Religious Divide Across The Atlantic
From the desk of Marc Huybrechts on Sat, 2010-01-02 14:23
Numerous past European travelers to America have commented on the apparent importance of religion to (most) Americans. Some did so in a positive way, while others appeared to be more prejudicial. Among the former, Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” from the 1820’s remains a classic work of reference, but this article will be more concerned with the opinions of a contemporary commentator, Josef Joffe, the editor/publisher of the German newspaper Die Zeit in Hamburg, Germany(*).
Among the negative critics, some deserve special mention, two from the past and one from the present. While escaping to Philadelphia from the great terror of the French Revolution, Talleyrand is reported to have half-joked “Thirty-two religions and only one dish to eat” (**). It is not clear whether the irony of the situation was apparent to Talleyrand, or not, but Joffe has called this “an archetype of the European Kulturkritik of America”. And the great German philosopher Hegel complained about too many American “sects which rise to the extreme of insanity, many of which conduct services in the grip of ecstasy and even the most sensual silliness” (***). Obviously, Hegel could not foresee the “insanity” of nazi rituals that were to follow much later in Germany, nor the Obamamania among Berlin’s youth today. Already then, rapture, physicality, and anarchy, did not jive well with the old European protestant mind, and one shudders to think what Hegel would have thought of contemporary televangelists. But, a recent incident or anecdote, as reported by Joffe, is even more interesting and telling:
“…Sitting next to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a Social Democrat, at a dinner party in 2002, I responded to the derision heaped on George W by responding (I thought judiciously): “Mr. Chancellor, you may not believe in God, I don’t believe in God, but why shouldn’t we extend our respect to those like Bush who do?” Schroeder became so agitated that he half rose from the table. Fortunately, I had a Cuban cigar handy, which I offered in a gesture of peace. Schroeder looked at the label, saw that it was a pleasing brand, and sat down again.”
Somehow, this incident tells me that there are things much worse than an excess of zeal and physicality in religious services. How about an excess of irrational secular hatred?
What is the divide?
Until quite recently, the United States (like Canada, Australia and New Zealand) could be considered an offshoot of European cultures. It was founded by European settlers (not immigrants in the contemporary sense of migrants to a functioning state), and its political system and cultural ethos reflected that fact. Also, both America and Europe have followed a broadly similar path to modernization, characterized by many factors such as industrialization, urbanization, consumerism, democratization, etc… And yet, whereas Europe has been de-Christianizing for many decades, the United States remains one of the most religious societies on earth (outside the Muslim world). This is supported by a wealth of survey data from reputable organizations, such as Gallup and others, and the evidence of the gap tends to become stronger the more specific the questions are. While many Europeans today still may declare themselves to be ‘religious’ in some general and vague way, the number of Americans who declare religion to be “important” in their life is over 60 percent, compared with for example barely 10 percent of Frenchmen. Actual data on church attendance confirm or strengthen these survey results on both sides of the Atlantic.
Perhaps the most significant indicator of the religious divide – because to my mind it goes to the heart of the matter - can be found in what Joffe calls “the God-goodness link”. While six out of 10 Americans agree that it is necessary to believe in God to be good, most West-Europeans do not. For them God is truly dead or nonexistent. This can definitely be said for the vast majority of the French and British, and to a lesser extent for Italians and Germans today.
Besides the God-goodness link, which reflects a philosophical aspect of the transatlantic religious divide (or, if you will, it is about the conviction of the necessity of theistic belief as a motivating factor for moral behavior), there is another aspect of the divide which may be called the faith-freedom nexus (in a Western cultural context). Already two hundred years ago, Edmund Burke (in the late 18th century) had noted that religion in America appeared to contribute to the “free spirit” of its people, and de Tocqueville in the early 19th century had contrasted (a) the contribution of religiosity to freedom in America with (b) the church as the enemy of freedom in Europe, in his time.
The empirical data certainly confirm that modernity and rising prosperity over the past two centuries have not undermined American religiosity, whereas God has been ‘fading away’ in Europe. Perhaps it is, then, no coincidence that Americans have at regular intervals been able to bring forth the moral fortitude to fight tyrannies around the world? Could it also be a coincidence that freedom of speech (the First Amendment of its Constitution) is still alive in America, whereas similar Constitutional provisions in Europe are increasingly no longer respected and their implementation/enforcement appears to have become dependent upon the political winds of the day?
Historical/Political Explanations
The first observation one can make is that the experience with religion on the whole has been quite different on the two continents. In Europe, for many centuries, the nexus of religion with political power was very strong. The Catholic Church preached not liberty but authority and obedience. Calvinism, which preached equality and individuality, had quickly degenerated into theocracy where it could acquire political power. And revolutionary Lutheranism, which had opposed papal power, soon turned into a state religion that sanctified secular power in Germany and Scandinavia. It is only in the last century that full rights of citizenship have become independent from belonging to the ‘correct’ faith in much of Europe. Just like secular ideologies try to cling to political power today, following the Treaty of Augsburg (1555) churches accommodated themselves to the supremacy of Kings and aristocracies, and they traded the granting of the ‘divine right’ to rulers for many privileges (regarding land, taxes, etc…). Therefore, whoever wanted to attack authority in Europe had to attack the churches, and while these churches might have been different among individual countries, within countries usually one church had a near-monopoly on faith. Revolutions on the European Continent thus became as much anti-clerical as anti-royal (or anti-prince), and the common denominator of the civil faiths that arose in the 18th and 19th centuries – liberalism, socialism and communism – was anti-clericalism. Also in the 20th century, fascism and nazism saw churches as rivals for power and effectively ‘nationalized’ them (like Lenin/Stalin did before, and Putin does today). To this very day, to be a “progressive” in Europe requires to be a-religious (and often anti-religious), and hence there is the mistaken belief that modernity necessarily leads to (or requires) secularization.
The American experience has been very different, and there never existed a significant split between anti-clericalism and clericalism in the United States like it did in Europe. The Founders of the American Republic were on the whole very religious people, and they did not have to burn down churches and murder priests to establish their republic, like they did in France. Already de Tocqueville had pointed to the paradox that by establishing a rigorous separation of church and state (through the rejection of the concept of a state religion) the Founding Fathers had actually strengthened the role of religion in general in the United States. Faith (in its myriad forms) was viewed as the friend of freedom, not its enemy, and it was not despised or derided as an enemy of the Enligthenment in America. The contemporary Joffe points to another factor, namely that the protestants who settled America spoke largely English, not French. That means that they had benefited from the Scottish-English Enligthenment which was already a hundred years old at the time of the French Revolution. The latter was marked by Danton’s and Robespierre’s “deadly hatred of all things Deist”. By contrast, the great minds of the earlier Scottish-English Enlightenment - Berkely, Hume, Locke, Hutchinson – had no problem with God. And neither did the American offspring of that Enlightenment. They saw “natural law” and “natural rights” as transcending man-made laws, and Berkeley’s empiricism required God as ultimate proof of reality.
So, in short, because religion had been part of an oppressive state in Europe, it was later banned from the public sphere. Europe’s buildings, cathedrals, art, etc…attest to it having been a great Christian civilization in the past, but a visitor there today will not find much God in the public space. In America, the same visitor can easily encounter God in a football stadium, or at the end of a speech by…President Obama. And the essential reasons for that are (a) the early separation of church and state in America’s original 18th century Constitution, which has stood the test of time more than any other to this day, as well as (b) the non-denominational character of God in America. In America religion was never politically as powerful as it has been in Europe, but its influence has proven to be more lasting because it has relied on its own resources and thus remained in control of its own principles/message or, if you will, free from state control.
Economic/Cultural Explanations
If religion strengthens freedom in America, the inverse can also be said, i.e. that freedom strengthens religiosity there. Joffe calls that “supply-side religion”. Since there never was a church monopoly in the United States, nor officially sanctioned churches with an “established status”, Americans have always been free to choose their own religion and/or to get away from religion. The First Amendment clearly articulated that Congress shall make no laws whatsoever about religion, neither for nor against. De Tocqueville had already noted Americans’ proclivity to constantly form associations of “a thousand kinds”: serious, futile, social, educational, religious/moral, entertainment…, i.e. to do things without the ‘help’ of the state. It is the combination of a (relatively) weak state with the self-help mentality (or “do your own thing”) which ensures that religion in America, to this day, is a competitive enterprise with easy market entry and almost no regulation whatsoever. Anybody can start up a church there and respond to changing ‘market conditions’ which, in economic terms, means that supply creates its own demand.
The contrast with Europe is sharp. There, regulations abound and in some countries the authorities are positively paranoid about sects, cults, and definitions about what is a “proper” religion, even resembling China a bit in that respect. How could a religious start-up compete there with established (recognized) churches? Trying to establish a mega-church in Paris or Berlin is not like starting one in Los Angeles at all. And, in most places in Europe, the actual religious choice is between either the local parish church (increasingly the local mosque) or none.
There is a second important factor (besides the near absence of “supply-side religion” in Europe) which helps to explain the secularization or de-Christianization of that continent, and that is the rapidly expanding European welfare state, which broadly speaking has doubled from perhaps a quarter to roughly half of GDP over the past fifty years or so. As Joffe notes, “with its ballooning benefits, the paternal state has pushed aside Mother Church”. Traditionally, churches were very active in charity and other services (and often demanded fealty in return). Between marriage and burial, churches were involved with feeding, healing, schooling, sheltering, etc…But, today, state-run health services and welfare bureaucracies have moved into even the core market segment of churches, i.e. spiritual help. Is it any wonder that the typical European customer will prefer “psychiatric social services” and other free government benefits to the demanding obligations of church membership? The important question is what does this evolution do over time to the moral character or fiber of the recipient population of these benefits-without-strings or obligations? Viewed from an American perspective, one wonders if it could be doing to much of Europe’s population what President Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programs manifestly did to much of the black community in the USA, i.e. a breakdown in personal responsibility and in the moral fiber of a whole sub-culture.
