From the Economist: The present past: 150 years after the end of the civil war, the states that were once Confederate remain distinct

The British Magazine tries to figure out why politics in the South is so different than everywhere else.

The conclude that the answer is in the regions religiosity.

- Click here for the article.

Religion is a better explanation of southern exceptionalism. The civil war divided most of America’s Protestant sects, says Mark Noll of the University of Notre Dame. Both the Presbyterian and Methodist churches split into northern branches, which opposed slavery, and southern branches, which did not. Even after slavery ended, theological divisions persisted. In the north, which saw mass immigration from all over the world in the decades after the war, Protestant churches had to find some accommodation with Jews, Catholics and, eventually, non-believers.

In the South the share of those born outside America (which was low to begin with) actually fell after the civil war. New migrants moved west or north but rarely south. Because of this, southern churches could hold more traditional views without challenge. Those tented revival meetings that were such a feature of southern Protestantism were not intended to win converts so much as to purify and strengthen beliefs that were already there.

The Southern Baptist movement, which is strongly associated with the “values voters” who favour the Republicans, has its origins in support for slavery. Southern Baptists have long since updated their views on race, as the many black Southern Baptist pastors attest, but the movement’s social conservatism endures. And southerners are unusually observant: Utah is the only non-southern state where church attendance is as high as in Dixie.

When piety is grafted on to a small-government political philosophy—57% of southerners think the government does “too much” and only 37% think it should do more, according to Gallup—it explains much of why the South remains different. The link between the war and the appeal of the Reagan revolution is harder to make, but it is not implausible that antipathy towards the federal government may be connected to the loss of a quarter of all white male southerners aged 16 to 45, who were maimed or killed in a war against it.

If this is right, then there are two possible futures for what was once the Confederacy. The continuing in-migration of large numbers of northerners, including many African-Americans, may transform the rest of the South the way it has already transformed Virginia and Florida, which are both swing states these days. Or the South might continue to expand its cultural and religious reach westwards, as it has into Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico. Or both. Apologists for the old South like to point out that the last action of the war, a skirmish in Texas, resulted in a Confederate victory. It’s not over yet.

From the Dish: Where The Good Book Gets Read

No cities in Texas made the cut?

Click here for the story.

The most and least religious metropolitan areas

The Atlantic maps them out. The break down mirrors the cultural breakdown across state we discuss in 2306. Big surprise that no Texas cities were at the top of the list of religious areas. Mostly Utah and the Deep South. The west coast, New England and upper Midwest were least religious - along with Colorado. This almost looks like the electoral map of 2012.

Recent stuff from the Gallup Poll

The Gallup Poll never stops. Here are three recent items it sent out. The first shows that the number of people who answer "no religion" when it asks about religios preferences has increased 3% points since 2008.


And support for the death penalty has varied over time, but we are now about where we were in 1936 in our support for it.

And finally, there has been a 5% increase in the gap between those who identify or lean towards the Democratic Party.

Thirteen Religious Societies

Here's a reminder that the American colonies - and the early states - were each oriented around their own unique religious identity. One that did not necessarily fit the identities of other states. The federal government prohibited religious tests, established churches and limits on free exercise - as well as not requireing religious oaths to hold office - as a way to be neutral towards religion. To not pick sides between the different denominations in the states.

The author brings this up to draw parallels between the religious parties in the Middle East, and what the US went through two centuries ago:

We should remember that the Thirteen Colonies that made the revolution starting in 1776 were religious societies. They had undergone the Evangelical Great Awakening, and millenarian and anti-papal movements were rife. Religious Americans fought the British for religious as well as material reasons. While the framers of much Federal law and of the Constitution were most often Enlightenment Deists and relatively secular in outlook, the mass of Americans were otherwise. Even the First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbade Congress to designate an official American religion, was considered solely a Federal initiative, and states often had Established religions. Massachusetts had an established church until 1833, and its constitution still mentions requiring state and local institutions to raise money for and support the Protestant church.

The Founding Fathers mostly wanted a separation of religion and state (Thomas Jefferson certainly did), and this aspiration won out in American law and practice over time. The people who deny this separation are being silly. I’m making a different point, that Federal constitutional law covered a relatively small part of society.

So, religious Americans fought for the Revolution, and the post-revolutionary states often used state resources to support Protestantism. Anti-Catholicism was an unfortunate enthusiasm of many of the revolutionaries, and King George III was often seen as having Catholic tendencies, because of the offer of religious freedom to Catholics in Quebec once it was added to Canada, and because high church Anglicanism was hated by American dissidents.
Here are other resources regarding religion in colonial America:

- LOC: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.
- Religion in Colonial America.
- Religion in Colonial America: Trends, Regulations and Beliefs.
- Religion in the Original 13 Colonies.

