RoR: Forum

Hovannisian,

Ignore our friend Adam. I've read enough of his stuff to know that he's something of a crank when it comes to Christians. He's suspicious of anyone who he thinks is giving them quarter. So, let's get back to your article.

You wrote, "But the choice we have isn’t between 'letting all who are in that system profess their beliefs freely or forcing them into silence,' as Pukszta suggests. How about this? The teacher can profess his beliefs freely so long as it relates to the subject matter and equal energies are exerted in discussing freely opposing beliefs in an intellectual manner."

I think what you propose would be good policy for a public school system, but I believe it would take a level of competence, professionalism, and integrity that is completely absent in a system designed to extract from taxpayers the maximum amount of cash to pay unionized hacks up to $80,000 a year to work half the hours the typical working stiff puts in. (You might gather from that I don't view teachers as heroes in our society.)

But good policy does not trump our liberties, either morally or legally. Legally the freedom of exercise of religion is enshrined in the fundamental law of the land. Contrary to some here, like Malcolm and Adam, the constitution does not restrict the exercise of religion to private property. At most what it does is prohibit the GOVERNMENT from using public property to ESTABLISH a particular religion. By establishment the founding fathers had something particular in mind, namely the church-state relationship that existed in Europe where, for example, the Church of England was the official state religion in England, the Lutheran Church was the same in Sweden, or the Cathholic Church in Italy. Also it is important to understand that originally only the federal government was prohibited from establishing a religion. Until the 1830's some of the states had established religions like countries in Europe did. And after that there remained religious tests for public office, etc.

Yet, it is difficult to argue that freedom of religion AND atheism did not flourish under circumstances we would no longer tolerate today. So it hard for me to believe that the mere acknowledgment of the community's Christian or Jewish or whatever faith in the public square truly imperils anyone's liberty. It certainly is not establishment of religion and it does not stop anyone from the free exercise of his religion. The public school system is a different story, however. There we have the situation where hyper-sensitive secularists (instead of thick-skinned robust ones like Objectivists SHOULD be) try to pervert the free exercise of religion into the establishment of religion.

That is where the question lies. Is a public profession of religion establishment or free exercise? The former must be prohibited and the latter must be defended. If that is the rule of thumb, then most of these battles over Christmas disappear. (But then that assumes a judiciary that actually knows how to interpret the law!)

Pukszta

Post 21

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:17am

That would mean a 'fully informed' jury - something both the lawyers and the judges would be adamantly against.

Post 22

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 11:15am

Pukszta,

Well, you are absolutely right. Competence is a big problem--even among university professors, I'll have you know.

I think there is a line to be drawn between a discussion of religion and a profession of religion--between explaining and debating the history and progress of a religion and arguing its validity.

These are lines that can often be blurry. But it isn't that they're blurry that's the problem. It's that they are completely ignored, beyond any argument. Public school and college teachers are horrifyingly open about their views and heavily opinionated on their subjects.

Your paragraph on the establishment clause makes an important point--one that we don't hear as often as we should.

As for the lack of good interpretation of the law, that problem is far deeper and larger in its implications than the Christmas Wars we're discussing now. That's a whole other thread--if not an encyclopedia set.

Garin

Post 23

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 11:32am

1. The free exercise of religion is the opposite of official imposition by those entrusted with the exercise of power. As I wrote, I (and the ACLU) stand firm in protecting the right of religious groups to meet in government buildings, including schools; the right of students to communicate religious messages on the same terms as any other; the right of government officials and employees to do the same as long as they are not doing so in their official, power-wielding capacity. What we are stopping is the proliferation of officially endorsed government actions that advocate the imposition of their religious views. If a judge decorates his courtroom to suggest that religion is the officially endorsed foundation of morality, this tells jurors to presume that non-religious defendants are less moral than religious ones. This is a reasonable and objective boundary. It is one that American judges, almost all of whom are in fact people of strong religious conviction, overwhelmingly endorse. The only advocates of erasing this boundary are are advocates of religion-based law.

2. One of the principles of American constitutional law - and indeed the one that makes clear the supremacy of individual rights over the supposed "right" of legislators to make "laws" according to their whim - is that if the enforcement of the law as it stands would violate individual rights, it is the responsibility of the government NOT to enforce it. That is why prosecutors have discretion not to prosecute, juries have the discretion to nullify laws that violate individual rights in specific cases, and chief executives have the power to pardon. Laws that violate individual rights are null and void. To advocate that people should obey such laws, and that government officials should enforce them like mindless robots, is the opposite of individualism. No advocate of individual rights would find anything wrong with the proposal that the President might pardon the "violators" of a "law" that was never valid - and laws that violate individual rights are never valid - in the first place.

