Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Theocracy and Erastianism
Mod
Mod
"In estimating the energy of a social force, such as ecclesiasticism, the indirect are often more striking than the direct manifestations of power, and this is eminently true of Massachusetts; for, notwithstanding her ministers had always been astute and indefatigable politicians, their greatest triumphs were invariably won by some layman whose mind they had moulded and whom they put forward as their champion. From John Winthrop, who was the first, an almost unbroken line of these redoubtable partisans stretched down to the Revolution, where it ended with him [Samuel Adams] who is perhaps the most celebrated of all."
Brooks Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts: The Dream and the Reality, rev. and expanded edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919), 514.
Mod
Mod
"[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse, as at this day."
- Roger Williams, Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered, 45 (London, 1644), reprinted in The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 1:108.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."
- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, in Daniel L. Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State (New York: New York University Press, 2002), Kindle ed., app. 6, loc. 2919-23 (quoting exactly from the original manuscript and correcting a common misquotation).
"[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. . . . Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
- Letter of James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, in James Madison: Writings, ed. Jack N. Rakove (New York: Library of America, 1999), 788-89.
Mod
"Logically, Congregationalism would imply that individual congregations should be free from control by civil government as well as from control by bishops or presbyters. That is not, however, how Congregationalism worked out in practice in New England—or even in Cromwellian England (see Chapter 6). The colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, New Haven, and Plymouth all practiced significant governmental involvement in religious matters notwithstanding their purported Congregationalism. See Appendix B for the details of how each of these colonies developed "Congregational" theocracies. Brooks Adams, the great-grandson of John Adams and grandson of John Quincy Adams, summarized the operation of Congregational theocracy in Massachusetts as follows:
'The clergy's rule was rigid, and met with resistance, which was crushed with an iron hand. . . . [T]he churches themselves, which were supposed to be independent of external interference and to regulate their affairs by the will of the majority, had become little more than the chattels of the priests, and subject to the control of the magistrates who were their representatives.'12
12 Brooks Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts: The Dream and the Reality, rev. and expanded edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919), 265-66."
Mod
Mod
Mod
"Classical church-state theory notes a historical distinction between theocratic and Erastian tendencies. The former involves control of the state by religious institutions and authorities, the latter, control of religious institutions by political leaders for political ends. Both of these tendencies have been illustrated in the last few decades: Erastianism, especially by a number of communist countries before the end of the Cold War [and, one might add, by Vladimir Putin since 2000], and theocracy, especially by some of the contemporary Muslim countries such as Iran. It can be argued that historically what begins as theocratic quickly becomes Erastian, and what begins as Erastian, stays Erastian. So Davis is clearly right in arguing that the separation principle is, perhaps above all, a protection of the integrity of churches."
"Social Justice Response" of J. Philip Wogaman to "The Classical Separation Perspective" by Derek H. Davis, in Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views, ed. P. C. Kemeny (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), Kindle ed., chap. 2, Kindle loc. 1364-68.
Note: I do not necessarily agree with the entirety of either Wogaman's or Davis's approach, but I found the foregoing quotation especially perspicuous.
I see a Socialist government voted in a majority and peaceful as a cure for capitalist ills .... :-) :-) :-) :-)
Mod
Welcome to the "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group, James. We have all shades of ideological opinion among group members, from libertarians, anarchocapitalists, neoconservatives, and paleoconservatives on the right to Marxists and, perhaps, Proudhonian anarchists on the left.
It's not clear to me what your comment means in the context of this particular topic. Perhaps it was meant to be included in the Government and the Economy; Property Rights topic. In any event, all views not advocating revolutionary violence are welcome. I see from your profile that you are a Brit. As you are probably aware, "socialism" is pretty much a dirty word in the USA. Among our national politicians, only Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont admits to being a socialist. But the lack of popularity of socialism here does not say anything about the merits or lack thereof of socialism. Please feel free to share your perspective with us, perhaps in the Government and the Economy; Property Rights topic.
