Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe
As was reported on PT and elsewhere, Chris Rodda recently decided to make a pdf of her book Liars for Jesus available for download free. Just today, the National Academies Press announced that it would make available pdf's of nearly all its books, also free for download. NAP is the publisher of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council.
Not to be outdone, I have decided to make a pdf of my book No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe available for free download here.
I published No Sense of Obligation in 2001, after several years of research (and considerably aided, I might add, by the Gingrich shutdown of the Federal government). Alas, I was four or five years ahead of my time and (apparently) too soft on religion. Indeed, one well-known publisher took me to task for expressing moderate sympathy with liberal religions and refused to take a second look at the book after I had removed the offending 1.5 pages; he probably would have labeled me an accommodationist had the word been in vogue at the time.
At any rate, go ahead and download the book if you like. I will expect nothing but your harshest criticisms. If you read the book and want to remunerate me for my work, please order a copy from your local independent book dealer or download a copy directly from the publisher.
105 Comments
OgreMkV · 2 June 2011
Thanks. Just as I was wondering what I was going to be reading on my summer travels.
robert van bakel · 2 June 2011
Denyse O'Leary at UD flogs her brain fart, 'The Spiritual Brain' in almost every post, but never for free.The idea that a person would simply like their ideas to be read without the need of monetry return escapes Protestants generally, and Fundies specifically.
Why is it that in generosity of spirit, plain desire to educate, lack of duplicity, and simple honesty, atheists, agnostics, and PT readers beat religious UD types hands down, all the time?
Klaus H · 2 June 2011
Is any of this stuff in the EPUB format?
robert van bakel · 2 June 2011
I know Denyse is some species of Catholic.
Flint · 2 June 2011
When is Chris Rodda's second (much less third) volume coming out? I'd even pay to read them.
The Tim Channel · 3 June 2011
Thanks for the download.
Unquestioned reliance on religious authority is the key problem facing science and secularism today. Indeed, it is my opinion that this preconditioned belief in authority is what drives the clown-car known as the Republican machine these days.
Their latest example of pearl clutching (Weiner's weiner) has come off the rails. The only reason it ever got any traction in the first place is THE AUTHORITY figures in media that are genuflected to by the overlapping magisteria of deluded Fox news views and religious fundamentalists.
Weiner cleared. Web footprints traced back to Dan Wolfe, a known anti-Weiner zealot.
Details:
http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/case-closed/
Enjoy.
Dan · 3 June 2011
Wow, waiting paid off! Your book has been on my Amazon Wish List for almost ten years! Whenever I put it in the cart, I always find a cheaper deal and move it back to the wish list.
Robert Engle · 3 June 2011
Klaus H
Just use Calibre http://calibre-ebook.com/ to convert to another format. It's free and works good for my ebook library.
Jedidiah Palosaari · 3 June 2011
Every book I look at that I'm interested in, it seems is only available for download as a summary. Am I missing something?
Henry · 4 June 2011
Thanks for the freebie.
Henry · 4 June 2011
mrg · 4 June 2011
Frank · 4 June 2011
@Robert Engle
I also use Calibre, and have tried converting the PDF into another format. Calibre is very poor at handling conversions from PDFs and makes a complete mess out of this book as well. It would be much more helpful to have it as a document, even Word. Then it is much easier to convert into a format readable by my Kindle.
kk · 4 June 2011
Rodda gets into Barton's Wall of Separation argument and figures because Jefferson was pleased that Connecticut ultimately adopted a constitution well into the 19th century that stopped it from having an official state religion that somehow this means the US Constitution created a case Wall of Separation from its inception. That idea is a pure 20th century invention/fabrication by leftist judges.
The US Constitution is designed to limit the power of the central federal government. The Supreme Court has repeatedly changed the rules we operate under without authority - beginning with it seizing power not granted to it by the Constitution in Marbury vs Madison. From there they never looked back and our freedom's erosions continue unabated.
Rodda is a total bozo because she misses the most obvious point - it was 100% legal for the state of Connecticut to have an official state religion under the US Constitution for decades. They could decide to have one or choose not to but this was always the call of the state. Many other states had official state religions as well and got rid of them legally over time with no intervention by the SCOTUS. The 9th and 10th Amendments are still the law of the land regardless of the political and religious agenda of Panda people.
