Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Separation of Religion and Government; Liberty of Conscience and Toleration
Interesting organization.'The Center for Inquiry' in Amherst, New York
https://centerforinquiry.org/
Wiki summary:
'The Center for Inquiry' (CFI) is a US nonprofit organization that advocates strict church-state separation and opposes religion in government affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_...
Mod
'The Center for Inquiry' in Amherst, New York
https://centerforinquiry.org/
Wiki summary:
'The Center for Inquiry' (CFI) is a US nonprofit organization that advocates str..."
Yes, this is probably the premiere secular humanist organization. Since January of 2019, Mimi and I have belonged to the Pittsburgh Freethought Community (PFC), which I believe is an offshoot of the Center for Inquiry. PFC is now a separate organization, and Mimi is on the PFC Board of Directors.
Musing on choice posts in the thread above --I enjoy --and am improved by --discussion of the state/church divide. I would agree that such a cleavage is necessary in the United States and that the USA takes the best wisdom in this area, from manifest example of past western civilizations. I trust our founder's wisdom in this area.
But one reason I'm dubious as to the concept in a broader sense is the example of theocratic peoples and cultures who never had such problems as we know now must exist for modern, western man.
Native American Indians, Oceanic peoples, even Pennsylvania Amish --all highly religious; yet never any serious problems with the admixture of the spheres. How to account for this?
I don't suggest that ancient traditional cultures are a viable model for society's future; just noting the oddity. I'd like to insinuate instead that the church/state divide is specifically necessary in a capitalist culture.
The Pennsylvania Amish are a people with individual property, they have no special arrangement which prevents crime. Yet they have no serious criminal or civil unrest. I've heard lately that they have a youth-drug problem ...but in general: isn't that an example of a society where religion and governance co-exist? Just wondering.
Mod
The issue of church and state arises in classic form when strong governments or their like (from Greek city-states to Roman emperors to medieval feudal structures to modern monarchies to modern theocracies like sixteenth-century Geneva and seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay) combine religion and government to require religious conformity and persecute religious dissenters. In Western history, the combination of religion and government was the norm until Roger Williams (ca, 1603-83), a Protestant minister, broke the mold, at least for America. I tell the long and somewhat complicated but fascinating story in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience.
Mod
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court enjoined, pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, the State of California from enforcing a prohibition on indoor worship services in those portions of the state that have the most severe COVID outbreaks (Tier 1). The application for injunctive relief was denied with respect to percentage capacity limitations in other tiers, and the state was not enjoined from imposing a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services in Tier 1. The application was further denied with respect to the prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services.
In her first signed opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Bret Kavanaugh, took a middle position between the statement of Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and the dissenting opinion of Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Barrett expressed agreement with the order of the court (there was no opinion of the court as such, this being merely an application for temporary injunctive relief, and no opinion garnered the support of a majority of the justices). Justice Gorsuch argued that the applicants’ requested injunction should have been granted in full, whereas the dissenters argued that it should be entirely denied.
Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the order partially granting the application for injunctive relief. In his separate opinion, Justice Roberts stated:
As I explained the last time the Court considered this evolving case, federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (opinion concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 2). The State has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID–19. I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework. At the same time, the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.For additional information about the background of this decision, see this February 6, 2021 Vox article.
re: msg #205. Alan, you make a fine and sensible distinction there. I agree with you on that nice point. Privately, I still feel teenage malcontents in Lancaster might need a visit to the woodshed. It's not a valid rebellion against a 'stifling' conformity if one's reason is: "I want to do drugs and commit crimes, you're restricting my freedom of expression and stunting my growth"
re: msg #206. Read through it twice before I could get the gist of the legal-ese. I admire this morsel: "appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake." Based on my experience in public safety that rings true.
Mod
I was trying to figure out what you meant by "teenage malcontents in Lancaster," until it finally dawned on me just now. You are probably referring to the Amish culture. Having lived in Pennsylvania only since 2003, I didn't catch that geographical connotation.
Feliks, perhaps unlike you, I grew up in the 1950s in a small rural town that had 26 churches (25 Protestant and one Roman Catholic) for less than 10,000 people (plus some farmers in the neighborhood of the town). When I stopped going to church at about age 16, the locals began calling me an "atheist" and a "Communist" (which were considered identical in those days in that culture, i.e., all Communists were atheists, so all atheists were Communists, which is, of course, an elementary logical fallacy). But then I wasn't even quite an "atheist"; rather, if anything, I was what is sometimes referred to as an "agnostic." Nuances always escaped these people, who are now, of course (and for the same reasons), Trumpkins. I haven't been back to the town since my last visit about 1976. I will never go back.
