The Arbiter of Righteousness

Governance and the Bible

I was reading an article by Derek Penwell, "9 Arguments From the Bible Fundamentalists Should Have to Make" about conservatives inconsistent use of the Bible to support some of their policies. The basis for the article is, if the support for a ban on same-sex marriage comes from scripture than why isn't the Bible used as the authority for other conservative policies. That naturally leads to a discussion on how to use the Bible in an effort to govern.

 

Controlling The Word

Generally I didn’t take his list as just a simple list of questions but a way to discuss the problem with the concept of picking and choosing which passage to take ‘as gospel’ if you will.  Let’s think back 50 years to when even mixed-race marriages were illegal where the idea same-sex marriage being legal would have been considered outrageous.  Basing the prohibition of same-sex marriage on a literal reading of a given Biblical passage invites the question of why not take the whole book literally, if it so aligns with society’s understanding of right and wrong than why even have a legal code other than the Bible?  Of course I’m being a bit facetious there but it is because I want to take the argument to its logical if extreme conclusion.  This makes it easier to illustrate that if we allow that some passages are not meant to be taken literally but rather as parables then we have to face the issue of selecting a person or group who gets to decide on which portions are to be exalted above the others for such treatment, and woe to those who disagree with their choices.  At the heart of it, the modern movement for Biblical inerrancy, seeing as it has only been around since the late 1800’s, is less about God’s Will than it is about control over God’s Word.  The Roman Catholic Church spent many centuries developing a consistent theology around how to apply the Bible to life on planet Earth, they didn’t attempt in all that time to claim that every single word should be taken literally.  They understood that it was a teaching tool whose power was in making people see how it could be a guide for situations that Abraham, Moses, or Matthew could never have imagined.  Since the Reformation there has been a movement to replace Catholic teachings with Protestant ones, basically an effort to replace Rome as the power deciding what God’s Word means, wishing to usurp the Pope’s theological monopoly.  In the beginning it was done in a piecemeal fashion such as Martin Luther’s Theses nailed to the church door but as each new group wished to separate from those with whom they disagreed they naturally become more and more separated theologically from the teaching of Rome and it would be logical to see how the outcome can be groups that want to disallow any interpretation because it affords too many loopholes for the unrighteous to claim piety while still living a sinful life, thus the only way to insure no interpretation is a literal reading.  There is nothing inherently wrong with a group wanting to adhere to a literal reading but it becomes a problem when that group then wants to claim it is the one true way and wish to enforce their beliefs upon the rest of society, while that is to be expected it does not excuse them from picking and choosing the passages that they want to apply; if the Bible is to be taken literally then it is everything or nothing because once you pick winners and losers you are back to allowing for human interpretation.

 

The Bible and Slavery

I’ll be honest, the Bible’s position on Slavery is one that I really have a hard time with and saying that it doesn’t condone slavery is letting it off the hook.  There are so many places where it is quick to declare sin like eating shellfish or wearing clothes of mixed fibers but there are no qualms about allowing slavery even for the devout.  There is not even a mention such as ‘it is wrong but it happens so live with it’ somewhat like ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesars’.  If you take the Bible literally than the taking of a slave is just as acceptable as forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist.  I find it hard to believe that the author(s) of the Bible would overlook such a fundamental concept when it would have been easy for Jesus to say, “No follower of mine should hold slaves.”  Whenever He spoke, he wasn’t making law but making general claims over the definition of what is right and what is wrong thus it is almost a certainty that no one back then found slavery as a concept to be morally wrong.  He spoke out about the moneylending in the Temple but was silent on slavery.  In all the litany of proscriptions and restrictions slavery is not considered to be something that disqualifies one as righteous, so much so that a claim that the Bible does not condone slavery has such weak supporting evidence as to be non-existent.

 

Righteousness

Slavery can also point out a theological quandary too.  Let’s separate it out this way with a set of statements and questions.

• The Bible doesn’t declare holding slaves as a sin, thus a righteous man may have slaves.
• If we believe that the Bible is inerrant than must we also believe that slavery is acceptable to God?
• Over millennia humanity comes to believe that slavery is wrong.
• In a country that outlaws slavery can a righteous man have slaves and remain righteous since there is no Biblical prohibition?
• If it is no longer possible to be considered righteous solely for having slaves than from what authority does righteousness come, and who decides?
• If the Bible doesn’t claim that slavery is wrong than do we have no authority to claim otherwise?
• If we conclude that slavery is wrong than how can we claim the Bible is the sole arbiter of righteousness?
• If we conclude that the Bible is the sole arbiter of righteousness than how do we support a claim that slavery, not being banned by the Bible or otherwise declared sinful, should be outlawed?

