American support for American Theocracy

Doug,

The owner of this web site, Joe Rowlands, has just published a book entitled, "Morality Needs No God." (It is available on Amazon now). I mention this because I think that is the long-term cure for the danger of Theocracy or even the violation of some rights that WILL occur with the shift of the government to the right in the next few elections.

What I'm trying to say is that when morality starts being treated as a subject of its own, examined with reason, taught in schools, taught at home, AND separate from religion, then we will find a far more rapid decline in religion because my belief is that religion is kept alive by the uncertainty of living life without a moral code is driving some people into the comforting arms of the church because there is no other widespread alternative at this time.

Welcome to RoR!
---------------------

p.s., The danger we face from theocratic government will come from Islam long before Christianity is a threat. And the long term cure is the same - bring reason and enlightenment to the idea of morality as a discipline that should be studied apart from any religion.

Post 21

Friday, September 23, 2011 - 3:18pm

Fred,

In post 15 you wrote, "This decision made it impermissible for states to place special requirements on people engaged in spreading a religious message."

Yes, but if the state can't tell the difference between what is a religion and what is not, then no one or everyone can claim protection under the 1st amendment portion devoted to religion. I could claim that selling hamburgers at a Dodger's game is my religion and I don't need a business permit, since that would be prior-restraint of my freedom to practice my religion. The state would have to either give up on all regulations/fees/taxes (not a particularly unpleasant thought :-) or they would have to treat nothing as religious and tax and regulate everything. Otherwise they need to have a way to define what is a religious activity.

Post 22

Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 4:16pm

Steve:

Defining what is meant by religion, or working on an assumption of what the founders thought it meant is an absolute requirement of being able to judge if anything is being done in violation of that part of the 1st amendment.

This is exactly the 'they must because they can't, therefore they must' argument, and I've heard it often.

How do you interpret Cantwell vs. Ct-- your own link -- if you disagree that it means that the reason the statute was declared unconstitutional was "The statute gives the secretary of public welfare the power to determine which groups are religious ..."

Those are the words from the link you provided-- not my words.

The reaction you are having -- 'they must because they can't, therefore they must' -- is exactly the reaction that many people have when this issue is brought to their attention. Otherwise, any minority could claim anything at all is 'religion' and petition the government for protection from 'religion' ... because of our mistaken equivalence between tolerance of religion anywhere America as 'establishment of a majority state religion.' (And -that- Cul De Sac is what has led to this conundrum...)

Exactly; if the government must be able to judge when state action is 'establishing a state religion,' then it must be able to define 'what is religion?' But the subtle point is...for what reason must the government ever do that-- define religion? The reason you point to is the prohibition of establishment of a theocracy-- the establishement of a singular state 'the' religion.

And yet the specific instances under which appeal has been made have nothing to do with the establishement of a singlular state 'the' religion. There is.. and never was in the context of America, even with a majority Christian religion, any serious attempt to establish Christianity as the official religion of America.

The specific instances of 'protection' under the 1st Amendment are related to the tolerance of the existence of religion in America, for the curious (because it is explicitely prohibited)act of prohibiting the free exercise of undefinable(in a restrictive way) religion in America.

Can you point to any exception in the 1st Amendment which limits the prohibition clause to any locations in America? Does it say "except on the public commons?"

Is it reasonable to equate 'tolerance of the mere existence of any 'R'eligion on the public commons is equivalent to the establishement of that religion as 'the' national 'R'eligion?'

If the answer is 'yes', then, is that a basis to seek 'protection' from that 'R'eligion?

If the answer is 'yes', then, is it necessary to believe in that 'R'eligion, and/or believe that 'R'eligion's God is a 'real' God in order to seek protection from that 'R'eligion?

(Clearly not, because athiests have regularly sought 'protection' from 'R'eligions in the public commons that they clearly do not believe, or believe are real and we have established as a precedent -- because we rail at the idea of a majority enforced restrictive enforcement of 'R'eligion-- the protection of even minority views on the topic.

Gods of Football, Gods of Theater, Sacred Space of the Stage, Gaien Spirity, Durkheim's "S"ociety=God...

How does/can any government empowered by our constitution discern 'real' supernatural Gods from 'unreal' supernatural Gods, and as bad, 'real/allowed/permitted' definitions of religion in America from 'unreal/unallowed/non-permitted' definitions of religion in America--- for any purpose of government, for any act of the state, including the curious act of prohibiting the free exercise of undefinable religion anywhere in America?

Well...it can because it must not, and therefor it must because it can't. In what context, for what purpose, is it forced into that absurdity? Because the net impact of permitting that absurdity to rule is exactly a majority enforced definition of religion in America.

The constitution is not a prohibition/protection against/for a specific 'R'eligion or set of 'R'eligions only -- it refers to the meta-concept 'religion', not a particular 'R'eligion.

And it behooves us to understand why-- especially those of us not ruled by any singular instance of a 'R'eligion.

Evan as America was (and is) a majority Christian nation, even the VA BoR expressed the explicit requirement of 'Christian forbearance' -- forbearance, as in, the act of refraining from enforcement. No hint of a Christian theocracy in advocating 'forbearance' on the topic of religion.

The American bias, its very idea, has always been one of complete relgious freedom and tolerance not intolerance: a broad and unbounded definition of 'religion' in America is exactly the founding point of America.

We have turned the idea of AMerica inside out by concluding that the government must ever define a restrictive concept of 'religion' -- for any purpose-- because that is exactly the road to establishing a theocracy in America-- and it has, one based on 'Social Scientology' as having been deemed 'not a religion' -- for the purpose of piercing the 1st Amendment.

America accepted the narrow definition of religion as "Jesus, God, the ten commandments, prayer, belief in an unseen yet all seeing and all knowing Supreme Being ... other than "S"ociety. And by swallowing that narrow definition of 'religion,' cleared the way for an unstoppable American Theocracy, one preaching the appealing message(to the state) that "S"ociety is God, the state is its proper church, and it is the state's proper function -- through its public schools and state institutions-- to properly 'socialize' the populace.

America-- by not understanding what the meta-definition of 'religion' was, nor the significance of the 1st Amendment, slept through the destruction of the American Experiment over a century ago, when this slop was sweeping the globe.

We are generations beyond even seeing the issue. Of course "S"ociety exists. Of course 'the Economy' is real. Of course it is the function of government to centrally plan and control those entities. It's all we've ever heard about from the moment of our birth. We've been largely and effectively 'socialized' from birth.

As were our parents, and their parents.

Yet, hope springs eternal; the history of the USSC is one of constant reversals of itself. It isn't too late for a USSC to come along who will eventually get this right...and also not too late for another one to come along and get it totally wrong again...

regards,
Fred

Post 23

Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 4:32pm

Steve:

I could claim that selling hamburgers at a Dodger's game is my religion and I don't need a business permit

...but government would be in the position of ruling 'is or isn't a religion' only for the curious purpose of prohibting the free exercies of undefinable religion anywhere in America. The conundrum is precisely introduced by finding in the 1st Amendment a license to direct prohibitions against broad religion anywhere in America-- that is the source of the above absurdity, which clearly has nothing at all to do with the 'establisement of a state religion.' That is, after all, part of the dual purpose of the 1st Amendment, which is to support broad tolerance of all religion in America, including the belief in no God.

