Protecting Religious Dissent

Maggie Gallagher has a good piece with a large number of examples of people punished for expressing ordinary religious opinions.

Some people suggest that you should just, in the interest of courtesy or social concord, keep your mouth shut outside of church or the home. During the 19th century, there was a similar movement promising liberation for Jews in central Europe: the slogan was 'be a Jew at home, and a man in the street.' The problem was that this solidified the opinion that only non-Jewish values were legitimate in the 'man in the street,' while undercutting the separate place in which Jews had been allowed to exist as a separate minority.

There's another problem, which is that sometimes one must engage the public discourse.
Gordon College students are banned from tutoring public-school students, because of the college’s embrace of standard orthodox Christian rules (no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman); the request of its college president for a religious exemption from President Obama has now triggered a possible threat to its accreditation.

...

In Lafayette, Calif., parents of 14-year-old public-school students are suing because their children were asked in English class whether their parents would embrace them if they were gay — and then these Christian students were publicly shamed and humiliated when they supported their parents’ values....

Note the similar strategies here: invite or force public comment and then discipline those who say the “wrong” thing.
The public school case is interesting. Because of the establishment clause, no public school teacher would be permitted to make the argument that their parent's values are just ordinary religious values of longstanding and with significant philosophical underpinnings. Any teacher may make the argument that religion is stupid and ignorant, and its values deserve scorn in the classroom.

Somehow an important part of the First Amendment's intent, that of protecting religious dissent, has become perverted. We may now suppress religious dissent, while still permitting mockery of that dissent, so long as we do the mocking from a non-religious perspective. That's handicapping the fight, and in a way that the Founders did not at all intend.

32 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

You seem to imply that this is about rights and reasoning. I think it is solely about one tribe having the whip hand and wanting to punish the other.

I suspect most people disguise their desire to punish as some sort of kindness, even to themselves. Mere practicality would not be enough to quiet the conscience.

Texan99 said...

Is forcing people to continue to employ people whose views appall them truly the answer? I'd rather see people respond to impertinent questions at work with a firm statement that some subjects are off limits. When evangelists arrived at my door in my atheistic years, I never argued with them or slammed the door in their faces. I just explained pleasantly that I never discussed religion with people I didn't know well. The same can go for offers to discuss sex at the office. Children in school can be taught polite but firm stock phrases they could use to decline to participate in classroom discussions of this kind.
As always, Miss Manners' all-purpose response is appropriate: "How soon do you need to know?" Use the startled person's mumbled deadline to work on what form of "I don't discuss ____ with people I don't know well" is suggested by the context.

"People I don't know well" is an elastic definition that can easily be expanded to include anyone boorish enough to attempt to force a public discussion of a private topic. There are people one will choose never to know well.

Grim said...

In terms of 'forcing people to employ,' I don't think so; there's an exception for public offices in cases where what is really being applied is a religious test, but in general I think private actors should be free to fire whomever they want.

On the other hand, there's a danger to the robust debate that is necessary for a free society if any endorsement of a given position is considered a firing offense. There's a kind of republican virtue in being able to divide the workspace from the political sphere. It's a virtue, so I'm not saying it should be legally compulsory, but it's certainly something we as a society ought to cultivate.

I wonder, too, what the response from authority would be if the students refused to participate in this classroom discussion? Punishment for disobedience, surely, but possibly also a referral to DFACS: "Your children have been told not to talk about their home life to school officials, which suggests we should investigate you in order to consider whether we will remove your children from your home."

E Hines said...

"Your children have been told not to talk about their home life to school officials, which suggests we should investigate you in order to consider whether we will remove your children from your home."

Bring it. It'll be fun.

Regarding espousing a position--or refusing to--as a firing offense, the military handles that quite nicely: not while in uniform. It's easily generalizable to the civilian workplace. Not on company equipment or company time.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

Not if we're doing it right. The children should be happy to discuss ordinary things about their homes, but reluctant to discuss their religion or their sex lives. If pressed by an overly salacious teacher, they can always start chanting "trigger warning!" Even if Mr. Teacher wasn't literally touching them in a bad place, he made them FEEL as if that's what he was asking, and I'm entitled to my perception, Mr. Evil Heteronormativist! No means no! And anyway I'm still too young to know what you're talking about, Sir. (Cultivate blank face.)