Mod
Mod
Alan, am just getting into the meat of your book; discovering just now in pages 25-35 Williams's very early differentiation for his peers re religious and political freedom. I'm sure that you will explain it in great detail as progress, but I am curious as to why you think he Was so unique. What was the proverbial match that struck him so early and at such risk to his good fortune? What was it about him and his life that caused him at such an early age to part from his time? His father's influence and that of Coke are clearly important, but was there something else?
Mod
Just saw your post. My computer is off for the night and I will respond sometime on Sunday.
Alan (from my iPhone)
Mod
Charles,
We don't know much about Williams's early life in England, and we can accordingly only speculate on the basis of the few known facts. First, he grew up in Smithfield, the locale of heresy burnings for many generations and perhaps centuries. He would accordingly have become aware at a very early age of the issues involved regarding freedom of conscience. He probably became influenced by Puritan/Calvinist religious figures who criticized the Church of England and sometimes suffered persecution as a result (even while they themselves supported religious persecution of those with whom they disagreed). Like many people of his age, he became very religious, which in his case resulted in a lifelong quest to find the religious truth. At some point while he was still in England he may have been exposed to Anabaptist influences (the Anabaptists had long supported freedom of conscience and separation of church and state). Additionally, his tutelage under Edward Coke and his associated early experiences in governmental and judicial matters had a profound influence on him, as Williams himself testified (The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience, 1, 7-10, 22, 91, 313-18, 340-41, 388-90, 536n3, 539n11). However, as some of these pages discuss, Coke's influence must have been primarily secular, because Coke supported the Church of England while Williams left England to avoid persecution by the Church of England and its theocratic allies in the English government. Finally, Williams's education at Charterhouse and the University of Cambridge (both of which Coke arranged) helped Williams become a secular as well as a religious thinker, even though he likely disagreed with at least some of what he was taught (ibid., 10-11).
Somehow, during his early youth, Williams learned to think for himself. It is impossible to say exactly how this happened, but the foregoing may provide important clues. By the time he arrived in New England, he had already developed the main principles of his lifelong commitment to liberty of conscience and separation of church and state, though his theology itself went through some changes as he matured (ibid., 22-24, 86-95, and passim). Having learned to think for himself at an early age, Williams never again deferred to any other religious or intellectual authority (other than the Bible, as he understood and interpreted it), though he respected certain religious and secular figures even when he disagreed with them on some issues. Although Williams had certain doctrinal views about the Bible, he did not try to enforce them on others, and his understanding of the New Testament was profoundly ethical as well as theological. His ethical role model was Jesus. Although he did not simply accept Jesus's pacifism in a governmental context, he did everything he thought he could do to promote peace and understanding between English settlers and Native Americans, including but not limited to resisting the land imperialism of William Harris and his associates. The American Indians who knew him best, e.g., the Narragansett sachems Canonicus and Miantonomi, loved him even when they hated the aggressive actions of other English individuals and colonies.
Alan
Mod
Although it is true that religious ministers in Massachusetts Bay were legally prohibited from holding government office, I disagree with the premise that this criterion should be the touchstone of whether or not a theocracy exists. By this narrow definition, Stalin's totalitarian system was a democratic republican regime, because his written constitution so provided. The historical reality is that the seventeenth-century New England Puritan ministers controlled the civil magistrates, especially (but not exclusively) in Massachusetts Bay. Governor John Winthrop, the most famous Massachusetts Bay governor in seventeenth-century Massachusetts history, recorded numerous examples of such influence and control. The Journal of John Winthrop, 1630-1649, ed. Richard S. Dunn, James, James Savage, and Laetitia Yeandle (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), 107, 109, 116, 133, 136-40, 144, 146, 149-50, 158 (examples from December 27, 1633 to November 1, 1635, when Roger Williams resided in Massachusetts Bay). As Roger Williams noted, "the Magistrate is but the Ministers Cane through which the Clergy speaks . . . ." The Bloody Tenent Yet More Bloody: By Mr Cottons endevour to wash it white in the Blood of the Lambe . . . (London, 1652), 131 (italics in the original). Moreover, the electoral franchise in Massachusetts Bay was limited to male church members who demonstrated that they were "visible saints," i.e., that they had been predestined to salvation. This electorate was controlled by the religious ministers. For further discussion, including additional details and documentation, see Alan E. Johnson, The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (Pittsburgh, PA: Philosophia Publications, 2015), chaps. 2 and 6 and app. B.
