Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Jan 30 2010 at 7:07 pm | Filed under: Government, Religion
I got a very hysterical form letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. What’s impressive about it is that Barry Lynn, the Executive Director who purportedly authored this fevered screed, is totally uninformed about the nature of America’s Constitutional mandates regarding religion. Here’s what the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Boiled down to its essence, the First Amendment says that government in American may not control people’s religious worship.
By stating this principle, the Founding Fathers sought to distinguish themselves from the European tradition that saw government actively interfering in people’s religious practices. On the one hand, European governments dictated which religion citizens should worship and often controlled the doctrinal substance of that state approved religion. On the other hand, these same governments brought harsh civil penalties to bear on those who refused to comply with state religious mandates. The easiest example to point to, of course, is England, which was the situation against which the Founders were reacting. Not only were the State and the Church of England inextricably intertwined (with the monarch as head of the church), but England in the late 18th Century still had multiple laws on its books barring people who were not C of E from serving in the government or even obtaining a higher education.
Although Leftists deny it, Thomas Jefferson was imply reiterating the principles in the First Amendment when he coined the phrase “separation of church and state” (a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution itself). Although Progressives like to forget this fact, Jefferson was a very religious man, although he was sufficiently private in his worship that he avoided incorporating it into public ceremony, as Washington and Adams had done.
In late 1801, while still President, Jefferson received a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association complaining that, as a religious minority in Connecticut, the state was treating their religious rights as privileges from the legislature, rather than immutable rights inherent in all citizens. Jefferson’s reply makes it plain that the Legislature can neither grant nor deny religious rights, since it is not the responsibility of the American government to interfere in church function and doctrine (emphasis mine):
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
It is manifestly clear from perusing both the Bill of Rights and Jefferson’s own letter that none of the Founders intended that religious people must be barred from civil participation. They can bring their values to bear in the civic arena, even if those values are religiously inspired. What they cannot do is hijack the government so that the government uses its coercive powers to force people to worship a specific faith, to interfere with a religion’s doctrine, or to punish or ostracize people for practicing a faith that the government does not sanction.
These subtleties — the difference between government controlled religion, which is bad, and a religious people whose religion informs their conduct, which is constitutionally neutral — completely eludes the anti-religious Left. They want people who enter government to check their religion at the door. They are incapable of understanding that the complete absence of religion is a religion in and of itself, with faith in government and its bureaucracy being substituted in place of faith in God and his morality.
During the 1980s, religious people called this Leftist faith “Secular Humanism.” As a thoughtless, knee-jerk Leftist myself during those years, I actually appreciated the label (“Hah! I’m a Humanist”), but rejected the Religious Right’s contention that Secular Humanism is itself a religion. To the Left, something can be a religion if the word “God” (or, if you’re polytheistic, “Gods”) is involved. None of us on the Left understood (or, at least, the thoughtless amongst us refused to understand) that Secular Humanism is a religion because it is a comprehensive belief system. The only difference between Secular Humanism and traditional “religion” is that, in place of an omnipotent deity, secular humanists worship an omnipotent government that rejects traditional Judeo-Christian moral and social values.
It is this Secular Humanist faith that explains the letter I received today, parts of which I reproduce below, along with my interlineations in red:
Do you know how the Religious Right is now targeting your neighborhood, and every town and city in America?
By joining local school boards and local communities . . . winning local elections . . . and creating local precedents with NATIONWIDE consequences . . .
Dear Friend,
They want to hit you right where you live.
The Religious Right has hijacked Christianity and claims to speak for all people of faith . . . and its leaders and activists want to force their ultraconservative agenda on you and your community. [You'll notice that Americans United does not argue, because it can't, that religious Christians are trying to enforce their faith on Americans, which would be unconstitutional. Instead, it just makes it sound utterly evil that religious people want to get involved in local politics to advance their values, something that the Founders generally and Jefferson specifically would appreciate.]
The goal of the movement’s members is nothing less than to shatter the wall of separation between church and state . . . and force you to live a “moral” life.
Their morals! [Again, this statement ignores the fact that our government is set up so that all citizens, including religious citizens, are welcome to get into politics to advance their values, including their "moral" values. They just can't use politics as a means of forcing you into their church, something even the hysterics at Americans United cannot say is the case.]
And if they can’t get into your public schools with creationism . . . if they can’t get into your pharmacy to deny patients and their doctors the right to make medical decisions . . . if they can’t use the power of their pulpits to choose your political representatives . . . [If they can't do all that, then they'll leave more room for the Leftists to get into your public schools with endless scare tactics and indoctrination regarding anthropogenic climate change, pro-illegal alien propaganda, pornographic sex education, and identity politics and anti-marriage activism.] UPDATE: Per Atlas Shrugged, we now know that Lynn’s particular brand of non-deity center religion is being actively foisted onto American students.
. . . Then they’ll zero in on friendlier, more willing targets to get the political clout and legal precedents they need . . . which then may have nationwide ramifications.
FROM THE BOTTOM UP, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WORKING TO CHANGE NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES
[I've deleted the bit in Barry Lynn identifies himself, his career and his organization.]
Throughout those years, we’ve seen what happens when religious extremists like Pat Robertson and James Dobson get their way:
* A tax-funded “faith-based” initiative that forces citizens like you and me to pick up the tab for the Religious Right’s ideology-based social agenda. [I have no idea what Lynn is talking about here. As I detailed above, as a tax payer and a parent, I'm currently paying for my children to learn about increasing discredited AGW, the virtues of illegal immigration, radical sex education, anti-marriage values, victim-based identity politics, etc., all of which are part of the Leftist religious canon. After all that kind of intellectual garbage, just how bad can the Religious Right's "ideology-based social agenda be?]
* “Marriage amendments” that turn out anti-gay voters and swing elections. [This is a perfect example of Lynn's confusion about the different between a state religion, and religious people speaking up within a state. The religious right did not seek to force people into a religious viewpoint about marriage in California. That is, no one said, when we pass this law, you'll all have to become Mormons. But people who are religious and take seriously the fact that Western religions limit marriage to a man and a woman certainly did get out and vote. What's really ironic about Lynn's sentence here is that it was Obama's presence in the election that was the "swing" factor, since the same blacks who made their way to the polls so they could vote for him, also happen to come from religious backgrounds that created in them values antithetical to gay marriage.]
* Houses of worship endorsing political candidates, violating their tax-exempt status. [If I remember my election history correctly, the Democratic candidates were barely able to peel themselves out of Leftist houses of worship, and had Leftist religious people crawling all over them. I'm unaware of any celebrated case in which the IRS went after any church, Left or Right, for encouraging its voters values in such a way that the voters learned towards one candidate or another. Churches are allowed to teach values -- and in heated elections, those values may steer voters in one direction or another. This is not the same as endorsing a candidate.]
* More restrictions on reproductive choices chipping away at the right of access to contraceptives and services that citizens have worked so hard to win since the 1960s. [I don't need to make my argument here again about the difference between religious people using the government to force all people to Catholicism or Baptism, so that they forswear abortion, something that hasn't happened and won't happen, and the fact that people of faith are disturbed by the number of abortions performed annually, and who seek to change the laws to change that situation. What I do find interesting, however, is the way in which Lynn's sentence makes it sound as if religious people aren't "citizens." "Citizens" work for abortion; religious people are scary zombies who block citizens from their Progressive-guaranteed rights. That kind of phrasing highlights the way in which the Left is incapable of acknowledging that religious people are citizens and that the Constitution clearly allows them to use government to advance their values, although not to advance their specific faith.]
I’ll stop here. Believe it or not, there are three more single-spaced hysterical pages with this types of ignorant, mean-spirited demagoguery.
Long-time readers know that I don’t even really have a dog in this fight, as I am a non-religious Jew. I am, however, intellectually honest, and it disgusts me to see the Left try to use our Constitution and the deeply religious Thomas Jefferson as vehicles by which they shut religious people out of politics and civic discourse.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Email This Post To A Friend
131 Responses to “Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s a side issue, but I don’t think it’s true that Jefferson was as religious as Adams. Possibly as religious as Washington — Washington was actually pretty cagey about what his religious beliefs were, taking care to use phrases like “Providence” or “God” but never refer specifically to Jesus, where Adams was a much more devout man (although even there, Adams was a Unitarian of the sort before “Unitarian” meant “likes coffee and donuts on Sunday morning.” A Christian, but not a believer in the Trinity.) Washington was a very “devout” Freemason, and did regularly refer to the Grand Architect Of The Universe.
Jefferson was certainly friendly with religious people, but made rather a point of believing in the religion of Christ but not of Christians, enough so that he made his own revision of the Bible that took out all the miracles and religious stuff, which he referred to as a “pure Deism” in a letter to Joseph Priestley.
Doesn’t change the rest of your point.
Barry Lynn seems to me to be a sad case of the chronologically adult person who has never advanced past his adolescent rebellion against the authority he disdained in his youth. He’s a minister in the United Church of Christ, but I’d be curious about whether his folks didn’t raise him in a somewhat stricter tradition…..
Perhaps not – you can find the same kind of fervor among people whose parents and others have pumped them up with inflammatory scare stories about the boogeyman coming to get them.
Distasteful, wherever it’s coming from. And what this man does is not good for America.
[...] the subject of the “secular humanism religion” that guides liberals, it’s informative to read this quotation from William Kristol, [...]
[...] the subject of the “secular humanism religion” that guides liberals, it’s informative to read this quotation from William Kristol, writing [...]
Book,
This is a great rebuttal of Lynn’s slimy letter. Except for my lack of eloquence and your “non-religious Jew” reference to yourself, I could have imagined writing this myself.
I am happy to see the evolution of your thoughts and ideas about faith. This brings to mind our discussion several years ago about an American Theocracy. Now, with the overpowering ascendancy of Obama’s wild liberalism and Progressivism I fear we will have a “Theocracy” of “Anti-Faith” by which Marxism will be the religious platform.
Seeing this trend in 1964 and realizing the future of my children was in jeopardy, I found that a peaceful future cannot be brought about by man but only the God of the Bible and the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ.
How can a “non-religious” Jew have the amazing spiritual insight that you display regularly? Amazing!!
In Jesus Christ eternally,
Jack
Your argument against the Americans United letter seems off the mark in two respects.
First, the phrase “separation of church and state” is commonly used to refer to two related but distinct ideas: (1) a constitutional principle and (2) a political doctrine. The constitutional principle constrains government not to promote or otherwise take steps to establish religion, as you note. The political doctrine is not so limited. While different people may vary in their descriptions of it, generally the idea is that while people certainly may be motivated in some measure by their religions, their political discourse should be conducted in secular terms. The political doctrine serves to save us from directly debating and voting on each other’s religions.
While I haven’t seen the Americans United letter, the portions you quote appear to invoke the political doctrine. Your outrage at “uninformed” “scare tactics” about the constitutional principle seem to miss the point of the letter.
Second, the constitutional principle is not quite so confined as you seem to suggest. Under that principle, religious beliefs may inform our officials’ policy decisions so long as the predominant purpose or primary effect of those decisions is not to advance religion. While the courts generally defer to the actions of the political branches, they do at least try to assure that the secular purpose of those actions is genuine and not some sham really aimed at a religious objective.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
Barry Lynn works for the United Church of Christ. If anyone can point out a social or political attitude of the UCC that does not match the left wing of the Democrat Party, I’d be interested to know it. It was a joke, long ago, in English politics, that the High Church movement in Anglicanism was simply the Tory Party at prayer. The UCC and its sister progressive churches are simply the Obama Democrats at prayer. No surprise.
Lest we forget, Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright pastors the church in Chicago which is UCC (United Church of Christ). So are we surprised that Obama is who he is about faith?
Jack
Jeremiah Wright is a “former” Muslim who converted to Christianity. A rather vile form of it—so vile that I’m inclined to believe the man never converted at all. I think he’s practicing taqqiya, the Allah-condoned pattern of lies and deceptions Muslims may use without qualm to advance the Compassionate and Merciful One’s sacred cause.
[...] Links To Visit – 01/31/10 Published in January 31st, 2010 Posted by TMH in 2nd Amendment, American Revolution, American Stuff, Constitution, Financial, Founding Fathers, Illegal Immigration, Military, Politics, Religion, Survival, Taxation, Terrorism Bookworm Room – Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED* [...]
“While different people may vary in their descriptions of it, generally the idea is that while people certainly may be motivated in some measure by their religions, their political discourse should be conducted in secular terms.”
To a large extent, that doctrine was invented by radically secular liberals. (Although they conveniently ignored it when convenient, as for instance when Christian ideals were invoked to advance the cause of racial equality.)
pst314,
One aspect of the polarization of our society over the last half century is that some see everything–evveeerrrything–through a left-right, liberal-conservative lens. Akin to the joke about jokesters who number their jokes so they don’t need to retell them to their friends, some merely label an idea or a person as “liberal” or “conservative” and figure it serves as an argument or reason. Drop the labels and actually say something.
[...] Bookworm Room-Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED* [...]
Watcher’s Council nominations…
Mere Rhetoric – Yahoo Wipes Ariel, Israel Off The Map, Replaces It With Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories Rhymes With Right – But If She Wanted An Abortion, It Would Have Been No Big Deal Soccer Dad – The goldstone rumor……
Doug,
If a religious person cannot use his/her ideology/philosophy/theology when entering the political area then how can anyone use any ideology/philosophy/ideology?
Therein lies the problem, if one is denied the use of one’s knowledge, in particular, ideology/philosophy/theology, whether Christian, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Greek, Roman, et.al. as the basis for decision making then no one can make any decisions.
While it sounds nice, it doesn’t work if applied equally and if not applied equally then it becomes a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.
Submitted 02/04/10…
This week’s Watcher’s council nominees are UP! JoshuaPundit focuses on the Obama administration’s failure to deal with Iran; Wolf Howling outlines its anti-terror failures. Colossus of Rhodey suggests that a form of amnesia or denial has been behind…
[...] Second place with 2 points – Bookworm Room-Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED* [...]
Flame,
If I read you correctly, you have put your finger on the recognized tension between the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and establishment clause.
When discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech and action. The free exercise clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. Students, for instance, are free to pray or otherwise exercise their religion in school as long as they do so in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities. The establishment clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.
As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
>>As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government.>>
What about the rights and responsibilities of parents? Does the government have the right to interfere with those? What if parents _want_ children to be taught certain basic religious concepts in their schools?
You _are_ aware that school board members are publicly elected officials, are you not? In other words, if the parents of a district don’t approve a school board’s positions on such matters, they can recall the board members and elect new ones. Although I grant that much of local school boards rights and obligations have already been usurped by the States. We certainly don’t need them to be further eroded by the Feds getting involved.
suek,
A public (i.e., government) school can, consistent with the First Amendment, teach students about religions, e.g., history, sociology, philosophy, anthropology.
It cannot teach students religion for the purpose of converting or indoctrinating them. If parents want that for their children, they should find a private school that suits their religious views.
I realize that some parents would prefer “their” public schools to promote this or that religious doctrine and they elect school board members who attempt to do so. The courts are there to haul them up short and assure the government abides by the First Amendment.
<B> they should find a private school that suits their religious views.</b>
That’s why government blocked vouchers. And why its opponents don’t like it. You think an idealistic form of “choose your own school” is an actual solution? It may be, if people hadn’t destroyed it. And they have. Destroyed it.
It cannot teach students religion for the purpose of converting or indoctrinating them.- Doug
But it can indoctrinate them to the state religion. This is where the logic of the liberal fails.
The First Amendment was intended to prevent the promotion of anyone particular sect. At the beginning of the nation, if someone of a particular denomination were to wander into the state of another denomination, bad things could happen up to and including death if the person were to promote their own particular denomination.
To read the free exercise thereof part, one should draw the conclusion that any attempt by the government to stifle religious expression is a violation of the first amendment and that should include on “government” property.
Should a student be penalized for writing a paper about Jesus when the topic is open to the student’s choosing? Should a bible club have complete access to “government” property. Of course. But these are the issues constantly confronting religious persons in public schools.
We are having this discussion (again and again) because the left conveniently refuses to recognize the historical context of the first amendment.
As we weaken this right of people to free discourse about religion, it becomes more convenient to restrict the speech about other topics (such as limiting criticism of a candidate 60 days before an election).
I’ll concede that the government has no business promoting Baptists over Methodists, or requiring membership in the Presbyterian Church as qualifications for a government job, but government should be promoting respect for the Creator.
It is through the Creator that all of our rights are granted.
And there is not a single person breathing that doesn’t subscribe to some religion.
A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Even athiests twist and turn to convince others that they too have a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Actually, originally the States were individually permitted to have a state religion. Only the Federal Government could not establish a religion.
>>The courts are there to haul them up short and assure the government abides by the First Amendment.>>
What government? The Feds do not establish schools. In fact, originally the states did not establish schools. Schools were established by local communities and then States took over regulating them. Now the Feds want in on the deal. All in the name of equality. Local taxes used to pay for local schools (maybe they still do in some places, but not in my state). Now the counties that collect the taxes turn the money over to the state which doles it back out on an “equal” basis. After all, you wouldn’t want some schools to have better facilities than others just because the taxpayers could afford something better, now would you?
So … if you’re in favor of government of the people, by the people and for the people … shouldn’t the people get to say what they’re paying for?
The entire First Amendment problem would instantly disappear if we put the “wall of separation” where it really belongs! And that is between “education and State”.
Since you CANNOT educate without conveying a set of values, the last thing in the world any sane parent should want is to have the GOVERNMENT involved in the education of their children!
Wake up, America…..
suek said,
> Actually, originally the States were individually permitted to have a state religion. Only the Federal Government could not establish a religion.
I agree with suek, and with Brian E, who made the point that crossing a state border line would often instantly put you under the control of people running their state according to the dictates of a completely different religion. If my reading of history is correct, most of the laws within the states themselves were heavily influenced by “that state’s religion”. It was a patchwork of heavily religious states, and there simply was no concept of secularism, or freedom FROM religion.
I’m not advocating that, but it’s a mistake to believe that modern secular concepts applied back then. They didn’t even exist. Sure, you had your free-thinkers, but there’s always been tension between the communitarians and the individual iconoclasts in this country. One group trying to force everyone around them to live according to a very rigorous, specific religious standard, and the other always trying to live completely free and independently live in every way as they wish.