3. I have no obligation to be polite to someone who advocates the violation of my rights, or of the rights of any individual, whether by mindless enforcement of bad law or by any other means. It is my objective right to act against any compromise of my individual rights, and against the compromise of the rights of any man, by any means available - including nullification of objectively invalid law. I have the right to deal, according to my own judgement, in any mutually agreeable way, with ANY individual, including those who are NOT government-approved persons under odious immigration laws. And I continue to find Darin's invocation of Ayn Rand, in a fraudulent argument advocating the violation of my rights, obscene, preposterous, and inexcusable.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 12/24, 11:45am)

Post 24

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:29pm

Adam, of course you have no obligation to be polite, or sane.

You have some irrationally deep-seated prejiduces that cause you (from time to time) to take bare belly-flop slides on the slipperiest of slopes to reach some koo-koo-roo conclusions.

I've seen you do it at TOC, where you said that a company is initiating force against you when it doesn't mention on its product that the product was made in China.

You did it when, with a single wave of the magic Reed rod, John Kerry became Milton Friedman before our very eyes.

You've done it again now, when you've taken a sincere argument concerning a complex issue (process and procedure in law) and interpreted it as a willful attempt to strip you of your individual rights and leave you skinny-dipping in a swamp of tyranny. The value of consistency in prosecution and process is subject to a deep debate with twists and turns. As Ayn Rand said -- in the context of the draft, no less -- "Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."

It's an argument worthy of a thread of its own, but how have you treated it? As an opportunity to advocate a retroactive abortion.

I wouldn't recommend this to most people, but I think in your special case, it might serve to calm your nerves and give you strength. So Adam, here's what I suggest you do. Tomorrow, why don't you join people of all backgrounds and, just for a change, worship Jesus Christ.

xoxoxo,
Alec

Post 25

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:25pm

Robert Tracinski, of tiadaily.com (I recommend subscribing to TIA Daily to anyone with an actual interest in the application of Rand's ideas - RT does a great job, without the downsides of the more rationalistic supporters of ARI) has an article on the topic of this discussion in today's issue. Here is his paragraph about the euphemism "public square:"

The basic technique is to claim that bans on religious music and the avoidance of the word "Christmas" constitute a campaign of government discrimination against religion, that Christianity is being singled out to be "banished from the public square." This conveniently ill-defined term, "the public square," is intended to conflate expressions of religion "in public"--that is, in a manner that is widely visible, which "the public" can see and hear--with endorsements of religion by "public institutions," i.e., by the government. By conflating these two meanings of the word "public," conservatives seek to blur the line between freedom of religious expression and the use of government institutions (such as schools and courthouses) to promote religious values. You can't build a wall of separation between church and state if you can't find the border between the two--that is, if muddy concepts like "the public square" prevent you from naming where private religion ends and government action begins.

Post 26

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 5:37pm

Alec,

You write: "I've seen you do it at TOC, where you said that a company is initiating force against you when it doesn't mention on its product that the product was made in China."

What I said is that a totalitarian government cannot convey a rightful title to anyone for products made by slave labor. This is a statement of fact, and TOC is a perfectly appropriate forum for it.

You cite Ayn Rand for "Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom." True enough, but Darin was not arguing against mere disobedience and futile martyrdom. He was arguing against Bush's proposal to pardon people whose only "crime" was disobedience to a "law" that violates my individual rights, and theirs. Darins' argument is against the moral principles on which our Constitution, including the President's power to pardon people convicted under unjust laws, is based. Rand's point is that when asserting one's rights against legalized violations, one's actions should guided by a selfish and rational evaluation of the effectiveness of one's tactics. If Darin did not mean to write, that violations of individual rights are justified by some superior imperative to obey whatever the legislators have imposed as a "law" - which is what he actually wrote - then he needs to go back to grade school and learn to write what he means.

Post 27

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 2:04am

Adam,

Garin's argument, so far as I understand it from its brief presentation, is for objectivity in the prosecution of law -- which is hardly against the moral principles of the Constitution. The Constitution is concerned with the content of laws themselves and procedure; with making it impossible to pass unjust laws; with overturning or changing unjust laws when they are passed. Pardons are primarily a tool for acquiting those who are unjustly convicted, which is why they are usually issued on a case-by-case, rather than class-by-class basis.

I'm not saying I agree with Garin's position; he'd have to explain it further. What I am saying is that this--how to deal with prosecuting unjust laws--is not the black-and-white issue you make it out to be. When any politician is allowed to "disobey" what they perceive to be unjust laws, that puts just laws in danger too. Once you've entered the subjective realm, things get murky. That's the whole point.