Several months after the publication of The First American Founder, I became aware of and read a scholarly essay that confirmed my analysis of seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay: Michael P. Zuckert, "Natural Rights and Protestant Politics," in Protestantism and the American Founding, ed. Thomas S. Engeman and Michael P. Zuckert (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 23-39, 45, 52-54, 66-67. As Zuckert observes, "Winthrop's Journals reveal how frequently 'informal' conclaves of the ministers were called on to resolve difficult issues facing the community. Formal institutions do not always express the totality of political reality." Zuckert, "Natural Rights and Protestant Politics," 54. The seventeenth-century Massachusetts regime was based on the "continuing institutional ascendancy of the clergy . . . ." Ibid., 66-67.
See also post 24 below.
Mod
Mod
On the brighter side, there has been some pushback in both Russia and Iran against Erastianism (government-controlled religion) and theocracy (religion-controlled government), which are basically two sides of the same coin: see this article regarding Iran and this article regarding Russia.
You'd think that a culture immersed in electronics, secularism, and scientism as we are today, would put up stronger resistance to these modes of thought. How do those individuals promulgating theocracy reconcile their highly-modern lifestyles with these ancient/traditional viewpoints?
Mod
In post 20, above, I discussed the difference between what a regime is called and what it actually is. The philosopher Immanuel Kant commented on this distinction in The Conflict of the Faculties (1798), with reference to the British constitution/regime of his time, as follows:
Another disguise, which is easily penetrated indeed, but is one to which a nation, nevertheless, is legally committed, is that pertaining to the true nature of its constitution. It would be an insult to its majesty to say of the British nation that it is an unlimited monarchy: some rather maintain that a constitution limiting the will of the monarch through the two Houses of Parliament, acting as representatives of the people, is supposed to exist; and yet everyone knows perfectly well that the monarch’s influence on these representatives is so great and so certain that nothing is resolved by the Houses except what he wills and purposes through his minister. The latter then probably even proposes resolutions in connection with which he knows that he will be contradicted, and even arranges it that way (for example, with regard to slave-trade) in order to provide a fictitious proof of the freedom of Parliament. – This representation of the nature of the case has something delusive about it so that the true constitution, faithful to law, is no longer sought at all; for a person imagines he has found it in an example already at hand, and a false publicity deceives the people with the illusion of a limited monarchy [Kant’s footnote omitted] in power by a law which issues from them, while their representatives, won over by bribery, have secretly subjected them to an absolute monarchy. (Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties [1798], translated [in the above excerpt] by Robert E. Anchor, in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, edited by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 7:89-90 [German Academy pagination], Kindle [italics in the original])
Religion and government is --I admit --something I rarely have occasion to reflect upon. However --working as I do in the municipal government of New York City, where these issues are always hotly debated --religion does, as a matter of fact, cross my path. The famous melting-pot of ethnic diversity in the metropolis around me is naturally reflected in the city's workforce; accordingly there are numerous new civil-service policies designed to keep up with the new 'age of sensitivity' (AKA, the 'age of EEO lawsuits').
One such policy is: workforce education. At least once per year I and my colleagues must all undergo mandatory training in topics such as 'religion in the workplace' (as well as, similarly-required courses in 'sexual harassment' and 'corruption & fraud').
Nevertheless, odd incidents still do occur; and I have one to relate here.
One year my unit had an internal vacancy to fill; we posted notices seeking eligible candidates. The interview process was lengthy and turned up quite a motley selection; we debated at length over the merits of each.
