« previous post | Main | next post »
May 05, 2005
blast from the past (one)
Don Herzog, Herzog: "A Christian Nation?": May 5, 2005
Edmund Burke, Speech on a Bill for the Relief of Protestant Dissenters, 3/17/1773:
The most horrid and cruel blow that can be offered to civil society is through atheism. Do not promote diversity; when you have it, bear it; have as many sorts of religion as you find in your country; there is a reasonable worship in them all. The others, the infidels, are outlaws of the constitution, not of this country, but of the human race. They are never, never to be supported, never to be tolerated. Under the systematic attacks of these people, I see some of the props of good government already begin to fall; I see propagated principles which will not leave to religion even a toleration. I see myself sinking every day under the attacks of these wretched people. How shall I arm myself against them?
Burke continues,
By uniting all those in affection, who are united in the belief of the great principles of the Godhead that made and sustains the world. They who hold revelation give double assurance to their country. Even the man who does not hold revelation, yet who wishes that it were proved to him, who observes a pious silence with regard to it, such a man, though not a Christian, is governed by religious principles. Let him be tolerated in this country. Let it be but a serious religion, natural or revealed, take what you can get. Cherish, blow up the slightest spark: one day it may be a pure and holy flame. By this proceeding you form an alliance offensive and defensive against those great ministers of darkness in the world who are endeavoring to shake all the works of God established in order and beauty.
As you can see, Burke was pretty damned jittery before the French Revolution — and that revolution didn't exactly calm him down. From his Thoughts on French Affairs, 12/1791:
Of all men, the most dangerous is a warm, hot-headed, zealous atheist. This sort of man aims at dominion, and his means are the words he always has in his mouth, — "L'égalité naturelle des hommes, et la souveraineté du peuple."
There's a nutshell presentation of the view of the great conservative theorist. Atheism is a threat to social order, and atheism gets wrapped up with dangerous talk of natural equality and popular sovereignty. The great liberal John Locke took a similar view in his Letter concerning Toleration (first published in English in 1689):
those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.
Locke thought atheists couldn't be counted on to be moral, keep their promises, and be upstanding members of society. Why? Because of his wacky theory of moral motivation. Locke thought we maximize pleasure, and what keeps us in line on earth is the threat of divine punishment and the promise of heaven.
By Burke's day, though, liberals had made their peace with unbelief. Here's Thomas Jefferson's Notes on Virginia from 1781-82:
it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Was Jefferson whistling in the dark, ignoring the grave hazards of atheism? Nope. Here's a French settler in America, writing low-key ethnography of the natives in 1782. From J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur's Letters from an American Farmer:
Let us suppose you and I to be travelling; we observe that in this house, to the right, lives a Catholic, who prays to God as he has been taught, and believes in transubstantiation; he works and raises wheat, he has a large family of children, all hale and robust; his belief, his prayers offend nobody. About one mile farther on the same road, his next neighbour may be a good honest plodding German Lutheran, who addresses himself to the same God, the God of all, agreeably to the modes he has been educated in, and believes in consubstantiation; by so doing he scandalises nobody; he also works in his fields, embellishes the earth, clears swamps, etc. What has the world to do with his Lutheran principles? He persecutes nobody, and nobody persecutes him, he visits his neighbours, and his neighbours visit him. Next to him lives a seceder, the most enthusiastic of all sectaries; his zeal is hot and fiery, but separated as he is from others of the same complexion, he has no congregation of his own to resort to, where he might cabal and mingle religious pride with worldly obstinacy. He likewise raises good crops, his house is handsomely painted, his orchard is one of the fairest in the neighbourhood. How does it concern the welfare of the country, or of the province at large, what this man's religious sentiments are, or really whether he has any at all? He is a good farmer, he is a sober, peaceable, good citizen: William Penn himself would not wish for more. This is the visible character, the invisible one is only guessed at, and is nobody's business.
So much for Locke's fantasies about atheists as unreliable citizens. So much for Burke's strident denunciations, too. Many Europeans were terrified of the violent assaults on Christianity mounted by the French revolutionaries. But Crèvecoeur's America is not the least bit anticlerical or antireligious. The devout and the atheist make good neighbors and good citizens — as long as they agree to keep their beliefs about religion private. Toleration here is selective blindness. It hooks up with equality under the law: the state ignores our religious attachments. And it governs how we interact in one social setting after another. Just for instance, I'm about to grade a mountain of torts exams. I don't know and I don't care what my students think about religion. That doesn't mean that religion doesn't matter. It means it's irrelevant in the classroom. So too when the University of Michigan, a public university, hired me, they paid no attention to my religious convictions at all. And here I am, teaching political theory and law to those impressionable youth....