Judge tosses atheists' lawsuit over Perry rally

If you read this Chron story, you'll notice that the judge did not rule on the merit of the argument - is it in fact a violation of church and state for the governor to be involved and promoting this event - but the fact that the people who brought the suit lacked standing to do so in the state of Texas. The actual argument regarding whether this is or isn't problematic may not be resolved, but here's a link to the group's complaint.

On Translating the Bible

In 2301 -- in our discussion of the freedom of the press -- we covered the political consequences of the invention of the press: the fact that people could become literate and challenge how certain texts were related to them: Biblical text primarily.

Andrew Sullivan draws attention to a Christopher Hitchens' article on the political background of the King James' version of the Bible.  

Is Koran Burning Protected Free Speech?

Apparently some in Congress aren't sure.

From the Washington Post:

Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. -Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation that Terry Jones’ inflammatory Koran burning may be an example of free speech that should be curtailed during a time of war.
A few assorted comments on the case:

- The Problem With Burning Qurans

- "Free Speech Is A Great Idea, But ..."
- Qur'an burning free speech in America?
- OUR VIEW: The limits of free speech

Creationism v Evolution

More constitutional fallout from the Delaware debate: Can states compel school districts to teach creationism alongside evolution? Recent Supreme Court decisions have found this to violate the establishment clause.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut

Thanks to the Delaware Senate debate we've had another in our periodic dust ups about the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state." I though it appropriate to bring it up, since religion is the first subject of the First Amendment, which we've just covered in 2301 and the interpretation of "establishment" and "free exercise" is up to the Supreme Court, which we will soon enough cover in 2302.

Rather than speak about the issue, it might be better to let the participants in the original discussion speak for themselves. Here is the text of the letter sent by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, expressing their concern that they, as a religious minority, might suffer at the hands of a religious majority capable of controlling government (that concern should sounds familiar):

Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our Constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God as raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. 

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson

And here is Jefferson's reply:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Let's discuss.

Have a Question About Religion? Ask an Atheist.

They, along with agnostics, apparently know more about religion than the religious.

Religious Tolerance Then and Now

Here's a link to a story that points to controversy in 1879 regarding the construction of a Catholic Church in an unfavorable location.

Is the current controversy regarding Islam simply the latest in a series of similar controversies going back centuries?

- Anti-Catholicism in the United States.
- Anti-Semitism in the United States.
- Guy Fawkes.
- Anti-Mormonism.
- Anti- Jehovah's Witnesses.

Religious Freedom, Fingerprinting, Public Safety, and The Mark of the Beast

A Texas school teacher risks losing her job for not allowing herself to be fingerprinted because she believes it is the Mark of the Beast, as referred to in the Book of Revelations:

From the Lufkin Daily News:

McLaurin, a devout Christian, firmly believes that the digitization of her fingerprint is the biblical equivalent to the "Mark of the Beast" as mentioned in the book of Revelation — Specifically, Revelation 13:16 - 17 and 14:9 - 11, which states, "He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand and on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name... Then a third angel followed them saying with a loud voice, if anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God... He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the lamb."

She does not believe that it is just coincidence that Revelation speaks about only those with the "mark on his forehead or finger" will be able to buy or sell, since only those teachers that comply with the fingerprinting requirements will maintain their jobs, Skelton said.

Related stories:

- ACS Blog Texas Public School Teacher Sees 'Mark of Beast' in ...
- Costly fingerprinting required for Texas public school workers ...
- Fighting the Biblical Beast in Texas: Evangelical Kindergarten ...

Faith Healing, Child Protection and the First Amendment

Here are a couple of stories to add to our discussion of the limits of the free exercise clause:

- Prayer Trumps Medicine in Decision over Child Death
- Parents in prayer death get probation, some jail - Yahoo! News

In one, parents are not punished for the death of a child when they prayed rather than call doctors to save her. In the other, the parents were punished. These cases came from different states, which may help explain the different outcomes. They are the verdicts in trial courts. The case that ended in a conviction is going to be appealed. Here is an old case involving an appelate decision from California:

- Court Decides Christian Scientist Can Be Tried in Her Child's ...

There appears to be no national ruling that establishes a common rule that covers all such cases. As far as I know the Supreme Court has yet to rule on such a case.