The 1st Amendment binds only the federal government from creating an official state religion for the entire USA. Thus the Supreme Court has stood this Amendment on its head to mean the exact opposite of what it says on its face. Repeatedly, starting in in recent decades, it has invented law out of whole cloth in ruling after ruling that "distorts existing precedent" as well as "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life." The humanist world view uses the legal system to assault religion and freedom.
IOW ... most Panda people hate religion (as well as science). You and the left and ACLU types are using the legal to process to shove your own religious and political views down the throats of the rest of us rather than let all ideas compete in the public market. Rodda ought to come clean and acknowledge that the ACLU was founded by a communist whose intent was use the law as a club to destroy America. Even Panda people must realize we are in a culture war. She should also acknowledge that Obama's mentor/father figure in Hawaii (Frank Davis) was an active member of the communist party as well.
The objectors to these facts who will respond and claim that they are Republicans, Christians and Libertarians have no idea to what extent that they are subject to propaganda - does a fish perceive water. Try placing evolution under the same scrutiny you give ID. Neither point of view is proven by the facts.
mrg · 4 June 2011
Oh, how tiresome.
Dale Husband · 4 June 2011
mrg · 4 June 2011
Flint · 4 June 2011
But seriously, did anyone think Rodda's careful scholarship would change anyone's mind? I notice that the birthers, having been presented with precisely the document they demanded for years, are now changing their bumper stickers to read "show us the REAL birth certificate!"
Personally, I was fascinated at the lengths the historical reinterpretationists went to in confabulating a false history. I thought Rodda showed some amusing insight in pointing out that these folks combed through all those treaties looking for the ones written by England or France, in order to put THEIR words into the mouths of the Americans to make the Americans look religious, while ignoring the actual content and purpose of the treaties themselves. Who cares what the history actually was, so long as we get our religious axe ground!
And one of those treaties had to do with how the good Christian slave-owners would be compensated for the loss of their "property". Which of course wasn't mentioned.
Anyway, once again, convictions not based on facts cannot be modified with facts.
mrg · 4 June 2011
Obama had no reason to think that the long-form birth certificate would impress the fringers any more than his short-form birth certificate did, but Trump forced the president to make a gesture lest he be perceived as avoiding the issue.
A gesture was all it was, unnecessary for the sensible, lost on the foolish. As was pointed out, the birthers don't care about Obama's birth certificate; what they really want is Obama's death certificate.
harold · 4 June 2011
mrg · 4 June 2011
KK · 4 June 2011
KK · 4 June 2011
Wolfhound · 4 June 2011
Tiresome retarded troll is tiresome and retarded.
Dale Husband · 4 June 2011
kk · 4 June 2011
Scholarship as opposed to Rodda's mindless uninformed bigotry:
No metaphor in American letters has had a more profound influence on law and policy than Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Today, this figure of speech is accepted by many Americans as a pithy description of the constitutionally prescribed church-state arrangement, and it has become the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically and coercively stripped from public life.
In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." "In the words of Jefferson," the justices famously declared, the First Amendment "was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State'...[that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
In the half-century since this landmark ruling, the "wall of separation" has become the locus classicus of the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and the civil state, thereby mandating a strictly secular polity. The trope's continuing influence can be seen in Justice John Paul Stevens's recent warning that our democracy is threatened "[w]henever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government."[1]
What is the source of this figure of speech, and how has this symbol of strict separation between religion and public life come to dominate church-state law and policy? Of Jefferson's many celebrated pronouncements, this is one of his most misunderstood and misused. I would like to challenge the conventional, secular myth that Thomas Jefferson, or the constitutional architects, erected a high wall between religion and the civil government.[2]
Building a "Wall of Separation"
Jefferson was inaugurated the third President of the United States on March 4, 1801, following one of the most bitterly contested elections in history. His religion, or the alleged lack thereof, was a critical issue in the campaign. His Federalist Party foes vilified him as an infidel and atheist. The campaign rhetoric was so vitriolic that, when news of Jefferson's election swept across the country, housewives in New England were seen burying family Bibles in their gardens or hiding them in wells because they expected the Holy Scriptures to be confiscated and burned by the new Administration in Washington. (These fears resonated with Americans who had received alarming reports of the French Revolution, which Jefferson was said to support, and the widespread desecration of religious sanctuaries and symbols in France.)
One pocket of support for the Jeffersonian Republicans in Federalist New England existed among the Baptists. At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson's Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders--a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.
On New Year's Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a "fan" letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the "chief Magistracy in the United States." They celebrated Jefferson's zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him "as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."
In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists' aspirations for religious liberty:
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.[3]
Although today Jefferson's Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President "regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion."[4]
Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"
Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."
Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]
President Jefferson had been under Federalist attack for refusing to issue executive proclamations setting aside days for national fasting and thanksgiving, and he said he wanted to explain his policy on this delicate matter. He told Attorney General Levi Lincoln that his response to the Danbury Baptists "furnishes an occasion too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors [Presidents Washington and Adams] did." The President was eager to address this topic because his Federalist foes had demanded religious proclamations and then smeared him as an enemy of religion when he declined to issue them.
Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving" and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
How can Jefferson's public record on religious proclamations in Virginia be reconciled with the stance he took as President of the United States? The answer, I believe, is found in the principle of federalism. Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only. Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because "no power to prescribe any religious exercise...has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government[,] it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." He sounded the same theme in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
These two statements were, in essence, Jefferson's own commentary on the Danbury letter, insofar as they grappled with identical issues. Thus, as a matter of federalism, he thought it inappropriate for the nation's chief executive to proclaim days for religious observance; however, he acknowledged the authority of state officials to issue religious proclamations. In short, Jefferson's "wall" was erected between the federal and state governments on matters pertaining to religion.
The Wall That Black Built
The phrase "wall of separation" entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured."[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson's letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson's language is generally characterized as obiter dictum.
Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: "In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State'.... That wall," the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."[7] Jefferson's words were woven neatly into the Everson ruling, which, like Reynolds, was replete with references and allusions to history, especially the roles played by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia disestablishment struggles.
Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court's ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia's disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that "separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle," attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the "wall of separation" image. The challenged state statute, the ACLU ominously concluded, "constitutes a definite crack in the wall of separation between church and state. Such cracks have a tendency to widen beyond repair unless promptly sealed up."[8]
The trope's current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson's figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.
The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.
The differences between the two walls are suggested by Jefferson's record as a public official in both Virginia and the nation, which shows that he initiated practices and implemented policies inconsistent with Justice Black's and the modern Supreme Court's "high and impregnable" wall of separation. Even among the metaphor's proponents, this has generated much debate concerning the proper dimensions of the wall. Whereas Jefferson's wall expressly separated the institutions of church and state, the Court's wall, more expansively, separates religion and all civil government.
Jefferson's wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels--federal, state, and local.
By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.
Reconceptualizing the First Amendment
After two centuries, Jefferson's trope is enormously influential, but it remains controversial. The question bitterly debated is whether the wall illuminates or obfuscates the constitutional principles it metaphorically represents.
The wall's defenders argue that it promotes private, voluntary religion and freedom of conscience in a secular polity. The wall prevents religious establishments and avoids sectarian conflict among denominations competing for governmental favor and aid. An impenetrable barrier prohibits not only the formal recognition of, and legal preference for, one particular church (or denomination), but also all other forms of government assistance or encouragement for religious objectives. A regime of strict separation, defenders insist, is the best, if not the only, way to promote religious liberty, especially the rights of religious minorities.
I contend that the graphic wall metaphor has been a source of much mischief in modern church-state jurisprudence. It has reconceptualized--indeed, I would say, misconceptualized--First Amendment principles in at least two important ways.
First, Jefferson's trope emphasizes separation between church and state, unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion. (Although these terms are often conflated today, in the lexicon of 1802, the expansive concept of "separation" was distinct from the institutional concept of "non-establishment.")
