But I’m….
Jason Kuznicki on Feb 2nd 2007 06:52 pm |
(Hat tip.)
Filed in Uncategorized
-
Recent Comments
- Matt Huisman on The End of Civilization? (Or at least civility?)
- King of Ireland on John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God
- King of Ireland on John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God
- King of Ireland on John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God
- King of Ireland on John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
Meta
[...] I couldn’t get the image uploaded here so you’ll have to go here to see it. [...]
This made me laugh as well!
I’ve been reading David Simpson’s political cartoons at http://www.idrewthis.com for the past few years. They’re usually pretty good (though they might be a bit liberal for the Positive Liberty audience).
For a real treat, though, check out his (mostly) non-political webcomic, Ozy and Millie.
So priests are “always in alliance with the despot?” What was Stalin thinking when he asked “How many divisions has the pope?” Shouldn’t Uncle Joe have known that the papacy would be on his side? Wasn’t John Paul II a defender of gulags?
I’m not Catholic, but one need not be Catholic to detect a hint of anti-Catholicism in Mr. Jefferson’s letter. There is quite a bit to criticize about the Christian nation crowd, Jason, but if you want to change their minds, take some notes from Jon Rowe. Silly comics like this, particularly given Jefferson’s mixed record on issues like slavery (or his ignorance of economics), probably irritate the people whose minds you could change.
Of course, if all you want to do is mock and entertain like-minded people, carry on.
Do you have an example of the Catholic church not being in alliance with the despot prior to Jefferson’s time? Stalin lived long after Jefferson was dead. The experience he knew of was the Church being in league with most of the tyrants of Europe, and the few times they were not it was because the Protestants were in alliance with the tyrant to oppress the Catholics.
And by the way, Jon Rowe thought the cartoon was as funny as Jason did. So did I. There are a couple of legitimate criticisms of the cartoon. The first is they could have found much better quotes from Jefferson specifically on his rejection of most of the major tenets of Christianity (one can, of course, acknowledge that the Church allied with tyrants for centuries and still be a Christian). The second is that one could as easily make another cartoon with quotes from Jefferson talking about his firm belief in God and his respondent saying, “Who am I going to believe, you or Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins?”
Ed—
The earliest church certainly wasn’t in alliance with despots, hence the pre-Constantine days of Christians and lions. You’re certainly right that the church has, far too often, taken the side of despots; let’s remember that Protestants in power were about as pleasant to Catholic minorities as Catholics in power were to Protestant minorities.
One would think that Jefferson, a contemporary of Robespierre and Napoleon, would have an inkling that despotism could be churchless. What interests me, since I don’t have Jefferson’s letters in front of me, is the context of this rant against priests. Protestants of the founder’s era were frequently anti-Catholic. I seem to recall that Cato, a generation or two before Jefferson, once threw every charge in the book against Popish states.
Perhaps the bigger issue is that Jefferson loses something when shrunk down to a cartoon to score points in our political times. It’s all well and good for his contemporaries to mock him, and it’s fine for us today to take potshots at Sean Hannity (we like the man at Snarky Bastards almost as much as y’all do). Our problem with history today is that modern Americans use the Founders the way drunks do lampposts: for support of existing prejudices rather than illumination. We tend recreate the Founders in our own image rather than try to hear what they actually said and thought. I don’t think this cartoon clears away the confusion.
Hubbard wrote:
Well no, the early church was persecuted. Once it became the official religion of the Roman empire, however, it quickly became the oppressor. This is hardly a surprise; every religion has probably been on both sides of that divide at different times. And I agreed with you that when the Catholic Church wasn’t in power, it was usually because the Protestants were and used that power to oppress the Catholics just as the Catholics had oppressed them. But none of that makes Jefferson’s statement any less accurate. He had 1400 years of history to back it up.
Of course he did; I can’t imagine what makes you think he didn’t. There is nothing in the quote, or in anything he has written, to suggest that he believed only in religious tyranny. Indeed, Jefferson clearly believed nothing of the sort. He wrote that all laws that violated rightful liberty were unjust, period. He was right.
There were certainly a lot of Calvinists who were virulently anti-Catholic at the time (and still are), but Jefferson can hardly be accused of being so. And nothing in that quote, or in any other I am aware of, suggests any such thing. All he did was point out that the church had for centuries aligned itself with tyrants; that statement is incontrovertibly true. Even someone who is Catholic, if they have any honesty at all, would have to agree.