But on the specific topic above, read some of your very own links to USSC cases-- the USSC has ruled often that undefinable 'R'eligions are not exempt from statute that is neutrally directed, and any activity that requires a permit is not directed at just one or any religion, and so, instances of 'R'eligion are not exempted from those neitrally defined statutes. The real issue is, Congress, the government has no requirement to define 'religion' in these instances, and when petitioners arrive claiming 'religion' as a reason for their exemption from neitral statute, then the government's only licensed response is "Who-- wait a minute; religion? What is that? Sorry, no idea what you are talking about--by law. Apply for your permit, just like the rest of America, if you want to sell hamburgers at a Dodgers game."

Petitioners to the USSC who have claimed "My religion requires me to do X, and so, the statute that prohibits X does not apply to me" have widely lost.

Whether that be 'sell hamburgers at a Dodgers game without a business permit' or any similar statute.

The neutrality of the law is one reason, but the other reason is, in order to provide religious exemptions, the government would need to decide what was and what was not a religion. Not even the IRS Code does that, or require that(because in fact, the tax ezempt stgatus of churches has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are a chuech or part of a religion, but are neutrally written, and any organization that meets those hurdles gets the same exemptions.)

regards,
Fred

Post 24

Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 6:08pm

Fred,

For whatever reasons we aren't communicating. I don't understand the 'they must because they can't, therefore they must' phrase.

"They must define religion because if they don't, they can't tell when a law is violating a person's exercise of their religion, therefore they must define religion. That is what I've been trying to say. But that isn't the same as your phrase.
-------------

I've said that the word "establishment" in the 1st amendment refers to making no law reflecting the estabishment a state religion. The founders understood that "establisment of a religion" meand "establishment of a STATE religion." But you evidently disagree and have another meaning in mind.
--------------

Theocracy and an established state religion are NOT the same thing. England, for example, "established" the Church of England as the official religion, but England is not a theocracy. There continues to be an intertwining of the church and the state where they grant each other an exclusive recognition of one another. A theocracy is where the government is controled by the religion/church and the primary purpose of the government is the support of the religion/church.
---------------

I still don't know why you treat a narrower definition of religion as impossible, or fatally ambiguous. Is it a strange phenomena that is inherent in that word? Because we can define with adequate precision the other words in the constitution.
---------------

You said that there has never been an attempt to establish Christianity as an official state religion in our country. Yes, that's true. There are a group of people that want to stop school prayer in public schools, remove "In God We Trust" from the currency, and stop the practice of Christianity on all public places, because they see that establishing a state religion. Those things ARE religious expressions, but they don't rise to the level of establishing a religion.

You wrote, "Is it reasonable to equate 'tolerance of the mere existence of any 'R'eligion on the public commons is equivalent to the establishement of that religion as 'the' national 'R'eligion?'"

I'm not sure I understand your use of the capital 'R', but I can say that if only one religion is allowed, and others are not, then it becomes evidence of a defacto establishment of the permitted religion. But these squabbles are most often petty and between religious supporters and others.

Here is the important principle: The best way to protect religious freedom is to refuse to allow any of them to do anything in the public commons. And to make no laws that have anything to do with private property exercises of religion. And to make that easier, drastically reduce the amount of public property.

----------------

The prohibition clause in the first amendment is about prohibiting congress from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. And, no, it doesn't make any exception for public areas. If someone wants to start praying or preaching in a public park they can do so. But, if they are doing their religious activity in a way that blocks the appropriate use of the park by others - like, say, blocking the entrance - they can prohibited from blocking the entrance, even if it gets in the way of that particular form of prayer.
------------------

The commons will always be a problem. The answer is to get rid of all commons that aren't totally needed and constitutional (military bases, police stations, court buildings, etc.) When schools are made private that will be a big help. The few commons remaining can be open to some activities that are religious and closed to some activities that are religious based upon the type of activity. And if it is open to an activity, it would be to all religions. If some public space became far too cluttered with religious artifacts, then they should all be removed.
------------------

Fred, I don't think anyone but you is seeing the problem in this particular way or worrying about Gods of Football, Gods of Theater, Sacred Space of the Stage, Gaien Spirity, Durkheim's "S"ociety=God...

I don't think that anyone else is seeing a big problem with telling what is a religion for the purpose of NOT establishing it as a state religion (which is not something we have had problems with since breaking free of England) or for the purpose of NOT making laws against the practice of that religion.
---------------------

I think that you are saying that society is being treated as if were God and that the government is using this as religion to issue commandments, and that we have become a 'secular theocracy.' That is a fun allusion, but I don't think it is helpful. I think that to use that for anything requires such a broad definition of religion that it has NO meaning anymore. And it isn't necessary. We can see the government use of power, and the adoption of moral principles that do NOT need religion and are better explained without it.

Yes, we have been socialized from birth, but I don't think your meta-definition of religion is valid. And it has no historical foundation that would allow us to do anything rational with the parts of the 1st amendment that deal with religion.
------------------

I don't think we are going to have any success pursuing this any further.

Post 25

Monday, September 26, 2011 - 6:17am

Steve:

For whatever reasons we aren't communicating. I don't understand the 'they must because they can't, therefore they must' phrase.

"They must define religion because if they don't, they can't tell when a law is violating a person's exercise of their religion, therefore they must define religion. That is what I've been trying to say. But that isn't the same as your phrase.

Well if they must, they not only patently have not anywhere in statute, but the USSC in your own links (Cantwell vs CT, the very first link in your list)points out why not: because they are forbidden from defining what is and what is not 'religious'

Quote: "The statute gives the secretary of public welfare the power to determine which groups are religious" is the reason given by that USSC for declaring the statute unconstitutional -- because it would require the determination of 'what groups are religious.' Why would that be a problem at all if what you claim is true(in the context of what is constitutional, not in the context of what you and I can reasonably do-- with complete freedom-- outside of the context of applying that license, as in, making law?)

True enough, not exactly the same phrase, but the precise same application. My original phrase was applied to the establishment clause, you are applying it to the protection clause, but it is the same logic, precisely. And, you are not the first to say, in response to this non-issue, "They must ...because if they don't, they can't ..., therefore they must..." Defining if someone's religion is an allowed/permitted definition of religion is not protecting that person's free exercise of religion, it is defining the allowed expression of that person's religion for the purpose of protecting only state defined religion. You may not see that as an issue, you may see that as a logical requirement, but the US Code and USSC have seen it as an issue.

Theocracy and an established state religion are NOT the same thing.

Is it your interpretation that only an established state religion is prohibited, but not the establishment of a Theocracy? (Bangladesh is yet a third example: no state established state religion, no official state theocracy, but a defacto national theocracy. For sure, the kind of tribal organization we would want to avoid, like the plague, and often literally the plague.)

I still don't know why you treat a narrower definition of religion as impossible, or fatally ambiguous.

Impossible in only one context is the distinction. Impossible by the state. Prohibition of a narrow definition of permitted religion/not religion in that context is exactly the central point of complete religious freedom.

Those things ARE religious expressions, but they don't rise to the level of establishing a religion.

Exactly. Even in the public commons. As you say, with the qualification that they aren't the only expressions permitted under freedom. Which includes, and must share the commons with, 'No expression at all.' And, vice versa. So that no 'the' religion is dominant over all others. Including 'No expression at all.'

Here is the important principle: The best way to protect religious freedom is to refuse to allow any of them to do anything in the public commons.

And, here is where we disagree, because that interpretation of 'protect religions freedom and tolerate religion' requires of the state the task of defining what is and what is not 'religion.' And so, IMO only, the best way to protect religious freedom in the public commons is for the state to respond to curious requests for 'protection from religion' with "religion? What is that? Can't help you out." That is a bias towards religious tolerance, not religious intolerance...

