I mentioned E.J. Dionne's new book, Souled Out when I got my copy, but let me recommend the ongoing discussion of the book over at TPM Cafe. It's one of the most interesting "faith and politics" discussions I've seen. Read Alexia Kelley here and you'll see a side of the "religious left" that strikes me as a bit creepy and illiberal ("It is particularly tempting for people who are privileged to have a seat at important tables to forget that our task is nothing less than making God’s kingdom real") but also extraordinarily powerful in its vision. But you've also got your brass-tacks election analysis about the relevance of religion to people's voting patterns, and the need for any viable political coalition to engage with that aspect of people's lives.
« McCain: Friend or Foe of BS? | Main | Penn's Bad Spin »
Souled Out
15 Feb 2008 09:38 am
Comments (54)
MY finds the oddest things "creepy".
You don't find that creepy? To me it reads exactly the same as "establish sharia law in the US".
Maybe it conflicts with MY's plans to set up Overlord Zorg's galactic empire?
Or maybe it is just vaguely ridiculous to consider that, after admitting one's all-powerful God hasn't seen fit to set up his kingdom here, the logical conclusion is that he must want us to do it for him. You should realize that the odds are something like infinity-to-0 that you're just projecting your own busybody-hood rather than doing god's will.
You don't find that creepy? To me it reads exactly the same as "establish sharia law in the US".
Only if you're determined to be reductive with any religious utterance.
Reductionism is certainly creepy, I'll give you that.
I certainly think it's creepy to insist that those in power have a duty to reshape society based on mythology from several millenia ago.
What the hell is wrong with the idea that religion should be part of private life rather than being thrust into the public square at every opportunity? And does anyone ACTUALLY believe that Jesus is ever going to be a winning issue for a Democratic or liberal coalition?
Everyone with political views thinks society ought to be reshaped to conform to their ideas of how it should be. What makes them liberal or illiberal is the way they go about advocating their ideas.
Also, the phrase "kingdom of God" doesn't mean a literal theocracy.
When someone says they want to "make God's kingdom real" it isn't overly reductionist to assume that means something along the lines of sharia law.
I like shellfish, and I don't care if shrimp are an abomination. I don't want Kelley getting rid of them.
Also, the phrase "kingdom of God" doesn't mean a literal theocracy.
Actually, it does. It's just that in this country, most people don't think they could really pull it off. Sighing wistfully about how great it would be is creepy, even if the odds of it happening are low.
How do you know what's going on in other people's heads so well, MikeJ?
"Kingdom of God" does not mean what you think it does in mainstream Christian teaching. It never has and this is explicit beginning in the Bible.
Luke 17:20-21--Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, `Lo, here it is!' or `There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
I know because I was raised in the midst of their nonsense.
Rev 21 2ish - And I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men: and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people: and God himself with them shall be their God.
Even Satan can quote scripture in support of his argument.
I'm not saying there aren't Christians in America who want to establish a theocracy. I'm just saying that it's unlikely that self-described leftist Christians who explicitly disavow that intention secretly harbor it. I was also pointing out that it's not and never has been a mainstream idea in Christian thought. Augustine and other early Church thinkers explicitly advocated separation of church and state, as did the Reformers.
I don't think that's the right interpretation of Kelly at all. Kelly says that "the work of building God’s kingdom up here on earth" is about "realizing a time of justice and peace", not creating a religious state. It's a fuzzy theologically liberal vision of the Kingdom, rather than the theologically conservative vision.
I don't know anything about Kelly's personal theological views, so I could definitely be wrong, but the accusation that she's "deeply illiberal" goes well beyond what she says (or implies) in that post.
Matt, you've just encountered what in fact is the standard rhetoric of the Christian social-gospel tradition; if you're going to anathematize it, you're going to anathematize a lot of your allies. And could we ban use of the term "creepy" in this context? In reality, it only means "language I don't understand, but which makes me uncomfortable, so I'm going to dismiss it." Sorry, but this country is chock full of people who don't think in your received categories; while you're under no obligation to think like them, I think you're under some obligation to try to understand what they're about rather than fliply dismissing what they have to say. This is especially the case when we're talking about people who are actually on your side; with a hard-fought, critical election before us, we need to reach across these rhetorical divides, not reinforce them.
