Secularism and the Mosque Flap
Let's say the mosque (you know what mosque) gets built, as it certainly might, public opinion notwithstanding. What's the next theological concession America's Christian churches get to make in the name of brotherhood, sisterhood, pluralism, world peace and amity, the reconstruction of America's image, etc., etc.?
First it's one thing, then another: public observances of religious holidays, memorial crosses on public lands, atheist authors on the attack, affronts galore to Christian morality as understood for even longer than Richard Dawkins has been on the scene. Prayer in schools? Lost that battle long ago, toward the end of a different age for American Christianity, when the general assumption was that a brief word to the Almighty, even spoken in public places, wasn't a bad idea.
The Christian consensus that supposedly dominated American life half a century ago hasn't dominated anything for years. Only the gay marriage foofaraw, which centers on how to define marriage—the church's way or The New York Times'—affords secular pundits a good workout these days. Oh—and priestly sexual abuse, which some media accounts could lead you to see as the modern church's primary activity.
On the left, the mosque proposal gets two thumbs way up—in Siskel/Ebert parlance—because at least one of those thumbs can be seen as gouging the "religious right." The other thumb points us to the wonderful world of religious indifference. Yawn. Mosque, church, synagogue, who cares? Just the same old story told different ways, with different legends, none mattering more than another.
The general comparability of all religions is the narrative that informs support for the New York City mosque—as, to tell the truth, it informs support for the mosques now springing up through once-Christian Europe. The necessity of throwing back that narrative isn't the only reason most Americans reject the idea of admitting Islamic symbols and practice to the neighborhood of the 9/11 outrage. It's a reason that works, even so.
A Muslim need not believe in the truth of Christianity, but secular commitment to "diversity"—a commitment certain oddball bishops and theologians appear to support—undermines the American understanding of national identity. You can lay aside or leave open special "truth" claims if you like. Where on earth do claims to liberty under law arise if not from the heavily plowed ground of Christian belief concerning man—and, as we would add nowadays, woman—as the special creation of God, worthy of protection against tyranny, oppression and other awful incidents of existence? No God—no Christian God at any event—no liberty, no freedom, no personhood, is the rule of thumb.
Islam's claim to partake of "Abrahamic faith" falls short of the Christian understanding in all its fullness. Were it otherwise, wouldn't one expect to see robust democratic republics throughout the Islamic world, full of Barney Franks and Nancy Pelosis (with maybe the random Mitch McConnell) instead of the despotisms that squash and mismanage their peoples? Where are they?
Where, for that matter, does Islamic tolerance manifest itself in the glorious name of Diversity? How about letting the Southern Baptists plant a megachurch in Mecca, with the strains of "Amazing Grace" breaking forth across the sands? Think they'd get away with it? Think the Saudis would accord Christianity the same respect and protection they demand for their own faith? Think again.
The Islamic center proposal should stand or fall on its own merits, not on the secularist proposition that one religious faith's as good as another—to the extent even one of them amounts to a hill of beans. Possibly the real basis of Christian-Islamic communion lies not in politics, but rather in recognition that any who answer the call of faith are disrespected guests in hard-nosed societies dedicated to short-term means over long-term ends.
The mosque flap could prove transitory in that respect: An occasion for thinking about religious truth and asking the genuinely hard questions: What are we all here for? And why?
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
"Islam’s claim to partake of “Abrahamic faith” falls short of the Christian understanding in all its fullness. Were it otherwise, wouldn’t one expect to see robust democratic republics throughout the Islamic world?"
Mr. Murchison didn't say it directly, but "robust democratic republics" are based on "Christian understanding in all its fullness"?
The robust democratic republics of the Western world have included the Third Republic that persecuted the Church in France; the older Germany where nuns and priests were once arrested, paraded, and humiliated in one brief outbreak of anti-religious sentiment; the anti-Catholic government in Spain before the Civil War, and so on.
Do Christians want to give other people the vote so that they can use it to trample over them? Is republicanism really an ideal form of Christian polity, with such states like the Florentine Republic made purely to resist the Church's moral authority?
I mean, if anything, much of the Islamic world deserves some credit for having skepticism about democracy. Yes, they often have a despotism that is just as bad, but that only means it makes no difference at all (And if you're Christian, you'll be persecuted in both). At least in Qatar, the rich flourishing theocratic monarchy of scholars and painters, they don't live in the misery of the robust democratic republic of Pakistan.
Islam is all about convert or kill. History shows Muslims haven't been very tolerant in the past. However, these, and other, reasons should not be used to stop Muslims from building a mosque near the 9-11 site. The author is right; "The Islamic center proposal should stand or fall on its own merits." So only criterion you should use is, Is it legal? Practically no one questions legality of the proposal.
Let them build the mosque, but be vigilant, and watch them carefully. We don't want to stoop down to levels of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.
