Classical Values :: What I almost once never said

July 08, 2009

What I almost once never said

In a comment to an earlier post, "Moneyrunner" (whose own post here seems to assume I'm against Christianity, in favor of out-of-wedlock births, in favor of libertinism, and in favor of anti-conservative "snark") is upset with what I did not say:

Our host... never once says that he would support my right to pray during a commencement ceremony, to exhibit a creche in the public square, in sum, to do any of the things that people in 1950 thought was perfectly right and proper even though we were not ruled by a theocracy.

(My thanks to Sean Kinsell for pointing out that he'd "be very surprised if [I] opposed nativity scenes at Christmas or school prayer as long as non-believers weren't forced to participate.")

Never once?

Do I have to repeat what I have said in countless posts like these? I take a very broad view of the First Amendment, and I think free speech is free speech, regardless of whether the speech involved is religious speech, although I disagree with the idea that some prayers are more equal than others, or that religious speech is entitled to superior protection to other forms of free speech.

So, (and while I think regular readers already know this) for the record, I totally support the following as free speech:

praying during a commencement ceremony (or at any other time)

exhibiting a creche in the public square

(A creche would be free expression, which is of course a form of free speech.)

As I have pointed out countless times, just because I never said something does not mean I don't agree with whatever it is I didn't say. I also didn't say that I support the following as a "right":

to do any of the things that people in 1950 thought was perfectly right and proper

That's pretty broad, because I don't know who the specific people are, and what they might have thought was right and proper. People approved of very different things: some approved of racial segregation, while some approved of Alfred Kinsey's best-selling Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. (Others disapproved, of course.) The Mattachine Society was founded in 1950 by a bunch of gay Communists, and while I don't think gay Communists are perfectly right and proper, they obviously were people who thought what they were doing was right and proper. Certainly, in 1950 they had a right to form a group, which they did.

As it happens, I think the late 40s and early 50s was a very interesting (maybe I should say "very cool") period in American cultural history. In particular, I love the film noir genre, and I would note that many of these films would not have been made just ten years earlier, because of the rigid application of the draconian Hays Code. Fortunately, as many film noir fans have observed,

The genre also flourished due to some relaxation in the film censorship laws during this time.

From a cultural standpoint, I suspect that the presence of many servicemen who had returned from World War II -- where they had risked their lives for their country and seen many new aspects of the world -- had much to do with the relaxation of the (IMO) stultifying 1930s morality which had been artificially imposed earlier (in reaction to the perceived excesses of the 1920s).

There is cultural ebb and flow, and while I can't be sure, I think I would have probably enjoyed life in America in the late 40s and early 50s. Whether that makes me a "conservative," I don't know. My problem with that word is that it invites trouble from people who want to define it -- and me.

I also think I might be asking for trouble if I declared that people "have a right to do any of the things that people in 1950 thought was perfectly right and proper."

Too many opportunities in there for commenters to seize upon things that I never said.

posted by Eric on 07.08.09 at 11:12 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8477

Comments

I consider public statements by progressives arguing for welfare programs to help the poor and for state action on global warming to be religious speech.

Available evidence is against them, yet they persist in believing because of their faith. Is it automatically not a religion because there's no god in it?

P · July 8, 2009 12:04 PM

Fucking A right.

dr kill · July 8, 2009 03:46 PM

I am not in favor of an established religion, which is what this is really about (officially supporting a religious viewpoint - even a creche on public property has _some_ cost in public money.)

I take this position to protect churches from government control. I am against "faith based initiatives" of government for the same reason. Once the government gets it mitts on them it will be over.

andrewdb · July 8, 2009 04:59 PM

So all one has to do to defend a religious display on government property is to prove that it has no harmful effect on other religions? I agree. As long as all religions and philosophical viewpoints have equal opportunity to put up their version of a creche - and "first come, first served" is an equitable rule, given the finite dimensions of the courthouse lawn - no religion is being established. A creche next to a statue of Ayn Rand might look funny, but it is much better than statues of Ted Kennedy or Urkel Obama.

Robert Speirs · July 8, 2009 06:31 PM