Article

2010-09-07 Home Front: Culture Wars

Hitchens: Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2010-09-07 03:57|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Most of the problems he is objecting to are clearly on "the other side of the line", as far as the legitimate interests of government and society go. That is, they go to the personal freedom, no matter how stupid, that people can exercise, no matter what government thinks.

For example, he cites the Mormons, and their previous intolerance of black people *in their church*. Despite his outrage, this is called "freedom of association", for which government and society have no, zero, legitimate role in altering, with the exception of criminal associations.

That is, there is no compelling or even reasonable need for government or society to force you to associate with people you don't want to associate with. And this can be based on race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, body odor, favorite sports team, anything or nothing.

As far as what parents do with their children, it is long established that children are in effect chattel of their parents, no matter what Hillary Clinton thinks. Parents can involuntarily incarcerate their children until the age of 18, and some do, if they want to. And the children have no right to Habeus Corpus.

Only when there are terrible and obvious consequences of putting the child's life at risk, or exposing them to damaging abuse, does the state have the authority to intervene. Getting lethal herpes from a diseased Mohel is unfortunate, but is still not the state's business.

Pre-adolescent marriage and female circumcision is, however.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-09-07 11:02|| 2010-09-07 11:02|| Front Page Top

#2 Alas Moose, it comes down to drawing lines.

The state does have a police and regulatory interest in "public health" and "child welfare", and transmission of infectious diseases to and among infants and children is on the list. Nanny Bloomberg's anti-fat strictures should not be. Marriage age and FGM should be.

With all that said, I take Hitchen's secular point to be that western democracy is the superior method to addressing these issues as opposed to religious law, of whatever kind.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-09-07 13:19|| 2010-09-07 13:19|| Front Page Top

#3 Pretty bad example you chose, Moose. Of all the areas in which an intrusive and corrective role for the federal government, and American society more generally, might be justified, certainly the area of combatting racism is the least objectionable.

Public health and child welfare: these are persistent concerns. The extraordinary damage wrought by slavery, Jim Crow and a century of bitter, violent racial strife: this was a national crisis, in many ways THE paramount national crisis of the American republic. We forget now, but the cost-- social, economic, political, moral-- to America of the broken and scandalous American race system was enormous and could no longer be sustained throughout a Cold War which was fought as much on moral groudns as realpolitik ones.

Damn straight that we should intervene in churches (or mosques, or temples of any kind) that preach race hatred or blatantly racist doctrines. The islamists' hate doctrines are precisely why the Victory Mosque in NYC is so disturbing. No one else gets a pass, either.

Posted by lex 2010-09-07 14:24|| 2010-09-07 14:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Lex - I agree that it's a bad example, but I'll join Moose if the concern is the extent to which there must be absolute silence about freedom of assembly, or the 4th amendment right against seizure. Rand Paul got into some trouble for trying to raise this issue, but the left has framed the "civil rights" argument such that there is NO acceptable alternative argument to the "public" accommodations cases.

The alternative argument is that "private" racial restrictions should be shunned, campaigned against, given no legal sanction, but should not be illegal. But what is the difference between public racism and private racism? Official power?

What does that mean? Does it make a racist church, not a church under US law?

I've always wondered how the US Government can have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia given the 1st amendment prohibitions. The Vatican I can understand, given its secular functions, but I don't see such distinctions in KSA. That, and what is the arab word for secular anyway?

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-09-07 16:10|| 2010-09-07 16:10|| Front Page Top

#5 Hmmph. Hitchens would have been better off writing about he taming and domestication of religious behavior- not faith. Sloppy language on his part, but I have noticed that his thinking isn't always clear on this subject.

Posted by Free Radical 2010-09-07 16:54|| 2010-09-07 16:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Maybe he has faith that civilization improves behavior?

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-09-07 17:10|| 2010-09-07 17:10|| Front Page Top

#7 what is the difference between public racism and private racism?

Not a lawyer here but if your institution serves a large public audience (as opposed to a handful of family or friends) AND receives significant and specific public benefits - for example, tax exempt status, as is the case with a religious institution, or a business permit, as is the case with, say, a country club - then you absolutely cannot promote racial hatred or racially discriminate.

Pinochle game in your private house? Curse and slander all you like. Ain't nobody's bidness etc.

Church, country club, school, restaurant, etc? You're serving the public, and the public has every right to ensure you don't whip up race hatred, this toxic chemical that nearly destroyed our society.

My $0.02, anyway-- again, no lawyer here, just applying sense and a knowledge of history and social dynamics.

Posted by lex 2010-09-07 18:17|| 2010-09-07 18:17|| Front Page Top

#8 Lex - that's a nice summary of the public accommodation cases from the mid-60s, and how the 64 civil rights act worked.

The interesting questions get into the clash between those laws and the 1st amendment treatment of religion. Is a racist church legal? Does it get a tax break?

I think Hitchens is trying to find how our history answers these questions, and how Islam is not yet responsive to that. Whether it will ever be responsive, or whether it can be responsive, as presently constituted are the obvious follow ups. I'm doubtful myself.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-09-07 22:51|| 2010-09-07 22:51|| Front Page Top

#9 Is a racist church legal? Does it get a tax break?

No. No.

Posted by lex 2010-09-07 23:48|| 2010-09-07 23:48|| Front Page Top

23:56 Iblis
23:55 CrazyFool
23:48 lex
23:41 Jeatle tse Tung3356
23:24 Secret Asian Man
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
22:51 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
22:45 USN, Ret.
22:33 Nimble Spemble
22:25 Procopius2k
22:12 Frank G
21:59 Besoeker
21:54 Entertaining Prose
21:51 Pstanley
21:46 bigjim-CA
21:38 Swamp Blondie
21:34 Silentbrick
21:30 Mike Ramsey
21:30 Dale
21:28 Besoeker
21:25 DJ Curtis C
21:23 Barbara Skolaut
21:19 Blackbeard Ebbineng5295
21:17 Muggsy Glink