And there we have the problem on the horns of a dilemma.

 

Calvin inKleinAtions

Kelly ponders in his latest, cleverly-named article, Calvin and Hobbes, if the views of sixteenth-century theologian Reformation leader John Calvin toward the poor have infested modern-day America's views of the poor. The implication is, I would think, that those who do not believe government welfare programs are (1) constitutional or (2) proper functions of government do not believe that the poor are worth helping, supporting, etc.

While this proposition is tidy, it is too clever by half and paints a view of the truth both too simple and one-sided. Calvin's theological positions on predestination cannot be used to suggest that Calvin generally blamed the poor for their own plight. While he was a staunch defender of private property as a means for Christians to provide for the needs of themselves and their families, he was just as adamant that Christians should use their earnings over and above their own needs to help the suffering and dispossessed.

In his commentary on Isaiah 58:7 Calvin writes,

Uprightness and righteousness are divided into two parts: first, that we should injury nobody, and second, that we should bestow our wealth and abundance on the poor and needy. And these two ought to be joined together, for it is not enough to abstain from acts of injustice, if you refuse your assistance to the needy, nor will it be of much avail to render your aid to the needy, if at the same time you rob some of that which you bestow on others….

By commanding them to ‘break bread to the hungry’ he intended to take away every excuse from covetous and greedy men, who allege that they have a right to keep possession of that which is their own. ‘This is mine, and therefore I may keep it for myself. Why should I make common property of that which God has given me?’ He replies, ‘It is indeed yours, but on this condition, that you share it with the hungry and thirsty, not that you eat it yourself alone. And indeed this is the dictate of common sense, that the hungry are deprived of their just right if their hunger is not relieved. That sad spectacle extorts compassion even from the cruel and barbarous.

I would submit that Kelly points to a strain in Christian (Protestant) ethics that brings to light a more nuanced difference between liberals and conservatives regarding the role of government in helping the poor. The difference between them is over how to help the poor, not whether to help the poor.

The conservative position draws forth from the old Protestant work ethic that work is a vital expression of service to God and the world and that a person cannot honor who they are in God if they do not contribute to the world through their work. When coupled with the ancient biblical mandate to God's people to make provisions for the poor, we are closer to understanding the conservative position that a man is only whole when he his working in his field of calling (what he was created to do, gifted to do, passionate about, etc) and that the social safety net is there for those who stumble as a temporary hand up to get back on his feet, not a hand out that consigns him to the downward spiral of dependence. This latter destroys a man's (and woman's) sense of self and short-circuits his or her ultimate potential contributions to society. Notice here the importance of the social safety net being provided by civil society, not civil government.

The liberal view that the only way to help the poor is through the government not only works over time to destroy the man and his sense of self and sense of obligation to the community, but it also works over time to destroy the community by creating a permanent underclass of dependence and by diverting the government from its own proper role in providing for the general welfare (the good of society as a whole) and the common defense. The fact that liberals suspect conservatives - or constitutionalists - of not caring for the poor unless they support a myriad of government welfare, wealth distribution programs betrays their own skewed view of government, community and what it means to be human.

Amar’s Bill of Rights: Our First Amendment – Religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....

The freedom of religion is one of the most cherished and most fundamental of American bedrock principles. One would have to look far and wide to find an American who would advocate support of a particular religion or sect by the government or, more still, would support the interference by the government in the right of a person to practice and observe -- or not -- his own system of belief. George Washington summed it up for all of us when he wrote to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia in May of 1789:

 

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.

But these vague boundaries of the First Amendment's two complementary religion clauses -- the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause -- are about the only things regarding the line of separation between State and religion that Americans do agree on. For while these are indeed complementary clauses (one cannot exist without the other), they are also clauses that live in constant tension, striving over against the other to gain dominance. Peace and balance can only be maintained in one <i>not</i> gaining dominance over the other.

