Comments on: The Perils of Religious Passion: A Response to Professor Samuel Calhoun http://uclalawreview.org/?p=500 UCLA Law Review Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:14:17 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Tom Van Dyke http://uclalawreview.org/?p=500&cpage=1#comment-115 Tom Van Dyke Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:35:36 +0000 http://services.law.ucla.edu/lawreview/?p=500#comment-115 Professor Stone ignores virtually every one of Professor Calhoun's well-founded historical objections, both the historical facts, and Calhoun's key argument, that federalism left religion to the states. It's impossible to refute Stone's litany of semi-truths, especially since he will whine that "I was struck not only by his determination to refute almost every statement," as he does with Calhoun. But contra Stone, Calhoun was not "unChristian" in his refutation. Stone received a boatload of what might be considered Christian forbearance, indeed charity, in light of the fact that almost every statement held a degree of error. As for Stone's worst sins against the truth, in "conced[ing] the point" about the term "Christian nation," Calhoun only allowed that <i>"Professor Stone encapsulates this “Puritan vision” of a “rigidly theocratic societ[y]” in the phrase, “‘Christian nation.’”[49] He cites the language of the U.S. Constitution as proof that the Framers did not intend “to establish a ‘Christian nation,’ but rather to create a secular state.”[50] Professor Stone is correct that the Framers did not intend a “Christian nation,” i.e., a “rigidly theocratic societ[y].”</i> But only a small number of cranks argue the Founding contemplated theocracy. Another straw man scalp for Prof. Stone's belt. Further, and to the core of Calhoun's argument that religion was left to the states, well, how about Mr. Separation himself, Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General government. It must then rest with the States.” As for the rest of Professor Stone's attempt to hijack the Founders for his progressive politics, the less said the better. But for the record, abortion doesn't appear in the "Word of God," [the Bible], Professor. Opposition to it is the result of religious conscience, yes [which hasn't been banned yet, thank God, although you're clearly trying], but via moral reasoning as well. Perhaps I'm unkind [unChristian?] at Prof. Stone's prolificity of error. It's just hard to believe he got so many things wrong without working at it. Professor Stone ignores virtually every one of Professor Calhoun’s well-founded historical objections, both the historical facts, and Calhoun’s key argument, that federalism left religion to the states.

It’s impossible to refute Stone’s litany of semi-truths, especially since he will whine that “I was struck not only by his determination to refute almost every statement,” as he does with Calhoun. But contra Stone, Calhoun was not “unChristian” in his refutation. Stone received a boatload of what might be considered Christian forbearance, indeed charity, in light of the fact that almost every statement held a degree of error.

As for Stone’s worst sins against the truth, in “conced[ing] the point” about the term “Christian nation,” Calhoun only allowed that

“Professor Stone encapsulates this “Puritan vision” of a “rigidly theocratic societ[y]” in the phrase, “‘Christian nation.’”[49] He cites the language of the U.S. Constitution as proof that the Framers did not intend “to establish a ‘Christian nation,’ but rather to create a secular state.”[50] Professor Stone is correct that the Framers did not intend a “Christian nation,” i.e., a “rigidly theocratic societ[y].”

But only a small number of cranks argue the Founding contemplated theocracy. Another straw man scalp for Prof. Stone’s belt.

Further, and to the core of Calhoun’s argument that religion was left to the states, well, how about Mr. Separation himself, Thomas Jefferson:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General government. It must then rest with the States.”

As for the rest of Professor Stone’s attempt to hijack the Founders for his progressive politics, the less said the better. But for the record, abortion doesn’t appear in the “Word of God,” [the Bible], Professor. Opposition to it is the result of religious conscience, yes [which hasn't been banned yet, thank God, although you're clearly trying], but via moral reasoning as well.

Perhaps I’m unkind [unChristian?] at Prof. Stone’s prolificity of error. It’s just hard to believe he got so many things wrong without working at it.

]]>