Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ben Domenech Does Not Convince Me
I have seen a number of articles lately having to do with religious liberty law — the one that reminded me to write this was two questions in an MTV interview with Ben Domenech, but I think I have also seen David French at NRO and Rod Dreher at American Conservative making similar points, which I may address separately. Domenech argues that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, made a mistake by not adopting a more culturally hands-off policy.
To begin, this is the question and answer from Domenech’s interview:
I think that some people are bothered by a sense of hypocrisy on the part of some conservatives. Like the defense of religious freedom, until someone wants to build a mosque. How would you respond to those concerns?
Domenech: I think the real problem is that a lot of the religiously minded [wanted and still want] to use the power of government to try to create the society that they wished [existed] within the United States…
But you also saw it in [those who were] basically being busybodies about the way people live their lives. The question I would [ask] to social conservatives is: Are you confident that the way you view a life well-lived is a compelling enough model that it will win on its own merits?
… I think that one of the errors that social conservatives made — particularly Christian social conservatives — was a belief that they needed to use the power of government to try to shore up the various things that they believe make up a life well-lived. The whole design of our government policies were sort of engineered toward this 1950s/1960s perspective on what living looks like… As opposed to recognizing that, hey, if that type of lifestyle is something that is ultimately rewarding to people, and something that makes them happy, then they’re going to follow that path more often than not, and that you don’t need to use the engine of government to push them in that direction.
I don’t know if Domenech was trying to sell me, but he failed. The first error is mistaking necessity for desire. By his own admission, using the government to engineer the good life wasn’t the Christians’ idea. It was done in the 1950s and 1960s, right in the middle of the great millennialist withdrawal. Christians as a category didn’t re-enter American political debates until that using of the government to enforce a particular way of life began to infringe on their way of life. Exactly when isn’t clear — we could date it to Roe v. Wade in 1973, or the Silent Majority speech in 1969. There are probably arguments for earlier dates, too — but it is clearly post Eisenhower, and the use of government to enforce a way of life began in the New Deal.
So what I want to do is go home, be allowed to govern my city and state as I like, and be left alone. But it is abundantly clear that this is not possible. The government, from the feds to the locals, in every policy area from schools to immigration, is going to dictate a way of life to me. The government is far too powerful, and all attempts to weaken it have failed.
Against this logic Domenech argues that I should be confident that, if freely chosen, the virtues of my way of life will be so obvious that everyone will adopt them. This is not a well thought out argument. First, simply as a matter of doctrine, Christians literally think that the virtues of Christian life cannot be freely chosen without a literal miracle (which we celebrated yesterday). But even as a matter of secular Western thought, no one has ever thought virtue was freely chosen. Aristotle argued that it had to be cultivated at an early age and maintained by a lifetime of effort. Domenech’s argument is a straight utilitarian argument that ignores that, 1) I am not a utilitarian, and 2) Even JS Mill thought that you could only have a utilitarian society if proper virtue and taste were taught to children and other utilitarians acknowledge that short-term thinking can result in long term failure but short-term benefits. And of course, we are entering into the world that Brave New World critiqued — a utilitarian dystopia.
So, just to clarify, he has no plan for eliminating the One Ring, but if we Hobbits are so cool, obviously the forces of Mordor will be overcome by our superior virtue and join us, rather than slaughtering us all.
And while Domenech doesn’t address it, the accusation of hypocrisy regarding defending only Christian prerogatives annoys me because — while I am quite willing to defend Muslims building their mosques in the US or wearing beards in prison — I am under no delusions that this admirable intellectual consistency is going to buy me any reprieve from the left. Oh, super-intellectual people like to quote that Thomas Moore line about giving the devil the benefit of law — seeming to forget that the movie ends with the king subverting the law and executing Moore anyway.
I remain unconvinced.
Published in General
To me, the Constitution is a “don’t tread on me” kind of document that really doesn’t leave room if interpreted properly for one group to impose it’s will on another.
Using that idea, one could say, as perhaps Ben Domenech was trying to say, that social conservatives tried to go too far in imposing their religious ideas on others. That said however, it has been very clear for close to one hundred years, the free exercise of religion, as guaranteed under the Constitution, has been under attack and much of our religious liberty has been taken away.
From my point of view, if the religious are going to regain their right to free exercise of religion, we are going to have to argue from a view that demands a very strict construction of the Constitution. Unless one takes a hard headed tough defense of the Constitution that grants religious liberty to all points of view , the issue devolves into pure politics and at that point the religious will lose big time.
For example, to avoid having Priests, Rabbis and Ministers required to marry gays, one may have to allow some Churches, etc to marry Gays. If the Episcopal Church wants to marry gays, as it apparently does, the State has no business telling them they cannot. Likewise the State has no business telling Catholic Priests to marry those same gays or telling someone that they must bake a wedding cake for gays if they choose not to.
What would buy a reprieve from the left, then?
Do you hope being disagreeable might, as it seems you believe attempts to be agreeable have failed?
Excuse me? When did blocking the construction of mosques become part of the GOP platform? Where are the stories of judges and state-level officials harassing Muslims? Has anyone even done a poll on this?
I have nothing to add, but this is a really good rebuttal of his argument. Thank you.
There were apparently some zoning-rule shenanigans related to building a mosque near Culpepper, Virginia – I believe someone at Reason magazine wrote about it earlier this year. At first read, it seemed a rum deal. I apologize for not taking the time to run down the details just now.
Seems a bit thin to base a generalization that “conservatives are hypocrites on religious freedom” on. I’ve dug up the Reason article, and for all that it’s reporting a very real issue, it is a hit piece. I mean seriously, can you blame the conservative media for missing the story only one month after the election? Really? Does anyone think National Review wouldn’t have covered the story if not for that? For all we know, they still might.
I mean, come on. Hypocrisy has limits. Plenty of local governments would love to deny Christians the right to build their churches. It would take awe-inspiring stupidity for conservatives to behave this way.
I’m not sure complete surrender and conversion would get a reprieve. “Too little, too late,” they say as they march us into the camps. The Red Guards on the campuses scare the hell out of me. No, I don’t think playing “nice doggie” with them is a successful strategy.
I don’t have it bookmarked, but the story NRO covered (via David French, I think) was a dispute between ADF and Becket Fund and another Protestant/Evangelical legal group over the wisdom of taking the mosque cases. It also discussed Dinesh D’Souza switching away from his earlier arguments for a pan-Abrahamic Religious alliance.
Is it possible that both “complete surrender and conversion” and antagonism are unlikely to work? Always look on the dark side of life, after all!
I’m sorry there’s no one left in your vocation who you can interact with just as a human being, rather than as potential existential threat. That sounds very tough.
The Red Guard are in charge in academia.
You think you’re making a joke. You aren’t. We’re not quite at the point of drawing fish in the dirt, but we’re looking suggestively that direction.
You think I was joking?