I was once arguing with Eugene Volokh about the separation of church and state in the US. From his lawyer's perspective, he thought the really important issues at the church-state boundary concerned things like "parochiaid" - direct or indirect aid to religious schools - and probably most legal scholars agree with him.
But from my point of view, the really important issues concern things like "In God We Trust" on money, and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. These seem trivial to people like Volokh, and they're often dismissed as "ceremonial deism". For example, in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, Justice Brennan (dissenting) wrote "such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content".
But now go read this article about Christian prayers broadcast over a loudspeaker at football games at Soddy Daisy, a public high school, in Tennessee. This is a pretty clear violation of separation of church and state, right? Now look at what one local parent, Jim Rogers, uses to justify the practice: "Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion. They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance. You cannot find one aspect of our secular government that doesn’t make reference to our creator."
Mr. Rogers clearly doesn't know a damn thing about the separation of church and state, and I doubt he could explain what "ceremonial deism" is. But he does know something that Prof. Volokh doesn't: small, creeping violations of separation have a lot of symbolic value. Rogers knows damn well that having "In God We Trust" on coins is full of "significant religious content".
Lawyers love to say De minimis non curat lex. But the average person knows that when school children are coerced every day into saying "one nation, under God, indivisible", this is more than just "minimis". That's why people in favor of separation need to speak out against the smallest violation. Every crack in the wall just leads to more cracks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
PBS Frontline has a 3-part podcast titled "God in America"; it provides a lot of background regarding the ideas and reality of separation of church and state, highly recommended.
"Ceremonial deism" is a sop to avoid admitting that the damage is already done and that reversing the decision would be extremely unpopular.
The trouble that decision leaves is two-fold: First, as you mention, it offends those religious folks who want to claim that the USA is a 'Christian nation' in terms of laws & core beliefs and with a fervor bordering on theocracy. Second, it fails to respect non-believers. Deism is still a religious belief.
"Every crack in the wall just leads to more cracks."
Is this different from the slippery-slope argument?
From wiki: "a slippery slope (sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy (but it can also refer to a logically valid argument)."
Miranda:
Among all the other deficiencies in your education, you need to learn to distinguish between arguments based on logical deduction and those based on empirical observation. Good luck with that!
Your last comment was just a diversion, just another way of saying, "Gee, I'm not sure how to respond to that."
Miranda:
I'm terribly sorry -- next time I'll use shorter words so you can understand them!
Miranda, the statement that one crack leads to more cracks was (as you might have gathered from its placement at the *end* of what Jeffrey wrote) was not a premise, but a conclusion; it was not claimed to be a logically proven theorem, but an inference from empirical evidence.
Jeffrey gave an example of how one "crack in the wall" (the use of God-language on currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) has led to another (a public high school having public Christian prayers at its football games).
He then said, giving a general principle of which he takes his example to be a particular instance, "every crack in the wall just leads to more cracks".
It is not any sort of logical fallacy to say: "There is a slippery slope here, and if you don't believe me take a look at this case where someone slipped down it."
Many slopes are in fact slippery, and the fact that "this is a slope, therefore it is slippery, therefore we must keep off it" is a logical fallacy doesn't make it wrong to say when a particular slope shows signs of slipperiness.
Gareth:
You have much more patience than I have.
But you have to be careful. One slippery-slope argument can be the thin end of the wedge.
:-)
Gareth writes: "Many slopes are in fact slippery, and the fact that "this is a slope, therefore it is slippery, therefore we must keep off it" is a logical fallacy doesn't make it wrong to say when a particular slope shows signs of slipperiness."
If you had cared to noticed what I had originally written, you wouldn't have bothered to write your doctoral thesis here. I pasted the following words, "(but it can also refer to a logically valid argument)."
Yeah, Jeffery didn't care to notice, either.
Miranda,
So. I (and, I think, Jeffrey) thought you were accusing him of making an invalid argument. On account of that being the only interpretation of your words that made them worth writing in the first place.
Apparently, that was a silly way to interpret what you wrote. You haven't deigned to explain what your point actually *was*, though, so let's try to guess.
Well, perhaps a super-literal interpretation would be better: you were simply, sincerely, asking Jeffrey to elaborate on his reasoning, since some slippery-slope statements make sense and some don't and you weren't quite sure which category his falls into. But that can't be it, because when Jeffrey and I both offered some such explanation, responded by mocking Jeffrey for not saying enough and me for saying too much.
At which point, I'm out of even halfway-plausible options. Other than this one: You just felt like saying something vaguely insulting but sufficiently content-free that you could avoid having to back it up with any actual thought.
Got a convincing alternative explanation?
The real issue is the difference between the "United States are" and the "United States is".
At the beginning of our country, the vision of the founding fathers was something like that of the current European Union----a loose confederation of states with a weak central government.
Several of the original colonies were established as religious colonies. The Bill of Rights did not actually apply to the States when it was first written.
The loose confederation idea held for awhile, until the Civil War. In 1868, the "United States are" became "the United States is" with the passage of the 14 amendment to the US Constitution, which among other things, required that the amendments to the US Constitution apply to the States as well.