In response to their loss of market share, Europe’s major Christian churches have tended to go in the wrong direction, i.e. back into politics, and more specifically into environmental, gender and immigration dogmas and fads of the political left. The continuing drop in their (active) membership suggests that secularizing the church is not an antidote to secularization.
Finally, to go back to Hegel’s lament about too much physicality in American religiosity, there is the phenomenon of Evangelical or “born-again Christianity” in America. One suspects that many contemporary Europeans would find this ‘cute’ or ‘interesting’ in exotic locales of Africa, Asia or South America, but positively detest this in Americans (especially ‘white’ ones). Yet, American born-again Christianity, as a cultural phenomenon, reflects a very typical American and very secular conviction, i.e. the principle of the “second chance”. It’s the spiritual version of “yes, we can” (with, yes, the risk of temporary Obamamania). Like the original settlers, you can shed the past and start out anew, you can choose godliness at any time in your life. Evangelical Christianity reflects and reinforces the individualism and the optimism of the American secular experience.
Americans tend to be optimists, but conservatives less so than the others. On the whole, religion and freedom have strengthened each other in America, as the stirring speeches of Abraham Lincoln so beautifully illustrate. In Europe the historical experience has been very different. While religion and freedom are no longer foes there, they are not friends either, and God has been (largely) banned from the public sphere. This is not likely to change again and, therefore, in Joffe’s words “America and Europe remain apart as they were in the days of de Tocqueville”.
(*) Josef Joffe, The God Gap. Why Europeans Lose Faith and Americans Keep Praying, The American Interest, November/December 2009.
(**) Philippe Roger, The American Enemy: The History of French Anti-Americanism, 2005, p.41.
(***) Hegel, Vorlesungen…, in Werke, Vol 12 (Suhrkamp, 1986), p.112.
A response to “Pale Rider”:
Submitted by Thomas F. Bertonneau on Thu, 2010-01-14 09:56.
As does Marc Huybrechts, whose article is the inspiration for so many comments, I too wish to bring my discourse on this topic to an end for now. I will do so by responding to “Pale Rider.”
Pale Rider wrote: “In the Reformed tradition, theocracy is understood as the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Ten Commandments, thus including those laws that relate to man's spiritual relationship towards God. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Church and State are merged as one.”
Practically, however, Jean Calvin was the theocratic dictator of Geneva, as Savonarola, a Catholic, had been of Florence in the Fifteenth Century. The theocratic temptation is certainly not restricted to Protestantism (think of Byzantium), but the Puritanical or Gnostic craving to purify the society in order to realize at the very least a simulacrum of the City of God on this earth seems to me to lie close to the surface in Protestant Christianity, especially in its Calvinist offshoot. Calvin’s Geneva and the Salem Colony are cases in point.
Pale Rider Wrote: “The Anabaptists, on the other hand, held varying views. Some of them were working and indeed fighting to establish a full-fledged theocracy as a Zion on earth, a Christian paradise so to speak. Others were proponents of religious liberty but went too far in that they neglected the importance of the temporal powers, often engaged in communism and ended up as anarchists.”
The Anabaptists in Münster actually promulgated a kind of communism, which, like the Twentieth Century Stalinist version of communism, far from creating equality, opened up a great gap between the leaders and the led. In this sense the drift of the later, humiliated Anabaptists into communism and anarchy does not contradict the Münster episode, but rather shows the destructive consistency in the Anabaptist spirit.
Pale Rider wrote: “The Puritans were a mixed lot and I would not be so quick as to depict them as theocratic loons as if they were no different from modern-day Sharia devotees who condone the most savage acts in order to enforce their supposedly God-given law on others. Some of their motives were noble to my mind and I value some of the Puritans' writings.”
I agree, with one or two qualifications, but I did not “depict [the Puritans] as theocratic loons.” I merely identified them as theocrats in their original transatlantic project, which they realized for a century or so. What brought the Massachusetts Puritans up short and taught them a nasty but necessary lesson was the “Witchcraft” episode, which belonged to the logic of their radical in-group psychology, with its pathological distrust of out-group differences. The paroxysm of the faux court proceedings and subsequent hangings shows the same impulses to have been in place in the Salem Colony (and elsewhere in Massachusetts) as were in place in Münster when the Anabaptists gained control there.
Pale Rider wrote: “Think of the Prohibition, strongly influenced by the Temperance Movement. To this very day, many denominations claim consumption of alcohol is a sin. This is the product of Pietism and the Revivalism the American colonies or the U.S. experienced at least twice and these have virtually no equivalents in Europe – at least not among those religious groups that are native to this continent.”
Again, I agree. Prohibition is a most interesting case, not least because it shows how Puritanism shades into liberalism. The Prohibitionist coalition was, on its surface, unlikely. It was a partnership of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Southern Baptists, Unitarians, Progressives, and Feminists. Prohibition suggests to me that I am right when I draw a line that connects the original Puritans with modern liberals, who are, of course, addicted to the reconstruction, not only of society, but of human nature, so as to create Heaven on Earth. Thus the late Senator Kennedy was a nominal Catholic by profession but a secular Puritan in attitude – like the Münster Anabaptist leaders excusing himself from the strictures he would impose on other people.
I thank once again Marc Huybrechts for his excellent article and “Pale Rider” for his legitimate questions and challenges. I hope to contribute a new article soon to The Brussels Journal. Perhaps that will provide an occasion for “Pale Rider” and me to continue our conversation.
RE: A response to “Pale Rider”
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-14 19:49.
Mr Bertonneau,
Thank you for your reply and for explaining your view on this issue. Overall you make some very accurate and interesting points that I would like to think through. However, I believe you may have misunderstood the definition I provided of theocracy. A community of believers who do not formally have a state (i.e. secular authorities) are a theocracy. However, when secular authorities take upon themselves the task of defending the faith and exterminating heresies perceived to be dangerous to society or the state's integrity, you are in a theocracy as well, despite the fact that there is still a distinction between Church and State (albeit a blurry one).
As far as Calvin is concerned, I have to disagree. What you wrote is the commonly held myth that he was a theocratic tyrant and that Geneva was nothing but an experiment. The man was not without his faults, but he held no secular authority and for most of his life did not have Genevan citizenship. Despite Calvin's strong theological opposition to the Anabaptists, his wife had been married to one. Compared with other cities at his time, Geneva was far more tolerant and, like the Dutch Republic later on, attracted Jews because they enjoyed greater liberty. It is certainly true, however, that by modern standards, full-fledged religious liberty was non-existent. Now others have done excellent research on this issue so I will refrain from arguing about this here. It would lead us too far off-topic and I do not want to do injustice to Marc Huybrecht's well-written and insightful article by engaging in such a debate.
Thank you for having this conversation, and I look forward to reading your new article!
Best regards.
Theocracy # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2010-01-13 21:17.
@ Pale Rider
I very much agree with your opinion on "the view of the (US) Constitution" as expressed in your second-to-last paragraph. However, I think that the United States is a "Christian" nation in TWO senses. First, as you said, it is so because the principles underlying the Constitution grew out of a Christian civilisation. But, second, it is so because the overwhelming majority of its people still see themselves as Christians.
It seems reasonable to expect that the first sense will be valid for a very long time. The process of amending the Constitution is a very difficult one and it is rarely achieved. At the same time, the interpretation of the underlying principles is not immutable. The current struggle on the Supreme Court between 'originalists' (e.g. Scalia) and 'evolutionists' (e.g. Breyer) illustrates that.
As to the second sense, one can expect the United States to become less "Christian" over time as the diversity of its religions appears to be increasing.
Theocracy
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Wed, 2010-01-13 19:46.
Mr Bertonneau, I would like to ask what makes the Puritans so different from the old continent with regard to the roles of religion and state? In the Reformed tradition, theocracy is understood as the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Ten Commandments, thus including those laws that relate to man's spiritual relationship towards God. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Church and State are merged as one. What I have just described was the system found virtually everywhere in Europe despite the fact that there was considerable strife between the secular and religious (i.e. pope) authorities at various moments in our history. Even during the Reformation, man simply wasn't ready for the idea of full religious liberty and it seems rather unfair to expect that anyone would given the complex realities of those days. In the German states, for instance, it would have been suicidal for Protestant rulers to have granted full freedom of religion to Catholics because of Rome's power structure.
And yet Luther, Calvin and other Reformers promoted a Two Kingdoms view on the roles of the Church and the State as opposed to the doctrine of the Two Swords. This Protestant doctrine had considerable influence even upon Thomas Jefferson, who deeply resented Calvinist theology. It was also largely the Reformed view on natural law which lead to the development of the idea that man has certain inalienable and therefore God-given rights, and that the government itself is subject to natural law, i.e. "Lex, Rex" written by the Scottish and Presbyterian minister Samuel Rutherford and published when John Locke was still in his infancy.
The Anabaptists, on the other hand, held varying views. Some of them were working and indeed fighting to establish a full-fledged theocracy as a Zion on earth, a Christian paradise so to speak. Others were proponents of religious liberty but went too far in that they neglected the importance of the temporal powers, often engaged in communism and ended up as anarchists.