We will never recognize, understand and contain, if not eliminate, the grave threat posed by Islam and Islamists in this country while we couch the discussion in terms of religion. The American Pavlovian response on hearing the word “Religion” is to immediately enter into the babbling nonsense of “equality,” “respect for cultural diversity,” and “all faiths lead the adherents to truth.”
but Americans still might respond rationally to threats and actions of foreign political aggression, however. And that is how we must discuss Islam and Islamists. Not a pure “religion” at all, or a philosophy, Islam is more comparable to Nazism, a highly developed social-political system with mystical overtones. Far from our understanding of a separate “Church” from the “State,” Islam does not even bother with a distinction of the terms and, in fact, does not pay the “state” any respect; the entire world is in the process of becoming one universal Islamic “state.” By definition, no practicing Islamist can bear fealty to a “state” or Constitution, though some heretics may claim to do so. Mr. Trifkiovic – how I miss his work in Chronicles – writes so well of this in his works on the Islamic threat. They should be a mandatory course of study.
"Possibly the real basis of Christian-Islamic communion lies not in politics, but rather in recognition that any who answer the call of faith are disrespected guests in hard-nosed societies dedicated to short-term means over long-term ends.
The mosque flap could prove transitory in that respect: An occasion for thinking about religious truth and asking the genuinely hard questions: What are we all here for? And why?"
I would only add the other difficult question: "Who is to say?" Apparently Christians need to learn the answer to that question, but I fear the answer might surprise them. +
On Fox News shows like Hannity, the opposition to the mosque comes down to attacking Islam itself for its archaic sharia, and blaming Muslims in general for 911 despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence implicating Israel'a Mossad and its sayanim in this country. No one who has studied independent investigations by that group of 1,200 architects, engineers, physicists, chemists and other experts of the collapse of the twin towers and WTC7 can ignore the certain impossibility of those "hijackers" effecting the maneuvers required, which seasoned pilots of those aircraft say would be next to impossible for the most experienced crew; orders not to scramble jets that otherwise reach an errant flight in 10 min on average; the presence of residual flecks of nano-thermitic cutter charges in the dust; anomolies such as explosions taking place well below the path of collapse (misfires) and no skyscraper like WTC7 ever collapsing from minor fires, let alone coming down at free-fall speed like the twin towers into its own footprint--20 min after WTC7's collapse was announced on CNN and the BBC; Silverstein's comment that WTC7 was "pulled," making it nearly conclusive that if one building was so rigged (a process taking days at the hands of experts), then all were; hijackers not on passenger lists walking right by Israeli owned airport security; and, at least another hundred such problems with and contradictions of the official narrative. The great irony is that the War on Terror, supposedly started because "they hate us for our freedoms," was all along the pretext for extinguishing those very same freedoms here at home.
All ideas have inherent consequences; they all lead naturally, inexorably to an end. Inherent in the Protestant fancy of an invisible church is the notion of relativism. After all, once we all have been taught to accept that we should choose the church of our choice because all, with their many contradicting doctrines, are part of the true invisible church, it is only natural that we see, in ever increasing numbers, that the logic all but requires us to see all religions as equally relative.
Cardinal Newman is far from the only brilliant man to see that Calvinism, Protestantism more generally, leads invariably to societal embrace of agnosticism and relativism.
What we have is the inherent fruit of Yankee WASP culture.
"Mr. Murchison didn’t say it directly, but “robust democratic republics” are based on “Christian understanding in all its fullness."
Why is it that even learned people who should know better continually attempt to link "religion" directly with "democracy" or any other form of political relationship. Christ himself, if you happen to believe in that religion, explicitly divorced himself from any direct involvement with politics and government. Government is about the relationships among men, religion about the relationship of man to god. The religious man may well conduct his political dealings according to moral teachings of his religion, but there is no direct linkage, nor should there be, between religion and any particular form of government.
If Christianity were actually practiced in its fullness – an impossibility since no fallible creature can practice any perfect ideal (or even an imperfect one for that matter) to doctrinal perfection - would not a dictatorship be the ideal government? The dictator would be benevolent abd all would have a perfect understanding of his place in society and would only do good to each other. In fact, no government would be necessary to man at all – each man would be, as Paul said, a law unto himself. And that law would always be justly applied for the good of all.
At his best, Man has always been and will always be a relativistic and violent creature. His governments must naturally and be by necessity reflect that reality, for they surely cannot deny it. Acceptance of that reality – that all are dirty - is what gave birth to religion, whether the religious relationship reflects a real opportunity for cleansing or only a hope for cleansing. Let government – whatever form it may take - manage current sinners as it must and religion fashion future saints as it should.
Comment #7 above hits the nail on the head. Protestantism is inherently relativistic.
But none of the comments above addresses the essence of why I object to this mosque: It is the Cordoba Center. Cordoba was the center Islamic Sharia Law and the status of dhimmitude (second class citizenship) for non-Moslems.
This center, named by "moderate" Moslems is nothing more than an in-your-face celebration of the "great victory" of 911.
