A LIBERTARIAN’S VIEW
“Members of the religions right today insist that American is—or at least was—a Christian nation with a Christian government. . . . Some Americans opposed ratification of the Constitution because it was ‘coldly indifferent towards religion’ and would leave ‘religion to shift wholly for itself.’ Nevertheless, the revolutionary Constitution was adopted, and most of us believe that the experience with the separation of church and state has been a happy one.”
David Boaz. Libertarianism. 1998.
COMMENTARY
A few definitions, short and incomplete, are in order. In the United States, we acknowledge, through the programs of our two major political parties, that two distinct species of freedom exist: social freedom and economic freedom. Republicans, at least the traditional Republicans, stress the importance of economic freedom and the Democrats favor with their policies the social freedoms. Hence, we witness, for example, battles featuring deregulation (Republican) versus the safety-net (Democratic), tort reform (Republican) versus plaintiff rights (Democratic), and nutritional laissez faire (Republican) versus mandatory canola cooking oil (Democratic). Libertarianism represents a third alternative (there is another as well, totalitarianism). Libertarian theory, which has its roots in the Classical Liberalism that grew from the Scottish Enlightenment, restricts neither economic nor personal social freedom. Because small government has been the watchword of the Republican Party, most libertarians have found association with the so-called conservative appealing. Nevertheless, the NeoCon/Religious Right takeover of the Republican Party, which began benignly enough with the rise of Ronald Reagan and reached a toxic climate with the current occupant of the White House, has dislodged the party’s libertarian wing. Witnessing encroachments on personal freedoms unthinkable under previous Republican administrations, this freethinking bunch has begun to make common cause with the left on issues relating to personal freedom, including matters of separation of church and state. The Republicans continue their courtship of the Religious Right at the cost of alienating libertarians and thus becoming a minority party for the foreseeable future.
CS
Showing posts with label church and state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church and state. Show all posts
Monday, April 9, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE ENEMY OF FAITH
CRYPTO-FASCISTS (CHRISTO-FASCISTS) AMONG US
“Democracy is not, as the Christo-fascists claim, the enemy of faith. Democracy keeps religious faith in the private sphere, ensuring that all believers have an equal measure of protection and practice mutual tolerance. Democracy sets no religious ideal. It simply ensures coexistence. It permits the individual to avoid simply being subsumed by the crowd—the chief goal of totalitarianism, which seeks to tell all citizens what to believe, how to behave and how to speak. The call to obliterate the public and the private wall that keeps faith the prerogative of the individual means the obliteration of democracy.”
Chris Hedges. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. 2006.
COMMENT
Where is the virtue in blind obedience to authority or adherence to any law that mandates religious or political orthodoxy? Where is the virtue and, finally, what is the point? If the Far Right ever manages to persuade the nation to ratify a constitutional amendment outlawing disrespect for the flag, the sense of virtue we feel when we stand and place our hands over our hearts will be nullified; when the flag passes, we will merely be complying with the law. We will no longer act out of genuine patriotism. Similarly, required adherence to a narrow range of religious and moral behavior would give rise to a culture in which outward conformity masks the truth of private thought. As the ultimate disintegration of the 20th Century’s totalitarian states shows, such a system is inherently unstable.
CS
“Democracy is not, as the Christo-fascists claim, the enemy of faith. Democracy keeps religious faith in the private sphere, ensuring that all believers have an equal measure of protection and practice mutual tolerance. Democracy sets no religious ideal. It simply ensures coexistence. It permits the individual to avoid simply being subsumed by the crowd—the chief goal of totalitarianism, which seeks to tell all citizens what to believe, how to behave and how to speak. The call to obliterate the public and the private wall that keeps faith the prerogative of the individual means the obliteration of democracy.”
Chris Hedges. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. 2006.
COMMENT
Where is the virtue in blind obedience to authority or adherence to any law that mandates religious or political orthodoxy? Where is the virtue and, finally, what is the point? If the Far Right ever manages to persuade the nation to ratify a constitutional amendment outlawing disrespect for the flag, the sense of virtue we feel when we stand and place our hands over our hearts will be nullified; when the flag passes, we will merely be complying with the law. We will no longer act out of genuine patriotism. Similarly, required adherence to a narrow range of religious and moral behavior would give rise to a culture in which outward conformity masks the truth of private thought. As the ultimate disintegration of the 20th Century’s totalitarian states shows, such a system is inherently unstable.
CS
Thursday, January 11, 2007
A Lectionary Reading and an Early Word on Religious Freedom
CANTICLE READING FOR EPIPHANY FROM THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Psalm 72:1-7
1 Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness.
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.
5 May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.
7 In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.
A BAPTIST LEADER’S PROPOSAL TO KING JAMES I OF ENGLAND
"If the King's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man."
Thomas Helwys. A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity. 1612
OBSERVATIONS
Thomas Helwys, one of the founders of the Baptist movement in England, upon returning from exile in Holland sought to persuade King James of the benefits of religious tolerance. His gift to James of his freshly publish book A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity did not amuse the Keeper of the Faith. James answered by having Helwys imprisoned at Newgate, where he died four years later. Helwys no doubt understood the risk he undertook. In April of 1612, the year of Helwys’s return from Holland, English religious Separatist Edward Wightman had been burned at the stake for heresy. Apparently his example stirred popular sympathy, putting an end to the the Crown's use of such harsh measures for dealing with religions dissent.
The King James Version or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible was first published in 1611 and remains in use as the standard biblical text among many Christians, including many Baptists.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Psalm 72:1-7
1 Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness.
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.
5 May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.
7 In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.
A BAPTIST LEADER’S PROPOSAL TO KING JAMES I OF ENGLAND
"If the King's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man."
