That Old Time Religion

I first heard this song sung while watching the film Inherit the Wind, Hollywood's portrayal of what is popularly called the Scopes Monkey trial, which was a peculiarly American event over what should be a non-issue which it seems will forever be an issue here in these United States.  It didn't make a favorable impression, nor was it intended to, I think.  The religious in that film appeared stupid and bigoted and likely were meant to; so, they bellowed the old song in a fiery and threatening fashion.

It seems it will not go away, this kind of religion; not here, in any case.  Though it is somewhat odd for a Catholic politician to be stoking the flames, one knows that someone will, somewhere, somehow.  Inevitably, there will be a concern particularly regarding sex, which is always a fascination to the evangelical it seems.  But now the righteous are also concerned about that disease or condition they are pleased to call "secularism."

Clearly, there is a kind of religion which conceives of God as a law-giver, issuing commands bewilderingly comprehensive which must be followed and which govern human conduct.  This kind of religion presumes that God is the source of morality and that the failure to believe in this kind of God fosters immorality.  It isn't clear to me why this is the case.  There is quite a bit of evidence which, when impartially considered, establishes that high standards of morality have and can be derived and followed without the need for divine commands.  Perhaps those who believe that such commands are needed are simply expressing the fact that they themselves would not be inclined to be moral unless the wrath of God would be roused if they were not.  It's more probable, of course, that they fundamentally mistrust their fellow humans and feel that belief in an angry God is needed to keep others in line.

A secular nation need not be anti-religious, however.  A secular nation should be religiously neutral, in more than one sense.  That is what is intended by those who insist that church and state should be separate.  We do not have a problem because the state is anti-religious in this country, though there are evidently some who would like it to be.  The problem we face in this country is that there are religious people who are not satisfied with a state which is neutral towards religion.  They want the state to be religious--provided, of course, that it is appropriately religious; that the religion it espouses is that old time religion.

This problem is part of what Sidney Hook addressed when he wrote of the latest "failure of nerve" about 70 years ago.  Hook was atheist; I am not.  Nonetheless, I have the same concerns he had regarding those who want a religious nation.  It's already been noted by many that groups like the Taliban want such a nation or nations as well.  That's not necessarily to compare our evangelicals with the Taliban, but to point out that a religious nation which conceives of God as issuing divine commands governing human thought and conduct will necessarily be one which will not tolerate certain beliefs and certain conduct.  That kind of nation will not be democratic.

The Scope of Judicial Authority

The late philosopher Sidney Hook has some interesting things to say regarding the authority of the Supreme Court in his book Paradoxes of Freedom, published in 1987.  Essentially, he claims that the authority exercised by the Supremes in determining adopted legislation to be unconstitutional is (1) not granted by the Constitution, and (2) fundamentally undemocratic (perhaps anti-democratic is more appropriate).

Hook seems very fond of Thomas Jefferson.  I'm not.  I think he was very much a hypocrite, in various ways, and particularly regarding political power.  His actions when he had power were quite contrary to and went far beyond the limits he claimed so frequently should be placed on those who held power when he did not.  There's no doubting his significance in American history, though, or his brilliance.  In any case, his problems with the judiciary when he presided over the United States were many and serious, and I don't know that he was quite the objective analyst of judicial power Hook seems to think him to be.

Hook does have a point, though.  The Constitution doesn't appear to say anything regarding the power to hold legislation unconstitutional which was assumed by the Court long ago and is and has been exercised so avidly by it and lesser courts ever since.  And, there is something not very democratic about the Supremes, and the judiciary generally, having the last word regarding the validity and enforceability of legislation adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people.  The Supremes, of course, are appointed for life, and there is no significant check on them once they ascend, as it were, to the bench of the nation's highest court.  They may die or grow incapable, or may be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, but that is all.

Hook argues, rather persuasively I think, that the (legendary in some respects) Founders never intended this result. 