What if we constructed a Tours Center or a Vienna Center or a Lepanto Center to celebrate the great victories of Charles Martel, John Sobieski, or Don Juan of Austria? How long do you think it would be before it was burned down?
The Greek Orthodox Church destroyed in the 911 attack was not allowed to be rebuilt, but the mosque was fast-tracked through the zoning process in NYC. And, Mayor Bloomberg praised the building of that mosque.
Just who are the greater enemies here? I think the Moslems come in second on that list.
And let's not forget, Dan, (comment #6)those obviously fake videos of Osama bin Laden taking complete credit for 9/11. I mean, c'mon, the guy's beard was practically sliding off his face and the sweat was streaking his pancake makeup.
Mr. Rafferty, I am no conspiracy theorist, and I am in fact the exact opposite. I even despised Paul Craig Roberts' columns for their bizzare contradictory assumptions and conclusions.
I will, however, tell you that bin Laden has often been claimed to be long dead, the dates of the videos released on him uncertain, the translations doubted (just see his strange wolf and sheep anecdote and the many versions of it), and his relevance disputed. As it is, many Pakistanis have been certain that he was murdered in Pakistan.
It's possible he was not head honcho who planned and did 9/11, and a disgraced Saudi thrown out of his country has the least access to funds.
It's top mainstream British journalists (including those of BBC) who explained that he may have been a mere mountain exile, and just a lone name that the CIA may have had at that point.
As Johnny Carson used to say, "okaaay"
Bravo Mr. Jablonski--an excellent idea! I'd love to see a Tours Memorial right next to that mosque (or community center or whatever it is they're calling it now). And with a massive granite statue of Charles The Hammer mounted upon his steed with sword aloft, facing in the direction of the mosque.
My honest reaction to the mosque issue is that it should not be built because it is a mosque. One less mosque makes this country a better place. To illustrate, consider a similar proposal being debated here in Tennessee. No "sacred ground" nearby this proposed "Islamic Center" site: just Christian men and women who don't want to see another mosque built.
Two questions:
1) Where were the democratic republics of Christendom prior to, oh, let's see, around 1776?
2) Did they really worship the Christian God in democratic Athens or in republican Rome? That was farsighted of them.
"What’s the next theological concession"? You can believe any theology you like - even no theology - but what does that have to do with how we govern ourselves? That is make public decisions. Remember the 1st Amendment has an establishment clause (that is first, actually) as well as the free exercise clause.
"The general comparability of all religions is the narrative that informs support for the New York City mosque". That is not this supporters narrative. It is patently obvious that all religions contradict each other. No, my support is based on the 1st Amendment and the wrongness of collective guilt. It was wrong to blame all Jews for the death of Jesus, and it is wrong to blame all Muslims for 9/11.
What is "the American understanding of national identity"?
"How about letting the Southern Baptists plant a megachurch in Mecca"? Well, the government of Saudi Arabia is theocratic, so they ban all non-Muslim faiths. Do you wish for the U.S. to join them - or do you think we've made the better choice to allow religious freedom?
"The Islamic center proposal should stand or fall on its own merits". Amen, brother! Its merits speak for themselves. Only by expanding to things outside of its merits do critics attack it.
It would appear that the Norwegian Shooter really is Norwegian and does not understand that the First Amendment was written to prevent the Federal government from interfering in the religion of the states. He also appears to think that religious freedom is self-evidently a good thing, a proposition that requires a good deal of argumentation.
Egypt Steve, on the other hand, does not appear to understand that the American republics were founded and defended by men of the Christian West. The rule of law is a Greco-Roman understanding that passed down through the Christian or Middle Age to the nations that emerged in the Renaissance. Like the principle of non-contradiction, the rule of law--as opposed to blind obedience to an angry "god" and his "prophet"--only took root in the Middle East where Greco-Roman civilization prevailed. Conquered by Islam aggression and oppressed by Islamic despotism, neither the rule of law nor sweet reason could survive. Interestingly, Muslim defenders of this mosque almost uniformly refer to Western traditions and concepts that are alien to their own religion and culture.
Thomas Fleming -- well, I certainly hope that you realize that, by locating the source of America's Republican ideals in the Graeco-Roman tradition, you are contradicting the essentially *theological*claim of Mr. Murchison, to the effect that there is something "essentially Christian" about such things.
You might also bone up a bit on the history of Graeco-Roman civilization generally, and its cultural "Nachleben." Islamic civilization is far more co-extensive, geographically speaking, with the historical civilization of Greece and Rome than is Christendom. And as you possibly have learned in high school, Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages read far more Greek philosophy and science than did their Christian counterparts, particularly those of Western Latin Christendom, who had flat forgotten how to read Greek. For more on the preservation of the Hellenistic intellectual tradition in Islam, you might also want to look up "Mu'tazlili" in Wikipedia, which is probably your speed.