<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
BrianE,
I’m not aware of the “state religion” to which you allude. Without explanation, you seem to maintain that government cannot simply refrain from promoting religion, but rather must choose at least some religion to promote. By your reckoning, I gather, if government refrains from promoting Christianity (or at least theism of some sort), it necessarily and automatically promotes secularism or atheism or some such, which you see as an alternative religion. (As secularism refers to the idea of keeping government and religion separate, it is oxymoronic to term secularism itself a religion.) The absence of Christianity, in any event, is hardly the same as secularism or atheism. Nonetheless, if you characterize the absence of religion as itself a religion (and survive the tail chasing that requires), then your apparent argument that government cannot help but present a religion is a foregone conclusion–and little more than semantic sophistry.
The narrow scope you would give the First Amendment certainly does not square with James Madison’s understanding of it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even though we had proclaimed new principles, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether such actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
You suggest, though, that the First Amendment should only prevent the government from supporting one sect over another and allow the government to “promot[e] respect for the Creator.” While not sure what you would encompass by that suggestion, any such interpretation of the First Amendment would raise so many problems that I tire at the thought of listing them. For instance, where and how would one distinguish sects or groups of sects? While no expert on Christianity, I understand that it comprises dozens or even hundreds of sects depending on how one draws the lines. And why stop with Christianity since there are other monotheistic religions? Would it be okay for the government to support Islam as long as it refrained from choosing the Sunni or Shiite sect? And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism “belongs” in Christianity.
A more fundamental question, naturally, is from whence does one derive any such interpretation of the First Amendment? While the founders were, no doubt, confronted with the need to address competition and conflict between a variety of sects, largely but not exclusively Christian, it is a non sequitur to suppose “therefore” that they intended merely to stop the government from favoring one “sect” (however defined), but leave it free to favor some (also undefined) grouping of sects (e.g., “generic” Christianity or perhaps monotheism, or theism, or deism, or some such).
And finally, you insult atheists with the suggestion that they struggle to convince others that they too have a moral code. Rest assured: They do–every bit as much as you. You only diminish yourself by suggesting otherwise.
suek,
What government? The government that is running the school, which typically is a city or county or a school district, all of which typically are political subdivisions of states. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that states cannot deprive individuals of certain rights; the Supreme Court has ruled that among those rights is freedom of religion, including freedom from government establishment of religion. Bottom line: Local governments cannot take steps to establish religion any more than can the federal or state governments.
And certainly the people should have a say in what they are paying for. The Constitution’s guarantees of individual rights, though, constrain the majority from violating the rights of individuals. Those rights are not up for majority vote.
“And finally, you insult atheists with the suggestion that they struggle to convince others that they too have a moral code. Rest assured: They do–every bit as much as you.”
I’ve always been curious about this, and none of my atheist friends has ever given me a satisfactory explanation. While I have no doubt that most atheists have a moral code, I’ve never heard what the basis of that code is.
Charles,
Well, I’ve already stepped in it a bit by offering a response that suggested all atheists have a moral code in common. At bottom they have in common only a lack of belief in god(s). Beyond that, individual atheists believe all sorts of things. Similarly, I suppose they have different ideas about morality as well.
That said, what is the “basis” of anyone’s moral code? I’m not sure I’m in a position to offer much insight. I understand that many a philosopher has struggled to find a basis for human morality. Religious folks commonly say they got their moral code from God. That source, of course, is not available to atheists–though I’ve heard some religious folks explain the apparent morality of atheists by claiming they too got it from God but they just don’t know it.
It appears to me that nearly all people share some core innate understandings of how we should treat each other, most of which appears grounded in empathy–treat others as you would like to be treated. Evolutionary biologists have been working to see if evolution has explanations for how these aspects of human nature came to be. Beyond that core, much of what people think about how to treat each other appears to be cultural. Hence, people in some cultures do things that people in other cultures find odd, distasteful, and even immoral–and vice versa. I think people develop and learn the cultural aspects of morality much as they develop and learn language.
I’m not sure if that is what you were aiming for, but it’s what comes to mind.
@ Doug – I know plenty of atheists, and it’s true that each of them has a moral code, and that in some cases their codes differ. The point is that for an atheist, there is no common basis for the moral code; there is only “whim” – that is, each of us is free to adopt any moral code we choose – and none of us has any foundation from which to criticize anyone else’s. Try to tell someone they are doing “wrong”, and you’re likely to hear something along the lines of: “You don’t like ‘honor killings’? Well, don’t do them, then.” Now, I’ve never heard any of my atheist (good liberals, all) friends say such a thing about honor killings, but why wouldn’t they, if they were being strictly logical about their belief system and what it could and could not authorize?
The fact is that their moral codes all owe a great deal to mine….which is very similar to the one espoused by the Founders of this nation. You recall?
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”
When we say that something “isn’t fair”, or we rail against injustice, or we tell someone it “isn’t right” to do what they did, we are almost invariably invoking (implicitly, at least) the “outside standard” that was provided by God in His word. It is the only safeguard for the weak against the strong, the shield for the poor from oppression by the rich. It doesn’t make us 100% secure, but it *is* something objective, and it has always been conceded as the basis for proper behavior by the vast majority of those in the western tradition.
Our culture is now embarked on a vast (and dangerous) experiment – to see if we can maintain western civilization despite our undermining of its very foundations. A secular society has , in effect, only Darwin to fall back on….and Darwin is all about “what works for me”. If cooperation and caring “work”, then go for it — but what will you say to someone who thinks that selfishness, and oppression of those around him, will “work for him”…..? Moral codes in a secular society will devolve (soon or late) into something based on power, because there isn’t anything for the weak to appeal to except the conscience of the strong — and the conscience is formed VERY differently in a secular society than it is in one that is based on “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
You’ll probably point to the many evils present in western society past and present. All are admitted, but the righting of wrongs and the raising of standards have invariably been based on an appeal to the foundations…..and once those are gone – and our public schools as currently envisioned are getting rid of those foundations as fast as they can – what can we expect? You and I will probably not agree on what is expected — I’ve given you what seems a reasonably logical argument supporting my prediction. Let’s hear the other side.
As an atheist for 35 of my 80 years and educated in public schools in the 30s and 40s, I can say that my atheist friends and I had no codified standard of morality. It was “Whatever works for me.” That is certainly no standard but a gross lack thereof.
It was not until I became a Christian that I could see the value of the moral codes of the Creator of the universe, codified in the Bible. “[T]he laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
Earl,
Some questions, e.g., whether something is good or bad, are inherently “relative” in that they can only be answered relative to some standard or measure. All moral codes, including those based on religious beliefs, are “relative” in this sense.
The real question is not whether one’s moral code is relative, but rather what are the standards by which one measures the morality of decisions and actions. Religious folks commonly say that they got their standards from God and those standards are absolute, and they may look down on the standards of others, discounting them as whims and wishes developed by mere humans.
Atheists may counter that since god(s) do not exist, mankind has in fact always developed its moral code on its own. Indeed, it could not be otherwise. To be sure, over the ages, many cultures have associated their moral codes with their religions and sometimes attributed their moral codes to the teachings of their god(s). While that approach involves a measure of irrationality, it gets the job done in the sense that moral standards are chosen.
Atheists may suggest that we endeavor to develop and maintain our moral code with our eyes open and our wits about us, rather than suppose it will be handed to us by god(s) if only we open the right book, utter the right chants, and breathe the right incense, all in the right frame of mind and in keeping with the sage advice of the right holy men who have the right understanding of the will of the right god(s). Glancing back at this paragraph, I think I may have expressed the idea a bit caustically; the point is that the world offers lots of religions and, depending on which one you choose, you may get a different moral code.
Religious folks may recognize they have a moral code independent of their religion whenever they get the sense that their religion is not entirely right in some regard. Where does that feeling come from? They can only come to such feelings or conclusions by measuring the morality of their religion’s teachings by some other “standard”–e.g., one innate to human nature.
>>I’m not aware of the “state religion” to which you allude.>>
It’s part of our US history. This might help:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
God is a supreme power, allowing ethical models to revolve around the Golden Rule or the adapted forms in human society.
No human is thus free from paying for their actions, neither rulers nor commoners, under a supreme power. Because no matter how high up in the social hierarchy you climb, you still hit the real limit of never becoming as powerful nor more powerful as God. Because this is eternal metaphysics, so to speak, there’s no possible justification for overthrowing Heaven, so no point in killing anybody or various other atrocities humanity has created. It’s a metaphysical feedback system to ensure that ethical conduct can manifest here without getting into the problem of one standard being right for one tribe and another standard being right for another tribe. Obviously because when humans tend to have these disagreements, exterminating the opposing side is often times a good solution. Thus there has to be a reason why they shouldn’t use that solution and Divine Punishment exists for that purpose. So no matter how powerful a tribe may become by exterminating their enemies, they can’t oppose heaven, so they have to factor in that issue when making decisions. This moderates extreme behavior and human beings are often prone to extreme behavior when they think they can get something they want.
Without that divine standard, all you got is essentially humano constructed standards of government, law, morality, society, taboo subjects like cannibalism or incest. The only thing you got to back you up, to protect you from others if you lose power, is the simple statement that you got power at this time. Because you have the might to make it a law, it is a law and it will be judged right and wrong on that basis.
The dead martyrs can say that God will judge them in the afterlife. That there’s an ideal form of reality that exists, independent of human constructs. In atheism, there’s no real solution to crime or evil, except to bring might down on enemies and malcontents. That may or may not work, however. But what it tends to do is to reinforce centralized power. Because there’s no after-life to deal with these things, because it doesn’t exist, you got to solve human problems now. But you can’t do it without power and strength, so life becomes a quest for strength and power, like 3rd world nations. Society, instead of working to improve conditions to ensure everybody’s interests are protected by a societally constructed morality backed by the supreme security of divine law, is stuck in a every man for himself game where the strong survive and weak get genocided (Rwanda).
Here in the US, things are distorted by the nature of the fact that we have a stable and strong system of justice and law. Atheism doesn’t have to figure out right from wrong because it has already been done for them. Security is handled by police and external threats are taken care of by the military and internal threats, like the centralized government, is taken care of politically via the US Constitution.
Trying to build a society from the ground up using a very insecure system such as atheism, is going to lead inevitably to might makes right. Given that might makes right is the default nature of human society, it’s not hard to devolve.
In order for people to cooperate and thus create a common society that is bound by ethical conduct and similar morality, you need to ensure that everybody’s interests are secured by morality and ethics. Saying that some people get sacrificed every once in awhile to appease another segment of the population is a good way to start a blood feud. God was a very consistent way to back up the promise that people’s interests would be looked after, regardless how much suffering existed in the world, whether we had good or bad leaders, or even whether we ourselves were horrible people or saints. God, being all powerful, would be strong enough to protect people’s interests in this life and the next. Insecure people tend to create conflict and destruction, just by the nature of how we humans act. The more fear we feel, the more likely we are to strike at the perceive threat. Reference Prof Gates, the idiot wannabe.
If people’s idea of what can be considered right or wrong just changes based upon culture or what leader they got or what form of government, then obviously not only will the government be changing every turn of the seasons but people will be too insecure to work together on anything constructive.
The key ingredient to any stable human civilization is durability: endurance and the ability to maintain promises to people. God is in a unique position for all of them. Democracy, as it is popularly perceived now, is also perceived to do so. But it isn’t true. Democracy, majority rules, doesn’t create stability by itself. It didn’t in Greece for example. Often times dictatorships, benevolent dictatorships, were better than tyrannies. Or enlightened oligarchies were better than dictatorships. Of course, the problem is when the enlightened rulers die off and the new generation takes over. What happens when a new cadre of people are elected in a republic or a new public gets to vote in a democracy. Because humans are mortal, eventually these things just stop so when people are using up their life source to build something, they need to know that it will last or else they start thinking about doing other things like profiting at the expense of longer ranged views.
Society is hard to build up to a good civilization level if everybody is thinking about tomorrow, and not the next decade. They need stable expectations: economic, military, security, prosperity, etc. Stable, not necessarily higher and higher expectations of living standards. They need to know that what is right now, isn’t going to be ruled a war crime after a regime change. That’s not just a problem for the Bush and Obama administrations, it is a basic problem of human civilization itself.
>>The Constitution’s guarantees of individual rights, though, constrain the majority from violating the rights of individuals.>>
And what constrains the minority from violating the rights of the majority?
<B>While that approach involves a measure of irrationality, it gets the job done in the sense that moral standards are chosen.</b>
While people can choose what is right or wrong to be stamped on all official documents, that won’t change the reality. Tax strip the people of a province and guess what happens. Loot the nation’s treasury like Obama and guess what will happen. It won’t matter what human beings try to construct as to what is right or wrong, there’s always a metaphysical standard, the reality problem, that will exist. Religion put a name to this state or entity: God or gods.
Atheists literally can’t come up with a doctrine about reality that they can use to back up their claims. Because the moment they do, they just turned into a religion, a faith based ideology. Then again, ideologies are mostly based upon faith anyways.
It does no good to call somebody an atheist when they have faith in something other than a God. Because the reasons why they said they don’t believe in God, also applies to their various other beliefs they can’t prove but just take on faith.
suek,
Yes, several of the states had state religions at the time of the founding and for several decades thereafter. A political “disestablishment” movement succeeded in removing the last in Massachusetts in the 1830s. And the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 (I think) later precluded them, like the federal government, from taking steps to establish religion.
I think, though, that BrianE had something else in mind, since he was speaking of contemporary public schools being able to indoctrinate students in the “state religion.”
suek,
“And what constrains the minority from violating the rights of the majority?”
Politically, of course, the minority generally is not in a position to push the majority around–unless you’re in the Senate.
I’m not exactly sure what you have in mind by “rights of the majority,” but to the extent you’re speaking of the majority’s right to have its way, it has that right but only to the extent it does not abridge the rights of individuals protected by the Constitution. The Constitution plainly limits “majority rule” to that extent.
@Doug: You wrote:
“The real question is not whether one’s moral code is relative, but rather what are the standards by which one measures the morality of decisions and actions.”
First, Christians do not accept that the moral code they hold is “relative”. I realize that you don’t share their view, but you also believe that YOUR own view isn’t “relative”, but is absolutely true – your position on your view isn’t so very different from my position on my view. The more important point is that it is Christians who share the perspective of the Founders of the U.S. of A. as to the ultimate source of our nation’s laws. I do not believe that our nation and society will endure if we destroy that foundation, even if we replace it with something else. I have yet to see someone of your opinion in this matter present a coherent argument showing how “the land of the free and the home of the brave” could continue with a structure founded on a moral code and legal system rooted in the secular world view – which is, roughly, Darwinism.
Your second point in this sentence is inarguable…of course, we know what standard the Founders used, and (I realize this is repetitive) if we give that up, we are likely to lose the nation they bequeathed us. What would replace it is a different question, of course, but a look at history and the current world doesn’t fill me with confidence that any of us would like it much.
Make the argument, Doug….how can we base a free society on a foundation of “every man does what is right in his own eyes.? And be sure that you reason from your premises – “god(s) do not exist”, “measuring the morality…by…some other “standard”–e.g., one innate to human nature.” and explain how we will avoid a descent into “might makes right”. Be sure to include a real-world example or two, as well.
Wow, this has become a lively discussion. I’m not sure what I can add to what’s already been said, but here’s a few thoughts.
I’m not aware of the “state religion” to which you allude.- Doug Indeap
If you banish the Creator from public discourse in “government” schools, and the moral code the Creator has established, you’re left with a hollow shell, the authority of which will by necessity come from the state. Otherwise, what is the authority that is claimed to enforce that code.
Schools want children to be nice to each other, to follow some golden rule, but only the state can force obedience to those rules, if the moral code doesn’t extend from the Creator.
It will by default become a state religion. Once we reject our rights coming from the Creator and not the state, we give the state to power to choose which rights we have. It is one of the unique traits of America.
I didn’t mean to insult atheists (I’m not sure why an atheist would even be bothered by it), but offer an observation. You may pick and choose a moral framework from the buffet of human philosophy, but what is your authority? In the end, it is always the whip-hand of the state.
You can always fall back on natural law, but isn’t that Darwinism. And didn’t Darwin preach the survival of the fittest? (OK, it was Spencer.) If I were an athiest, I suspect I would lean toward the Randian Libertarianism and Sarte would be my solace. At what point would they be my scripture?
I might just as easily decide the responsibility of man is for his perfection and the perfection of the species. Wouldn’t I want to work toward that aim?
Everything else would seem to be so emotionally trivial. Since atheists have so casually gotten rid of any Creator, any emotional baggage would just be a hindrance and not particularly reliable. Things like love and compassion are merely human constructs. They may serve you, but again they might not.
Not to pick on you, Doug….but in your last comment, you said:
“I’m not exactly sure what you have in mind by “rights of the majority,” but to the extent you’re speaking of the majority’s right to have its way, it has that right but only to the extent it does not abridge the rights of individuals protected by the Constitution. The Constitution plainly limits “majority rule” to that extent.”
This is what I’m talking about, of course — how do you get this kind of Constitutional provision if you start from a naturalistic base – i.e. Darwinism or something similar? Where does it come from? How do you argue for it on any other basis except “I say so, and I’m big enough to back up my decision.”
Doug,
Here’s part of a paper written in 1776 that on the face of it seems to make your case about the “separation of church and state”.
“In this enlightened age and in a land where all of every denomination are united in the most strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect that our representatives will cheerfully concur in removing every species of religious, as well as civil, bondage. Certain it is that every argument for civil liberty in the concerns of religion; and there is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but what may be pleaded, with equal propriety, for establishing the tenets of Mohammed by those who believe the Alcoran; or if this be not true, it is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the Christian faith, without erecting a chair of infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.”
This could have been written yesterday, and certainly echoes the secularists in our midst.
Only this was part of a letter written Presbytery of Hanover to the General Assembly of Virginia as it met for the first time under its new constitution. At the time the Church of England as the religious establishment and taxes were collected that went to the church, regardless of the person’s personal affiliation.
“We would also represent that dissenters from the Church of England have been ever desirious to conduct themselves as peacable member of the civil government…But now when themany and grievous oppressions of our mother country have laid this continent under the necessity of casting off the yoke of tyranny and the forming of independent governements …we flatter ourselves that we shall be free from all the encumbrances which a spirit of domination, prejudice, or bigotry has interwoven with most other political systems.”
The Presbytery were objecting to the financial burden placed on them by the king on the behalf of the Church of England, and wanted to free themselves from this practice.
They were not interested in bellying up to the trough either, even though they might have been looked on favorably.