As far as religion goes, that's even easier: just keep saying "It's considered a mystery. I don't know how to put it in words; it's just a feeling, you know? If you try to cage the bird, it flies away like smoke." (Follow up as necessary with "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" and so on, delivered with a dreamy expression.) If pressed, the kid can wonder innocently why some people think everything has to be so articulable and rationalized, the way pale penis people have always insisted. "Trigger warning" might work here, too.

It's true that some numbnuts at DFACS can always be counted on to try to put together a case based on the suspicious lack of any evidence of sex or religion in a household, but it's going to be a lot harder to make it fly than a case founded on any real specifics, no matter how scanty or innocent.

Tom said...

AVI, I think you're right.

Tex, I don't think the federal government has any business telling a private entity (business, church, etc.) whom they can and cannot hire. If a business owner doesn't want to hire white people, or women, or atheists, or etc., I don't have to shop there.

I also think the right to refuse service should be pretty absolute, but it isn't. Somehow, one of these things is covered by the 14th amendment, but not the other. To me, that seems wrong.

Texan99 said...

Tom, I'm with you.

Grim said...

"It's considered a mystery. I don't know how to put it in words; it's just a feeling, you know? If you try to cage the bird, it flies away like smoke."

"It's just a feeling" is easy to dismiss as unimportant, which is dangerous if the question is about a point of ethics or morality. The answer "because my religion, which I deeply believe, teaches me that God says not to do X" is not reducible to "because I feel like not doing X."

Although I suspect that some people on the other side of the debate think it is in fact reducible in just that way. You should give way on your religious beliefs whenever we say, since they're 'just a feeling' that you can't explain in rational terms.

Texan99 said...

Certainly: if the purpose is to engage in a rational defense of one's religion, or any or all of its tenets, in open high school class, there are many virtues in the clear form. If the purpose is to get the teacher to back off on an impertinent question without failing the class, my invincibly vague (but unassailably PC) approach has advantages. The "I can't put it into words" wall applies not only to the specific moral question being raised but to the whole idea of identifying his religion, if he'd prefer not to be drawn in. Even the name of his religion can be put out of bounds for discussion.

If he feels a need to witness, that's another matter. My suggestion is about privacy, not about winning the argument--as if you could win an argument with a petty tyrant bent on browbeating teenagers locked into a classroom with him and dependent on him for a diploma. I'm guessing that a fair-minded review of alternative viewpoints is not on the teacher's agenda.

Texan99 said...

There's also "I don't feel comfortable discussing sex with someone so much older than me, and in a position of power."

Tom said...

Tex, it's good to find common ground.

On how students can respond in class,
I tend agree with Grim that the vague defense is a bit lacking. While it meets one goal, it also gives everyone in the class the impression that faith is irrational and indefensible, possibly even silly.

I much prefer the other formulations: "I don't feel comfortable talking about that here / with people I don't know well" should be clear enough and acceptable. I like that last one about sex as well.

"I find it intimidating to discuss politically volatile issues with people in positions of authority over me," or something like that might also work.

Texan99 said...

It's not a defense! That's the whole point.

Grim said...

I'm afraid that "I'm intimidated to discuss this with you in view of your position of authority" might be an outright lie coming from me, but I suppose it would work for some. :)

Texan99 said...

The heart-rending stories about people forced to undergo a religious or sexual inquisition at school or work probably didn't have you in mind. I'm assuming someone is bothered by the pressure, or what are we even talking about?

Grim said...

What we're talking about -- or at least, what I was thinking about -- is the way the dialogue is structured. It's true that there's a problem of power outside of the dialogue too: employers have power over employees, teachers over students.

What I was thinking of, though, was the odd way in which the Establishment clause has come to serve as a quasi-establishment of secularism. The point of the clause was to protect religious dissenters. We could talk about secularism as another religious view -- it is a view on religion, in any case, just as atheism is -- in which case the same standards would apply to it. But instead, as we have defined it as a non-religious view, it can be 'established' in ways that no religious views can.