The Puritans were a mixed lot and I would not be so quick as to depict them as theocratic loons as if they were no different from modern-day Sharia devotees who condone the most savage acts in order to enforce their supposedly God-given law on others. Some of their motives were noble to my mind and I value some of the Puritans' writings. Many of the people who migrated to New England were heavily persecuted as a community so it is quite logical to me that they took full advantage of their new location to exercise their religion freely without having to fear any persecution. That they were theocratic does not make them worse than anything "back home". No need to mention the Inquisition, I suppose.
In the Calvinist Dutch Republic, religious minorities enjoyed religious liberty, including Anabaptists (of the pacifist faction). Later, in the 19th century, Reformed theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper openly argued in favour of the civil magistrate enforcing only the second table of the Decalogue as opposed to the "theocratic" view of the civil magistrate enforcing both. Only Theonomists (not synonymous with "theocrats") would disagree, as they argue that the civil laws of the Mosaic Law are to be enforced on society. They are, and thankfully have always been in the minority.
One of the problems I have with a lot of self-professed conservatives in the United States is that they see the word "God" in the Constitution and they automatically think of it as the God of the Bible, leading to the idea that the United States was intended to be a Christian country. I think that is a misinterpretation. The view of the Constitution is that man has certain rights that are derived from natural law. Now even Voltaire said that morality without God is impossible, yet he was virulently anti-Christian. So was Jefferson, among others. The United States is only "Christian" in the sense that the principles of the Constitution grew out of a Christian civilisation and that it would have been very unlikely for such a document to have been written without this heritage.
Another problem is the Anabaptist spirit that permeated American Christianity from an early stage, and has lead to a lack of consistency in applying the Two Kingdoms division (i.e. not applying it at all like the Anabaptists of old). To illustrate this point, I refer to the influence of religious movements on politics despite the Constitution's intended neutrality toward any religious persuasions. Think of the Prohibition, strongly influenced by the Temperance Movement. To this very day, many denominations claim consumption of alcohol is a sin. This is the product of Pietism and the Revivalism the American colonies or the U.S. experienced at least twice and these have virtually no equivalents in Europe - at least not among those religious groups that are native to this continent.
Best regards.
One of the problems I have
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2010-01-14 06:02.
One of the problems I have with a lot of self-professed conservatives in the United States is that they see the word "God" in the Constitution and they automatically think of it as the God of the Bible, leading to the idea that the United States was intended to be a Christian country. I think that is a misinterpretation.
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” - John Adams
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]
"All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?" - Benjamin Franklin, To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention
"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." - James Madison, Federalist No. 37, January 11, 1788
The view of the Constitution is that man has certain rights that are derived from natural law. Now even Voltaire said that morality without God is impossible, yet he was virulently anti-Christian. So was Jefferson, among others.
"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237
"Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
The United States is only "Christian" in the sense that the principles of the Constitution grew out of a Christian civilisation and that it would have been very unlikely for such a document to have been written without this heritage.
Say what?
RE: One of the problems I have
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-14 19:20.
Thank you for illustrating the kind of revisionism I had in mind when I wrote my previous message. I have heard the argument a thousand times before and I do no longer buy it. I recommend that you read up on the lives and beliefs the men who founded the United States actually professed. Using a few random quotes, one might just as well argue Adolph Hitler was a deeply Christian man. Indeed some were convinced he was because he invoked Jesus Christ and God in many of his speeches. There is also a difference between speaking of the United States (a state) and Americans (its citizens). The United States may have been a Christian nation, but it was never intended to be a Christian state.
@pale rider
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2010-01-14 19:37.
There are a lot more "quotes" and letters, and books to support what I posted. I have read up, and it's apparent that YOU are the one who suffers from adhering to "revisionism".
I have yet to see you offer up any substantiation except your own subjective opinion.
Ignorance is bliss.
RE: @pale rider
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-14 20:06.
While I have no intention of vilifying Jefferson or any Founding Father here, one has to wonder how blissfully ignorant one must be to claim the man was basically a Christian statesman in view of his comments on St Paul and the publication of the Jefferson Bible. And let us not minimise Thomas Paine's role in the American Revolution and conveniently ignore his views on the Christian religion, shall we? Which is not to even mention Freemasonry and the Treaty of Tripoli. I used to firmly hold your own view on this issue so I do not need you lecturing me. And now I would like to end this because I do not want to see another emotionally-laden argument in the comment section for this article.
Blinders
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2010-01-14 20:47.
You can't even muster a substantiated defense, pale rider.
You keep those blinders on, they suit your ignorance well.
RE: Blinders
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-14 21:42.
I have better things to do than mustering substantiated defences against a selection of quotes and I am not a huge fan of shouting matches either. That will be all. Good day.
No Defense, Just Pretense
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2010-01-14 22:00.
More proof:
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us." - John Hancock
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see" --Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.
"While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.
What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.
Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country." - John Witherspoon (Signatory of Declaration of Independence)--Sermon at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry
Lots more where that came from.
Sinners # 6
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2010-01-13 19:09.
@ Atheling
This will be my last post to you on this subject of "sinners", and I very much regret that you continue with superfluous 'ad hominems' which are not conducive to a fruitful discussion. I am quite willing to admit my failings (if and) when shown to have been wrong, and I had no wish to "change subjects". My only goal is clarity or understanding of different positions.
1) I did not wish "to imply" anything about your position on abortion, and for you to put a word ("nuances") in quotation marks, when I have not used that word, is dishonest (if it were done consciously). As to the substance of this issue of abortion, to actually think that there are no important "nuances" to abortion in the political context of a free and democratic society would be...well...indicative of a fundamentalist attitude.
2) I think you are wrong to claim that "moderates in the GOP do not win", but this matter hinges entirely on what the word "moderate" could mean, and that obviously depends very much on subject and context (or comparison with others on the scene). Both Bush senior and Bush junior were considered "moderates" before they got elected, compared to others in the primaries. And Ronald Reagan was very much a "moderate" in terms of his views on social/ethical issues. It's not because the left wanted to paint him as an 'extremist warmonger' that sensible people should parrot such nonsense. So, I would say that only moderate Republicans have won the Presidency in recent memory. As to your question about McCain, I agree that he ran a terrible campaign, and that Palin was an asset (not a liability). I also think that he lost the election, in the end, because of the financial crisis and more specificaly because of his absurd reaction to it. And I am not going to call you any names if you disagree with these assessments.
3) I did not miss the point about Hoffman. You did! I explicitly blamed the (northern) New York GOP for the (nondemocratic) way they nominated Scozzafava, and I clearly stated that I do not like her. By running as a 3rd party candidate, Hoffman effectively put another Democrat in the 'House of Pelosi'. Whether that's a good thing, or a bad thing (my view), or whether it doesn't matter (perhaps your view), who is to say? But the practical political lessons from this episode should be clear: (a) the GOP got to keep cleaning house, in the sense of following democratic procedures for selecting candidates, and (b) 3rd party candidacies by dissatisfied 'hardliners' only help Obama+Pelosi+Reid. If you think of politics as 'all or nothing', you will more often than not end up with 'nothing'. The American public does not like 'extremism', and O got elected by pretending that he is not (when he clearly is to astute observers).
4) No, you did not state that Reagan is a fundamentalist, and I never said that you did! I introduced the term "fundamentalist Christian" (under item 3 in "Sinners # 4) in a paragraph where you are not mentioned at all. . If you care to look, you will see that I described Reagan in that paragraph by comparing him with Carter, and I asserted that Reagan ran on themes of foreign policy and taxes. Reagan's signature statement was "Government is the problem"! He certainly did not run on 'Christian' themes, and not really on social/ethical issues either. Also, as far as I know, Reagan was not a churchgoer and did not belong to any particular church, in contrast with almost all other American presidents that I am aware of. But he certainly had no disdain for American religiosity as most Europeans do today. My article in the Brussels Journal here should be seen as an attack on this arrogant and foolish European attitude and, as such, I am pretty sure that Reagan would have approved.
I wish you a good day.
A reply to “Mpresley”
Submitted by Thomas F. Bertonneau on Wed, 2010-01-13 11:19.
In the pre-Roe versus Wade political world in the United States, when the several states were free to decide the abortion issue according to their own lights, there was, in the array of different legislative assessments, an implicit debate. One effect of Roe versus Wade was to declare, as liberals like to say nowadays, that, “the debate is over.” One could say that Roe versus Wade established the template of the now current “the-debate-is-over” slogan. Once the debate is over, however, what remains except coercion or main force? (The question is rhetorical: nothing remains except coercion or main force.) Part of the formula of political tolerance is to recognize the “squishiness,” the non-resolvability, of certain issues. And therefore to refrain from deciding them. (That last sentence should make my teacher, Eric Gans, proud of me.)
One effect of the First Amendment is to declare, “The debate is NOT over; it goes on.”
The Lockean orientation of the Founders might well have been a weakness in their position – better had they been Thomists. Not only is it possible, in Lockean terms, to regard the fetus as a non-person; it is also possible to regard (say) millionaires or billionaires or private insurance-providers as non- or at least less-than-human. The 9/11 attackers obviously regarded their victims as non-human, since, for the Jihadist, the human being is nothing (“not truly human”) until imprinted with Koranic fidelity, until, that is, he “submits,” which is the translation of the term “Islam.”
(A flaw in Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” is that it is sublimely easy to bracket the people against whom one’s ire is aimed as “not human” and therefore outside the imperative.)
