>From www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : US Elections
The US elections: Lieberman's holy war against the Bill of Rights
By Barry Grey
1 September 2000
Back to screen version
Speaking on Sunday, August 27 at the Fellowship Chapel Church in Detroit,
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman declared, “the
Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”
This statement is a defining moment in the 2000 presidential campaign. It is
the Connecticut senator's most explicit attack to date on the Constitutional
principles of freedom of thought and expression and the separation of church
and state.
In the same address Lieberman extolled belief in God as the basis of morality
and the informing principle of American society. He told his audience, “As a
people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation
and ourselves to God and God's purpose.”
The speech was in keeping with the general tenor of the Connecticut senator's
public remarks since his selection as Democrat Al Gore's running mate. With
Gore's blessing, Lieberman has flaunted his religion and cited it repeatedly as
the justification for a crackdown on what he deems to be gratuitous sex and
violence in the media, as well as other measures of an anti-democratic
character.
Lieberman has backed the efforts of the Republican right to break down legal
barriers to the intrusion of religion into public education, calling for a
“moment of silence” in the schools. He is a supporter of government vouchers
for private, including religious, schools. For all his claims to the contrary,
he promotes censorship of the media and the arts. He has proposed, for example,
that the Federal Communications Commission consider so-called “violent content”
when it renews radio and television licenses.
It is no accident that this self-styled guardian of morality and faith was the
first prominent Democrat to publicly denounce Clinton during the Monica
Lewinsky affair, legitimizing the right-wing conspiracy headed by Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr that sought to use a sex scandal as the pretext for a
political coup d'etat. Gore chose Lieberman for his running mate precisely
because of the Connecticut senator's right-wing credentials, in line with the
efforts of the Democrats to appropriate the social policies of the Republicans.
In the face of scattered criticism of Lieberman's Detroit speech, Gore defended
his running mate, while Lieberman himself said he would continue to preach from
the campaign stump, calling his invocation of God and religion “the American
way.”
For the Democratic candidates and the political advisers managing their
campaign, Lieberman's religious protestations have more to do with immediate
electoral tactics than any deeply held convictions or considered political
conceptions. Operating as they do at the most banal and crudely opportunistic
level, they calculate that a Democratic ticket that echoes the sermonizing of
the Republican right will neutralize their opponents' attempts to exploit the
Lewinsky scandal, while garnering support from certain sections of the
electorate.
The implications of Lieberman's Constitutional claims
However limited the motivations behind Lieberman's preachments, his claim that
the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion has far-reaching
implications. He himself is, in all likelihood, incapable of conceiving of the
political consequences that can result from prominent political figures
trifling with such core Constitutional issues.
On its face, Lieberman's interpretation of the First Amendment prohibition of
state support for religion is inane. There cannot be freedom of religion
without the right to be free from religion. The conceptual foundation for all
democratic rights to free thought and expression is undermined if the
secularist basis of the state is removed.
The centrality of the principle of freedom of conscience to the Constitution as
a whole is indicated by the fact that it is proclaimed in the very first
sentence of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is explicit in rejecting
theocracy and asserting the secularist basis of the American republic:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Lieberman has responded to criticisms of his statement by reassuring one and
all that he supports the separation of church and state and opposes the
religious right on issues like abortion. Those who are disturbed by his
characterization of the First Amendment are, he implies, making a mountain out
of a molehill.
But Lieberman's cavalier attitude does not alter the fact that his attack on
the secularist principle embodied in the First Amendment places a question mark
over the legal foundation for a host of democratic rights, from the right to
abortion to such issues as gay rights, divorce, equality of the sexes, and
basic matters of privacy. A critical aspect of the Constitutional separation of
church and state is the right to be “left alone,” i.e., to be free from the
intrusive meddling of organized religion or the state into one's private
affairs. If, as Lieberman claims, the Constitution does not guarantee freedom
from religion, then what is to prevent the state from imposing its concept of
morality, based on religious beliefs, when it comes to sexual practices between
consenting adults, personal relations inside and outside of wedlock, the
teaching of evolution, or the content of the books, films, plays and music made
available to the public?
Not only atheists, but also religious agnostics would be potentially subject to
legal sanction or discrimination on account of their beliefs. The government
could demand to know one's attitude toward God, or toward a specific religion,
and one could be punished for not professing a belief in God or adherence to a
particular faith. There would be nothing in the Constitution that in principle
protected a person from being fired from his job because of his ideas on
religion. Nor would there be a Constitutional barrier preventing the state from
taxing the populace to support religions institutions.
Lieberman's phrase “freedom of religion but not freedom from religion” is a
formula that could be accepted by the Islamic fundamentalist rulers of Iran.
They do not insist that all Iranians become Shiite Muslims, but they do insist
that religion infuse every pore of society and shape both law and public
policy.
The evolution of American common law
The Democratic vice presidential candidate's claim is wrong not only from the
standpoint of Constitutional law, but also from the standpoint of the history
of American jurisprudence. American common law has undergone a long evolution,
beginning in the colonial period. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was a theocracy,
and the growth of the democratic element within American common law has been
bound up precisely with an increasingly prominent assertion of freedom from
religion.
The Pilgrims fled England toward the beginning of the seventeenth century to
achieve freedom of worship. But in the New World they set up a theocracy that
repressed all other religions. There was no freedom from religion in the
Massachusetts Bay Colony. The theocratic order found its most tragic expression
in the Salem witch trials of 1692.
In the course of the eighteenth century, under the influence of the European
Enlightenment, the theocratic element in the American colonies receded and more
democratic principles gained strength. A critical factor in the development of
American common law into the most advanced form of bourgeois democratic
jurisprudence was the transition from the earlier theocratic principle to the
establishment of a firm separation between church and state.
