Of Plymouth, Puritanism, and Pluralism

The Opinions (Right or Wrong) of Lee Malatesta: Freedom of Religion in the Myth of the Pilgrims

My old friend Lee has written up an insightful post on the tension inherent between the religious devotion of Puritanism and the ethics of religious pluralism and liberty of conscience, in which he debunks yet another bit of patriotic mythmaking, one usually directed as those whom we do not deign to disabuse of certain happy notions peculiar to the young and inexperienced.

I have no criticisms (which may come as a shock to Lee) and only three useful notes to add:

• Of Plymouth Plantation is available in full at Google Books. Enjoy!
  
• An Underground Education by Richard Zacks has a relatively concise overview of religious persecution practiced by the Puritans, starting on page 228.
• Martha Nussbaum on Roger Williams. A far more worthy figure upon which to construct a national myth of religious liberty is, of course, Roger Williams. This podcast is a lecture from an eminent scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, in which she explains the roots of our distinctively American tradition of religious liberty for all citizens.
  
  

Of Bism and other -ism's

Bism is a fictional world of the unfathomable depths, where fantastical creatures lead lives barely imaginable to us surface dwellers.  So it is with almost all the other “–ism’s” which I’ve come across.  Agnosticism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, &  Egoism might make a certain degree of sense to me, but only insofar as they comport with everyday (as opposed to philosophical) pragmatism.  Admittedly, there are a few –ism’s which I don’t mind having around for the sake of recreational reading and the occasional flash of insight.

That said, I find most –ism’s abominable, execrable, irrational, onerous, & unnecessary to boot.  Slip-shod, ad-hoc, jury-rigged, super-glued agglomerations of disparate, ragged-edged ideas hanging together solely on account of the strong force of human credulity.  Sometimes, though, you just have to tack the “ism” onto a religious/political ideology just to make sense of the situation.  Hence “Islamism” to denote (radical) politicized Muslim nationalism, and “Zionism” to denote politicized Jewish nationalism.  Their goals are something like Muslim and Jewish nation-states, respectively, with some degree of argument over the extent to which the ultra-orthodox will dictate policy and personal morality.  Why, then, do we not have a widely-known term for the Christian nationalist equivalent to these ideas – Christianism!

Andrew Sullivan is leading the charge in defining and spreading this meme, and thank all the gods for him.  No doubt this term will prove much more useful than the ill-begotten “Bright” in framing the issues in important debates.

 

Saving the Planet

Just when you thought Sally Kern has wrapped up the award for greatest confusion between politics and piety:

"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that,"

- Michele Bachmann, quoted by TPM

Thank you, Minnesota. Nice to have the national spotlight off Silly Sally, if only for bit.

Pray for Rain

I approve this message. If only the radical right would stick to influencing politics through ineffectual prayers, we'd have no need of Americans United or any other church/state watchdogs. Wooo!

Sally Kern: God Warrior

While the Wikipedia entry for God Warrior is already taken by a woman widely known for her paranoid delusional ranting against non-Christians, Oklahoma’s own hometown heroine is not to be outdone. Yesterday Sally Kern lit up the AP wires once again on account of her militant message of ‘Judeo-Christian’ values; values such as intolerance, homophobia, islamophobia, reintegration of church and state, and the deference of all upright citizens to an apocalyptic ethical scheme spewed forth from a homeless street magician and motivational speaker with pretensions to greatness.

So, where exactly does one volunteer to stump door-to-door for Ron Marlett?

Progress in Religious Liberty

James Madison, in a letter to Edward Livingston dated July 10th, 1822:

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

Here is the part to bear in mind when imparting the profundity of the founders to future freethinkers:

Perfect separation! Not partial separation, not merely neutrality in funding various religious programs, but perfect, utter, absolute separation between affairs of state and church.

How sublime!

Tues. Tee

This one reminds us all of an important truth:

The unfortunate truth here is that even we hardcore separationists can narrow the scope of our thinking to the exclusion of other equally legitimate concerns, such as freedom from non-sectarian authoritarianism. Mao and Stalin managed to crush liberty without help from the churches.

Of course, the flipside is that there is no freedom so self-evidently precious that the rabbis, priests and mullahs have not attempted to squelch it in the name of piety.

On whom one ought to indenture

Atheists can have good character after all!

[see original letter for full context]

Consider for a moment the implications of the letter excerpted below. Not only was the illustrious Father of our Nation willing to hire indentured Germans of any religion or none (thereby giving them the opportunity to become American citizens) but he also recognized that personal disposition and moral character are attributes wholly independent of one's particular religion or sect.

George Washington, in a letter dated 24 March 1784:

---

I am informed that a Ship with Palatines is gone up to Baltimore, among whom are a number of Tradesmen. I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me.

I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.

I would however prefer middle aged, to young men and those who have good countenances and good characters on ship board, to others who have neither of these to recommend them, altho, after all, the proof of the pudding must be in the eating.

If only our modern politicians were so enlightened!

That Infamous Engine of Grief (Part I)

Earlier I alluded to my hometown's proud tradition of prominently displaying a certain engine of grief as a sacred homage to human sacrifice - wherever and whenever possible, regardless of state law. Here for once we have a good news story of a cross restored to its proper place on church property, rather than being held in trust by the taxpayers for the unconstitutional propagation of the Christian religion. Everyone wins!

The monument formerly situated on the state fairgrounds now resides on the narrow DMZ between Quail Springs Baptist and Quail Springs Church of Christ. Your intrepid reporter has confirmed that it remains there to this day, braving no less than a massive church picnic in order to do so.

ACLU vs. BSA

Why is the ACLU "attacking" the Boy Scouts? Simply put, because they believe the American government (at every level) ought to cease subsidizing the BSA's longstanding pratice of religious and sexual discrimination against minority groups such as homosexuals and infidels. As ACLU Executive Director Linda Hills put it, "The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways. If they truly are a private religious organization, free to engage in any form of discrimination they choose, then they are not entitled to a government subsidy. Tax dollars should not be spent to promote intolerance."

Perhaps conservatives such as Steve Boggess would like to make the case for having substantial federal, state, and municipal subsidies to private religious groups, but it will be difficult to square such an argument either with existing federal, state, and municipal antidiscrimination laws or with the traditional conservative vision of minimal government in general and highly circumscribed government interference in the marketplace in particular.

Far from being "adamant in their goal of erasing God from not only this privately funded organization" the ACLU is trying to ensure that truly religious organizations remain truly private and hence free from both government subsidy and interference. The BSA is quasi-private and quasi-religious, yet they expect the American government to continue publicly funding their activities despite their flagrant disregard of uncounted civil rights laws. You can have the cake or you can eat it, folks. Take your pick.

: ACLU, Church & State

When politics, religion, and science collide...

You end up with codswallop like disclaimers on evolution textbooks in Oklahoma public schools. The original evolution disclaimer has once again reared its ugly head in the Oklahoma legislature, and this time it is up to the state senate to pass it along to the Governor or allow it to once again recede into the fevered imagination of its creationist sponsors.

A scathing yet scientific critique of said disclaimer may be found at Dr. Kenneth R. Miller’s website. If you want the politicians to stick to politics and leave science to the scientists, probably you should click here.