The commons will always be a problem. The answer is to get rid of all commons that aren't totally needed and constitutional (military bases, police stations, court buildings, etc.) When schools are made private that will be a big help. The few commons remaining can be open to some activities that are religious and closed to some activities that are religious based upon the type of activity. And if it is open to an activity, it would be to all religions. If some public space became far too cluttered with religious artifacts, then they should all be removed.

We largely agree with that except that the way to enforce 'clutter on the commons' laws is to write them neutrally(ie, without regard to 'religious' or 'religion.') If clutter on the commons is a problem then it is a problem, and anti-clutter/zoning/use of public space laws should be written in such a manner that does not place upon the state the requirement to define 'religious or religion.' 'R'eligions are not exempt from neutrally written statute, that is the law of the land.

Fred, I don't think anyone but you is seeing the problem in this particular way or worrying about Gods of Football, Gods of Theater, Sacred Space of the Stage, Gaien Spirity, Durkheim's "S"ociety=God..

True enough. But others are as familiar with the common histories of the theater and religion or clearly recognize that we are being preached to with sermons from the sacred space of the stage when we sit in the pews and watch a play. And many/others have yet to inform me how it is possible to distinguish 'real' supernatural Gods from 'unreal' supernatural gods. As for Durkheim's "S"ociety=God, his own words speak for themselves. Read 'Religious Formes' sometime, if you haven't long already. It is exactly his point, well expressed in his summary. If a religion based on "S"ociety=God can harmlessly be allowed to permeate every cog of the machinery of state without harm to freedom as the sole religion permitted to do so, without consequence, then there is no threat to freedom.

I think that you are saying that society is being treated as if were God and that the government is using this as religion to issue commandments, and that we have become a 'secular theocracy.' That is a fun allusion, but I don't think it is helpful.

My reference might be lonely, but certainly not allusory; I mention it in almost every one of my posts. Thankfully, you don't consider it illusory. And I fully agree-- "S"ociety (not society)being treated as if it was God is not helpful to any of us, in the least.

But I am having fun with that. You mean, my assertion is not helpful to you and others. Well, it is helpful to me.

Yes, we have been socialized from birth, but I don't think your meta-definition of religion is valid

...for you.

This is America, and that is not a requirement in the least in order for you and I to peacefully and joyfully co-exist.

My usable meta-definition of religion: a conscious examination of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" is perhaps too broad a meta-definition, in that it seems to embrace philosophy as well. But, that confusion is well reflected in the academic departments of many universities, who long ago threw up their hands with the required hair-splitting taxonomy and created 'The Department of Religion and Philosophy.' So, I haven't lost much sleep with that confusion.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sugexp=pfwc&cp=33&gs_id=80&xhr=t&q=The+department+of+religion+and+philosophy

Oh Hell, just Google "The Department of Religion and Philosophy"

What do you regard as a valid meta-definition of religion in this context?

I don't think we are going to have any success pursuing this any further.

But success at what? We have long already succeeded at having a dialogue on the subject. What else are we about>

regards,
Fred

Post 26

Monday, September 26, 2011 - 8:48am

Steve:

Clearly, freedom of religion does not grant any of us absolute power to do anything we say we want. If I claim that my religion demands of me cannibalistic rituals and a protected right to eat my neighbors, I will find no friend in our constitution, nor any basis to protect my practice of religion; the laws against murder are neutral and do not refer to any particular religion. My reason for pointing out the obvious will become clearer at the end of this post.

Maybe just for me an interesting question(one clearly not embraced by many university academic departments), but... in a meta-definition sense, is there a vital distinction between religion and philosophy?

Can we, if we choose, distinguish them by some element of mysticism? And yet, there are examples of mystic philosophies... damn. Just as, there are examples of religions that do not include belief in a Supreme Being, like Taoism. (A confucious/confusion acknowledged in that sometimes we refer to the precise same beliefs as either a 'religion' or a 'philosophy.')

Taoism (also spelled Daoism) refers to a philosophical or religious tradition in which the basic concept is to establish harmony with the Tao (道), which is everything that exists, the origin of everything and because of the latter it is also nothing. The word "Tao" (or "Dao", depending on the romanization scheme) is usually translated as "way", "path" or "principle". Taoism had not only a profound influence on the culture of China, but also on neighboring countries. While the philosophical Taoism is not institutionalized, the religious Taoism is institutionalized and present in multiple countries.

Damn. It is a dessert topping and a floor wax. But maybe there is a hint in there: so...religions are only institutionalized philosophies? And if so, then the 1st Amendment only provides protection for institutionalized philosophies? Anybody buying that? Because Uh-oh...no Church of Atheism.

But worse; imagine for a moment that, in spite of that clear murky confusion between 'religion' and 'philosophy', we embraced the idea that, although both are somewhat related to considerations of 'how should we live our life,' we (and most university academic departments)are unable to come up with a human term of knowledge taxonomy under which both are classified(other than the way too broad 'humanities')and which diverge under some clearly statable characteristic:

religion and philosophy are both examples of _____A_____ but differ in that religion is characterized by ____B_______ and philosophy is characterized by _____C_________.

Maybe we buy 'institutionalized/non-institutionalized' as a restrictive distinction for B and C, but then the 1st Amendment is really restrictive. Still, what is 'A'?

Suppose for a second it was possible to fill in all of those blanks. (Feel free to try, but I don't think it is that easy, or at least, fraught with contradictions like the ones I've already mentioned...)

But suppose we could do that.

IMO, and possibly, IMO only, we would then suffer from the punishment of getting what we wished for.

Because immediately, it would be clear: the 1st Amendment refers to 'religion' only, and there is no fundamental freedom of philosophy in America. The state is -not- expressly prohibited from establishing a national philosophy...as long as it never attempted to institutionalize that philosophy and make it a religion!

And yet...is there a freedom eating problem if the 1st AMendment broadly interpreted 'religion' to encompass its cannot-slide-an-Angstrom-between-them meta-conmcept 'philosophy?' Would Americans empowered by protections under our constitution for complete 'philosophical freedom' be freedom eating tyrants empowered to do anything that their philosophy demanded of them? Like eat their neighbors?

Or...would the same limitations/restrictions applicable to 'freedom of religion' apply to 'freedom of philosophy' as well? So, for example, under a constitution of liberty and freedom, if someone showed up and claimed that their philosophy demanded of them to enslave the entire nation and rule it, would that be protected under a constitution of liberty? Of course not. (And by this I mean, just like cancer, Marxism would still be freely study-able under academic freedom, with the hope for a someday world cure.)

And, more importantly: was it the intent of our Founders to protect only freedom of religion, but not freedom of philosophy?

Did our founders distinguish between 'religion and philosophy,' and was their intent to provide only explicit religious freedom and not philosophical freedom in America?

I would love to hear the meta-term under which both 'religion' and 'philosophy' are characterized...other than the way too broad 'humanities,' because that -would- have been the proper subject of 1st Amendment protection under a constitutions of Liberty...

I am honestly seeking a more usable meta-definition of the term 'religion' as used in the 1st Amendment.

Consideration of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" clearly embraces philosophical as well as religious questions, and may in fact be too broad a meta-definition of 'religion.' But if it is, then the 1st Amendment might be largely pointless, as it would not impede state acts to impress a single 'the' national philosophy. A majority so inclined would simply need to call its religion a 'philosophy' and then lurch full steam ahead past the rendered moot 1st Amendment and flail away...

...or, while we are at it, a 'science.' Like Social Scientology.

regards,
Fred

Post 27

Monday, September 26, 2011 - 12:13pm

Fred,

I'm giving you MY understanding, not what the USSC majority opinion in Cantwell v CT was.

