtown London every year, and as far as I know this have never been challenged. And there is a public Catholic school system. And we have a statutory holiday on Good Friday. And yet, as a country, seem to be less religious (or less Bible centred, any way) than the United States.

"Liberals" in the US are not liberal in the true sense at all; they are socialists. And Jane says the Puritans "hanged hundreds for being witches"; according to what I've read, the number is around a dozen. Maybe she needs a mirror too...

One difference between the Founding Fathers' time and our own is that in their time, America was something like 95% Protestant. A lot of the friction over, forex, school prayers got started when we got lots of Catholics coming in...the Catholic and Protestant versions differ.

One thing I have noticed about the people who're so dead-set against strict separation of church and state is that they never seem to consider what they'd feel like if some group they _really_ didn't like got the clout to have things all their own way. I've got a friend who's a Baptist, but lives in a heavily LDS area---and I shut him up about prayer in schools, once and for all, by pointing out that if they had it, any kids he had would be almost certainly being fed LDS prayers on his dime.

The Puritans most assuredly did not hang "hundreds" of witches. A little historical research would be in order. I believe the actual number executed for witchcraft is 36.

I've got a friend who's a Baptist, but lives in a heavily LDS area---and I shut him up about prayer in schools, once and for all, by pointing out that if they had it, any kids he had would be almost certainly being fed LDS prayers on his dime.

That misses the point, methinks -- if you can get a Baptist to back down from prayer in schools by pointing out that the neighborhood LDS must have equal access to the right, that's one thing.

But another thing -- and the one that really rankled many people who had a dog in the fight -- was that, much like the abortion debate, the issue was delineated by fiat of the courts. One or a small handful of malcontents overrode the democratic process which was available to decide such matters.

Unlike the Left, I like the first amendment as written: no "established" church and a no laws restricting the freedom of the press. The left wants no religious contact with the state (which is but the endorsement of vehement secularity, natch) and rather extreme restrictions on what I can say (McCain Feingold, hate speech codes, hate crime laws, all election financing laws).

Now of course many on the right quite like that second part, especially incumbent politicians, but I have never understood why voters should support measures to insulate incumbents.

JAne this just illustrates your point re factions that are out of power. The militant secularists/atheists do offer a contrasting point, since they seem to be crazy no matter who is in power and despite the fact that they are on a rather long winning streak in court. I guess the craziness stems from the fact that so few outside of the judiciary agree with them, negating the value of political or legal wins.

I say all of this as a rather hedonistic agnostic, whose agnosticism goes towards a "clockmaker" rather than any sort of actual denomination. Militant atheists are the most nasty people I've ever met or read about (see wired's cover story, or anything discussing "brights") outside of militant communists, but then there's a rather large overlap between the two.

One thing I have noticed about the people who're so dead-set against strict separation of church and state is that they never seem to consider what they'd feel like if some group they _really_ didn't like got the clout to have things all their own way.

Well, yes. People do tend to feel a bit differently when in a minority as opposed to a majority. Same reason why I know liberals who are a bit more tolerant of vouchers when they're in Kansas than when in Chapel Hill, NC.

It plays into the previous post about DARE, too. Government education includes teaching all sorts of moralistic things to people's children, whether about drugs, alcohol, or recycling. Some people might not always agree with it, but the majority likes to foist off it's opinions.

Oddly enough, some people who are completely in favor of the separation of church and state seem to hate vouchers and love to force people to use their tax mony to have schools teach their kids about drugs, alcohol, sex, recycling, or any number of topics, regardless of whether a minority disagrees.

Before you jump all over Jane for her "hundreds of witches were hanged" comment, I would suggest first that you study epidemiology and statistics at a four year program first. What temerity and arrogance you are displaying in questioning Jane's study!

"If they could see the state of American religion today--no prayer in schools, blue laws stricken down left and right, nativity scenes banned from every public square--they would be horrified, not thrilled. "

If you leave out the words between the dashes, I think you'd be more accurate.

