Many people seem to be confused over the meaning of the term “separation of church and state”. How is it relevant to our lives in America?


The very concept of the “separation of church and state” dates back to Roger Williams and the founding of Rhode Island in 1636. He was the first American to advocate and activate complete freedom of conscience, dissociation of church and state, and genuine political democracy. He also founded the first Baptist Church in North America. He settled in Providence with 13 other householders and in one year formed the first genuine democracy, as well as the first church-divorced and conscience-free community in modern history. Williams felt that government is the natural way provided by God to cope with the corrupt nature of man. But since government could not be trusted to know which religion is true, he considered the best hope for true religion rests with the protection of the freedom of all religion, along with non-religion, from the state. In that way, whichever religion was true would never find itself subservient to one that was false. The truth of a religion doesn’t lie in the number of it’s believers but in its message.

Separation of Church and State

The logic behind the concept is flawless, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the forward thinking of the founders of this country. With the diversity inherent in a pluralistic society, including a multitude of Christian sects, as well as representation of every faith on the planet, including those with no beliefs at all, the only conceivable way to ensure that no amount of favoritism is shown through legislation to any one belief, in preference to any other, is to create an environment in which all religious beliefs compete with each on a level playing field based on their own merits.

Some have argued that what that does is establish atheism as something having a favored religious status. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism is not a religion. It’s the absence of religion. It holds a secular position. The default position of the government is one that shows no favoritism to any religious view. That is the definition of secular. In order to maintain religious freedom, which is the core of democracy, government must not concern itself with religious subjects. In this way each religion rises or falls of it’s own accord without the assistance of the government. The success and purity of a religion should be based on faith, which is its message. Not government sponsorship. Government corrupts religion.

The atheist has no interest in religion and simply holds the same default position, and that position is one of democracy. Religious freedom and the freedom of ones conscience is fundamental to democracy. Atheism, for example, doesn’t introduce something into the legislative action of government based upon a belief. It doesn’t concern itself with belief at all. Therefore it, like the government, which must address the needs of all of its people, can only address matters that effect everyone regardless of their beliefs. Knowing that no religion can prove itself as more real or accurate than any other, government can’t possibly legislate the beliefs of one over the beliefs of another on issues that are simply matters of faith. The only result from that kind of action is religious tyranny. Society is reduced to a matter of who has the most adherents to a belief. Having more believers doesn’t mean that the belief is necessarily true.

Jefferson said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Holding to this principle insures the concept of religious freedom that is the cornerstone of democracy. Opposition to this principle begs the question put forth by Justice O’Connor when she asked, “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly? Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of our historical, legal and political/social heritage and preserves and protects our religious liberty.


Roger Williams – Champion of Liberty: by Ian Williams Goddard. eighth great-great-grandson of Roger Williams

Thomas Jefferson: Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson Writings. Library of America

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: United States Supreme Court

The copyright of the article Separation of Church and State in American Affairs is owned by Larry Allen Brown. Permission to republish Separation of Church and State in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.


Latest Articles by Larry Allen Brown

Become a freelance writer!

Larry Allen Brown is the author of Poltical Logic: Defeating Conservative Theories of Rationality, and Growing up White in Racist America.

He has also recorded three CD’s:

Cobb Lane

Music for the High Country

Stories that we wrote

He is also a teacher having recorded the DVD:

Open Tunings for the Guitar – Open D

He is published by Decent Hill Publishers.

He lives in Vermont. He’s a liberal iconoclast.

Political Logic

A Critique of Conservatism

The very first sentence in Mark Levin’s book reads, “THERE IS SIMPLY NO scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. This is probably true. If there were a scientific or mathematical formula for conservatism, we would find some logic in the ideology. Maybe we could make logical inferences and draw logical conclusions that would show that conservatism was steeped in some form of logic. However there really is no logic to conservatism. This came as no surprise to me. Conservatism does however have a prescribed doctrine. A Theory of Rationality. What would give me that impression you might ask? Glad you asked. In his lecture on The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.”

Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:

“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”
—Ronald Reagan, 1981

For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing. Dr, Kirks conservative credentials are established. He is a conservative. He is qualified to speak on the meaning of conservatism. Far more so then Mark Levin.

This prompted me to examine a few of Kirks ideas which he put forth as his 10 principles of conservatism, in addition to his 6 “canons”. Kirk begins with his first principle as being that “the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order”.
He states, “Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.
Well, in taking a close examination of Plato, we see that to Plato, there was no natural sense on how men ought to live, education was to be the key to the construction of a better society; from that the “educated” would arise the elite to rule society. Plato thought it essential that a strict threefold class division be maintained. In addition to the rulers, the Philosopher-kings, there were to be “Auxiliaries” (soldiers, police and civil servants) and the “Workers” (the rest of us).

Plato’s view of society was pinned by the belief that philosophers are capable of knowing the absolute truth about how to rule society and thus are justified in wielding absolute power. Such a view is in striking contrast to that of his principal teacher, Socrates (469-399 BC), who was always conscious of how much he did not know, and claimed superiority to unthinking men only in that he was aware of his own ignorance where they were not.