I was not a "teenage malcontent" who might "need a visit to the woodshed." I did not "want to do drugs and commit crimes." In fact, I was a star debater, orator, and dramatic actor who graduated at the top of my class. My parents were proud of me, though they were very concerned about the possibility that I would go to hell as a result of my refusal to believe the received orthodox religious doctrines. And "belief" was the operative concept in my Lutheran congregation; "good works" meant nothing for Martin Luther and his followers throughout the centuries. "Believe and be baptized, and ye shall be saved." Otherwise, you would go to hell.
So, I empathize with those Amish young people who have somehow resisted the indoctrination in which they were raised and have learned to think for themselves. I've been there, done that.
Alan - I too grew up in such a place and attended a Lutheran church. I am a bit younger than you. And my liberation was helped along by the 1960s civil rights protests and the opposition to the war. My memories line up with yours. And I can confirm your conclusions about Trumpism.
Mod
Thanks, Brad. Sometimes I feel as though only other lawyers understand me! HaHa! (Of course, all the lawyers' jokes are true, and many lawyers fall within the stereotypes.) It probably also makes sense that we both found inspiration from Leo Strauss, who posited (with much exoteric equivocation—he also wrote in the 1950s and 1960s after all) the fundamental conflict between philosophy and religion. And, like you, I don't agree with everything that Strauss wrote.
My apologies to those readers who may be offended by my explicit discussion of religion, which I normally avoid in this forum and may even violate one or more of my rules as moderator. But Feliks made me do it, so blame him! (Again, HaHa!)
We were part of the second wave of the “brain drain”. Today, there are very few critical thinkers left in Union County IL were I hale from. They have all left to pursue opportunities that disappeared from rural areas many decades ago.Our churches were not centers of learning during my childhood. But today they are almost unrecognizable as a part of post-renaissance western culture.
Changing subects: Alan, based on one of your comments, I picked up Tim Snyder’s ON TYRANNY. What a commonsensical little book it is! I wish everyone would read it. You can get through it in a single afternoon. It is a manual for recognizing and resisting authoritarianism.
Mod
Strauss delivered this lecture a few months after the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibited a local board of education from ordering an official prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). He elaborated at some length the philosophical and historical background leading to this decision, and he stated that the central issue was whether the First Amendment guaranteed freedom from governmental enforcement of religion or merely freedom of religion. He declined to state his position on this issue, claiming, somewhat disingenuously, that he was not a constitutional lawyer. Strangely, several of the student questioners in the Q&A session advocated some kind of governmental promotion of religion. Strauss pushed back against this position, though with typical circumspection. One must remember that this was 1963 and that Strauss had a Jewish rather than a Christian background.
Strauss did emphasize, as he stressed elsewhere in his writings and lectures, that there is a fundamental conflict between philosophy (which, properly speaking, is based on reason alone and not revelation) and religion (which is based, at least in the forms familiar to the West, on alleged revelation). Consistent with his other pronouncements on this subject, he opposed the obfuscation of this issue by any attempt to temper philosophy with religion.
Strauss’s lecture evinces his great knowledge of the history of philosophy as well as of history generally. I disagree on a few points of that history, and, being a retired constitutional lawyer, am much less shy about arguing that government and religion should be totally separate. See my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. Strauss does not mention Roger Williams, who does not fit into the historical stereotypes of his account. I must also mention that Strauss’s apparent praise of Thomas More’s toleration ignores More’s own official governmental actions in persecuting (by way of torture and burning at the stake) religious dissenters. See my review of More’s Dialogue Concerning Heresies here. Strauss was evidently not aware of this facet of More’s biographical history.
Was just reading up a little on the controversial Cardinal John Spellman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis...
Some of you probably remember him well from headlines of the era. What a character. Exemplifies why church and state should not intermingle.
On the other hand, I think that the Vatican should have engaged more in European politics when the Nazis rose to power, instead of retreating. That was Pius XII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pi...
The strange history and unusual character of the NPB, the 'National Prayer Breakfast'.https://w12.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...
Richard Nixon's remarks on Abraham Lincoln's faith, at an NPB:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docum...
