About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Debunking Creationisms

Religious Liberty vs. Collectivism

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

 
It's the same as the previous story. The law is basically telling people they cannot discuss their faith publically even when it is done in a peaceful, non-threatening way. Even as an atheist with many criticisms against religion, I find that nothing short of outrageous.
 
The issue at hand is not about church and state as some left-wing politicians may see it. The issue is freedom of expression. It's been a developing trend since the turn of the century. Conservatives and progressives alike seek policy that favors or dissuades certain groups of people over the others. It's classic collectivism, trying to mold society by regulating (or sometimes dictating) how people can gather and express themselves. But the core elements of a free society do not reflect collectivism. They reflect individual rights.
 
Freedom of expression cannot be masked by the church/state issue. The freedom to expression one's self and beliefs is a fundemental right that extends to religion. Any person of faith be they Christian, Muslim, or New Age has a right to stand in a public or private square and express their religion in any way they see fit so long as it is peaceful and does not infringe on the rights of others. This means things like praying in a park, preaching on a street corner, or discussing spiritual matters with others in an open place is every bit as protected as political speech. This extends to public schools as well. In a free society, there is no public institution where free citizens have to leave their rights at the door in order to serve some politically correct agenda. If people wish to discuss religion in a school, a public park, or even a court house they should not be dissuaded from doing so.
 
The constitution is clear. The government is not to prohibit the free expression of religion or endorse any one faith over the other. That means the government cannot grant special privlidges to certain faiths people happen to like. It also can't give public money to someone and have them use it to carry out their own religious activities. So if the people in the article were doing what they did using government resources, then that would be an issue. But it wasn't. These were people just freely discussing their beliefs. To deny them that is to pervert the spirit of separation of church and state and stand against the principles of religous liberty and freedom of expression.
 
I am proud to be an atheist. I feel it is wrong whenever the government uses its powers to further religious agendas as it has often done with the Christian Right. But I am never in favor of policies that would prohibit people from freely expressing their religion. As long as it's peaceful, they have every right to their faith as I do to my non-faith. Collective idealists stand against this under the veil of political correctness. If they can harass one religous group, they can harass them all. And that completley goes against the spirit of a free and just society.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's a phrase that has been echoed by philosophers and casual observers alike. Whether in latin or any modern lanugage, the meaning is the same and it remains every bit as pertinent across the board.
 
Who watches the watchmen?
 
Who guards the guardians?
 
Who will protect us from the protectors?
 
For as long as there have been people in power, there have been abuses in power. It permeates government, religion, and economic institutions on many levels. The United States, despite being one of the most dominant nations in history, is not immune to this. Over the course of the past century, big government has taken over and ideologues in religion and business have each moved in to stake their claim. Abuses in power was one of the key reasons why the colonies first rose up against their British overlords. In time our own abuses of power have become just as (if not more so) egregeous.
 
Such abuses are nothing new. In ancient times the strongest armies pilliaged and raped freely when there was no one to oppose them. Kings and emperors embarked on lavish personal endeavors, forcibly enslaving their people if necessary. Religious leaders have condemned countless innocents with decrees, fatwas, inquisitions, and moral panics. Ruthless businessmen and women buy off people in government and law enforcement to act on their own accord, robbing others of their resources for their own personal profits. The story is the same. They were the watchmen and nobody was watching them. They didn't have to answer to anybody and the people were defenseless to resist. It's an unfortunate product of human nature. When there is a chance to abuse power, people take it.
 
The United States was founded on principles directly opposed to abuses of powers. But today it is possible for the president of the United States to wage a war on his own accord without the approval of congress. It is possible for the NSA and FBI to illegally tap phones and communication networks without warrents or oversight. It is possible for the CIA to create secret prisons where they can torture people without any accountability. It is possible for judges to ignore the constitution and impose the state's will on the populous. There are no more checks and balances. There is only competition as to who can abuse their power first and most efficiently.
 
In areas where such abuses are more difficult, it brings out the better sides of human nature. Take the free market as an example. In this institution, there are many watchmen watching over one another. This is because business is not allowed to use force. It must use persuasion to convince people to exchange their goods for the ones they have to offer. If one does not produce quality goods, they are overtaken by those that do. It helps drive people to be better with each other. A business that treats people well will get more business and the customers who wish to take part in this system that treats the businesses well will get the better service. It's competition and the freedom to choose how to conduct themselves that makes the free market more prosperous and efficent than big government or overzealous religion.
 