“…we ask no ecclesiastical establishments for ourselves; neither can we approve of them when granted to others. This indeed would be giving exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges to one set (or sect) of men, without any special public service to the common reproach and injury of every other denomination. And for the reason recited, we are induced earnestly to entreat that all laws now in force in this commonwealth which countenance religious domination may be speedily repealed, that all of every religious sect may be protected in the full exercise of their several modes of worship and exempted from all taxes for the support of any church whatsoever further than what may be agreeable to their own private choice or voluntary obligation.”
This idea of religious liberty is certainly different (but not unique at the time) than the distorted concept today held by those with a certain enmity toward the Creator.
Here’s an interesting document, penned by John Adams and ratified by the people of Massachusetts on June 15, 1780.
Article III of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights says:
“As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as those cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instruction in piety, religion, and morality. Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily…”
I would suggest they had it about right.
And by the way, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1778 was rejected because it didn’t contain sufficient safeguards protecting life, liberty and property. In response, this constitution was adopted, containing a “Bill of Right” of which this was one of the articles.
There’s a tier effect to metaphysics, ethics, and politics.
At the ground level you need metaphysics, a rather specific view of what constitutes the universe and how things work. Above this foundation you then get ethics. By changing what is real in your system, you also change what is right or wrong. Thus for a farmer that thinks the sun rises in the east, how he decides to plant will be different in terms of right vs wrong than to a farmer that thinks the sun rises in the west. The difference is in whose metaphysics is right.
In certain circumstances where both metaphysics are right, because these farmers live on different planets, then the ethics will exist in parallel. Neither will be wrong, because both were built upon different foundations.
Politically we will then have a system of government and human hierarchy based upon a specific metaphysics and a specific ethics. Atheism has changed their metaphysical model to assume any kind of god does not exist. Without a supreme divinity, of course their ethics will change. Their natural political system will also differ. But if they aren’t given the choice to choose their political system and aren’t given the choice to choose their ethics, if ethics and political representation were given or enforced upon them by external factors, then it’s the United States. A place where people of different beliefs can cooperate because there is an all powerful entity backing the US Constitution from the beginning. And even if that entity wasn’t around anymore, people believed it was, they believed in it long enough to create a functioning and sustained military and civic presence to enforce the Constitution through various world wars and one civil war.
There’s also an element of military capability given religious beliefs. Better fighters are made from those that believe as opposed to those that don’t. While you will always have individual outliers, for the majority of armed forces, believers contribute the most to their combat power. And various miracles have occurred when Christians have fought others in order to save a battle that would have been lost. They don’t teach those incidents in history class, for obvious reasons.
In terms of questioning what is real, we also begin to question what is the right course of action. Atheists are not confronted with the challenge of bringing law to lawlessness. The US isn’t the third world or even a second rate tourist country. Because the US Constitution already exists, atheists don’t need to figure out their own standards. Because the reason why we thought about ethics in the first place was to ensure our own survival. If your survival and interests are already assured by a system somebody else built, there’s little reason for you to try to make a better one. Exceptions are the Utopian Leftists. It’s also why they feel a lack of patriotism. It’s hard to feel love for something you think needs to be teared down and replaced with something Perfect. It’s like a mother drowning one of her children saying that she loves her children so she is going to send them to a better place, and replace them as well.
In conditions where law and security does not exist, then there has to be something that is used as a foundation, a primary reason for being, for civilization. Atheism is insufficient to convince people to build a stable civilization. Religion, by itself, is also insufficient to build a lasting civilization. The difference is that with religion, a powerful god to back up promises made, you can convince people to kill, die, and obey in a fashion that isn’t too disruptive to the status quo. Atheism doesn’t have a creed or a doctrine or a stabilization system. The people obeying now has ever reason to take power for themselves and decree a New World Order, since that’s what their previous leaders did anyways. Since human beings do those things with religion and politics all the time, it’s important to choose the right belief system and the right political system. But the right political system comes from the right ethics, and the right ethics naturally must be based upon a metaphysical model of the universe. Wrong foundation equals collapsed building.
As an aside, if you’re wondering who the Presbytery of Hanover was, from Wikipedia:
Hanover County was created on November 26, 1720, from the area of New Kent County called St. Paul’s Parish. It was named for the Electorate of Hanover in Germany, because King George IGreat Britain was Elector of Hanover at the time. of
Hanover County was the birthplace and home of noted American statesman Patrick Henry and is the home of the Hanover Courthouse, which was the site of the Parson’s Cause case in the Virginia Colony, in which attorney Henry argued against taxes levied on preachers by the King. The historic Hanover Courthouse is pictured in the county seal. Hanover County was also the birthplace of politician Henry Clay, author of the Missouri Compromise.
The Parson’s Cause:
The “Parson’s Cause” was an important legal and political dispute in the Colony of VirginiaAmerican Revolution. Colonel John Henry, father of Patrick Henry, was the Presiding Justice. often viewed as an important event leading up to the
The case arose with regard to the Virginia Two Penny Act. This act was a reaction to the poor tobacco crop of 1758. The shortage caused the price of a pound of tobacco to rise from two pennies a pound to six. Virginia had passed legislation in 1748 pegging salaries for Anglican clergy in the Colony of Virginia at 16,000 pounds of tobacco a year. The Virginia legislature responded to the tobacco price increase by allowing debts in tobacco to be paid to in currency equivalent to two pennies a pound, which was a third of the market price. George III of England vetoed the law causing an uproar. The Virginia legislature saw the veto as a breach of its authority.
The Reverend James Maury, a clergyman, responded to the veto by suing for back wages as requested of all the ministers involved; in effect, he became a representative of the British cause. Patrick Henry first emerged as notable figure by defending Hanover County, Virginia against the claims of Reverend James Maury. Henry argued for the Two-Penny Act, saying, “that a King, by disallowing Acts of this salutary nature, from being the father of his people, degenerated into a Tyrant and forfeits all right to his subjects’ obedience.”
The court found in favor of Rev. James Maury (grandfather of Matthew Fontaine Maury), but awarded him only one penny in damages. The case effectively nullified the veto and no other clergy sued. Interestingly, Patrick Henry’s daughter, Martha, married Reverend John Fontaine, who was part of Reverend James Maury’s family, and there are descendants today from both of these men.
The Hanover County Courthouse where Patrick Henry argued the Parson’s Cause still remains an active courthouse. It is the third oldest courthouse still in use in the United States. This courthouse is often cited as having been built in 1735, although it is dated by the state register as having been built between 1737 and 1742.[1] A new and modern government complex with court facilities was constructed and opened in 1979 adjacent to the old courthouse. The old courthouse, however, is still used for periodic judicial proceedings to alleviate crowded court dockets at the new facility and also for handling ceremonial events. [1]
>>The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that states cannot deprive individuals of certain rights; the Supreme Court has ruled that among those rights is freedom of religion, including freedom from government establishment of religion.>>
You have here two conflicting rights – those who want certain moral ethics taught to their children as part of their education, and those who seem to want no moral ethics taught to their children. Both are guaranteed equal protection under the law. How do you resolve this difference? You say that the protection for the majority is inherent in majority rule except as limited by the rights of the minority, but in this case, the rights of the majority are in fact dominated by the minority as a result of court action. How would the rights of the minority be affected if the local school boards – elected by the parents of those children – were in favor of such education? You say – if the majority want Judeo-Christian ethics taught in the schools, they should start their own. Why should the minority not be held to the same standard?
>>The government that is running the school, which typically is a city or county or a school district, all of which typically are political subdivisions of states.>>
Except that you have negated the rights of all of the above by stating that they do _not_ have the right to teach what they choose to teach to their own children. What about the rights of parents? Are you saying that the Federal Government has the right to determine what is acceptable to be taught to children?
Do the majority – who most would agree adhere to Judeo-Christian morality – have the right to prohibit this sort of sexual education in the schools?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585108,00.html
Watcher’s Council Results…
The results of the latest vote is out, and here they are! Winning Council Submissions First place with 2 1/3 points! Mere Rhetoric – Yahoo Wipes Ariel, Israel Off The Map, Replaces It With Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories Second……
Earl,
I think we are using the term “relative” in two different ways. I am saying that some types of questions can be answered with an absolute yes or no, correct or incorrect, e.g., does 1 + 1 = 2? Other types of questions, including many moral ones, cannot be answered yes or no, correct or incorrect, e.g., is X good? These questions can only be answered by relating them to (i.e., “relative” to) some standard by which we can assess whether X is good or not. Such questions are inherently relative in this sense–regardless of whether the standards by which one would answer them are derived from religion or not.
You, I gather, are using the term “absolute” to describe moral standards derived from God and the term “relative” to describe moral standards derived by any other means. Okay, as long as we understand how we’re using the terms, that’s fine. It just means we need to be mindful that “relative” is used two different ways. One can only answer the question whether X is good “relative” to some standard–whether the “absolute” standards derived from God or the “relative” standards derived otherwise.
My point was to note that the good-bad type questions are inherently relative (as I have been using the term) and argue that the more important issue is the standards we choose to answer the questions. Religious folks, it seems, essentially choose their standards when they choose their religion; the standards more or less come with the package. Choose one religion and you get a certain set of standards; choose another religion and you get a different set of standards. (I recognize, of course, that there is much overlap between the standards of various religions–and, for that matter, the standards of non-religious people. There often is, as well, disagreement within any particular religion about just what are the right standards of that religion.)
Non-religious folks choose their standards, I suppose, any number of ways. I haven’t made a study of the subject, so claim no superior knowledge. I suggested in an earlier comment that each person’s moral code is derived partly from human nature and partly from human culture. Dissatisfying as that may be to those who yearn to believe their standards are “absolute,” it nonetheless appears to be the case.
“Choose” may not be the best word to use in the preceding discussion, since most religious people “choose” their religion (and its associated moral standards) by being born to parents in a region where that religion holds sway. Non-religious people “choose” their moral standards by being born human and by growing up in a particular culture. Yes, I know that religion commonly is a major aspect of culture; they are intertwined and influence each other.
As for your invitation to make an argument, I hardly know where to begin, particularly in a brief–sort of–blog comment. Perhaps I’ll just note that the golden rule in some form or another appears innate to all humans. Not that everyone always abides by it (hardly), but nearly everyone understands it and has some sense of its validity. The golden rule is not the invention of any particular religion.
BrianE,
I don’t think we confront the either-or choice (Creator or state) you pose. First, the means by which humans develop and enforce a moral code is considerably more complex than that. Many institutions and aspects of society come into play. Perhaps the most influential factors are family, friends, and culture (of which religion, commonly, is a part). The state may buttress a culture’s moral code with laws that correspond or, at least, do not conflict with that code, but the state (at least modern secular states) are not likely the primary or most influential sources and enforcers of a moral code.
Second, the Creator does not develop or enforce a moral code–at least not directly in any way that can be detected. Moral codes associated with religions are developed and enforced by the humans adhering to that religion. To be sure, religious adherents may attribute their moral code to a Creator (even as they argue with each other about the particulars of the Creator’s code). In any event, it is religious adherents and not the Creator who enforce that code. They enforce the code by preaching it and chiding, shunning, banishing, excommunicating, ostracizing, or otherwise socially or physically punishing (and at times even killing) those who question or violate it.
Philosophy may influence the development of a society’s sense of morality, but I don’t think in the end it is primarily an intellectual exercise. As I’ve noted in other comments, I think much of morality is grounded in human nature and much in human culture. The latter is subject to considerable variation and, I think, can lead to different cultures coming up with different moral codes. To the extent their standards differ, people in those different cultures will simply have different answers to the question whether X is good. I don’t think, though, that the ultimate authority will be the whip-hand of the state. To the extent there even is a single authority in such matters, it seems to reside in the more diffuse concept of culture rather than state. I think the cultural aspects of morality (as opposed to the aspects innate to human nature) develop akin to language–not by fiat by some central authority, but rather incrementally and continuously by the countless day to day interactions of people.
<B>The golden rule is not the invention of any particular religion.</b>
It is also unethical. A morality that is unethical for it justifies any atrocity so long as the victimizer is okay with it being inflicted in return.
The golden rule is a manufacture of human hierarchy and what controls packs of animals.
<B>I think much of morality is grounded in human nature and much in human culture.</b>
The question here isn’t what manufactures human standards of behavior. The question is which standard performs better, from what it originated, how it may be maintained, and what ultimately comes of it.
@Doug: Thanks. I appreciate the exchange.
I won’t get into a long discussion of the definitions you give, except to say that he who controls the definitions controls the outcome of the argument. So, if we were going to hash this all the way through to the end, we would have to start with defining our terms very carefully and then committing to using those terms consistently at all times. One point: it seems to me inarguable that EVERY moral decision that a person makes is “absolute” in the sense that the person who holds it believes that his position is the correct one and that other moral judgments are “wrong”. This isn’t limited to “religious” people. Within our own moral code, we are all absolutists. It also seems to me that we are absolutist about which moral code is better — we think *ours* is the correct one, and therefore superior to any other. Surely you don’t think it doesn’t matter much whether my code or yours forms the foundation of our laws…..or do you? I simply don’t see much distinction between “theists” and “atheists” on these points, despite what the atheists are always saying.
You wrote:
“I’ll just note that the golden rule in some form or another appears innate to all humans. Not that everyone always abides by it (hardly), but nearly everyone understands it and has some sense of its validity. The golden rule is not the invention of any particular religion.”
This is perfect for my request that you “make the argument”. Here you have provided us with simple assertions about the “innate” nature of the golden rule to humans generally. I have a logical explanation of why this should be so, based on my beliefs about where we came from. You don’t share my views, believing (presumably) that humans are the result of a long period of evolutionary development from primitive ape-like creatures (who had no knowledge of the golden rule) via a naturalistic process of random DNA mutations acted on by natural selection — a process that rewards any variation in structure or behavior that increases one’s reproductive output. How can this process account for the human race’s almost universal understanding of the golden rule and our consciousness of its validity? Doesn’t this near-unanimity argue strongly against “human culture” as a source of our moral code? Human cultures are almost infinitely diverse – what can account for the fact that virtually all of them ended up with something as counter-intuitive as the golden rule?
Perhaps you know that C.S. Lewis wrote that one of the evidences for God is that mankind generally has the sense that there is a standard of behavior that is “right”, and also knows that we fall short of the standard. The question for atheists is how can a Darwinist scenario explain these two facts.
Earl,
While unsure I understand your comment about how one gets a Constitutional provision protecting individual rights if one starts from a naturalistic base, I’ll “respond” simply by offering my understanding of our Constitution’s underpinnings.
The Constitution is founded on the power of the people who formed it (“We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . . .”). In exercising their power to form a government, the people agreed to conduct their affairs by certain rules. Among those are rules protecting certain rights of each individual; in the Constitution, the people established that those rights cannot be abridged by the government (even if a sizeable majority of citizens urges it to do so). While each of the three branches of government should endeavor to protect those rights, the judiciary is the branch with the primary mission to do so. In order to at least partially insulate the judiciary from the passions and give-and-take of politics and the whims of the majority, the Constitution provides that federal judges will be appointed for life (as long as in “good behavior”) and guaranteed a compensation that will not be diminished during their time in office. In forming the Constitution, thus, the people (wisely, I believe) voluntarily constrained their authority to act by majority rule.
While they cannot do so by mere majority vote, the people can yet exercise their ultimate power and thereby free themselves to disregard individual rights the Constitution currently protects. They can amend the Constitution by either of the two means they prescribed in the Constitution, or they can rise up in revolt, overturn the Constitution, and begin anew.
Earl,
Much as I hesitate to argue with an “inarguable” point, I’ll offer this quibble. Certainly, each of us thinks our moral code is right and better than others and that the decisions we make based on that code are right. Otherwise, I suppose it’s only logical to expect we would change our minds. I have no quarrel with characterizing such a belief as “absolute.” I don’t see, though, that that adds much of use to the discussion. From your apparent sensitivity to these semantic points, I gather that these labels have assumed some importance in some contexts; I’m not schooled in those, so don’t have much to say about it.
To the quibble. The us-and-them and mine-is-superior “absolutist” view you express certainly has been the prevailing view in western civilization over many centuries and perhaps remains so today. In recent centuries, as explorers spanned the globe and encountered the wealth of cultures it holds, the study of anthropology developed and, with it, an alternative paradigm emerged–one that called for observing and studying cultures, inasmuch as humanly possible, with an open, objective mind, rather than the paternalistic, judgmental approach of earlier times. The effect, in some circles at least, has been revolutionary. By coming to appreciate that there are so many “others” out there who have different (sometimes radically different) ideas about the world and social norms, we come face to face with the realization that to all those “others,” we are an “other” with our own odd views. That perspective on things can lead one to suppose that perhaps, just perhaps, we don’t have a lock on all these questions and answers and perhaps, just perhaps, others’ views may have some legitimacy.
With respect to the golden rule, I understand that philosophers, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, and other deep thinkers have been assessing whether evolution offers explanations for mankind’s innate sense of morality and some progress, but no comprehensive solution, is claimed. I have faith they’ll eventually figure it out.
I don’t think, though, that humanity’s near universal understanding of the golden rule argues against culture being a source of morality. Rather, I think both human nature and human culture are sources of morality. It’s just that some aspects, such as the golden rule, are innate to our nature, and culture takes it from there and builds on that base.
Doug said in #55:
> By coming to appreciate that there are so many “others” out there who have different (sometimes radically different) ideas about the world and social norms, we come face to face with the realization that to all those “others,” we are an “other” with our own odd views.
I think few disagree with your statement that there are “different (sometimes radically different) ideas about the world”. The disagreement is with your underlying belief that they are all equal. Often referred to as moral relativism. I absolutely believe that some belief systems are far superior to others. Some – such as what appears to dwell in Obama’s head – are so unworthy that they ought to invite only derisive laughter and constant head-shaking.
> It’s just that some aspects, such as the golden rule, are innate to our nature, and culture takes it from there and builds on that base.
I’m not at all convinced that the golden rule is innate. In fact I suspect it is quite the opposite. That without moral training – subconsciously via modelling those around them usually – those noble little savages we call children can grow up to be fine upstanding citizens, or else become terrifying adult savages, living by the law of the jungle. ”I *take* what I want, because I have it coming to me, and because I *can*. Because I have the gun and you don’t.”
Note I said “take”, not “earn”. And my “gun” is a metaphor for any weapon of any sort – including the immoral use of a democratic vote – used for deliberate, conscious theft, however you may wish to frame it.