By the way, Locke was not unread or unheeded among the second- and third-generation Puritans, whose divines were often formidable, well-read intellectuals. (Mandatory public schooling is both a Lockean and a Puritan fetish. But, as I repeatedly said during my time in Michigan as a higher-education reformer, “Public education is absolutely not the same thing as an educated public.”) Perhaps a common investment in Locke was one of the motifs that permitted New England Blue-Noses and red-blooded Virginia gentlemen to agree, at last, on the Constitution. History is full of ironies; human existence is paradoxical.
Catholic anthropology differs sharply, as your remarks suggest, from Calvinist and Lutheran anthropology. Paul Gottfried has argued that Catholic societies have proven themselves better resistant to political correctness than Protestant societies. (Considering France and Spain, I wonder…) For what it is worth, I have spent my life in transitioning from a Californian to a very bad Catholic!
Perhaps it is trivial, but the Vatican’s critical response to the globally popular “Avatar” film suggests that the Catholic-Thomist perspective is better prepared than the Calvinist or Lutheran, or post-Calvinist or post-Lutheran, perspective to detect and avoid the allure of the sacrificial. A literary scholar, I look for significance in the seemingly insignificant.
Socialism is a sacrificial system, whose basic premise is indistinguishable from the basic premise of the Moloch- or Huitzilopochtli-cult, namely that some people are expendable “for the sake of others.”
Sinners # 5
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2010-01-13 05:05.
@ Atheling
1) How could I have misconstrued your position on abortion? I said nothing about your position on abortion. I only outlined my own position on abortion in extremely general terms.
2) --What is the relevance of Bob Dole and G H W B in 2010? The empirical facts that I specifically mentioned were the recent electoral GOP victories in Virginia and New Jersey which were won by conservatives that campaigned on economic issues, not social ('ethical' in European jargon) issues.
-- For your information, I do not like Schwarzenegger and even less Scozzafava. Now, if the GOP could have learned the lesson that the way Scozzafava was nominated in Northern New York was the wrong way, and if you could learn the lesson that a 3rd party candidacy only helps Obama+Pelosi, then perhaps we conservatives could keep on winning (like recently in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania).
-- You are confusing "fundamentals" with "fundamentalist". The term fundamentalist refers to THE WAY one holds a particular belief (Does it allow for uncertainty and hope? Or is it totally abolute without any doubts whatsoever? Remember 'arrogance'/vanity is a vice!). It does not refer to what one beliefs or what the fundamentals are of one's belief system. I did not call you a fundamentalist, but I must tell you that there are fundamentalists in every religion (including "traditional Roman Catholicism") and also in every secular ideology as well. Fundamentalism is not about WHAT you believe but about HOW you believe.
-- I am very glad that Ronald Reagan at times spoke up for "American Christian values" and, I repeat, he certainly was not a 'fundamentalist', as his private writings clearly indicate.
-- I like Sarah Palin, and Michele Malkin even more.
Now, can we get back to the subject at hand, which is the religious divide between Europe and America?
Re: Sinners #5
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2010-01-13 06:17.
1. You were implying my position by constantly harping on the (irrelevant) "nuances" of the abortion issue. Like I said, focusing on a paper cut while the carotid artery hemorrhages.
2. You ignore my point that you are comparing apples to oranges when you talk about state-level and national-level elections. I think your ignoring MY point about moderate losers like Dole and McCain (why didn't you include him in your question?) is telling. You have NO rebuttal for it. Moderates in the GOP nationally do not win. Show me the last GOP moderate who won the White House (and who wasn't riding on Reagan's coattails).
3. You missed the point about Hoffman. If the GOP had dumped Scozzafava and gotten behind Hoffman he could have won. THEY blew the election, not Hoffman or a third party. They backed a losing horse. And they will rightfully continue to lose if they continue to back the wrong horse.
Oh quit the semantics game. YOU invoked the bloody term, "fundamentalist", not me! And you kept on using it as a disparagement, just like lefties do. And answer my question, did I claim that Ronald Reagan was a fundamentalist? SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT, IF NOT THEN QUIT PROCLAIMING THAT HE WAS NOT. Bloody hell, this straw man crap is annoying.
Well, I'm glad you're not THAT elitist that you can "like" Sarah Palin. At least you're not a Frum or Brooks bobblehead.
And did you watch the video? Can you ever admit when you are wrong, marcfrans? Or do you like to change the subject when you realize when you are?
I remember a person who
Submitted by Monarchist on Wed, 2010-01-13 09:42.
I remember a person who claimed that democracy is not totalitarian rule of majority. Here the same person claim that this is reasonable to murder some unborn babies if seriously limited minds of majority find it to be acceptable. The ultimate goal is to beat Democrats and win thousands of post in administration for 'our' palls, so such democratic Machiavellian logic is justified.
Sinners # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2010-01-12 19:16.
@ Atheling
Naturally, you are entitled to your own "disappointments", but I would hope that this would be for the right reasons and not based on misconceptions or too-facile judgments. Please, allow me to correct the 'record'.
1) You have no basis to claim that I would advocate a "weak" and/or "unprincipled" compromise on abortion. I have argued for reasonable 'limitations', and certainly believe that this issue does not properly belong at the Federal level but rather at the State level. Whether we like it or not, an overwhelming majority of Americans think that abortion is reasonable under certain limited circumstances. In a democracy the debate should be about what is "reasonable", and it should not be a contest between the winner-take-all mentality of two contending 'absolutist' (and, may I add, fundamentalist) positions.
2) I would not be in favor of nominating "another moderate loser for the GOP". Those are just sneer words. Obviously, I want a moderate winner. I fear that you are misreading very-recent American history, and ignoring relevant empirical facts. If you think that recent GOP defeats at the federal level were based on 'social' issues, like abortion and gay marriage, you are very mistaken. Perhaps fiscal policy profligacy, Bush immigration confusion and 'nation building efforts', might be closer to the mark. The most recent GOP electoral victories in Virginia and New Jersey, and the actual campaign behavior of the two relevant GOP candidates for Governor, illustrate my point. If you want the political demise of Obama/Reid/Pelosi you have to win in places like Virginia and New Jersey. Feeling 'good' in Alabama and Utah will not do it. Now, do you really want to win, or not? I fear the answer is not.
3) Ronald Reagan was no fundamentalist 'Christian'. Far from it. But; he was a rather optimistic American, and his tenure was characterized by formidable strength and character in foreign policy and tax policy. While I don't want to take anything away from Ronaldus Magnus'es achievements, in a way it was Jimmy Carter's incredible wasteland that enabled Reagan to be...well...Reagan. Obama's wasteland in terms of the economy and foreign policy might do the same for a Romney or a Pawlenty or others.
4) Yes, I am aware of the "million tea partiers" who descended on Washington in late summer last year. I was one of them. Luckily, I did not hear fundamentalist talk from the platform in front of the Capitol. What I did hear was a lot of derision - and fear! - about Obama's feckless foreign policy and his socialistic economic policies (the latter in cahoots with the Congress).
I like to think of this response as being in congruence with what Bertonneau so aptly called "the generous but necessarily self-limiting plasticity of genuine tolerance".
Re: Sinners #4
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2010-01-13 03:23.
1. You misconstrue my position on abortion. I have no problem with parents choosing the mother's life over the unborn child's (as it is their private decision) if there is no other option, but how often does that occur? You make it sound as if that's the only reason why there are abortions, and it is not. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are simply performed on demand for no other reason but convenience. Your point makes as much sense as fretting over a paper cut while the body is hemorrhaging from a knife wound to the carotid artery.
2. "Ignoring empirical facts"?
FACT: John McCain - moderate = Lost presidential election.
FACT: Bob Dole - moderate = Lost presidential election.
FACT: George H. W. Bush - moderate = Lost second term.
Those moderates lost because they had no authenticity and/or did not stand firmly on conservative principles, fiscal and social. They could not fire up the base (which, I hate to tell you, is CONSERVATIVE, not moderate.) They wanted to be all things to all people, and conservative Americans know a phoney when they see one. They did not trust either man because both had too many contemptible compromises in their respective histories. Next, invoking uber liberal New Jersey as a state to win over is unrealistic. It makes no sense to alienate strong conservative states like Alabama or Utah by diluting conservative principles just to win over a blue state because you will not win either. That's the failed, misguided policy implemented by Steve Schmidt, John McCain's senior campaign manager. Look where that got McCain. If he hadn't Sarah Palin to energize the base, his numbers would have been extraordinarily dismal. Furthermore, it's one thing to invoke state politics, but using that as an example for a presidential election is comparing apples to oranges. Moderate squishes like Arnold Schwarzenegger may appeal to leftist Californians who are fed up with paying high taxes under a Donk, but he will NEVER win a general election (if he were eligible) because the heartland will not accept him. Next, what happened in NY's 23rd? The GOP put up moderate Dede Scozzafava and ignored Independent conservative Doug Hoffman. She got Newt Gingrich's endorsement, and the GOP foolishly poured millions into her coffers. She ended up dropping out and endorsed the Democrat, who won by a narrow margin over Hoffman! I will never forgive the GOP for that kind if idiocy. Yes, that's a winning strategy, isn't it? (BTW, winning Virginia would not entail using the same strategy as winning NJ, as the demographics are markedly different). Oh, and speaking of "sneer words", when you drop the "sneer" from "fundamentalist", I'll drop whatever "sneer" you perceive from me. I'm fed up with the arrogant elitists in this country sneering at everyday, church-going people, fundamentalists or Evangelicals. I'm neither, for the record, as I'm orthodox Roman Catholic. But I stand with those "fundamentalists" against those who seek to destroy and erase all traces of America's Christian culture.