The American Revolution imparted a powerful impulse to the elimination of the
tyranny of religion over the American people. Its most important political and
intellectual leaders were imbued with the anti-clerical tradition associated
with the Enlightenment and embedded in the progressive evolution of common law
in the colonies. They were freethinkers and opponents of religious dogma.
Tom Paine was a deist, as were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the
most important framers of the Bill of Rights. Despite the prevalence of
religious backwardness within the population, they insisted that the new
republic be founded on a secularist legal code.
Historically speaking, a seminal factor in the development of American
jurisprudence and the expansion of democratic rights in general has been the
restriction of the authority of religion and the power of the state to impose
an officially sanctioned moral code. This battle has continued into the
present, in the struggle against Blue Laws, anti-abortion laws and other legal
impositions of religious doctrine.
Lieberman, in defending his views on religion and political affairs, has
repeatedly stressed the role of religion in establishing a unifying ethical
principle among the American people. He may sincerely believe in this
conception. That, however, does not detract from the fact that his notion of
the role of religion is reactionary, and reflects ignorance of the history of
American common law and the evolution of the democratic principles that were
laid down in the Constitution and subsequently expanded.
The extension of democratic rights in the US was bound up with the idea that
people had the right to think whatever they pleased, as long as they did not
harm others or break the law. Whether they chose to live by the Judeo-Christian
moral code was their own affair. What Lieberman is proposing is a retrogressive
throwback to the notion of religious-based “ethical unity” that was prevalent
prior to the American Revolution.
The progressive significance of the abandonment of “ethical unity” is explained
by a noted scholar in his study of the evolution of American jurisprudence:
“Taken together, the various libertarian changes in law [in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries] did far more than merely restructure
institutions, safeguard the procedural rights of criminal defendants, and grant
equal rights to certain previously underprivileged classes. Those changes
contributed in important ways to the breakdown of the ideal inherited from the
pre-revolutionary period that communities should stand united in the pursuit of
shared ethical ends.
“The breakdown of ethical unity began in the 1780s with the virtual cessation
of criminal prosecutions for various sorts of immorality ...
“What was beginning to occur after the Revolution was not significantly more
immorality but an abandonment of the pre-revolutionary notion that there was
any one set of ethical standards that all men ought to obey” (William E.
Nelson, The Americanization of the Common Law, Cambridge, Mass.: 1979, pp. 109-
11).
Indifference to core issues of democratic rights
Given the enormity of Lieberman's attack on core Constitutional issues, the
response has been remarkably and disturbingly muted. An exception to the
general unconcern is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which issued an open
letter on August 28 denouncing Lieberman's use of the elections to promote
religion. The signatories, ADL National Chairman Howard Berkowitz and National
Director Abraham Foxman, correctly wrote, “The First Amendment requires that
government neither support one religion over another nor the religious over the
nonreligious.”
They went on to say, “The United States is made up of many different types of
people from different backgrounds and different faiths, including individuals
who do not believe in any god, and none of our citizens, including atheistic
Americans, should be made to feel outside of the electoral or political
process.” Significantly, B'nai B'rith, the Jewish service organization and
parent group of the ADL, came to the defense of Lieberman and disassociated
itself from Berkowitz and Foxman.
More is involved in Lieberman's light-minded attitude to fundamental political
issues than sheer ignorance. A man who can make such an inane statement about
the First Amendment is one who has not thought seriously about Constitutional
questions for a long time, if ever.
Lieberman expresses an indifference to democratic principles that marks the
political establishment as a whole. This political trait cannot be ascribed
simply to subjective qualities of this or that politician. Rather it reflects a
political phenomenon with objective roots in the structure of American society.
Just 40 years ago John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic to be elected president,
made the absolute separation of religion from political life the foundation of
his campaign. He insisted that his religious beliefs were nobody's business but
his own, and that, if elected, they would play no role in the formulation of
government policy.
How is one to account for the transition from Kennedy to Lieberman? It is the
expression of a profound process of political decay and erosion of American
democratic institutions. This political decline is, in turn, rooted in social
transformations, above all the enormous growth of economic inequality.
The chasm that separates the richest 5 or 10 percent from the rest of the
population is reflected in the alienation of the entire political establishment
from the masses of working people, and the extreme narrowing of the popular
base of both big business parties. The candidates of these parties, whatever
their election rhetoric, speak for social layers whose wealth has mushroomed in
the course of the prolonged boom on Wall Street. Along with the rise in share
values, the corruption of the political system has grown more naked and
pervasive. The result is a political elite that is incapable of articulating
the most basic democratic principles.
Despite the cavalier attitude of Lieberman and company, ideas have a logic of
their own. The promotion of the notion that there is no freedom from religion
in America may prove to have tragic consequences. What is to prevent in the
future a law from being introduced in Congress proclaiming the United States a
Christian nation, with all that such a law would imply in terms of mass
political repression?
Lieberman's statements have exposed the acute dangers posed by the decay of
political life in the US. They have put paid to the notion that the elections
are a choice between the “lesser of two evils,” and that a Democratic victory
will safeguard democratic rights. If the Clinton administration has provided a
degrading demonstration of prostration before the extreme right, a Gore
administration will embody the adoption by the Democratic Party of broad
sections of the Republican right's program.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, the seeds have been sown for a dramatic
escalation in the assault on democratic rights.
Copyright 1998-2000
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
A<>E<>R
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational
tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the
State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate
repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the
"democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist
by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse
of objective necessity. He strives to show that the existence of
taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between
the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that
the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State
has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to
accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a
share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded
subjects.
[[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard,
Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]]
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