David in Nashville,
Sorry, but there's already far too much God-talk in American politics. It has no place in a nation dedicated to the principle of separation of church and state. If you can't justify your political proposals on secular grounds using secular language, then your proposals represent the imposition of religion and are therefore invalid.
Also, the phrase "kingdom of God" doesn't mean a literal theocracy.
Actually, it does.
No. Actually, it doesn't.
I know because I was raised in the midst of their nonsense.
Sorry. Many Christians refer to the Kingdom of God without equating it with a theocracy.
Exactly what is "making God's kingdom real" supposed to mean, if not something like establishing sharia here? I just don't get what the coded message is here.
MY's probably being alarmist, but still...
That certain sect of modern liberalism urges toleration for all things except those you disagree with. Like organized religion. Or different political philosophies.
Political power is this group's modern religion, pursued with the zeal they falsely accuse believers of God of pursuing. But go ahead-- try to accomplish your goal of acquiring political power by running a nakedly anti-religion campaign. Even your savior Barack is under the influence of some crazy spiritual advisors in that Chicago church. Run an athiest as a candidate and see how far he gets.
I was also pointing out that it's not and never has been a mainstream idea in Christian thought. Augustine and other early Church thinkers explicitly advocated separation of church and state, as did the Reformers.
I love the way Christians are always trying to rewrite and sanitize the history of their religion. The separation of church and state did not exist in any meaningful way until the Enlightenment. Christianity was perfectly comfortable with the deep entanglement of religion and government until the very recent past. Even liberal western Christians are still not fully committed to the separation principle, hence these attempts to keep injecting "the Kingdom of God" into their politics.
Ummm... who was talking about running an anti-religion campaign? Seriously, I don't see anyone advocating that. Guess we got alarmists on both sides here.
In context, it's pretty obvious that Kelley's not advocating anything that a secular humanist would be bothered by.
After reading all your comments I still say the first post most suitably addresses this issue.
I think Matt hit the nail on the head. The quoted passage is by no means an explicit call to create a theocracy in America. It does, nonetheless, sound creepy to secular ears. Because I most definitely do not want a kingdom of any sort to be built in my country, least of all a kingdom governed by an invisible monarch whose most slavish devotees are highly illiberal.
Which is not to say that such language should be eradicated from center-left politics in the United States, but believers should probably be aware that Kelley is blowing the wrong dog whistle if she genuinely wants progressives to be more comfortable with including the "religious left" in our discussions.
Which is not to say that such language should be eradicated from center-left politics in the United States
Why not? If it doesn't have any substantive religious content, but is just another way of referring to a secular idea, it's dishonest and likely to confuse. And if it does have substantive religious content, it has no place in secular politics.
I love the way Christians are always trying to rewrite and sanitize the history of their religion. The separation of church and state did not exist in any meaningful way until the Enlightenment.
First, I'm not a Christian, and second, I never argued that separation of church and state existed in any meaningful way before the Enlightenment. I said that mainstream Christian thinkers advocated it.
If you can't justify your political proposals on secular grounds using secular language, then your proposals represent the imposition of religion and are therefore invalid.
You can't "justify" any moral imperative with "secular language" in the way you mean--but that fruitless conversation has taken place on this blog before.
You can't "justify" any moral imperative with "secular language" in the way you mean
Of course you can, but the thing they are attempting to justify here is not a moral imperative but a political idea. Telling your parishioners in a church that God wants them to feed the poor is one thing. Telling your constituents in the public square that God wants them to vote for a civil law that raises taxes to feed the poor is another.
You can't "justify" any moral imperative with "secular language" in the way you mean
Of course you can
Just ask Stalin.
It doesn't sound creepy to me. When liberal Christians talk about establishing the Kingdom of God they mean the meek shall inherit the earth, and the hungry shall be fed and the sick shall be healed and all that New Testament do goody good stuff.
blah,
It's a call to political action, not a prediction. Just like conservative Christians call their flocks to ban abortion and oppose gay marriage in the Name of God.
Mixner, on what basis do you suggest we use state power to help the poor?
If it doesn't have any substantive religious content, but is just another way of referring to a secular idea, it's dishonest and likely to confuse. And if it does have substantive religious content, it has no place in secular politics.