Indeed, Jefferson's Baptist correspondents, who agitated for disestablishment but not for separation, were apparently discomfited by the figurative phrase and perhaps even sought to suppress the President's letter. The Danbury Baptists in 1802 were alarmed by the erection of a wall that would separate religious influences from public life and policy. Few evangelical dissenters (including the Baptists) challenged the widespread assumption of the age that republican government and civic virtue were dependant on a moral people and that morals could be nurtured only by the Christian religion.
Second, the very nature of a wall further reconceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion, unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government.
Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from corrupting interference by the federal government and not to protect the civil state from the influence of, or overreaching by, religion. The wall, however, is a bilateral barrier that unavoidably restricts religion's ability to influence public life; thus, it necessarily and dangerously exceeds the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.
Let me say as an aside: I do not believe that many so-called strict separationists are, in fact, consistent adherents of their "high and impregnable" wall. Virtually all advocate the separation of religion (and religious influences) from the civil state and public life, but few consistently argue that civil government should be completely separated from the concerns of the church. Few strict separationists are willing, even in strict adherence to a wall-of-separation principle, to exempt churches, clergy, and religious entities from the civil state's generally applicable civil rights, criminal, employment, tax, and zoning laws, as well as health and safety regulations.
Is their wall a single-sided wall that imposes restrictions on the church but not on the civil state? All too often, the wall of separation is used to silence the church and to limit its reach into public life, but it is rarely used to restrain the civil state's meddling in, and restraint of, the church.
Legacy of Intolerance
We must confront the uncomfortable fact that, for much of American history, the phrase "separation of church and state" and its attendant metaphoric formulation, "a wall of separation," have often been expressions of exclusion, intolerance, and bigotry. These phrases have been used to silence people and communities of faith and to exclude them from full participation in public life.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, establishmentarians sought to frighten Americans by deliberately mischaracterizing the religious dissenters' aspirations for disestablishment and liberty of conscience as advocacy for a separation of religion from public life that would inevitably lead to political atheism and rampant licentiousness. This was a political smear. Religious dissenters, indeed, agitated for disestablishment, but like most Americans, they did not wish to separate religious values from public life and policy.
In the bitter presidential campaign of 1800, Jeffersonian Republicans cynically advocated the rhetoric and policy of separation, not to promote religious worship and expression, but to silence the Federalist clergy who had vigorously denounced Jefferson as an infidel and atheist. (Two centuries later, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies continue to use these phrases to silence people and communities of faith that seek to participate in the public marketplace of ideas armed with ideas informed by spiritual values.)
Not surprisingly, this separationist rhetoric returned to fashion in the 1830s and 1840s and, again, in the last quarter of the 19th century when waves of Catholic immigrants, with their peculiar liturgy and resistance to assimilation into the Protestant establishment, arrived on American shores. Nativist elements, including the Know Nothings and later the Ku Klux Klan, embraced separationist rhetoric and principles in a continuing, and often violent, campaign to restrict the role of Catholics in public life.
Again, in the mid-20th century, the rhetoric of separation was revived and ultimately constitutionalized by anti-Catholic elites, such as Hugo Black, and the American Civil Liberties Union and Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, who feared the influence and wealth of the Catholic Church and perceived parochial education as a threat to public schools and democratic values.[10]
Let me be clear: Various strains of political, religious, and intellectual thought have embraced notions of separation, but a particularly dominant--perhaps the most dominant--strain in 19th-century America was this nativist, bigoted strain.
In short, the terms "separation of church and state" and "wall of separation," although not necessarily expressions of intolerance, have often been closely identified in the American experience with the ugly impulses of nativism and bigotry. These phrases, in our cultural and political experience, have been so freighted with nativist and bigoted connotations that I believe we must reconsider the propriety of their continued use in legal and political discourse.
Why It Matters
Why should we care about this metaphor today? We should care because the wall is all too often used to separate religion from public life, thereby promoting a religion that is essentially private and a state that is strictly secular. This would have alarmed the founders because they viewed religion, to paraphrase George Washington's words, as an indispensable support for social order and political prosperity.