I agree with you completely that most Americans view Jefferson as little more than a plaster saint and have a terribly unrealistic view of him. However, the 4 writers on this blog are just about the last people who ought to be accused of having such an overly simplistic view.
Ed,
That’s a uncharitable remark. You ask:
Do you have an example of the Catholic church not being in alliance with the despot prior to Jefferson’s time?
What is the pool of possible candidates, i.e., governments not considered despotic by Mr Jefferson? If there are none, which I suspect is the case. Then the inclusion of Christian priests (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) is irrelevant. One might just as well consider bankers, cobblers, philosophers, or composers and so on who all supported, aided, and were protected by despots.
Mark –
Before Jefferson’s time, there was Britain, which had general toleration for Christians, except for Catholics. The reason they didn’t tolerate Catholics was because they had had too many problems with Catholics trying to overthrow their government in favor of still less tolerant regimes. There was also the Dutch Republic, which was even more tolerant, and which the Catholic Church repeatedly tried to subvert.
The Church since then has changed its teachings, but at the time, the remark was accurate as applied to Catholicism.
Jason,
Let’s examine your one of your two putative examples, England, for it is this one with which I’m a trifle more familiar (as opposed to the Dutch history in this period). In England, it is true that Catholicism was not in favor, but in fact Elizabeth killed more Catholics than Bloody Mary did Protestants is an inconvenient truth, as it were. As for the English “toleration” for non-Catholics, that can’t be true. Recall that the reason the Quakers and Puritans fled English soil, was to escape religious persecution for their non-Catholic practices? So I don’t think your notion that Britain was a place of generic toleration for non-Anglican protestants holds water.
Wasn’t the Catholic Church’s subversion of the Dutch just as much political struggle between the Catholic French and the Reformed Dutch? As opposed as an issue between “despot” vs “non-despotic” regime support?
As I asked, why single out priests? Bankers, Guilds, and many other groups all were guilty of “support of despots” in favor for their returned support. Given that there were at best probably a few, what one possibly the Dutch(?), “non-despotic” regime by Jefferson’s estimation and that virtually all regimes were supported by any and all “establishment organizations” this objection is unfair. It is a negative statement, which singles out Catholics as being guilty of something which every organization is also guilty of as if they were unique in this regard.
One example of Catholic support (against the regime) for freedom might have been Spanish opposition by a priest (I forget the man’s name) against the plight of the South American native enslavement at the time of the rise of Spanish conquest. This ultimately is a tainted example in that the solution finally arrived at led to a “somewhat” tragic outcome. That is instead of enslaving the native Americans African slaves be imported instead. But, the point remains that his motive was in fact against despotic treatment of a ethnic people, which Mr Brayton’s comment indicates is an example that doesn’t exist for the Roman Catholic mainstream priesthood.
The Quakers and Puritans were indeed persecuted — during and before the English Civil Wars. Afterward, they were not. Elizabeth’s and Mary’s persecutions are both considerably earlier than the era I was using as an example.
As to the Catholic Church’s subversion of the Dutch Republic, yes, it was political. This in no way detracts from my argument.
And about the Catholic priest Las Casas — you’re right. He is a reasonable counterexample. But he was also a supreme oddity, and virtually a lone dissenter in the question of how to treat Native Americans. Most of the priests in the Spanish colonies were either indifferent to or active participants in the slavery and genocide taking place around them.
Jason,
As to Las Casas, Mr Jefferson’s quote (and Mr Brayton’s question) implies that the Catholic were worse than those in other walks of life. “Most of the priests” and in fact “most of the Spanish” were indifferent or active participants in the slavery/genocide taking place. The point is that unlike Mr Jefferson’s and Mr Brayton’s intimations priests were not some hotbed of despotic activism but pretty much just the same as any other institutional leaders in the period.
Re-stating the question:
Do you have an example of any entrenched guild or society not being in alliance with the despot prior to Jefferson’s time?
I think the answer is, with the possible “lone exceptions” like Las Casas, negative, which is what is unfair about Mr Brayton’s question. Examples like Las Casas (Is Simon de Montefort a “lone exception” as an example of one of the “despots” being against the despots?)
