Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!ittvax!swatt
From: swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: Life in a Judeo-Christian State
Message-ID: <1050@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Oct-83 16:12:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1050
Posted: Thu Oct  6 16:12:57 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Oct-83 06:05:50 EDT
References: tekid.1583
Lines: 116

This discussion raises a fascinating example of why it is necessary to
limit government power.  Pamela Troy is worried about what her life as
a non-Christian practicing witch is going to be like under a
Judeo-Christian state.  Gary Samuelson is frustrated with what his life
as a believing Christian is already like in our supposedly "secular
humanist" state.  Other people have equally valid concerns.

Now what is going on here?  We have several distinct groups of people,
who cannot reach a consensus on matters of religious belief or personal
morals.  Everyone is worried about what will happen to their group of
people if some other group of people should somehow get control of
government power.  Historically, such concerns are amply justified;
true tolerance seems to be even more difficult for governments to
attain than a balanced budget.

There are some things about which all people in a society simply *must*
agree.  For example, we all drive on the right side of the road; or we
all agree that "alphabetical order" means that "a" comes before "q"; we
all agree that a certain green piece of paper with George Washington's
portrait on it is worth 1 dollar, and so forth.

Now I believe it is true that where consensus cannot be reached, and
the subject matter is such that multiple views cannot co-exist, then
there *must* be spatial separation between the two systems.  That is,
driving on the right side of the road is not God-given; it is easy to
imagine other ways of driving (indeed the English are reported to have
invented some :-) ), but given the nature of the activity of driving,
the same location cannot allow both driving on the right, and driving
on the left.  Members of some Episcopal congregations simply cannot
agree whether they are going to use the new prayer book, or the 1928
version (really).  They clearly cannot both be accomodated in the same
service.

Nations are a good historical example of partitioning of space between
two systems that cannot co-exist.  However, even within a nation there
are many different domains controlled more or less by different
interests within that nation.

Now when space has been partitioned between two incompatible systems,
one party assumes control of one side, and the other party assumes
control of the other.  Our capitalist systems have tended to recognize
this by the concept of private property rights.  If it's my pen, I can
fill it with green ink if I want to, even if you believe green ink is
the work of the devil.  Similarly in my home I can sleep until noon and
leave the toilet seats up, regardless of what you and your group deem
proper.

However, private property rights aren't absolute.  People can't use the
privacy of the home to murder their wives, or beat their children.  We
could no doubt come up with an infinate number of exceptions to my
rights to control my own space.  Still the partitioning of space into
"mine" and "yours" has real meaning in terms of who gets to say what
gets done and how.

What the exact division is between those things about which we must
all agree and those things which are properly left to private discretion
is in itself a subject of debate.  Further, it will change over time.
An example is environmental concerns.  Before there was either extensive
knowledge about the behavior of the environment or the ability to affect
it on a large scale, it was rarely a public issue.  Now that both these
conditions have changed, it is seldom a private issue any more.  Still,
unless some paritioning is respected, you simply can't accomodate
diversity.

Talleyrand once advised Napolean that the proper activity of the French
state was to govern the territory of France, rather than attempt to
export the revolution to the rest of Europe.  He was making a statement
here about the wisdom of respecting existing territorial divisions.
Napolean, however, couldn't resist "improving" the rest of Europe, to
his downfall.

On a smaller scale, within our country, there is no shortage of groups
which wish to "improve" society by either requiring some thing they
deem good, or prohibiting some thing they deem evil.  The problem
arises when these groups will not respect existing divisions, or use an
agent which does not respect them.

Government is always in danger of being the agent to impose some
group's view of what must or must not be done on others.  Gary claims
that in some towns regular Bible studies cannot be held without a
permit.  Until relatively recently, literature on birth control could
not be sent through the U.S. Mail.  I just heard of a case brought by
the A.C.L.U. against a town asserting that putting up a traditional
Christian nativity scene violated the separation of church and state.

Now since nobody has solved the real problem of how to get universal
consensus on all these issues, I can't see that having any single way
imposed on us is any solution.  I believe a society as large and
diverse as ours can only survive if that diversity is allowed to
continue.  I believe this is only possible if the spatial partitioning
which permits the members of diverse groups to set up their own ways of
doing things is respected.

Unfortunately, the only way to do this is to curtail the ability of
government to interfere with what goes on in "private space".  As soon
as the power is there, I guarantee you it will be used by any group in
power which doesn't like some of the things going on.

In this context, the distinction between "liberal" and "conservative"
("democrat" and "republican", if you prefer) is seldom a useful one.
In the 15 or so years I've been paying attention, I have yet to see
an adminstration which wasn't eager to "improve" society by requiring
or prohibiting something or another (for their own good, of course).

So the thing to watch is not whether we get a "Judeo-Christian state"
or a "Secular Humanist state" or a "Progressive Socialist state" so
much as what the powers of that state are goint to be.  If the powers
are great, good intentions will count for very little.  Government
power is already much to great; and the society is still full of groups
that want to add to that power if will benefit their pet goals.

Concentrate on reducing government power, or at least stopping the
increase of government power.  The particular politics of whomever is
in power won't matter so much then.

	- Alan S. Watt