3. When did I refer to President Reagan as a "fundamentalist Christian", and when did you start the bad habit of creating straw man arguments? That's very dishonest, marcfrans. President Reagan was not afraid to stand up for American Christian values and speak of them, unlike some moderates I mentioned. Same with President Bush. And he too won two terms. You're dreaming if you think Obama's ruinous policies are suddenly going to make Romney or Pawlenty look palatable. Romney has an albatross around his neck called Romneycare in MA; face it: he is finished. He has flip-flopped too many times on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues - to the point that he is not trusted by conservatives. He has been practically silent in the past year - what is he hiding from? He has no moral authority to criticize Obamacare because he knows his own liabilities in that regard. He has shown no backbone or courage in criticizing Obama and his policies - he isn't even on the radar any more. Pawlenty can't even muster a crowd in a fast food restaurant if he tried. He may be a nice man, but for God's sakes, he is about as interesting as yesterday's oatmeal. And what has he accomplished in MN?
4. You did not "hear fundamentalist talk from the platform" in the Capitol? Gee, I guess you missed this:
I see you made no comment on Sarah Palin. No need to. I can already guess what you think of her. Well, you're going to be proven wrong.
A Response to “Mpresley”
Submitted by Thomas F. Bertonneau on Tue, 2010-01-12 12:01.
“Mpresley,” a gentleman, is right. The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits only a Federal establishment of religion, not any state establishment of religion. The First Amendment is thus consistent with the principle of Federalism. It might, indeed, be one of the vestiges in the Constitution of the original Articles of Confederation, which were even more laissez-faire in spirit than the Constitution. Presumably, under the First Amendment, if Massachusetts wanted once again to organize itself as a theocracy (some might say that it has), a strict interpretation of the Constitution would not challenge the state agenda. A key test of the Federal principle came with the admission of Utah. The Federal Government made it clear that the Mormons would have to make a choice between polygamy and statehood; the Mormons traded polygamy for statehood. Was this a good or a bad thing for the laissez-faire principle?
The laissez-faire principle is not a “tally-ho” principle: it cannot, consistent with itself, permit just anything. Because, at the time of the Utah decision, the United States still considered itself a Christian (not a specifically sectarian, but rather a generically Christian) nation, and because the Mormon practice of polygamy stood radically outside normative Christian tradition, the admission of a state dominated by a polygamous majority was antithetical to the national coherence. Polygamy was, after all, against the law in every other state.
I would characterize the position of the Federal Government regarding the admission of Utah as a common-sense position. What is conspicuously missing in the contemporary American situation is any element of common sense, the totalitarian idea that “everything is permissible” (except, of course, the long-standing norms) having trumped the generous but necessarily self-limiting plasticity of genuine tolerance.
A turning point in the dominion of Federalism was the abortion decision, Roe versus Wade, which is only every discussed as though the only issue it implicated was abortion. But the real issue was not abortion, but the right of states to decide the abortion issue individually, without Federal interference. Viewed in this way, Roe versus Wade was a totalitarian imposition on the several states.
The abortion issue demonstrates how stultified American political discourse has become. It is too subtle for American politicians, who, mainly, cannot think in subordinate clauses. Generally, abortion is an insult to life, hence a damaging institution to the society that not only permits but also encourages it (as a form of contraception); but clearly in some narrowly defined circumstances, it is morally permissible. The abortion issue therefore differs significantly from the polygamy issue – as it does also from the “gay marriage” issue. (Marc Huybrechts has explained this matter in a previous post in this “thread.”) A free society may sanction some few generally distasteful things in some carefully defined conditions; but that are some things on which it may not, except at the price of its own deterioration, settle its sanction.
A turning point...re: Thomas Bertonneau
Submitted by mpresley on Tue, 2010-01-12 23:33.
A turning point in the dominion of Federalism was the abortion decision, Roe versus Wade, which is only every discussed as though the only issue it implicated was abortion. But the real issue was not abortion, but the right of states to decide the abortion issue individually, without Federal interference. Viewed in this way, Roe versus Wade was a totalitarian imposition on the several states.
I'd like to depart a bit in a "take off" from this line of thought (although what is quoted above is certainly the case). Our government is rightly associated with the thinking of John Locke and is enshrined within Jefferson's paraphrasing of his words in the Declaration. However there is a philosophic tension between the ideas of Locke, and traditional Catholic religious thinking. Traditional Catholic (Thomist) thinking saw individual humans comprised of a soul as the form of a physical body, with both associated in a metaphysically inseparable way. Locke, on the other hand, had a view of personal identity that turned on a more limited and unique definition of a rational thinking being not (necessarily and logically) tied to any particular substance. It is therefore easy to see how this philosophical turn (a turn from Classical Aristotelian and Medieval thinking) could lead to the idea that, say, a fetus or perhaps slaves are not human in any sense, inasmuch as these "identities" do not possess the necessary attributes of a rational man. This view is, by the way, argued in Edward Feser's recent book on Locke. At the same time, Professor Feser underscores the theological foundation of Locke's project, and argues that without taking Locke's belief in God at face value, it is difficult to make sense of his arguments for natural law and right. On the other hand, Strauss argues that the theological aspect of Locke must be discounted.
A Flaw in the Founding?
Submitted by KO on Tue, 2010-01-12 13:36.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this extraordinary conversation. I only write to raise the question whether the case of Utah is consistent with Mr. Bertonneau's and Mr. Huybrecht's preference for the secular constitution of the Virginia gentlemen over a hypothetical constitution that acknowledged that the United States was a Christian nation. As Mr. Bertonneau describes it, our sound common sense as a generically Christian people drew the line at polygamy in the case of Utah. The secular constitution, however, provides no support for such common sense when the people or the elites reject it, and indeed supports the argument that such common sense is itself unconstitutional. The secular constitution thus leaves us open to abominations such as a federal constitutional right to abortion (when, like other kinds of homicide, it should be subject to state criminal law) and renders us impotent to defend ourselves against subversion by Islamic heretics.
The Founders were doubtless correct in their belief that no written document could protect the ordered liberty of the people if they lost their virtue, so it is probably idle to regret the secularism of their constitution. In an era when the people have lost much of their virtue, we nevertheless might wish Massachusetts men like John Adams had seen fit to bequeathe us a few more weapons to defend the Christian foundation of our virtue.
But perhaps that would have made matters even worse. If mainstream churches ruled, socialism, radical environmentalism, subjection to the UN, and homosexual marriage would undoubtedly be the law of the land. (Cf. Frederick Turner's epic poem Genesis (1987), in which the UN rules the world, and the Eco-Theist Church rules the UN!)
Miep Gies RIP
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2010-01-12 07:08.
O/T, but I'm really suprised that there is no mention of the death of Miep Gies.
RIP.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/11/miep-gies-r-i-p/
Sinners # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2010-01-12 00:21.
@ Atheling
1) Indeed, words have meaning. That is why I wrote that libertarians cannot be equated with nonreligious conservatives. There are other nonreligious conservatives than libertarians. Many libertarians would probably not even consider themselves “conservatives” at all, particularly those who are focused on (what you call) “their tight wallets” rather than on ‘cultural values’. But, much of the political left (in Europe and America) will certainly label them conservatives because of their opposition to ‘big brother’.
2) While I sympathize with your views on abortion and traditional marriage, it is not a viable political project to exclude potential allies by formulating platform positions in an absolutist manner. Take abortion, for example. From a political standpoint, the conservative position can only be strengthened by recognizing that there can be circumstances of moral dilemmas, i.e. of conflicting values. The discussion concerning goals should be about sensible and realistic limitations on abortion as well as about preventing public financing, and not about name-calling. Similarly, with regard to marriage, the best way to defend “traditional marriage” is to question the rationale of government involvement with private consensual sexual relations or living arrangements among free adult citizens. It is by questioning the need for a legal institution called “civil marriage” that the rationale for “traditional marriage” can be explored and defended. In my view that rationale can only be ‘the defense of the interests of children issuing from the marriage’. Anything else would be an absurd expansion of discriminatory legal arrangements originating with government. It is not governments’ business to approve of living arrangements, nor to arbitrarily attach monetary benefits to certain arrangements whole ignoring other arrangements). But, it is government’s business to protect the weak (like children and the feeble-minded) when their parents cannot or do not. The absurdity of same-sex marriage is not that homosexual people want to live together, but rather that it is not government’s business to approve of (or ‘recognize’) who can live with whom. The conservative position on marriage should be that marriage potentially creates heavy obligations (when ‘open’ to children), and not that marriage entitles certain individuals to benefits (largely at the expense of other tax payers).
3) I strongly agree with you on the true ‘origin’ of rights and/or liberties. It is an important aspect of the “God-goodness link” briefly discussed in the article.
4) “Certain unchanging principles” do exist in realms other than the one of the mind. It is the translation or interpretation of these principles in concrete human and/or societal circumstances that is the difficult part. If I may, I would like to urge you to read another article that I wrote for the Brussels Journal in February 2007 under the title “Intra-Cultural Conflict”. Perhaps, you may find it useful.
5) The reality is that the United States political system operates on a two-party basis. I think that such a system is better for democracy than most European ‘proportional representation parliamentary’ systems which have degenerated into ‘particracies’. I base that broad judgment on the history of the past century, on intimate knowledge of Belgian and Italian ‘particracies’, and on the fading of freedom of political speech in Europe today. But, that is a whole other discussion. Given the reality of the American two-party system, I think that you as a traditional conservative Christian have a duty to concern yourself with the practical impact of your vote, i.e. with how it will affect who will get elected. Being in a “minority of one” with one’s conscience, in my humble opinion, is not always the moral position to take. Or, in other words, your conscience should not dictate to subordinate your brains to your 'wishes'.
