Thoughts in a Haystack

Spoken like a lawyer. If you think the law is going to protect you from the Christian fundamentalists then America is in much worse shape than I thought. How's your First Amendment been doing so far? It's been around for 200 years hasn't it?
 

It's been around for 200 years hasn't it?

Why, yes it has been. Which in itself isn't too shabby for a democracy, oh subject of the Queen and payer of school taxes to the Catholic Church!

In a country that is 90% or somesuch religious, much of it of an agressive sort, it hasn't done too badly in keeping them from utterly overwhelming the rest of us.

And, as a lawyer, I know that the rule of law is always better than the opposite. It was a key idea of the enlightenment that has proved every bit as important for the advancement of the human condition as science has, if not more so. Maybe our peculiar Constitution is not for everyone but it has worked so far for us and I'll not lightly put aside the work of minds like Madison's, Jefferson's, Hamilton's and the rest.
 

And, as a lawyer, I know that the rule of law is always better than the opposite.

I think that depends on the law, right? There are good laws that are obeyed and bad laws that are obeyed. But the important distinction here is about good laws that are not obeyed. That's what I was referring to.

It was a key idea of the enlightenment that has proved every bit as important for the advancement of the human condition as science has, if not more so.

I think laws were around for several thousand years before the enlightenment. You seem to be of the opinion that laws create social order whereas I'm of the opinion that laws mostly reflect, and follow, social norms.

Maybe our peculiar Constitution is not for everyone but it has worked so far for us and I'll not lightly put aside the work of minds like Madison's, Jefferson's, Hamilton's and the rest.

They were smart men but isn't it true that many (most) of their high-minded laws were ignored for a long time? In the case of religion interfering with education, weren't there many laws forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools in spite of the Constitution? Isn't it true that even today evolution has been stripped out of most schools (or watered down) in spite of the First Amendment and all the "victories" in the court?

Isn't it true that atheists have no hope of getting elected to public office in the USA in spite of whatever the founding fathers thought back in the days of the enlightenment? Even Mormons are gong to have trouble, it seems.

My point it that no laws, however good they might be, are going to make people do something they don't want to do. I don't understand this concept of worshiping some 200 year old laws that have been repeatedly ignored throughout your history. How successful was Amendment XV (1870), for example? How well do you think you're doing on Amendments V and VI these days?

And, yes, I can see that your constitution has "worked" for you. I follow American politics fairly closely and I admire your optimism. I wonder what Madison and Hamilton would have thought of Bush's imperial presidency? I wonder if they ever envisaged senators who would be re-elected every six years until they either died or resigned or where convicted of a crime?

I suspect they would be proud of the fact that you (usually) have to be wealthy in order to get elected to Congress or the Presidency. That would fit well with their "enlightened" views of who should, and should not, govern, no?

BTW, I notice that you avoided the original question. If the American Constitution has been so good at protecting you from the Christian Fundamentalists then how come America is the only western industrialized nation that has a problem? How do you explain the fact that religion has much less influence in all those other countries that don't have the benefit of such a wonderful Constitution?
 

Robert Bolt got it about right, didn't he?

Roper So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
 

... the important distinction here is about good laws that are not obeyed. That's what I was referring to.

So, is the 1st Amendment a good law? If so, is it better to have it, though you have to work to enforce it, or better not to have it at all and hope the present state of society is both good and will stay the same? Check out my most recent post. Where exactly has there been major violations of the 1st Amendment that have not been addressed that result in significantly less freedom of and from religion than you have in Canada?

I think laws were around for several thousand years before the enlightenment.

But they were considered gifts to the people by kings who could rescind them at their pleasure (perhaps with some exceptions carved out for barons and other royalty). It was not until the Enlightenment that the idea that law rather than kings should rule.

You seem to be of the opinion that laws create social order whereas I'm of the opinion that laws mostly reflect, and follow, social norms.

Can you think about anything except in black and white terms? Of course laws reflect social norms but it is also true that social norms are shaped by the extent the individuals in society trust and respect the laws and the sort of treatment they expect to get from the government.

... isn't it true that many (most) of their high-minded laws were ignored for a long time?

All laws are broken ... that's the nature of the beast. Why, I bet that even happens sometimes in Canada. The extent that laws are enforced is one of those things that the social norms determine. Speed limits outside elementary schools when kids are coming and going are likely to be enforced more strictly than those on back country roads. That doesn't make speed limits bad laws. Public religiosity was not a social concern in the U.S. before the greater sophistication, diversity and urbanization that followed WWII, which is when the Supreme Court began enforcing rules against it. The thing the Constitution provides Americans is a shared basis of argument. We as a society don't agree what it does or should mean but we (almost) all value it and will swallow our disagreements and follow it. It's part of our social norms.

How successful was Amendment XV (1870), for example? How well do you think you're doing on Amendments V and VI these days?

I didn't know Canada had created a perfect society. Can we send you 270 million people or so and check the results in 5 years? Do we get to check our record against, say, Russia and China and India? The issue isn't whether we should do better (that's a given – and so should you), the issue is whether there is any evidence that we would have done better without the Constitution. You want to try to address that?