I said that to define what the word religion means, where that might be needed, is NOT congress passing a law to establish a religion (does NOT pass a law to attach a religion to the state) and it is also NOT the passing of a law to prohibit the free exercise of that religion.

Where am I wrong in what I've written in that paragraph above? (Read what I've written about negative rights before answering. Thanks.)
---------------------------

You wrote, "Is it your interpretation that only an established state religion is prohibited, but not the establishment of a Theocracy?"

Of course not. Nor did I say or imply that. A theocracy would, of course, be an established religion. But not all established religions (state recognized religions) are going to be theocracies. I certainly wouldn't consider Britain a theocracy.
-----------------------------

Fred, your argument arises from a faulty assumption. You say that a 'narrow' definition of religion is impossible in only one context: "Impossible by the state." And then you say, "Prohibition of a narrow definition of permitted religion/not religion in that context is exactly the central point of complete religious freedom."

You are treating the constitution as if were as source of positive rights. It isn't. It states, and it's very nature is to affirm, that the people and the states have all the rights that are not explicitly given to the federal government. Your sentence implies that the government can prohibit all religion/non-religions unless they aren't narrowly defined. I hope you can see that in your argument. We had freedom of speech before the government existed. The 1st amendment simply made explicit that congress shall pass no laws abridging that freedom. And many USSC cases have followed where the 9 supremes have refined the definition of what constitutes speech.
---------------------------

We actually agree on the issue of religious freedom in the public commons. I said that the best way to protect religious freedom is to not allow any religious activity there, and you said the best way would be to say, "religion, what is that?" - Well, both would work, and your way might be better - and there might be other instances where banning all of them would be better. For example, prayer in the public schools. Some religions might not have prayer at all, others might have a different kind of prayer. That becomes a problem of the hours in the day, the organizational and logistical issues and I'd say, "Religion... That's a private issue. Do it somewhere else. This is where we teach non-religious stuff." The problem isn't the religion, and it isn't the protection, it is the public commons that make problems - free the schools and school prayer is no longer a problem.
-----------------------------

Fred, where I was saying that I didn't think your meta-definitions were helpful, I was thinking that there are some real issues having real effects, but that I didn't see your approach to these problems - using the meta-definitions - as intellectually effective for these problems.

I agree that there is a religious aura to the style of presentation used in some sociological issues. And it is a form of moralizing being applied to social 'science' issues. But morality, as we Objectivists know better than any others, can and should be held separate from religion - separate in that it is a discipline that stands on its own. Yet, as best as I can tell your argument links religion and sociology via morality. (And, perhaps via epistemology, or psychoepistemology a bit.)

I think it would be helpful to everyone to pursue that - to illuminiate all instances of illogical moral treatment of sociological issues. But that is NOT the same thing as attempting to use the 1st amendment to pursue this, or to say that the 1st amendment wording prohibits the definition of the word religion. It is just wrong to start from the premise that you can use a word in the constitution that can't be defined, yet can be still somehow be used.
-----------------------------

You asked, "... is there a vital distinction between religion and philosophy?"

I'd say that religion was our very first philosophy. It had its metaphysics, its epistemology, and its ethics. That's a more complete system than some more modern philosophies (granted, that some more recent philosophies have decided that they shouldn't be about systems - and have rejected system-building for endless proof that nothing can be proved)
-------------------------------

You said, "Uh-oh...no Church of Atheism." You said this in the context of Atheism not having an institutional structure and therefore it might not be protected from establishment as a state religion and that individuals might not be protected from laws restricting religious practices.

Well, yes. If a reasonable definition of religion excludes atheism as a religion, then that portion of the 1st amendment doesn't apply. So what? Taking a shower is not considered speech... so what? The bill of rights are explicit declarations of things the government can not do. It doesn't mean that they can do all else. We don't need to have a bill of rights amendment that states that congress shall pass no laws prohibiting us from taking a shower. And we do not need to define speech, or showering, or assembly so broadly, or to say that it can not, or should not, be defined in order to protect them from government prohibitions.

To say anything like that is to misunderstand the primary, and overriding understanding of the constitution, which takes precedence over all else: the constitution is the statement of what government can do with the understanding that government can not do anything else.
---------------------------------

You wrote, "...it would be clear: the 1st Amendment refers to 'religion' only, and there is no fundamental freedom of philosophy in America."

Again, same issue. Substitute "showering" for "philosophy" - we don't keep our showering safe only so long as we can't distinguish it from speech, or from religion. We remember the 10th amendment. And we remember the heart and soul of the constitution - it is the only source of legal authority for the federal government, hence federal government can only legally do what it is specified there and no more.
----------------------------------

As for the cannibal religion question you raised... No problem. People can practice their cannabistic religion as long as it doesn't violate anyone elses rights. They have the right to eat other people, but not the right to capture, kill or cook them against their will. They should endow their religious structure to make arrangements similar to organ donations - pay people ahead of time to specify they will, upon their death, become property of the Church of Human Consumption. :-)

That way government is not stopping them from practicing their religion. Now, if their religion is about killing people that don't want to be killed... it isn't that government intends to stop the religion, but that it has the authority to prohibit killing, as such, and does so impartially, without regard to a person's religion.
------------------------------------

You asked, "...was it the intent of our Founders to protect only freedom of religion, but not freedom of philosophy?"

No. The freedom of speech and freedom of press indicate that they wanted government out of the area of ideas. With religion, it was made explicit because of the history of religious persecution and the issue of a government establishing a state religion. But, again, rights don't have to have been made explicit to exist.

Your asked, "Did our founders distinguish between 'religion and philosophy,' and was their intent to provide only explicit religious freedom and not philosophical freedom in America?"

My guess is that they made less of a distinction between religion and philosophy than we do today in the area of the hierarchy of knowledge because it was before Darwin, before many of the more modern scientific formulations - the distance between religion's view of the universe and sciences view of the universe (at that time) was far less than today's.

But in terms of separating church and state I'd say they were more conscious of the dangers of not doing that and that they made it explicit (leaving philosophy implied) because of the their recent history with religious persecution.
---------------------------------

Post 28

Monday, September 26, 2011 - 2:37pm

Steve:

It begs the question(and maybe you and others long already have, so forgive me if that is the case), what is the point at all of the BoR?

It does not explicitly mention a right to take showers(as long as the GPM/flow rate is not beyond what the Czar of Flowrate deems suitable for us), etc., and yet we clearly have that right. And, government certainly has infringed that right, though not eliminated it, by placing literal restrictions -- flow restricters --on our shower heads.

Because it was not explicitly prohibited from infringing that right, and deemed it in our best interests, for example, to flush a 3.2 liter toilet 3.5 times on average instead of a 5 liter toilet 1.1 time on average.

And, because of the then recent historical issues with religious freedom, the Founders made an explicit amendment in the published BoR-- but otherwise unnecessary, because we all had the right to freely practice religion without prohibitions on the government anyway.

Like, belts and suspenders...but uneccessary to secure our right to freely practice religion/philosophy(and, yes, I agree... in earlier times, those two were considered one and the same or nearly indistinguishable in any taxonomy, a fact reflected even today in the names of combined University departments.)

That may be an entirely reasonable way to look at rights, but then, what is the actual function of the BoR, if that was the case?

Finally, rights are odd things. It is entirely possible to posses rights, even as one is being burned at the stake. Just, not enjoy those rights. Not that the BoR is an enforcement of rights, the BoR is at its foundation 'wishes on paper.' And without that paper-- indeed, without enforcement of what is wished for on that paper, it is true that we can claim to possess rights...even as we burn at the mob's stake.