Outside of the workplace my boss is active in civic and public affairs and she is well-aware of, the harm posed by discriminatory attitudes. She's actively involved with local consciousness-raising events and campaigns. Our department itself if quite diverse in itself and we all get along; professional standards and 'sensitivity standards' are high.
However, one of the job candidates we interviewed posed a real 'puzzler'. This happened to be a strict Orthodox Jewish immigrant from Israel by way of South America. Throughout the interviews this gentleman --although otherwise innocuous --exhibited some religious-based behaviors which we had not seen before. There were unusual items in his wardrobe and grooming (these of course, are not strong reasons to shy away from a job candidate, nonetheless they do make an impression).
But as the interview progressed, there were more than one hint dropped which revealed a very traditional mindset not usually encountered by any of us. Minor little traits --which were not exactly concerning --but they weren't easily set aside, either.
I can't convey all the nuances here but it was clear this man --if he were to insist on his somewhat 'old world' attitudes at any time during the course of his potential employment with us--would greatly hinder our department's mission.
The most visible example of this is this was that during the interview, we learned that Orthodox Jewish males will not shake hands or touch a female; the interview team in this case was two women and two males and so this custom was immediately noticeable at both the start and the end of the interview. I admit I don't know much about this deliberate reticence; I doubt any of us had ever seen it before. It didn't prevent the interview from progressing to its natural end, but I'm willing to say it probably was the #1 factor in the gentleman not being hired; it certainly was the reason he was not even remotely considered as one of the 'leading candidates' for the vacant opportunity.
Now, as I mentioned above, NYC municipal employees are annually trained in the hazards of job discrimination --which includes job discrimination based on religion. In sum, we're instructed to 'pay no attention' to religion; we're told, 'do not notice it', and, 'react in any way different than you would towards any other individual'.
That's all well and good; and to some degree the city's attempt to 'embrace diversity' is successfully implemented. In the corridors of all city buildings, you can frequently find staff clad in middle-eastern garb; Hindu or Muslim or what-have-you. And certainly Orthodox Jews are found throughout New York City agencies too. By the way, city buildings are always festooned with holiday trimmings too, as occasion warrants: Channukkah, Ramadan, Yuletide; etc.
Ultimately though, the public-sector workplace can find itself caught in a swirling vortex of mixed-messages. The anecdote I related above reveals that even with the best intentions, government policies towards religion are inadequate. There is no way we can hire a male who openly disdains females; whether it is his religion or not.
The city tells us to 'ignore' any such behaviors. Policy puts the responsibility on the worker to 'turn a blind eye' to anyone's faith, creed, or background. We're trained and re-trained in these principles yearly.
Yet, the city itself went out of its way to create special rules for these cultural differences in the first place. The general feeling is: policy is being Janus-headed (my phrase, here).
Said another way: if religion in the workplace truly never poses any professional issues, if it is always simply low-level worker bias and worker discrimination ...then why create special exemptions for it? Do you see what I mean?
Oh well. If I've told this story before, I hope you'll pardon me. It's nothing I dwell on; just a quirky happenstance which came about a few years ago. Something brought it back to mind today; but I can't recall whether I ever aired this anecdote in the past. I hope it fits in with properly, this discussion category.
p.s. now that I think about it, I can describe what sometimes happens when a government bureau obeys EEO policies to the letter and hires excessively religious individuals. They become "islanded" employees who can't actually be used for any assignments. They're 'walled off' so that normal business routine can proceed unhindered. I saw more of this when I first arrived in the Big Apple. Not so much anymore perhaps. But the tell-tale sign was always a city employee draped in heavily religious garments, sitting alone at a desk by themselves all day, sleeping or reading-the-newspaper.
Something else which occasionally comes about is the forming of 'power blocs' within the infrastructure. For example, I've seen city employees insist on the right to take over a conference room --in the middle of one day each week --for the sake of Muslim prayer call or Jewish prayer call. Managers can't restrict against this religious indulgence in the slightest, or the faithful-employees band together behind-the-scenes to make it a legal issue. Or else, it becomes an issue of 'pull' and 'influence'.