This tension did not exist in the Framers' original conception of the First Amendment, however. Amar makes clear their expectation that federalism would inform the interaction of State and religion, not the federal Constitution:

 

The establishment clause did more than prohibit Congress from establishing a national church. Its mandate that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" also prohibited the national legislature from interfering with, or trying to disestablish, churches established by state and local governments. In 1789, at least six states had government-supported churches -- Congregationalism held sway in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut under local-rule establishment schemes, while Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia each featured a more general form of establishment in their respective state constitutions. Even in the arguably "nonestablishment" states, church and state were hardly separate; at least four of these states, for example -- in their constitutions, no less -- barred non-Christians or non-Protestants from holding government office. According to one tally, eleven of the thirteen states had religious qualifications for officeholding. Interestingly, the federal establishment clause as finally worded most closely tracked the proposal from the ratifying convention of one of the staunchest establishment states, New Hampshire, that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion." (pp. 32-33)

The matter was simply excluded from Congress' Article 1, Section 8 list of delegated powers and left to the states. So, Amar argues, the establishment clause should not necessarily be incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, as the rest of the First Amendment rights should be:

 

Incorporation of the free-speech clause against states does not negate state legislators' own First Amendment rights to freedom of speech in the legislative assembly. But incorporation of the establishment clause has precisely this paradoxical effect; to apply the clause against a state government is precisely to eliminate its right to choose whether to establish a religion -- a right clearly confirmed by the establishment clause itself. (pp. 33-34)

Our federal establishment clause is the American equivalent to the 1648 European Treaty of Westphalia that established religious policy as a local matter, so the question presents itself - how can a requirement for locality on the matter be incorporated against the very localities empowered to decide the matter? In this way, the establishment clause is more akin to the Tenth Amendment, preserving states' rights, than the rest of the Bill of Rights (whether they primarily protect majoritarian rights against repressive government or minority rights against overbearing majorities).

Seen as protecting states' rights, it becomes easier to understand why the First Congress lumped the religion clauses and the rights to speech, press, assembly, etc all together in the First Amendment.

 

Thus our First Amendment opened with words suggesting an utter lack of enumerated power to regulate religion in the states or restrict speech -- "Congress shall make no law" -- in sharp contrast to the language of later amendments dealing with areas where Congress clearly did enjoy enumerated Article I power to "make ... law." (The militia and war power clauses of Article I gave Congress broad power over military matters addressed by the Second and Third Amendments; federal searches and seizures -- the subject of the Fourth Amendment -- clearly fell within Congress' explicit power to regulate customs and captures, among other things; and Article I expressly authorized Congress to "constitute tribunals," whose procedures werethe main subject of Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.)

The "Congress shall make no law" amendment's precise location in the original Bill is also quite illuminating. The orginal First Amendment on congressional size modified Article I, section 2; and the original Second amended Article I, section 6, dealing with congressional salary. Then came our "no law" amendment, glossing the Article I, section 8 catalogue of enumerated congressional powers by suggesting that Congress lacked power to censor expression or regulate state religious policy -- a kind of reverse "necessary and proper" clause.... When we remember that Madison originally proposed to interweave his amendments into the original Constitution rather than tack them on at the end, it makes sense that the order of amendments would track the order of the Constitution itself. (pp. 36-37)

Civil Religion in America

Every society needs some prevailing worldview that binds its conscience together and forms the starting point for its most important debates. Without this common frame of reference, a society simply cannot cohere. This is a good article by Robert Bellah on the role that Civil Religion in America.

The cross symbolizes something. Except when it doesn't.

This is an excellent op-ed by Stanley Fish. (h/t: Dr. Pursiful)

In the latest chapter of this odd project of saving religion by emptying it of its content, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality in Salazar v. Buono, ordered a district court to reconsider a ruling that Congress had impermissibly promoted religion by devising a plan designed to prevent the removal of a cross standing in the Mojave National Preserve. The cross had originally been erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to commemorate American soldiers who had died in World War I. In 2002, Frank Buono, a retired Park Service employee, filed suit alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause and “sought an injunction requiring the government to remove the cross.
...
Notice what this paroxysm of patriotism had done: it has taken the Christianity out of the cross and turned it into an all-purpose means of marking secular achievements. (According to this reasoning the cross should mark the winning of championships in professional sports.) It is one of the ironies of the sequence of cases dealing with religious symbols on public land that those who argue for their lawful presence must first deny them the significance that provokes the desire to put them there in the first place.

It has become a formula: if you want to secure a role for religious symbols in the public sphere, you must de-religionize them, either by claiming for them a non-religious meaning as Kennedy does here, or, in the case of multiple symbols in a park or in front of a courthouse, by declaring that the fact of many of them means that no one of them is to be taken seriously; they don’t stand for anything sectarian; they stand for diversity. So you save the symbols by leeching the life out of them. The operation is successful, but the patient is dead.