It turns out the establishment clause can be used as a weapon, and not only against religious minority dissenters from some secular orthodoxy, but even in cases where the majority dissents for religious reasons. It ends up not being very good at its intended purpose, which was to protect religious dissent.

Texan99 said...

Well, I was getting dizzy. Once we decide whether we want privacy or a vigorous debate, it's not that hard to deflect unwanted discussions with people from whom we fear retaliation--or even just a tiresome insistence on a conversation we don't choose to have.

Another good all-purpose phrase is "This discussion is in the worst possible taste."

Grim said...

I think what I want is the opportunity for either. If there's an invitation (or requirement) to comment in public, some protection for religious dissent should exist. In the case of the government-as-actor, it should be formal and legal protection. In the case of private actors, I think there's a virtue (but not a legal or moral duty) involved in trying to make space for each other.

That extends to things like elections and donations to 501(c)-type groups that seek to effect some understanding. It's inappropriate, I think, to fire someone for having given his or her own money or time seeking to affect the government's policy. That's what we do in America: we want citizens to be engaged in our system, working out their differences politically rather than having them fester into other forms of resistance.

It might be entirely appropriate to fire someone for proselytizing at work, especially if they're on the clock while they're doing it. If they're off the clock and off the property, a virtuous employer ought to say "What she does on her own time is none of my business."

Texan99 said...

"If there's an invitation (or requirement) to comment in public, some protection for religious dissent should exist."

What a lot to unpack! "An invitation" should come with "some protection." Hmmm. I'd prefer that people who receive an "invitation" to unburden their deepest thoughts on controversial issues would decide whether to accept on the basis, in part, of whether they have good reason to believe they can tolerate the social impact of sharing their views. If the answer is "no," they can always politely decline the invitation: it's really not a command performance. If the answer is "yes," they may as well get used to the idea that some people will hold their views against them, and social relations inevitably will cool, with the possible loss of dinner invitations, job offers, patronage at their stores, sales of their books, etc.

Nor am I interested in forcibly overriding these social shunning mechanisms. The only legal protection I'm interested in is from the state's use of power to punish heresy. I'm not entitled to protection from my neighbor's decision to have nothing more to do with me and my revolting ideas.

To the extent the problem worries me at all, it's in the context of very young and vulnerable people who haven't yet been taught properly how to keep would-be inquisitors politely but firmly at bay. They really need to learn early on that they're not at the mercy of questions from anyone. The main trick is to learn to deflect them without always starting a big control battle, and these are skills they're going to need, anyway, in order to deal with people who for the rest of their lives will attempt to corner them into unwanted social activities, club chairmanships, sexual advances, and so on, short of encountering prepared to use guns and torture devices to extract information. I don't think nearly enough attention is given to the art of saying "no" politely and making it stick.

Grim said...

"An invitation" should come with "some protection." Hmmm.

Human beings don't agree on much, but one thing we do agree upon is hospitality. This is a basic feature of one of our rare universal values: if you invite me to dine with you, it's understood that you won't murder me while I eat. Violations of this principle are infamous.

I think it applies here too. If you specifically ask me what I think about something, and I tell you, you may not like it and you may get mad about it. But it's inappropriate to retaliate against me for having accepted your invitation to express my view on the subject you asked about.

Texan99 said...

Trying to provoke someone into spilling his guts can be loosely called an "invitation" without outraging the English language, but if we go so far as to start invoking universal laws of hospitality, I think it's best to alter our casual conversational shorthand. No one's offering tasty food or lodging; they're demanding an explanation to which they have no conceivable right.

Not that I disagree with you that it's extremely rude to pump someone for information, then berate him when he dishes. It's just that "No, thanks" is a better answer; we don't have to act as though we had had a button punched that we had only one possible response to, especially when it's pretty obvious what's coming.

Tom said...

It's not a defense! That's the whole point.

Well, rats. I hate it when I'm wrong.

Still, I think it gives a false impression and that there are true things we can say that work just as well.

Tom said...

"This discussion is in the worst possible taste."

I must find an excuse to use this!