I was burned for witchcraft in the 17th century, and I find Jane's post highly offensive.

I think that the actual number of accused witches killed by the Puritans was 20 (14 women and 6 men per Wikipedia). But my understanding is that since they were all Death Eaters and it dissuaded them from trying to gain a foothold in North America, it was probably a good thing ;)

Seriously though, I tend to agree with Justice Thomas. The Establishment Clause doesn’t protect individual liberty; it protects federalism by preventing the national government from establishing a national church (the Founders funded missionaries for gosh sakes!). Individuals are still protected against coercion by the “Free Exercise” clause or by whatever protections are found in their State constitutions, statutes, and common law.

whenever anyone -- left, right or center -- claims to know the minds of the Founding Fathers and further claims that they would have a unified belief on anything, you can be virtually certain that they have NO IDEA what they're talking about.

religion in the US is remarkably vibrant. The fact that your local city can't put a creche on public land on December 20-30 bothers actually a very small (but vocal) number of people, and the prohibition serves as an important lesson on the restrictions imposed by the Establishment Clause.

as to those eviiiil courts and eviiil ACLU, haven't the commenters here figured out yet that the Bill of Rights is an anti-majoritarian body of law, and therefore enforceable only through the judiciary?

The fact that your local city can't put a creche on public land on December 20-30 bothers actually a very small (but vocal) number of people...

Is that small but vocal minority bigger or smaller than the small but vocal minority who are actually bothered by the creche?

Just asking.

(Also, most people know the BoR is anti-majoritarian. They just think the courts are getting it wrong)

How is what the Puritans did in the 1600's relevant to what their descendants did a century or more later? When Massachusetts ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the colony and state hadn't been a theocracy for a long time, and if many people still claimed to be Puritans, Puritanism must have been watered down a lot. (Many of the leading revolutionaries in New England belonged to the same offshoot of Puritanism - Unitarianism - but Unitarians remember their Puritan heritage by going to the opposite extremes.)

Francis:

whenever anyone -- left, right or center -- claims to know the minds of the Founding Fathers and further claims that they would have a unified belief on anything, you can be virtually certain that they have NO IDEA what they're talking about.

Obviously, there are going to be dissenters on anything, but it's very revealing that it never occurred, even to the most atheist of framers, that a public nativity display even fell in the category of "state-religion mixing". And even so, the Consitution is pretty clear: regardless of the merit of nativity displays, it does not violate constitutional prohibitions. The First Amendment, in plain English, merely says that

1) Government may not set up a state church.

2) Government may not prohibit practice of faith (with obvious limitations).

There are good reasons to oppose nativity scenese on public property, I'm sure. But unconstitutionality ... ain't one of them.

Another mantra to chant in this mirror: "That they love their own freedom doesn't make the American people civil libertarians. Everyone likes their own freedom. Being a civil libertarian means loving the freedom of others, despite the myriad stupid and horrifying ways they use it." The Puritans didn't want freedom of religion, they wanted freedom to be a Puritan. Freedom to be a Catholic, an atheist, or a witch? Not so much.

"That they love their own freedom doesn't make the American people civil libertarians. Everyone likes their own freedom. Being a civil libertarian means loving the freedom of others, despite the myriad stupid and horrifying ways they use it."

Yep. To make another point about vouchers, the easiest way to kill support for vouchers in polls is to ask something like, "Do you support vouchers, even if they could be used by Muslims to set up their own schools?"

1) Note that the Salem witch trials were commonly regarded as an atrocious injustice within just a few years after they actually occurred. (See this book.) I am not sure that th

2) The Wigglesworth episode of 1722 -- professor appointed to fill new chair of divinity at Harvard found to be, shock and horror, Unitarian, and even more shockingly is allowed to keep the chair -- and its sequelae are far more informative on what the Founders thought as regards maintaining public orthodoxy.

When Massachusetts ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the colony and state hadn't been a theocracy for a long time,

Right, it wasn't a theocracy. But it still had an established state church, required public financing for teachers of Protestant religion, and had a religious test for state offices.