Fish makes clear that he does not oppose accommodation of religious symbols in public life, but the reasoning we use to reach that accommodation matters:

My distaste for Kennedy’s opinion has nothing to do with its result. In general, and for the record, I have no problem with the state accommodating religious symbols and I am not bothered by the thought of a cross standing in a remote part of the Mojave desert even if the land it stands on is owned by the government. I do have a problem with reasoning that is patently dishonest and protests too much about its own motives and the motives of those it defends. But that is what the religion clause drives you to when in one of its clauses — the free exercise clause — it singles out religion for special positive treatment, and in the other clause — the Establishment Clause — it places a warning label (watch out for this stuff; it’s trouble) on religion. It’s no wonder that the justices who try to deal with this schizophrenia tie themselves in knots and produce opinions that are as unedifying as they are disingenuous.

I am a big fan of the work of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in its ongoing efforts to ensure common sense balance between free exercise or accommodation of all religions and government non-establishment or favoring of a particular religion. Its Executive Director Brent Walker has said it well:

As I have said, both of these clauses in the First Amendment ensure religious liberty, but in different ways. The Establishment Clause keeps government from indirectly hurting your religion by helping somebody else’s religion and Free Exercise keeps government from harming your religion directly. Even though these provisions are complementary, sometimes—when taken to their logical conclusion—they rub up against the other clause.

This tension between the two clauses is good. If one assiduously enforces the Establishment Clause and forgets about free exercise, an environment of hostility to religion can result. However, if one concentrates only on the Free Exercise Clause and forgets about no establishment, the logical outcome can be a theocracy or something close to it. In either case, religious liberty would be diminished.

In short, it is important that we understand that government should accommodate religion, without advancing it; protect religion, without privileging it; sometimes lift burdens on the exercise of religion without extending religion an impermissible benefit.

Although U.S. constitutional law has come up with elaborate typologies to help us sort through this dilemma (mandatory, permissible and impermissible exemptions), I like to employ a common sense exercise. Every time we say “no” to government activity to uphold the Establishment Clause, we should find a way to say “yes” to its Free Exercise counterpart. This allows us always to try to find a “win-win” solution.

As with anything else in life, it is balance and preserving the healthy tension that leads to the best possible outcome. This is, in the end, the essence of the Governance Imperative: struggling with what is moral in right within a pre-erected structure or framework of fairness.

Jesus did not give us a theory. He gave us a meal.

Editor's Note: This is the first post on this blog that is of a pointedly religious nature. It has probably not been hard for readers to discern that this author is informed in his worldview by his Christian faith, but this is the first overtly Christian post I have released in this space. While I do not want to see the focus of this blog changed, I would, perhaps, like to toy with expanding it a bit.

Religion plays an undeniable part in forming how we as humans approach societal problems. I occasionally write on topics that are directly theological, such as this one, and while our Constitution rightly demands a separation of church and state in the implementation of government laws and policies, it does not and can not call for a debate sterile of religious perspective. The best such a vacuum would produce would be all questions of morality resolved solely through the unforgiving lens of constitutionality alone, and there is nothing human in that.

Reading through N.T. Wright's book Evil and the Justice of God has been more than the consumption of Yet Another Book. It's been a journey of discovery, and I highly recommend it for every Christian who is looking for answers to the infamous Problem of Evil. Because you won't find answers here. At least not the ones you think you're looking for.

That sounds contradictory, I know. Let me explain.

Since the atrocious and evil terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, I have noticed a significant increase in questions regarding the nature of evil and what God, if He exists at all, is doing about it. People like the New Atheists have used the existence of evil as one of the best arguments that God cannot exist. Others have not lost all hope for the existence of God, per se, but they do not see how God can be all-powerful if He is good. Otherwise, the argument goes, He would not allow evil to flourish and dominate.

Christians have responded with a number of rebuttals and theories, and many of these are quite satisfactory. At least as far as they go. For people looking for theoretical answers and philosophical insight, these might provide some entertaining rejoinders. The best of these (known to me) is not recent, however. You will find no better defense of Christianity in this field of inquiry than C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain.

Nevertheless, these sterile and, in some ways, inhuman theoretical defenses miss the point and leave people in real pain untouched, uncomforted, and, if possible, more miserable. Most of the pain I have felt in life has been because of childhood issues and events that were beyond the fault or control of my immediate family. A large portion of my early twenties was spent running away from who I was and searching for a way, anyway, to recreate myself after my own image of who I thought I should be. It was not until I met the woman who would become my wife that my journey of healing and reconciliation began. It wasn't until I found acceptance as who I was that I was able to come to grips with where I had been. It was only then that I stopped running and searching for an illusive shadow that could never have been. My wife saved me, and she continues to do so every day.