As for the imperial presidency, are parliaments really all that more responsive? If so, explain Blair in Britain. Politicians get away with stuff for a while and the pendulum swings – as long as the institutions are in place to permit the swing. I repeat, 200 years or so of democracy ain't bad as the world goes.

I wonder if they ever envisaged senators who would be re-elected every six years until they either died or resigned or where convicted of a crime?

You mean like the Honourable Rev. Bill Blaikie?

I suspect they would be proud of the fact that you (usually) have to be wealthy in order to get elected to Congress or the Presidency.

[Cough] Most of the Founders were wealthy. That's the way of the world. The people who have to work two jobs in order to eat don't have time to run for office in most cases. That sort of thing never goes on elsewhere, of course. All Canadian MPs are poverty-stricken I know. But Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmie Carter could hardly be called more than "well off" before their elections, either.

If the American Constitution has been so good at protecting you from the Christian Fundamentalists then how come America is the only western industrialized nation that has a problem?

What "problem?" Do you think the fact that someone simply believes in religion is a "problem" that government should "correct"? We are protected from their making us attend their church or support their beliefs with our taxes (unlike Canadians). That's all the Constitution seeks to do. If you think the freedom to believe is a bad thing, say so! I'm just as happy to live where I've got protection from religious bigots ... of all stripes.

How do you explain the fact that religion has much less influence in all those other countries that don't have the benefit of such a wonderful Constitution?

I'll try to explain it right after you give any coherent reason (other than "A happens and B happens, therefore ..." ) to think that the Constitution is what makes the difference.
 

I'll try to explain it right after you give any coherent reason (other than "A happens and B happens, therefore ..." ) to think that the Constitution is what makes the difference.

Excuse me? Isn't it you who are implying that your constitution is what makes America so great?

Look at the posting at the top of the page. It sure looks like Constitution worship to me. I'm the one expressing skepticism about your black and white depiction of the state of religious freedom in America and what causes it.

BTW, why do you think the Democrat presidental candidates are falling all over themselves professing their allegiance to some supernatural being? Why in the world would that be necessary in a country that had laws to enforce freedom of religion and freedom from religion?

Just because the law says you can run for President even if you're not a believer in fairy tales doesn't mean that you actually can run for President if you don't kowtow to the mystical man in the sky.

There's a huge gap between what your laws and Constitution say and what happens on the street. It's not a lot different in other countries but at least we don't live in some dreamworld where we pretend to be totally free and run around shouting to everyone else about how great our laws are.
 

I'll not get into a comparison of various countries, as this will almost certainly degrade into a pantomime debate.

Every country is different - they have their own history, ethnic mix, and political circumstances. Some have written constitutions and some don't. There is little prospect of carry out any sensible comparisons.

To an outsider the USA seems to be a country which gets caught up in various enthusiasms - prohibition, anti-communist witch hunts, the individual right to bear arms, creationism, George Bush, Iraq. But still, as one of my work colleagues used to say, "America often gets things wrong, but their legal system usually puts them right ...eventually."

So your First Amendment may well eventually protect the general population from the excesses of the religious nutters, but at only 200 years old it is too early to say!
 

Excuse me? Isn't it you who are implying that your constitution is what makes America so great?

Umm ... NO! Care to tell me what made you think that? I called it "peculiar" and that it might not work for everyone. I did say that if the 1st Amendment was good enough for our Founding Fathers, it was good enough for me but anyone who has seen Inherit the Wind (and had anything approaching a sense of humor) would recognize the intent of that. I certainly admire Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton and many of the other Founders but that doesn't mean they necessarily got it right. We have a Constitution that promises to protect secularism. Supporting and helping to enforce that Constitution will do at least as much for secularism as wearing tee shirts with cutsie red letter "As" on them, which was my point in the first and last place.

BTW, why do you think the Democrat presidental candidates are falling all over themselves professing their allegiance to some supernatural being? Why in the world would that be necessary in a country that had laws to enforce freedom of religion and freedom from religion?

Why, for the same reason that, if a vast majority of the populace were atheists who thought all theists were ... oh, say, IDiots ... politicians who wanted to get elected would play up their atheist credentials. Or if most people were liberals, they'd play up their liberal credentials ... conservatives, conservative credentials ... curmudgeons, curmudgeon credentials, etc. Hey! Wait a minute ... that's called democracy, isn't it?

What alternative are you proposing? That no one may vote in elections unless they swear to consider only government approved grounds for choosing between candidates? Will you deny candidates the right to say why they think the voters should choose them? And just who will decide what criteria are "permissible"? Shall we have a vote?

Atheists don't get elected because people can freely choose not to vote for them. We don't have any way (nor should we) to make them vote for atheists anymore than we have (or should have) any way to make people in certain areas vote for blacks or in other areas to vote for whites or a thousand other criteria people may choose.

There's a huge gap between what your laws and Constitution say and what happens on the street.

This is totally weird, Larry. Are you saying our laws pretend that atheists have the right to be elected and everyone has a duty to vote for them? They have as much right to run as anyone and they have as much right to lose as anyone else. Just take our current crop of candidates ... PLEASE!

It's not a lot different in other countries but at least we don't live in some dreamworld where we pretend to be totally free and run around shouting to everyone else about how great our laws are.

Speaking of dreamworlds ...