Actually, I just notice another counterexample contemporaneous with Mr Jefferson. The British abolition movement was very much religiously motivated and concurrent with (and just after) the war of independence in this country. It’s the “church catholic” at work, if not the Roman Catholic church. See for example this or this. If you’re still pushing the thesis that the Roman Church is only on the side of the despots, I suppose you’d have to demonstrate that the Roman’s opposed the British abolitionists.
Mark –
You restate the question, “Do you have an example of any entrenched guild or society not being in alliance with the despot prior to Jefferson’s time?”
I gave you two examples of societies, namely Britain and the Dutch Republic from roughly the second half of the seventeenth century onward. Restating the question will not make my previous answer disappear. I stand by what I have written.
As to “guilds,” I am at a loss. Most guilds in the traditional sense were creatures of the state, holding state-enforced monopoly privileges that they protected quite fiercely and that inculcated in them a fierce loyalty to the state itself. Guilds were essentially illiberal organizations, so we should not be surprised to find that none of them supported liberalizing policies in any walk of life. For that matter, the general absence of guilds in the traditional sense was an enormous boon to the development of liberty in the future United States — to say nothing of the early republic’s flourishing economy and high standard of living.
That said, I could mention many loose associations — not guilds — that agitated for greater liberty in one form or another prior to Jefferson’s time: The levellers, the physiocrat economists, many thinkers and movements within the French Enlightenment (though certainly not all of them) and of course the radical Whigs come to mind immediately.
You mention then the British abolitionist movement, and it is true that it was intensely religious. The same is true in the United States. But these movements were only beginning when Jefferson was in his declining years. Moreover, they were typically championed by people with highly eccentric religious beliefs: Emerson and Thoreau were deeply religious men, but they were also deeply unconventional. I think it was no coincidence that the most deeply and consistently anti-slavery religious group in either country, the Quakers, were also the most anti-hierarchical in their religious structure.
The French Societe des Amis des Noirs, an abolitionist group that grew out of the French Revolution, was made up in part of freethinkers and in part of deeply religious men, including the abbe Gregoire. The group as a whole was notoriously independent in its religious beliefs — it was nontraditionalist and anti-hierarchical to the core. Gregoire supported the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which broke sharply with Rome in an effort to found a national and “enlightened” Catholic Church; he also openly sympathized with the dissident Jansenists. And this is to say nothing of the open deists and skeptics who also participated in the society.
Meanwhile, in more conventional religious circles, writing at the time that he wrote, Jefferson was almost entirely correct. Even many years after his death, we find this — which is deeply appalling:
1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that “Slavery itself…is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law…The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.” Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a “particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions,” and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.
Jason,
I mention guilds because I’m somewhat at a loss to think of any associations like the presbytery, which are extra-governmental, with which to compare the behavior of the presbytery. If you wish to point out the poor record of the clergy, you need to compare them with like organizations. Might Universities qualify? Did the Academy by and large support the despot in the Middle ages through the Enlightenment? Looking at your examples, it seems that you find that those striking against the despot are … leaders of the despotic regimes themselves, i.e., the aristocracy.
You, I think you err on the slave trade dates as was referring to the British not US abolitionist movement. For according to Wiki, the British abolitionist movement was not when Jefferson was in his dotage, but was building steam in the 1770s (slave trade abolished in 1803 prior to his Presidency).
By and large the blows struck for freedom in the two millennium in question were very few in number, what bright lights for the cause of human liberty were to be seen at all in prior years (aside from slavery) except perhaps Simon de Montefort for example who I realize was not a priest, but instead a “despot” himself?
My point is that, those striking blows “against the despot” were very much outliers and the exception to the rule throughout the 1400 years of history in question. This is why I think the accusation unfair. If there were hundreds or thousands of examples one could point to the statistical significance of the absence of clergy. If the sample size is very very small, which it clearly is, placing significance of one group being missing from an exceptional sample set is either because your are being uncharitable or naive. I stand by my claim that the statement is uncharitable in nature.
Mark,
You have asked me what institutions or peoples were genuine friends of liberty before Jefferson. I replied with a number of examples — and, I’d say, significant ones — of groups that had articulated a natural-rights ideology supporting one or more of the following goals: ending censorship, religious tolerance, contractual and private property rights, limited governmental power, and the rule of law. Not enough, you say.