As an atheist, I strongly disagree. I don't see how someone whose moral philosophy is fundamentally tied to their religious beliefs could possibly separate them in the way you want them to. If I think God wants society to feed the hungry and tend to the sick, how is it reasonable to demand that I STFU unless I'm willing to fabricate an argument for those beliefs that has absolutely nothing to do with my actual reasons for believing them? Demanding that large numbers of people hide their reasons for holding their political beliefs as some kind of deep dark secret is simply not fair or acceptable in a pluralist society.
Elliot Reed,
I'm not demanding that anyone "hide" their religious beliefs. I'm saying those beliefs have no legitimate role in secular politics. Unless the law is justified by a secular purpose, a purpose that is independent of any particular religion and of all religion, it's not a valid law.
If you really believe it's okay for religious liberals to try and impose their religion on everyone else through civil law, then you're not in a position to complain about conservatives doing the same thing--as in their attempts to ban abortion and gay marriage on the grounds that banning them is the Will of God or the teaching of the Bible.
Mixner, on what basis do you suggest we use state power to help the poor?
The general welfare clause of the Constitution, for example.
Several reactions to all the above:
First off I think the secularists are over-reacting to an extraordinary degree. They (well, some) are in fact verging on irrational bigotry as their fear that all religious people are secret Torquemadas is as offensive as the claims by homophobes that all gays are swishy, promsicuous sluts, or by racists that all Black men are stupid or drug-addicted thugs.
That said, my own religious reflexes are deeply mystical and other-worldly and I too am uncomfortable with proclamations about creating "New Jerusalem" in the here-and-now, albeit for rather different reasons than many of you. Still, if people are going indulge in nonsense I would rather have it be useful nonsense in the service of, say, universal healthcare or civil rights. And all of you who fall into a fit of the vapors at hearing "God talk", I wonder if you'd like to bowdlerize the speeches of MLK Jr or of Lincoln to remove such language.
Next, to address "Separation of Church and State", contra to what most people claim, it has always existed in Christendom, both East and West-- with a few exceptions of which the Papal States are the major one. In most times and places however you had a secular governmment (a king and nobles, or perhaps an oligarchial republic) quite distinct from the Church and its governing hierarchy. The problem was almost never lack of separation, but rather the eagerness with which both institutions meddled in each other's business, and the sins of the State were every bit as severe as those of the Church (see: Henry VIII, Peter the Great etc.). Of course what people really mean by separation of Church and State is separation of religion and politics. But they need to understand that they are asking something that is as impossible as a four sided triangle for believers. Might as well ask a Black person or a gay person to forget those aspects of their existence when issues involving civil rights and justice and the like under consideration.
Finally, if what you secularists really care about is putting down relgion then of course you will hate religious people-- but don't expect any anti-religious crusades to get very far in this country. But if you care about peace, justice etc. then you should be happy to accept allies wherever you find them and should not fret too much about the mental clothing those allies wear.
JonF,
don't expect any anti-religious crusades to get very far in this country.
The power, popularity and prestige of religion has been declining in America for decades, just as it has throughout the developed world generally (especially in Europe), and further decline seems inevitable. I was especially heartened by polling data I saw recently indicating that hostility to religion among young people is at an all-time high.
Your comments about the separation of church and state are pretty incoherent. I especially love "the problem was almost never lack of separation, but rather the eagerness with which both institutions meddled in each other's business."
The great thing about atheism is how tolerant and non-dogmatic its adherents are. Nothing like those evil Christians they despise!
Your comments about the separation of church and state are pretty incoherent. I especially love "the problem was almost never lack of separation, but rather the eagerness with which both institutions meddled in each other's business."
It's perfectly coherent to anyone with even a basic understanding of the historical periods mentioned. It's all about power structures. You have a head of state in, let's say Paris, and a head of church in Rome. Both claim sovreignty over their subjects, and both have different mechanisms for enforcing obedience.
When the interests of the two power structures conflict, each will make an attempt to win the allegiance, and thus influence the behavior of their subjects. One of the best ways to do this is to have adherents of your agenda within the rival hierarchy, who will not only add legitimacy to your arguments, but also potentially subvert your rivals' actions in such a way as will favor your own side (cf. Michael O'Hanlon, Joe Lieberman).
This is one schematic of meddling, naturally their are others. The point is, pre-reformation European leaders were consolidating power for their own sake, not for that of the church, and certainly weren't blindly taking marching orders from the pope, as one would expect in a true theocracy (it's not a perfect analogy, but cf. the Iranian ayatollah's control of state power today).