Champions of ours being a Christian nation seem to need some history lessons. Maybe I'll provide some in the coming weeks, even if I do shrink from blood and gore. Meanwhile, I am fiercely proud to count myself a loyal citizen of Crèvecoeur's America. And I'm ashamed of any who would rally today to Burke's repulsively intolerant sentiments. I'm astonished by their ignorance, their failure to grasp that the decision to treat religion as if it's private is the not-so-secret recipe for America's fabulous record of peaceful pluralism. Ashamed, astonished, angry too, and no, not much consoled by those gracious enough to grant atheists like me uneasy standing as second-class citizens.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834536ae669e200d83458afd169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference blast from the past (one):
» Symbol and Allegiances : Suspension of Critical Thought from Get Real
One of the points I tried to make in my previous post on Symbols and Allegiances was that one outcome of strong symbols or labels and strong identification with those symbols or labels was that it led to the suspension... [Read More]
Tracked on May 5, 2005 9:40:00 AM
» Hot-Headed, Zealous Athiests from Bearcastle Blog
I was fascinated by this chronological sequence of quotations from a piece by Don Herzog, "blast from the past (one)" (at Left2Right). Although some of the passionate distrust of athiests like myself has apparently dissipated in the last 200 years (des... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 2, 2005 11:58:13 PM
Comments
Posted by: Sans Serfs
Here are some facts:
[From Bill Moyer's PBS web-site]
--86% of Americans consider themselves religious
--Of that 86% that are religious the affiliations break down as following:
--Christian: 76.5%
--Judasim: 1.3%
--Islam: .5%
--Hindu: .4%
--New Age: .1%
So, of people who report an affiliation, about 88% are Christian.
Therefore, it's as accurate to say that the US is a Christian nation, as it is to say the US is an English speaking nation, which I think would be uncontroversial. According to the US Census, 18% of citizens speak a language other than English at home.
In a historical context, of course, the percentage of reported religious believers and Christians would have been higher.
What's the history lesson for? To prove that religious minorities exist in this country? - we all know that.
Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 5, 2005 8:30:10 AM
Posted by: Steve Horwitz
This Christopher Hitchens piece from today's WSJ seems relevant.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | May 5, 2005 8:31:15 AM
Posted by: Steve Horwitz
Sorry Sans, but the use of "Christian Nation" is not, as I noted in the prior thread, the same as saying "a majority of Americans are Christian." The demographic point is true, of course, but it is, or at least should be, irrelevant for the making of policy. Some/many of those trying to tell us we are a "Christian nation" wish to use that as something we should aspire to - i.e., the demographics justify the making of laws that are based on the tenets of Christianity. It's the latter use of "Christian nation" that is the problem.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | May 5, 2005 8:35:51 AM
Posted by: Sans Serfs
No argument there.
Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 5, 2005 8:53:27 AM
Posted by: Sans Serfs
However, I think if you started running around saying "The US is not an English speaking nation" you would find push back, and for good reason.
The rights of the minority do not include willing the majority out of existence!
Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 5, 2005 8:56:24 AM
Posted by: Don Herzog
Like Steve said. But that means, Sans Serfs, that your last is wrongheaded. I am not willing Christians out of existence. I have nothing against Christians. I have nothing against living in a country where the vast majority are Christians. To say that the government may not take a Christian identity, to say that public policy should not promote Christianity or be justified as Christian, is not to have anything at all against Christians.
Posted by: Don Herzog | May 5, 2005 9:10:14 AM
Posted by: Sans Serfs
OK - I agree with you. I think you can go too far in stating your position in a way that will antagonize les autres.
You may want to consider that there are vast swatches of this country where the average statisitics don't apply. There, it truly is a Christian nation.
Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 5, 2005 9:21:16 AM
Posted by: john t
Ah yes,Burke the intolerant,"I mean not tolerated popery,and open superstition,which as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies,so itself should be extirpate". Wait,that's the sainted Milton,Areopagitica,defending freedom of the press. Back to Burke,sorry for the mistake. I guess I need history lessons from Scholar Don. I would have thought the good scholar,in the interest of academic impartiality and for the cause of holy tolerance,in mentioning Burke and the French Revolution would have tossed us ignoramus's the historical tidbit about the desecration of Notre Dame with the enthroning of a naked woman as goddess of reason. The tolerance mop really should flop both ways. We'll leave out the rape of nuns and murder of priests,if it wasn't good enough for Don it's not good enough for me. Poor Bigot Burke,among many other things he only spent a good part of eight years in the trial of Warren Hastings for a people far removed from England and whose plight for many Englishmen was as distant as India. How does that possibly compare with being a teacher in Michigan? Even a second class citizen-teacher? Even a second class polemicist-teacher?