One other thing: American Muslims have just as much right to claim American tradition as their "own" as anyone else. We are famously a land of immigrants. Unless of course you subscribe to some sort of theory of racial contamination. But that cuts both ways. I assume you're of Flemish extraction; your Roman heroes would have considered you a barbarian who only accepted civilization by virtue of being conquered. At bottom you're the misbegotten product of a race of blue-painted, howling druids -- how can you claim "sweet reason" as your own???
Thomas, no I'm a Norwegian-American and I know that the establishment clause has been ruled on by the Supreme Court to apply to local government, including public schools. Check out some good info at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. No, religious freedom isn't self-evidently a good thing, but it's a good thing nonetheless. See the second link for a good deal of arguments. What do you think about theocracy?
Egypt Steve, nice. Loved the Flemish part.
Shoot, forgot the " mark again. Separation of Church and State
Yeah. Dr Fleming, you "bone up" on that Greco-Roman culture! Will Egypt Steve be leading the discussion on Vergil henceforth? Words fail.
Dr. Fleming, you are perhaps your own best debater, because only you have the best and the soundest arguments which might be used against some of the things that you have just said. I don't mean it in bad spirit; I think we can all accept minor contradictions and a shade of truth in everything.
That "the American republics were founded and defended by men of the Christian West" is also a point on which you have given criticisms. According to an excellent article you once wrote, "America: Not A Christian Country" back in 2005, you effectively refuted this claim. In the very last day of the previous year, you again wrote "Establishing Christian America" where you slam the religious credentials of America's Founding Fathers, who were merely, as you said, "conventional people, afraid of controversy".
Quite rightly you once said, "the Christian Church acted as a community, not a random association of individuals, and, from the beginning, the Church spoke with the authority of the Holy Ghost, not only on matters of faith, but on morals and politics." But then, weren't modern nation-states created in rebellion against Church and bring absolute power to the nation-state itself?
On republics, you have addressed the certain un-Christian nature of famous idealized republics in your Machiavelli article from August last year, when you said, "Florence, in conquering Tuscany had become a despotism run by the Medici, a family of neo-pagan bankers, who eventually bankrupted Florence. Machiavelli believed that so long as Florence had been a republic, that is, a city-state/region governed by an elite class that included noble and very wealthy bourgeois families with participation from the better families of the middle classes, she had been strong enough to defend herself against ambitious Popes and foreign adventurers. After a few decades of Medici tyranny—soft at first but increasingly hard—she was in dire straits."
We may praise republics (in theory) for their upholding of rule of law, but rule of law precedes republics, and is something very old and primal to us humans, no?
Mr. Sanjay: regarding your first point:
That “the American republics were founded and defended by men of the Christian West” is also a point on which you have given criticisms. According to an excellent article you once wrote, “America: Not A Christian Country” back in 2005, you effectively refuted this claim. In the very last day of the previous year, you again wrote “Establishing Christian America” where you slam the religious credentials of America’s Founding Fathers, who were merely, as you said, “conventional people, afraid of controversy”.
There is no contradiction here as the set of those who founded, shaped, and defended the American republics is not reducible to those who are commonly called the Founding Fathers. I believe these Founding Fathers had a hand in shaping the Federal Union, but they did not found the states.
True, but those two articles also address common Americans, and talk about how high rates of divorce and wayward children have been present there since the 19th century or before.
It means something, doesn't it? Even in Communist Russia, divorce was almost taboo to talk about. Perhaps, as Chronicles editors indicate, their country is far more complicated and not easily reducible to being a truly Christian nation, when extremes of social problems have been there for a while.
The only follow-up to Mr. Sanjay's and Mr. Chan's posts I want to add is that life is too short to waste time on someone else's links. If NS and ES have a thorough understanding of their counter-arguments, then, by all means, they should they should present them for our consideration.
"...which is probably your speed." It is bad manners to insult someone, particularly if your intellect towers above your opponent's. QED.
"We're a nation of immigrants."
That old chestnut never dies, does it? To the extent that we are a nation of immigrants, I'd like to remind Steven that we are a nation of European immigrants. You can head back to Cairo if you don't like it. (And you can take that impressive Islamic culture of yours with you).
I'm curious to know from our Norwegian friend why, when there is a rape epidemic inn Scandinavia perpetrated by those charming Moslem chaps you seem to care so much about, do you feel compelled to defend their "right" to build mosques anywhere they please?
Egypt Steve,
As you must know,it isn't polite to invite ones self to anothers home and then start rearranging their furniture. I do admire your ability to write televison type sound bites, to string them together in some type of ordered paragraph and to then march these paragraphs to apparently definitive conclusions.
This is the true sophisticate's art practiced in almost all of our institutuions of higher learning today but not done very well since the little smart alecks and former students of Socrates made Plato famous by merely recounting this type of conniving art of destroyers. Your premises,like theirs, are arranged logically but remain false as hell. And as even the sophist knows, when the premises are false,it doesn't matter what the conclusion is.