Another area where power is hard to abuse is when the power is established at the community level. When order comes from the bottom up instead of the top down, people are free to coordinate and commune with whoever they wish. When government and churches focus their efforts at the local level, they are held accountable by the very people they see and interact with. When abuses do emerge, they don't go unnoticed because in a community people are more affected. It's why limited government works so much better on a local level. It's also why communities with smaller, community centered churches are less deviant and more orderly. When it grows to a level where the power can be directed impersonally to people that power brokers never even meet, the chances for abuse grows.
 
Big government has always been clumsy with power. Even in countries where corruption is low, these large bodies of power create effects of complacancy and dependance. History shows that when people are not free they become hopeless and destitute, bringing down their society and their culture. Religion has had share of abuses as well. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic church wielded great authority over state and personal matters. It led to church leaders starting wars, ordering executions, and fostering intolerance and prejudice. In modern times the mullahs of Islam have fallen into the same pattern, insighting their own brand of war, violence, and prejudice to serve their own ends. They may claim they're being held accountable by god or some supernatural deity. But whatever deity that may be, it does little to stem such barbaric behavior.
 
So in the end who really is watching the watchmen? People continue to see these abuses in many cases, but they are powerless to stop them or unwilling. The founding fathers of America believed that by empowering the people, the excesses of government should be stemmed. The people must be on some level be able to respond to the force of government with force of their own, be it by arms or legal rights. That's why they championed the rights of the individual and used the philosophy of a republic to restrict the power of the state. In addition to a separation between church and state, the institutions that most abuse power could be held in check.
 
It is only when people forsake these freedoms that abuse of power grows and propogates. And once it gets going, it is hard to stop. That's why whenever any individual or institution exercises power in any way, the people must remember that old latin saying:
 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
It may mean the difference between freedom and tyranny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Republic vs. Democracy

On February 9th 2009 at a press conference, Barack Obama was quoted as saying "The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose." This is all well and good, but Obama made one critical mistake in his choice of words.
 
That lively debate and freedom of expression is not a definitive product of a democracy. It is a product of a republic. It says something about a country when it's elected leader is touting his country as a democracy when it was actually founded as a constitutional republic. Most people don't know the difference, but it is an important issue to consider.
 
First off, the word "democracy" has it's origins in Ancient Greece. It roughly translates into "people rule." That is to say it is rule by the people. Ancient Athens is the best example of this. Citizens routinely voted on matters of the day, ensuring that no one person had too much power. This all sounds well and good and some of these principles were mentioned by the founding fathers. But the reality is, democracy has one major pitfall. It is subject to majority rule. So if a majority of people want to take away one person or a group of peoples' property, family, or money they can do so. And if enough people are convinced to hand over their voting power to a dictator, then nothing is stopping them. That is why many of the founding fathers looked at democracy with such contempt. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." He and the other founders understood that if they allowed democracy in America, the end result would be tyranny.
 
As for the word "republic," it also has origins in Ancient Greece. It rougly translates into "public thing." That is to say it is rule by a set body of laws not subject to majority opinion. It was first recommended by the Greek philosopher Solon, but it wasn't implemented until the time of the Ancient Romans. As a republic, Rome became wealthy and prosperous. Much of the opulance that it would later be known for  during it's imperial reign (which was not a republic) was made possible by having a government that limited power to it's proper role and left the people alone to live and prosper. This is what the founding fathers went with. They understood if they were to have a government that would grant the people the most freedom and liberty, a republic was the way to go. Democratic principles went only into electing represenatives to uphold the constitution, not to rule as rulers. But that notion has since been forgotten.
 
Throughout the 20th century, gaining particular momentum in the New Deal, government has been expanded beyond it's limited role largely as a result of the people demanding more. America has since taken on more features of a democracy where people want to be able to exert power to serve their own agenda. People representing the poor lobby for the government to help the poor. People representing oil companies lobby for the government to help oil companies. And people representing dogmatic religious agendas like the Religious Right lobby for the government to help impose their standards on the populous. All of this flies in the face of the constitutional republic that the founders established. Nowhere in the constitution does it specify that the government was to support groups of people over individuals. The focus was and always has been on protecting each individual citizen, granting them under the law the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Government's role is to protect life, ensure individual liberty, and protect one's property. No one individual is to be favored or given special privlidges over any other regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It's only when democracy is allowed to grant special privlidges to certain groups that these rights are lost under the guise of 'serving the people.'
 