..with the possible loss of dinner invitations, job offers, patronage at their stores, sales of their books, etc.

Although you address this a bit later, in the context of a primary or secondary student in a government classroom, I think it's worse than you let on here. I think there should be some clear legal protections in place, to the extent that a teacher who pushes the boundaries repeatedly can be both sued and fired.

(I'm not a big fan of government immunity, obviously.)

Texan99 said...

In that case I recommend "This conversation is in the worst possible taste." Unarguably true, and it's often helpful to turn the conversation back on the questioner's behavior rather than on the subject of his impertinent question.

The other approach admittedly is a somewhat hostile attempt to turn the questioner's nonsense back on him. He's not expected to believe it, only to think about how unbelievable it is and how unreasonable he's been in the past to foist the same sort of nonsense on other people. For that reason, I'd enjoy saying "I'd prefer not to discuss this with a person in a position of power," if only to watch him mutter and protest about not being in a position of power, so I could answer coldly, "Oh, you're too modest."

The mildest sort of strictly true statement remains "Thank you, but I prefer not to discuss it with you." Some people, however, will take this too-subtle approach as an invitation to insist even more strongly on intruding on one's privacy. Nevertheless, it can be repeated as necessary. All it takes is matching stamina to stamina.

Texan99 said...

Anyway, since when is a social formula supposed to be sincere? Have you ever said "Thank you so much" when you were rather more irritated than grateful? If you leave a party saying "Thank you for a delightful evening. You have a lovely home," does it bother you if you had a boring time and thought the house was dreadful? Do you tell people their babies are ugly?

The purpose of this kind of phrase is not, I repeat not, to give your rude questioner accurate information in response to his inappropriate line of interrogation. It is to shut him up and back him off. When I told the Jehovah's Witnesses that I never discuss religion with someone I don't know well, there was nothing even remotely true about the remark. I was more than happy to discuss religion with total strangers, unless they were people who were offering to invade my home and perhaps prove reluctant to leave after their conversation had begun to wear on me. But I didn't see any point in saying that to them when a politer brush-off was available--one I knew from experience virtually no door-knocker has the self-confidence to persist in the face of.

Tom said...

Hm. If done with an undercurrent of unmistakable but not-quite-insubordinate sarcasm, the whole rainbows and unicorns, one hand clapping routine could be quite effective.

If we ever meet in person, I will have to remember your social combat skills and keep a sharp eye on you.

Tom said...

I think we posted at the same time. My 6:33 response was to your 6:15.

When I told the Jehovah's Witnesses that I never discuss religion with someone I don't know well, there was nothing even remotely true about the remark.

Well, as a student in a classroom is forced to spend a lot of time with teachers and fellow students, I don't think this is really comparable to talking to strangers. A junior high student can't just tell a polite lie and close the door on the teacher or the other students in the room.

Anyway, since when is a social formula supposed to be sincere?

I'm not so much concerned with sincerity as I am not giving a false impression about an important topic. I happen to believe that religion is often good, so I don't want to influence someone else in the room to think otherwise, especially when other replies are equally good to end an unwanted intrusion.

Texan99 said...

Well, obviously I think it would be appropriate to fire a teacher who asked his captive students ill-bred questions, to say nothing of his using the answers against them if they were naive or incautious enough to answer. That's something a principal in a well-run school ought to do as a matter of course. What I would not favor is waiting until the student had finished defending his theory of life and then asking the government to intervene on the ground that the student was being penalized for the content of his answer--as if the whole thing were hunky-dory as long as the teacher was happy with the answer. The student ought never to answer in the first place, and the teacher should be fired merely for having the bad judgment to ask.

My social combat skills aren't that formidable unless you're trying to rope me into something, and then I'm masterful. No one pries information out of me that I'm uncomfortable divulging.

Two more excellent Miss Manners tools: (1) "What an extraordinary question." Full stop, no further information volunteered, ever, but the smile and pleasant tone of voice need never waver. --and-- (2) "You must let me call you when I can see my way clear." Then never see your way clear. This last is pretty hostile, and to be used only on people who've made it clear they can't understand the word "no." You're hoping to terminate the interaction completely, without provoking an open quarrel.