Mod
One thing to keep in mind is that municipal employers are bound by antidiscrimination provisions in both Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which applies to most public and private employers) and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause (which applies to municipal but not private employers). I was involved in a considerable amount of Title 7 and equal protection litigation during my decades as a lawyer (now retired). New York State and New York City may also have additional requirements. So there are all kinds of legal rules with which the New York City government must comply. It is not just a matter of what the employer’s EEO office thinks appropriate. You may already know this, but I thought I would mention it for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with such legal frameworks.
I'm glad of at least one forum where this kind of thing can be discussed with no one flaring up. Thanks Alan. Yes --although I see the 'thin end of the wedge', I see only the outward, visible effects of policy in my work environment; but no I'm not well-versed at all in what makes the mechanisms apply. As you note, its a lost vaster than it looks. I'm simply in the habit of regarding it all as 'EEO' for convenience. It indicates that there probably was very good reason --in past decades --for such jurisprudence to have evolved. I suppose I'm just remarking on the sheer complexity of what we now have on our hands.
The upshot for me is this: most of my peers feel that religion in government is a genuine hindrance; yet somehow today we have a set of policies mandating that we ignore any such drawbacks for the sake of a competing policy initiative, that of 'diversity'. It's not a clear right/wrong for either side, but I do wonder where its all going to go...
Mod
Unlike France, for example, the US has a long history, partially rooted in the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, of commitment to religious freedom. That was institutionalized, in private as well as public employment settings, by Title VII. During the Trump administration (and earlier), it has morphed into something very controversial: the right of private corporate employers, for example, to refuse to follow federal law (Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act) requiring employers to have health insurance policies that cover contraception. Long story, with several trips to the US Supreme Court about those kinds of issues. But the policies enacted by Title VII for accommodation of religious differences among employees have been relatively stable over the decades. There are, of course, boatloads of legal cases involving alleged religious (and other) discrimination in employment. As always, the devil (pun intended) is in the details.
Mod
After reading the opinions in this case, I have modified the present post.
I realize this is not a very substantive comment from me, but I declare myself pleased by this ruling. I dislike it whenever any government abrogates the sanctity of the Church. Fleeting, temporary 'circumstances' --although momentous ones holding sway over us at the moment --don't seem to me reason enough to permit our government to challenge the people's longstanding solace. Keep Caesar in his place; keep Peter in his place; and they're both better off. Victor Hugo is my man.Regarding the US Supreme Court: I've long since grown tired of waiting for its 'temperament' to shift from one pole to the other. A fruitless past-time, to my way of thinking. The 'lifelong' appointments of these Jurists is always so vexing. I refuse to fret over what I cannot control...
p.s. I do wonder lately though, at the reference to 'Governor Cuomo'. Seems to me some-or-other 'Cuomo' has been Governor ever since I relocated to New York. Doesn't this state ever get new blood?
Mod
Looks like I shouldn't have deleted the second paragraph of my original post. Although this particular case was complicated and nuanced, the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court (not counting Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented in this case) apparently wants government to privilege religion in a way that I believe violates the Establishment Clause (church-state separation) of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I don't believe that religious institutions should be exempt from public health measures designed to protect people at large. There have been numerous examples of Covid "superspreader" events caused by people congregating in church services (or large weddings, funerals, etc.) in close quarters and singing etc. This affects not only them but others with whom they later come into contact. I don't think that religious people have a right to harm others. Consider a scenario in which a religious group decided that God had instructed them to wage deliberate germ warfare against others outside of their group. Should we allow them to do so on the ground of the "sanctity of the Church"? Does it matter whether they are Christians or Muslims? Should we allow another Inquisition? As for Victor Hugo, see the section on his “Religious views” in the Wikipedia article about him.