I think there are some controls in place.  I have rather more confidence in the force of precedent than Hook does, and think the judiciary is, generally in any case, naturally conservative in the sense that judges don't feel comfortable in actively tinkering with the law by the time they reach the higher courts.  The Supremes seem to have had the ability to control themselves in most cases (I know there are some who would disagree with me on this point).  But it's interesting to consider what would happen if a group of 5 or so determined "lawmakers" somehow found their way onto the Court, and began actively to strike down legislation in pursuit of a particular agenda which could not be justified in the manner legal decisions normally (but not in all cases) are supported at least on their face, i.e., by established law of some kind.

Just what could be done in that case?  Such activity doesn't seem to be in the nature of a high crime or misdemeanor.  I think all kinds of extra-legal pressures would be employed, assuming the agenda turns out to be unpopular.  But it would seem that the only legally effective recourse would be a constitutional amendment expressly restricting judicial authority.  There are of course other possibilities depending on how just extreme matters become, such as lower courts refusing to follow Supreme Court decisions, popular uprisings, dissolution of the Union, but I like to think that these are unlikely, even in our remarkable time.

An Engaging Rant by Edward St. Amant

I suppose his Atheism, Skepticism and Philosophy might also be described as a screed.  In any case, I downloaded it on my admirable Nook, and am currently reading it.  I find myself in sympathy with much that he writes.  He has the disconcerting habit of referring to "women and men" (instead of "men and women") which is not seriously objectionable, but has an annoying whiff of political correctness about it.  He also has a somewhat bewildering habit of citing the years of birth and death of the great figures of philosophy, and others, he more often than not denigrates.  Their respective life-spans do not seem of great importance generally or for purposes of his book.  More significantly for me, his only (passing) reference thus far to pragmatism as a philosophy seems uninformed--he is apparently among those who think, incorrectly, that it sanctions subjectivsim and cultural relativism, a view which I think is defensible only if one hasn't read the pragmatists, or has limited reading to Rorty, who was not one but periodically claimed he was, or James, who was an important figure in pragmatism but was a kind of extremist in certain things.

The Web tells me he's written a good deal, largely fiction it seems, but tells me little about his education or background.  I don't know if he's a professional philosopher; since he's critical of them, I doubt it.  I find him engaging, of course, because we agree that modern philosophy no longer seems concerned with the problems we encounter in life or, to the extent it is concerned, has abandoned reason as the most intelligent means by which to resolve those problems.  Of course, I'm no philosopher, as someone named "Anonymous" noted kindly in response to a prior post about Heidegger.  So the fact that St. Amant may not be one either doesn't in and of itself disturb me.

To summarize his points as I understand them:  Those who are generally referred to as Continental philosophers glorify the irrational and even indulge in mysticism, particularly the "Teutonic" philosophers such as Nietzsche, Hegel and Heidegger; those who are generally referred to as Analytic have narrowed the scope of philosophy to such an extent that it is essentially irrelevant, and can be said to have abandoned reason to the extent that they have accepted Hume's position that we just can't really know whether, e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow.  The Analytics due to the narrowness of their focus have abandoned philosophy as a guide to living and solving the problems of life, and have as a result abandoned the field to the irrationalists and the mystics. 

I'll be interested in where he takes this, but can't help but note that his criticisms of modern philosophy and views regarding what should be the concerns of a philosopher are similar to those of the pragmatists with whom I'm primarily familiar, such as Peirce, Dewey and Hook.  I think he may be too critical of religion qua religion, though think his criticisms of organized religion are apt.  The belief in a God need not be destructive or necessarily contra reason, even if it cannot be established by reason.  Being prejudiced in their favor, I'll note the stoics as representative of such a belief.

He's also clearly engaged in a defense of Western culture and democracy, from what I'd call a classical liberal perspective, and I find that engaging as well.  I suspect he may be a libertarian, although I hope not a Libertarian.  We shall see.  In any case, it's far more likely I'll finish reading his book than I'll finish reading Maimonides' Guide.