Thomas Helwys. A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity. 1612
OBSERVATIONS
Thomas Helwys, one of the founders of the Baptist movement in England, upon returning from exile in Holland sought to persuade King James of the benefits of religious tolerance. His gift to James of his freshly publish book A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity did not amuse the Keeper of the Faith. James answered by having Helwys imprisoned at Newgate, where he died four years later. Helwys no doubt understood the risk he undertook. In April of 1612, the year of Helwys’s return from Holland, English religious Separatist Edward Wightman had been burned at the stake for heresy. Apparently his example stirred popular sympathy, putting an end to the the Crown's use of such harsh measures for dealing with religions dissent.
The King James Version or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible was first published in 1611 and remains in use as the standard biblical text among many Christians, including many Baptists.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Friday, January 5, 2007
Science, Religion, and Democracy
A FREETHINKER’S LOGIC
“The attack on science is a prime secularist issue not because religion and science are incompatible but because particular forms of religious belief—those that claim to have found the one true answer to the origins and ultimate purpose of human life—are incompatible not only with science but with democracy. Those who rely on the perfect hand of the Almighty for political guidance, whether on biomedical research or capital punishment, are really saying that such issues can never be a matter of imperfect human opinion. If the hand of the Almighty explains and rules the workings of nature, it can hardly fail to rule the workings of the American political system.”
Susan Jacoby. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. 2004*
COMMENT
In the depths of reflection unburdened by self-criticism, I often wonder how the true-believers among us—and here I refer to true believers of any persuasion—can manage to miss the mark on so many issues. In fact, it seems the case that on every issue of consequence do the true believers get it wrong. Well, Jacoby gives us a hint here, doesn’t she? I would move a step beyond her focus on fundamentalist Christianity and assert that adherence to any literalist system will lead to authoritarian political views and a skewed scientific method designed to support the agenda of the state.
CS
* Link to Amazon:
“The attack on science is a prime secularist issue not because religion and science are incompatible but because particular forms of religious belief—those that claim to have found the one true answer to the origins and ultimate purpose of human life—are incompatible not only with science but with democracy. Those who rely on the perfect hand of the Almighty for political guidance, whether on biomedical research or capital punishment, are really saying that such issues can never be a matter of imperfect human opinion. If the hand of the Almighty explains and rules the workings of nature, it can hardly fail to rule the workings of the American political system.”
Susan Jacoby. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. 2004*
COMMENT
In the depths of reflection unburdened by self-criticism, I often wonder how the true-believers among us—and here I refer to true believers of any persuasion—can manage to miss the mark on so many issues. In fact, it seems the case that on every issue of consequence do the true believers get it wrong. Well, Jacoby gives us a hint here, doesn’t she? I would move a step beyond her focus on fundamentalist Christianity and assert that adherence to any literalist system will lead to authoritarian political views and a skewed scientific method designed to support the agenda of the state.
CS
* Link to Amazon:
Friday, December 29, 2006
George Carlin has a Point
A THOUGHTFUL RANT
“The use of faith-based is just one more way the Bush administration found to bypass the Constitution. They knew Americans would never approve of government-promoted religious initiatives, but faith-based? Hey, what’s the problem?”
The term faith-based is nothing more than an attempt to slip religion past you when you’re not thinking; which is the way religion is always slipped past you.”
George Carlin. When will Jesus bring the Pork Chops? 2004
COMMENT
Upon the death of Eudora Welty, George Carlin became the funniest living writer in America. Here we can admire a manifest ability to display unselfconsciously the courage of one’s convictions. The provocative Mr. Carlin’s antipathy toward organized religion reveals his clear awareness that society’s elites will use whatever institutions happen to be handy in order to manipulate the masses. And what handier institution than systematized, ritualized, and concretized theism?
CS
Link to Amazon:
“The use of faith-based is just one more way the Bush administration found to bypass the Constitution. They knew Americans would never approve of government-promoted religious initiatives, but faith-based? Hey, what’s the problem?”
The term faith-based is nothing more than an attempt to slip religion past you when you’re not thinking; which is the way religion is always slipped past you.”
George Carlin. When will Jesus bring the Pork Chops? 2004
COMMENT
Upon the death of Eudora Welty, George Carlin became the funniest living writer in America. Here we can admire a manifest ability to display unselfconsciously the courage of one’s convictions. The provocative Mr. Carlin’s antipathy toward organized religion reveals his clear awareness that society’s elites will use whatever institutions happen to be handy in order to manipulate the masses. And what handier institution than systematized, ritualized, and concretized theism?
CS
Link to Amazon:
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Tocqueville, Despotism, Liberties
SOURCE TEXT
“A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this . . . compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
“I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
OBSERVATION
The danger Tocqueville addresses here relates to the incremental erosion of individual and community responsibility in a maturing liberal democracy. While the system typically checks the most oppressive and violent manifestations of despotism, the mundane and on-going usurpation of minority rights becomes ever more apparent. Tax-supported faith-based initiates, prison programs rewarding adherents of favored sects, and, indeed, a tax code providing relief to religions bodies and their supporters all fulfill to one degree or another Tocqueville’s fears for America.
CS
Link to Amazon:
“A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this . . . compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
“I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
OBSERVATION
The danger Tocqueville addresses here relates to the incremental erosion of individual and community responsibility in a maturing liberal democracy. While the system typically checks the most oppressive and violent manifestations of despotism, the mundane and on-going usurpation of minority rights becomes ever more apparent. Tax-supported faith-based initiates, prison programs rewarding adherents of favored sects, and, indeed, a tax code providing relief to religions bodies and their supporters all fulfill to one degree or another Tocqueville’s fears for America.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)