Re: #32. Perhaps the crux here is the difference between 'privileged' and 'protected'. I'd be against the former, but for the latter; preferring no extremes of power in either direction for State or Church. I'd probably cleave to this caution regardless of any temporary circumstances such as wars, invasions, famines, plagues, recessions. Similar to the advice Benjamin Franklin once gave about giving up long-term freedoms for the sake of temporary security. I myself, wouldn't admire or trust a world ruled 100% by an absolutely-empowered government, with full control over every aspect of life; it would strike me as Orwellian. Religious freedoms are important freedoms; and one can support them, without in any way condoning Inquisitions.
re: #32, to clarify what I like about Victor Hugo: specifically his 1831 novel 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'. That story is set in 1482 France. What I like about it is his theme of the 'Mother Church' being --at that time --the only other institution with power enough to challenge the excesses of Europe's reckless monarchs.For fans of the 'categorical imperative' --I like what his characters do with that in his other mega-famous novel, 'Les Miserables'. Again, a grand theme of about law vs spirit. The famous ethical dilemma ("what to do if a corrupt police force pounds on your door, searching for a criminal you know to be innocent"), is depicted in this story.
Mod
The Inquisition, of course, operated for many centuries during the Middle Ages and later, subjecting religious dissidents to torture and execution on the ground of religion. This happened all over Europe, including in England.
We don’t want to go back to those bad old days. Indeed, the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was part of the Enlightenment push against the religious wars and persecutions of the past, which at that time was recent history.
Here are the first two paragraphs of the section on “Religious views” in the Wikipedia article on Victor Hugo:
Hugo's religious views changed radically over the course of his life. In his youth and under the influence of his mother, he identified as a Catholic and professed respect for Church hierarchy and authority. From there he became a non-practising Catholic and increasingly expressed anti-Catholic and anti-clerical views. He frequented spiritism during his exile (where he participated also in many séances conducted by Madame Delphine de Girardin)[34][35] and in later years settled into a rationalist deism similar to that espoused by Voltaire. A census-taker asked Hugo in 1872 if he was a Catholic, and he replied, "No. A Freethinker".[36]As an update to the foregoing developments, see The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian novel and TV series that has become a rallying cry for those opposed to increasing influence and power of religion in all three branches of the U.S. government and in many state governments. For this struggle throughout American history, see my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. By the way, Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83), a deeply religious minister who was the founder of freedom of conscience and church-state separation in America, taught that a person’s religion should not create an entitlement to exemptions from secular laws of general applicability for the common good. Although governmental health measures were not an issue at his time, it is clear from his principles that he would not approve of religious exemptions to governmentally mandated social distancing and mask wearing in the midst of a pandemic. See my book at pages 221-25 (the section on “Williams’s Ship of State Letter” in Chapter 8).
After 1872, Hugo never lost his antipathy towards the Catholic Church. He felt the Church was indifferent to the plight of the working class under the oppression of the monarchy. Perhaps he also was upset by the frequency with which his work appeared on the Church's list of banned books. Hugo counted 740 attacks on Les Misérables in the Catholic press.[37] When Hugo's sons Charles and François-Victor died, he insisted that they be buried without a crucifix or priest. In his will, he made the same stipulation about his own death and funeral.[38]
Mod
I haven’t read Les Miserables, but that does appear to be a direct reference to Kant’s essay “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy” (1797).
I vaguely recall reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame during the late 1950s or early 1960s (probably from the junior or senior high school library), but I don’t recall much of it.
Mod
I didn't see this post until after my posts 35 and 36, but I incorporate by reference my post 35 in response to #33. I could elaborate further, but I have spent more than an hour on this already, and I have to attend to other matters.
Thanks, Alan. I'd like to resume this topic with you sometime when you have a 'slow' day; or are just relaxing. I'll keep an eye out for your signal.
Mod
I really don’t have much to add to what I have already said. For further information about Roger Williams and his views on this subject, see my essay “Roger Williams: A Rhode Island and American Founder”.
Mod
I am cross-filing this post in the following topics of this Goodreads group: Political and Ethical Philosophy in Fictional Works; Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Rule of Law; Theocracy and Erastianism.