The founding fathers understood that whenever democracy reigns, tyranny will eventually follow as the majority imposes their will on the minority. Yet nobody today debates the laurels of whether or not the merits of democracy are contending with the true intent of our government. There are already examples of tyranny creeping in. The passage of proposition 8 in California which banned gay marriage was a perfect example of a majority imposing their will to strip an equal right from a minority. And if more ballot issues emerge, more tyranny can be expected.
 
The fact remains. America is losing it's way. It's heading down the same path Ancient Rome went down when the people allowed the republic to degrade and ended up an oligarchy ruled by greedy and decadent emporers. Democracy is a fine idea on paper and so is socialism. But in practice it leads only to tyranny. It is only through upholding the republic on which America was founded on that true liberty and prosperity can be enjoyed by all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate Over a Christian Notion

Much has been made since President Barack Obama made the statement that "America is not a Christian nation." Various opinion writers and columnists have expressed their criticism and at times outrage. This issue comes on the heels of a recent article in Newsweek ominously entitled "The Decline and Fall of Christian America." Many have had plenty to say on this issue as well including Town Hall's own Brent Bozell, Star Parker, Terry Paulson, and the ever rediculous Doug Giles.
 
 
Terry Paulson: Put Your Bet On God Over Newsweek
 
 
There is a lot to be said over this issue. Ideologues and zealots cling to the notion of a Christian nation the same way they cling to their invisibile deity. It's no secret that the Christian Right has been a major political force. They have worked tirelessly to try and impose their values and worldview on the rest of the nation, completely disregarding the unavoidable fact that such a goal completely conflicts with every notion of a free society. And they'll use any excuse to justify their tyranny, including twisting the facts of history.
 
The issue of America being a Christian nation should have been dispelled in 1797 when the 5th congress unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli. In this historic document it says outright in article 11:
 
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
 
And this is a time when many founding fathers were still alive. Now some would debate this is bogus because many of the founding fathers were still devout Christians. This is true, but they still saw the need to dispell any notion that America is a Christian nation just as many nations of Europe were considered Christian nations at the time. It goes along with the constitution which says in the first amendment that no official religion will be established and none will be endorsed over the other, even if it is practiced by the majority of the population.
 
But many ignore this and will go to great lengths quote mining the founding fathers, espousing their religious convictions. But as with all quote mining, it proves nothing. The personal views of the founding fathers were irrelevant to the concept of America being a Christian nation. At no point did they thrust their views into the constitution. To say this nation is Christian just because the founding fathers were Christians is a misnomer. All the founding fathers were also white and had English roots. But nobody says America is an English nation even though it was based largely on English legal traditions. Nobody says it's a white nation either (although some racist groups still do). Just because the population was Christian doesn't make America a Christian nation.
 
It's also worth noting that the government of the United States was not founded on any Christian traditions. America was founded as a constitutional republic and the very idea of a republic was first espoused by the Ancient Greek philosopher, Solon. And the first real republic was set up by the Ancient Romans and many of the ideas they built upon found their way into the constitution. But nobody says this is a Roman or Greek nation.
 
Others will say the concept of natural rights that include life, liberty, and property are somehow inspired by divine laws. But this is inaccurate as well. The ideas of natural rights came from philosophers like Voltaire and John Locke, who were products of the enlightenment. And one of the key facets of the enlightenment was moving away from religious dogma and favoring more secular views to govern society. Many of these thinkers were also Christians, but their faith was secondary to their ideas. Their faith was personal, not something to be subsidized and imposed by state forces.
 
The notion of America being a Christian nation is as absurd now as it was back in 1797. But the Christian Right will continue to contend this in order to maintain whatever credibility they can so they can further their agenda. They easily forget that no matter what America was founded upon or what the beliefs were of the founders, the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain true for every citizen. It is the right of every man, woman, and child in this country and no one group deserves to take credit for it. For Christians like Brent Bozell, Star Parker, Terry Paulson, and Doug Giles to maintain that is not only wrong, it's hopelessly arrogant.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »