1, "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values."
Well, not really. It was in the sense that the founders were white, and thus came from a Judeo-Christian background. By the same logic, Led Zeppelin was founded on Judeo-Christian values. So was the Geek Squad, the film "Happy Gilmore," and the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices.
Cuz see, this country was actually founded on Enlightenment values. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion -- these are Enlightenment values, not Judeo-Christian ones. These are values created in opposition to the religious oligarchies that filled Europe at the time. At our country's founding, there were plenty of countries actually based on Judeo-Christian values, and none of them had any of the freedoms that form the basis of our country's greatness. These countries had state religions, and woe to those who didn't agree with them or with the monarchs.
The most illustrative example of this is to actually look at the Ten Commandments. I love when people want to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings, because they're a set of laws, and public buildings deal with sets of laws, right? And the Ten Commandments is older, so it must be the basis for what we have now. QED.
Try actually reading the Ten Commandments. Then compare them to the million gabillion laws, state, federal, etc., that govern our land. How many laws are shared by both? Two: Don't kill, don't steal. We're perfectly free to dishonor our mother and father, make graven images, covet our neighbor's ass -- eight of the Ten Commandments disallow things that we definitely CAN do, according to the highest law of our land, the Constitution. And the two that are shared by both sets of laws are also laws that exist in every country, and are certainly not unique to either the United States or Judeo-Christianity. Yeah, I think I could have figured out not to kill or steal without the Ten Commanments telling me. Doi.
I'm not a fan of American exceptionalism, in which we arrogantly think we're a beacon to the world and a moral authority to all and generally the bee's knees, but our Constitution really is an exceptional step forward in the evolution of society. And we can thank the Enlightenment, and our Enlightenment-minded Founding Fathers, for it. Not Christianity. Or even Judeo-Christianity.
2. "Our founders were deeply religious."
This is sort of a corrollary to the prevous one -- the Founding Fathers were actually so irreligious that they made the then-radical move of founding a country on Enlightenment values instead of religious ones. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, etc. threw God's name in here and there in their speeches, but most were deists, who had a vision of God as a watchmaker: God wound up the world and then left it alone ever after. God isn't watching over us, isn't judging us and punishing us, isn't favoring us if we pray to him before a football game, and generally isn't that interested in our daily lives.
Mind you, they were quite interested in the moral lessons of the Bible. They went to church, learned from the Bible -- but they also learned from the Koran, from John Locke, etc. They were bookish, wealthy intellectuals. Basically, they were the Liberal Elite. John Kerry would have been much, much more at home with the Founding Fathers than would George W. Bush.
3) "Today's Christian conservatives hearken back to the Puritans."
Well, sort of. Yes, in the sense that both groups are really freakin' Christian. But there are some important differences.
Modern Christian conservative groups, such a Pentacostals or what have you, base everything on a person's personal relationship with Christ. God speaks to them personally, and their faith flowers from this. This idea would have been extreme blasphemy to the Puritans. In fact, it was: In 1638, a firebrand revolutionary Puritan named Anne Hutchinson was exiled from the community for saying, among other things, that God was speaking through her.
I learned about this in Sarah Vowell's "The Wordy Shipmates," which is a fun book even if you're not that into history. It talks about how the Puritans believed that God only spoke to them through the Bible, so they studied it like crazy. They actually remind me more of modern Orthodox Jews, endlessly picking apart and analyzing every word of their text. They were generally very literate and bookish, constantly writing and reading everything they could get their hands on.
So they were as nerdy as the Founding Fathers, but they sure as heck weren't deists. They believed everything they saw was a portent. Vowell talks about one Puritan who saw a mouse beat up on a snake. What would now be a funny YouTube video was then seen as a extremely meaningful signal of the Puritans defeating the devil, or something.
And, for the record, the Puritans did believe in at least some measure of separation between church and state. Preachers were prevented from running for government posts, that kind of thing. But in reality there was a lot of influence running back and forth and a lot of unabashedly religious laws on the books.
Another revolutionary figure among the Puritans, Roger Williams, had an opinion about the separation of church of state that more closely matches our modern one. Williams believed that there had to be a huge wall between church and state -- not because he wanted government freed from religion as much as he wanted religion unsullied by government. He had seen Catholicism in Europe warped by political concerns, misused as an instrument of power, and spawn horrible wars, like the 30 Years War that was raging at the time between Catholics and Protestants.
Williams was an interesting guy. He was an arrogant ultra-religious blabbermouth, but he was also remarkably tolerant in a lot of ways. He would harangue you for days on end to become Christian, but he didn't believe in ever punishing anyone for not being Christian. He was also exiled from the Puritain communities because of his views, and went on to live amicably with the American Indian tribe the Narrangasett and become the founder of both Providence and Rhode Island.
Anyway, modern Christian conservatives are much more beholden to a religious movement called the Great Awakening in the 1800s. That's when you got the tent revivals and fire and brimstone and such.
In conclusion (that's how I always ended every high school history paper), sure, The United States has a long history of strong religious feeling. But let's not forget that it also has a long history of irreligious feeling. And the government is and always has been a bastion of that feeling. It's worked pretty well so far, so let's keep it that way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
So Roger Williams didn't believe in punishing nonbelievers? Seems to me that being stalked by Roger Williams for a days-long harangue qualifies as punishment.
Also, by my count, at least six of the Ten Commandments have been illegal at one time or another in at least parts of the U.S. Of course, there's murdering and stealing. But what about bearing false witness? Perjury is a crime in every state.
And keeping the Sabbath holy? We even have a phrase for that idea - blue laws - and they're still on the books in some places, mostly to forbid alcohol and/or car sales on Sunday. (I don't know why pro-Sabbath people seemed to hate cars so much, but there's at least a dozen states where you can't sell cars on Sunday.)
Adultery is still a crime in almost half of the states. (In Minnesota, it's only against the law for women to commit adultery, Ed, so you're safe.) And I checked, and blasphemy is still illegal in at least Massachusetts. Of course, it's been some time since anyone was prosecuted under any of those statutes (and they're likely unconstitutional), but still - they're there.
So that's six commandments that have been incorporated into the civil/criminal sanctions of the states. Currently, four of them (if you include blue laws, which admittedly don't explicitly require keeping a Sabbath, but certainly were meant to encourage it) are constitutional, and three of them are widely enforced. (Or should I not include perjury as a commandment? Does "bearing false witness" imply a legal proceeding, or is it a broader concept - "don't lie about your neighbor"? Because clearly the former is a crime, while the latter isn't necessarily. Anyhow.)
And even the unconstitutional commandments weren't unconstitutional until the combination of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War and the liberalizing (not Liberalizing, by the way) of the Supreme Court in the middle of the 20th century. If you'd asked a Supreme Court justice in 1810 if you could write an anti-blasphemy law, he would've said, "Yeah, man, go for it." Stephen Breyer would slap you in the face if you suggested that today.
My point? Um, maybe that the Ten Commandments are more relevant to our penal history than adverted to by Ed. Or maybe to agree with Ed that the Ten Commandments are no longer so relevant to our judicial system. I don't really know, to be honest.
Oh, boy - this is going on way longer than I thought. Must...end...comment....
You seem to be reachin' pretty hard on some of these, my friend. You might actually have a point on bearing false witness, which perhaps originally just meant in a court of law (though I had never interpreted it so narrowly before). As far as blue laws keeping the Sabbath holy, I think God would turn over in his grave to hear that this Holy Commandment is honored by not being able to buy alcohol on Sundays. I seriously doubt that was his intent.
And as far as blasphemy, you really think a Supreme Court Justice from the antebellum days would allow a law against taking the Lord's name in vain? When the Constitution has that whole bit about free speech? And the other bit about freedom of religion? And the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution? I mean, you're the legal scholar and all, but it seems like that is a bold claim, even for the olden times when people were dumber.
I'll grant that maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic when I said that the other eight commandments have never been part of any American law anywhere. Clearly some have, sorta, here and there. But the fact remains that our Constitution is the basis of our country's laws, and it is not even remotely based on the Ten Commandments. It's all Enlightenment stuff. We're a country founded on Enlightenment principles WAAAAAAYYY more than we're founded on Judeo-Christian ones. And it's the Enlightenment principles that have made our country uniquely great. That's the main point here.
I fully agree with the main point. The Constitution is awesome. The Bill of Rights was an important advancement for the rights of people everywhere. And they're riddled with Enlightenment concepts, which laid the groundwork for the largely secular government we have today.
However, I also fully agree with the other stuff I said (I find it comforting to agree with one's self). There was actually a famous Supreme Court case around 1830 that said the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states - only to the federal government. That case held up for a century, until the court decided that part of the First Amendment actually did apply to state action - but only because the 14th Amendment had intervened.
