Cause, Effect, and Libertarianism
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
America's favorite stupid liberal atheist has sued again to have the Pledge of Allegiance barred from public schools.
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional today by a federal judge ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
Of course, the judge is correct. This problem would entirely disappear were we to remove the phrase "under God" from the pledge, which is likely Newdow's ultimate goal. (And yes, I would like to see that, but there are bigger fish to fry. Read on.) But this problem would also, as I have pointed out before, largely disappear were we to privatize education.
"But that's never going to happen," Newdow might say. Indeed, I suspect that he supports the idea of public education.
Perhaps Newdow ought to consider what I, an atheist who would like public education abolished, would accomplish were I to sue to recover the portion of my tax money that funds ideas to which I am opposed taught in the public education system. Suppose I even filed in the "Ninth Circus" and I miraculously won. Might I succeed in abolishing public education after such takings were ruled unconstitutional?
What long-term effect would this have? Congress, responding to calls by outraged constituents, would just pass a bill that would make it possible to continue doing exactly the same thing.
And who elects Congress?
And so, whose minds must change before any real political change is ever going to occur? Those of a significant part of the population. While the public remains (or becomes) convinced that it is okay for the government to force people to pray, people will be forced to pray. While they remain convinced that education should be "free" and compulsory, your money and your children will be taken from you and educated by a corrupt bureaucracy -- unless you are very well-off, and then you will at least have some say over your children.
Filing a lawsuit such as this will be useful only when it is clear that society might be ready for the desired verdict or at least able to tolerate it. Unfortunately, most people see no harm in the phrase "under God" and rightly (in the sense that he is picking the wrong fight) regard Newdow as a crank.
Newdow is making the same fundamental error as the Libertarians. He thinks that massive political change can be achieved in a republic without a massive change in the dominant philosophy of the people who make up that republic.
Contrary to the Libertarians' wishes, renaming what the people already believe as "liberty" will not magically result in them supporting a proper form of government. Contrary to those of Newdow and his ilk, a few men in black robes will not be able to make them govern themselves properly. Both approaches attempt to substitute a wish for the will of the people. It is this will that must be changed.
Our statist and increasingly theocratic government is not its own cause. It is an effect of the philosophy of the people from which it arises. Win the intellectual war and the politics will take care of themselves.
-- CAV
PS: While I still think this is the wrong lawsuit at the wrong time, Robert Tracinski of TIA Daily offers this interesting bit of commentary.
It is important to remember that America was founded as a secular republic (see my article on this topic at http://tinyurl.com/a2thc), whose founders believed that religion and coercion should never mix. Even more deeply, they were influenced by an Enlightenment philosophy which held that a man's convictions should be based on reason and not on "blindfolded fear," as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it.Updates
This ruling will certainly be denounced by conservatives, but in doing so, they reveal how they have accepted the tenets of socialism, but in a different form. After all, what is the difference between a leftist who claims he knows the right way to distribute wealth and seeks to impose it through the welfare state--and a conservative who believes he knows the right morality and seeks to use government to encourage it?
9-15-05: (1) Crossposted to the Egosphere. (2) Added a PS.
21 comments:
What harm in the phrase "under God" can you see (speaking professionally)?
Vigilis,
In and of itself, the phrase is rather empty, and ritualistic, like the "In God We Trust" on our coinage.
What is really wrong with it is that our government was founded as a secular institution by men who understood the unique ability of a religion with state power at its disposal to persecute nonbelievers and those it regards as heretics.
Even a relatively innocuous phrase like this sets a dangerous precedent: We get used to it and will resist further incursions of religion into the government as a result. And remember, the words themselves are harmless. What makes them bad is that the government is making people say them. It is a samll prayer, but you are being made to say it by a government that is supposed to be protecting your right to utter it or not.
Adam,
Thank you. On the liberals winning their policy preferences via the courts, the fact that many are still in force reflects what I said in the post in that there is not sufficient opposition to them to have them overturned.