Mod
https://w12.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na..."
Some day, after I am gone, a member of Gen Z will become president, and this antique violation of church-state separation will become a historical relic along with other abominations of our age. Of course, Gen Z will undoubtedly invent new abominations (if they haven't already), so I'm not all that optimistic.
Alan - a wonderful commentary on our present and future ages - yes abominations are to be present in all ages - on the other hand, am reading Ecclesiastes right now and the “Teachers” advice to the reader is to realize and accept that all life is meaningless, that it doesn’t matter what our possessions are, in the end we all die; and therefor we are to enjoy the fruits of our life as they are provided to us knowing that in the end that God is supreme and to be feared(in the Biblical sense). Perhaps coincidental that I read this book of the OT on New Year’s Eve or perhaps not. Nevertheless it gives me comfort and confidence. All grace and best wishes for a happy, safe and hopefully continued free democratic year in 2022.
Mod
It's been several decades since I studied Ecclesiastes, but I wouldn't agree that life is meaningless. As Leo Strauss (who was quite familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures) used to say, life "signif[ies] nothing" (referencing Macbeth's famous soliloquy) only for those "who violate the law of life" (quoting from memory). Yes, we see death, devastation, and corruption all around us, but that shouldn't propel us to either despair or false hope. Courage and reason are the operative concepts. My work in progress, Reason and Human Ethics, elaborates on these themes.
Happy New Year to all! It better be better than the last two years, but, if not, we'll still get through it.
Hotel buffets --for things like prayer breakfasts --invariably serve only a choice of chicken or salmon.
Mod
As you may be aware, the National Prayer Breakfast is associated with "The Family" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fam...). I saw a Netflix series based on this book a while ago. The U.S. has made progress, but we are still only a couple of steps away from theocracy. I discuss such matters in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience.
You've improved my knowledge. I saw the reference for 'The Family' when I looked up the original topic of 'National Breakfast' but assumed it was just another melodrama TV series about First Families or something. This Christian-underwrit national breakfast ceremony is disturbing enough in itself, but the 'The Family' --in existence since 1935?--is disturbing. There's echoes in this of that other long-running controversy, the 'Bellamy Salute'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy...
Whether or not any of this is true, there are wild-eyed zealots who insist it is true, as a way of attacking American labor. I can't recall the demogogue's name at the moment, will add later.
Ah yes, it is the name "Dr. Rex Curry" which eluded me. A man with a mission.
Battle of 'faith' vs 'science' ...rages in the Big Apple (not Gary Indiana, or Louisiana...) 30% of the NYPD has requested leave.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/12/1/228...
Mod
30% of the NYPD has requested leave.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/12/1/228......"
So, by this logic, someone could excuse their murdering another person on the ground that it was their religious obligation to kill heretics? This is not far-fetched. Think 9/11.
The situation with the Covid vaccines is not exactly the same, but is it really distinguishable in principle? The unvaccinated are infecting others (including vaccinated persons in crossover infections). Moreover, the unvaccinated are contributing to the successive mutations of the virus, which are enabled only because many remain unvaccinated. The vaccines were quite resistant to the earlier variants, less so with omicron. The unvaccinated are literally killing people.
Perhaps we should just give up all government and let people have "freedom" to do whatever they want: murder, rape, pillage, disobey traffic rules, etc. etc.
To coopt a religious mantra: THE END IS NEAR!
Well, we can't give up government altogether because that would make us ... Godless Commies. On the other hand, my libertarian pal says too much government ...also makes us ...Godless Commies...
Mod
During the 1950s, when I first became politically aware, politicians and others referred to "Godless, atheistic Communism." It's an interesting philosophical or semantic question whether there is a difference between "Godless" and "atheistic," but the underlying assumption was that these three concepts were the same, since all Communists were atheists and all atheists were Communists in their view of the matter.
Indeed, that was the language. The truth is though (at least in the case of one country which unfortunately never seemed to recognize American exceptionalism) --that Mother Russia has always had a fervent Catholic population.Labeling anyone 'Godless' is just one more way to put them in the 'out-group" and just that much closer to extermination (if they ever need to be exterminated God will of course be on our side, the winning side). The Japanese and the Germans were just 'savages', 'sub-human', or even 'mad beasts', in many WWII propaganda posters.