For instance, "You (Dr. Tom Fleming) might also bone up a bit on the history of Graeco-Roman civilization generally, and its cultural “Nachleben.” Islamic civilization is far more co-extensive, geographically speaking, with the historical civilization of Greece and Rome than is Christendom." Oh my, where would one even begin to correct such a notoriously false and widespread assumption as this? Do you really believe this assertion or are you just parroting sound bites you heard from Greco--Roman History 101 from the Ivy League? No, not even the Ivy League is this dishonest and outrageous so perhaps you read this in a book
Or again, you write, "(In saying)the source of America’s Republican ideals in the Graeco-Roman tradition, you are contradicting the essentially *theological*claim of Mr. Murchison, to the effect that there is something “essentially Christian” about such things."
There is no contradiction between the Christian Faith and its preparation for Christ in the Greco Roman traditions. It is not that you know too much about Greece and Rome, what seems to blind your understanding is how little you know of St. Paul.
Another of your whoppers (I will not waste time after this one)is "Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages read far more Greek philosophy and science than did their Christian counterparts, particularly those of Western Latin Christendom, who had flat forgotten how to read Greek. For more on the preservation of the Hellenistic intellectual tradition in Islam, you might also want to look up “Mu’tazlili” in Wikipedia, which is probably your speed."
I will certainly look at Wikipedia but I don't believe it, nor should anyone else, if this is what is tates. So St Jerome might have knew a little Latin but
1 Irenaeus of Lyons
2 Clement of Alexandria
3 Origen of Alexandria
4 Athanasius of Alexandria
5 Cyril of Alexandria
6 John Chrysostom
and I might add, Tom Fleming, never knew a word of greek compared to the Islamic scholars? For heaven's sake, my friend, are you denying the evidence of our sensory perceptions as well. John Chrysostom was a light weight ,Eh? compared to who? Mohammed? We are definitely not a christian nation and at least one of the minor reasons is that we have silly sophisticates like yourself who teach us and our children what Christendom "really" was and what Christ,his Apostles and the early Fathers "really taught". Those of us who know, know better; and those of us who don't can never rely upon folks like you who can pronounce the letters of the old and new law but not the spirit of either --our very own civilization --- or what little remains of it after listening, for a couple hundred years, from fools like you.
It's remarkable how many aliens--of all varieties--feel not the slightest reluctance to explain to us benighted Americans, including those of us from founding stock, what "our" country is, what "rights" aliens have, and how "we" must or should behave with respect to these aliens and their rights. Does Egypt or any Islamic polity have the remotest conception of what "rights" I, a white Christian, could demand of them, should I show up at their doorstep uninvited?
I assume you’re of Flemish extraction; your Roman heroes would have considered you a barbarian who only accepted civilization by virtue of being conquered.
The hilarious thing is that Dr. Fleming has said numerous times that his ancestors were barbarians who were only civilized by adopting Latin ways. Larison should do a massive commenter purge on his blog.
To Mr. Sanjay's legitimate citation of Fleming against Fleming, I would point out the precision of my statement that it was men of the Christian West, as opposed to Christian men. I would add that those who have studied colonial American history would agree, I think, that a large majority of the more decent subjects were practicing Christians of one kind or another. The "enlightened" few--Adams, Jefferson, Franklin--were a tiny minority. Each colony did have its troublesome element; in the backcountry of South Carolina there were immoralists and scoffers, though none of them was probably anti-Christian as opposed to anti-clerical.
For the purpose of clarity, let me say that 18th century America was a blending of European traditions whose roots go back to ancient Greece, Rome, Israel, and the Celtic and Germanic tribes who were Christianized. This is who we were then and to the extent the term American means anything, it is who we are today. We have been generous--far too generous in my view--in welcoming outsiders who wished to accept our traditions, but it is also possible to be too narrow and ungenerous. Jean Raspail was wise to include, among his brave men facing the alien hordes, an Indian immigrant to France.
Egypt Steve can hardly be blamed for swallowing the anti-Christian line about how Muslims saved civilization, since it is the line they put up in the mind-processing plants we call public schools. Arab Muslims added nothing; they squatted in the ruins they created and borrowed everything from Byzantine and Persian sources. The Ottomans were even less creative. As for knowledge of Greek and the transmission of the knowledge of Aristotle, this is another canard. Greek in some form was known to many Muslims, because it was the Greeks who had to run their civilization for them. Greek remained a lingua franca of the Mediterranean long after even the fall of Constantinople. So,, this is saying very little--a bit like giving Egypt Steve credit for Shakespeare because he has learned some English.
Greek was never entirely lost in the Latin West. Ravenna was in Byzantine hands until the final Lombard conquest. It has long been known that Duns Scotus knew Greek, and more recent researches have revealed that monks at Mont St. Michel were translating Aristotle quite early and that their translations were known to the scholastics. What the Arabs did was to distort Aristotle into a skeptic. They did this because their scholars were intelligent enough to realize what an absurd farrago of nonsense Islam was and is and they were looking to create a space of intellectual freedom in the prison of Islamic "thought." This experiment failed and it was not long before the total darkness descended on the Islamic mind, apart from places that maintained some resistance or skepticism, as in Spain and Persia, where other traditions could be invoked.