This is how theories miss the point. Pain is real, and it requires real people, real events, real interaction to come to grips with pain and deal with it. N.T. Wright gets this, and in his book Evil and the Justice of God, he shows that orthodox Christianity gets this as well. Wright starts the book by taking Western society to task for its inadequate and immature response to evil. Since the Enlightenment, we have tried to outrun evil through technological progress and the thing we call civilization. We have thought evil merely a lack of provisions and opportunity that could be solved with enough money, technology and stuff. Two world wars, repeated genocides, perpetual hunger among the world's lost billion, and the spectre of nuclear holocaust has snapped our illusions that evil is something we can conquer on our own. However, the response of postmodernism has been anemic at best. Acknowledging evil as a real and personal force, we now don't know what to do about it. So we do nothing.

Wright then surveys what the Old and New Testaments have to say about evil and God's response to it. Over a span of a thousand years, the Scriptures consistently acknowledge the presence of evil in the world, and they persistently insist on the goodness and omnipotence of God. Yahweh created the universe, so it is good. But it is also contaminated, and God is working through His people to set things right. And that's it. No defense of God. No theory as to why evil is here and why God, given who the Bible says He is, does not eradicate it.

Rather, we are given an insight into the breaking heart of God who is here with us, breaking into the world to advance His Kingdom. We meet a first-century Palestinian rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, who lives for those around Him and is killed for His efforts. In His execution on the cross, we see all of the forces of evil in the world (personal, political, social, demonic) focus all their energies and do their worst to kill God. And they succeed!! But the extraordinary claim of the Scriptures is that God raised Jesus from death and made evil impotent. It has done its worst and failed. Now, through the power of the Spirit, followers of Christ are called to spread the work that Jesus started throughout the world, appropriating God's action for our time and place.

So what do we have for an answer to evil? A person. An event. Ourselves.

In the end, Wright does not wonder that the Church has not settled on a specific theory of atonement, of what Christ did for us on the cross. While each one of our theories offer a valuable insight into what occurred, none of them present the whole picture. Wright offers the answer to which all Christians should return and keep at the forefront of our faith and practice: "[W]hen Jesus himself wanted to explain to his disciples what his forthcoming death was all about, he didn't give them a theory, he gave them a meal."

The Truth Will Set You Free

The current situation in Iran reminds me of how the truth can be feared. Dictators and tyrants crave legitimacy and usually have the power to silence those who contradict the 'official truth'. One of the principles upon which our country was founded is that truth is to be valued even when it is uncomfortable. The 1st amendment can be taken to say that a just government should have no fear of the truth and so has to meet an extremely high standard to be allowed to squelch speech. This leads directly to whether citizens should expect to trust what their government says. A government that lies to it's citizens has ceased to be, in the words of Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and should not be trusted. If the trust of it's people is of so little value, the question becomes what is of value to such a beast; the answer quickly and easily is revealed to be power. This is the same power a monarch wields over his subjects; agree to give me absolute power and I promise to protect you. If I fail to protect you, you either won't know because I got away with it and just lie about it or you end up dead and the point is moot; regardless you have no recourse since you've ceded absolute power in the first place.

Iran has many laws which restrict the rights of women, supposedly to protect them, so the hypocrisy is revealed when the authorities take to beating women who are trying to help those in need.

The voters want to know that their vote was heard even if their candidate lost. How the truth can be the enemy of some is covered in a previous article.

Throwing the First Stone

This article about the influence of the physical world and the structure of moral perception [www.sciam.com] was very interesting.

Is this a case of "Thou doth protest too much"? What can we take from this study and apply to our search for better government?

What possibility is there that those who relish the role of morality police have secrets of their own which make them judge others more harshly?

Would you notice a difference in the sermon at your church if the pastor ritually cleansed him or herself before speaking?

The Illusion of Control and the Hidden Costs Thereof

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Tuesday, March 3, 2009; Northeast section, page 6B (The title of this post links to the full article):

"Bill would move sex ed away from abstinence-only" - Kelley Shannon (AP)
Austin - Texas's sex education curriculum, which now teaches abstinence as the only form of birth control, would include more medical information about contraception and disease prevention under a bill proposed Monday by Democratic lawmakers.

"The status quo is not working," Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said. "Only through honest information will teens have the tools they need for responsible decision making and disease prevention."

A bill proposed by Ellis and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, would give teenagers access to "complete, medically accurate and age-appropriate" sexual health information at school with the aim of reducing teen pregnancy and infections, the legislators said.