But moot, if we also wish to enjoy those rights.

Is it nominally easier to seek enforcement of rights if they are expressed formally on our national documented 'wishes on paper,' or is it actually easier to seek enforcement for rights that we claim exist without such formal wishes on paper? Do you think that is the special consideration that the Founders wished to express by publishing an explicit BoR?

Showers, I think, are a bad example. If the RTKBA was a peer to our implicit right to take a shower, then we would all have the right to bear pellet guns.

And yes, I, never, ever drill out the middle of those flow restrictors in those shower heads, because that would be tampering with the dictates of the Shower Czar, and I would never want to do that.

regards,
Fred

PS: Because, if you simply remove the flow restrictor, the shower head falls apart, by design. But if, instead, you drill a hole in the middle of the flow restrictor, the shower head does not fall apart.

I never, ever remove those flow restrictors. I swear.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/26, 2:45pm)

Post 29

Monday, September 26, 2011 - 4:59pm

Fred,

You asked, "What is the point of all of the BoR?"

There was a fierce debate before and during the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Both sides were in agreement on one thing - that the constitution was intended to protect our rights but disagreed on what was the best method.

Both sides understood clearly that the new federal government only had those rights that the constitution was explicitly granting.

But they disagreed on whether or not it was a good idea to take what were agreed to be the most important of rights and to explicitly mention them. It is a good debate to read because it reveals so much about they thought at that time.

One side believed that if these critical rights (speech, press, assembly, religion, due process, etc.) were not mentioned, that we were taking too much of a risk that they might be infringed upon.

The other side said that the very mention of them would make it appear that we only had those rights that were explicitly mentioned.

Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

The compromise lives in the words of the 9th and 10th amendments.
---------------------------------

So, what is the actual function of the Bill of Rights?

1. To protect certain key rights that were deemed the most important at that time and which they felt might otherwise be violated in the future.
2. To satisfy the demands of those states that insisted that it be there.
3. With the addition of the 9th and 10th amendments, to unify the states behind the amended constitution, and to make clear how the constitution should be read.
4. As with all language in the constitution, it is intended to constrain the laws, and the language in laws that are passed such that the laws will be constitutional (a key component in our legal standard for objective law)
----------------------------------

You wrote, "Is it nominally easier to seek enforcement of rights if they are expressed formally on our national documented 'wishes on paper,' or is it actually easier to seek enforcement for rights that we claim exist without such formal wishes on paper?"

I'd say that, Yes, it is easier to seek enforcement of explicitly written rights and that has proven out by our freedom of speech, etc. and the ability to fight the continual attempt to ban guns. But, at the same time, I think it is reasonable to say that having this limited set of explicit rights has done a lot to obscure the fact that the constitution was intended to protect every single right we or the states had before the federal government existed, unless the constitution said otherwise. It has helped preserve those mentioned while hurting those not mentioned - and those not mentioned are so many as to be beyond naming.
------------------------------------

Some things preserve rights by describing the nature of objective law - like the due process clause. It isn't so much saying what specific right exists, as to describe the nature of laws that are fair - that is, to separate a nation of laws from a nation of rulers. This I think is a very good kind of thing for a constitution. Some of the specifics, like freedom of speech, press and assembly are requirments for a government that is going to be made of freely elected representatives. So even some special rights belong in a constitution. Shower heads... not so much.
------------------------------------

In the culture, we see that the educational awareness of the nature of a limited government hasn't been properly understood for a long, long, time. It is something that fell between the cracks long ago and didn't get passed on from generation to generation with the same fidelity as other political concepts. It was lost for many.

And in my assessment of the psychological nature of current generations in comparison to much earlier generations, I see more of a child-like nature in many ways that makes it easier to have many citizens look at government as children look to the parent they depend upon. 150 years ago entitlements would have been incomprehensible as a national program.

Here is another aspect of cultural change: I believe that as we leave behind the past we are leaving behind a stronger sense of duty - and that our fathers and grandfathers lived in a culture that was homogenic today's. Now, we are evolving into something new - a greater sense of moral independence, and perhaps a substitution for peer acceptance inside tiny fragmented subcultures are replacing duty. Traditional religion is dying (despite the vocal evangelicals' place on the stage). That leaves people with a need to find moral values somewhere else and I think that we do have much more diversity in our national culture - and the awareness of this is accelerated by our techological changes in communications.
We are becoming a culture whose individuals are showing more self-awareness than the individuals of past cultures and with less of a sense of duty and more diverse between all the different subcultures about what is morally acceptable.

I liken this period of history to a stage of development that is between a dutiful child who listens to his parents and the period where he is a grown adult and independent in a mature fashion. During that inbetween stage, he is a teen and there is a lot of inner turbulence and an awkward mixture of childishness and new adult capacitites - a transition period while we grow the capacity to be rationally, morally independent without the crutch of duty and cultural homogenity.

Post 30

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 6:21am

Steve:

Thank you, I enjoyed that exchange. I think that tension you describe over the efficacy of the BoR still clearly exists. In balance, I'm glad they enumerated some of what they regarded as the most important, because even those are under attack, and so, implicit rights are even more easily trampled.

You provided a very optimistic description of the American culture as being in a kind of adolescence out of which we might someday mature. I sincerely hope you are right.

The pessimist view is, mold on an orange rind; individual freedom has fled to the last remaining free nation on earth, but has had its run. With no place left to flee and unable to stand and defend itself from attack within, it is rotting from that attack within with the inevitable politics of on-average-we-are-all-average human nature and there is always a guaranteed path to power by pandering to the 50.1%, and always some guaranteed minority of parasitic power grubbers willing to cash in on that political calculus. The jungle/tribe is inevitably reclaiming what it asserts is its own to claim; all of us. Because it can.

And, I sincerely hope that view is wrong, because it is a view without any hope at all for freedom.

regards,
Fred

Post 31

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 5:49am

Steve:

Loose end:

re: Create a definition based upon the meaning intended by the founding fathers.

If they meant only things like then contemporary The Church of England and praying to the cross or Baby Jesus, etc., then...

...did they mean only muskets and pamphlets published by a Ben Franklin printing press?

Modern religions...modern arms...modern speech.

Which are not protected/prohibited under the meaning intended by the founding fathers?

It's the very first amendement in the BoR for a reason, and that reason is the absolute keystone of our individual freedom. Understanding the meta-definition of the term 'religion' is crucial to defending all of our freedom in America. Without that there is no hope at all for defending freedom anywhere in America.

When I use the term 'R'eligion, I mean it in the sense of referring to an instance of 'r'eligion. Instances of 'R'eligion do not define 'r'eligion, while the meta-concept 'r'eligion refers to all instances of 'R'eligion.

The 1st Amendment concerns 'r'eligion, not just any instance or restrictive instances of 'R'eligion. (And so, the FF view of what any particular 'R'eligion was at the time isn't applicable to an interpretation of the 1st Amendment, only their view of what the meta-concept 'r'eligion was.)

regards,
Fred

Post 32

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 12:20pm

Fred,

You wrote, "...did they mean only muskets and pamphlets published by a Ben Franklin printing press?"

ah... Sure, Fred. Of course that is what they meant. [friendly sarcasm indicating argument not taken seriously]
--------------------------

"...When I use the term 'R'eligion, I mean it in the sense of referring to an instance of 'r'eligion. Instances of 'R'eligion do not define 'r'eligion, while the meta-concept 'r'eligion refers to all instances of 'R'eligion."