And at the TOC summer seminar two years ago, in a Q-&-A period, you very specifically said that a company is initiating force against you if it doesn't mention that its product is made in a totalitarian country. I don't see how this applies at all to your current explanation, but don't think you can get away with dubious and falsely-dramatic slippery-slope conclusions without being exposed.

And if that isn't what you meant, then perhaps you need to go back to grade school and learn how to say what you mean.

Post 28

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 8:15am

Alec,

What I said at TOC is that a totalitarian government cannot convey a rightful title to anyone for products made by slave labor. If a company sells a product to which it may not have a rightful title, but pretends otherwise to the buyer - for example, by concealing the product's origin in a totalitarian country - then it is perpetrating a fraud, a form of initiation of force. Therefore a company is initiating force against me if it conceals the fact that its product is made in a totalitarian country. I fail to see how this simple realization of a fact of reality can be controversial at TOC, or in any Objectivist forum.

Governments exist to protect individual human rights. Therefore government actions which destroy individual human rights - for example, laws that restrict my right to trade with others, on the basis of irrelevant accidents such as their having been born in the wrong country - are unavoidably void. The constitution of the United States is based on the principle that governments exist solely to protect individual rights. The provisions of this constitution - whether the separation of religion and state, or the various mechanisms for nullification of laws that violate individual rights, including the president's power to pardon people who are not objectively criminals - stem from this principle.

Darin has asserted, contra Rand, that there are other equal or higher principles involved: "national sovereignty," "sanctity of the laws," "public square" and so on. If someone posts into an Objectivist forum with a contrary agenda, which this is, minimal honesty requires that he first tell us where his ideas come from. Darin has not, and for this reason I consider him a troll until proven otherwise.

Post 29

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:18am

Despite my assertions about MY OWN beliefs, you still ascribe to me ideas that I reject.

I will no try to prove to you that I am not a troll, but you might see that I'm not along the way.

And my name is Garin, not Darin. I forgive you--it's just part of unavoidable human error.

I'm off for vacation.

Garin

Post 30

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:24am

Adam, quit being such a jerk.

In my few years at UCLA, it seemed to me that of all the students at that school--thirty thousand or so--he was by far the most effective at spreading libertarian/Objectivist ideas.

You're being ridiculous.

Post 31

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 3:58pm

Adam,

You thumped, "And I continue to find [G]arin's invocation of Ayn Rand, in a fraudulent argument advocating the violation of my rights, obscene, preposterous, and inexcusable."

Don't worry, Adam. Garin was talking about rights here in the ol' U.S. of A., not on Planet Adam.

Pukszta

Post 32

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:10pm

Hovannisian,

You said, "Your paragraph on the establishment clause makes an important point--one that we don't hear as often as we should."

I have to wonder if the distinction between establishment and free exercise isn't completely obliterated today when it comes to the public square. However, it is fundamental. I think the most important thing to be understood is that the government's hegemony over a part of our lives does not deprive us (if free exercise means anything) of our freedom of conscience. The right to practice our beliefs is not barred by the obnoxious presence of government, especially when it intrudes into such personal matters as a parent's education of his children.

Objectivists do not help themselves if they ally with the hyper-sensitive thin-skinned LEFTIST secularists who want to drive out of the public square all beliefs antipathetic to their own collectivist ones (e.g., Objectivism) under the false guise of separating church from state. I think a careful examination of most of these "Christmas" disputes will show that what is being suppressed is not true establishment but free exercise. Once we enshrine in our constitutional law free exercise as akin to establishment, where does the suppression of ideas stop as government expands its domain over our lives?

Pukszta

(Edited by Rooster Puke on 12/25, 4:49pm)

Post 33

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:25pm

Adam,

I will let pass my continued disagreements with your slave labor point because it's too much of a digression for this thread.

However, you're characterization of Garin's argument is still wrong. For one thing, he never asserted that the "public square" is a principle; that was done by your own mind as you wildly misinterpreted a simple reference to a simple fact. For another thing, he never asserted that "national sovereignty" or even "sanctity of the law" are "greater or equal" to individual rights. He was addressing them as procedural principles only, within the context of process -- a context whose importance you are seeming to dangerously discount.

Among the Constitutional provisions you mention that stem from individual rights, you forget to include objectivity in law (derived from which is "equality under the law"). Considering that the operative part of that principle -- objectivity -- is what individual rights stem from, that's a pretty important inclusion.

What constitutes objectivity in law, and what to do if such objectivity in prosecution maximizes the harm of poor laws, is a tough question, Garin's answers to which you may disagree.