Mod
More precisely, they are Russian Orthodox (part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which split off from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 CE). The Russian Orthodox Church remained pretty much underground during the Communist decades, and the vast majority of the population were atheists pursuant to Communist dogma and education. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church has reemerged, and Putin is integrating it with the State in a bizarre throwback to pre-Communist times. See the books by Masha Gessen about this.
Mod
For President Donald Trump’s most committed Christian devotees—those with ears to hear—his rise to power was prophesied, and the 2016 victory was miraculous. Prophets again foretold re-election in 2020. These charismatic Trump supporters tended to come from outside the main denominations, and when the electoral college swung towards Joe Biden, the results were not accepted. In rejecting the election, they became fellow travellers with more overtly militant and conspiratorial groups—sometimes sharing a stage with them. This article describes the discourse of prophetic populism from 2011 to 2021—focusing in particular on the three months from the 2020 election to the storming of Capitol Hill to the inauguration of Joe Biden. Although Trump repeatedly says, ‘Promises Made, Promises Kept’, these prophetic promises did not materialise—leading some to try to force God’s hand. This article explores the reaction to three consecutive disappointments that took their toll on prophetic populism: the declaration of Joe Biden as president-elect in November 2020, the certification of his victory in early January 2021 and the inauguration later that month. It demonstrates the power of a relatively new force in conservative politics, the flexibility of beliefs in divine involvement and the resilience of these beliefs in light of weighty disconfirming evidence.Matthew Crowley was a grad student of John Coffey, who wrote books that remarked favorably on Roger Williams and which I quoted and cited in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience Both Coffey and Rowley are Brits, which accounts for the British spelling in the essay.
Mod
I have now finished reading Matthew Rowley’s essay, which is excellent.
See also Sarah Posner’s book Unholy: How White Christian Nationalists Powered the Trump Presidency, and the Devastating Legacy They Left Behind, which I am currently reading. The Amazon link for this 2021 edition (not included in the Goodreads posting) is https://www.amazon.com/Unholy-White-E....
Alan wrote: "a member of Generation Z..."Ha! I wouldn't trust anyone who grew up with the internet, to boil a pot of water, water a lawn, or take a can of trash out to the curb.
Purportedly, there's neighbors of mine who come into my local post office and they don't know how to sign their own names. They can't write in cursive!
Mod
My editorial comment: The mind boggles. Adams now joins Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, and a host of contemporary Trumpian prophets claiming recent direct revelation from God. What to believe? Contrary to earlier allegations that God is a Republican, Mayor Adams is a Democrat. Has God changed party allegiances? Does this mean that He has finally given up on Donald J. Trump?
As much as I respect the new Mayor of NYC and my high hopes for his success in changing the arc of policy leadership in my city, I also know that he is as subject to verbal atrocities as our good President is. The more important part of your post is his presiding over the announcement of his faith based/community initiatives, which Are a positive move recognizing their value to a variety of communities - especially those in marginal areas. Adam’s won by appealing to just those people in the outer boroughs that feel Manhattan denigrates them and their imperatives. Much of those outer borough communities are immigrant heavy and many are dedicated to their faiths, whether eastern or western in origin. So Adams is just responding to his own personal faith imperatives and the desires of his voters to integrate their own faiths and community development together. Just a thought, but I think Adams is onto to something that President Obama tried to do as well with less success. These kinds of moves and beliefs are one way for Democrats to blunt the impact of Republican messaging
So maybe flaunting one’s religion beliefs (or supposed beliefs) is good politics. I will grant you that phony religionism has served the Republicans well the past 40 years.But this sort of public display (even if sincere) diminishes the the highest ideals of our country. This is the only place on earth ever where official religion is completely banned. And where political leaders and judges are not allowed to shove their religious beliefs down the throats of other citizens who think differently.
This is the one place where a citizen is allowed to think what he or she wants when it comes to the religious or the transcendent.
When politicians step over that line, as Eric Adams has now done, they should be called on it.
Mod
Alan wrote: "In a February 10, 2022 speech at an interfaith breakfast at the New York Public Library, before signing an executive order creating the Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnership, New York Cit..."While I have periodically noticed postings in the various groups, I have not had the time or credentials to comment on most. However, since a significant portion of my time is committed to my activities within the church, I concluded that this is an occasion where a comment is warranted. (Most of the following is rudimentary but still appropriate as background. Neither time nor the boring of any reader justify exhaustive Scriptural references.)