The current abstinence-only sex education system has been in place since the mid-1990s when George W. Bush was governor. Republican Gov. Rick Perry will review the new proposal but "is comfortable with current law and supports abstinence programs," his spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said.

The conservative Texas Eagle Forum views the Democrats' proposal as trying to cover up immoral behavior by men and doing the bidding of abortion providers, Cathie Adams, president of the organization, said.

"I see this as a very anti-woman, anti-girl attempt," Adams said.

"It's putting immorality off on children."

Commentary

Was Mrs. Adams the best spokesperson for the opposing viewpoint? Does she really think that telling teenagers how diseases spread is promoting immorality? It's one thing to argue that sex-education condones sex or should be left to parents but the reality is I don't want my daughter to make life-altering decisions based on ignorance or naivety. Think of the stakes! Do I want to risk my daughters health on the assumption that she'll always obey her parents? Or do I educate her on how easy it is to get a incurable or even life-threatening disease? Limiting the discussion to "As long as you do as I say, everything will be fine" works only as long as your child doesn't contemplate disobedience. Even if they abstain until they get married, what about their partner? Whatever control you may have over your children's decisions about having sex, you have absolutely zero control over their potential partners.

Is the Star-Telegram just baiting us with Mrs. Adams? I'm having a hard time understanding how sex education is limited to being anti-girl? Why not anti-boy? Does she suggest that the way to protect girls is by keeping them ignorant? Does it mean that it's always the girl's fault? Do boys have no responsibility when it comes to sex? Is it so hard to remember just how easily hormones influence teenagers?

This whole discussion reminds me of the driver who refuses to yield to the large truck who just ran a stop sign. Yes you have the right of way, yes, the other driver should have stopped, yes the law is on your side, yes the other driver is at fault, yes, yes, yes, you are right; but you're also dead.

Do you want to be "Dead Right" with your childrens health?

Re: Separation Story: In Answer to Kelly's Question

In his post Separation Story, Kelly asked me to recap a conversation we had on the changing deference granted between public accommodation and private association within American constitutional interpretation. The change for Kelly's specific example of hotel operators and their ability to turn away people based on personal beliefs or preferences came when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expanded the common carrier rule to prohibit racial discrimination in access to public accommodations, such as buses and hotels. [1] The Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce clause in the case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964).

The Civil Rights Act and subsequent judicial rulings fundamentally altered the relationship betwene public accommodation and private association. The modern test for classifying an orgnaization as a private association is whether the organization in question exists solely for the benefit of its members, such as a church. See the Supreme Court decisions of New York State Club Association v. City of New York (1988) (where the Court decided that male-only clubs were a public accommodation) and The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) (where the Court decided that the Boy Scouts were not a public accommodation) for additional Supreme Court deliberation of this point.


[1] So You Want to Live in a Free Society (5). Thanks to Elizabeth Anderson at Left2Right for the tie of the Civil Rights Act's racial discrimination ban to the common carrier rule. Anderson's article has some insightful generalizations of this principle as well that could well be the paradigm to think of many of today's unresolved debates.

Separation story

A few years ago, Craig and I were discussing the increasing friction between religious groups and the government over the last 20-25 years. He mentioned a specific SCOTUS ruling during the late 70's or early 80's that changed the criteria for when the public interest overrode an otherwise private matter. The example that sticks in my mind is a landlord who is refuses to rent to an unmarried couple who would be living together because it would go against the landlords beliefs. The cusp here is when public good (in this case being public accomodation, e.g. a hotel) is more important than an individual's right to rent according to his faith's stricters.

Craig, could you post about this topic? I think this blog would be a great place to present some of that history and analysis.

Our Forefathers Forbearance

Craig sent me a blog post, linked in the title of this post, and pointed out that he agreed with the first comment. After reading both the article and the comment, I wanted to save my thoughts here and show how they apply to governance.

I think the commenter is describing a valid point but one that does not mesh with the intent of the original poster's reason for making the statement in question. When Pursiful says, "because there is no knock-down argument for the existence of God, then by definition people are going to disagree about God." he is speaking about forbearance. The quoted statement is just a way of reminding the reader that what constitutes "proof" to one person may not be accepted by another.

The commenter goes on to say

It's one thing if an atheist speaks as if *the atheist* doesn't find it to be conclusive proof of anything because he thinks it is make-believe, but it's another entirely for a Christian to speak as if *the Christian* doesn't find it to be a knock-down argument for God's existence either because of his own unbelief or someone else's.