Council speak 02/09/10…
Don’t be in denial check the Watcher’s Council’s latest winners! Winning Council Submissions First place with 2 1/3 points! – Mere Rhetoric – Yahoo Wipes “Ariel, Israel” Off The Map, Replaces It With “Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories” Sec…
<B>the study of anthropology developed and, with it, an alternative paradigm emerged–one that called for observing and studying cultures, inasmuch as humanly possible, with an open, objective mind, rather than the paternalistic, judgmental approach of earlier times.</b>
This rests upon the premise that people indirectly observing culture can understand better how people lived in that culture than the people that actually lived in that culture.
This calls into question how one may know that earlier times had paternalistic judgmental approaches. Based upon whom, upon what, upon whose direct experiences of those that had lived before? If using indirect information, this reinforces the anthropology line. If using direct information, it contradicts the anthropology line while at the same time claiming to be reinforcing it. Regardless, if the anthropology line is stated in the pure case, it is still an argument that knowledge is only obtainable by outside observers, not agents involved in the culture.
<B>That perspective on things can lead one to suppose that perhaps, just perhaps, we don’t have a lock on all these questions and answers and perhaps, just perhaps, others’ views may have some legitimacy.</b>
And this is based upon what epistemology again?
The Skeptical position that knowledge is unobtainable by humans is not exactly an argument for other people’s views having legitimacy. It is very easy to follow the logic that when you don’t have a lock on all these questions, neither does anyone else. And if anyone else doesn’t have a lock on them and neither do you, how are you going to decide all of a sudden that other people views have ‘some legitimacy”. If you could do that, you would have already acquired a knowledge base of your own successes and failures and wouldn’t need anybody else’s views.
This is one reason why the Skeptical movement in philosophy in terms of epistemology can’t forward a justified political or ethical conclusion based upon an epistemology that rejects knowledge. Even indirect logical arguments using that sort of ‘unknowability’ factor has problems akin to the core contradiction.
<B>I don’t think, though, that humanity’s near universal understanding of the golden rule argues against culture being a source of morality.</b>
This is an important contribution from the aforementioned theory of knowledge, as well as a metaphysical view. The idea that culture is a source of morality is not the same as the idea that culture equals ethics. In terms of developing ethics, something that is the core contention between Islam, Christianity, and atheism (other groups tend not to care as much nor fight as much over this issue), there’s a side comment that cultures work based upon their own unique circumstances, which also include the unique circumstances of human biology. In setting up a complete and comprehensive ethical system that governs the actions of humans, you could say that right or wrong is simply based upon human programmed survival and cultural success. So if a culture has success with one morality vs another, that morality can be seen to be developed from that source. Given that human beings need to know what is right or wrong in order to function, this can be seen as its own ethical system in which human beings should function based upon what their culture or biology tells them is right or wrong. After all, there’s no overarching supreme entity that would override such concerns nor is there an alternative set of circumstances that can be judged as known (knowledge) to be affecting the ethical system.
Now, instead of staying at the metaphysical-ethics connection, I’m going towards the epistemological-metaphysical connection. Rather than saying if human behavior comes from religion, innate biology, or culture, I’ll look at how we can know any of these is true or false.
This is the question of what is morality, what is it for, and how morality relates to ethics. The morality of every individual is a specific set designed for them from their experiences or associated stimuli. That means cultures sets up rules and biological beings set up rules in order to achieve the loose goal of self-preservation and reproduction. The question of what is ethical, however, transcends mere superficial biological constraints because the question of ethics is the question of beauty, the question of what should be right, and the question that challenges the very fabric of existence, both physical and non-physical states. Thus, while the morality of a culture would not particularly care if they were successful at wiping out every other culture, those interested in a broader ethical framework would care. While an individual may not care if cannibalism is right or wrong, so long as it aided in their survival (which, currently, cannibalism does not do), then that individual would just switch their morality to cannibalism=good if their specific circumstances changes. Thus morality is variable and also why you see cultural and biological influences on morality.
Religion, however, while recognizing the basic human factors at play, wished for a standard of truth and knowledge, concerning right and wrong, that transcended mere basic flesh: the physical state that we can all easily recognize having experienced it.
To go back to a more pedestrian topic, the idea that religion is just another factor, like culture or human biology in making up human morality, is a rather incorrect one. Religion did not create the Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule has either nothing or little to do with ethics. GR, like cannibalism or incest, is simply a byproduct of human morality. Rather, than say, a byproduct of human culture or religion. In terms of what is moral, anything can be moral regardless of who thinks it is right or who thinks it is wrong. That is what morality is. What people think is right or wrong and the various societal factors maintaining it. It isn’t concerned with what is true or not true, what is beautiful or not beautiful, what is knowledge or not. Religion wasn’t concerned about what was totally practical in this world. Much of it dealt with the impractical, the ideal, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the all encompassing ethical framework from which ALL cultures, all biologies, all moralities could be judged. This was a greater project than some village head deciding whether stoning a woman was morally right or wrong for their particular clan and location. And yet, religion could not influence human affairs without attempting to deal with human morality, regardless of what they thought should have been the human ethical framework.
Because human civilizations die, dynasties die, and even the human species may become extinct and some other sentient race comes about to stare at our ruins, human morality is a temporary state of affairs. Religion went looking for a permanent state of affairs, something to akin to a omniscient and omnipotent God or gods. The eternal is simply another way of saying “what is always true”. In human morality, it is only true until it isn’t true. But that’s not a particularly good standard to judge knowing truth/knowledge. How does one know something is true and also untrue for the same thing, given the verification of the proof that A is A, and A is not B.
Besides…if one position is just as good as another, what’s the justification for giving _any_ consideration to the “rights” of the minority? What gives the minority any rights whatsoever??
Doug, re #51
I think you’re underestimating the power of the State, and confusing the role of family, etc. That is certainly the case in several 20th century States I can think of.
Yes, our immediate surroundings will influence our daily lives but its more complex than that as to what is determined to be right (moral) in a society.
Forty years ago abortion was considered wrong (immoral). In most places it was a crime. The government declared it right (legal), certainly without the approval of a majority of society. To demonstrate how far we have degenerated, an ad merely suggesting a choice other than abortion was condemned by the left as a horrible wrong (immoral). You’re naïve to think all this didn’t happen without the power of the state.
I think we’re in a post-Christian society. Most of our law (moral code) is based on Judeo-Christian traditions, but as we move away from that tradition, all sorts of relativism and statism will fill the void.
You might object to calling that a “religion”, but it is a distinction without a difference. As BW noted, “The only difference between Secular Humanism and traditional “religion” is that, in place of an omnipotent deity, secular humanists worship an omnipotent government that rejects traditional Judeo-Christian moral and social values”.
But how did we get to this point where any reference to religious values is verboten? The founders never envisioned that, including Jefferson.
I think your first post on this topic gives a clue:
“The political doctrine is not so limited. While different people may vary in their descriptions of it, generally the idea is that while people certainly may be motivated in some measure by their religions, their political discourse should be conducted in secular terms. The political doctrine serves to save us from directly debating and voting on each other’s religions.”
By making any expression of a religious nature off limits in political discourse (or certainly working in that direction) we are left with a vacuum of secular morality. And as I said previously, this still carries with it some of the trappings of our previous tradition, but we are accelerating away from that tradition with all the strength the left can summon.
This is far from the original post, but it’s predictable once a person says “there is no god” how relative things quickly become. But that is to be understood given your rejection of any sort of absolute authority. I look at the world and find it hard to understand how someone could come to the conclusion there is no design to it all. That topic may come up in another post.
@Doug: It’s probably just as well not to go out in the weeds with the definitional issues – that only counts after the more obvious stuff is taken care of.
Obvious stuff like the following: regarding culture around the world, and the superior feelings that many of us who enjoy the benefits of western civilization seem to have, I’d say that a big part of our superiority (yes [gasp] I actually *do* think that our culture is superior to others) stems from the fact that (as you point out) we HAVE studied many other cultures….and where we find that “others’ views may have some legitimacy” we have ADOPTED those aspects of their culture into our own. Please point to another culture that has done this….. So, you can see that I agree with Mike – the idea that all cultures are equal is simply nonsense, lacking any empirical support.
It’s good you realize that materialism has no adequate explanation for what mankind apparently “can’t not know” – that is, those moral standards we find are virtually universal across cultures around the world. You said “I have faith they’ll eventually figure it out.” in what you intended (I think) to be a facetious sort of statement. But, Doug — what else do you have here besides “faith”? This points up what several of us have been saying in this comment thread — those who wish to remove “religion” from the public square are simply attempting to substitute their own religion for one that they have rejected.
Right now, Christians have a logical explanation for the observation – but our foundational premises are different than those of the atheists, and have been declared unacceptable, although without any evidential basis. It’s simply an assertion of power. We agree on the observation that humankind has a “near universal understanding of the golden rule” and your explanation is a sort of hand-waving — “both human nature and human culture are sources of morality.” — with no data or argumentation to establish it.
Mike is correct here – our children are born selfish, focused totally on their own desires, to the exclusion of thinking about the well-being of anyone else. Darwin has no problem explaining this fact – it’s a genetic trait, produced by eons of natural selection in favor of those with the highest reproductive success. The difficulty for the atheist view is explaining why virtually every culture immediately begins to train these little savages to leave all that behind…how can the Darwinian scenario possibly explain why almost every human culture attempts to train new humans to leave behind the pattern that produces evolutionary success? And if the selfish impulse does NOT produce such success, then why is it embedded in our genes?
Mike,
I was referring to the scientific method of anthropologists to observe and study cultures from a neutral, rather than ethnocentric perspective. This, I understand, has been termed cultural relativism and is to be distinguished from moral relativism. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism I do not, as you suppose, believe all cultural ideas about the world are equal. Like you, I have my favorites. Cultural relativism does, though, help one look at other cultures, at least initially or to some extent, through fresh, neutral eyes and perhaps enable one to see and understand how others come to think as they do. In the process, one may learn something about one’s own culture and even engage in some self-reflection and re-evaluation.
So you doubt the golden rule is innate. Fine. Pick some other moral principle that you think is innate. My point was simply to say that some aspects of our behavior, including morality, is innate; the rest derives largely from culture. You seem to agree at least with the cultural part–moral training subconsciously via modeling and all.
Earl,
Regarding the obvious stuff, see my response to Mike’s comment. You may well champion “our culture,” but I wouldn’t put much weight on the idea that our culture is uniquely or relatively better at adopting aspects of other cultures. Lots of cultures, perhaps all, do this in some respects. Take Japan or China, for instance. In just the last century or so, each of them has adopted many aspects of “our culture.”
When discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish between the “public square” and “government.” The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. And in practice, there is plenty of religion out there in the public square; I see and hear of it daily on the street, on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, etc. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.
Without explanation, you seem to maintain that government cannot simply refrain from promoting religion, but rather must choose at least some religion to promote. By your reckoning, I gather, if government refrains from promoting Christianity (or at least theism of some sort), it necessarily and automatically promotes secularism or atheism, which you see as an alternative religion. (As secularism refers to the idea of keeping government and religion separate, it is oxymoronic to term secularism itself a religion.) The absence of Christianity, in any event, is hardly the same as secularism or atheism. Nonetheless, if you characterize the absence of religion as itself a religion (and survive the tail chasing that requires), then your apparent argument that government cannot help but choose a religion is a foregone conclusion–and little more than semantic sophistry.
Seemingly without irony, you assert that Christians have a logical explanation for the observation of humanity’s near universal understanding of the golden rule and discount my statement that both human nature and human culture are sources of morality as mere hand-waving with no data or argumentation to establish it. First, Christianity’s “explanation,” i.e., morality comes from God, is rather a hypothesis awaiting proof. Second, you are correct to note that I did simply offer my view on human nature and culture as sources of morality without arguing the point. The body of literature on this, spanning centuries, is vast and well known. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature and http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/human-morality-innate-or-learned I didn’t–and don’t–propose to refocus our discussion on that broad subject.
Evolution is considerably more complex and powerful than how you and Mike describe it. Note that there is evidence that our selfish little savages actually do come with a ready-made sense of altruism. See, e.g., http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060303205611.htm Also, evolution does offer explanations for altruism. See, e.g., http://academicearth.org/lectures/evolutionary-altruism-and-selfishness and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
BrianE,
Note that secularism, i.e., keeping government and religion separate, is not itself a religion.
The history of abortion is considerably more complex than the simple trend you posit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
You and I may accord different weight to the relative roles and influence of the state and other social institutions, e.g. family, and culture on moral issues. I do not see the state as the primary source of morality; rather the state and its laws typically reflect the morality of society. While the state certainly enforces laws that reflect morality, e.g., laws prohibiting murder, theft, and the like, the state is not the only or even the primary enforcer of much of our moral code.
<B>I do not see the state as the primary source of morality; rather the state and its laws typically reflect the morality of society.</b>
An argument for centralization. Since centralization is unnecessary oftentimes, it’d be a bad argument even if it was legit.
<B>Note that secularism, i.e., keeping government and religion separate, is not itself a religion.</b>
Be that as it may, the current incarnation is. Until they aren’t, the point doesn’t stand.
<B>the state is not the only or even the primary enforcer of much of our moral code.</b>
How is that argument going to stand against natural human impulses that require authority, security, and something to protect them from life’s insecurities? It’s not going to do anything to reassure people. If the state isn’t the primary enforcer, people will demand that it be so. Religion has an answer for how to redirect people’s passions towards non-political solutions. Your current position on human culture, atheism, and instincts do not.
Secularism:
“A term used for the first time about 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake to denote “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life” (English Secularism, 60). More explicitly, “Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reasonSecularism, 17). And again, “Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable… “
“Although the name Secularism is of recent origin, its various doctrines have been taught by free-thinkers of all ages, and, in fact, Secularism claims to be only an extension of free-thought. “The term Secularism was chosen to express the extension of free-thought to ethics” (English Secularism, 34). With regard to the question of the existence of God, Bradlaugh was an atheist, Holyoake an agnostic. The latter held that Secularism is based simply on the study of nature and has nothing to do with religion, while Bradlaugh claimed that Secularism should start with the disproof of religion. In a public debate held in 1870 between these two secularists, Bradlaugh said: “Although at present it may be perfectly true men who are Secularists are not Atheists, I put it that in my opinion the logical acceptance of Secularism must be that the man gets to Atheism if he has brains enough to comprehend.”
“”You cannot have a scheme of morality without Atheism. The Utilitarian scheme is a defiance of the doctrine of Providence and a protest against God” (Bradlaugh). On the other hand, Holyoake affirmed that “Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever.”"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm
Secularism is not neutral concerning religion, but a competing philosophy, and should not be the standard by which “the free exercise of religion” is judged. Secularism is most often hostile to religion which is manifest in example after example, which I have previously noted.
If you accept the Wikipedia definition that, “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…”, I don’t think you can come to any other conclusion but that secularism fits the definition of a religion.
I ask again -
What gives the minority any rights?
Question:
If the Cambridge Council decided to make Fridays meatless instead of Mondays, would it be unconstitutional because it’s religiously based??
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/12/cambridge-plans-taxes-veganism-climate-change/?test=latestnews
Ymarsakar and BrianE,
I’m trying to get past the labeling and semantics. I gather you think it important whether “secularism” can be dubbed a “religion.” Why, I don’t know. Words commonly have various meanings. I am sure you can find a broad definition of “religion,” pair it with a broad definition of “secularism,” and, voila, find secularism a religion. Touché.
Now, back to my point—which is that the principle of separating government and religion (which is the narrower definition of “secularism” I had in mind, but not wanting to go around that block again, let’s not concern ourselves with labeling the principle of separation of church and state as secularism) is not itself a religion if for no other reason than it would be oxymoronic to define separating something from religion as a religion. Any such definition would, semantically at least, render impossible any meaningful discussion of separation of church and state.
I think we’ve about exhausted what we can get of our discussion of the role of the state vis a vis other institutions and social mechanisms. You, I gather, see the state as paramount (absent religion), and I see it as one among several important factors.
Ymarsakar,
I have let some of your comments pass without response because I just don’t know what to make of them. I get the feeling you just came out of a philosophy lecture, assume I heard it too, and speak to me in shorthand as if I’m in the know. I’m not up to the task.
suek,
By minority rights, I am supposing you are referring to the individual rights protected by the Constitution. When referring to the rights of individuals gathered in groups constituting a minority of the population, I suppose the term minority rights will serve.
In asking what gives the minority any rights, you question, I gather, the source of those individual rights. Depending on how many layers of the onion you want to peel back, the answer may vary. The first and most obvious answer is that the rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. For a lawyer, that may suffice. Beyond that, the Constitution reflects an exercise of power by the people as I discussed a few comments ago. That may satisfy sociologists, political scientists, and the like. Philosophers may want more—and speak of rights grounded in natural law, divine acts, or some such.
I get the feeling you just came out of a philosophy lecture
Nothing I’ve mentioned requires an advanced or specific understanding of esoteric philosophies. Epistemology and metaphysics are general fields, like physics, that every person should have a basic understanding of. They may not be able to do quantum mechanical calculations, conduct proofs of the mathematical theories, or understand the various specific relative elements of Relativity Theory, but they still must understand the difference between physics and wish making. Understanding what derivatives are and how E=mc^2 may also help. As consistent with specialized knowledge, it only applies specifically. General knowledge applies generally.
If I assume you had never integrated them into your knowledge pool, that just means I would also have to assume your education is sorely lacking. There’s nothing I can do about that. That’s on you.
<B>I gather you think it important whether “secularism” can be dubbed a “religion.”</b>
You can make observations like these, but you are lacking in some fundamental tools to understand them by lacking understanding of what you don’t know about.
The first time someone encounters something strange and unknown on the internet and doesn’t stop to research it, is the last time they’ll ever think for themselves. They’ll observe events, but cannot create or re-engineer events. Because they passed the knowledge by.
<B>I am sure you can find a broad definition of “religion,” pair it with a broad definition of “secularism,” and, voila, find secularism a religion. Touché.</b>
This has already been dealt with in epistemology of various kinds and colors. If you are unfamiliar with it, then why should we start from square 1 simply because some people are ignorant of the developed knowledge and material base from previous eras? If science had to figure everything out for itself starting from day 1 every decade, it’d get no where fast.
How people think about beliefs, about what is knowledge, and what people think is real or illusion, matters first, not last. It’s not something you can ‘observe’ and then decide that it is whatever you think it is after the fact.