The core concept of Christianity is of course the Trinity. The component of the Godhead at issue here is the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). The orthodox belief is that it resides within the "saints". It, if one is attentive, continually inspires and "whispers" to the believer. The urgings may be occasionally unintelligible or ambiguous, but sustained reflection and testing of the promptings can clarify a course toward which it is pointing.
Testing though is an explicit obligation of the believer since the "voice" can be from the Spirit or from Satan. (Residing within all of humanity is both virtue and vice and the individual chooses whether to aspire to one or to succumb to the other.) Humility requires that caution be employed in listening to and understanding what is being taught - utilizing both their reason and free will - in order to distinguish between them.
There are of course many of the Lay church who are insincere in the profession of their beliefs - much less potentially even charlatans or psychotics - and utilize it as a facade or charade. In which category the mentioned official may fall is unknown to me.
But the concept of divine inspiration ought not to be discounted out of hand. It is not to be confused with or be accompanying by a "thundering voice from on high" commanding or directing a person toward specific actions, such as being a candidate for a specific office. However, it could be urging them to utilize their capabilities and talents in a specific field, be it professional, philanthropic, or even political; or to open their eyes to opportunities for such utilization thereof; or to even suggest particular performance or advocacy in those activities. Thus, though care must be exercised by both the proponent in the choice of specific action and the audience in assessment of the sincerity and correct comprehension of the proponent, the possibility of divine inspiration ought not to be automatically rejected.
Mod
People can believe what they want to believe, but my objection to Mayor Adams's public pronouncement is that it constitutes a violation of the principle of separation of religion and government. He claims that God explicitly told him that he would be mayor, just as Trump (at least implicitly) and the legion of right-wing "prophets" (explicitly claiming that God appointed Trump to be dictator) do. Trump’s religious pronouncements are crass hypocrisy. Mayor Adams may or may not be sincere, but he should not have made that statement in the course of performing his official governmental duties. Jimmy Carter was also very religious, but (to my recollection and knowledge) he never said that any part of the Trinity personally communicated anything to him, at least not regarding public policy when he was president of the United States.
The second paragraph of my post 231 was, obviously, sarcastic, but it does point to an issue involving critical thinking: How are we to distinguish between the various claims to revelation (whether from the Christian Trinity, Allah, et al.) by governmental officials or public figures, whether they be Eric Adams, the Trumpian "prophets," Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or others? I include Robertson and Falwell as a result of their promotion of the religious right and its theocratic or quasi-theocratic agenda. Not being governmental officials, they had a constitutional and legal right to express such opinions, but I offer them as examples of the difficulty of distinguishing between true and false revelation. Many Christians (and the vast majority of non-Christians) don’t recognize Robertson’s and Falwell’s claims to revelation. How do we adjudicate such claims?
Adams's support of faith-based initiatives also raises church-state separation issues, but these questions are more complicated. Notably, Clinton, the second Bush, and (if I recall correctly) even Obama supported such measures. I would say that if religious entities are just doing charity work without any religious indoctrination or requirements attached, then maybe it is OK for them to work with government in this respect. However, the issue is quite complicated, and I have no final position on the question at this time. For example, should government help subsidize the charity work of these religious entities? As is often the case, the devil may well be in the details.
By the way, I was raised in a Protestant mainline denomination (Lutheranism), and we were never taught that the Holy Spirit "whispers" to us. In fact, we were taught that there is no revelation in modern times (one of the Lutheran objections to the theology of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, for example). I left Lutheranism when I was about fifteen years old. But if people want to believe that the Holy Spirit whispers to them, they are perfectly entitled to have and express that opinion under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Under the Establishment Clause, however, political officials cannot and should not combine religion and government. Otherwise, we end up with theocratic or theonomic religious dystopias such as Christian Reconstructionism (Old Testament theocracy as in colonial New England) or The Handmaid's Tale. For some people, to channel Hamlet (quoting from memory), “ ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.”
Alan, I suspect that this is not purely coincidental, but I too was raised in the Lutheran Church in a small midwestern community. Your question, how are we to adjudicate claims of revelation, caught my eye. It seems to me that they are non-justiciable. Claims of revelation are claims of supernatural agency. Humans are denied knowledge of the supernatural, including whether it exists.
Thus, such claims are not an appropriate area of inquiry for philosophy or natural science. Yet, it is entirely natural for philosophers to inquire about whether one religion creates better citizens than others, for example. It’s not about whether religion saves us. It’s about how religion makes us act and feel.