And mind you, these weren't the relic of some old colonial charter, or unrepealed laws. These were provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, written by John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin.

I get the feeling that Kevin's first commenter (as well as many others) didn't even read his post.

How is it possible to have a discussion when reading comprehension escapes the participants?

I think that it is important to understand that Liberalism is not as such anti-religion. It is rather singularly anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Protestant. You do not, for instance, see ACLU lawsuits against menorahs in public squares or against the purdah in the classroom. The reason for this is that American Liberalism from its infancy has largely been shaped by the Jewish reaction to widespread antisemitism of the time when Jews were beginning to gain significant wealth and power in this country.

In a larger sense, it seems to me that in the US specifically, the divide between conservatism and liberalism has the overtones of the continuation of the wars of Reformation, with Protestants generally hewing to the conservative memes and Catholics backed by Jews and atheists leaning liberal.

D, you don't see that because nobody thinks the U.S. government endorses Islam or Judaism (unless you count bogus "Judeo-Christian" talk.) You do, however, see the ACLU defending Christians on the rare occasions when the government infringes on their rights. (See the case about yearbook Bible quotes.) Whatever overtones you may see, the ACLU consistently opposes any hint of government authority endorsing religion. They consistently favor separation of church and state as well as freedom of speech.

Jane, where do you get that last bit about the founders feeling horrified? Maybe I just picture giving them more information when bringing them into the present. Frankly, I think all those Deists would have called themselves atheists if they knew about Darwin. And I think that would have weakened any (probably false) views they held about the practical benefits of religion.

That should read, "freedom of speech for private individuals."

First of all, the Lancet has did a study decades ago that showed that 13,056 witches were burned at the stake, more or less.

Second, I don't know that there is much evidence that the founders would have been horrified by the absence of school prayer. What would have stunned them is the proposition that the Constitution they drafted required it.

Ummm...
It's it nitpicky, but the name is "Stuart Smalley".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley

they may not have burned hundreds of witches, but they did flog a number of half-naked Quaker women who tried to proselytize. And when they didn't get the hint, they hung 'em.

It should be noted that Massachusetts had an established church until 1833,a circumstance that did not seem to do any great harm to anyone at the time. Nor has the Canadian ' establishment' of the separate school systems,a Confederation compromise between Quebec and the English-speaking provinces at the time that was not extended easily to the new provinces,such as Manitoba.

The larger question when you 'establish' religion is the point at which you stop as much as the point at which you begin. The UK is now facing that question as the system that traditionally provided financial support to a Church-operated school system aimed at integrationist teaching for Irish immigrant children is now being asked to accommodate groups that are perceived to be far less supportive of common values and much more anxious to teach separateness as a way of life

There is considerable historical evidence supporting the interpretation of the Establishment Clause that Thorley Winston sets forth -- that it was intended to bar the federal government from superseding the individual state churches then in existence. Obviously, one can disagree as to whether that intent should be given any weight in today's world, but it is an interesting perspective nonetheless.

It should be noted that Massachusetts had an established church until 1833,a circumstance that did not seem to do any great harm to anyone at the time.

What a fascinating observation. I would love to read fxm's no-doubt voluminous research on the status of MA's religious minorities prior to 1833, and on their relative success in endeavors public and private. The best part would probably be the diaries of Jews who were ecstatic that they were unable to hold public office, and that bigoted attacks reaching the level of physical assault were at least likely to be prosecuted!

If I had to guess, the extent of fxm's actual evidence for this remarkable assertion is that, to the best of his knowledge, there were no pogroms in pre-1833 MA.

fxm's definition of "great harm:" for himself, not seeing his preferred depiction of mythological events on the courthouse steps; for others, lynching.

hf - D, you don't see [the ACLU fighting against government displays of Islam and Judaism] because nobody thinks the U.S. government endorses Islam or Judaism (unless you count bogus "Judeo-Christian" talk.)