Today, the wall is the cherished emblem of a strict separationist dogma intolerant of religious influences in the public square. Federal and state courts have used the "wall of separation" concept to justify censoring private religious expression (such as Christmas crèches) in public fora; stripping public spaces of religious symbols (such as crosses); denying public benefits (such as education vouchers) for religious entities; and excluding religious citizens and organizations (such as faith-based social welfare agencies) from full participation in civic life on the same terms as their secular counterparts. The systematic and coercive removal of religion from public life not only is at war with our cultural traditions insofar as it evinces a callous indifference toward religion, but also offends basic notions of freedom of religious exercise, expression, and association in a democratic and pluralistic society.
The "high and impregnable" wall constructed by the Supreme Court inhibits religion's ability to inform the public ethic and policy, deprives religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their spiritual values, and infringes the right of religious communities and institutions to extend their prophetic ministries into the public square. Jefferson's metaphor, sadly, has been used to silence the religious voice in the marketplace of ideas and, in a form of religious apartheid, to segregate faith communities behind a restrictive barrier.
The wall metaphor provides little practical guidance for the application of First Amendment principles to real-world church-state controversies, short of recommending a policy of absolute separation. Few courts or even separationist partisans, however, contend that a total and perfect separation is practical or mandated by the Constitution. In short, the wall is incapable of providing specific, practical guidelines that can be implemented in difficult disputes that require a delicate balancing of competing constitutional values, such as the freedoms of speech, association, religious exercise, and the non-establishment of religion.
The wall is politically divisive. Because it is so concrete and unyielding, its very invocation forecloses meaningful dialogue regarding the prudential and constitutional role of religion, faith communities, and religious citizens in public life. The uncritical use of the metaphor has unnecessarily injected inflexibility into church-state debate, fostered distortions and confusion, and polarized students of church-state relations, inhibiting the search for common ground and compromise on delicate and vexing issues.
Jefferson's figurative language has not produced the practical solutions that its apparent clarity and directness lead the wall-builders to expect. Indeed, this wall has done what walls frequently do--it has obstructed the view. It has obfuscated our understanding of constitutional principles. There is little advantage in metaphor if it is unable to bring clarity to an ambiguous or confusing text or if it fails to aid in the interpretive process.
Absent Jefferson's metaphor, church-state debate might well be more candid and transparent. The separation principle would not necessarily be deemed an essential feature of the First Amendment; rather, it would be understood as only one among several plausible constructions of the amendment. Moreover, separationists would be compelled to articulate precisely the assumptions and rationales of their perspective rather than gloss over them with a metaphoric slogan.
The Trouble with Metaphors in the Law
Metaphors enrich language by making it dramatic and colorful, rendering abstract concepts concrete, condensing complex concepts into a few words, and unleashing creative and analogical insights. Who can imagine Abraham Lincoln's articulation of his great cause absent the biblical allusion to a "house divided" or Winston Churchill's Cold War charge without mention of the "iron curtain"? Metaphors, however, must be used with caution in the law, especially in judicial opinions and statutes. Legal discourse, unlike much political rhetoric, requires precision of expression, strict and orderly adherence to rules set forth in legislative enactments or past judicial decisions.
Metaphor is a valuable literary device, but its uncritical use can lead to confusion and distortion. At its heart, metaphor compares two or more things that are not in fact identical; a metaphor's literal meaning is used nonliterally in a comparison with its subject. While the comparison may yield useful insights, the dissimilarities between the metaphor and its subject, if not recognized, can distort or pollute one's understanding of the actual subject.
Metaphors inevitably graft onto their subjects connotations, emotional intensity, and/or cultural associations that transform the understanding of the subject as it was known pre-metaphor. If attributes of the metaphor are erroneously or misleadingly assigned to the subject and the distortion goes unchallenged, the metaphor may reconceptualize or otherwise alter the understanding of the underlying subject. The more appealing and powerful a metaphor, the more it tends to supplant or overshadow the original subject and the more one is unable to contemplate the subject apart from its metaphoric formulation. Thus, distortions perpetuated by the metaphor are sustained and magnified.
Jefferson's phrase powerfully illustrates this. Although the metaphor may felicitously express some aspects of the First Amendment, it seriously misrepresents or obscures others.
The repetitious, uncritical use of felicitous phrases, Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, bedevils the law: "A phrase begins life as a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition; and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas."[11] Figures of speech designed to simplify and liberate thought end often by trivializing or enslaving it. Therefore, as Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo counseled, "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched."[12] This is advice that courts would do well to heed.