Worse still, on those rulings with which I agree, I see it being only a matter of time before the unpopular ones are rendered moot.
In a republic, there is no substitute for winning the battle of ideas. This is what "A republic, if you can keep it," means.
Gus
Yo, Gus, you write, "Even a relatively innocuous phrase like this sets a dangerous precedent: We get used to it and will resist further incursions of religion into the government as a result." First a quibble, I assume you meant "not resist."
Second, what irritates me especially about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is that it was not part of the original pledge. It was added in 1954 as one of the many efforts by the Eisenhower administration to bolster what they saw as the distinctive feature of America, its Christian heritage, that most distinguishes us from those godless atheists in the Soviet Union. (The next year Congress put "In God we trust" on paper money, and in 1956 made that the national motto in place of E pluribus unum.) It's a perfect admission of the intellectual bankruptcy of that administration and of mainstream American conservatism, and it's dishonest in the extreme, as I have read some conservatives argue, that its presence in the Pledge of Allegiance (which was written in 1892, for goodness sake, by a socialist) shows that the Founding Fathers considered the US a Christian nation.
Adrian,
Thanks for the catch. You are correct in what I meant.
Also, I'd thought about mentioning what you point out about the phrase being added during the Cold War, but was in a hurry and forgot about it, so thanks for mentioning that.
Gus
"Filing a lawsuit such as this will be useful only when it is clear that society might be ready for the desired verdict or at least able to tolerate it. Unfortunately, most people see no harm in the phrase "under God" and rightly (in the sense that he is picking the wrong fight) regard Newdow as a crank."
Count me among those who would like to see "Under God" kept in the pledge, Adam's valid point that the phrase was only added in '54 notwithstanding. Granted, I am Catholic (but not a really good one by any stretch of the imagination) who was brought up in Catholic School, reciting it the "Under God" way since I could count my age on one (or two) hands. I also understand that I am not the only person on earth, and that there will be differences of opinion on this.
What I find most troubling about the ruling is that it furthers the irrational crusade being waged by some on the left to eliminate religion from everything (i.e. no nativity scenes, etc).
That Newdow has now become the "face" of athiesm for many of us in the wake of his actions is unfortunate, as the far more lucid analyses of the decision I have read here and elsewhere by people who are also athiests show that Newdow's antics are giving athiests a bad rap.
In your post, you demonstrate a better understanding of the issue at hand than some people on either side of the debate do.
Good stuff. I enjoyed reading it.
Alex,
Thanks for stopping by and for the thoughtful comment.
Your mention of the "irrational crusade being waged by some on the left to eliminate religion from everything" brings up two very important points.
(1) Many of these difficulties would go away altogether were there far less government land (e.g., parks were privatized).
(2) Be that as it may, I find most of the ant-nativity crusaders (heh!) to be animated, not by a genuine concern for the health of our republic, but by ... a desire to attack Christianity, rooted in nihilism.
The left, once a vital and important political movement, has been gutted by nihilim and is intellectually bankrupt.
Their behavior confuses a legitimate concern (See comment on religious persecution above.) with separation of church and state with the gratuitous attacks on religion they have been making for a very long time.
And that is the real danger posed by the left.
Gus
Alex,
Also, on one point from the link you included....
"Obviously, the Constitution mandates that federal Congress may not establish a religion nor may it create a law preventing people from practicing their religion. Which means that a) any given state in this Union may make (in accordance with its own laws and constitution) any decision it wants with respect to religion in schools and b) the federal court system has no right getting invovled."
From the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...." If Congress can't pass a law forcing people to pray, neither can a state.
Gus
Gus,
Good point on the 14th Amendment. I may point the writer of the post I linked to over here to look at this thread as well.
-Alex
Alex,
Thanks. I left a comment there myself.
Gus
I am an atheist raised as a Catholic. I believe in the teachings of the church, but not the mysticism. The comandments, minus the idolotry one, are solid rules for froming good communies. It was these principles that helped our founding fathers come to realize all people have inalienable rights, "endowed by the creator or not," and were the basis for our constitution. The words "under God" just reflect this fact, in my opinion. Where will this end? Will we take "In God we trust" off of our money? Will we have to alter the Declaration of Independance? I think this is nihilism out of control.