The 14th Amendment is really the key amendment in the entire constitution - even more so than the Bill of Rights. Without it, that early case would have remained the law, and the Bill of Rights would only have applied to Washington, D.C., and to federal actions. Because of it, though, the Supreme Court over the last 80 years has applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Note that it has been a right-by-right process, though - there are still some provisions of the Bill of Rights that do not apply to the states. The Second Amendment, for example. Or the right to a jury trial in civil cases. Or the requirement of a grand jury in felony cases. These only apply to the federal system - states are free to ignore them as they wish (at least until the Supreme Court decides otherwise).
Which is a long way of explaining why Justice Old Timer would indeed have approved of a blasphemy law passed by a state - he would've felt that he had no option. (If you want to read Massachusetts's blasphemy law, see http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm)
Same goes for blue laws. Nowadays, all we have are vestiges - no cars or alcohol sales. But originally, they banned all commercial activity (even pro baseball was illegal in most places on Sundays until after World War I), many with the express design of enforcing a Lord's Day. And that was constitutional.
In the end, the laws changed (or lapsed into desuetude) because the morals of the nation changed. And that's the ultimate legacy of the Enlightenment for the U.S. - sovereignity rests in the people. We decide how to govern ourselves. And whether we want to enforce (or repeal, or ignore) blasphemy or adultery laws, or protect the rights of minority groups, we have the power to do so. I'm sure that we would be surprised by things that will be considered constitutional (or not) 150 years from now. That their legality will be determined within the framework of the Constitution, however, should not be so surprising.
Ed, I toadally love your point and I have toadally loved this discussion about laws and whatnot. Seriously! I want more. Anyway, you know what's funny about the no alcohol sales on Sundays thing? It's that Catholics clearly have no problem with alcohol consumption on Sundays given they've actually worked it into their weekly rituals. But, you know, religious organizations are absolutely never hypocritical or contradictory, so I'm sure there's a very good justification for that.
Really, the blue laws are totally awesome. Don't buy! Just drink what you have! What a way to rest and celebrate the holy day.
Blue laws absolutely were created to keep the Sabbath holy and originally prohibited buying just about everything. Over time, people have recognized that convenience is WAY more important than religious observances and have allowed the sale of pretty much everything but alcohol and cars. And the only reason they still prohibit alcohol and car sales is that with alcohol, it's nice to pretend to have some restrictions on the sale of a legal recreational drug (my assumption) and with both alcohol and cars, the dealers of both of these things really like having a law that demands they get a day off without losing sales to the competition (as told to me by a happy car dealer and our local newspaper). If only washing machine stores and shoe stores could be so lucky!
Blue laws were also anti-Jew, Judeo-Christian origins or not, since their holy day is Saturday. Those poor, unlucky bastards had to take the whole weekend off. Early enlightened Christian lawmakers loved throwing in little anti-Jew jabs disguised as their own little harmless laws.
Another fun aspect of blue laws is the crazy little workarounds booziers have managed to fanagle. Like MN (and CO until last year or maybe the year before), where liquor stores have to stay closed on Sundays, but gas stations can sell weak beer whenever they want. As though it's not really alcohol if the alcohol content isn't enough to get you drunk on the first try. In Pennsylvania, you can only buy hard liquor in liquor stores. You can only buy six packs of beer at bars from a bartender. And you can only buy cases of beer from beer distributors. If that ain't holy, I don't know what is.
I guess this doesn't really add to the discussion in anything more than an anecdotal way.
Oh, I didn't have Joe's last comment up when I published mine (my page must not have refreshed). Sorry to just repeat Joe's stuff about blue laws only in a plebeian sort of way. Yeah, Joe! You go!
Well, I stand corrected on some of the finer points there. I suppose I was foolish to think we'd cut the cord with old traditions that much at our founding.
I think you should keep writing articles like this, Ed. If you write enough of them and spread the word to enough people, your Enlightment Theory will become a comfortable fact to the masses and maybe we can all take one more little step away from barbarism and toward a Star Trek-style utopia.
I wish I could -- the next one will probably be about hating printers or something though.
One last point -
I feel bad for dwelling on the finer points, although considering my profession, it comes with the territory.
Even though the Bill of Rights may not technically have applied to states until the mid-20th century, it (and the rest of the Constitution) has always been a tremendously powerful aspirational document. Nearly every state constitution is patterned after the federal one, and even when the application has been less than perfect, the Bill of Rights has always been the embodiment of the new, radical, American experiment.
And more than just the states, that idea is what spread to Europe and beyond, fashioning the liberal ideals of the modern world. Hurray for the Enlightenment! Hurray for the Constitution! Hurray for, um, Ed!
Post a Comment