Respect to JonF.
I'm not demanding that anyone "hide" their religious beliefs.Yes you are. If someone's religious beliefs lead them to believe that the government should help the poor, you're saying they have to make no reference to the reasons they believe the government should help the poor, and try to come up with another argument—an argument they may not even believe. If they're not willing to offer arguments that have nothing to do with their real reasons for believing that, they have only one option: STFU. If that's not a demand that people hide their beliefs then I don't know what is.
If you really believe it's okay for religious liberals to try and impose their religion on everyone else through civil lawYep. [1] And I think it's OK for us nonreligious liberals to try to impose our beliefs on other people through secular politics too. I've never found the difference very compelling: religious conservatives find the nonreligious philosophy that underlies my nonreligious political beliefs no more compelling than I find the religion that underlies theirs. Whether something is a "religion" or a secular "philosophy" isn't really about its substance anyway: it's about the social practices surrounding it.
then you're not in a position to complain about conservatives doing the same thing--as in their attempts to ban abortion and gay marriage on the grounds that banning them is the Will of God or the teaching of the Bible.Very true. That argument is not available to me. But that argument, while politically useful, is not actually a good one.
[1] Unless by "impose their religion on everyone else" you mean something like "establish a state religion and force everyone else to practice it", which is a fundamental attack on the basic tenets of liberalism. But that is very much not what we're talking about. We're talking something more like "make an argument for a particular policy based on their religious principles."
"We must make money to live, but we must always remember that money is just an ingredient in the objective which we seek in life, and if we don't see that we'll make money-making an end rather than a means. Jesus said, 'I know you need it, I know you need money. I know you have need of clothes, I know you need a car to ride in. I know you need a home to live in and to sleep in. But seek ye first the kingdom of God. Seek ye first righteousness, and all of these things will be added unto you.' And this is what we must do."
-- Sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA, by unnamed theocrat, Sept. 30, 1962.
Elliot Reed,
So you think it's perfectly legitimate for elected representatives to vote for a civil law banning, say, abortion or gay sex on the grounds that abortion and gay sex are prohibited by God, or the Bible, or whatever other religious authority they may recognize. You really don't think such a law would be the imposition of religion on women or gays in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Seriously? How about a law requiring women to cover their heads at all times in public on the grounds that the Koran teaches it? Or a law banning banning the consumption of shellfish on the grounds that the Old Testament commands it?
Some years ago, the state legislature in Kentucky passed a law requiring a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classrom. The Supreme Court struck down the law as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But you think that such a law is perfectly valid, right?
So you think it's perfectly legitimate for elected representatives to vote for a civil law...on the grounds [of]...God, or the Bible, or whatever other religious authority they may recognize. You really don't think such a law would be...in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Seriously?
Seriously? I'm not Elliot Reed, but can I take a crack at this?
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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.
(As an aside, the first paragraph of the Declaration is an excellent justification for the separation of church and state, while explicitly validating the idea of divine law.]
Just as aside, why is secular justification for enacting laws preferable to religious justification? You seem to assume this a priori, but aside from your own religious views, do you have any other basis for this assumption
armleg,
So would that be a "yes," then? You didn't actually answer the question. You do think it's perfectly legitimate for elected representatives to vote for a civil law banning, say, abortion or gay sex on the grounds that abortion and gay sex are prohibited by God, or the Bible, or whatever other religious authority they may recognize?
Ditto for a law requiring women to cover their heads at all times in public, on the grounds that the Koran commands it?
What exactly is it that you do think the Estbablishment Clause prohibits? What specific test would you apply to a law in order to determine whether it is constitutional under this clause?
Just as aside, why is secular justification for enacting laws preferable to religious justification?
Civil laws that enforce religious principles or doctrines are inconsistent with the principles of freedom of religion. To quote the Supreme Court:
When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
One would have thought that centuries of religious wars and oppression in Europe, not to mention the appalling violations of human rights in modern nations in which religion and government are entangled, most obviously the Islamic nations in the middle east, would have persuaded you of the wisdom of strictly separating religion from the powers of the state, but apparently not.
I think that, since the existential justification for American Government explicitly rests on divine authority, it's appropriate for legislators to justify their votes on the same basis.