Another benefit of religion is that they keep a knowledge base of previous scholars, saints, and ecclesiastical scientists/mathematicians. Christians have had centuries to ponder just exactly what is or is not truth, Revealed Truth or otherwise. You have had…. what, a few decades just from your own personal experience as a comparison. Atheists or anthropologists have to start from scratch, assuming their chosen subject matter is something new on the horizon that they won’t accept previous perspectives on. I’m sure you’ve noticed this already on an observational level. Why this is important is something people should have thought about before they got into an argument over which ice cream was better. It’s kind of late after the fact.
<B>Any such definition would, semantically at least, render impossible any meaningful discussion of separation of church and state.</b>
There’s a simple thing that you could have used: logic.
There is no principle concerning separation of church and state, for the obvious reason that there is no person that originated it and no reason to do it. Humans have been doing things for bad reasons since time immemorial. This may be the first time they have been said to do something for no reason at all. May be, but most likely not.
Not trying to define words just means the current assumptions are taken at face value. That’s like assuming everybody’s premises are true. The thing is, many of them aren’t true because they haven’t even been verified. It’s important to verify these claims and not just accept them as status quo.
For example, only by believing that religion is the same thing as a church, can you create some oxymoron. Thus separation of church and state cannot be called a religion only in so far as religions only include churches. But religions don’t include only churches. There’s a shat load of religions that don’t have churches. They also don’t have temples. Some of them had Aztec sacrificial altars, for example, which may be called a temple but may also be called something else. It’s not hard to end up with the logical statement that the separation of church and state ends up as a religion because not all religions have churches. Since when were semantics required to obscure this simple distinction? Or is simply the word, semantics, an adequate cover for not seeking the logical verification on this subject matter.
Definitions matter because epistemology matters. Not knowing about the roots of human knowledge is a very terrible impairment on the ability to think. The Catholic Church would have been in serious trouble if they had junked theology in favor of cult like dogma. Thinking isn’t something natural that comes to smart people, in the end. Discipline and training give it form and function.
Of course, in the end, it is not surprising there are problems with the “principle’s” wording. After all, it wasn’t a principle to begin with. Just some concocted fake circular logic in order to apply political changes to the US. There’s a substantial difference between that and true knowledge.
Ymarsakar,
Hmm. Perhaps I was too subtle or coy. I hardly meant to suggest a difference in our educations or mental abilities–and certainly not one in which I come up short. I meant to convey that your style of communication is sometimes sufficiently cryptic that I’m left with the impression of coming into your conversations midway. While I suppose I could try to puzzle the rest of your meaning out of part you say, I’m just not inclined to work that hard.
For instance, in response to my observation that by using broad definitions of religion and secularism, you can find secularism to be a religion–and doing so is quite apart from my point that the principle of separation of religion and state is not itself a religion, you say: “This has already been dealt with in epistemology of various kinds and colors. If you are unfamiliar with it, then why should we start from square 1 simply because some people are ignorant of the developed knowledge and material base from previous eras? If science had to figure everything out for itself starting from day 1 every decade, it’d get no where fast.” Nonresponsive and vague enough to say little or nothing–and all with such an air of superiority.
In response to my observation that defining separation of religion and state as itself a religion would render impossible any meaningful discussion of separation of church and state, you cleverly skewer me with the ironic suggestion I could have used “logic” and then explain: “There is no principle concerning separation of church and state, for the obvious reason that there is no person that originated it and no reason to do it. Humans have been doing things for bad reasons since time immemorial. This may be the first time they have been said to do something for no reason at all. May be, but most likely not.” Seriously? The whole thing just doesn’t exist? And the reason it doesn’t exist is no one first thought of it? And the reason no one thought of it is there is no reason to do it? Step away from the keyboard and find a history book.
From your discussion of the difference between church and state, I gather I should not have assumed that you understood the term “church” in the metaphor “separation of church and state” does not literally refer to churches, but rather to religion.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Hello Doug,
I might be quibbling, but you said,
> The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate [...]
The First Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Several of us made the point early in the discussion – BrianE first I think – that there was no “separation of Church and State” when it came to the States themselves. I still think that that is provably true. The First Amendment specifically applies solely to Congress, not “government” as you broadly refer.
I’d agree it’s reasonable – but not required – to argue that this should apply across the board, to all State and municipal government as well, but it’s not in the Constitution. I guess you could call me a Tenth Amendment freak. Progressives tend to argue that the Tenth Amendment is obsolete because our modern civilization is too complex and intertwined to allow the states so much freedom as is granted by the Tenth Amendment, and that is why it is being ignored these days, as the National Government octopus extends the reach of its hundreds of tentacles (yeah I know octo- means eight…) deeper and deeper into every aspect of our lives. I think the language of the Tenth Amendment is sufficiently clear in this regard. But we’ve ignored its specificity in favor of an interpretation that seems to claim, that if national law has any IMPACT at all, then it supercedes state law. This is a very convenient alteration for those seeking an increase in the power of the national government, because just about everything has an impact.
So this concept that the people within a State should have complete freedom FROM religion, just doesn’t seem sustainable to me. Not without an amendment nullifying the Tenth Amendment. Or else we can all just keep on ignoring it, as we do today. Put a Christmas tree or manger scene up in front of City Hall? Why not? Blue Laws governing business behaviors on Sunday – why not? I personally would vote against it, but I think legally it stands the test.
Now, get a Muslim majority in Michigan or Minnesota, enforcing Muslim dictates on behavior within their states, and you’d probably see a lot of conservatives in favor of the current national trend, but not me. I’m sticking to my principles, though you wouldn’t see me anywhere near those States.
>>Progressives tend to argue that the Tenth Amendment is obsolete…>>
Progressives consider the entire Constitution to be obsolete – - – unless it suits their purposes.
Mike,
You are quite right to note that the First Amendment constrains only the federal government and not the states. Indeed, at the time of the founding, many states had established religions. The First Amendment reflects, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the mid-1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.)
That was the circumstance until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War. It guaranteed individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship. In deciding what rights are encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the courts have looked to the Bill of Rights, reasoning that there are found the rights we hold most fundamental, and have ruled that at least some of those, including freedom of religion and freedom from state established religion, are protected from state infringement. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29
Yeah…indeep is another of those lefties who apply the Alinsky principles of “make them live up to their own rules – all of them.”
He’s indeep and getting in deeper. The only answer is to insist on _our_ rights. I feel that the 14th amendment should give _me_ equal rights, and protect me from the demands of the minority.
And by the way, indeep, which States have an established religion? Do you actually understand what that means?
I’m trying to get past the labeling and semantics. I gather you think it important whether “secularism” can be dubbed a “religion.” Why, I don’t know. Words commonly have various meanings. I am sure you can find a broad definition of “religion,” pair it with a broad definition of “secularism,” and, voila, find secularism a religion. Touché.
Now, back to my point—which is that the principle of separating government and religion (which is the narrower definition of “secularism” I had in mind, but not wanting to go around that block again, let’s not concern ourselves with labeling the principle of separation of church and state as secularism) is not itself a religion if for no other reason than it would be oxymoronic to define separating something from religion as a religion. Any such definition would, semantically at least, render impossible any meaningful discussion of separation of church and state.- Doug
Now Doug, from my perspective, it appeared you were hiding behind semantics and labeling, but I’ll accept your point that you want to move beyond that.
You have cogently made my point though. You want to limit the definition of secularism for your purposes, but if in fact secularism serves the purposes of religion, it needs to be placed in the column marked religion, even if it makes the discussion meaningless.
Once we conclude that the founders were wisely leveling the playing field to prevent one denomination from having state sanction but never intended to inhibit religious values from having weight, we are freed to rightfully include the moral principals of religion into the national discussion– both theocratic and secular in nature.
The effect of which would allow the ten commandments back into its rightful place as the foundation of our society.
It’s messy, but then we are finding out that democracy is messy.
BrianE,
I hesitate to go here because it may divert the conversation even more in the direction of semantics–but words, you no doubt realize, are essentially labels for ideas and some words have multiple meanings, i.e., they are used to label two or more different ideas. So, one meaning of secularism may amount to a religion at least for some purposes (since the word “religion” too may be used to mean different things in different contexts or for different purposes); that does not mean, of course, that all the meanings of secularism amount to religion (and certainly not to all meanings of the term “religion”).
For instance, one definition of “atheism” is the lack of a belief in god(s). The courts have decided that for purposes of assuring that all individuals, believers and nonbelievers alike, enjoy the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion, atheism is a religion for purposes of the First Amendment. In some other contexts, atheism plainly is not a religion. Like the lack of belief in unicorns, the mere lack of belief in god(s) does not amount to “religion” in any of its common definitions, e.g., “belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe” or “any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy” or “any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary.) (To be sure, each person lacking a belief in god(s) generally believes something that may well qualify as a religion, but it is that something else and not the absence of a belief in god(s), i.e., atheism, that is the religion.)
But to get back to my point, it can perhaps best be made (and avoid semantic distractions) without resort to any version of the word “secular.” The principle of separation of church and state, plainly enough, calls for maintaining religion and government, in some measure at least, separate from each other. To call that very principle itself a religion is oxymoronic, unnecessary, and pointless. It just makes discussion of the underlying ideas unduly cumbersome–but not impossible. If nonetheless you or others want to insist on labeling the principle itself a religion, I would respond by observing then that the principle of separation of church and state calls for maintaining some measure of separation between government and religion, except for that religion that consists of keeping government and religion separate. That remains the underlying idea–whatever words one wants to use to discuss it.
You suggest that the founders intended to level the playing field to prevent one denomination from having state sanction but never intended to inhibit religious values from having weight. I partially agree with you. As noted in my comment #26, the founders intended more than merely constraining government from promoting one denomination over others. I agree with you though that they did not intend to inhibit religious values from having weight; that’s what protecting the free exercise of religion is all about. That hardly means, though, that they intended the government to weigh in with “its” own religious views. That’s just not the government’s business; that’s left to each individual.
suek,
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. No states “have” an established religion today. At the founding, eight did. See, e.g., http://candst.tripod.com/cnstntro.htm
[...] Map, Replaces It With “Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories””. Second place honors went Bookworm Room’s “Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms [...]
@Mike (73): Maybe “omnipus” would be the word you are looking for. I may have just coined it, but it seems useful to describe what our politicians have been making of the federal government for the last century or so.
@Doug: To Suek you wrote (70):
“The first and most obvious answer is that the rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. For a lawyer, that may suffice. Beyond that, the Constitution reflects an exercise of power by the people as I discussed a few comments ago. That may satisfy sociologists, political scientists, and the like. Philosophers may want more—and speak of rights grounded in natural law, divine acts, or some such.”
Do you think it’s important where the actual Framers of the Constitution believed these rights came from? I (and perhaps others on this thread) see this as critical. The basis for the argument we are having is founded on this. Clearly, the men who established our country, and its freedoms for the citizenry, grounded all of that in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”. You don’t seem to think it’s necessary to have such a grounding for our liberty, and that the rights we’re guaranteed can come from elsewhere – “secularism”, to be precise. That’s your opinion, but opinions are like belly buttons – everyone has one. We’re asking you to back it up. Either point to a society where the kind of liberty we enjoy has been established in the absence of a transcendent source of rights, or make a logical argument showing the links between a materialist origin for humankind (where else could a secularist imagine our rights come from?) and the necessity of human liberty.
If you can’t, or won’t, do one or the other of these, then you can hold your opinion still, but you ought to be a bit forgiving of the rest of us if we’re less impressed with it than you appear to think we ought to be.
@Doug: You wrote (63):
“When discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish between the “public square” and “government.” The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. And in practice, there is plenty of religion out there in the public square; I see and hear of it daily on the street, on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, etc. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.”
I hope that you truly believe what you wrote. Because if you do, then you will be right there with me protesting the Congress’ suggestion that the “conscience clause” protecting physicians from being required to violate their deeply held religious beliefs in order to practice medicine, be stripped from the current legislation making its way through the halls of Congress. You will be opposing the attempts to force pharmacists to dispense drugs that aim to kill rather than heal. You will be opposing attempts to force private medical schools to teach abortion procedures to their students. You will be opposing Massachusetts’ law forbidding the Catholic church to place ANY kids in adoptive homes unless they violate their conscience and place them in homes that do not have both a father and a mother who are married to each other.
If “…each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views – publicly as well as privately…And…The Amendment constrains only the government….” then in each of the above cases, you and I will be standing together, and the Founders of this country would be standing with us, as well. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but somehow I expect that you will use “semantics” in some way to justify the outrageous imposition of government on the practice of religion…..because to stand with me is against YOUR “religion”. Yes, my friend – “secularism” operates as a religion when it violates my right to practice Christianity in the public square – NOT, notice, in government….just in public.
So, today we don’t have Catholics opposing Protestants and enlisting the government on their side – Oh No! We’re so much more enlightened – today we have the “secularists” opposing the traditionally religious, and enlisting the government on THEIR side. It’s all around us – I could multiply examples all day long.
@Doug: Again, in your reply you wrote (63):
“First, Christianity’s “explanation,” i.e., morality comes from God, is rather a hypothesis awaiting proof.”
How is this different from YOUR explanation/hypothesis, Doug? I never claimed anything else. What I said was that my hypothesis can offer a logical basis for human rights, for the “innate” knowledge of the Golden Rule, etc. I asked you to give us an explanation of where these things come from under YOUR hypothesis. You said that they are a combination of genetics and culture, but that, my friend, is “hand-waving”. It’s a bit like saying that “Milk comes from the grocery store.” and when pressed, saying “Well, it comes in a carton from the refrigerated case in the grocery store.” It tells us nothing, in other words.
You also wrote:
“Note that there is evidence that our selfish little savages actually do come with a ready-made sense of altruism….Also, evolution does offer explanations for altruism.”
I don’t recall arguing against the idea that one can find signs of altruism even in small children. The challenge is to explain why that should be if they originated in a process of random genetic mutations subjected to natural selection over millions of years. I suspect that anyone who takes the helpfulness of an 18-month old as indicative of innate altruism has not been intimately involved in raising children. Yikes!
I also note the rather imaginative “hypothes(es) awaiting proof” that you cited for how an Darwinist process produces altruism. If you read carefully, you will see that a good deal of disagreement exists in this area, even among convinced Darwinists. I wonder why you are so much more impressed with those articles than I am….could it be for the same reason that my Catholic friends are so impressed with the “hypothesis awaiting proof” of transubstantiation, while I remain a bit dubious?
Earl,
In noting that the Declaration of Independence refers to “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” you open the door to a sizeable subject (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights). In suggesting that I “don’t think it is necessary to have such a grounding for our liberty, and that the right’s we’re guaranteed can come from somewhere else–’secularism’, to be precise,” you put words in my mouth–and pretty silly ones at that.
If you’ll reread with fresh eyes my response to suek’s question about the source of individual rights, you’ll see I offered three “levels” of answers: Lawyers may simply observe that such rights are enumerated and protected by the Constitution and find that answer satisfactory. Social scientists may look deeper and find the source in the people’s exercise of their power to form a government that protects the rights declared in the Constitution. Philosophers may look deeper still and ground some rights in natural law (which itself may be conceived as having any of various sources) and others in positive (or manmade law).
I’ll just add that to the extent that you argue that the Declaration’s reference to “nature’s God” invokes the doctrines of Christianity or any other particular religion, that argument has been much debated, particularly in the last three or four decades, and in my opinion largely refuted. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism In response to your challenge to make an argument for a “materialist” origin of individual rights, you’ll see in these articles discussion of many philosophers who have posited natural rights without resort to god(s) as well as others who brush aside the notion of natural rights and argue all rights are grounded in positive law.
I understand, as well, as you note, that situations may be imagined that would pose a conflict between an individual’s duty under civil law and his conscience. Realize that this possibility is not unique to those who believe in god(s). Anyone–Christian, atheist, etc.–may find himself in such a quandary given the right circumstances. With respect to abortion, for instance, the opportunities for such mischief abound. Those who consider abortion to be immoral, at least in certain circumstances, may balk at offering government services that would facilitate or even provide abortions. Those who consider withholding medical services from women in need to be immoral, at least in certain circumstances, may balk at offering government services that would deprive women of abortions.
Similarly, there is the difficultly of whether and, if so, when the government should require people to do things contrary to their faith. The government could hardly operate if anyone could opt out of laws with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it. The courts have confronted this sort of issue and have ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion, but if the government enacts laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g, laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence), it can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them.
In rare (one hopes) circumstances, such a generally-applicable law could put an individual in an ethical Catch-22 if it requires one to take actions one considers immoral. For just this reason, when such binds can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
When it comes to questions of whether or when doctors and pharmacists may, on grounds of conscience, refuse to provide certain services, we confront the need to balance their interests and rights to act according to their conscience with their professional obligations and the interests and rights of patients to receive medical services. Not always easy. One approach, I suppose, would be to allow an individual doctor or pharmacist to decline to provide a service as long as the patient has reasonable access to alternatives (e.g., the hospital has other doctors or the pharmacy has other pharmacists who will step in and take care of the patient). If, though, the situation is such that the doctor’s or pharmacist’s refusal substantially interferes with the patient’s right and ability to obtain medical care, one may question whether the doctor or pharmacist can do so consistent with professional responsibility. As a lawyer, I am mindful that our professional obligations call for us not to decline legal representation because the client or cause is unpopular or repugnant to the lawyer and not to withdraw from representation unless there are exceptional circumstances and, even then, only after assuring the client’s interests are protected. For an interesting discussion, see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/817/Carlson_07.html
Regarding Christianity’s explanation for morality, i.e., it comes from God, I characterized it as a hypothesis awaiting proof because while it is an argument that may, as you note, offer a “logical basis” for human rights, it has not been proven by any evidence. In other words, no evidence has been offered proving the existence of god(s), much less that any god(s) have acted to provide rights to humans.
In contrast, my suggestion that morality derives from human nature and culture is supported by logic and evidence as described in the articles I cited earlier. While science has puzzled out some aspects of these issues (with logic, evidence, and all), I readily acknowledge that it has yet to complete the picture and, in the process, scientists test various ideas by arguing with each other. I suppose I am “more impressed” with this scientific pursuit because I think it at least offers a path to knowledge and progress is being made. You may be less impressed because your faith has you believing the answer is already in hand and thus the scientists are wasting their time barking up the wrong tree.
BTW, at the risk of lengthening this already long comment, I want to let you know that I appreciate your thoughtful dialogue (and that of others here) and the benefit I have received both from your comments and the research you have sometimes put me to.