A year after Everson, Justice Stanley F. Reed denounced the Court's reliance on the metaphor. "A rule of law," he protested, "should not be drawn from a figure of speech."[13] Justice Potter Stewart similarly opined in the first school-prayer case that the Court's task in resolving complex constitutional controversies "is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."[14] In a stinging repudiation of the Court's use of the trope, Justice William Rehnquist offered that the wall "is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."[15]
An examination of Jefferson's celebrated wall, constructed two centuries ago, casts light not only on the past, but also on the future place of religion in American public life. Today, the Supreme Court's conception of that wall stands as a defining image of the prudential and constitutional role of religion in the public arena. Serious consideration must be given to whether that wall accurately represents constitutional principles and usefully contributes to American democracy and to a civil society.
Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil. (Oxford University) and J.D. (University of Virginia), is a Professor of Justice, Law, and Society at American University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002).
This essay was published June 23, 2006.
Matt Young · 4 June 2011
This is getting way off task. Please do not feed the KK troll; it is probably as incapable of learning as the other trolls.
robert van bakel · 4 June 2011
kk, are you sure your user name isn't bornagain77. He writes tedious diatribes at a place called Uncommondescent, and is perhaps one vommit away from an annurism too. I am really annoyed Henry beat me to the 'kk&k' connection. Drink some tea, I don't think London taxes it anymore.
robert van bakel · 4 June 2011
Sorry Mr Young, read your warning too late:)
Wolfhound · 5 June 2011
Wolfhound · 5 June 2011
With never an original thought in their empty skulls, the trolls cut and paste propaganda from apologetics sites without even properly attributing the bullshit historical revisionism to the original, brainless, godbotting source. How tedious, indeed! http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse
Atheistoclast · 5 June 2011
I think "Liars for Darwin" would be a best-seller
Wolfhound · 5 June 2011
Oh, DO piss off, Bozo.
Atheistoclast · 5 June 2011
Wolfhound · 5 June 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
harold · 5 June 2011
You are not a professor. Why did you claim to be one?
Don Luigi · 5 June 2011
Such a lot of people getting into such a tizzy over religion on a scientific site. Blind moggling.
Just Bob · 5 June 2011
Professor of what?
Where?
Henry · 6 June 2011
brady · 6 June 2011
I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work
Cubist · 6 June 2011
Kevin B · 6 June 2011
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
Stanton · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
Well he finally got something right, it is indeed a joke. Now why would anyone have any grief or despondency over someone whose only argument is to redefine "novel" in such a way as to deny the evolution of any novel function? I'm shaking in my boots.
Don Luigi · 6 June 2011
Cubist, lad or lass, why not just ignore the silly buggers? Anyway, you should know that not all religious people are anti-scientific. The pity is that the noisy twits are the ones that draw public attention by means of decibels rather than IQ. I personally know devout church people who are also no-silly-questions-asked-about-evolution biologists. Devout Christians; devoted evolutionary biologists.
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
What a wonderful contribution to scientific knowledge. The asshat got PZ to hate him. What an accomplishment. MAn this guy is a real expert. OF course no real expert would stoop to defending his arguments with his supposed credentials.
Matt, why wait? This guy hasn't made a single on-topic comment yet. His only purpose is obviously to annoy. Ban him to the bathroom wall and avoid the rush later.
DS · 6 June 2011
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
Just keep saying that over and over. All of the real experts disagree with you. All you have in incredulity as an argument, that and your supposedly magnificent credentials.
As for the origin of feathers, you admit that the genes already existed. You admit that birds have feathers and reptiles do not. So feathers evolved in birds by small modifications of preexisting genes. Feathers are novel by any reasonable definition. Birds are a new "type" by any reasonable definition. You lose.
So I guess you don't have any comment about the topic of this thread. I guess you do want to be called a liar. Fine by me. Maybe I'l get around to it, just as soon as I can be bothered to care.