For that matter, I think it's appropriate for legislators to justify their votes on whatever basis they want, be it the Bible, the Koran, the works of Kant, polling data, their "gut," or a flip of the coin. Clearly, some people might take issue with any of those decision-making bases, but that's why we live in a representative democracy--if the majority of your constituents don't agree with your decision-making skills, they can vote you out.
I think abortion and homosexuality should be legal, and I think strong arguments can be made for the constitutional necessity of their legality. I think a law requiring women to cover their heads at times in public is certainly unconstitutional.
But the constitutionality of these issues has nothing to do with any religious justification for these laws. Would you suggest it's appropriate for legislators to vote for a law that requires women to cover their heads with the American flag at all times, on the grounds that America totally rulez?
Of course you wouldn't, which means there must be something other than the religious justification that would make such a law objectionable.
As far as tests for constitutionality: not being a legal scholar, I would hesitate to propose such a test. I am, however, pretty sure that an ideal test wouldn't require a court to read the minds of elected officials to determine on what basis they made their decisions.
The distinction to made is between intention and effect.
If a law passed by Congress has the effect of establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then I don't really care if was passed on the grounds of genuine zealotry, pandering to public opinion, or due a gaggle of legislators simply too hung over to press the right button--it should be struck down.
Likewise, if a legislator votes for, say, a farm subsidy bill based on a rational cost-benefit analysis, their personal history growing up on a farm, or because Jesus/FSM told them to vote that way in a dream--it doesn't fucking affect the consitutionality of the law.
Again, though, getting back to the question I posed to you: what is it that makes a secular justification for enacting laws preferable to a religious justification? I would argue that, for example, the profit-motive is a much more harmful method of decision-making than most mainstream Christian teachings, yet such a justification would not only go unchecked in America today, it would actually be encouraged.
Civil laws that enforce religious principles or doctrines are inconsistent with the principles of freedom of religion.
Not necessarily. Many religious principles are fairly universal, not only among different religions, but also in secular formulations of morality as well.
One would have thought that centuries of religious wars and oppression in Europe, not to mention the appalling violations of human rights in modern nations in which religion and government are entangled, most obviously the Islamic nations in the middle east, would have persuaded you of the wisdom of strictly separating religion from the powers of the state.
LOL. Not to adopt a right-wing talking point, but look at Stalin. Look at the Khmer Rouge. Hell, look at the current appalling violations of human rights perpetuated by our own government.
Wars are fought primarily over resources, not relgious differences. Henry V didn't invade France over a tennis ball.
Most people, in this country at least, believe in God, and derive some sort of moral framework from that belief. That may not be the most optimal method for doing so, but them's the breaks. Their decision-making processes later in life are going to be predicated on their value systems.
Based on what I've read in this thread, you argue that this is an improper method of decision-making, and should not be allowed in the public sphere. In doing so, you seem to advocate not only disenfranchising a large percentage of the population because they have different beliefs than you, you also seem to be denying the reality of life as it is actually lived in favor of an idealized state that's probably unattainable.
Not to get too cute here, but this is exactly the problem with dogmatic religious thought in modern democracy, whether it be fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.
In a democracy, individuals' decision-making processes are going to be reflected in their government. That's just the way it is, and to expect otherwise is not just world-denying, it's anti-democratic.
armleg,
You realize, I assume, that the Supreme Court completely rejects your argument. In order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause, a law must have a secular purpose. And it must be an authentic secular purpose, not just a pretext for a religious one, as in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case. A religious purpose is never a valid substitute for a secular one, no matter how popular the religious purpose may be among the people who voted for the law.
I still don't have any real idea of what it is you think the Establishment Clause actually prohibits. You say, for example, that you think any law that "has the effect of establishing a religion" should be struck down (presumably, as a violation of the Establishment Clause). But what does this mean, exactly? What are your criteria for distinguishing a law that "has the effect of establishing a religion" from a law that does not? If a law that, for a religious purpose, requires women to cover their heads at all times in public is not an example of a law that "has the effect of establishing a religion," what is? What's the relevant difference between laws that "establish a religion," as you understand that phrase, and laws that don't?
Mixner,
You're conflating the purpose of the law with the intentions of the legislators voting for it. That is the flaw in your argument--unless, of course, you're arguing there is no distinction, in which case such "purposes" would be wholly unknowable.