Ironic note: Can Newdow's employer refuse to pay him, not wanting to offend his delicate sensibilites by presenting hime with state-sponsored religious symbolism? :o)
"Can Newdow's employer refuse to pay him, not wanting to offend his delicate sensibilites by presenting hime with state-sponsored religious symbolism?"
Brainy, that's hilarious. :)
Brainy435,
Most of the founding fathers were deists, who believed in God, but more in the role of a creator who does not interfere with man's life. Their references to God in historical documents merely reflect that fact, and certainly do not override the prohibitions that these same men placed against the state enforcing religion in the Constitution. Be that as it may, I want to address one comment you make specifically.
"The comandments, minus the idolotry one, are solid rules for froming good communies. It was these principles that helped our founding fathers come to realize all people have inalienable rights, 'endowed by the creator or not,' and were the basis for our constitution."
Let's take a commandment and look at it. "Thou shall not kill." What about self-defense? Where is that permitted in the commandments? "Thou shall not steal." What if someone agrees with you on choosing which commandments to obey, but also drops this one when when he sees something of yours he wants? Is it OK for him to steal from you?
I disagree that anyone can live a good life by simply following orders. In fact, quite the opposite is true. For example, those of us who would like others to respect the right to our own lives don't simply go out and kill other people. And yet, when confronted with a thug who wishes to kill us, have (rightfully) no qualms about killing, if need be, in self-defense. To appreciate why killing is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, one must have a rational understanding of individual rights and know how to apply the concept to different situations.
As for why the founding fathers accepted the notion that men have rights, they were influenced by thinkers such as John Locke, who argued that these rights stem from our very nature as human beings. While the Christians deserve credit for the idea that each individual is special, that religion is not the basis for the ideas of the founding fathers.
Having said that, I also liked your crack about not paying Newdow. His employer can forward his money to me. I'm tougher.
Gus
Yo, Gus, about the claim that most of the Ten Commandments "are solid rules for froming good communies," you write: "Let's take a commandment and look at it. 'Thou shall not kill.' What about self-defense? Where is that permitted in the commandments?" This reminds me of soemthing I read some time ago, though, alas, I was remiss in remembering the details. There was at least one attempt in Congress to have the Ten Commandments declared the fundamental law of the land or the official source of law or something like that, and one Congressman gave a wonderful speech in which he took every single one of the commandments and showed that it was in violation of the Constitution. He was probably one of those godless communist Democrats, so it would automatically be null and void in the eyes of our local power-lusting theocrats, but it was still good.
Adrian,
Interesting. It might be worthwhile to find that one....
I'd like to see how "Thou shall not kill." would be unconstitutional. I can certainly see how it would contradict the ability of our country to wage war, which is mentioned numerous times in the Constitution.
Perhaps its injunction against self-defense would violate the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.").
In any event, I am reminded of another point. What is the Constitution for? While it is good to point out that many things are unconstitutional, it is ultimately more important to show that many of these violate individual rights. After all, the Constitution can be amended (Prohibition, anyone?) or wrong in the first place (Slavery, anyone?).
Gus
"I'd like to see how 'Thou shall not kill.' would be unconstitutional. I can certainly see how it would contradict the ability of our country to wage war, which is mentioned numerous times in the Constitution." This one at least I remember pretty well. Yes, killing the enemy in wartime was one example he gave, and I think capital punishment was another; perhaps self-defense as well. Another bit I remember was the injunction to honor your father and your mother, to which he replied that not all parents are honorable, so this commandment violates people's right to free association. Yep, I definitely should try to find this now.
Yo, Gus, you write: "While it is good to point out that many things are unconstitutional, it is ultimately more important to show that many of these violate individual rights. After all, the Constitution can be amended (Prohibition, anyone?) or wrong in the first place (Slavery, anyone?)." Quite so. That more fundamental approach might actually be what the speech was getting at; the summary and selections I read were ambiguous on that.