Yeah, right. The U.S. government has something to do with whether Smallville chooses to have a creche tradition.

Nowadays, only by preventing it.

Be careful. It's all very well saying "UK.... Church-operated school system aimed at integrationist teaching for Irish immigrant children" but a cousin attended one such school which attempted to indoctrinate the children to hate protestants.

Paul Johnson has an interesting take on the Salem witchcraft trials in his book on American History. The witch trials started when children were throught to be the victims. And the movement was led by the most educated people in Salem, such as Cotton Mather. He was a polymath who spoke many languages fluently and was well-versed in philosophy and science. He felt that modern science would help track down witches and illuminate the work of the Devil.

Interestingly enough, his father disagreed. His father thought that this "scientific" research into the ways of the Devil was itself the work of the Devil. Needless to say, we would sympathize with Mather's father.

Now fast forward hundreds of year. Modern science, in the form of psychology, lets us find how children today are harmed. Recovered memories of sexual and physical abuse. Innocent people are put on trial and convicted based upon the testimony of children. Society gets outraged. People rethink their opposition to the death penalty. Then, quietly, years later, we find out that the recovered memories are bunk.

At least the people of Salem stopped the witch trials after a few months, then made reparations to the victims. In some ways, we've gotten *worse* since then, not better.

Why don't we start by recognizing the diversity of the population, decentralize the power of the federal government, and let local communities decide these issues for themselves?

When the federal government screws up, it affects everybody. By contrast, when a town, city, or state screws up, the damage is limited to their residents. It seems both liberals and conservatives want the federal government to set one standard for everybody.

So if a school district in Kansas wants to teach intelligent design and that evolution is dumb, why should the rest of us care?

If a school district in Berkeley wants to teach students that in order to be considered tolerant, they must accept gay marriage, why should the rest of the country give a damn?

A public school in a small town in Nebraska might have Christian prayers. But a public school in Los Angeles might not have any religious exercises because their student population is more religiously diverse. (Obviously, anyone who doesn't want to pray shouldn't be forced.)

Posted by: anony-mouse: "That misses the point, methinks -- if you can get a Baptist to back down from prayer in schools by pointing out that the neighborhood LDS must have equal access to the right, that's one thing.

But another thing -- and the one that really rankled many people who had a dog in the fight -- was that, much like the abortion debate, the issue was delineated by fiat of the courts. One or a small handful of malcontents overrode the democratic process which was available to decide such matters."

The 'democratic process' in a majority-LDS district would probably have the LDS-doctrine prayers in school. That's why we have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and a separate judiciary branch - to put some limits on the 'democratic process'.

This line about 'it's not the outcome, it's the process' is pretty clearly a lie; the people hyping it are very clearly concerned with the outcome.

I'm glad that us minorities can overrule the majority just by nature of us saying we're in the minority and you can't impose your will on us. I'll remember that at the next election. Just because you have more votes and won, that means the exact opposite of the majority rule should be enforced to cater to the minority. After all, anything less is tyranny...

You do not, for instance, see ACLU lawsuits against menorahs in public squares or against the purdah in the classroom.

And you certainly never see them suing to block the display or installation of the Ten Commandments.

I dunno, the movie sure seemed very Jewy.

Jane, Jane, Jane.

Your "if...then" statement assumes you either know or can intuit the reactions of long dead men to current events. Such aqn assumption is patently ridiculous, irrational, falacious argumentation and downright silly.

I almost recall when you were a devout rationalist.

Aaron_Adams: Does this mean you're going to stop appealing to what the framers wanted, in your arguments?

Because, you know, you did it too and all.

---"So if a school district in Kansas wants to teach intelligent design and that evolution is dumb, why should the rest of us care?"---

Because we live in the United States of America, not just the United States. We assumne, basically, that it's the same country from Sea to Shining Sea, not a bunch of confederated states that happen to speak much the same language. We tried that already, and it did not work.