But what if Egypt Steve's classic comicbook version of intellectual history were correct? It is certainly ungrateful, to say the least, for someone of non-European stock to gloat over the backwardness of a people that have foolishly accepted him and his into their midst. I heartily endorse Srdja Trifkovic's proposal that we treat people from Muslim countries the way people from Communists were treated in the 1950's, as guilty until proved innocent, that is, unable to come to the US unless they could prove they were not communists or com-symps. Under such a system, Egypt Steve would be long gone. I'm sure we'll all miss him.
I should add a bibliographical recommendation. Sylvain Gouguenheim has been criticized by serious scholars for pushing his argument a bit beyond the evidence, but his book is still very important, Aristotle sur Mont St. Michel.
I see I forgot to answer Mr. Sanjay's quite serious question about the rule of law. The simple answer is no, what we understand by the rule of law is certainly an historical invention of Greeks and Romans. It is not that no one else had law or binding customs, but that the ruler was not necessarily bound by law and custom. Aristotle, by the way, argues quite well that the rule of law and custom is the defining characteristic of a non-tyrannical polity, which for the purpose of shorthand I am calling a republic. Yes, there can be law-abiding monarchies, though I am not sure that a law-abiding democracy can be found, at least not one that lasted for more than a generation or two. Athens went from Cleisthenes to Cleon in about two generations. Robert E. Lee's father was a hero of the Revolutionary war. For others like Richard Taylor, it was a grandfather. But then Jefferson knew the jig--if you'll pardon the expression--was up at the time of the Missouri controversy.
Sorry to be tedious but I forgot to answer the Norski. If you are saying that the Federal Courts have usurped and abused authority by rewriting the First AMendment, I don't see the relevance of your remark: Tyrants do what tyrants do. If you are saying anything else, then, you haven't at all begun to study the question. I should ask one more thing, though, are you a Norwegian who shoots or someone who shoots Norwegians. If the latter, my congratulations! They--and their Swedish cousins--have made a real mess of their country and ruined states like Wisconsin and Minnesota. As sturdy barbarians, they inspired fear; as Christianized barbarians, they inspired respect. As simpering postChristian apostles of international leftism, they provoke the derision they deserve. Perhaps Steve could go to Norway, where they'll welcome the cultural enrichment his people have brought to Europe.
I'm saying that the Constitutions means what the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, say it means. If you have a problem with that, what is your solution?
Neither. It's just a nickname, the meaning of which is irrelevant. Also, I am a Minnesotan, which is currently on the road to ruin (literally - our roads are being ruined) thanks to an empty suit puffed up with conservative evangelical bromides named Pawlenty. (German and Polish if you care about such things. Btw name the largest ethnicity in MN) If a good Norwegian-American such as Roger Moe was elected in 2002, Minnesota would be in much better shape.
Civilization spreads through conquest as my own woad-coated ancestors would grudgingly concede. But the Romans did it right, holding a sword in one hand and a ticket to the games in the other. Your choice: an unpleasant demise or the chance to watch some condemned christians light up the night sky or get disembowelled by lions. The Romans were conquered by the Greeks: they were intelligent enough to be impressed by Greek culture and along with the statuary that they carted back to Rome they also brought back Greek slaves to teach their kids how to read and write...in Greek. Some were so impressed that, like Atticus, they skipped the middlemen and moved to Greece itself.
But the wild-eyed Arabs of the 8th and 9th century didn't spread civilization; they spread a religion. Prior to Mohammed they lived with their herds in tents and worshipped djinn. They lived in a cultural backwater, a desert, and the Romans saw absolutely no profit in setting foot in their land. The North Africa that they conquered was far more civilised than they were but weakened by Teutonic invasions. Same thing with the Sassanid empire of the Persions which had been weakened by internal strife for over a century. And it was still a near thing--they didn't learn how to make a decent sword until they got to Toledo.
Fast-forward a few centuries and you'll find that most of the vaunted Arabic scholars, algebrists and poets were, in fact, Jews, Persians or the descendants of neighbors of the Bishop of Hippo.
If the Constitution means what the Federal courts say it means, then it means nothing. As our legal affairs editor put it some years ago, when Mrs. O'Connor was still on the court,"The Constitution of the United States means whatever Sandy O'Connor thinks it mean on that particular day." There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the courts this power. It is not a question of having "a problem" but of speaking the truth. What you appear to be saying is that whoever happens to hold the gavel or the gun has a monopoly on truth, in which case the only way to be free is to become a Supreme Court justice who, with a few friends, can make up the law from day to day, which is what they do. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. The real question, which you choose not to address, is this: If you believe that freedom of religion is some kind of right, where does it come from? If it is simply a matter of what the courts think, then there is an end to all rational discussion, and if the courts were to outlaw Norwegians, along with other Europeans, there can be no rational objection.