If you don't understand the distinction between intention and effect, I would suggest you pay a visit to Iraq, and let me know how the democracy's flourishing over there.
At this point we're pretty much talking in circles, and I've got work to do. Unless you've got something original to add to the discussion, rather than an old point to rehash, I'd say we're pretty much done.
Good luck with your church building.
Not necessarily. Many religious principles are fairly universal, not only among different religions, but also in secular formulations of morality as well.
But many do not. And in that case, you're forcing your religious principles on people who don't share them. How is that not a violation of their religious freedom?
If a law serves a purpose that is independent of any particular religion and of all religion, then that purpose is secular, and it is that secular purpose that justifies the law, not any religious ones it might also happen to serve.
You're conflating the purpose of the law with the intentions of the legislators voting for it.
Er, what, exactly is the relevant difference supposed to be?
The crux of the issue is what you think the Establishment Clause means, what you think it actually prohibits. I still don't have any idea what that is. Saying that you think it prohibits laws that "have the effect of establishing a religion" tells me nothing useful. How do you distinguish laws that have that effect from laws that don't? What are your criteria?
As a real live theologian, I'm constantly amazed at the arrogance/ignorance with which aggressive secularists express their views. Unlike David, I'm fine with Matt say it strikes him as "creepy", since he's only describing, well, how it strikes him.
One important point. The prime difference that separates Christianity from both Judaism and Islam is that it is explicitly not a religion of Law. Whether it would be Grace alone or Grace+Law was hotly contested at the very beginning, with Paul and the Grace alone people winning. So "making the Kingdom of God real," as Kelley puts it, is "building God’s kingdom up here on earth – realizing a time of justice and peace" which involves "our collective responsibility to care for our neighbors here and abroad is the true measure of a faith that does justice." She was awfully clear, and the misreading seem willful.
MikeJ: your screwed up religious upbringing does not mean you understand all religion. Your reasoning is of the "i was raped therefore all men are evil" variety. Understandable, but nowhere near rational.
Mixner: I love how you ignore most of the 20th century, the bloodiest one of them all, in your list of appalling rights violations. WWI, Spanish Civil, WWII, Korea, every Soviet war, Maoist revolution, Cambodia, the list goes on. Lots of bad things happen because human beings are really violent. Lots of that violence is associated with religion simply because lots of people are religious. But when you remove religion from the mix, the evidence indicates that people don't seem to get any less violent.
and you keep saying "on the grounds", which makes me think you don't know how legislation works. Are you somehow arguing that people should be restricted in what arguments they use to persuade each other? First amendment aside, how would you even do that?
steve duncan: thanks for telling us how you feel. Any thoughts, arguments, evidence? You're usually above simple bigotry.
nolaboyd,
Mixner: I love how you ignore most of the 20th century, the bloodiest one of them all, in your list of appalling rights violations. WWI, Spanish Civil, WWII, Korea, every Soviet war, Maoist revolution, Cambodia, the list goes on. Lots of bad things happen because human beings are really violent. Lots of that violence is associated with religion simply because lots of people are religious. But when you remove religion from the mix, the evidence indicates that people don't seem to get any less violent.
The fact that some secular governments have also been violent and oppressive is not a defense of religious ones. The most peaceful, prosperous and free nations in the world also tend to be the ones with the most-secular governments. Nations in which church and state are substantially entangled are invariably oppressive and/or violent. I can't think of even a single example of a nation in which religion played a large role in government that was not profoundly oppressive.
and you keep saying "on the grounds", which makes me think you don't know how legislation works. Are you somehow arguing that people should be restricted in what arguments they use to persuade each other? First amendment aside, how would you even do that?
I'm talking about the purposes of laws. Whether a law has a secular purpose is the crucial question regarding its constitutionality under the Establishment Clause. The arguments that a law's proponents make in support of it are obviously an important indicator of the law's purpose, and are one of the things courts look at in Establishment Clause cases.
For example, in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case, Stone v. Graham, the legislative record clearly indicated that proponents of the law in the state legislature wanted it for a religious purpose, to "put God back in the schools" and variations on that theme. There was no indication in their statements that the law had a valid secular purpose. The Supreme Court determined, partly on this evidence from the legislative record, that the purpose of the law was religious, not secular, and struck it down for that reason as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
One would have thought a "real live theologian" who thinks he knows "how legislation works" would be familiar with this case, and with Establishment Clause law more broadly.