Kevin,

Deferring power in certain areas, including education, back to states and localities will hardly bring us back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. Anyway, education didn't become a national issue until the mid-20th century.

Again, having one central standard set by the federal government in all areas is wrong, undermines real diversity, and potentially dangerous.

Person:

I referred to well-documented concerns framers had at the time about the tyranny of the majority. IOW, i wasn't speculating about unkn owable opinions, as Jane was, but instead talking about what history reveals about contemporary discussions the framers had.

I trust, now that the distinction has been explained to you, that you too can see the difference.

Aaron_Adams: You *were* speculating about unknown opinions -- that the framers would have considered a nativity display an instance of a "tyranny of the majority".

Kevin,

I would love to live in a federal republic where states have
genuine, substantive differences in their laws and attitudes.
I would love to live in a federation where a great diversity
of possibilities, or greater than what we have today, could
be accessed simply by moving.

You say that this has been tried before and it failed. I
dispute that assertion. Seems to me that for the most part
it worked rather well. Particularly given that one of
the differences of the time being bridged over, slavery,
was of such an extraordinarily divisive nature.

A question we don't know the answer of: How often do issues
so divisive that they'll break up a true federal republic
come up?

Is it something inevitable or was the United States simply
unlucky?

We could point to a few federal republics around the world
today, such as germany, and say that they seem to be working.
But the problem with that argument is the question of just
how federal these countries really are.

on federalism and incorporation of the BoR against the States:

The evidence that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to incorporate all / the majority of the Bill of Rights against the States is so compelling that Justice Thomas got precisely zero votes from his fellow justices when he most recently argued in favor of State establishmentarianism.

(which is another reason why relying on the intent of the Founding Fathers is ridiculous; it ignores the intent and effect of the 14th amendment. Lincoln might not be so surprised or "horrified" by how our government changed in response to the Civil War.)

The crowd here has argued in the past that if liberals want abortion to be a constitutional right they should amend the Constitution to do so.

The same applies for incorporation. Want to move the USA from a union to federated states? Amend the Constitution to undo the 14th.

So maybe only a few dozen witches were hanged by the Puritans. Still, you have to consider the chilling effect.

Francis,

I don't understand. I've just reread the 14th amendment for
the nth time and fail to see how it negates the rest of the
constitution. The key "change" is this:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Or at least I assume that's what you're referring to. (And if
not please explain.) I put the word "change" in quotes because
I think it would have been news to those that wrote the Constitution
that this wasn't already intended.

Please explain the logic whereby this sentence removes any --
let alone all -- of the restraints on federal power articulated
within the rest of the Constitution.

Now there is an amendment to the constitution that really did
pretty much negate the rest of the constitution, although it
took some time for that negation to work through. That being
the 17th amendment, and in particular:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and
each Senator shall have one vote."

Was 14 a typo?

"Privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" supposedly includes the rights we enjoy because of Amendments 1-10. And Twill00, this effectively includes the government of Smallville in the phrase "U.S. government". If the federal government can't do it, neither can they. (IANAL.) See also my remark on the recent ACLU post about why they take unpopular cases.

Person:

Your reading comp coach is on the line-he's offering you a full refund.

The 'democratic process' in a majority-LDS district would probably have the LDS-doctrine prayers in school.

Probably. And I wouldn't be too fond of that outcome, but if it is truly a serious issue for those actually affected by the decision, then let those local dissenters make themselves an intolerable nuisance at the school board meetings. Or else homeschool, or else participate in a charter school, or seek private schooling (preferably with the very-democratic option of vouchers), or move to a different school district where this issue does not arise.

Declaring the local problem, which doesn't infringe upon any meaningful 'rights', to be solvable by court fiat merely creates more social problems than any it purports to solve. Having your say, and then confronting the fact that nobody else agrees with it, is much more mentally agreeable than being told your say doesn't count on the basis that somebody else's say managed to hire better lawyers.

Aaron_Adams: Well, the jerk store called -- they're running out of you!

...or something.