On the subject of the veiled hostility of my proposed student responses, I think saying "I don't feel comfortable discussing sex with someone twice my age" achieves several goals. It reminds the old fart that he or she has no business interacting sexually with children, and that the children see him or her as absurdly over the hill in that context, no matter how hot and "with it" he or she fancies him- or herself. If the student adds, "And I don't really like talking about sex as much as you do," the teacher is reminded that there's something a little creepy about an adult who can't seem to get off the subject with children. ("Timmy, do you like movies about gladiators?")

There's nothing exactly equivalent for religious questions, though I think retreating into "one hand clapping" gobbledegook sets a nice trap for a teacher who'd rather die than be caught acting uncool about inarticulate Eastern mysticism. The kid gets to act as though it were self-evident that the teacher was not spiritually advanced enough to understand his views on, say, evolution or gay marriage. But this is advanced sarcasm, which few young teenagers can pull off for long while maintaining plausible deniability. It also teaches the teenager the joys of contempt, which is a heady draft for someone so young, and not all that safe even for us oldsters. It's a mark of how deeply I despise teachers who would act this way that I'd even consider advising it.

Texan99 said...

There is nothing inconsistent between "Religion is good" and "I don't choose to be interrogated about my religion in the context of this classroom, where I can't trust the teacher not to down-grade me if he has opposing religious views or hates religion in general." It's even possible to suggest that anyone and everyone is welcome to join you for services next week if they're curious about your faith and would like to learn more. It's also possible to discuss the tenets of various religions in the abstract, and good practice for the student to learn to do so not only in context of his own religion but that of others.

Naturally it's easier to brush off someone on whom you can close the front door, but it's not that much harder when you're locked in a room; it only requires repeating the formula pleasantly until they get tired of asking. It's good practice, too; we're too inclined to jump to the conclusion that people who ask improper questions should be rewarded with answers if only they're persistent enough. It's a terrible idea, like negotiating with terrorists. We need to learn to say "no" and mean it. If they persist, the conversation should become about their persistence, which puzzles us more and more and distracts us from whatever they were trying to grill us about. "I'm curious why you can't seem to let this go . . .? Something in your past?"

Tom said...

Well, obviously I think it would be appropriate to fire a teacher who asked his captive students ill-bred questions, to say nothing of his using the answers against them if they were naive or incautious enough to answer. That's something a principal in a well-run school ought to do as a matter of course.

If you were running our school systems, I don't think we'd need to have this conversation at all.

My social combat skills aren't that formidable unless you're trying to rope me into something, and then I'm masterful. No one pries information out of me that I'm uncomfortable divulging.

I have no doubt of that.

I think saying "I don't feel comfortable discussing sex with someone twice my age" achieves several goals.

Once you offered that response, the goals were instantly apparent to me, but I don't think I would have thought of giving that answer in the first place. In some ways, I am boringly sincere and straightforward. At least, until whisky is involved.

Tom said...

There is nothing inconsistent between "Religion is good" and "I don't choose to be interrogated about my religion in the context of this classroom, where I can't trust the teacher not to down-grade me if he has opposing religious views or hates religion in general."

That's true, but unless there is that clear sarcasm there, people might actually believe you thought religion was utterly irrational and all about rainbows and one hand clapping. So, even though you are really saying "Leave me alone," what others in the room will hear is "Religion is nonsense."

Texan99 said...

That's true. The sarcasm probably was a bad idea.

So, back to "I'd prefer not to discuss it here. If you're curious about any particular faith, I can point you toward some reading materials, or services that are held locally. Would you mind sharing with the group how you became interested in this denomination?"

If the teacher wants to go on about how he's heard that members of XYZ Faith boil kittens on Saturday nights and poison wells on Sundays, it's probably best if the student says soothingly, "You're entitled to your perspective, of course. Can you tell us more about your traumatic experience, and how you've learned to overcome it?" Frankly, the more the teacher talks the less the student can be trapped into anything the teacher will try to drag him up on charges for.

Tom said...

I like the idea of keeping them talking, too. Classes have a time limit, and running out the clock is a time-honored practice in many sports.