DS · 6 June 2011
For anyone who is actually interested in what is known about the molecular evolution of feathers, the following reference is instructive:
BMC Evolutionary Biology (2010) 10:148
From the abstract:
Phylogenetic analyses demonstrate that evolution of archosaurian epidermal appendages in the lineage leading to birds was accompanied by duplication and divergence of an ancestral beta-keratin gene cluster. As morphological diversification of epidermal appendages occurred and the beta-keratin multigene family expanded, novel beta-keratin genes were selected for novel functions within appendages such as feathers.
So once again, gene duplication, followed by divergence caused by random mutations and natural selection was sufficient to produce novel structures and functions. Deny it all you want to, but there it is. There is a vast literature on this topic. Ignore it at your own risk.
If you anyone wants to discuss the evolution of feathers further, I would suggest the bathroom wall as the proper place for such a discussion.
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
harold · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
If you want to discuss the evolution of feathers, take it to the bathroom wall. If not, piss off.
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
mrg · 6 June 2011
I think a really good deal would be to buy this guy for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.
harold · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
harold · 6 June 2011
mrg · 6 June 2011
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
Dale Husband · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
He doesn't have to match your pathetic level of detail. All he has to do is keep claiming that you don't know enough, then when you provide references that prove that you do, just ignore them. He has no alternative hypothesis, just mud slinging.
Look, I can provide many references about the molecular mechanisms that control feather development. You know, that thing that we supposedly don't understand. I can provide many references about how these mechanism evolved as well. But of course they will all be ignored and then I will be accused of providing too many references, so why bother. Ignorance is not an argument. You can only claim that we don't know enough if you know exactly how much is known.
If you really want to discuss feather evolution, take it to the bathroom wall.
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
I have written a paper on the subject of the relationship between DNA and morphology and have sent it for peer review. If you want me to send you a private copy drop me an email:
postdarwinism@ymail.com
OK?
DS · 6 June 2011
I can't wait to see the references section.
mrg · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
I sure hope the reference section includes this:
Carroll (2008) Evo-Devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: A genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell 134:25-36.
From the abstract:
(1) form evolves largely by altering the expression of functionally conserved proteins, and (2) such changes largely occur through mutations in the cis-regulatory sequences of pleiotropic developmental regulatory loci and of the target genes within the vast networks they control.
So you see we actually know a lot about the connection between genetics and morphology. It's an entire field of study known as evo-devo. Of course we don't know everything, probably never will. But in the absence of any viable scientific alternative we have a pretty good understanding that is steadily increasing.
kk · 6 June 2011
Note how many kneejerrk evolutionists (leftist morons) came to defend Anthony Weiner in Weindergate. Note in:
http://thepartyofknow.com/2011/06/06/cbsanthony-weiner-admits-posting-lewd-pictures-to-twitter-and-making-‘terrible-mistakes’/ That leftist Mad Anthony Weiner now admits he lied and it really was his weiner that he posted on Twitter.
You leftist are all a bunch of liars (Liars for Marx) but at least Weiner had the capability of finally admitting the truth. Not you guys. kk is a troll etc. That is how you avoid reality until is smacks you right in the face. And you think people like yourselves should be in charge of the science curriculum in schools. What a joke every one of you are.
Atheistoclast · 6 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 June 2011
There is no such thing as “genetic entropy.”
That ridiculous notion was derived from selected observations just as one would conclude that everything comes all apart from watching only melting and evaporation.
Dale Husband · 6 June 2011
DS · 6 June 2011
kk · 6 June 2011
Dale Husband · 6 June 2011
Just Bob · 6 June 2011
Ensign
Packwood
Craig
Swaggart
Haggard
...
Dave Luckett · 6 June 2011
What is it with the identification of creationists with the right wing? Here's another of the species, somebody for whom acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is the same as being one of those pinko lefty soshalist libruls who hate Our Freedom.
kk · 6 June 2011
Henry J · 6 June 2011
Rewriting all of the DNA in an adult of a species, so as to match that of some other species, wouldn't change that individual into the other species, since shape is determined during growth, and isn't going to regenerate like somebody from Gallifrey. If the two species share enough of their chemistry the transformed creature might survive, although with a large difference in chemistry the combination might not be functional (especially given that the chemistry present at the time of transformation would differ from that being generated by the implanted DNA).