But if I were to *drop* the requirement that organizations or institutions have an articulated natural-rights ideology, I submit that I could still quite easily identify large portions of early modern and medieval society that were opposed to arbitrary power by kings or nobility. I’ll do that here.
You mention the universities. Their record was at best mixed; while universities often had independent and rival legal codes and courts during the Middle Ages, they were still dominated by priests and by members of the religious orders. These groups insisted on forced tithing, trials for heresy and witchcraft, and all the other abuses Jefferson would have condemned. And while they supported intellectual freedom for themselves (and only to a limited degree), they denied it to everyone else. The clerical power would struggle at times with the secular power, true — think of the investiture controversies — but these did very little in the way of advancing the rights of ordinary people. These were fights between elites, over who would get to plunder everyone else.
But the record of medieval and early modern liberty isn’t totally bleak. On the contrary, there were at least two mass movements that supported greater freedoms and less government oppression for everyone.
First off, there were the peasant revolts. Peasants made up well over 90% of all medieval societies, so a peasant revolt is never just an isolated incident; it’s a democratic movement that necessarily has an enormous popular base. Although peasants generally had very naive ideas about politics and economics, they certainly resisted arbitrary rule. Consider the Jacquerie, a massive 14th-century tax revolt by the French peasantry, as only the largest example of what was actually a long-simmering series of revolts against the power of the lords.
Jefferson wrote that “the priest has always been hostile to liberty.” But he could never have said this of the peasants, who could be seen, in virtually every generation, rising up against high taxes, forced labor, cruel punishments, and forced religious practices. The peasants were frequently genuine champions of liberty.
Second, there were the towns. “City air makes you free,” ran the German saying. Medieval market towns could rise or fall depending on the commercial restrictions placed upon them, and in the early middle ages (as opposed to the later middle ages and early modern period), the bourgeoisie commonly agitated for independence from feudal dues and obligations. Later, as the power of the centralizing state increased, towns lost their privileges and townsfolk tended increasingly to side with the despots in an effort to gain favors from them — a capitulation that also worked in their self-interest, but that lasted only until the revolutions of the modern era, when the despots were again severely challenged.
So, for much of the era we are discussing, merchants and townsfolk were often friends of liberty. For all of the era we are discussing, the peasants were as well. Given that peasants were the overwhelming majority of people at the time, I think that Jefferson’s attack on the priesthood is entirely justified. (With of course the rare exceptions of those priests who sided with the peasants and against the nobles.)
Jason,
Juvenel, in Soveignty argues persuasively that the notion that the Medieval kings exercised great power which has been restricted by the democratic movements of the 18th-20th centuries is a mistaken reading of history. The 10th-12th century sovereign was very weak in what he might do. He had no power to tax and the rights over those of his vassals was quite prescribed and regulated by traditions. I might note that the church was a force holding on to that tradition. However, as time passed that tradition was eroded and today, our free (Jefferson influenced) democracy holds much more power of the common man than did that 11th century sovereign (although I’d think that Jefferson today might be surprised that we have not revolted against the excesses by the government he helped found). The burgher and serf in the 11th century could not be arbitrarily taxed, nor conscripted, and so on. However, our government can do these things today As you yourself write, “as the power of the centralizing state increased”. this demonstrates the progressive increase in the central power of the governments. In this movement, could one not argue that the church was a conservative element holding to the traditions of the medieval past, against the progressive elements and thereby a movement supporting real freedom. Against those forces moving towards the modern 20th century pinnacle of non-freedom which manifested itself in the nominally democratic inspired industrial European totalitarian states (such as Germany and the Soviet bloc)?
The point is, that there has been a general trend over the last 1000 years away from personal freedom toward a centralization of power and freedom. The democratic movements of the last centuries have not helped. The question of what role the presbytery played in this movement is interesting, but not I think central.