Mod
That is an interesting fact. As you know, Luther taught salvation by faith (and not by works). I didn’t realize until recent years that Luther also (like Augustine’s late writings and Calvin’s future writings) taught that faith is given by God as a matter of theological grace and predestination. However, most Lutheran denominations later dropped the predestination part and emphasized the doctrine of salvation by faith. (See my book Free Will and Human Life, 7–17 [reproduced online at https://www.academia.edu/39986153/The...]).
Brad wrote: “Claims of revelation are claims of supernatural agency. Humans are denied knowledge of the supernatural, including whether it exists.”
I agree.
Brad wrote: “Thus, such claims are not an appropriate area of inquiry for philosophy or natural science. Yet, it is entirely natural for philosophers to inquire about whether one religion creates better citizens than others, for example. It’s not about whether religion saves us. It’s about how religion makes us act and feel.”
Philosophers (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Locke and Jefferson), theologians (perhaps Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas), and others (Zoroaster, perhaps Jesus before the Pauline transformation of Christianity, and Roger Williams’s attempt to live a public and private life according to Jesus’s ethical precepts) have been trying for millennia to design or reinstate religious teachings that focus on ethical behavior. Nevertheless, religion on the ground is usually about doctrine, thus resulting in centuries upon centuries of religious wars, persecutions, prejudice, and discrimination. This is especially the case when religion is combined with government, resulting in the religious nationalism we see in every era, including our own. (See my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience.) Confucianism may be the exception that proves the rule: Confucianism was not about revelation and is probably more a philosophy than a religion. I am currently studying the Confucian writings and will devote part of my forthcoming book Reason and Human Ethics to discussing them. It is a remarkable fact that both Confucius (551–479 BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) taught the doctrine of the ethical mean. I wonder whether Aristotle had any awareness of Confucianism. Perhaps he learned about it from Plato, who traveled widely for a time and who evidently became aware of religions other than the received Greek mythology. For example, Plato favorably referenced Zoroaster (fl. sometime between 1400 and 1200 BCE) in Alcibiades I 122a.
(The final sentence of the foregoing comment was added February 19, 2022, at 12:14 p.m. U.S. Eastern Standard Time.)
A point which is sometimes unclear to me: if Protestantism states that salvation depends on faith and not deeds, then from what data came about the famous "Protestant work ethic" hypothesized by German sociologist Max Weber? I know the whole theory has been criticized for inexactness, but it was in vogue for some time. Even if it was later discounted, the initial observations upon which this theory originally rested, elicited some enthusiasm. So: how were the bones of this theory ever laid out at all, if it was always without a head and always facing the wrong direction? How did anyone ever arrive at such a theory in the first place if --on the sound of it --it stands so apposite to the core tenets introduced by Luther?
Mod
(I think “apposite” in your last sentence is a typo for “opposite.”)
This is a very good question, which I discuss on pages 95–100 of The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. Here is an excerpt from pages 95–96:
In September of 1634, Anne Hutchinson and her husband, William, disembarked in Boston from a ship that had carried them from England. They had been earnest followers, in England, of the Reverend John Cotton, who had arrived in Massachusetts Bay a year earlier. Cotton preached a version of predestination in which God’s elect could not be identified by their behavior in earthly life. This teaching was inconsistent with the prevailing notions of “sanctification” in the Massachusetts Bay colony, whereby a person’s predestinarian status was considered to be reflected in his or her life. This was a narrow theological dispute within the Puritan predestinarian community: all accepted the basic premise that God chose certain people, prior to their birth, to be predestined to salvation or damnation and that human works could not affect the outcome. Cotton, unlike the Massachusetts Bay authorities, took this doctrine to its logical conclusion. The magistrates and their clerical supporters feared that such an “Antinomian” (“against law”) view would necessarily lead to a decline in moral behavior. After all, if a person was already predetermined to be saved or not saved, why should that person be concerned about his or her ethical conduct? These Massachusetts “legalists” did not see any conflict between their views and orthodox Calvinist predestinarian doctrine.John Winthrop and the other founders of the Massachusetts Bay theocracy established an Old Testament theocracy in the New England wilderness. They taught that a person’s predestined status in the afterlife could be determined by observing their lives, including material success (which was taken to be a sign of God’s favor), in the present life; poor people were obviously disfavored by God and were predestined to go to hell. (Here is the origin of the “Prosperity Gospel” of more recent times and the implicit or explicit view that poor people are damned and should not be helped.) The Puritan theocrats considered the Antinomian view to be a heresy, destructive of the regime they had founded. Accordingly, the Antinomians were banished. They were lucky to have escaped with their lives (the theocracy later hanged Quakers). It is this New England version of theocratic predestinarianism that was a factual basis for Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. The New England Puritans (excepting, as always, the views of the banished Roger Williams and his emerging colony in Providence [Rhode Island]) were always trying to prove that they were among the divine “elect” by visibly conforming to the rules of the theocracy and exhibiting their wealth. In fact, the suffrage came to be restricted to the “visible saints”—those determined by their church congregations to be predestined to go to heaven. I discuss this development on pages 322–24 of The First American Founder; an earlier draft of this material was contained on pages 3–4 of my paper “Was Massachusetts Bay a Theocracy?” in The Independent Scholar Quarterly 26, no. 4 (November 2013), reproduced at https://www.academia.edu/6149241/Was_.... See also Edmund S. Morgan, Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963).