The Nones

A current survey predicts that in 20 years, 25% of the population will claim to be disinterested in any religion. Here are predictions about the consequences for party competition:

1. Secular voters will become an increasingly important component of the Democratic base.

2. American politics will become more polarized.

3. Republicans will have to choose between becoming a more overtly religious party and reaching out more seriously to the growing secular middle.

4. If secular voters become more aggressively antireligious, the Democrats' newfound faithiness faces big challenges.

A Christian Nation?

An ex-student sent me the following YouTube of Obama's recent speech in Cairo where he states (roughly) that we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but are also a Jewish nation and a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a nation of non-believers.

He wondered if this was blasphemous and whether it might weaken the country.

What would you tell him?

And what about this segment from the Treaty of Tripoli (1796):

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I'm confused.

Parental Rights vs. the Protection of Children

We discussed the case of Daniel Hauser in class today. He's the cancer stricken kid whose mother does not want him to have chemotherapy. She apparently wants him to have a natural cure and is heading to Mexico to get it. Child protective services in Minnesota had taken her to court to force her to allow her son to have the chemo. By not doing so she has been argued to be placing her child in danger.

So the question we considered was whether she was in fact doing so and whether the state was overstepping its bounds.

To make matters more interesting, the family is a member of the Nemenhah religion. This raises the potential question of free exercise violations if the state does not allow her to seek a treatment that is inkeeping with her religious beliefs. Precedence allows the state to intervent if religious practices place children in danger. The greater interest of society in keeping children safe overweighs the parents free exercise rights (sounds like the polygamy case from a year ago). The question is whether that is in fact what is happening here.

A warrant for the mother's arrest has been issued so I expect more on this soon.

The Right to Conscience and Public Order

If you are taking 2301 with me, consider this Stanley Fish article mandatory reading. It touches on the concept of the right of conscience and the ability of individuals to not just think for themselves, but to act on these beliefs, especially if those actions puts one in conflict with the law.

It concerns Obama's repeal of the Provider Refusal Rule, which had allowed doctors and others from performing certain functions (like filing out a birth control prescriptions if you are a pharmacist) if they had moral opposition to doing so.

Why shouldn't you be free from doing certain things if you were morally opposed, as an individual, to those things? What rights does society, acting through its government, have in limiting this individual freedom?

Fish reaches back to Thomas Hobbes, who Fish claims held:

that if one gets to prefer one’s own internal judgments to the judgments of authorized external bodies (legislatures, courts, professional associations), the result will be the undermining of public order and the substitution of personal whim for general decorums: “. . . because the Law is the public Conscience . . . in such diversity as there is of private Consciences, which are but private opinions, the Commonwealth must needs be distracted, and no man dare to obey the Sovereign Power farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes.”

As I take it, the shared conscience, as enshrined in various public and private entities, must take precedence over individual consciences because it provides for the steadiness necessary to civil society. Individual will is arbitrary and capricious.

This even applies to religious objections:

“As citizens, we should all be concerned when freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution (e.g. freedom of conscience and religion) are blithely swept away” (Susan Martinuk, Calgary Herald).

But while these freedoms may be enshrined in the constitution, they have not fared so well when they have come in conflict with laws passed with an eye toward maintaining order and predictability. In a series of cases stretching from Reynolds v. United States (1878) to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court has ruled that when the personal imperatives of one’s religion or morality lead to actions in violation of generally applicable laws — laws not promulgated with the intention of affronting anyone’s conscience — the violations will not be allowed and will certainly not be celebrated; for, says the court in Reynolds, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

But while these freedoms may be enshrined in the constitution, they have not fared so well when they have come in conflict with laws passed with an eye toward maintaining order and predictability. In a series of cases stretching from Reynolds v. United States (1878) to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court has ruled that when the personal imperatives of one’s religion or morality lead to actions in violation of generally applicable laws — laws not promulgated with the intention of affronting anyone’s conscience — the violations will not be allowed and will certainly not be celebrated; for, says the court in Reynolds, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

The last part especially is pretty radical. In case you didn't get it, the Supreme Court in 1870 basically stated that the rules of civil society are superior to religious doctrine. If a law is neutral to religion--does not single one for punishment or special status--it takes priority.

Agree? Disagree?

No Politics From the Pulpit

By a vote of 20-8, that's your verdict.

I'm a bit surprised by the result to be honest. Please explain why.

Poll Question: Sarah Palin and the Separation of Church and State

44 of you voted on the followign question:

Sarah Palin's belief that the Bible is literally true threatens the separation of church and state, if she is elected.

10 agree
34 disagree