I am currently reading Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton. I am convinced that Hamilton was the original loose constructionist, the originator of the elastic constitution, especially when executive power is involved, and that Hamilton is the father of those legislate from the bench. Am I right or wrong?
Speak the truth all night long, brother. But my truth is different that yours, so how will we adjudicate between them? In case you're not on the same page as the rest of us (you never did say what you think about theocracy), by means of democratically elected representatives passing laws that are interpreted by the courts. If you don't like it, leave!
What is your obsession with guns? I certainly never implied their use in solving political or legal disputes. Projection, I'm sure. And your definition of "free" is incredibly warped. "Free" only means being able to make a final ruling on less than a tenth of a percent of all legal actions? And only the majority (which does switch around on various topics) of the Supreme Court is free?
I don't believe in natural rights. Freedom of religion is a good rule to restrain government that won in the free market of ideas during the founding. It really boggles the mind that someone can claim "it's not in the Constitution" in one breath and deny what is in the Constitution in another.
Your extremist example of outlawing Norwegians does end all rational discussion. Or do you have a rationale as to how such a law would be ruled Constitutional? Do you know of any SCOTUS opinions that support your case?
Non-polemical background - as you seem to be lacking in basic civics knowledge. The courts are not all powerful. They only have the right of review of torts brought to them. Now, sometimes in extreme cases, such as Citizens United, the SCOTUS can press their right of review to its limits, but thankfully these incidents aren't common (although I am worried that they will become more so on the Roberts court). And I don't see any better way to operate other than complete independence of the SCOTUS.
Shooter's intemperate response is a sign of a troubled mind. There is a simple proposition on the table. If the Supreme Court has the power to decide, as he says it does, what the Constitution means, then what if any are the theoretical limits? He simply refuses to answer, but takes comfort from the fact that majorities "switch around." They do in the short term, but the net effect since the days of the Marshall Court has been to strengthen the power of the court over the other two branches and the power of the federal government over the states. One may say this revolution has been a good thing, but one may not deny that it has taken place. Other countries, even fairly socialist countries, have managed to survive without anything like a Supreme Court making up laws on abortion.
The reason for extreme hypothetical cases is that they back unreflective people into a corner and force them to acknowledge what they believe or do not believe. For example, freedom of religion. He continues to say that the Constitution promises freedom of religion but won't say where this clause is found. It is certainly not in the First Amendment, unless we agree--and I certainly do not agree--that the Court can redefine the meaning of that Amendment. All right, set aside the Constitution, is freedom of religion in principle either a requirement for a decent and just society or a good thing in principle? Saying you believe in the marketplace of ideas--whatever that means--is tautological for someone arguing for freedom of religion. In Oklahoma City, local taxpayers, mostly Christian, are being told that it is their duty to permit a group of Satanists to stage an act of blasphemy in the civic center because it is a question of freedom of religion. Is this an extreme example?
There is prudence in permitting some religious diversity in some societies, but where does one draw the line? If Islam is permitted, how can we deny them polygamy and the right to include all their women on the welfare rolls? If Islam and polygeny, what about rites involving voluntary cannibalism and/or human sacrifice? Frankly, Shooter (and people who sign themselves Shooter, unless they are the sons of Waylon and Rita, have to expect some ribbing) religious freedom is simply a leftist cliche devised in the 17th century as part of a campaign to suppress Christianity. I do not accuse you of being a Christian, but you might take the 30 seconds necessary to think through to the conclusion, which is, that freedom and equality are cheap slogans used to destroy institutions that the sloganeers don't like: the church, monarchy, aristocracy, capitalism, private property, sexual distinctions, marriage....It is a long list. Worrying about where the Supreme Court is going is a waste of time, because it will either be a tool of the far left or the not-so-far left that calls itself conservative.
Finally, let me leave you with a thought from a great liberal, Ortega y Gasset, that anyone who in a discussion is not seeking the truth is a barbarian. To say your truth is different from my truth is either a declaration of relativism or an act of cowardice, that is, a refusal to take an argument down to the level of principle because the person is afraid to discover what it is he really believes. Saying you believe in freedom raises the ancient question, free to do what? Either deal with the argument or quit wasting our time. I have to raise the money to pay the salaries and bills for this website, and comments like these make me feel that I could better spend my time reading Italian comic books.
The theoretical limit of the Supreme Court's power is being restricted to applying their interpretation of the Constitution only to cases that are petitioned to it for review. I admit that sometimes that limit is stretched quite far, especially in Roe v. Wade, but that the system as a whole is sound. Perfection does not exist on God's green earth. Are you circumscribing this debate to ideals and theory, or are you willing to engage in practicalities? For instance, are you suggesting any Constitutional amendments to remedy the current situation that you deplore?