Although some people criticized Cotton for his position, he was sufficiently prudent and political to survive the attacks on himself. In fact, he became the leader of the Massachusetts Bay divines. Anne Hutchinson, who lacked political skills and was undoubtedly the victim of gender discrimination, was not so fortunate. As a result of her radical theology, she was considered by John Winthrop and other powerful political and religious leaders to be an “American Jezebel” who would destroy the foundations of morality in the colony. Hutchinson conducted religious discussion sessions in her home in which she accused Massachusetts ministers (other than Cotton and her brother-in-law John Wheelwright) of preaching a “covenant of works” rather than a “covenant of grace.” She developed quite a following of her own—a forbidden development, especially for a woman, in orthodox Massachusetts.
The Antinomian faction became quite outspoken in expressing its views. Consequently, Reverend Wheelwright was convicted of sedition and banished during 1637. He departed for New Hampshire. Several other Antinomians were disenfranchised, disarmed, and/or banished. In late 1637 and early 1638, Anne Hutchinson was convicted in a criminal trial, sentenced to banishment, and excommunicated from her church. [Endnote 100 at this location: “The foregoing account of John Cotton, Anne Hutchinson, and the Antinomians is based on Morgan, Puritan Dilemma, chap. 10, and Eve LaPlante, American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson, the Woman Who Defied the Puritans (New York: HarperCollins, 2004). Many other analyses of the Antinomian controversy exist, but the present book is focused on Roger Williams and Rhode Island and not on the interesting details of this episode.”]
Margaret Atwood said she partially based the theocratic/theonomic order of her 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale on the seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay theocracy. Although I have not yet read the novel, I noticed the similarities when viewing the first four seasons of the Hulu/Amazon Prime Video series based on this book. The fifth season is currently in production.
Alan wrote: "Response to Wayne's immediately preceding post 235:People can believe what they want to believe, but my objection to Mayor Adams's public pronouncement is that it constitutes a violation of the p..."
Time only permits me to comment on the below - as the lack of it also delayed this brief response since receipt of notice of your comment.
I didn't take the occasion of reviewing your link and seem to have possibly read the recitation of the Mayor's comment too rapidly.
I would agree that his claim that "God explicitly told him that he would be mayor" smacks of hubris and perhaps borders on blasphemy. I attempted to convey, perhaps inartfully, the belief that God through the Holy Spirit periodically guides the believer through general (and, sometimes, specific) parameters of a course to follow or not follow; it is then incumbent upon the believer to use his/her reason to assess the alternatives and employ his/her free will to adopt one or the other. Divine prognostications and explicit commands are not part of this process, the concept of their present existence being unknown to me. (In scripture, Yes, various Divine commands were issued to those who might be called certified prophets and saints, but both the present state of the World - as well as the contrast in theology between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible - suggest that this may be anachronistic. (About the only contrary passage that comes immediately to mind is Acts 16:6-9; even this though did not constitute a command of _what to do_ but of _what not to do as well as _the direction in which to go_.)
On your points of separation and pronouncements in an official capacity, I think I tend to agree. Such a pronouncement may tend to provide an imprimatur by which to override contrary opinion. I do not believe there is as much tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as is frequently asserted. The equilibrium is usually disrupted when government endeavors to perform too many functions. Establishing an "Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnership" may well qualify as an example of this overreach.