First, I do not think that Mr. Pursiful is stating that Christ's resurrection is in question, rather he is admitting that what he himself accepts as fact can be held as 'not-fact' by someone else. Secondly, the commenter is falling prey to the same logical fallacy that the article covers.

Let me use an example. I believe that the Earth is round but my brother believes that it is flat. I use a Foucault Pendulum to prove Earth's rotates and thus is round. My brother refuses to accept my proof and instead of trying to convince him further I tell him that he's free to believe the world is flat. In doing so, have I turned my back on my own beliefs? Can it be said that I no longer believe in the Earth as Sphere? No, I do not. He being my brother, I take him as he is rather than harangue him for not agreeing with my beliefs. He's not stupid or evil, he just doesn't believe in something that I do.

An even better example may be the small group of people who deny the Holocaust which is described by the Wikipedia article thusly:

Holocaust denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry. The prevailing — and indeed virtually unanimous — consensus of mainstream scholars is that the evidence given by survivors, eyewitnesses, and contemporary historical accounts is overwhelming; that this evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubtthat the Holocaust occurred; and that it occurred as these sources say it occurred.

Even if you have perfect evidence to 'prove' God's existence, there would still be those who choose no to believe it. I'm tempted to go into a discussion on epistemology but I doubt the commenter would appreciate a discussion about how we know what we do, the distinction between truth and belief and the limitations of knowledge.

The point is that there are people who will refuse to believe in things easily proven with ample evidence available and instead of the common choices he describes, "we assume that those who disagree with us are either ignorant or evil" he offers a third choice, forbearance.

With regard to governance, the gentlemen who gathered to contemplate a new type of Republic had to deal with this subject head on. How to build a strong society that doesn't let the small divisions between individuals form the cancer that drives men to accumulate power so that they can use the force of the State to control what others are allowed to believe. The heart of the First Amendment is forbearance, the willingness to allow people to believe in things that others do not. The two main political parties engage in battle along this very fault-line every election cycle. Two parties who see the same evidence but reach different conclusions.

Forbearance.

Galileo Redux

I've been reading "Galileo's Daughter" about the 16th century genius and his encounters with the religious authorities involving his pursuit of the truth. The first part of the books doesn't have as much about the relationship with his daughter but it does have a very good rendering of the historical events dealing with his desire to teach what he felt was confirm-able (if not yet confirmed) truth and the church's dictate that Copernicus's theory went against holy scripture and should not be taught.

I see an interesting parallel between Galileo's story and the current debate between evolution and Intelligent Design. The sides are using very similar arguments and approaches. The only difference I can tell is that the ID proponents are trying to pass it off as an acceptable scientific theory vs the Churches insistence that Copernicus's ideas remain hypothetical.

Will the real conservatives please stand up?

Church history and theology are among my interests, particularly the Reformation and subsequent Protestant movements (yes, there have been and continue to be many). One thing that I think contributed to the endlessly multiplying number of denominations within Christianity is the calcification of the issues that the original Reformers brought to the fore. Issues that were meant to serve as correctives to a Roman pontificate stuck in a medieval mindset -- issues like sola scriptura (the belief that the Bible is the only inerrant authority in the life of the believer) and justification through faith -- became articles themselves in the belief structure of the heirs of the original Reformers. As a consequence, entire new churches and denominations were erected to protect the new articles of belief, rather than those original grievances serving as correctives to transform the original church from the inside out.

A similar phenomenon has happened to the modern-day conservative movement in America. What was a dynamic movement with a particular aim took hold of the means and fossilized them into the end goals themselves. Witness: the original goal of the American conservative movement was to preserve the Constitution of the United States. Means to this end were to push for smaller, more responsive government, protect the economic interests of small business and the middle-class, defend and expand civil liberties, work for lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, and commit to peace through a strong military.

Now the heirs of these great conservative founders have taken *some* of these means and calcified them into hardened, transcendent principles: lower taxes, even during a period of war and record government growth; strong military (what happened to the peace part) that we use to beat the rest of the world into submission to our will (or at least go down trying); protection of big corporate interests rather than small business and the middle-class worker. No sign of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, commitment to civil liberties. Rather, the opposite - all power is to be consolidated into the hands of the President at the expense of civil liberties, congressional prerogatives and responsibilities, and the Constitution. Insufferable! The greatest defenders of the Constitution have transformed themselves into its greatest threat!!

That's irony enough to make George Lucas himself proud.