Fred, that doesn't make sense to me. Can you give me examples?
--------------------------

The 1st amendment doesn't say "Ben Franklin's printing press," and it says "religion" not "Church of England as it exists during the late 1700s".

You asked, "Modern religions...modern arms...modern speech. Which are not protected/prohibited under the meaning intended by the founding fathers?"

They all are. We can define "arms" - we can define "speech" and we can define "religion." And if we do it correctly, our definitions will be those that the founding fathers would have agreed with. If times change so much that the constitution doesn't adequately cover what it should.... that's what the amendment process is for.
-----------

Be honest here, what you want to do is to have religion defined so that it includes 'S'ociology or something like that. True? You want the founding fathers' understanding of a broad defintion of religion to include what you see as religion. But that is going too far. Not too far for serious discussion about the religious-like traits used in some of the social sciences, philosophy, etc., but definitely too far to be used in the constitution which is the standard used to keep laws objective and limited. The method of constitutional analysis as taught in law school would have to describe the techniques properly used to determine what the founding fathers meant by the words they used, and what Fred Bartlett meant when he used 'R'eligion or 'r'egligion, etc.
-------------

What is needed is strict adherence to the concept of "limited" - the federal government is limited to what powers are explicitly granted and can do no more. Let's reduce our government to that stage, and then amend it where needed for further clarity or further limitations.

Whatever powers are not given up by the states by their ratification are retained by either the states or the people and that works the same way - the states are limited (by what they gave up to the federal government and what powers they are explicitly granted in their constitution).

Let's look at the state governments and we should find it easier to cut state governments back to fit within their constitutions, and then amend those constitutions as needed.

The end result of pruning back all governments should be a state of political freedom, and an education of the people and THAT is the real protection. But no amount of education or good intentions will will work without a good methodology using a good standard.

We need to have a standard by which we are able to make measurements of our laws. A standard, and methodology for the on-going measurement against the standard, goes along with the understanding, the motivation, and the ability of those who do that measuring. ("Measuring" as in the on-going process of examining existing or proposed laws to see if they are constitutional and objective, so as to adjust them till they are or reject them).

If we get to that point where our laws are constitutional and the people are active and effective in maintaining that state, and if we make sure these new understandings, abilities and attitutdes get into that part of the culture that is consistently passed on from generation to generation and we might be really okay for a good run of 400, 500 years or so.

Post 33

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 2:00pm

Steve:

RE:

"...When I use the term 'R'eligion, I mean it in the sense of referring to an instance of 'r'eligion. Instances of 'R'eligion do not define 'r'eligion, while the meta-concept 'r'eligion refers to all instances of 'R'eligion."

Fred, that doesn't make sense to me. Can you give me examples?

The word 'firearm,' as a term, is a meta-concept. It applies to a class of objects. A ParaOrdnance P13-45 with a given serial number, holdable in your hand, is an actual specific instance of a firearm, yet does not uniquely define 'firearm.' The class 'firearm', although every instance of 'F'irearm ever created are in that class, also includes 'F'irearms which have yet to be instanced or even imagined.

The word 'r'eligion, as a term, is a meta-concept. It applies to a class of human activity. Christianity is a specific instance of a 'R'eligion, not even 'the Church,' and if we take that a bit farther, an actual building at the corner of 3rd and Main be an actual instance of a 'C'hurch without being the unique church' referred to in the colloquial expression "separation of [all such]church and [the] state."

Christianity, Taoism, Judaism, etc. -- and every 'R'eligion ever yet imagined--do not uniquely define 'religion' in any restrictive fashion; They are instances of a 'R'eligion, but the meta-concept 'religion' includes instances of 'R'eligion not yet imagined.

The 1st amendment doesn't say "Ben Franklin's printing press," and it says "religion" not "Church of England as it exists during the late 1700s".

Yes, it for sure does. We agree. It is clear that the 1st Amendment is referring to a meta-concept, and requires some kind of a meta-definition to interpret. What you and I have been discussing is my confusion over whether what is required is a narrow and restrictive and intolerant definition or a broad and un-restrictive and tolerant definition of that meta-concept in the context of religious freedom in America.

When looked at one way, we are led to the conclusion "must be a restrictive definition of religion." And yet, when forced-- by logic, we say-- to say that, we must ignore the amendment and more, the intent of the amendment as a whole. And hence...the conundrum.

Be honest here, what you want to do is to have religion defined so that it includes 'S'ociology or something like that. True? You want the founding fathers' understanding of a broad defintion of religion to include what you see as religion. But that is going too far. Not too far for serious discussion about the religious-like traits used in some of the social sciences, philosophy, etc., but definitely too far to be used in the constitution which is the standard used to keep laws objective and limited. The method of constitutional analysis as taught in law school would have to describe the techniques properly used to determine what the founding fathers meant by the words they used, and what Fred Bartlett meant when he used 'R'eligion or 'r'eligion, etc.

I think I have been honest here. I am going to repeat Durkheim's definition of "S"ociety, taken prominently from his summary of Religious Formes. And then I want you to be honest and tell me that, when reading that, you detect nothing that looks or smells like the foundation of an undefinable 'R'eligion, and in fact, an instance of religion:

Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them

In Formes, Durkheim's primary point was that, up until then modern times, ancient man was mistaking the concept 'God' for that which 'by right' should have been reserved for "S"ociety-- the tribe. Ancient mankind, according to Durkheim, had the wrong totem for the precise same supernatural element in the world. And that is the foundational basis for Social Scientology, or Sociology if you will, just as surely as Durkheim is one of Sociology's 'still seminal' founding fathers.

(Aside: how does one ever lose one's seminality? But moot; you will often see Durkhem ...and Marx and Weber, etc., referred to as 'still seminal' in the intros of many Sociology texts. It implies that at some point, if it is ever necessary or convenient-- like it was with Marx-- that Durkheim might yet be thrown under the bus and 'lose' his seminality... Those same texts, if you ever noticed, are filled page after page with the words of the prophets: "Smith believed..." Well, lots of Christian Scientologists believe, too--truely, but nobody mistakes that religion for science.)

I am not the first by far to point out the parallels between Durkheim's 'consciousness of all consciousness' and Jung's 'collective unconsciousness.'

(?) Another instance of a floor wax and a dessert topping.

When it comes to the mystic yet all knowing great unseen, it can be all things(and even mystically the opposite things) to all people. who generally adhere to this stuff with the intensity and zeal of X-Files fans: the Truth is Out There...trust them, they've closed their eyes and not seen it, and yet know it is there.

Or, maybe they've fallen for Kant's argument about our innate inability to tell the true difference between a thing and itself. Trust him, there is a difference-- even though it is impossible for anyone to accurately detect(except of course Kant, who should correctly be named 'Kan'...) The term 'calibration' is clearly totally foreign to the subset of the tribe that spends its waking hours pondering ...take your pick, the consciousness of consciousness or the collective unconsciousness, any holy ghost will do.

Not unlike Rawls hypothesizing a perfect state of perfect unbias where nobody may actually travel to(except Rawls,) who jarringly immediately travels to that place and comes back with what should be the unsurprising news that the occupants of that theoretical no-mans land choose the politics of Rawls... hundreds of thousands? of supposedly educated folks have actually bought that carny huckster argument and think it is brilliant, including our current community organizer POTUS extraordinaire...

I know, it(Social Scientology)isn't all slop; the Church does its good deeds.

And yet...what is the purposeof separation of church and state? Is it...separation of my church from your state, separation of your church from my state, or separation of our churches from our state?