Free Exercise is to allow religion to perform those functions. Government telling religious adherents what to do or what not to do is in facial violation; if this is avoided, a partnership between the state and religion is unnecessary. Government should generally "get out of the way" on functions civil society can adequately perform. (Again, my comments may be too inartful, but time and space constrains be from elaborating).
"People can believe what they want to believe, but my objection to Mayor Adams's public pronouncement is that it constitutes a violation of the principle of separation of religion and government. He claims that God explicitly told him that he would be mayor... Mayor Adams may or may not be sincere, but he should not have made that statement in the course of performing his official governmental duties."
Mod
People can believe what they want to believe, but my objection to Mayor Adams's public pronouncement is that it constitutes a viola..."
Thank you, Wayne, for further explaining your perspective.
Mod
(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
(In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Wow. Good link. I didn't know there was a revolting new resurgence in book-bans. Have to shake my head at all the new legislation this will need to sort out. Seems like any precious freedom we enjoy always needs a stack of regulations to protect, doesn't it?By the way --if these bans are spurred on by conservatives, does this imply that these parents also remove their children's access to internet and phone? If not, then how do they hope bans to have any effect?
Anyway, I think it's well-established that when a society wants to 'regulate thought', it starts with restricting access to content via these brutal methods. Someday --if books are predominantly digital --it would be simple to eradicate a controversial title or author. God save printing presses!
By the way, a buddy of mine is a director of Library Science at a university library in the deep South. I can fwd him any questions we raise here.
Mod
Feliks wrote: "Wow. Good link. I didn't know there was a revolting new resurgence in book-bans. Have to shake my head at all the new legislation this will need to sort out. Seems like any precious freedom we enjo..."I have one thoroughly banworthy book for sale. Maybe two, if things go far enough down the toilet. The Maus books cleaned up after the recent nonsense. I finally bought both copies myself after decades of just thumbing through them at bookstores and being horrified. If the states want to ban my books, who knows, I might pay a small commission. Then again, I might not.
Alan wrote: "The devout Protestant minister Roger Williams fought the battle against Puritan theocracy in seventeenth-century New England. After being expelled from Massachusetts Bay, he founded a settlement he..."Alan wrote: "The devout Protestant minister Roger Williams fought the battle against Puritan theocracy in seventeenth-century New England. After being expelled from Massachusetts Bay, he founded a settlement he..."
Here's my best Roger Williams impression. It may be a bit intolerant in its own way, but it's what we need now.
https://stevenlubliner.medium.com/her...
Mod
As I explained at some length in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience, Roger Williams taught that religion should not trump laws of general applicability. In his letter to the Town of Providence ca. January 1654/55 (famously known as his Ship of State letter), Williams wrote:
I thought it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony, and answer to my brother,—That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against the private or public weal. That ever I should speak or write a tittle, that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience, is a mistake, and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred. To prevent such mistakes, I shall at present only propose this case: There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or a human combination or society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both papists [Roman Catholics] and protestants, Jews and Turks [Muslims], may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal I affirm, that all the liberty of conscience, that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two hinges—that none of the papists, protestants, Jews, or Turks, be forced to come to the ship's prayers of worship, nor compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they practice any. I further add, that I never denied, that notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of this ship ought to command the ship's course, yea, and also command that justice, peace and sobriety, be kept and practiced, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If any of the seamen refuse to perform their services, or passengers to pay their freight; if any refuse to help, in person or purse, towards the common charges or defence; if any refuse to obey the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their common peace or preservation; if any shall mutiny and rise up against their commanders and officers; if any should preach or write that there ought to be no commanders or officers, because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters nor officers, no laws nor orders, nor corrections nor punishments;—I say, I never denied, but in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist, compel and punish such transgressors, according to their deserts and merits. This if seriously and honestly minded, may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain studious of your common peace and liberty.I have regrettably had to modernize the spelling and capitalization in the foregoing, because the only source with the original spelling and capitalization is not available online (to my knowledge), and I don’t have time to retype the whole thing right now.
When my wife and I visited the library of the Rhode Island Historical Society in Providence a few years ago, a librarian let us look at the original of this great letter, though she would not let us touch it. This was, perhaps, the most reverent moment of my life.
Alan E, in what mood was such a letter written? What turn of mind? This is often what is hard to discern from that century's formal -sounding speech. Was Williams raging? Pleading? Or, was he ice-cold when he composed this?
After reading the opinions in this case, I have modified the present post.