Sunday, October 31, 2010

Doug Indeap's Note To Matt Barber

He informed me of it here. I'm reproducing it because it's a very good comment:

Matt,

History plainly is not your long suit. To claim your notion of “reality” is “indisputable fact” on which “[t]he historical record is unequivocal” is to reveal how little you know of what you speak.

For example, you make much of John Adams’s observation that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, yet make no mention of his signing (and the Senate’s unanimous ratification) of the Treaty of Tripoli, which declared in pertinent part that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Perhaps that historical record is a might more equivocal than your passion enables you to see. As a lawyer, you will appreciate too, I trust, that the Constitution provides that treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land. Appeals, no matter how often repeated, to unofficial, informal comments by some founders do not, indeed cannot, trump the declaration of the United States in a treaty that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

To go so far as to brand those seeing things differently than you as “un-American” and “anti-American” reveals only your odd notion of what it means to be American. You appear much keener on championing your religion than your country.

While many founders were Christian of one sort or another, care should be taken not to make too much of individual founder’s religious beliefs. In assessing the nature of our government, the religiosity of the various founders, while informative, is largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government in the sense that it is based on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

When you next presume to lecture others about American history, you would do well to drop the quotation you attribute to Patrick Henry. It’s fake.

9 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Not much of a rebuttal, building a whole thesis out of context on the Treaty of Tripoli.

Brad Hart said...

I liked the rebuttal. After all, anyone who builds an argument on Adams' "Constitution made for a religious people" quote has an equally weak thesis.

bpabbott said...

I think the tit-for-tat goes to Indeap. At least he referenced a governing document.

But t4t is a rather unproductive approach to discussion.

For me the ethos of the post is in "Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government in the sense that it is based on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did."

I see a parallel between Locke's use of reason to preserve and protect religion from corruptions with the founder's application of secular government to preserve and protect liberty ... including religious liberty.

The suggestion that religious liberty is at odds with the Founder's Christianity doesn't hold water for me. If the Founders genuinely believed and embraced their Christianity, then there is no need to stack the deck.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price. October 9, 1790.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Yes, one can go trolling at world Net Daily to find an argument weak enough they can beat.

But when Mr. Indeap argues

As a lawyer, you will appreciate too, I trust, that the Constitution provides that treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land.

...he forgets that Tripoli broke the treaty, which is why Jefferson sent the Marines to the Shores of Tripoli to kick their ass.

The treaty is not in force.

And if one were actually interested in the intentions of the Founding era, they'd notice that they're no evidence the language of the treaty was seriously debated or considered. It was written by our ambassador and quickly approved by the senate, since the Tripolitans had a gun to our young nation's head and we were not able to defend ourselves yet.

But we don't really care about the truth of the matter, do we? It's all about winning.

But even on that sophistic level, Mr. Indeap's argument is no better than the idiot fundie he thinks he's more clever than.

So what we have here, Mr. Hart, are two bad arguments, not just one.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, Ben, I agree as far as it goes, but Indeap did not engage barber's main thesis, that America was founded on a "judeo-Christian worldview," and that he's quite within his rights and the Founding spirit to say

It's time for men of the cloth – as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of "religion and morality," are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.

Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.


The Treaty of Tripoli, and Barber's bum Patrick Henry quote are not essential to the argument.

bpabbott said...

Good points Tom.

However, I don't favor the description that "Judeo-Christian worldview" part. At least not given the doctrine such a phrase implies in our modern context.

I'm more inclined to think of the founding as being a product of a Judeo-Christian culture.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, that's the million-dollar question, Ben.

But the argument's quite strong that "endowed by their creator" fits with "Judeo-Christian worldview"" better than with any other, theologically and historically.

And if we no longer have that "Judeo-Christian worldview"," when did it change? Even William O. Douglas admitted that

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.

in ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).

When did we change that? [Surely this "Supreme Being" is not Spinoza's God. There's no historical backing for that.] What case? What law? What day?

Anyway, this is more a conceptual and rhetorical discussion. Still it's what makes the culture wars tick.

A very good discussion here

http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27124

with recognizable suspects---Garry Wills and Doug Kmiec. You can guess who I think gets the better of the argument, but the title is proper---Case Closed?

bpabbott said...

Tom,

I may very well be making an objection to as strawman. I'm a bit sensitive to those who associated Judeo-Christian Worldview with Judeo-Christian "Theology". For that reason, I prefer to replace "worldview" with "culture".

I still prefer monotheistic Providence (or something to that effect) because it avoids any theocratic implications, but it also misses the mark.

I suppose my objection to Judeo-Christian has the same basis as those who object to Separation of Church & State. Meaning I'm worried someone infer a meaning not intended (i.e. to the point of violating religious liberty).

Tom Van Dyke said...

"Monotheistic Providence" works for me, although it conceals more than it reveals. How much shall we put history in service of current politics?

My remarks are informed by a parrallel discussion with Mr. Boggs over at Jon's other blog, so I'll just pop in some remarks from there, about our current political reality:

A lot of this “Christian nation” stuff is rhetoric and sentiment: once push came to shove, the actual theological differences would come to the forefront and concerted action would be impossible. And again, keep in mind 25% of the country is Catholic, which splits 50-50 between the parties. One might agree it’s a “Christian nation” but when the rubber meets the road, no Catholic wants to be ruled by fundies.

And the white evangelical vote splits only 70-30 or so, less monolithically than black evangelicals or Jews. [There certainly is a black evangelical agenda, allied with the 30% of whites, which takes the form of liberalism and "social justice." My "pluralist" position is that that's just fine, too, that people vote their religious conscience that way.]