Must I believe in your church in order to have it separated from my state? Must I adhere to a majority view of religion before I may get in that long line and seek 'protection' from religions I do not adhere to? As someone with a minority view of religion, do I have a right not to be forcefully exposed to the majority view of religion in this nation? What are the precedents in this nation when it comes to those with minority views of religion accessing the guns of state for protection from religions they do not believe are real?

And, does the fact that the Church does good deeds sufficient for us to ignore the 1st Amendment?

It could depend on the amount of time we've all spent in church, without realizing it.

regards,
Fred

Post 34

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 4:39pm

Fred,

Thanks for the explanation of 'R'eligion versus 'r'eligion. If I'm understanding you correctly, it is completely in line with the epistemology in Rand's in IOE - just a kind of notation. For example, 'T'able might be a reference to "this table in front of me right now," where 't'able would be the same sense as "A table can be used for many things."

I have no problem with that.

Where we disagree is my understanding that you want to expand the definition of 'r'eligion as we use it in the constitution such that it includes things like sociology. I don't agree with that as being within the definition of religion that we should be using for law. I also disagree that 'r'eligion can't or shouldn't be defined for constitutional purposes. I disagree that a legal definition of 'r'eligion can't match the essentials of what the founding fathers would have understood and agree with, yet include newer religions, like, say, the Seventh Day Adventists, yet NOT become so broad as to include sciences or pseudo-sciences. If there is some other thing that the government should not "establish" or "prohibit" and it doesn't fit a definition of 'r'eligion that the founding fathers would have agreed with, then we need another amendment (if we want to make it explicit as we did with the other rights in the bill of rights). For example, "Congress shall make no law establishing a state preference for one scientific view or principle over another. Nor shall congress make a law that prohibits the examination, exploration or practice of any scientific view." Clearly this kind of approach would warrant a great deal more thought that I've given this wording or even the idea of another right added to the bill of rights.
----------------

Durkheim's description of Society is gooblty-gook - nonsense. But that doesn't, by itself make it a religion. His claim that society should take the place of the totem of God doesn't make it so. Anyone can make claims of one kind of another. I could claim that God is rightfully replaced with peer pressure - where people used to be God Fearing, not they are terrified of being ousted from their peer group. FaceBook is the new bible. But that doesn't make Society a religous structure. ESP is a supernatural element, but that doesn't put it in contention with the holy trinity to replace Christianity or to become a new religion. I'm not saying that people can't come together and take a collection of things and create a new religion, like the Cargo Cult religion that was born of WWII in the South Pacific and still exists to a degree today. That can happen. But it hasn't happened with Sociology despite sharing some unhealthy thinking processes and attempts to moralize some of its components in hopes of forcing greater agreement.
-----------------

Jung was mixing psuedo-science/mythology and psychology - it never became religion. It was much closer to a bad understanding of genetics applied to psychology by someone with a tendency to believe in psuedo-sciences. It was also at least partly metaphor as opposed to actual. But, however you look at it, it wasn't a religion. (I took a number of classes from a the dean of the college, a man who studied under Jung, in Switzerland when I was getting my masters in Clinical Psych - I've never liked the Jungian approach and didn't study it any deeper than needed to pass, but it wasn't a religion).
-----------------

Religion is but one of those forms where one can find zealots, faith-based approaches, and mystical beliefs. But Jungian psychology is not a religion. Communism is not a religion. Sociology is not a religion. They are like religions in some ways but not others.
-----------------

You wrote, "...what is the purposeof separation of church and state? Is it...separation of my church from your state, separation of your church from my state, or separation of our churches from our state?"

Yes. All three. It is a specific area where government was to be limited from doing ANYTHING that decreased freedom of action. Note that having a definition of religion just sets boundaries without which it couldn't be enforceable. Any definition that became too broad would just be a way to try to limit government unspecifically and that wouldn't be good. Too narrow a definition and there would somethings that are actually religions that would be left out. But we've already gone over that.
----------------

Good deeds have nothing to do with the first amendments. I don't even know why that comes up.

If no one gets to have the government on their side, then no one will be able to use the gun of government to enforce their religion. If no one gets to use that power, then the only way anyone, religious or not, acting on behalf or religion or not, can deal with another is by voluntary agreement - that is what is desired. Separate church and state and prohibit the initiation of force and all religions (and non-religions, and atheists) are only able to deal with each other peacefully.

Post 35

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 8:31am

Steve:

Under a bias of broad religious tolerance and religious freedom, the nation's freedom can readily tolerate a whiff of Social Scientology permeating the machinery of state-- no matter who among us freely identifies it as religion or not religion.

Just as we can(and should, under a bias of broad religious tolerance)tolerate the mere existence of any undefinable by the state 'R'eligion or not 'R'eligion...

...as long as any such is not elevated to the official 'The' 'R'eligion of the Land-- including 'No 'R'eligion at all.'

...or, as maybe only I believe, that 'R'eligion becomes the core foundation of one of the two primary parties of political power in the nation, as well as three-quarters of the core foundation of the other!

The left is concerned about the ascendency of 'The Religious Right'... and yet is nearly impervious to the same concerns over 'The Religious Left.' As in, read Scott Nearing's "Social Religion." from 1906.

In the past, this nation has flirted with a Princess on the Pea definition of 'establishment of religion.' The merest whiff of religion was hunted down with an axe and expunged from the machinery of our state, from our public institutions. But when that curious act is permitted to proceed on a narrowly selective basis, the end result is exactly like an anti-biotic that kills only some infections-- those left unimpeded are stronger than ever. The act of only selectively weeding out religion in the machinery of state is to leave the unchecked variants stronger than ever.

The Protestant Church is a concept these days under which no end of splinter sects exist, without there actually being anything like 'The Protestant Church.' In a similar fashion, underneath the umbrella of Social Scientology exist all of the following:

Socialism
Progressivism
Communism
Marxism (a fellow 'still seminal' founder of modern sociology)
...
... and similar "S"ociety centered movements, including the latest incantation of the GOP for the last 50 years.

...all without there being an actual Church of Social Scientology(though the Ivies come damn close.)

They have many things in common, not the least of which is support of and dependence upon a paradigm of forced association, not free association. They are based on "S"ociety, not our societies. They address 'The Economy' not our economies.

And I promise, my only interest in discussing this issue is to raise questions, not answer them.

I fully accept that we all live in a nation, that is trivial to understand.

But, in that nation:

Is there an actual meaningful entity "S"ociety, or are there only our societies?

Is there an actual entity "The Economy" that has any meaningful significance at all, or are there only our economies?

And on the topic of religion, in the context of a nation founded on complete religious freedom, no matter how you or I define religion:

Is there only a single universal answer to the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" such that it is reasonable to pose those questions only as "Why are we here, and what are we all supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

... or, are there multiple pluralistic answers to those questions?

And to try to be clear, I don't mean 'Why am I here?' in the sense of a purpose impressed by another being, but more 'What shall be the purpose that I accept or choose for my life?'

I also don't mean 'should be doing' in the sense "What laws should I obey' but what actions and beliefs should I hold to support the purpose I've accepted or chosen for my life?'

I don't mean those to be free from the constraint of respect for others answering their own questions... but I do mean them to be free from the unwarranted constraints imposed by those same others. There is a peer-peer responsibility that comes with living in a political context dedicated to individual freedom-- a responsibility that, when abdicated, justifies intervention by the state with force if necessary. That is, or at least, should be, IMO, the basis for our laws, of which we need a minumum.