In any case, Mr. Newdow sounds like quite a pot-stirrer. One can always do what I did in elementary school, just skip over the phrase "under God." It's not a loyalty oath where you have to recite it individually before a teacher standing in as magistrate before you're allowed to sit in class (if it were, you might suddenly find 90% of the schoolchildren suddenly demanding their rights so they wouldn't have to go to class!).
Finally, I remember reading about a minting error back in 1917 or so, in which a few thousand coins (dollars, I think) were accidentally stamped "In Gold We Trust." They're extremely valuable collectors' items now, of course, but I think we should bring them back. It's sound monetary policy and it's not against the First Amendment.
"In gold we trust!"
Yes. I saw that one in one of my my grandpa's coin collector's guides when I was a kid.
Heh!
Gus
I don't think its fair to say with regards to slavery that the constitution was wrong in the first place. The way I see it, it is very difficult to try convincing somebody that something they are doing is wrong. People can be very irrational and if the founders tried to simply abolish slavery I don't think they would have gotten very far.
In my view, instead of just saying slavery is bad, the founders instead chose to say "all men are created equal, have rights etc" and laid the groundwork for a different kind of thinking that was based of individual liberty. In other words they focused on doing a positive rather than forbidding a negative with the hope that the people would discover the contradiction between slavery and liberty. Before the constitution there could be no chance to eliminate slavery, afterward at least there could be a debate about it.
I'm not suggesting that the founders were consistant opponents of slavery, only that the constitution was, even if those who wrote it might not have known it at the time.
Jay,
You make a very good point with respect to slavery which Thomas Sowell explores in great detail in his Black Rednecks and White Liberals, namely that it would not have been possible to simply eradicate slavery when the Constitution was written.
In that sense, it is understandable why slavery was permitted there. However, in the sense of this fact being inconsistent with the Constitution as a document outlining a government that protects individual rights, it was wrong. If your interpretation of what the founding fathers did is correct, they realized this and hoped for the best (i.e., the eventual debate that ended slavery.). In any event, the Constitution was a product of its times with regard to slavery.
The debate you bring up is consistent with the original point of my post -- that representative government makes substantive change only when its people do, and in that sense, I agree with you.
Basically, in mentioning that the Constitution can be wrong as I did, I was attempting to underscore my point that our government may have been designed to change slowly, but that it can, even on the constitutional level, change for the worse.
Gus
"However, in the sense of this fact being inconsistent with the Constitution as a document outlining a government that protects individual rights, it was wrong"
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was implying that slavery was acceptable. I only meant that I didn't think the constitution endorsed it. I agree that the constitution can be wrong with regards to certain regulations regarding interstate commerce etc, and it would be wrong for the founders to specifically uphold slavery in the constitution but I'm not sure they did, I think they just tried to avoid the issue altogether.
Once you say we all have individual rights, your implying that people of all races have them as well. Even though in practise they were not respected I think the problem was more in the constitution not being followed(or understood) than the constitution itself. Even today people don't understand how to apply it consistantly.
Only after the concept of individualism sunk in could it even be possible to say," If we are all equal, than race doesn't matter", before that it could not be possible.
Jay,
Not to worry, I didn't think you were saying that slavery was OK...
In any case, your comment caused me to dig around a bit to aid my sieve-like memory in composing a reply and I found a very good discussion of slavery and the Constitution here.
Here's an exceprpt on whather slavery was codified in the Constitution.
"The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.
"Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called 'other persons,' are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.
"In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.
"The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from 'Service or Labour' in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from 'on Claim of the Party.'"
In any event, thanks for raising the question.
The discussion here has been remarkably interesting, and has gotten me to do some good thinking in addition to having taught me a few things along the way (either through my own research or from facts introduced by commenters).
I thank you and everyone else for stopping by. (And that's an advance "thank you" for anyone else who shows up later).
Gus
Post a Comment