The parallels and similarities between the heirs of the Reformation and the heirs of the American conservative movement are too much to be coincidental. This must speak to a tendency within our human nature. Kelly has asked the question well: "What is a good citizen to do when the irrationality of politics and partisanship drown out the rationality of the issues at hand? When a group is more interested in besting their opponents than doing the right thing or whitewashing their own failures to save face, how can we in good faith give them our undivided loyalty?

Why does it seem like the root of the problem for any political party (or any movement in general) is when they become so certain that they have all the answers that they no longer need to listen to criticism or feedback from those with whom they disagree. It goes beyond hubris and into self-delusion."

Conservatives indeed! In the tradition of socialism, communism, and every other traditionalist movement that sought to empower the Government at the expense of the people. The conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan that sought to preserve the Constitution of the United States, conservatism that was really an extension of eighteenth-century Enlightenment liberalism that sought to empower the people, has been swept aside by modern disciples of expanding presidential power at any and all cost.

And I want nothing of it!

Re: The Emporer's New Clothes

"What the hell happened to Christianity?"

I have an answer to the question asked by the article to which Kelly linked. But I am afraid most people won't like the answer - either because it will offend their secular sensibilities or because it will offend their religious ones.

George Mason, the Senior Pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, has said that the problem with Fundamentalists is that they know too much too soon. They presume to know the mind of God and then act on that presumption to force the rest of the world to comply with that presumption. And while Christianity is not plagued by extremists that blow people up and saw heads off, it is challenged with Fundamentalists who have hijacked the gospel of Christ and twisted it into a message about themselves. American Christianity is more American than it is Christian and more interested in the power of the Establishment than in the powerless who Jesus says will inherit the Earth.

In the end, Christianity has been beset by a crisis of faith.

The Emperor's New Clothes

While the article in question does not mention government per se, it does do a good job of speaking out against a small minority acting as if they are the "Guardians of Truth". The Cold War hawks seem all cute and cuddly as compared to the current set of neo-Cons who have made an art of rushing to war but not to judgment, wouldn't want to be hurried into doing something rash. Ok, enough of that. Mr. Bakker from the article, not the be confused with the ex-Chief of State James Baker, points out that there are a group of people who are using their religion as a weapon. We chide the Islamic world for their treatment of women but look the other way when someone in our own country calls for the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of the doctors who work there. Is there any other word for this besides hipocrasy?

Those Uncompromising Quakers

The Quakers lacked neither courage nor energy. It was not so much the actual content of their creed as the uncompromising obstinancy with which they hung on to it, and their attitude toward themselves, that were decisive. The two flaws fatal to the influence of this remarkable people on American culture were, first, an urge toward martydom, and a preoccupation with the purity of their own souls; and, second, a regidity in all their beliefs.

...

The Puritan success was accompanied, if not actually made possible, by the decline of American Puritanism as an uncompromising theology.

--Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Colonial Experience, Chapter 6

Liar, Liar

Katherine Harris has stirred things up again with her recent comments that the separation of church and state is "a lie" and that electing non-Christians to office is to "legislate sin."

While there is some legitimate debate around the history of the doctrine of church-state separation, it's not like the concept was foreign to the Founders. Thomas Jefferson wrote about it in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. And the idea goes back further in the writings and ideals of Baptist Roger Williams, as well. And in any case, the concept of separation between the government and the religious is well-established and is not a seriously questioned constitutional principle.

I find Rep. Harris' comment that electing non-Christians to office would be akin to legislating sin to be peculiar. I'm not sure if she assumes that Christians in office are immune from legislating sin, or if she believe that non-Christians are just incapable of doing good. In either case, who defines what a "sin" is? If we were in Iran, Rep. Harris would be sinning by speaking out in the first place.

Perhaps her ideas of legislating sin are informed by her other strange comment - that the nation's Founders did not intend for America to be "a nation of secular laws." What, pray tell, makes a law "secular?" For that matter, what makes a law "sacred?" Can a law ever be both? A good case can be made that murder would be illegal even in a society devoid of religious influence. The idea that my rights stop where another person's nose begins is very appealing to even the atheists of this country. Self-preservation is a universal trait of all living beings.

Rep. Harris' comments are problematic on several levels, but perhaps the most troubling aspect is that she is starting with a strange view that artificially separates the secular from the sacred in exactly the way that the Founders did not want them to be separated. She does this only to turn around and fuse them where the Founding Fathers sought to separate them! While the faith of people should guide their decisions and behavior in elections and in government, faith should never become the concern of the government. Government should govern for the good of all its citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, or age, and the church, mosque, synagogue should be above the politics of the day so that each may continue to be a prophetic witness to society.