You don't address this as a question; you simply make assertions that ignore their implications. Who, in government, has the right to decide which laws to ignore? How easy is it for such power to become arbitrarily used? Whose to say that the politicians or judges who have that power are going to use it to ignore objectively-wrong laws instead of subjectively-"wrong" laws? What if that erodes laws that protect as well as laws that violate?

The idea that individual politicians have the right to overturn or ignore laws that they think are wrong is the direct root of left-wing judicial activism. What they have ignored, in many cases, is the Constitution itself.

Post 34

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:55pm

Alec,

Context, context, context. Garin was atacking Bush, in one of the small handful of cases in which Bush was actually advocating measures that would increase my ability to exercise my rights without governement interference. If Bush's proposal is "left-wing judicial activism", then I'm an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, yellow-polka-dot bikini.

Rooster,

Your argument would be more convincing if you could present just one instance of ACLU intervention against something on the "free exercise" side of the line. Just one real example, as in "fact of reality," please. Pretty please. Otherwise, would you consider the possibility that there aren't any?

Post 35

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:03pm

Adam,

I am doubtful of my ability to be convincing to you on this subject. You've stated you would feel victimized by the mere presence of a religious symbol in a courtroom. As for me, I'm no one's victim. Any Christian, Jew, Muslim, wiccan, Satanist, or whatever preaching their religion in the public square is no skin off my nose.

I haven't the faintest idea how the government not interfering with the free exercise of their religion in a public space constitutes establishment. Whatever knick-knacks believers want to erect to celebrate their religious holidays in public spaces (which is as much theirs as it is mine - AND an excellent reason why such spaces should not exist except where absolutely necessary) is an expression of their beliefs, not a government endorsement of anything. How is permitting a nativity scene to be erected in front of city hall any different from letting the Ku Klux Klan have a parade down Main Street? What is occurring is the profession of beliefs in the public square, and the government does not, and should not, have the power to stop it.

Whenever the courts prohibit the mere presence of religious symbols in public areas, they are assaulting free exercise. Purchasing, erecting, and maintaining them is arguably establishment, but I cannot think of any modern example in which the connection isn't tenuous. There certainly isn't a single recorded instance of anyone being coerced to profess a belief not his own even when the nativity scene in front of city hall is government-owned.

I cannot fathom how any Objectivist can accord government the power to keep out all professions of belief wherever it intrudes into our lives. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government must yield to the believers, not vice versa.

Pukszta

Post 36

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 5:14pm

Rooster,

I've asked for at least one fact, and all I get back is floating abstractions again.

Let me give you a context. Case between an Atheist Lesbian, now maried to another Lesbian, and her single Christian ex-husband, who is suing to terminate the parental rights of the mother, because any contact by a child with Lesbians such as the child's mother is against the father's religion. Would you have confidence, that a jury's verdict in such a case would not be influenced by religious displays put up by the judge - or for that matter by other Christians - in the courtroom?

Post 37

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:46am

Adam,

I gave you one very important fact, "There certainly isn't a single recorded instance of anyone being coerced to profess a belief not his own even when the nativity scene in front of city hall is government-owned." You can't conjure up establishment out of free exercise unless you show that the free exercise is causing coercion AND that the coercion is materially facilitated by the government. So where is the government coercion in all of the hullabaloo over Christmas carols and creches?

There is none.

As for your thought experiment, I'd have as much confidence in that jury as any other jury to follow the judge's instructions to only consider what has been put in evidence. Any religious symbols sported by the judge, the lawyers, and the public would not, of course, be in evidence.

The bottom line is that if the mere presence of religious symbols in public places can cause the kind of problems leftist secularists and you claim, then the people of this country are of such a fragile frame of mind as to be incapable of self-rule.

Pukszta

Post 38

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:59pm

Rooster,

There is coercion in the use of coercively extorted tax funds to pay for the nativity scene, the electricity to light it, amortization for the land it sits on, etc. And also in choosing which church's beliefs it will reflect. And in not reducing the taxes by leasing the space for a commercial use.

I would have no problem if space for the nativity scene were auctioned off to the highest bidder, with a reserve high enough to pay the costs. If various churches were to compete, and the bid relieved the citizens of some of our tax burden, you'll get no argument from me about the results. Or maybe a commercial company would tender the high bid, for good will, and then re-auction the space for charity. No problem, as long as there is no extortion of tax money from me and other unwilling victims.

As for the jury - I hate to tell you this, but we humans do not have any naturally evolved mental mechanisms for ignoring something just because someone tells us to. Our minds evolved to make judgements in full context, and are influenced even by things that we try hard to ignore. Any lawyer who believes that juries really forget what they were told to forget, lives in fantasy coocoo-land. You were pulling my leg on this one, were you not?

Post 39

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:25pm