Subsets of answers to those questions readily include, via free association, folks joining groups to consider only 'we' forms of those questions. Subsets of answers to those questions readily include "because of the actions/wishes of a Supreme Being" and "Whatever the Good Book says." But those are subsets; the central idea of religious freedom is that none of those subsets should be permitted to run roughshod over religious freedom, and in so doing, eat individual liberty and freedom.

None of them, else, there would be just one of them, thus making the 'we' form of those questions considerable as a basis for our politics. In our political context, I don't think so.

In a political context based on individual freedom, the one universal binding belief that would protect all of our freedom would be our dedication to our mutual right to ultimately be free from each other, except by free association. This is a principle that the herdists/tribalists/collectivists abhor with every fibre of their political being, and which is under constant attack, and so, cannot be said to be a universal binding belief in our political context, and in fact, is pretty fringe today.

And so, what takes its place in our actual modern political context? Is it, "We get what we can take; we keep what we can hold?" (A. Philip Randolph, US Labor leader, but applicable to Raytheon as well...)

Is it "We are, after all,our Brother's Keeper?" from the old Mike Wallace/Ayn Rand interview from 1959?

Is it 'whatever 51% say it is today.' per our recent downshift to pure unfettered democracy?

What do folks think some of those driving central ideas(plural) are in today's politics?

(Joe's board is an excellent place to discuss many of them, where folks openly do so without the usual nonsense found all over the internet. Thank you for having us, Joe--and I'm reading your book.)

regards,
Fred

Post 36

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 12:39pm

Fred,

You asked, "Is there an actual meaningful entity "S"ociety, or are there only our societies?"

In one sense there are no societies - with or without a capital 'S,' because there are only individuals. But we do join individuals together, mentally, in artificial categories, like the people of Montana. Or the Society of Colonial Dames, or Black Americans or American society or upper-class society.

In each case we are to understand that commonalities exist that make the particular grouping of individuals a group that we can name and in some cases the named category can be of the type "society" and that the individuals may not share other commonalities beyond being human beings.

It might be a useful tool when it we are cautious in its use - which means remembering that it is only an 'it' in our minds and that no matter how many fascinating relationships arise out of human groupings, psychology, cultural and political activities, etc... there still is no 'it' when you take away the individuals.

So there is no concrete entity 's'ociety' or 'S'ociety because they are concepts of a relationship. (Well, technically, not true for the Colonial Dames since they may have an actual building, an organization registered with the state, a membership list, etc.)

Often there is the understood primary common-denominator but the point of the discussion will often be an implication that there also share some other trait. But before one even gets to that level of discourse, they have to convert the discussion from "society" to "people" - for example. Someone says, "In American society we value free enterprise." This has to be converted to people in American value free enterprise, and at that point we can point out that some do and some don't. And that is the point where one could explore different societies within American society. We do, after all, get to make up these categories.

But it gets more complex. Because people often aren't talking about a grouping of people using 'society' as a short hand method of identification... they start talking about an 'it' - a thing.

Society is not just the people, but it is often spoken of as if it were something extra, as in someone saying, "Society is harmed by our failure to take our laws more seriously." The question arises, "Is there something that is harmed that is so separate from individual human beings that we could name that harm?" For example, if we were talking about culture rather than society I could include things other than humans as a part of a culture - like the educational system which includes parts like books, computers, schools, etc. We could talk about the educational system being harmed when a culture is in decline. But I don't see that with society.

Does this match your thoughts on society?

I tend to find a lot of value in thinking about cultures, but rarely use the concept of society.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/29, 3:11pm)

Post 37

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 1:53pm

Steve:

Yes, exactly.

In our political context(I hope)we freely form societies, plural, based on free association. We do it all the time, for no end of reasons:

PETA is a society. The 82nd Airborne is a society. Mobil-Exxon is a society. The folks who bring us Outback Steakhouses are a society. The aggregate of all such in our political context has one pressing 'need', and that is, to continue to enjoy the right to be free from each other under a model of free association. This is especially apparent in the case of PETA and the folks who bring us the Outback Steakhouses...

And, as you point out, within the context of any one of those pluralistic instances of societies, it does make sense to refer to 'the society' aa it represents a group formed under free association.

But in general political discourse, that is not the 'S'ociety that many appeal to or speak for when they generally argue about what is best for "S"ociety. That is a leg lifting tactic-- to hypothesize a non-existing higher authority far above us all and then jarringly speak for 'it.'

It is entirely possible to speak for 'a society.' individual societies often have rules and representation and limited contexts under which is suitable for their leaders to speak for 'it.'

And, we as a nation have rules and representation and limited contexts under which it is suitable for our leaders to speak for our entire nation. But that is for sure not every context and every subject and every form or manner of human effort, creativity, or activity. We don't lose dominion over our lives simply because we elect state plumbers to keep the necessary plumbing of state clean and free flowing; we do not as a nation concede dominion of our lives to the God "S"ociety or any God for that matter under a model of forced association by our political context.

When political argument drifts to what is best for "S"ociety, it is imagining an entity that has only ever been described as something akin to the Holy Ghost.

Society, from the latin, socius: ally, companion, as in 'known associate.' Under a paradigm of free association, we all choose our socius, and we possess every tool acknowledged in the 1st Amendment(including and especially free speech)to aid us in freely selecting our socius.

There is not just one such selection, it is not made for us, pre-chosen before our birth, a singular 'it.' We are free to choose friend from fool, no matter how we freely define either, under what Joe describes in his book as a 'broad definition of morality', the source of judgement for what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is not, who is friend and who is fool. Otherwise, there is just one such.

The herdists/tribalists/collectivists assert otherwise, it is core to their political beliefs and active political pursuits, and those beliefs and pursuits eat our mutual freedom; they define totalitarianism.

There is another issue with 'The Economy' as a term of political art; as a term of science, it is severely flawed, or at least, misleading. We may think we mean 'the aggregate of all economies, which each are inter-related to varying (and unknown)degrees(including none at all), but that aggregation leads to no scientifically useful insight; on the contrary, it leads us away from insight and towards gross misconceptions(totally akin to basing our decision as to how to best cross a stream based on its aggregate characteristics, such as 'average depth...')

mentally, we don't do that for 'the weather' even though we refer to 'the weather' and not 'the weathers.' It is clear from context when references to 'the weather' is appropriate; we never refer to 'the weather' and mean, as context, the national 'the' weather; that would clearly be absurdly inappropriate. It is less obvious, but still the case, that the same is true for 'the economy.' Even, more so, because the nature of economies is that they can coexist in the same geographic location and still be entirely separate economies.

But moot, because it also serves as a political term of art. Power grubbers will have a much harder time convincing the nation to willingly give them the power to 'run the economy' if it is really identified as a them, and for which there is little obvious prayer of them actually running 'them.'

And so, we learn the long, hard way -- by watching them publicly fail to run the 'it' they claim exists as an 'it.'

regards,
Fred

Post 38

Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 3:24pm

"But in general political discourse, that is not the 'S'ociety that many appeal to or speak for when they generally argue about what is best for "S"ociety."

Yes. Technically, it is a logical fallacy they commit, but it is done in a way that evokes the emotional context used by religion... making something seem greater than the individual - to put an aurora of the sacred about something.

(But the fact that they use a bad argument to justify some project or expense or restriction doesn't mean much. There will always be bad arguments. Some are more effective than others, and take longer to put down, but all of them need to be attacked as bad arguments. In other words, I'm still adamant that nothing in these last few posts changes the understanding that religion, as mentioned in the Bill of the Rights, is not the way to attack these bad arguments in the legal arena.)

Post 39

Monday, October 3, 2011 - 6:26am