As to "in God we Trust", this was used on some coinage from 1864, but was not made the official motto of the US until 1956, as a way of making a distinction betwee the US and those godless Communists.
Remember that our motto used to be "E Pluribus Unum".
What we should put on our money and in any place that "God" appears is that U2
coexist symbol. That would embody our nations creed of relgious freedom better than anything else.
"Every crack in the wall just leads to more cracks."
Let us say that putting "In God We Trust" on our currency is an example of an early "crack."
Kindly demonstrate that the latter cracks were dependent on the former crack?
Miranda,
Why should anyone have to "demonstrate" that? No one is claiming that it's provable. What I think Jeffrey is claiming, and what I will gladly claim, is that it seems likely on the basis of the available evidence. (Actually, I think Jeffrey is saying something else that *does* amount to something very like proof; see #1 below.)
Jeffrey quoted one of the parents at that school: "They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance." (Emphasis mine.)
So, what does this show?
1. It shows that it is not true, despite frequent claims, that things like having "In God we trust" on the currency and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are mere "ceremonial deism", and "have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". Mr Rogers, quoted in the article Jeffrey linked to, plainly doesn't see them as having no significant religious content.
2. In particular, it shows that some people see such not-so-ceremonial not-exactly-deism as justifying practices like having Christian prayers at public schools' sporting events. (Mr Rogers, quoted in the article to which Jeffrey linked, is an example.)
3. This strongly suggests that *quite a lot of people* see things that way. It doesn't look as if the journalists had to go digging to find someone who thinks what Mr Rogers did; his son is the manager of the school football team.
4. This in turn strongly suggests that things like "In God we trust" and "...under God" make other "cracks" more likely. For this *not* to be true, it would be necessary that although a pretty-much-randomly-chosen parent at this school thinks the way Jim Rogers was quoted as thinking, the school administrators who decided to have Christian prayers blaring from their loudspeakers weren't at all influenced by such considerations. Sure, that's *possible*, but it doesn't seem at all likely.
The fact that it's "strongly suggests" rather than "proves" means that Jeffrey's argument doesn't amount to a rigorous logical deduction. So it's just as well that he never suggested it does.
Now, Miranda, will you kindly explain what was the point of your original comment about slippery slopes? Thank you.
Miranda -
Now look at what one local parent, Jim Rogers, uses to justify the practice: "Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion. They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance. You cannot find one aspect of our secular government that doesn’t make reference to our creator."
--
This is the example provided by Jeffrey in the article you apparently read. Hello? Is anyone in there?
If you haven't seen any other examples of this type of justification for including religion in government, you've been living under a rock!
Hey guys - I appreciate the support, but don't feed the troll.
Miranda has nothing of interest to say, and she says it endlessly.
> "Now, Miranda, will you kindly explain what was the point of your original comment about slippery slopes? Thank you."
Just to make sure Jeff chose his words wisely.
You should know, I'm against Christian prayers broadcast over a loudspeaker at (public school) football games. Does that surprise you?
Also, did you know that God is mentioned in 49 out of 50 preambles to the state constitutions?
Does anyone else feel a sort of nauseating humor in the potential for America to fall under the weight of religious propaganda deployed 60 years ago with the intent of fighting the godless communists?
It's kind of funny to think that one of the greatest periods of public support for scientific progress was concurrent with one of the greatest periods of religious power-grabbing we've ever seen; sobering to realize that some people would consider the latter more responsible for the prosperity and outcome of that period, rather than the former.
Miranda,
Your comment about slippery slopes obviously could not "make sure Jeff chose his words wisely", since he had already written them. I have no interest in your opinion about Christian prayers at football games. I don't think it matters in the least how many state constitutions have preambles that mention God. I think that if you have anything to say, you should actually say it rather than making vague allusive remarks whose only benefit is plausible deniability.
And now I'm taking Jeffrey's advice and giving up on you. Bye.
Jeff,
"one nation, under God, indivisible"
You've transcribed the hilarious pause in recitation. The fools who think themselves wiser than Thomas Jefferson cannot even say the damned thing right.
Gareth writes: "Your comment about slippery slopes obviously could not "make sure Jeff chose his words wisely", since he had already written them. "
Tsk tsk, Gareth. Once Jeff would respond to my initial question, then I will have made sure Jeff chose his words wisely. Or unwisely, as the case may be.
> "The fools who think themselves wiser than Thomas Jefferson..."
Mr. English, do you consider yourself wiser than Thomas Jefferson? Keep in mind that he believed in a deity.
Earlier, I wrote, "did you know that God is mentioned in 49 out of 50 preambles to the state constitutions?"
Is this to be considered a "creeping violation" or a "crack in the wall" of the separation of church and state"? Why or why not?
Miranda, i agree with you.
The US constitution is one of the worst examples of "In God we Trust".
As far as i know, only Israel and Iran can match it.
Do you agree with Pelle, Jeffrey?
Post a Comment