Re: Sinners #3
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2010-01-12 06:23.
@marcfrans:
I started to write a long missive to address every numbered paragraph you wrote, but decided not to.
I am disappointed in you.
You seem to regard abortion as just another "policy" by which to formulate a political platform, fearing the exclusion of allies who support abortion. I find that kind of compromise weak and unprincipled.
If you want to work to nominate another moderate loser for the GOP in 2012, be my guest. But I promise you one thing: The GOP will LOSE, as it did with moderates John McCain and Bob Dole. What you are prescribing is the same garbage that the GOP out-of-touch elites have been pushing on their base and it's a loser position. Haven't you been paying attention?
Have you heard that over one million tea partiers descended on Washington DC last year? That millions of angry Americans are fed up with the big government policies of BOTH parties? You're out of touch, marcfrans, just as the Beltway insiders are.
The GOP will either follow the same failed path as before by propping up some moderate squish like Mitt Romney (Romneycare, anyone?) or Tim Pawlenty (who?) and lose again, giving us four more years of Obama, or they will wise up and give us a strong, unapologetic conservative like Sarah Palin, who will defeat Obama like Reagan defeated Carter. By 2012, Americans will be so fed up with high fuel prices, unemployment, international crises, high taxes, Obamacare, etc... that they will be screaming for a Reaganesque leader who will do exactly what Ronaldus Magnus did in 1980 after Carter's failed policies.
Until the GOP rids itself of ivory tower insiders like Brooks and Frum, who have done nothing but bring ruination by their wishy-washy compromises, they will continue to be the party that always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And this time, they will find themselves relegated to the ash heap of history, while a new party rises to restore our Republic as it was meant to be.
So "marcfrans" is Marc Huybrechts...
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2010-01-11 20:09.
...a D.C. "writing and editing professional".
Clarifications
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2010-01-11 18:45.
@ Thomas Bertonneau
It is clear to me that we are largely in agreement, and your clarifications are much appreciated. On the specific point of your analogy between Puritanism and contemporary (American) Liberalism, raised by Pale Rider, I wholeheartedly agree with your recent formulation of it as concerning a “persistent attitude” and not “specific shared doctrine”.
Your description of the “two primary contending religious components at the Founding” of the American Constitution is masterful. I agree with you that it is the Laissez Faire attitude of the Virginia Gentlemen that largely prevailed. I am happy that they did prevail. America has been much the better for it and, I suspect, that you agree.
Two further minor points.
-- First, it was Atheling, and not me, who claimed that American conservatism should be equated with upholding the religious or Christian component of the American Foundation. I emphasized the importance of respecting tradition and ‘searching’ for its rationale, but I resisted her limitation of the definition of conservatism.
-- Second, Gerhard Schroeder was the German Chancellor, which made him the Head of Government and also Germany’s top politician. The German President is the Head of State, but that is largely a ceremonial position (in contrast with the American and French Presidents , which are very much top dog politicians in their respective countries). By the way Schroeder works today for Vladimir Putin, which only goes to show how wrong are those contemporary Europeans who would equate secularism with freedom and religion with unfreedom.
To Marc Huybrechts and all
Submitted by Thomas F. Bertonneau on Mon, 2010-01-11 08:48.
To Marc Huybrechts and all those who have participated in commenting on his stimulating article:
Because the article was so relevant and rich, it has naturally provoked a correspondingly pregnant commentary.
I would like, most respectfully, to address (once again) one of Huybrechts’ supplementary remarks – the one, namely, to the effect that to be a conservative in the American context means to uphold the religious, specifically the Christian, component of the American Foundation. May I say: “Yes!” But the “American Founding” is complicated. First there is settlement, and settlement is (at least) twain: Puritans in New England, and nominal Church-of-England planters in Virginia and the Carolinas. Next there is the War of Independence, followed by the Continental Congress (Parts One and Two) and the composition and adoption of the Constitution. As I insisted in an earlier post, the First Amendment of the Constitution is antithetical to the religious attitude of the New England Puritans, which was still in existence and still influential, in New England at any rate, in the late Eighteenth Century. The Puritan attitude was doctrinaire and intolerant; that of the “Virginia Gentlemen” was deistic and laissez-faire. Thus there were two primary contending religious components at the Founding. The Constitution subordinated the Puritan to the laissez-faire component by prohibiting the Federal government from establishing any religion. (Some states had established churches, but “disestablishmentarianism” was the trend – complete by the 1820s.) If the definition of an American conservative were to wish to sustain the religious attitude of the actual Founding, and if the actual Founding were embodied in the Constitution, then an American conservative would necessarily wish to sustain the laissez-faire attitude articulated in the First Amendment. The American conservative attitude with respect to religion and conscience would be: worship as you please consonant with the right of everyone else to worship, or to determine his moral conscience, as he pleases.
Perhaps the real difference between American and European attitudes towards religion is that the trend in Europe has been and is to endorse the idea not to worship at all and to find worshipfulness distasteful, as the anecdote about German PM (or was he president?) Schroeder suggests.
Puritanism is, in my assessment, much less a specific doctrine than it is an attitude towards existence. When I link contemporary American liberalism (the term “Left-Liberalism” is a pleonasm), I am referring, not to specific shared doctrine, but to a persistent attitude that can be located at all moments of the American historical continuum, and which is always in heated contention with the laissez-faire attitude. (Eric Voegelin would recognize it as the “Gnostic” attitude.)
May I say, please, that I believe Mr. Huybrechts and I to be largely in agreement, and that my interest in his argument is not based on the idea that I am in any way refuting him; I am merely trying to clarify certain terms.
It is worth noting, just to complicate things even further, that before the English were in New York, my state of adoption, the Dutch and the Flemish were here, mostly of Calvinist persuasion, but that the religious aspect of New Netherlands was quite shy compared to that of the (partly Flemish) Salem Colony, which was an outright theocracy. Incidentally, my lady-wife is of New York Dutch extraction.
RE: Thomas Bertonneau
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2010-01-11 23:01.
As I insisted in an earlier post, the First Amendment of the Constitution is antithetical to the religious attitude of the New England Puritans... ...The Constitution subordinated the Puritan to the laissez-faire component by prohibiting the Federal government from establishing any religion. (Some states had established churches, but “disestablishmentarianism” was the trend – complete by the 1820s.)
Given that First Amendment limitations were strictly Federal proscriptions (at least prior to the incorporation doctrine) it is not clear that any state theocracy should be affected one way or the other by First Amendment provisions. At least if one reads the Constitution in a more literal sense. This does not argue against the idea that, as you say, the amendment was antithetical to the Puritan attitudes.
Sinners # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2010-01-10 23:30.
@ Atheling
"I have had this debate with "conservative" atheists..." (Atheling)
If it's any consolation I have had this debate from time to time with European 'libertarians' and others on several Flemish websites in Dutch. Basically, I agree with you in the following limited sense: I do believe that widespread adherence to theistic faith is necessary for a free society to survive as such. And I made that point in the article (in the section under the heading "What is the Divide?":
...the God-goodness link, which reflects a philosophical aspect of the transatlantic religious divide (or, if you will, it is about the conviction of the necessity of theistic belief as a motivating factor for moral behavior), there...
I doubt that one could equate "libertarians" with "nonreligious conservatives" exactly, for I do know some libertarians who are also religious (not just in the broad cultural sense of reflecting traditional religious values, but even in the sense of active membership in a particular church or denomination).
As a practical matter, it would not seem wise to limit the definition of the term "conservatism" (in the American context) to those who want "to preserve the (historical) Christian character of America". I agree with you that the Christian origins should be recognized, of course, but my knowledge of the Founding Fathers is too limited to be able to say much about the exact nature of their "christianity" or their religiosity in general(and lack thereof in some cases). I am sure that historian Thomas Bertonneau could speak much better to that point on the specific (and somewhat differing) views of the various "Virginia Gentlemen". I see conservatism more as an attitude of caution, of reflection, and of respect for tradition, but not as adherence to any specific 'immutable' interpretation of that tradition. Societies must evolve, but with respect for tradition. Respect means giving 'due consideration' - searching for the real meaning or rationale for the tradition - it should not mean slavish following.
Most importantly, I fervently hope that the Republican party will avoid any kind of lithmus test for defining "conservatism", come November. It should make room for all kinds of conservatives: fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, foreign policy hawks, libertarians. In the land of the mind one can afford to be 'exclusive' in one's preferences. In the land of politics one must be practical, and accept that the 'perfect can be the enemy of the good'.
Re: Sinners #2
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2010-01-11 00:37.
I doubt that one could equate "libertarians" with "nonreligious conservatives" exactly, for I do know some libertarians who are also religious (not just in the broad cultural sense of reflecting traditional religious values, but even in the sense of active membership in a particular church or denomination).
I have yet to meet one who belongs to a church! (And I wasn't born yesterday.) I am suspicious of libertarianism because too often it has become a code for libertinism. While a conservative defends the right to life of the unborn, I have seen "libertarians" shrug their shoulders and wash their hands of the issue, declaring that it's none of their business. I have seen "libertarians" proclaim that the conservative defense of traditional marriage (one man and one woman) is too "invasive", and what does it matter if marriage is between one man and one woman or between two men or even between a man and his dog? Indeed, these folks do not practice any of the "due consideration" - the careful search for the real meaning or rationale behind the tradition - that you prescribe for true conservatism. That is why I cannot call a person who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative, a "conservative". They are merely liberals with tight wallets and a better sense of self preservation than their fiscally liberal counterparts.