@Doug: Forgive me for the earlier pressure, which I will not continue….but telling me to read an article on Wikipedia is hardly an adequate defense of your positions. I’ve read this stuff for years and years – taught it to college students, in fact. The writers on Wikipedia all have a distinct point of view, and they have a tendency to present material that supports it, while ignoring the rest. My argument has never been that my own view is proved in any sense whatever….but you seem to have an insupportably exalted view of the level to which your view has been established. Were you to have a good handle on what you believe, I would expect you to provide us with a coherent defense of some kind, rather than simply refer us to the literature – and hopefully something other than Wikipedia. I can only imagine what the effect on the court would be if you argued for your client using this method.
The only part of your latest comment that I want to address in any detail is that of my first amendment rights, which you (without any equivocation) said guaranteed that I could practice my religion in public without hindrance from the government. To be precise
“…each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views – publicly as well as privately…And…The Amendment constrains only the government….”
I do remember predicting that you would not uphold this promise in any situation where my religious views and yours came into conflict, and you did not disappoint. The Constitution does not provide ANY “positive rights”, Doug…..no one has a “Constitutional right” to medical care of any kind whatever. The Constitution “constrains only the government” just as you said. It is the *government* that is obligated to do things – specifically to protect the rights that we citizens came in with – those rights that were given us “by nature and by nature’s God” – which are a distinctly limited list, not including medical care.
Any “positive right” given me must (logically) obligate someone else to provide it, whether they choose to or not – this is antithetical to the Constitution and to the beliefs of those who wrote it. You may be drowning near the dock, but Joe Blow has no legal obligation to jump in and save you, even if he can swim. If Joe is a Christian, he has a moral obligation to make the attempt, while a strict Darwinist would only go after you if you shared some of his genes and were young enough to be likely to pass them along. But none of this is enforceable by any law envisioned by the writers of the Constitution. Anyone who claims positive rights for American citizens does not believe in the Constitution as written, but only in the “living Constitution” as it has “grown and matured” or whatever the current formulation is. I don’t think that anyone else commenting on BW’s post believes that we need a living Constitution, and I’d bet that most of them would, with me, see your commitment to such a thing as an infallible marker for your having replaced traditional religion with one of your own making – call it liberalism, or secularism, or what you will.
I realize that among lawyers, secular professors, intellectuals, and others I will appear hopelessly simple, but if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck….then in my world, it’s a duck.
I’d like to second Earl’s points. The Constitution is a document that enumerates – specifically lists – the powers of the branches of the United States national government, along with those checks and balances among those powers that the framers found wise.
Then they topped this specific listing, this enumeration, with the Tenth Amendment. Here’s the text:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There I go again, I know, about that pesky 10th Amendment. But it was included in The Bill Of Rights, as one of the necessary ten, for a reason…
When it comes to the Constitution as a “living, breathing document”, especially in this area that is called “positive rights”, well I have to ask a question. If you read the entire Constitution, it clearly is the document that spells out, in detail, what the national government is *allowed* to do. So I ask: If you believe in “positive rights”, please provide any such listing of positive rights that the Constitution allows the national government to enforce.
Keeping in mind that pesky Tenth Amendment, that is…
Earl and Mike,
As this is a post about separation of church and state, I initially commented on that subject. Later, I chided BrianE for a comment I thought unnecessarily insulting to atheists, which prompted curious Charles to ask, as an aside, about atheists’ basis for a moral code. Wanting to respond but not divert discussion from separation of church and state to atheism or the nature and source of human morality, I offered my quick take and left it at that and then, in response to “pressure” from you and others for more on the point, cited some Wikipedia articles generally discussing the subject and left it at that. I neither intended nor endeavored to stake out a position and defend it, but aimed merely to briefly respond to inquiries and no more. And having acknowledged that science has yet to provide a good, complete explanation of human morality and having confessed uncertainty I’m in a position to offer much insight on the subject, I’m surprised to hear I come across as having “an insupportably exalted view of the level to which [my] view has been established.” I get the impression perhaps you’re reliving past debates with others, rather than responding specifically to what I’ve said.
On the First Amendment point, I have not contradicted my earlier statements, nor have I said anything about Constitutional rights to medical care (there you go, putting words in my mouth again). You are aware, I trust, that few rights are absolute, and that goes for the right to freely exercise one’s religion. See, e.g., http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf To the extent you supposed my intent was to reduce First Amendment jurisprudence to a single line deemed to be comprehensive and absolute, rest assured such silliness never crossed my mind.
We were speaking of legislation protecting doctors and pharmacists who refuse to provide professional services for religious or moral reasons from legal consequences they may otherwise suffer, e.g., termination, demotion, or civil liability. I noted that the courts recognize that government can pass laws generally applicable to everyone or broad classes of people and apply them to individuals who object on religious grounds; the government may, as well, soften the impact of such laws with conscientious objector provisions. Nothing about this legislation or our discussion of it is predicated on any notion of “positive rights” (Constitutional or otherwise) to medical care or a living Constitution. Note too that there is no positive right to practice medicine or pharmacy; the government may license and regulate these professions; an individual failing to uphold the prescribed standards of professional responsibility may lose the license to practice that profession. So, recognizing that the government has discretion in this arena (i.e., it can enforce the generally applicable laws regarding the practice of medicine and pharmacy notwithstanding an individual’s religious or moral objections or it can provide an out in the form of a conscientious objector provision), I offered some ideas on how the respective interests and rights of doctors, pharmacists, and patients might be balanced in such a provision–all in keeping with the First Amendment.
I gather you disagree with what I have said at least in some respect (though, upon seeing the foregoing clarification, perhaps you’ll find that’s not the case), but remain uncertain how or why, since, setting aside irrelevant discussion of positive rights, living Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment, no explanation is offered.
Get a little more understanding of philosophy, Doug. It’ll help you out when given multiple topics from multiple users because then you can par it down to some fundamental premise, assumption, doctrine, system, belief, or etc and debate that instead of every little bit of detail that comes afterwards.
<B> I gather you disagree with what I have said at least in some respect</b>
Whether they agree or not is for them to decide, of course. What I will note is that while you seem to observing some of these topics as derailments, it is seen by others here as a principle they will not budge on. Thus their testimony of their own beliefs is a test. If you agree with their principles, then common ground can be met. If you don’t agree with those principles, some friction will be the logical result. If you have a principle in opposition to their principle, like the belief that the US Constitution must be remade with social justice and centralized planning, then obviously that tells people a lot even if nothing is said about human rights or political plans.
From your perspective, it may not compute why these things matter. But they do, as evidenced by the priority given to it by others.
Ymarsakar,
Getting a little more understanding of philosophy is always a good idea. Sage advice. While I devote some attention to just that (an occasional book, tape, etc.) and claim a tad more familiarity with the subject than the average bear, philosophy is hardly my long suit–all the more reason to enjoy that next book.
As for discerning underlying premises and recognizing irrelevant points, that too is important–and more within my realm of experience and expertise. While you are right to note that when someone treats a point as important and defends it vigorously, that may be a test and an opportunity to find common ground, I must add that it may also be that the point logically is irrelevant or tangential to the matter at hand and, thus, perhaps the shortest path to common ground is to highlight that and explain why. Not chasing every red herring is one good way to stay on the path.
@Doug: Well, it seems we’re back to definitions — amazing how important they become.
You wrote (85):
“…rights of patients to receive medical services.”
I took “rights” here to mean roughly the same thing as the same word we were using as we discussed the First Amendment right to practice religion. What signal did you give us that you did not consider the “rights of patients to receive medical services” as roughly the same thing as the right of a doctor to practice her religion in public by refusing to kill an unborn child when asked to do so by a healthy pregnant woman? And if you now claim that you did not mean to equate these two rights, then why the attempt to weigh them against one another? If the two rights don’t have the same weight, then the doctor wins. If they do have the same weight, then you indeed believe in positive rights being granted by the Constitution. Let us know your actual position, please.
Words mean things; so do phrases, as I would expect every lawyer to be aware. You can say that you did not intend to “…reduce First Amendment jurisprudence to a single line deemed to be comprehensive and absolute….” but what were we expected to understand by your refutation of our suggestion that the “secular” government was competing with traditional religions by violating the Amendment? Again, you wrote in defense of secular government:
“…each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views – publicly as well as privately…And…The Amendment constrains only the government….”
Either the Amendment leaves each individual “free to exercise and express his or her religious views – publicly as well as privately….” or it doesn’t. You can’t say that it “…constrains only the government….” at one point and then come back and say “Well…..in this instance and that instance individuals aren’t really free to practice their religion as it teaches, because the Amendment really DOESN’T constrain the government when the government chooses not to be constrained. And in the case of killing innocent unborn children of healthy women, the government has decided not to be constrained by the Amendment and will not protect the right of Catholic (and other) physicians whose religion requires them to opt out.” (Please don’t say that I am “putting words in your mouth” – I realize you didn’t write or say those words, but they are clearly consistent with what you *did* write.) What more blatant violation of one’s God-given, and Constitutionally protected, right to practice her religion can there be?
I’m going to let it drop at this point, Doug….I don’t care to argue with someone who doesn’t define terms consistently and who makes sweeping statements that are later repudiated with language that implies I was foolish to take them seriously in the first place. But, it appears to my (admittedly biased) eyes that you (and plenty of others) are indeed practicing a form of secularist religion – in full-fledged competition with the traditional kinds. Admitting this would make it impossible to continue using the government to impose your morality on the rest of us, and I suspect you are hiding all this from yourselves – but it certainly seems clear to more than one of us on this thread.
God bless.
Doug #88,
You’re right, I haven’t been paying close attention to the debate between you and Earl. However, the question of whether a person is to be required to provide services they do not wish to provide is hardly irrelevant, and this does fall under the category of demanding positive rights.
If I am a doctor who refuses to provide abortion services, and I am allowed because there are two other doctors who *do* – but they then close shop and move – it hardly seems ethical that because of their decision to leave, I must suddenly now be forced to provide that service. You could equally argue – on the same grounds – that *they* should not have been allowed to leave. I do think that would be insane and you likely would too, but in your case you would because you consider these aspects of the issue “settled”, where I see none of it as settled. I could agree that there appears to be a consensus, but that’s only a current agreement of thought, which could change.
You also find discussions of the Tenth Amendment irrelevant, again perhaps because there is a current consensus that the amendment itself is irrelevant. I simply do not agree. I’m in the minority, but hopeful that someday those who think as I do will emerge as a majority and a new consensus, resulting in a national government drastically limited (compared to now) in its power, including the power of regulation over the affairs you were discussing in #88. Much of that, I believe, is power that Constitutionally resides with the States. They’ve given it over to the national government, and Supreme Court Justices have tended to agree, but this too can easily change, supposing newly aggressive state governments, a long-term shift in national mood, and the subsequent approval of Supreme Court Justices amenable to States’ sovereignty.
I suppose all this could be “irrelevant” to you because your interests don’t lie in discussing the issues from these perspectives. That’s fine.
>>Note too that there is no positive right to practice medicine or pharmacy; >>
Who may regulate the practitioners? State or Federal?
>>the government may license and regulate these professions;>>
Which government? State or Federal?
>>an individual failing to uphold the prescribed standards of professional responsibility may lose the license to practice that profession.>>
However, this isn’t because the government (State only, I believe) has the _right_ to license, it’s because the State government has the _duty_ to protect the citizens from those who might be unqualified to treat them, but present themselves as qualified.
Who establishes the “standards of professional responsibility”? The state? I don’t think so.
By the way, I think that it’s the professional medical organizations (AMA, I think) that recommends limits on the number of MD degrees that can be graduated each year. They estimate the “required” number based on population counts, and the schools then enforce those limitations. (Would that we had such limits on graduating lawyers!!) Isn’t that basically a restraint of trade? What organization wouldn’t want to limit the licenses given by the State, in order to limit the number of those who may provide services in order to be able to increase their income?? Are you aware that there are many professional organizations that use their numbers to lobby to require licensing? You know…like professional “braiders” of hair. Does the State have the right to determine how many individuals will practice a trade?
Earl,
I spoke of balancing both the “interests and rights” of doctors and patients. Each has various interests and rights depending on the circumstances. A patient, for instance, generally has an interest in getting needed or desired medical services in all or nearly all pertinent circumstances. Under existing law, a patient may, as well, have a right to such services in some circumstances, e.g., when a doctor-patient relationship already exists, the patient has a right to continued service. Also, to the extent a doctor or pharmacist has a professional obligation to provide service in a given circumstance, the patient may be said (at least in a common conversational sense) to have a correlative right to that service. In speaking of patients’ rights in this way, I did not posit some universal right to medical care heretofore unknown in law. Nor did I suggest holding any such new right up to see whether it outweighed a doctor’s right to freely exercise his religion. That, I gather, is your conception of how this subject should be approached. You ask to know my “actual position.” See comment #88 for clarification.
With respect to the right to freely exercise one’s religion, you continue to suppose any such right to be absolute and, accordingly, assert either the First Amendment protects it or it doesn’t. It just is not that simple. That is a false dichotomy. Rights rarely are absolute; they commonly are subject to limitations and exceptions. The freedom to exercise one’s religion fits this norm; it necessarily is subject to various limitations, if for no other reason than because (as I explained earlier) the government could hardly operate if people had total freedom to opt out of laws for religious reasons.
Much the same, I should add, goes for the wall of separation of church and state. Notwithstanding sometimes lofty rhetoric, courts and commentators recognize various limitations and exceptions. Again, I commend the Wake Forest paper to you. You may find that the wall is lower and leakier than you realized and thus perhaps more to your liking.
Mike,
You are right to note that the hypothetical you pose presents a quandary–which my earlier proposal would not adequately address. I have neither the interest nor the expertise to develop a more comprehensive suggestion that would account for all circumstances. My basic thought, though, was to aim for a solution that would allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse services on religious grounds while at the same time assuring that patients are not thereby effectively prevented from obtaining the services they need and desire. My concern is that some here seem focused solely on the former without regard for the latter or, worse, actually prefer that patients be prevented from obtaining such services. That is unacceptable. As a society, if we are to train and license professionals to provide these services, we should assure that we train and license people who can actually do the job. Sure, we can arrange things to allow some to opt out for religious reasons, as long as the job still gets done. But if the opt out rules result in patients being unable to get such services, then we should reconsider who we license to do this work in the first place.
Regarding the Tenth Amendment, I understand that some find new interest in it. While as familiar with it as any lawyer, I have not made a study of it. Note, though, what it says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The meaning and effect of the amendment necessarily depends on how one defines the scope of the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Once a court determines that something either is or is not within the delegated powers, that’s pretty much the ball game. What the amendment says simply appears to follow as a logical corollary, without adding anything that would materially affect the result.
suek,
States, rather than the federal government, generally license and regulate the professions, though sometimes they delegate that responsibility to professional organizations (and, in a sense, allow the affected professionals to police themselves). The federal government could, I suppose, operate in this arena as well, as long as it did so consistent with the commerce power or some other power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Indeed, the federal statute allowing doctors and pharmacists to refuse to provide services for religious reasons is one such law.
I haven’t heard of the AMA or other such organizations establishing limits on the numbers of professionals. Sounds anticompetitive.
<B>My concern is that some here seem focused solely on the former without regard for the latter or, worse, actually prefer that patients be prevented from obtaining such services.</b>
The method by which patients can obtain materials is conducted through commercial and economic stability. Adjudicating it by government feat interplays socialized medicine into the equation, which is the direct opposite of individual liberty.
Ymarsakar,
Interesting, but again a tad cryptic. If I understand your meaning, you basically equate law (or some law anyway) with adjudication by government fiat and think that somehow constitutes or relates to socialized medicine and see that as somehow the opposite of individual liberty.
I’m not sure what to make of that, particularly with respect to the laws being discussed. Currently, medical services are provided under laws (economic rules of the road, e.g., laws regarding contracts, torts, public health and safety, and professional standards and responsibilities) primarily of the states and, to a lesser extent, of the federal government. The federal law under discussion overlays and trumps these laws of the fifty states and allows doctors and pharmacists to refuse to provide services for religious reasons without suffering the legal consequences they otherwise would face under state laws.
Are one or more of these laws the adjudication by government fiat, socialized medicine, and opposite of liberty of which you speak?
<B>If I understand your meaning, you basically equate law (or some law anyway) with adjudication by government fiat</b>
What I think on this matter is immaterial. How others react to your statements is material, however. All I’m giving you is another option to consider given the reactions of people here.
If you wish to discuss health care options and whether it is adjudication by government feat or a legitimate law by the will of the people, you can have that debate on health care if you wish to know people’s opinions on the matter.
Tell me _this_ doesn’t qualify as a religion…!
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2010/02/under-seige-the-deliberate-dumbing-down-of-america.html
Doug, in #95 you say,
> My concern is that some here seem focused solely on the former without regard for the latter or, worse, actually prefer that patients be prevented from obtaining such services. That is unacceptable. As a society, if we are to train and license professionals to provide these services, we should assure that we train and license people who can actually do the job. Sure, we can arrange things to allow some to opt out for religious reasons, as long as the job still gets done. But if the opt out rules result in patients being unable to get such services, then we should reconsider who we license to do this work in the first place.
I think the differences between our viewpoints is clear now. You say that patients would “be prevented from obtaining such services. That is unacceptable.”
I say, no one is preventing them from anything. It may not be *convenient* when I, as a physician, have published the services I provide, and the service *you* are demanding is not on my list. It is MY LIST, not yours. And you, as a patient, are free to go elsewhere.
There are reasons beyond religious why I would choose not to offer a particular service. I may consider it high risk. I may consider the established, so called “settled” literature on it to be incorrect, and in fact, the entire procedure dangerous and flawed. For example, I might consider vaccinations to actually cause autism, and I refuse to provide those that I suspect, because I take the proclamation “Do no harm” with utmost seriousness. I may find some procedures to be fraught with lawsuit abuse, and wish to protect myself from that.
If I were that doctor, I would DEMAND, EXPECT, and EXERCISE the freedom to provide only those services I consider worthy of my profession. Patients are free to go elsewhere, and if it costs them a 100-mile trip, that is not my problem. In your world of “positive rights”, it becomes my problem. Due to some bizarrely crafted legislation that says if I am the sole doctor in a region defined by the polyhedron of extent 4.23456 miles on the east, etc, etc, etc, etc. An insane, unworthy system of legalistic maneuvering to provide for a social agenda that cannot easily be provided for – thus creating absolutely insane laws attempting to craft such “fairness”.
We simply disagree.