As for the Jacquerie, Wiki was coy on this matter, and in fact so were you. I would guess that among the ranks of the serfs in revolt were in fact members of the clergy. I would be surprised if their ranks were entirely secular, especially in that age. Did not their own provincial priests/monastics revolt alongside them? I would be very surprised if the aristocratic episcopate supported them, but much of the clergy serving the common man was not drawn from the ranks of the aristocracy, and I’d not be surprised if those in revolt did not have priests in their ranks, to bless, shrive, give services and so among their gathering, likewise in the towns. It seems to me you are assuming a single point of view expressed uniformly by the clergy, but I think that the church is more diverse than that. As a group, I’d guess that they (the presbytery) were not better nor worse than any other professional group, unlike the accusation you are supporting claims. But to your final point, I’d think you are wrong, that it was not a rare exception that the priests ministering directly to the peasants did not “side with” the peasants.
The problem, as I saw it, with the groups you mentioned (those which
groups that had articulated a natural-rights ideology supporting one or more of the following goals: ending censorship, religious tolerance, contractual and private property rights, limited governmental power, and the rule of law.),
is not that they supported as such, but that it seems likely to me that they drew their membership primarily from the ranks of the wealthy, the educated, and the aristocracy, i.e., the “despot”. And that might truly be the case, that ultimately the strongest force against the despot has been … the despot.
Mark — a few replies, to what’s already becoming probably an overlong and forgotten thread…
“Juvenel, in Soveignty argues persuasively that the notion that the Medieval kings exercised great power which has been restricted by the democratic movements of the 18th-20th centuries is a mistaken reading of history.”
I’ve not read the book, but it’s a thesis I’m willing to accept, depending on what it means. Certainly I can’t call the 20th century a libertarian heaven on earth, after all. Still, I fail to see how this exonerates the representatives of organized religion, who seem to have generally — with important exceptions — learned the value of liberty only in Jefferson’s time and afterward.
As to what the sovereign could and could not do in the medieval world, you are right that the kings were weak. But the local lords were quite powerful, and the peasants and serfs — well over 90% of everyone — were subject to them and lived in nearly the most unfree manner that available technology allowed. Weak kings are fine indeed, but that is only a tiny part of the whole story.
“The burgher and serf in the 11th century could not be arbitrarily taxed, nor conscripted, and so on.”
I’m doubtful of this, as forced military service was a routine part of medieval warfare. Notably it was a great libertarian — Milton Friedman — who argued successfully for the abolition of the draft in this country, a development I applaud.
Regarding the Soviet bloc, again, I reject its importance to this conversation. Jefferson knew nothing about it and can’t be faulted for failing to predict the future.
“As for the Jacquerie, Wiki was coy on this matter, and in fact so were you. I would guess that among the ranks of the serfs in revolt were in fact members of the clergy…”
You would “guess?” And I’m being coy because I failed to anticipate your guess? From what we know of the Jacquerie, it was run chiefly by peasants. If some clergy happened to be involved, they were on the margins of the event so far as I am aware.
As to your last point, that many of the wealthy repudiated despotism, renounced the power they held over others, and set up liberal governments — okay… Sounds good to me. It’s undeniably true in many cases, as of course with Washington, who could easily have made himself king of America, but who refused it. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the clergy and the general role of organized religion as apologists for despotism. Jefferson remains right in the same sense that anyone who speaks of a general category of people ever is right — sure, there are exceptions. But we don’t abolish all rules for their sake.
Jason,
Well, except for a few who subscribe to your comments on RSS, you are probably right about this been down a long way off and forgotten at this point, but I’ll tender one more reply as I at least have benefited (I never heard of the Jacquerie before for instance) and have enjoyed the exchange, so thanks at any rate for your patience.
It was my understanding (from Juvenel) that the conscription of the serf by the local lord was limited by tradition in length, to specific season, and payment was set and required. That is why wars were quiet brief and often just between planting and harvesting times. Hence the common necessity for Kings and other Lords to run about hunting up the monies to have their wars because their ability to tax was also limited by traditions. Today, in an age we think as more free, taxes are less limited by law and tradition, in fact are likely higher in proportion than then.
Ed had made a stronger claim than Jefferson’s, which had I thought uncharitable and which had started this off. But nonetheless I think that Jefferson’s generalization is also false, although for his era, the Protestant presbytery had a better track record than the Roman.
You, ultimately, have an advantage of me with respect to Juvenel, in that you can read him not in translation but in the original French.
[...] Update: Taken from http://positiveliberty.com/2007/02/but-im.html, originally posted at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/index.html [...]