I don't see anything wrong with a blogger saying that certain religious talk sounds "creepy" to him. I think that's a far better way of communicating to such a speaker than the jihadi-style hate speech I see from some aethist bloggers. Nothing wrong with telling them you think it's creepy. After all, if they actually are evangelizing types, they might even like to know if their language is a turn off.
That said, I'd like to know a bit more about what's creepy to Matt, and to the several commenters who are disturbed about the idea of a religion setting up a "kingdom of god" in this country.
Are the Hasidic Jewish communities in places like Monsey, New York creepy? Are the Amish communities creepy? How about a conservative Muslim nabe in New Jersey? What about Koresh and Waco, Texas? Which side were you on with that, Janet Reno's or the libertarians? It's ok if you think that kind of thing is creepy and don't want such people in say, a Democratic party. But when you start getting to Christians, you're starting to get to a pretty big diverse group many of which are pretty lax with those "kingdom" rules.
But we're really getting into talking about Federalism here. The country started out "live and let live," small Federal government, in order to let different communities have their little "kingdoms" on earth or dens of sin and iniquity as they saw fit.
Canada and the E.U. have notably been struggling with the same thing in recent years. We've actually had an overall good record comparatively, with "kingdoms" managing for the most part a balance with obeyiing common laws and add their own applicable to their own flock, Waco notwithstanding. Like Al Gore said, freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. Unless you want to set up your own "secular aetheists only" community.
But being creeped out is a feeling, nothing wrong with expressing it. It's not the same as hate, it doesn't preclude tolerance. Tolerance does not demand liking, kindness or even lack of personal prejudice. Best essay on tolerance, mho: E. M. Forster's "On Tolerance" written right after WWII and focusing on the revenge problem and the teeming masses of refugees threatening to start dejas vus allover again by culture shock. It used to be on the net, unfortunately I can't find it anymore, the old link I used is gone. :-( It was exceptionally good precisely because he comes from the position in other works of "not believing in belief" and of finding much harm in religion.
Are the Hasidic Jewish communities in places like Monsey, New York creepy? Are the Amish communities creepy? How about a conservative Muslim nabe in New Jersey? What about Koresh and Waco, Texas?
Yes, I'd say all of those things are creepy. I can't speak for Matt or anyone else, but what I find "creepy"--a better word might be "alarming"--about the piece in question is the author's association of "building God's Kingdom" with politics and "policy positions." She appears to want to use the machinery of government to build her religious "Kingdom."
Religious freedom means the freedom to believe in and practise your religion relatively free of interference by the government and other citizens. It does not mean the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else through civil laws. If your religion teaches that you should help the poor, then you may use whatever private and voluntary means are available to you for that religious purpose. But you have no business trying to impose taxes on other people to fund a government program to help the poor for that religious purpose. Ditto if your religious purpose is stopping abortion, or getting women to cover their heads in public, or getting people to pray or whatever else it may be.
Wait a second, Mixner. It's illegitimate for someone to use government to help the poor if his religion tells him that's the right thing to do? What if he just thinks that helping the poor is the right thing to do; no particular justification, just an act of will. Is that OK, or are you just pushing a straight libertarian position?
Y'all gonna really hate us Transhumans.
We're not going to use religion or politics to impose ourselves on you.
We're gonna use technology!
Not that we want to impose ourselves on you, you understand. We couldn't care less about you chimps. It's just that we know that once you know what we're about, you're going to try to impose yourselves on us. Chimps can't act any other way.
And that ain't happening.
Religion is bullshit. And we're going to kill God the only way that can be done.
AlanC9,
No, a law that helps the poor is illegitimate if it lacks a secular purpose. A law that serves a secular purpose might also happen to serve a religious one, but that's irrelevant. What matters with respect to the constitutionality of the law under the Establishment Clause is whether it has a secular purpose. I don't know how to explain this point more clearly.
It's actually a bit more complicated than this. Even if the law does have a secular purpose, it might still be unconstitutional if it has the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, or if it results in an excessive government entanglement with religion. But at a minimum, the law must have a secular purpose. A religious purpose can never substitute for a secular one.
Comments closed February 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Religion is the root of all evil.
Posted by steve duncan | February 15, 2008 9:49 AM