Mod
The Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for the US Senate in Pennsylvania in the 2022 midterm election is openly and explicitly theocratic: see https://wapo.st/3d5KPFc. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
I am cross-filing this comment in the “Separation of Religion and Government” topic.
Mod
The following October 13, 2022 column by David Ignatius, a longtime foreign and defense policy analyst, provides an interesting (if perhaps overly hopeful) perspective about what is currently going on in Iran: “The Iranian regime has never faced a movement like this one” (https://wapo.st/3VsyX1j). (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
I am cross-filing this comment in the “Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Rule of Law” topic of this group.
I just learned that the commonwealth of Kentucky has a Creationist adventure park for children. It is called, '
Ark Encounter
'.https://arkencounter.com/
"Experience Bible history at the life-size Noah’s Ark! Meet Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark. The family-friendly Ark Encounter theme park near Cincinnati also features a zoo, zip lines, and timber-frame restaurant."
I hesitated to post this but just found it so fascinating. Alan, I'll gladly delete it if you think it an inappropriate item.
Mod
Ark Encounter
'.
https://arkencounter.com/
"Experience Bible history at the life-..."
Yes, that was big news a few years ago when it opened. Americans United, the ACLU, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) have been covering that story for years.
Mod
For the church-state separation controversies and litigation regarding Ark Encounter, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Enc... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Enc....
It seems clear, from the outcome of those controversies as well as recent decisions of the US Supreme Court on church–state separation issues, that the Golden Age of Warren Court decisions on church–state separation are now ancient history. The only question is how far the current Supreme Court will go in breaking down what Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson both called the “wall of separation” between church and state. So far, the cases have presented mainly borderline issues. Within the next few years, we may see the Court go further and overrule its precedents on more significant questions like the unconstitutionality of school prayer. As demonstrated by the recent Dobbs decision, the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court has little regard for precedent, and it may end up overruling many or perhaps all of the major Warren Court decisions.
...another interesting-looking (and by this I mean, 'perplexing') Creationist advocacy group:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu...
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR).
https://www.icr.org/
What drew my eye was this page, where the argument is so insidious and sly in its tone:
https://www.icr.org/article/does-huma...
A pseudo-science group debunking a bit of old, dusty, forgotten-about pseudo-science in order to make its own version shine the brighter...
Mod
The factual development reported in this December 4, 2022 New York Times article, “Iran Shutting Down Morality Police, Official Says, After Months of Protests,” would be, needless to say, a significant development in the struggle by many Iranians against their country’s theocracy: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/wo.... (The above link is a gifted article under my New York Times subscription, and everyone will be able to access it for a period of two weeks notwithstanding the New York Times’s usual paywall.)
However, subsequent news reports have cast doubt on whether the Iranian government has yet decided to shut down the morality police, though it does appear that it is being considered. See this December 4, 2022 AP report: https://apnews.com/article/iran-prote....
(revised December 5, 2022)
Mod
See this February 24, 2023 Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/41pQvy8. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Among other things, the article states:
Asked to explain where liberal Christians fit into his theoretical Christian society, [Christian nationalist leader Doug] Wilson said they would be excluded from holding office, later noting similar prohibitions in early American Colonial settlements such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony. When it was pointed out that Puritans executed Boston Quakers, Wilson said he would not “defend” the hanging of Quakers, but then argued it was important to understand the context of the time.I discuss the seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay theocracy (including but not limited to their execution of Quakers and whipping, imprisonment, and hanging of Baptists) and Roger Williams’s opposition to that theocracy in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. See also my recent book Reason and Human Ethics.
The foregoing comment has been cross-filed in the “Separation of Religion and Government” topic of this Goodreads group.
Mod
The title of this March 4, 2023 Washington Post article (https://wapo.st/3yaD0ET) summarizes its contents: “Divorced and remarried, these Afghan women are outlaws under Taliban rule.” (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Mod
See this May 10, 2023 AP article: https://apnews.com/article/iran-heads....
SEPTEMBER 11, 2022 NOTE: see my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (2015).