Posted by: john t | May 5, 2005 9:21:42 AM
Posted by: Don Herzog
john t, this is not an overall scorecard on Burke; it is a reminder of his position on atheism.
In the post, in fact I tried to distinguish the violently anti-Christian secularism of the French revolutionaries from the peaceful tolerance of the American colonies. So yes, in your picturesque phrase, the tolerance mop really should flop both ways: a state that is publicly anti-religious is every bit as objectionable as a state that is publicly pro-religious.
Posted by: Don Herzog | May 5, 2005 9:31:01 AM
Posted by: Tom Perkins
"irrelevant for the making of policy"
BS. To the extent we are a democracy, particularly a majoritarian democracy, it is inevitable that having 65% of the population --to the extent they are motivated to it--speak with one voice means they will have the whole say on the motivating issue. I suspect the near universal popular condemnation of SSM discussed in the other thread is an aspect of this.
Tell you what, let's get rid of majority democracy and try for universal supermajorities on every question of legislation. Sure the government won't do much--but that's an upside.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Posted by: Tom Perkins | May 5, 2005 9:31:55 AM
Posted by: andrew owens
Actually, there is quite a difference between the relationship of majority English speakers to our government English usage; as compared to majority Christianity and government use of Christianity. There is no Constitutional bar, that I can tell, to government established language standards (though I've not seen a LR article on this). There is, obviously, such a bar to established religion (little r, remember).
If we are speaking in social terms, no problem with "Christian nation." But if we speak in a civic context, that phrase is damaging and wrong.
All that said, I hesistate from fully embracing that legislative intent is without religious influence. It is not, nor should it be- as the men and women making up lawmaking bodies cannot strip themselves of that influence. Is it really better to dance around the issue, and give winks and nods--as public figures do today?
Posted by: andrew owens | May 5, 2005 9:43:41 AM
Posted by: Ted
George Will has a column similar to Hitchens' although more moderate in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402050.html
Sorry for my lack of HTML knowledge.
Posted by: Ted | May 5, 2005 10:02:34 AM
Posted by: noah
But Don you feel perfectly content to voice your opinion on public policy (such as same sex marriage) based on your indefensible belief system but object to Christians doing the same.
Posted by: noah | May 5, 2005 10:10:29 AM
Posted by: Tom Perkins
Noah, HE thinks it's defensible.
The thing is, the left is desprately attempting to prevent the fact that a broad majority of persons in this country are nominally Christian AND that a substantial majority of them have organized themselves in partisan political fashion from having the consequences that broad based organization deserves--by dint of every principle of democratic government which the left once claimed it championed. I certainly won't claim I'm happy about everything the religious right is doing, but I certainly won't attempt to weasel them out of their right to do attempt it and succeed when they deliver the votes.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Posted by: Tom Perkins | May 5, 2005 10:42:51 AM
Posted by: JeffS
Crèvecoeur's "tolerance" sounds unobjectionable, but it reveals a kind of live-and-let-live disregard for others that may be more responsible for today's culture wars than is Burke's lunacy. Because such "tolerance," more than fanaticism, is the death of dialogue. Not caring about what somebody deeply believes, as long as his house is well painted and his crops grow well, means -- in a deeper sense-- not caring about that person altogether, not taking the Other seriously as a person who stands for things. Think about people close to you, people you care about: would you just let it slide that they believe something different from you in matters religiously, politically or ideologically important to you? I doubt it.
The problem with the 'Christian Nation' advocates, in other words, isn't only that they're theocrats, willing to impose their exclusive vision on this country's identity, but that they couldn't care less what you (or I) think of this. They feel no need to persuade their fellows (no, preaching to the converted on Fox isn't dialogue). If they did feel that need -- if they weren't so "tolerant" -- then we'd have a dialogue, and probably wouldn't be in this mess today. And secular libs are equally guilty: how often do they try to convince heartland "People of Faith" why they should be pro-choice or at least oppose the death penalty? No, they're tolerant, too, a euphamism for "to hell with you."
Posted by: JeffS | May 5, 2005 11:03:40 AM
Posted by: benny profane
I certainly won't attempt to weasel them out of their right to do attempt it and succeed when they deliver the votes.
SO you therefore don't have a problem as the fundie-enthusiasts take over school boards and begin outlawing the teaching of biology, as they are now doing all over the US. Or teaching history as per fundie-ness: with every US military action ever taken glorified.