Atheistoclast · 7 June 2011
Dave Luckett · 7 June 2011
The usual garbage:
"Evolution can't explain this."
"Yes, it can. Here's the explanation."
"That's not an explanation of this, though."
"Here's the explanation for that..."
Iterations of this routine follow, until the limits of knowledge are reached - which they inevitably must be. Then:
"That isn't known. Yet."
"See. Evolution isn't an explanation! I win!"
It's old, man, old. Tired. Stupid. Go try it on the rubes at Church. It might work for you there.
DS · 7 June 2011
Once again, I don't want to believe it is not an argument. Not having an alternative is not an argument. Ignoring the consensus in an entire field of science is not an argument.
You are an arrogant and ignorant, what a powerful combination. Evolution is real whether you believe it or not. Evo-devo is real whether you understand it or not. Only an arrogant prick would claim that thousands of references represent an argument form authority. You on the other hand, have only an argument form non authority. You have provided no evidence whatsoever, only your own ignorance and inability to understand. You have convinced no one. Epic fail.
Have a nice life - or not - no one cares.
Stanton · 7 June 2011
DS · 7 June 2011
If anyone is actually interested in how mouse genomes evolve, here is a link to a review of a good reference that demonstrates how changes in regulatory genes affect morphology:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405152545.htm
I =know how creationists love Science Daily, but it does have some good stuff.
Of course if proteins cannot create structures, then this would all be impossible. I guess it's just a ghost in the machine producing all of the fingers that the atheist guy uses to type his crap. If ignorance is bliss, that guy must be the happiest fool in the world.
Matt Young · 7 June 2011
I think that is enough off-task political screeds. Please do not respond to kk; I will send her future "contributions" to the BW.
mrg · 7 June 2011
Atheistoclast · 7 June 2011
How many times do I have to explain this. DNA affects an organism's morphology simply because 50% of its body mass is made up of the proteins that DNA encodes. It does not in any way determine the anatomical and behavioral characteristics of the organism.If it did, we wouldn't see such remarkable homology, for instance, between the swine and human genomes.
The notion that the principal morphological differences between mice and men lies in genetic regulatory elements is absolutely ridiculous and completely unsupported. Gene expression and regulation is no doubt important, but it does not explain such fundamental differences.
mrg · 7 June 2011
DS · 7 June 2011
DS · 7 June 2011
Henry J · 7 June 2011
Differences in morphology would presumably be caused by changes in how fast a part grows, or for how long (or possibly where). That strikes me as somewhat simpler than changes to a protein that has to fold up correctly to produce the right interacting surface.
DS · 7 June 2011
Atheistoclast · 7 June 2011
DS · 7 June 2011
Piss off dipstick. Nobody buys your magic invisible green unicorn bullshit. You got nothin.
Apparently I do know more that some guy who wrote something on some web site. Do you think he knows more than the world expert and founding father of the field of evolutionary development? If you want to appeal to authority, none of the real authorities are on your side.
I have told you already, if you want to discuss any more of your bullshit, take it to the bathroom wall. I'm done with you here.
Dale Husband · 7 June 2011
Dale Husband · 7 June 2011
DS · 7 June 2011
For anyone who is actually interested in how evolution really works, here is a good review article:
Wagner and Lynch (2008) The gene regulatory logic of transcription factor evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(7):377-385.
From the abstract:
In this paper, we review recent studies on transcription factor proteins that show that transcription factor genes undergo adaptive evolution and evolve novel functions that contribute to the evolution of development. Furthermore, we review experimental work that shows that transcription factor proteins are modular and can evolve with minimal pleio- tropic effects. We conclude that changes in the function of proteins are likely directly contributing to developmental evolution.
The review includes sixty three references.
So you see, we do know an awful lot about this already. Anyone who denies it is just being stubborn. Of course the magic invisible antimatter green unicorn hypothesis was fun for a while, but it really can't compete against real science.
Atheistoclast · 7 June 2011
Flint · 7 June 2011
DS · 7 June 2011
Matt Young · 7 June 2011
Yes, please, no more comments from or about Atheistoclast on this thread.
harold · 8 June 2011
robert van bakel · 11 June 2011
Vote Palin, get kk:)
Henry · 17 June 2011