As a side note… it is interesting to me that teachers are completely free to choose which schools they wish to teach in; bricklayers free to choose which houses or businesses or structures they’ll build; artists which troupes they shall join; software programmers (my chosen field) which projects they’ll join.
But doctors would have no such freedom over where they’ll open their practice, should the purveyors of nationalized health care have their way.
In almost every case where the professional has freedom over where to practice, there is regulatory pressure, true, but it usually of minimal competence, and there is a wide variety of choice over *how* such a professional is allowed to conduct their activities.
Only in the case of doctors do I see attempts to spell out what they must and must not do. The details of the regulatory pressure keep increasing and increasing, all in the name of “fairness” to the patient, to the incredible demands that activist advocates place on what doctors must be forced to do. Since when did doctors become the slaves to be shackled to the chains of what other people intend to force them to do? And they do this via government regulation; where the penalties for violation make it clear that this is a gun to their heads. A gun with a smiley face, but a gun to the head nevertheless. And it is always the national government with the gun; for these advocates would not even leave you the choice of moving to a different city, or a different state, to practice medicine the way you see fit. No, they wish to enslave you across the entire country, and indeed the world, if only they could achieve such U.N-based regulatory mandates. No escape, anywhere, if you wish to remain in your profession.
By what right? Only by the right of the patients’ demands taking precedence over the choices of the doctor in his or her profession. ”I need this” – and therefore YOU must provide it. To some people, that makes perfect sense – but not when applied to their own profession… only when applied to doctors.
It is what of necessity happens when something becomes viewed as a “positive right”, rather than simply a term of contract, an agreement upon services. It is the fatal flaw of all such government schemes that are not based upon individual freedom, liberty and dignity.
Mike,
I think we may disagree but less than you think. You are positing hypothetical situations unrelated to the issue at hand. I understand and agree that doctors generally may exercise their career choices and professional opinions in the manner you suggest.
This law does not concern that. This law pertains to a situation where a doctor or pharmacist who otherwise under existing law has an obligation to provide a service nonetheless refuses to do so for religious (not professional) reasons. If such refusals are isolated and infrequent, the effect on patients is likely inconvenient but not such that they would be deprived of the service altogether. The danger, though, is that so many doctors and pharmacists may choose of their own volition, or bow to community pressure, to refuse certain services that their collective actions effectively deprive patients of services that they need and that may otherwise be their due under existing law. I am all for individual doctors and pharmacists having such freedoms, but not if the result is to so degrade the delivery of medical and pharmacy services that patients go wanting. Remember, we’re talking only about those situations where, under existing law, a patient has a right to a service or a professional has an obligation to provide a service and the professional refuses to do so for religious reasons. This is more of an issue, I think, for pharmacists than doctors, since doctors generally have no obligation to provide services to those who are not their patients (the situation may be somewhat different for doctors who are employees of HMOs). Pharmacists, though, commonly work for companies that hire them to practice pharmacy by filling prescriptions presented to them by members of the public. A pharmacist who refuses to do so for other than professional reasons may thereby fall short of performing his employment and professional obligations. This new law gets him or her off the hook–and, if invoked by enough pharmacists, may result in patients not getting the medications their doctors have prescribed for them. I’m simply urging an effort to find a balanced solution that frees doctors and pharmacists of adverse legal consequences of refusing services without thereby throwing patients under the bus.
I suppose we could play out the experiment of allowing professionals unfettered freedom to refuse their services to those in need and just see how it turns out. If no problems arise, then there’s no real problem. If the result, though, is that many cannot get the services they need because so many of those licensed to practice the profession refuse to provide the services, society may then find it necessary and reasonable to reform the profession, perhaps by establishing licensing standards to assure that those licensed to practice the profession actually are willing and able to serve society’s needs. Just as we don’t fill the ranks of our armed services with pacifists unable or unwilling as a matter of conscience to do the work of the military, perhaps we should refrain from licensing professionals unable or unwilling as a matter of conscience to do the work of their profession. We license professionals, after all, not merely to serve their career goals, but rather to foster a real profession that effectively serves the medical and pharmacy needs of people.
With respect to your side note, I think much of the difference you note has to do with the distinction between a profession (in the traditional sense) and a vocation. As a lawyer, I am quite accustomed to subordinating my interests to those of my clients in various respects. That’s just an integral aspect of being a professional. For instance, my partners and I recently engaged in about two months of intense pretrial preparation (several hundreds of hours) for a client who has not and is not paying the bill (though, we can only hope, will do so sometime in the future–maybe). Lawyers generally have no obligation to work for clients who do not pay their bills; nonetheless, lawyers cannot withdraw from representing clients, even if they fail to pay, if the circumstances are such that doing so would substantially prejudice the clients (as withdrawing from a complex case shortly before trial would). So . . . we suck it up and act professionally–because integral to the profession is putting the client first. A profession is not just a job. Understanding what it means to be a professional, I have no qualms about expecting as much from doctors and pharmacists.
“I suppose we could play out the experiment of allowing professionals unfettered freedom to refuse their services to those in need and just see how it turns out. If no problems arise, then there’s no real problem.”
“Allowing,” “unfettered” (I wasn’t aware that freedom takes an adjective), “refuse services to those in need”—whoa, a whole lot of unsupported assumptions there. Love the tautology, “If no problems arise then there’s no real problem.”
“If the result, though, is that many cannot get the services they need because so many of those licensed to practice the profession refuse to provide the services, society may then find it necessary and reasonable to reform the profession, perhaps by establishing licensing standards to assure that those licensed to practice the profession actually are willing and able to serve society’s needs.”
Who determines “need” in the phrase “services they need?” If “so many of those licensed. . .refuse to provide the services,” is there perhaps something wrong with the services being demanded that they generate such resistance?
The real puzzler here is the phrase “society’s needs?” So, society is a monolith, and there can only be one of it that has needs?
How does one “assure” that those licensed to practice a profession are willing and able to serve “society’s needs” when it is apparent from the argument that those needs are arbitrarily determined and, thus, subject to change at will? How do professionals keep up with such changing standards of “need?” Just acquiesce every time their moral superiors (i.e., government backed up by guns and courts) hand down the latest pronouncement?
Charles,
Are you being coy? Surely you know that many, indeed nearly all, freedoms and rights are subject to some limitations and are thus at least in some measure “fettered”?
As for the need for medical and pharmacy services, we can be thankful that in our free land that need generally is determined by each individual in consultation with his or her doctor. Did you have something else in mind?
You find the phrase “society’s needs” puzzling? Seriously? Try picturing a society, say, like ours. Now imagine that people in that society need some medical services, like they actually do. Imagine too that the society, through its various institutions (governments of various levels, laws, press, professional and citizen organizations, etc.) signals its recognition of this need and its desire and intent to meet that need. There you go: “society’s needs.” Nothing weird or nefarious. I’m just referring to the fact that people need medical services, and we (as a people, society, etc., pick your term) recognize that. If you have a better phrase for that, feel free to substitute it.
We already have professional standards and codes of ethics to assure that professionals serve society’s needs (as determined by the pertinent licensing authority, commonly the state). These standards and codes are routinely updated from time to time for any number of reasons, including to address perceived problems as they arise. My (hardly puzzling) point was that if this new law results in the problem of many people finding it difficult or impossible to obtain medical and pharmacy services because many in the profession refuse to provide those services, that problem could be addressed by updating the pertinent standards and codes to assure that those licensed in the future are willing and able to provide the services.
Your suggestion that there perhaps is “something wrong” with services that many professionals refuse to provide for religious reasons highlights my concern about this law–that it is more about preventing people from obtaining services some deem “wrong” than it is about accommodating the religious sensitivities of doctors and pharmacists.
“As for the need for medical and pharmacy services, we can be thankful that in our free land that need generally is determined by each individual in consultation with his or her doctor. Did you have something else in mind?”
I see. The need is determined by individuals yet somehow becomes a general need. “I need to have an abortifacient” becomes “You must, as a licensed professional, provide an abortifacient to me.” Not to mention that your equation has it that the doctor has some say in this—oh, that is, until the doctor doesn’t.
“You find the phrase “society’s needs” puzzling? Seriously? Try picturing a society, say, like ours. Now imagine that people in that society need some medical services, like they actually do. Imagine too that the society, through its various institutions (governments of various levels, laws, press, professional and citizen organizations, etc.) signals its recognition of this need and its desire and intent to meet that need. There you go: “society’s needs.” Nothing weird or nefarious. I’m just referring to the fact that people need medical services, and we (as a people, society, etc., pick your term) recognize that. If you have a better phrase for that, feel free to substitute it.”
So, society—which you have yet to define—has institutions, which you assert represent it. I was not aware that the press is an institution that represents me in any way, or that laws I had no hand in making (Roe v. Wade) are “signals” of need. I also was not aware that the term “medical services” is self-explanatory. How does one “need,” for example, a partial-birth abortion of a fully formed nine-month-old fetus to the extent that a professional might conceivably be forced to provide it under pain of losing his license to practice medicine?
“We already have professional standards and codes of ethics to assure that professionals serve society’s needs (as determined by the pertinent licensing authority, commonly the state). These standards and codes are routinely updated from time to time for any number of reasons, including to address perceived problems as they arise. My (hardly puzzling) point was that if this new law results in the problem of many people finding it difficult or impossible to obtain medical and pharmacy services because many in the profession refuse to provide those services, that problem could be addressed by updating the pertinent standards and codes to assure that those licensed in the future are willing and able to provide the services.”
Wow. The state (“commonly the state”) determines “society’s” (still not defined) needs. No road to serfdom there!
And the codes are revised to address “perceived problems as they arise”! How does the state determine that its perception is wise or correct?
Your “hardly puzzling” point entirely misses the point. You are asserting that because people start demanding a service that is repugnant to the people who are supposed to provide the service that the fault lies with their reluctance and not at all with the demand. How does the state—which you seem to have great confidence in—determine that the demands of the people supercede the expertise or the ethics of the providers? Your solution, namely to “update pertinent standards,” simply means bulldozing resistance to make sure that people licensed by the all-powerful state acquiesce to its demands.
“Your suggestion that there perhaps is “something wrong” with services that many professionals refuse to provide for religious reasons highlights my concern about this law–that it is more about preventing people from obtaining services some deem “wrong” than it is about accommodating the religious sensitivities of doctors and pharmacists.”
Thank you for proving the point that others here have been trying to make. You may festoon words like wrong all you want with quotation marks, as though there is no such thing as wrong. Apparently you believe that consumer demand, coupled with the coercive powers of the state, are “right” but moral objections to certain “services” cannot and will not be countenanced as “wrong.”
How does the state determine the “wrongness” of religious objections to certain “services?”
Since we are not making law, but forming judgment based upon philosophical principles and personal beliefs, taking the topic of the law as the basis for our decisions is unnecessarily complex.
“I suppose we could play out the experiment of allowing professionals unfettered freedom to refuse their services to those in need and just see how it turns out.”
There is no need for supposition. The United States was geared to allow each region to experiment with their own social and philosophical beliefs concerning how life should be lived. Or at least, that was the theory. Under the system of federalism as it was intended, states could go socialist or not depending upon the will of their citizens. Because the US does not bar travel nor trade within itself as if the states were different countries, the barriers to moving is far less and thus the decision to move wherever suits your personal views can be considered more free than not free.
Centralization, federal control, and the law’s viewpoint is that they must prevent people from doing whatever they wish. That is the natural baggage of centralization that cannot be avoided. Distributing authority and representation to the grassroots, however, down to the single individual, or to the strategic corporal in Iraq, is a different method of governing.
Because humans are the way they are, centralization makes sense for things like wars, common defense, or international policy. It makes little sense for domestic policies, however, for a region as diverse and as geographically all encompassing as the United States.
” This law does not concern that.”
Laws are made by humans. One cannot take into consideration law without also taking into consideration human nature and its ultimate fallibility. If you had taken even a minimal background on philosophy, you would not be unfamiliar with the philosophical debates that went into crafting sovereignty, democracy, and representative republics. They have already covered much that needed to be covered. Rehashing old points is one thing. Utilizing such reconstituted material as the basis for law is another.
Whether the law concerns this or that is immaterial. Just as human motivations are immaterial to the actual consequences. Good intentions do not always produce good results and bad intentions don’t always produce bad results. This is due to free will and a certain ambiguity to fate. Motivations can be used as a foundation for our beliefs or as a side attachment. But it does not replace good judgment by itself. Neither would the law do so in its place.
“Understanding what it means to be a professional, I have no qualms about expecting as much from doctors and pharmacists.”
Don’t forget that the whole point of that is to balance the scales of power in the eyes of the court in order to accomplish justice. Even if you are professional, it matters not if accomplishes nothing in the pursuit of justice, as the adversarial system was designed to do. You could say doctors need to be professional, but that has little to do with the actual consequences of reality. Professionalism is an adaptation to the needs of people and of systems. It is not a static phenomenon where it can always be relied upon to produce the things it was meant to produce. Human will, again, interferes in the Ideal Perfect Utopia. Professionalism is thus insufficient as a guiding principle for legislation or judgment.
Good link suek, thx.
Charles,
Hmm. You seem to reduce doctors from professionals to mere service sector workers concerned not with patients but rather their own interests.
I am more familiar with the legal profession, so when speaking of professionalism I use that model. Our society has decided (by adopting a Constitution and passing laws) that every person accused of a crime is entitled to representation by a lawyer. Lawyers’ professional codes of ethics call on them to provide such services. Each lawyer has an obligation to accept his or her share of pro bono clients (who cannot pay) as well as unpopular ones. If volunteerism doesn’t suffice to handle the need in a given area, courts can and have “appointed” lawyers to represent such clients. Recall Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird. Assuring that everyone has adequate legal counsel is the first priority; the interests and desires of lawyers naturally can be accommodated in such a professional system, but only as long as clients get adequate representation.
Similarly, with respect to the medical and pharmacy professions, I endorse accommodating the different interests and desires of individual members of those professions–as long as the professions also take steps to assure that the medical and pharmacy needs of their “clients” are met. We should not pervert these professions by transforming them into a backdoor way to choke off medical and pharmacy services some don’t like.
But, I note we have strayed rather far from the separation of church and state. My main point has been that, under current law, the government cannot enact and enforce laws aimed at a interfering with a particular religion, but it can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or large classes of people and enforce those laws against even those who object on religious grounds. (Were it otherwise, the government could hardly operate.) While the government has this power, it may (and sometimes does) choose to relieve individuals of this bind by including conscientious objector provisions or the like in the law.
I gather that there is general agreement or at least recognition here that that is the framework within which we operate and the focus of interest is on the policy question of whether and under what circumstances or conditions the government should allow medical and pharmacy professionals to opt out of providing certain services and avoid the legal consequences they may otherwise suffer under existing laws regarding employment, professional standing, civil liability, etc. I favor accommodating doctors and pharmacists to the extent possible while still assuring patients’ needs are met. Others here, I gather, favor giving doctors and pharmacists immunity from legal consequences they otherwise may suffer for refusing to provide services–period, regardless of consequences to patients. That’s a policy disagreement, and I’m content to leave it at that.
Note to self:
Never argue with an atheist.
Never argue with a lawyer.
You’ll end up at the same point. Nothing is absolute. Everything is relative.
What I am seeing in Doug’s line of reasoning is the slippery slope argument neatly tied with a bow. Once the needs of society trump individual rights, it’s only a matter of time before the rights of society are absolute and those of the individual rare.
“Rights rarely are absolute; they commonly are subject to limitations and exceptions. The freedom to exercise one’s religion fits this norm; it necessarily is subject to various limitations, if for no other reason than because (as I explained earlier) the government could hardly operate if people had total freedom to opt out of laws for religious reasons.” -Doug
Let me put this in non-lawyer speak. Let me know if I’ve missed something.
“Only the rights that I deem important arise to the status of absolute, and I’ll decide what limitations should be placed on those less important rights. While I’m a liberal sort of guy and want folks to be able to practice folklore when it’s not inconvenient, it would be really, really inconvenient for the government to operate under these restrictions, not to mention messy, so we need to limit rights to those that help the trains run on time.”
Since you think some rights are absolute (though rarely), why don’t we agree that the Bill of Rights rights should be an example of those rare absolute rights.
Doug #103,
I haven’t responded yet, because there is a great deal of argument there that I consider very well-thought out, and it is giving me pause. I’m definitely paying attention, but I’ll need time on this one. I will say I’m grateful you took the time to respond with such care.
BrianE,
Check the various rights in the Bill of Rights and you’ll commonly find limitations and exceptions. Freedom of speech, for instance, among our most revered and closely guarded rights, may be limited by reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions. You’ve heard, I suppose, the one about not having a right to endanger people by yelling “Fire!” in a dark, crowded theater. Similarly, freedom of the press is limited by the laws of libel and slander. Similarly, the right to peaceably assemble may be limited by reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions, e.g., traffic and safety laws, parade permits, and the like. Similarly . . . well, you get the idea.
“Similarly . . . well, you get the idea.”
We’ve had that idea because the people back then had the debate on this subject, which didn’t mean back room deals designed to enrich the robber barons.
Now a days if you think you can get such a thing going for federal legislation on patients and doctors, you’d be wrong. The process was sabotaged so it’s pointless to recall former successes when it is not going to be using former methods.
>>You’ve heard, I suppose, the one about not having a right to endanger people by yelling “Fire!” in a dark, crowded theater.>>
And you, I suppose, _do_ understand that the freedom of speech has nothing to do with endangering other people – a separate issue entirely – but rather one that permits us the freedom to speak about politics – and yes, even religion – without being restricted by the government. Your position would restrict that right.
suek,
I’m not sure what “my position” is that you think would restrict the right to free speech. I’m merely pointing out that the right is not absolute since it is subject to well recognized limitations. For instance, governments can impose reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions on speech. A local government thus may stop someone from yelling through a bullhorn at your home at midnight. Similarly, a city or state may enact a sign ordinance prescribing reasonable limitations on size, location, lighting, etc. Then there are the laws against obscenity (overly lax as you may consider them). All of these limit the freedom of someone to say whatever they want, wherever they want, however they want, etc.
I trust too that you are not suggesting that the right protects only speech on political and religious subjects; such a view would radically limit the scope of the right.
All of the conditions you mention are wheres and hows. None of them limit _what_ is said. The topic here is the discussion of religion as the topic of discussion. Not where, how, how loud or any other condition.
In other words, all of the “limiting factors” you describe are irrelevant to the freedom of speech issue.