Words have meanings, marcfrans, as I'm sure you know. I don't like seeing the meaning of words misconstrued or watered-down. That's how lies are propagated.
but my knowledge of the Founding Fathers is too limited to be able to say much about the exact nature of their "christianity" or their religiosity in general(and lack thereof in some cases).
Some were fervently Christian, some were not. But all, however, agreed that their rights and liberties came not from a government or a king, but from God, which makes those rights inalienable. As a matter of fact, the majority of the signatories of the founding documents held divinity degrees.
I fervently hope that the Republican party will avoid any kind of lithmus test for defining "conservatism", come November. It should make room for all kinds of conservatives: fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, foreign policy hawks, libertarians. In the land of the mind one can afford to be 'exclusive' in one's preferences.
Well I should hope that certain unchanging principles exist in other realms than in just the "land of the mind". There are some principles over which I will not compromise, and I will not support any candidate or party that compromises those principles.
In the land of politics one must be practical, and accept that the 'perfect can be the enemy of the good'.
Yes, I understand that politics is the art of compromise, and one must be practical. But when those compromises and practicalities violate my conscience, I refuse to accept them. If that makes me a minority of one, so be it.
Of bones and sinners
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2010-01-10 20:40.
@ Atheling
Perhaps your 'bone' has some validity, but this issue may be more semantic than substantive in that pessimism (about human nature) and (personal) happiness are not necessarily mutually exclusive. While I am aware of some polls that do suggest that conservatives are "happier" as a group than the general population in the US, it is not clear why that would be the case. Your suggested hypothesis of hope engendered by religion is quite reasonable, but many other hypotheses could be advanced. It would be interesting to know if such data could be disaggregated between religious conservatives and nonreligious conservatives. The latter do exist in America, but are of course much more plentiful in Europe (that is among the relatively few conservatives there, because the word "conservative" in many contemporary European cultures has negative connotations, much like the word "liberal" still has in the US even in the age of O).
As an economist I am very wary of the term "happiness", something that is highly personal and that cannot be measured. Serious economists do not even believe in making interpersonal comparisons of 'utility' (so they certainly wouldn't touch 'happiness' with a barge pole!). Also, one would expect that many religious people would have a keener awareness of the concept of 'Original Sin', and of the reality of 'evil' in the world (and even in themselves), than nonreligious people would.
So, I am inclined to stand by my original statement. Americans on the whole, certainly compared with much of the rest of the world, are an optimistic people, which is reflect in their can-do spirit and their egalitarian attitudes enabling social mobility (which many Europeans cannot fathom because they confuse egalitarianism with income equality).
@marcfrans
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2010-01-10 21:13.
religious conservatives and nonreligious conservatives
Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but I do want to invoke an issue that has been hotly contested among conservatives in the US regarding your above-quoted phrase.
If conservatism means adhering to the traditional culture, values and systems of a nation, then how can an American conservative be non-religious? I'm not talking about going to church every Sunday, or spending hours on one's knees praying, but rather I am referring to the acknowledgment and support of the Christian character of America, which is currently under attack by the Left and by atheists who may otherwise be "conservative" in spending, national security, and other economic or political issues. I have had this debate with "conservative" atheists, positing that it is impossible to be a "conservative atheist" because American conservatism is Christian in character. It is also impossible to support the founding documents of America if one is an atheist because all the rights and liberties delineated in said documents originate from the Creator.
Many of those types of atheists call themselves "libertarian" instead, which I think is a better description.
Since you clarified your use of "pessimism" with regard to an analysis of human nature, I can say that I agree. Human nature is fallible, and no amount of social engineering can create a utopian society - indeed, it generally creates the opposite.
Yes, there is a difference between "happiness" and "optimism", though I think the latter generally does not coincide with unhappiness. And yes, "happiness" is difficult, if not impossible, to measure. I just recall the polls asking if one was generally "happy", and the majority of conservative Americans are, as opposed to their liberal counterparts.
(Just for clarity, I am referring only to atheist Americans, and not to atheist Europeans.)
One small bone...
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2010-01-10 00:16.
Americans tend to be optimists, but conservatives less so than the others.
Why is that? And who are the "others"? Liberals? Most liberals I know are quite miserable people who are never satisfied or happy, personally or politically. Indeed, I have seen poll after poll which indicates that conservatives are, as a group, "happier" than any other ideological group in the US. I think that stems from the fact that most conservatives have religion, and that gives them true hope, because they know "who" wins in the end.
Otherwise, fine article. I didn't realize that it was our own marcfrans who authored it! Well done.
Religious divide # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2010-01-09 22:04.
@ Thomas Bertonneau
I certainly am appreciative of your positive assessment of my article, although much of any praise properly should go to Josef Joffe. You make two additional points that extend the discussion beyond the subject of the article which concerned the contemporary contrast between American religiosity and European de-Christianization.
Firstly, you contrast the mentality of the "original Puritanism" in New England with that of the "Virginia Gentlemen" who wrote the Constitution. That is a very interesting point, but one should bear in mind that a considerable time had elapsed between these two phenomena. Also, in a way, your point supports a central thesis of the article, i.e. the non-denominational character of God in America. Benjamin Franklin didn't like Puritan Boston. He had many choices, like Quaker Philadelphia, Catholic Maryland, etc...So, while I can agree with you that the Puritan spirit was not a tolerant one, I tend to agree with Pale Rider that "doctrinal intolerance" was not what differentiated America from Europe in those days and, also, that the analogy of Puritanism with contemporary American liberalism is far-fetched.
Secondly, I think we can all three agree on your second point, which is that the spirit of the Constitution (those Virginia gentlemen!) is as much hostile to the soft totalitarianism of the PC of contemporary American liberalism as it was to the spirit of Puritanism.
Finally, it is easy to share your dismay that a slight majority of American voters last year could bring themselves to vote for someone who, indeed, could sit "in complacent agreeability for twenty years" in Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago and imbibe the intolerant spirit of that particular black-separatist congregation. Presumably, that is as much the result of ignorance and lack-of-interest as it is of consciously sharing that intolerant spirit. At least, we must hope so.
@ Marc Huybrechts and Flemish American
Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2010-01-10 19:44.
I have been thinking about Marc's article off and on and chewing on what he wrote I have a real question:
Flemish American has written with very great knowledge about the Flemish influence in early US history. The Flemisah were the original European revolutionairies because of their early wealth, their schooling system which was already the best of Europe until the Spanish demolished most of it, and their genetic dislike of all foreign authority>
Today we are in exactly the same situation in Flanders, except that the intelligentia went into a marxist stupor.
If the Flemish intelligentia would wake up and support and strive for Flemish Independence and Flanders left the European Monster, we could have exactly the same impact on the European and US society as before by proving the correctness of small intensive economic units versus behemots with ludicrous bureaucracies.
I pray for it to happen.
It is not my wish to steal
Submitted by Thomas F. Bertonneau on Sat, 2010-01-09 20:34.
It is not my wish to steal attention from Marc Huybrechts’ fine article, nor is it my wish to enter into a contretemps with any of the other commentators who have responded to that article. I would nevertheless call attention to the possibility that both modern liberalism, in its American manifestation, and modern “born again” Christianity, a peculiarly American development, might stem from the same original Puritanism, as so much in American culture does. The shared derivation would make the two factions rivals, and their anxious sense of this rivalry would partly explain their hostility and contempt for one another. One remarks, however, that the “soft totalitarianism” of political correctness does not come from existing “born again” Christianity, which is, in fact, one of the prime targets of political correctness. (“They cling to their Bibles and guns,” Barack Hussein Obama said flippantly and contemptuously during his campaign.) The politically correct regime, utterly Puritanical in character, is entirely the creature of liberalism. At the present moment, liberals constitute the rabidly militant sect, whereas the influence of the “Christian Right” (which, in any case, never had anything like the totalitarian ambitions of the Left) peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s and is today hardly visible on the political scene. The point of my previous comment was that the Constitution, a document written by Virginia gentlemen, is, in spirit, as much hostile to the existing quasi-socialist polity as it was, at the time, to the spirit of Puritanism. Finally, consider this: If there were any Christian sect or church currently likely to see its peculiar agenda enacted into law by the sitting regime, it would be the racially Puritanical (i.e., black-separatist) congregation in Chicago presided over volubly by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, in whose frothing presence President Obama sat in complacent agreeability for twenty years.
Religious divide
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2010-01-08 15:19.
Mr Bertonneau, the New England Puritans were no different from other Christian sects in their being doctrinally "intolerant". If doctrinal intolerance constitutes being anti-Christianity, then only theologically liberal churches that consider other paths as valid are to be considered Christian. Surely that cannot be the case. The English Puritans were themselves persecuted, as were Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, by the Church of England. Thus the Church of England was equally "anti-Christianity".
I do not believe American Liberalism has much to do with Puritanism at all. With all due respect, I believe such an analogy is far-fetched. If anything, it is Socialism creeping into American society under the disguise of liberalism that is responsible for the current political mess.
Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson supported the radically anti-clerical French Revolution whereas certain other Founders, like Alexander Hamilton, did not. Oddly enough, many American conservatives like to claim men like Jefferson for their own. I believe this shows how, from the very foundation of the American republic, there were opposing views and therefore it seems rather simplistic to me to argue that the Founders belonged in one camp that was the very antithesis of the New England Puritans.