I don't take comfort in majorities switching around. I merely added that to ridicule your idea of what "free" means. You have not responded. And I don't deny that since the Marshall Court the judicial branch is stronger (although the executive's power has increased faster and farther since the atom bomb, pace Wills) and that the federal government is stronger. Your point is what?
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply the establishment clause to state and local governments. Are you really unaware of the vast body of decisions striking down local governments' establishment of religion? (Here's the latest) Or are you only interested in saying what you think the Constitution means and ignoring actual case law?
The marketplace of ideas in this case refers to the US Congress' adoption and the States' ratification of the Bill of Rights. On OK, no it's not extreme. However, letting the state decide what is blasphemy and banning that definition is extreme. That's theocracy. I repeat, do you favor theocracy? What rights do Satanists have, if not freedom of religion?
One does not draw the line, that is the whole point. Legislatures pass laws, executives enforce them, courts review them. The line is a sum total of all these things.
I really do not have the fortitude to walk you through how a society can allow freedom of religion while avoiding moral relativism, so let me provide you with an example and you can read up on it: the United States of America. Lots of books out there. You are free to call me Shooter, as some friends do.
"religious freedom is simply a leftist cliche devised in the 17th century as part of a campaign to suppress Christianity" Educate me, who devised it?
My truth is different from your truth is a declaration of pragmatism. In the private sphere, you are welcome to any truth you wish. However, in the public sphere, we must hash out our difference in toto to negotiate our binding social compact.
As far as time, I would think that you would have a ready-made discourse on religious freedom - are you really against it? - and I am surprised you haven't shared it with me yet.
Taking these points in reverse order: I have no idea what rights Satanists can be supposed to have. Since Satan is a figure of Jewish and Christian tradition and represented consistently as the enemy of both God and the human race, it is hard to understand any claim they might make to toleration, and if one does not believe in natural rights, as Shooter says he does not, then where dos this right come from. Saying that the only alternative to complete freedom of religion is theocracy is a piece of nonsense that could only be put down by someone ignorant of the history of ancient societies, where some but not all religious traditions were tolerated and in differing degrees. Was the Roman Empire a theocracy? This is mere twaddle of the civics book type.
If you wish to learn something you might consider in what context the bill of rights was framed. It was pushed upon the first Congress by arguments that had broken out in the States. We know what those debates were about and what acts of oppression, real or invented, that inspired them, and we know why Madison, who basically thought it a bad idea, proposed them as the first order of business. None of this is political theory or abstraction. It is history, not Mr. Wells' history, as Mr. Gutman would say, but history. It seems a queer notion that we have to accept on trust what a switching majority on the Court, afraid of the newspapers and public opinion might think, but the principles and issues that guided the drafting and ratification of thee amendments are to be outside discussion. And, oh yes, before I forget, I do make the rules here, and the rules are that discourse must be rational and principled.
"The14th amendment has been interpreted to mean..." Yes, I believe I granted that from the beginning, but the amendment was not properly passed and the interpretation has been imposed by activist judges. Read Raul Berger, read Forrest McDonald. I have wasted too much time tracing the development of judicial tyranny to be eager to confront more examples.
Since I have no idea of what you mean in your question about what I think free means, I passed it by. I can tell you what I wrote and what the plain meaning of it is, and that is that if you are unwilling to state the grounds and limits of the court's power, there is no theoretical limit to what a majority, on your understanding, can do. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It is really quite simple.
Since the court can be petitioned by virtually anyone with even the most remote pretension to any standing in a case, there is no limit to what they can take up. Roe v Wade, quite apart from its immorality and lack of constitutional precedent, was outrageously bad law, as even some liberal law professors (Archibald Cox) were willing to say. You appear to want to take up cases without establishing the principles on which judgment could be made. This is an invitation to mental disorder and tyranny. Principles are not arguments from perfection, they are the rules that can lead us to sound decisions.
I don't recall using the word deplore. I am simply describing what has happened in the United States and trying to ascertain the principles of people who enter into this discussion. If they refuse to disclose those principles or even to allow themselves to be helped in a process of self-discovery, and if they prefer to repeat the textbook cant of "freedom of religion" and "marketplace of ideas," the whole thing is a complete waste of time--as your comments have proved. For the powerless to enter into a practical discussion of what amendments might be adopted is a futile and time-wasting exercise. Yes, the Congress could strip the Court of the powers it has arrogated, and we could even repass the 10th amendment. But, as Burke so accurately observed, whatever is the road to power, that is the road that will be trod, whether through the judicial or the executive or the legislative branch.
You appear to regard as trivial inconveniences the plain fact that various arms of state and federal governments are now empowered to define marriage or life itself, ratify the use of unborn babies for medical research, indoctrinate children into teachings that are anathema to parents, regulate local education, and invent ever new and creative language for justifying wars of aggression. There is no point, I quite agree, in getting upset or spouting revolutionary slogans, but a little quiet reasoning can bring clarity to a discussion. None of this interests you, and. since what you have to say interests me not at all because I have heard it for over 40 years, I shall close off the discussion.