Dou, on #103,
> This law pertains to a situation where a doctor or pharmacist who otherwise under existing law has an obligation to provide a service nonetheless refuses to do so for religious [...] reasons.
OK, I’m willing to limit the discussion to religious objections. The broader categories are hardly irrelevant, however; but the discussion does become too wide-ranging. So – limit it. But you also say,
> I understand and agree that doctors generally may exercise their career choices and professional opinions in the manner you suggest.
and then – but solely for refusals based on religious objection:
> If such refusals are isolated and infrequent, the effect on patients is likely inconvenient but not such that they would be deprived of the service altogether.
Therefore, for you, religious objections have a special burden that must be met. However, professional objections, fears of lawsuit abuse, and all other such “exercising of career choices and professional opinions” do not face such a special burden. That’s curious to me.
> I am all for individual doctors and pharmacists having such freedoms, but not if the result is to so degrade the delivery of medical and pharmacy services that patients go wanting. Remember, we’re talking only about those situations where, under existing law, a patient has a right to a service or a professional has an obligation to provide a service and the professional refuses to do so for religious reasons.
I believe that, based on the above excerpt and its surrounding defense that, in the end, your objection to the physician’s right to refuse to provide a service would extend to all situations, not just religious objections. Your argument is that, if a patient has a legal right to seek the service, the physician MUST extend it. Providing that no reasonable alternative exists, such as another conveniently located doctor who is willing to offer the service (and is not already too busy to schedule it). We’ll focus on religious objections, but the nature of your defense applies across the board.
> Pharmacists, though, commonly work for companies that hire them to practice pharmacy by filling prescriptions presented to them by members of the public.
Here we are going to restrict the argument further to pharmacists under employment. I believe we have agreement here – and most if not all of Book’s readers here would agree with you. By agreeing to work for the company, a pharmacist agrees to fill all prescriptions that the company honors. If they do not wish to, they must seek employment elsewhere. But what of the company? If the company refuses to honor, say, RU-486, it should be their right. And the burden on the patient – the patient with his or her need – that you cite as your main defense, still remains. So, what of company? I assume your argument (“… that they would be deprived of the service altogether”) means that the company MUST provide the service. So we’re back to exactly the same issue, but now it applies to the pharmacy company, not the physician.
> I’m simply urging an effort to find a balanced solution that frees doctors and pharmacists of adverse legal consequences of refusing services without thereby throwing patients under the bus.
That is definitely a reasonable goal. So we come to it: Can such a balanced, compromise solution be found?
> I suppose we could play out the experiment of allowing professionals unfettered freedom to refuse their services to those in need and just see how it turns out.
While there are word choices in your statement above that make it clear that you consider this solution to be worthy only of complete disdain, it is nevertheless an acceptable and legal choice. You might limit such a choice to the national government only. I – a 10th Amendment person who sees states as the laboratory of all such “experimentation” – would grant that any state that wishes to take such an approach do so. As you then indicated ( “If no problems arise, then there’s no real problem.“) it would prove its worth – though again I don’t think you believe it. Ingenuity, and the fact that market forces tend to find a way to provide solutions in unexpected ways, to satisfy a demand – might surprise you, however. Conservatives trust in market forces providing solutions; liberals do not. It’s one of the key differences between us.
But, let’s proceed, and assume that such an experiment fails such that all states, or the national government, abandons that as a solution. Then, what? Below I condense your argument, hopefully not leaving out anything of consequence:
> [...] many cannot get the services they need because so many of those licensed to practice the profession refuse to provide the services, society may then find it necessary and reasonable to reform the profession [so that they] actually are willing and able to serve society’s needs. [...] We license professionals, after all, not merely to serve their career goals, but rather to foster a real profession that effectively serves the medical and pharmacy needs of people.
and
> [...] because integral to the profession is putting the client first. A profession is not just a job. Understanding what it means to be a professional, I have no qualms about expecting as much from doctors and pharmacists.
Once you have accepted a client, I agree with you about professional responsibilities. Yet I know that not all lawyers accept every client that comes to their door. The analogy here is that you are presented with a case – or such an odious client – that you refuse the case, and in my view you are entirely correct. Regardless of whether there is another lawyer in town that would accept the case, or not. Yet you would not allow such a choice to a physician or a pharmacy company. But I agree – having accepted the case, professional obligation ought to require you to carry through. I’ll take you at your word that there are situations where in fact a lawyer cannot withdraw from the case – and by analogy accept that physicians and pharmacy companies likewise can face such situations where they cannot deny such continuing service that has already been agreed upon.
Would it matter if your refusal to accept a case were based on religious objection, rather than a professional evaluation of the case? Would you accept government regulation requiring you to accept the case? If so, then your analogy is complete, and we would again simply disagree. I would allow you to refuse the case for any reason, as I would allow the physician up front to exclude items from the services he or she offers, and the pharmacy company to refuse – again, up front – to provide certain services.
Repeating from your quote above,
> I have no qualms about expecting as much from doctors and pharmacists.
Physicians (doctors) are back in the argument again, so I’ll include them in a question: What is it, in the nature of pharmacy companies and doctors, that compel *them* to special burdens, but not other professionals or companies within our country? I think we are simply back to the same argument as before: You see health care as a “positive right”, so that it requires special burdens and demands be place-able on those who provide services by contract. Whereas I do not find it reasonable that we should allow the government to do that to us – to any of us. If it is reasonable to do that to my neighbor in his profession, then it will be reasonable to do it to me in my own profession. And I don’t find it reasonable.
You do use phrasing about “society” quite a lot in your arguments. (“society may then find it necessary and reasonable to reform the profession”). Charles Martel answered this quite well above, so I won’t go into it a great deal.
Via the vote, we elect legislators who pass laws, and regulatory pressure is one area that we grant government power over us. There is a question over which regulations are proper and necessary. This question – how much regulation and of what sort is proper – is one of the main contentious areas between liberals and conservatives. Our debate may simply wind down to that: If the voters approve legislators who would place such special burdens on doctors and pharmacy companies, then so be it. You’d be happy, I wouldn’t, but in the nature of representative government, we move on… until the next election cycle, that is.
But “society”, meaning, in the end, government power – is also composed of judicial decision. And if “positive rights”, such as the health care burden to be placed on doctors and pharmacy companies, hold sway over the judges, then by judicial fiat the question becomes Constitutional, and the issue becomes settled. (Perhaps only until elections again result in a different set of judges being appointed…) But again it comes down to our prior difference on “positive rights”. Where, once something becomes a positive right, a judge may rule on it, and the case is closed, one way or the other, for it is no longer merely a matter for legislation.
So, in summary, I don’t know that anything new has been added here, from my perspective. I don’t think a compromise goal can be justified, because I would not vote for legislators that would vote for such regulations, nor do I believe in positive rights. I would allow physicians and pharmacy companies to refuse to provide a service based on religious objections as for any other objection. It is simply a time-honored legal precedent that an individual or company offers services by contract, or does not. Allowing the government to violate that precedent, but only for some companies or individuals of some types – such as those providing health care – can’t be correct, to me.
You would possibly argue that the resulting pain and suffering of the client is such that they must be compelled. Do you see that such an argument has astoundingly broad implications? If you can do that in the area of health care, then you can do that in any area. I could stop paying my electric bill, and expect continued service, for in the winter (and here in Dallas in the summer) I would be in danger of freezing, and especially there could be harm and suffering for children. Philosophically, such claims that pain and suffering require special burdens be placed on those offering services would result in violations of precedence across so many areas.
It’s a noble goal, I grant you. But allowing the government to step in and impose special burdens across the board, can only be done via the affirmation of “positive rights” across the board. You can try to limit such “positive rights” to health care only, and that might in fact end up being the pragmatic result you seek. We – the collection of American citizens you call a society – vote in legislators that vote in such regulation, and elect judges that support it – and those in favor are happy, those not in favor are not, and on we go. Should “positive rights” extend beyond health care in the manner I fear, voter outrage forces reform via elections.
Doug,
It’s interesting that in relation of the “church and state” you view the separation as absolute, but in the matter of conscience to practice your religion (the free exercise thereof) you are willing to limit that right to convenience.
If a doctor believes abortion is murder, and arrives at that conclusion based on a religious belief, I’m not sure how you can compel a doctor to provide the service regardless of whether there are other doctors willing to perform the abortion.
It’s really simple. You are forcing the doctor to violate his belief. Once we cross that line (I suppose we’ve already crossed it) as our society becomes ever more greedy, seceding more authority to the central government, their is no limit to what the government can compel people to do.
I get the impression you view the Bill of Rights as a convenience.
>>I get the impression you view the Bill of Rights as a convenience.>>
I get the feeling he agrees with O about “negative Rights”, and thinks there should be a second “positive” Bill of Rights.
I still don’t understand, though, how he can defend government’s right to limit various freedoms, but deny the right of a local school board to determine what will be taught in its school. Or why it seems to be the right of the minority to limit the rights of the majority – and therefrom, state that if the membors of the majority don’t like the limitations on religious freedom in public schools, they can opt for private schools of their choice, but places no burden on the minority to opt for private schools of _their_ choice.
Other than that he’s a Statist, of course. And desires to control the education/indoctrination of all children through the offices of the State instead of leaving that job to the parents.
” I’m merely pointing out that the right is not absolute since it is subject to well recognized limitations. ”
You are not a Founding Father. Utilizing the authority of the Constitution, as it was written in the past, does not bolster your case now.
“I’m simply urging an effort to find a balanced solution that frees doctors and pharmacists of adverse legal consequences of refusing services without thereby throwing patients under the bus.”
There’s no way to preserve people’s self-interest by sacrificing one group to appease the other. That is neither alpha leadership nor is it particularly stable in the long run.
You can try to find a balanced solution, by the methods you advocate are inherently designed to exploit one class in favor of another. Not all goals can be achieved through any means. Some goals require a specific method or methods.
>>Utilizing the authority of the Constitution, as it was written in the past, does not bolster your case now.>>
Hmmm.
“Make them obey their own rules … all of them … to the letter.”
This has a familiar feel…
suek,
Of course, many limitations of rights are of the time, manner, and place variety. They are nonetheless limitations, and the rights thus are not “absolute” in that respect.
But you want to focus on a particular type of limitation on freedom of speech, i.e., limitations on the content of what someone can say. Okay. Such limitations are perhaps the most disfavored (with good reason) and thus rare sort the law recognizes. They do nonetheless exist. For instance, obscenity. Freedom of speech does not preclude government from prohibiting or punishing obscenity. (There are, of course, problems defining obscenity, but that’s another subject.) Similarly, freedom of speech does not preclude the government from prohibiting or punishing slander. One cannot defend against a charge of slander by invoking the freedom to say whatever one wants. Similarly, freedom of speech does not protect speech presenting a “clear and present danger,” e.g. falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater or giving a spy secret information on military matters. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
BrianE,
I have not said that said that separation of church and state is absolute. Indeed, I said just the opposite. See #94, last paragraph.
You suggest I am willing to limit the free exercise of religion to convenience (whatever that means), but I said nothing of the sort. You seem to suggest, as has Earl and suek and Ymarsakar, that this right or freedom is or should be absolute. My point is that it is not and cannot be so. I have mentioned the Wake Forest paper several times, not because it is the be all and end all of the subject, but because it offers a good, readily accessible summary of what the law is on this subject. A quick perusal would put to rest this “absolute” discussion.
Mike,
I think you see “positive rights” in this discussion where they just aren’t. You seem to have a different understanding of this new federal statute–and my suggested revision of it–than I do. I have said nothing about this positive rights idea you are eager to oppose. Neither this new federal statute nor my comments on it are predicated in the least on any such positive rights.
Here is my understanding of this law: Various existing laws (primarily state laws) either grant patients rights to certain services or obligate physicians or pharmacists to provide certain services in various circumstances. For instance, perhaps a doctor or pharmacist may be obligated by his or her employment contract to provide professional services to certain people. Or perhaps if a doctor or pharmacist already has a professional relationship with a patient, state law and/or professional codes of ethics limit his or her ability to discontinue or refuse professional services. I am hardly expert in these areas of law, so cannot recite all of the various circumstances in which EXISTING LAW obligates these professionals to provide services and imposes consequences (e.g., demotion, termination, loss of license, or civil liability) on them if they wrongfully refuse. Realize the circumstances in which existing law imposes such obligations may be relatively few and far between; I don’t really know. (I did not mean to somehow “limit” discussion to pharmacists or anything else in particular; I merely observed that they likely were most often in circumstances where existing law obligates them to provide pharmacy services to members of the public.) In any event, the risk apparently was sizeable enough that Congress saw fit to pass a statute to relieve doctors and pharmacists of such legal consequences if they refuse to provide services for religious reasons.
So, that is my starting point. I do not posit any new “positive rights.” I merely suggest that, as a matter of policy, this provision relieving doctors and pharmacists of the consequences of failing to fulfill obligations they have under existing law would be better if it included at least some measures aimed at assuring that those to whom the doctors and pharmacists owed the obligation (i.e., their patients) are not harmed as a result. This suggestion calls merely for adjusting or tempering the grant of immunity to doctors and pharmacists; it does not impose on them any obligation that they don’t already have under existing law (by that, I mean existing law before the recent grant of immunity).
You say that I would impose a “special burden” on refusals to provide services for religious reasons, a burden not placed on refusals for other reasons. Existing law, though, does not obligate a doctor or pharmacist to make a particular career choice, nor does it obligate a doctor or pharmacist to provide a particular service against his or her professional judgment. Nor do I propose any such obligations. (Indeed, in my view, when a doctor refuses to perform an operation or a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for professional reasons, he is not refusing professional service, but rather is providing it; perhaps the most important aspect of that service is the doctor or pharmacist exercising his professional judgment. It is an entirely different matter when a doctor refuses to perform an operation or a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for religious and not professional reasons; that is refusing to provide professional service.) Again, I simply accept as a given whatever obligations existing law imposes on doctors and pharmacists and suggest that they be relieved of the legal consequences of refusing to fulfill those obligations for religious reasons provided that at least some measures are taken to assure that their patients don’t suffer as a result. Relieving a professional of his existing obligations on the mere condition that something be done to protect those to whom he was obligated hardly seems too much to expect of any professional worthy of the name. Realize that if a doctor or pharmacist did not have any obligation under existing law to provide service, then under the immunity provision as well as my suggested revision of it, the doctor or pharmacist would remain unobligated and free to refuse the service for religious, or indeed any other, reasons. This is not about creating or extending rights beyond those currently existing. Rather, this is about whether and how to relieve professionals of whatever existing obligations they may have.
It appears we have come full circle on this–and then some–so perhaps we’ve about exhausted what we can get from this discussion. I appreciate your–and others’–thoughtful comments. I have enjoyed the conversation and have learned from it. Thanks.
“You seem to suggest, as has Earl and suek and Ymarsakar, that this right or freedom is or should be absolute.”
It is more accurate to say that what has been constituted in the US Constitution simply cannot be replaced on the say so of any law or opinion.
Not only are the laws you raised in contention over whether they are Constitutional, but whether people “understand” the law or not is completely apart from whether the law is just or not, constitutional or not. Those are issues you choose to ignore at the peril of serious debate.
“You say that I would impose a “special burden” on refusals to provide services for religious reasons, a burden not placed on refusals for other reasons.”
If we speak of the law, necessarily we speak of the law’s enforcement. I don’t believe you should take on the persona for the enforcer of the law when your powers as a lawyer are rather disparate.
Although it would help if you separated your own personal views from what you say is the view of the law in question. It’s not a particularly good idea to mix and match personal beliefs with that which you are representing without a clear dividing line.
>>One cannot defend against a charge of slander by invoking the freedom to say whatever one wants. Similarly, freedom of speech does not protect speech presenting a “clear and present danger,” e.g. falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater or giving a spy secret information on military matters.>>
You’re repeating yourself.
If you slander someone, you are not prosecuted by the State _for_ the State – you are sued by the person slandered. That is not a government limit on free speech.
If you yell Fire in an empty theater, no problem. Crowded theater, problem. But once again, the problem isn’t with the speech, it’s with the harm. If all of the crowd managed somehow to exit without any harm, it’s unlikely that any prosecution would occur – though they might ban you from the theater. If someone _is_ harmed, then no doubt that person would hie themselves to the nearest injury attorney and sue the socks off you. Again, probably not a criminal prosecution unless multiples of people are injured – in which case – yes. You would be criminally liable – not for a free speech violation but for an action that endangered others. Giving the enemy spy secrets is not a free speech violation – you don’t even have to verbalize the secrets – it’s an “aid and comfort to the enemy” issue. Not a free speech issue.
Doug, I do have one further comment…
> You seem to have a different understanding of this new federal statute–and my suggested revision of it–than I do.
I’d missed the fact that you were discussing a specific statute. I’m still unclear on the specific statute you’re referring to. I waded through all the discussions above – and what wide-ranging ones they all were! – and I did find a link to the “Carlson” paper in #85 that may be the statute you refer to.
That paper was interesting. This leapt out at me:
Pharmacists are in a unique position of power in these situations. If they refuse to refer the patient to another willing pharmacist, or worse, keep the prescription, the pharmacist has made it much more difficult for the woman to gain access to contraception. The refusal to give EC to the patient or refer her to a willing pharmacist may literally make it impossible for women in low-income areas and rural communities to get access to the drug.
I’ve never heard of a pharmacist “keeping a prescription”. That sounds like theft to me. In any health care program I’ve been under, I’ve been free to take my prescription to any pharmacy I choose. I thought that was the case for everyone. A pharmacist who “keeps” my prescription because he or she doesn’t like its contents is risking me coming over the counter to take it back, violently. And with a hell of a lot of shouted words and expletives directed at them. I’m probably just fantasizing on my violent reaction here, but the idea of a pharmacist daring to do that REALLY pisses me off no end.
I’m actually surprised that “conscience clauses” allow an individual pharmacist to refuse to honor a legal prescription. I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree that an Islamic taxi driver be allowed to refuse me taxi service because I am carrying a bottle of liquor in a bag; or such a cashier in a grocery store be allowed to refuse to ring up my wrapped-in-plastic pork product either. Perhaps as a side note, I’ve heard at least a few stories of military contractor programmers leaving their jobs because they no longer could justify, to themselves, working on software programs that advanced certain destructive weapons systems. That’s the proper response to me: If you’re confronted, as an employee, with something you conscientiously object to, but is legal, your choice is to leave or stay. That’s how I see it, anyway.