Friday, 13 April 2012
-
Your Beliefs Are Officially Untrue
One commenter on a recent post said that he doesn’t see the state considering the church as direct competition. I believe this is untrue both in principle and in fact; in principle because for a liberal state the only truth can be that all are free to believe what they want so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to believe what they will, and in fact because the political theorists behind modern liberalism explicitly regarded the church as a competitor.*
Standard method of pledging allegiance to the flag until Hitler ruined the gesture.
The perfect illustration is the official policy toward conscientious objectors when the draft was in effect. Pacifists who applied for conscientious objector status were often tested to ensure that they were really committed to their beliefs (sometimes friends and family were interviewed, church membership demanded, etc.) but could ultimately be deemed conscientious objectors. Christians who believed in the just-war doctrine and refused to serve on the basis that the current conflict did not meet the just-war criteria could not be deemed conscientious objectors.
Why is that? Because in this case, pacifism could be regarded as a privately held belief (“I cannot justly engage in violent acts”) that did not intrude on anyone else’s privately held beliefs about violence or justice. Just-war doctrine, on the other hand, cannot be so regarded; it is necessarily a belief that intrudes upon the public square (“This war is unjust; nobody can justly engage in it”). As such the first is a valid religious belief, and the state will not force you to violate it; the second is out of bounds as a religious belief, so the state cannot exempt you from military service. The price one pays to have religious rights is to admit that they are officially untrue; what is true is the creed of liberalism, that the public square is transcendent of any or all gods.
Or, in more explicitly religious terms, so long as you are willing to sacrifice the truth of your beliefs on the alter of the common good, the liberal, tolerant, rational state will accept and protect you from illiberal, intolerant, irrational religions like Islam. And if you will not lay your religion on the alter of liberalism, you are setting yourself up as the enemy.
*Hobbes integrates both church and state into his Leviathan; for Hobbes the state is the church, and must legislate both law and doctrine. Hence for Hobbes there are precisely as many churches as states and no transnational church. Rousseau and Locke, on the other hand, create the liberal private/public distinction by disentangling church from state to precisely the opposite degree.
-
recommend
- recs 5
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to SirNickDon's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in SirNickDon's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (13)
Hi Nick! :)
@bakersdozen2 - Hi! I wish I had more time for Xanga! How are you?
Hi, this is over my head, but I do recall conscientious objectors briefly. I recall that they were willing to do medical service in the military. Some during Vietnam moved to Canada to avoid the draft. I was asked to join in college and I turned down the recruiters who came to the high school. If I joined it was for 4 years as I recall and only 2 years to be drafted.
I did not become a Christian until I was 30. It seemed that churches I attended supported the war efforts and our armed forces.
I I am not an intellectual. It seems the Bible says in the N.T. that no matter where we are born, we should try to obey government and do good. I guess if someone thinks something like war is a violation of God's teachings, they would have to pay the price if they were brave enough.
We often focus on our countries separation of church and state, but for many countries around the world, their religion is required and violators are punished. I think we have it pretty easy here as to practicing our religious beliefs.
While you were over my head, I did enjoy reading it.
frank
I'm well! I just recently popped back here. Doesn't seem to be as active as it once was... Life! :)
God bless you, my friend!
Good post!
I just cannot get over the old way of saluting the flag! I really can't. Must have been interesting changing that.
Can you imagine the commentary that had happened today? "The salute is being changed? Ugh, we are getting so PC."
"for a liberal state the only truth can be that all are free to believe what they want so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to believe what they will"-How does that conflict with Christianity? To the contrary, I'd argue that God is a prime example of letting others believe what they will.
To me, communist states that ban Christianity more clearly see religion as a competitor, hence their intolerant policies regarding it. Furthermore, I'm not trying to go back to "our Christian founding fathers," but they seem much more classically liberal-minded than people and politicians of today, yet many of them were quite religious.
In the case of conscientious objectors, I'd like to note that conscription isn't exactly a hallmark of a free government. Daniel Webster objected when a draft was sought for the War of 1812: “The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion... Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not... Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?
“Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?”
I agree that when a just war theorist is conscripted, his rights are being violated. The state is overruling his conscience, in essence demanding obeisance that rightfully belongs to God. However, it's not an example of a classically liberal state in action. It's quite the opposite. "The common good" is a concern of the collectivist state, not the individualistic one.Btw, the title seems pretty smug to me. Not very becoming.
Very good post.
Excellent food for thought.
@stuartandabby - Is it any less smug if I also mean my own beliefs?
The Pro Israel lobby is pro war at times and we further confuse the religion issue when contemplating military action against Iran. But this is not the point of your writing is it?
The Just war doctrine is sort of who wins the hearts and minds of the political base. The military action after 9/11 kinda/sorta blamed the Islamists for what happened and spread to Iraq for a very strange round about reason. Why not was this used as an example?
I'm a bit of a Hobbes' fanboy so I'm going to quibble.
"*Hobbes integrates both church and state into his Leviathan; for Hobbes the state is the church, and must legislate both law and doctrine. Hence for Hobbes there are precisely as many churches as states and no transnational church"
My interpretation is that the absolute monarch, had to answer to God, and the subjects had to answer to the absolute monarch.
Religious behavior overall isn't defined by the state, the state defines behavior for the subjects. Hobbes' quotes the bible frequently in the Leviathan, but those parts are usually omitted in political science classes.
I've also been tempted to write an academic paper, arguing that Hobbes' implies that people of more fortunate circumstances should have stricter moral expectations.
I think I could defend my point well, but I dislike purely academic pursuits, I prefer pursuits with more immediate social-political implications.
@SirNickDon - Oooooh. Oh. I now get it. My bad, bro.