Fundies ARE motivated by irrational beliefs, thus any rational person (including the non-fundie Christians) has reason to fear the consequences and to prevent their seizing of power.
Posted by: benny profane | May 5, 2005 11:08:33 AM
Posted by: Iconic Midwesterner
Is Burke's "zealous atheist" is same thing as the atheist that wants to be left alone and who leaves others alone? Probably not.
Burke never advocated the Inquisition. To imply otherwise is simply false.
Posted by: Iconic Midwesterner | May 5, 2005 11:17:41 AM
Posted by: pickabone
It might be a majority Christian population, but that does not make it a Christian nation. It's also a majority female population, but that doesn't make it a female nation.
Posted by: pickabone | May 5, 2005 11:25:35 AM
Posted by: Tad Brennan
Let me second Andrew Owen's suggestion that it might be interesting to have an L2R post on the govt establishment of the English Language.
I for one have often found some attraction in the idea--even in the idea of an Amendment to that effect (except that it probably falls under the de minimis rule for Amendments).
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 5, 2005 11:44:21 AM
Posted by: Josh Jasper
pickabone: would that it were. A government dominated by women they way ours is by men would be an interesting change of pace.
Posted by: Josh Jasper | May 5, 2005 11:48:25 AM
Posted by: Tom Perkins
benny, I'll tolerate the "irrational" beliefs of "fundie's" a lot better than I do the "irrational" beliefs of leftists, as well as for now estimating that it is the irrational beliefs of leftists that are overwhelmingly more likely to result in my impoverishment or death, also the impoverishment or death of my 11m/o child, and or his children.
Leftists are both dumb and evil, by turns, and when societies have been taken under their care, they tend to kill tens of millions of people--where a really quite intolerant Christianity led to the development of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism--I could even handle the idea we need to go back to the square arrived at in 1776 and proceed from there, without the damn Jacobins and Rosseau, thank you.
Leftism delenda est.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Posted by: Tom Perkins | May 5, 2005 11:54:20 AM
Posted by: benny profane
If you think the jacobins were evil incarnate, perhaps centuries of the Bourbons, Louis XIV and lettres du cachet, torture chambers, aristo rights to yr wife and children etc. are more to yr taste.
Anyways the facile equation that leftism -equals stalinism--and that any one who professes something not in line with the GOP fundie right is therefore supporting stalinism-- is laugable if not obscene. (and please spare me the right wing joke-claim that nazis were leftist--one of the most ugly academic blasphemies recently uttered)
1776 was secular. Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison --obviously not perfect specimens of humanity--were secularist or at best deist or nominally Christian. Even the most toryish--Adams and Hamilton-- were not puritanical zealots nor even church goers. The enlightenment thinkers-- recall Voltaire?--were anti-clerical and anti-religious as well. Tho Locke, a Whig, did make a few somewhat theological remarks, given his attacks on enthusiasm, the Church and the "divine right" I think he was leaning mroe towards secularism.
Posted by: benny profane | May 5, 2005 12:09:39 PM
Posted by: AChillea
Don: The devout and the atheist make good neighbors and good citizens — as long as they agree to keep their beliefs about religion private.
So, what you're saying is, 'Don't ask, don't tell?'
Posted by: AChillea | May 5, 2005 12:41:30 PM
Posted by: Tad Brennan
Tom P.
"Leftism delenda est".
Ah come on--spare a few of us lefties, anyhow, won't you? It's true that I am by turns evil and dumb, but in the future I promise to be dumb!
Seriously, isn't this sort of eliminationist rhetoric a bit too much here? I mean, for me a bottom line is that we are all Americans here, and we need to muddle through this time in our history without losing that sense of common purpose.
Oh, and as for Stick/ya hozna/Benny Profane: I hope no reader here takes him as representative of the Left. I simply have *no* idea what this guy's planet of origin is.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 5, 2005 1:05:15 PM
Posted by: benny profane
Tad O'Brennan: instead of yr typical chi chi ad hom why not address a point? Jefferson would not likely sided with what has become the democrats; nor would he have sided with the fundie GOP. Complexity is the order of the day and sentimental unionist liberals who think supporting gay rights and multiculturalism is the end all and be all of the left are as mistaken as rightists. The fundamentalists are perhaps right to attack some aspects of pop culture and hedonism, yet that does not legitimize theocracy.
You are no spokesman for any viewpoint or platform either. There are no viewpoints or ideologies really, but claims, more or less valid about specific events and processes. But logic--not to say natural science, or technology-- is not often entertained by either fundie or the chi chi left.
Posted by: benny profane | May 5, 2005 1:22:21 PM