D------
Your idea of letting the local goverments decide on issues like religion etc. does seem attarctive at the onset. But don't you think it might lead to "ghetto-ization"? This may be disastrous especially when schools start teacing fundamental islam (for example) to their students, because smalltown is predominantly muslim and the local govt says the schools should pray 5 times a day and read the koran?

"if it is truly a serious issue for those actually affected by the decision, then let those local dissenters make themselves an intolerable nuisance at the school board meetings."

Oh, like these people did?

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

They did, indeed, "move to a different school district" - out of fear for their lives. That is somehow a preferable solution?

That is somehow a preferable solution?

That is not even a representative example. Once I got my Shrillness Detector tuned into that publication's frequency, what I read was that a school district in Deleware was engaging in extreme behavior, in violation of established laws or legal precedent(s).

How is an extreme-but-isolated incident involving scofflaws, relevant to what I was discussing?

"You do not, for instance, see ACLU lawsuits against menorahs in public squares or against the purdah in the classroom. "

And I've never heard a whisper about the ACLU filing lawsuits against government-sponsored human sacrifice, or against feeding Christians to the lions, for refusing to sacrifice to the gods of the state. They must be for it.

"If they could see the state of American religion today--no prayer in schools, blue laws stricken down left and right, nativity scenes banned from every public square--they would be horrified, not thrilled."

This is of course pure B.S.! Thomas Jefferson, for example, steadfastly refused to observe Thanksgiving in any official capacity, precisely because it would seem to give an official imprimatur to religion. He even wrote a letter or two about why this was bad.

So, tolerance is a deeply rooted American value, which we lose only at great risk.

Someone wrote:
---"So if a school district in Kansas wants to teach intelligent design and that evolution is dumb, why should the rest of us care?"---

Kevin replied:
Because we live in the United States of America, not just the United States. We assumne, basically, that it's the same country from Sea to Shining Sea, not a bunch of confederated states that happen to speak much the same language. We tried that already, and it did not work.

Great! It's high time that New Jersey, New York, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and California became "the same country" as all the rest...by issuing concealed handgun permits to all qualfied adults, not just the rich and politically connected, as well as rolling back all the various "assault weapon" bans. You'll be joining in that effort, I assume?

Jane, some history.
The different Christian denominations that settled in early America all hated each other. The 1630s Anglicans in Virginia and Maryland expelled the earlier Puritan and Catholic colonists who found refuge in Pennsylvania. The later southern colonies included both Presbyterians and (horrors!) Baptists who settled in the back woods.
The MA Quaker persecutions (a cold war between ideological enemies because there were no roads to take a MA army to PA to slaughter the infidel) occurred in the 1670s and led to Charles II revoking MA's right to try capital cases, so they moved on to flogging and enslavement. The effects of this were clearly part of the later stresses (the resoration, Downing's treason, James the Second,) which led to the Witcraft trials (Something was wrong with the world, and the girls's lies led to the search for scapegoats.) This was the finish of MA Puritanism. Twenty years later Ben Franklin stole himself from his brother and fled to Philly. In the 1740s we had the First Great Awakening, a religious revival that swept the colonies (Jonathan Edwards of "Sinner in the hands of an angry god" came dates from his period. The idea that your neighbors' religion was none of your business became respectible. Jefferson would hardly have been able to write Virginia's law on relgious tolerance if that were not the case. By the start of the Revolution not only did the massive food aid that Boston received while being starved out by the British originiate in Pennsylvania, but the Bostonians were willing to accept it. One gets the impression that the Puritans of 115 years earlier would rather have let their children starve. Part of the conflict with Britain was religious -- the Church of England was striving for dominance and orthodoxy, and that threatened not only the Puritans and Quakers and Presbyterians and (horrors!) Baptists but the Virginia high church people as well (since they had long controlled thier local church.)
At the same time MA did not ratify the Bill of Rights until 1938. Yes, nineteen thirty eight. You can see the document in the open archives room of the MA state house.

Comments are Closed.