Puritanism, for one thing, lead to the Pietism seen in American Christianity. In addition, religious revivalism in the 18th and 19th centuries lead to an emotion-based religion. The mostly Arminian nature of these revivals lead to unprecedented religious individualism. To this day this is evident in the fanatical attachment of most Evangelicals to the doctrine of free will and the emergence of the liberal, charismatic and fundamentalist factions, along with thousands of denominations all claiming to be the true church, as a result of the individual becoming the sole authority in interpreting scriptures - ironically enough, the opposite of the doctrine of sola scriptura.
I would argue that the influence of the New England Puritans ("Puritan" itself is a rather problematic term) and thereby the Anabaptists on American politics is most clearly visible among certain groups on the Right which appear to believe they can redeem society and save it from damnation by having Christians control the country's political institutions. Hence they denounce "secularism" and argue that the United States is a country founded by Christians as an essentially Christian nation. To support their cause, they appeal to the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly call for the separation of Church and State and speaks of God-given rights.
In Europe, churches are now trying to attract people by secularising themselves. In America, Evangelicalism and others wants to christianise the secular (i.e. worldly, temporal) authorities, and Liberals want to secularise society as a whole because they see religion as a source of superstition that obstructs human progress. I am personally sick and tired of both - to my mind they are but two sides of the same utopian coin, the former religious, the latter militantly anti-religion, but both stemming from a vain optimism and arrogant belief in human ability.
Best regards.
Superb analysis
Submitted by debendevan on Thu, 2010-01-07 03:12.
This is a superbly written analysis and historical summary. Mr. Huybrechts should be lauded for his effort. Frankly, I don't recall ever seeing such an astute discussion of this topic before - anywhere.
de bende van
@ Marc Huybrechts
Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2010-01-07 20:19.
Our Flemish American(debendevan) is right, you did outdo yourself.
Religious divide # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2010-01-07 00:32.
@ Dimitrik
1) Your first paragraph is a collection of assertions which have nothing to do with the subject of this article, i.e. an explanation of the religious divide between America and Europe. As to these assertions themselves:
- I think you are wrong about the first one. Conservatives typically agree with the broad notion that people tend to get what they 'deserve', especially in the sense that people tend to get the politicians or leaders and political system that they deserve (or that are reflective of cultural behavior patterns). There can be temporary deviations from this 'rule' (for example after an invasion by a neighboring dictator), but over the long run the political system will reflect the culture of the society.
- It is utterly ludicrous for you to claim that Europeans "did away with all religious people in their countries". Doesn't the pope live in Rome? Or are you claiming that he is not "religious"? Please, think before writing.
- No doubt, many on the European Right hate religion. The paper tries to explain why.
2) Your second paragraph does not make sense either, which means that you are 'letting off steam' but you are not commenting on this paper. On what basis do you claim that the paper "is against organized traditional religion"? And the paper certainly did not claim that America is good because "of freedom from religious institutions". I suggest that you try to read more carefully and accurately in future, and not waste time on setting up 'strawmen'.
Collectivism
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2010-01-07 00:41.
People get what they "deserve". Where democracy appears collectivist rhetoric arrives. Collective guilt, very funny... This is certainly not characteristic to political systems, from individualistic perspective.
Religious divide
Submitted by dimitrik on Wed, 2010-01-06 05:46.
People on the Right now like to blame tyrants for all problems in the world. I would rather blame peoples themselves. Europeans finally expelled or otherwise did away with all religious people in their countries. Blame it on revolutions and on the Left, but I am not sure. European Right hates religion even more.
Consider this paper. It is against organized traditional religion, but that is the only one available in Europe. That resembles me how soviet people thought of America: America is good because you can receive welfare. They did not understand that America is good exactly because Americans did not rely on welfare. Same here: America is good not because of freedom from religious institutions, but because Americans do not blame or attack their religious institutions.
Marc Huybrechts tackles an
Submitted by Thomas F. Bertonneau on Tue, 2010-01-05 21:40.
Marc Huybrechts tackles an important and extraordinarily complex topic and does a good job in giving an overview of it. He should be congratulated on having seen through to essentials. I make my remarks not to challenge Huybrechts in any way but simply to extend the discussion of a central modern issue.
The myth of the American Foundation represents the Puritan settlement in the Massachusetts Colony as the beginning of the American polity, ignoring the plantation settlements along the Atlantic seaboard to the south; but to some extent the myth gets it right: the tone of Puritanism, although it has had periods of latency, has been the recurrent “ground-tone” of the American consciousness and therefore also of American politics. We should not forget that the Massachusetts Colony was planned from the beginning as a theocracy; that the Colony administered its daily business through various councils and representative bodies did not mitigate the theocratic aspect. Like all theocracies, the original American theocracy was bigoted, obtrusive, and nastily intolerant of dissent. We should also not forget that the founders of the polity called the United States of America and the authors of the Constitution were, largely, not men of Puritan background, but of Southern planter-society background. To the extent that men like Washington and Jefferson were religious, they leaned toward Deism. In character, they are opposite types to the Puritan theocrats. The Constitution, while acknowledging the religious element of the society that it proposed to bring to order, nevertheless established a secular – and in particular a non-sectarian – polity. If we believed the myth that the American beginning is in Massachusetts, then the Constitution would necessarily be a deliberate break with the New England continuum. I argue that this is so.
Of course, the Puritan component of the society did not withdraw or disappear. It remained strong – and it remains strong to this day. It constantly attempts to predominate and often succeeds in doing so. G W. F. Hegel was not alone in decrying the hysterical appearance of American religiosity. Early American literature, in the work of Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville, addressed it, too, and with alarm similar to that evinced by Hegel. The mixture of movement-politics and religious hysteria provided a theme for later American fiction, a good example being Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry. I follow thinkers like Eric Voegelin and Paul Gottfried who see in American liberalism, despite its self-description of secularity and its hostility to Christianity, as a mutation of the original Puritanism. The intolerance of dissenting speech noted by “Mpresley” as characteristic of the contemporary USA is of a piece, in my assessment, with the sectarian intolerance of the Massachusetts Colony. American history is the never-ending conflict between the polar views present at the founding, the laissez-faire attitude of the Virginia gentlemen and the doctrinal intolerance, the Puritanism, of the New England theocrats. The USA is currently in a renewed spasm of Puritanism. By the way the Puritans, like modern liberals, were extraordinarily hostile to Christianity – that is to say, all sects of Christianity, except their own, which they hoped to impose on everyone.
We should not forget that
Submitted by mpresley on Tue, 2010-01-05 23:19.
We should not forget that the Massachusetts Colony was planned from the beginning as a theocracy
Good point. It seems common to forget there was activity prior to 1776. One must always keep in mind that "America" did not begin as a country of "immigrants," but was, rather, raw land "settled." It is not as if these people emigrated from England at all, but landed in virgin territory and created something new for their own purposes.
The Constitution, while acknowledging the religious element of the society that it proposed to bring to order, nevertheless established a secular – and in particular a non-sectarian – polity. If we believed the myth that the American beginning is in Massachusetts, then the Constitution would necessarily be a deliberate break with the New England continuum. I argue that this is so.
Another good question to ponder is the extent of the founding fathers' general agreement with Jefferson's references to Locke. Classical (but not necessarily modern) natural right was not "human centered," but based upon reason conforming with natural law-something transcendent. With the political philosophy of Hobbes (and the epistemology of Descartes), the strictly human displaced the transcendent. In any case, and as professor Bertonneau argues, the founding fathers' constitution was primarily at odds with the intent of the original settlers. And, perhaps ironically, it is clear that not much remains of whatever the founding fathers intended, either.
Finally, the idea of the secular state must be understood in light of the intent of the Constitution's 1st Amendment which was certainly not understood by the framers in the way it is taken today.
GOD given rights/Individual responsibilty
Submitted by Yohanan on Sun, 2010-01-03 18:08.
In the USA, the "Constitution", and it's "Bill of Rights", are based upon the belief that there are certain "GOD given, inalienable rights". Yet, with these rights also came the responsibility of every "citizen" to carry out and enforce these rights; lest they be taken away by some corrupt tyrannical entity. Nowadays, the majority of folks have become "tuned" to the notion that it is someone else's duty to "look after THEIR responsibilities". America's "founding fathers" were well aware that complacency could easily destroy all they had put in place; and today, their worst fears may be coming to fruition. Today, liberalism, socialism, and communism have become the refuge of those who, by exerting no effort of themselves, now wish for others to offer novel solutions to solve the problems they have actually created. Hence, liberalism, socialism, and communism all lead to ignorance, emptiness, and death: And, for them, science has become their god, and "he" has their cure, in which they will place all their faith, and line-up freely and willfully to accept.
A fine point...
Submitted by mpresley on Sat, 2010-01-02 16:03.
Could it also be a coincidence that freedom of speech (the First Amendment of its Constitution) is still alive in America, whereas similar Constitutional provisions in Europe are increasingly no longer respected...
It must be understood that in the US there are "undefined" but nevertheless known limits of a political nature delimiting what can and cannot be said openly. Legally, one can pretty much say anything. However, to openly affirm what was the traditional norm as little as 50 years ago will likely engender ostracism, and could result in loss of one's job. To criticize what is usually presented as feminism, the homosexual agenda, minority affirmative action, illegal immigration, and so forth is not as "free" as one might imagine. What was once believed to be within the sphere of private opinion and behavior is now subsumed under political (i.e. government) action, and this changes things not subtly. It is not as marked as what we find in, say, Canada or Great Britain, but is a trend that must be fought against.