Slave State:
Putting it mildly, Plato’s view was that we are ineradicably social, and that the individual person was not, and could not, be self-sufficient. In fact, Plato offered up humans like so many animals that could do nothing for themselves unless they had constant and detailed direction from those who were to be their leaders:
“… And even in the smallest manner … [one] should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals … only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently … There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” (The Republic.)

Incidentally, Plato took a dim view of democracy. To Plato, it made no sense that we should proceed to put people in charge who have shaky, or, worse yet, no philosophical positions. A “democratic” system turns up people to govern on the basis of what the majority of the voters say, a majority which when compared to the number of citizens (non-voting included) is likely in fact to be a minority of people who have no plans, no answers other than that necessary to get themselves elected. Plato may have been right in his views on democracy; the difficulty is Plato’s avowed and stated belief that men were unequal to one another. I say unequal, but that is putting it on a too charitable basis. To Plato society was to break down to those few who were to be the philosopher kings, and the rest of us, who were to be treated like laboring beasts of the field. The Platonic view of man is one that is in complete accord with the view of the socialist.

Not exactly what Sir Karl Popper would have called, an Open Society.

Kirks third principle states that, “conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription”. According to Kirk, “In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality”. Kirk is justifying prejudice here and we have many examples of conservatives over the years taking that justification to heart. This is an ample of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. It is almost an automatic knee jerk response by conservatives who base their ideology on preserving existing institutions.

Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”( Healthcare anyone?) Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago?

The conservative Dixiecrat’s of the South such as Strom Thurmond who opposed the Civil Rights Act are prime examples. It’s no coincidence that Thurmond’s racist prejudice and an ideology that allowed him to justify that prejudice would find each other down in Dixie. Conservatism, whether in the hands of a Democrat or a Republican has never been friendly to minorities.

When Kirk states that “the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality”, what he is in fact endorsing is a collective theory of rationality and dismissing the liberal critical rationalism of the individual. It seems that although conservatives like to speak of individualism, it really amounts to little more than words. What they subscribe to according to Kirk, is a collective theory of rationality.

A conservative is without any doubt, a traditional rationalist. This simplifies his life since he need only apply his theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, he need never distinguish between truth and falsity.

His theory does that for him. There is a conservative position on issues, and no more needs to be said. No thinking is necessary.

As Liberals have no such theory of rationality, they must distinguish between truth and falsity themselves. I think it’s important to see that Conservative doctrine and dogma precedes Levin’s “Conservative Manifesto” Levin is merely the latest version of something we’ve seen before.

In Kirks Fifth principle he states, “conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety”. In this principle he claims that “For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality”.

What we have here is a justification for a hierarchal society. Otherwise known as an aristocracy. We also see a justification for prejudice and bigotry as being a good and necessary part of the conservative concept of society. We also see, a justification for the segregation that occurred in the south where natural and institutional differences were destroyed in the eyes of conservatives.

Getting back to Levin’s book, on the very first page of the book, Levin states that “what follows are my own opinions and conclusions of fundamental truths, based on decades of observation, exploration, and experience, about conservatism and , conversely, non-conservatism – that is, liberty and tyranny. All things conservative = liberty. All things NOT conservative = tyranny. In short, if you aren’t a conservative, you’re a tyrant. He cannot demonstrate why what he’s saying is true, but if you don’t agree with his ideology…it’s because you aspire to being a tyrant.
On page 4 of his book, Levin says, “The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence (written by the Liberal Thomas Jefferson) and the order of the civil society, in whole or part.” He goes on to say that “As the word “liberal” is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the “Modern Liberal” as a Statist. Levin creates a monolithic character called “Modern Liberal”. The definition of monolithic is characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity; “a monolithic society”; “a monolithic worldwide movement” The “Modern Liberal” here is characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity; “a monolithic society”; “a monolithic worldwide movement”. Therefore, all liberals are part of a massive and rigid and totally uniform way of thinking.

This probably comes as quite a shock to liberals who don’t ever seem to agree on anything. Organizing liberals has been equated to trying to herd cats. The humorist Will Rogers once said,” “I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat!” However, Levin casts non-conservatives monolithically as “statists”. A term he took from Reagan. Throughout his book, Levin describes all evils as the designs of the “statist” otherwise known as, “the modern liberal”… the non-conservative. He claims that conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.

But they really aren’t, Mr. Levin. The founding principles of the United States are grounded in liberalism. What Mark Levin is doing here as attempting to co-opt and re-write the very historical foundations of this country into a conservative ideology that was totally at odds with the reality of the American revolution. He’s trying to present conservatism in a light that gives it a patina of patriotism and legitimacy.

Levin and others make a distinction between what they call “classical liberals” and today’s “modern liberal”. This shows a basic lack of understanding of what liberalism is. It never stands still. It constantly evolves. To think that the “classical liberal” of the 18th century would remain in one spot is to ignore completely what liberalism is, and give it conservative characteristics that it doesn’t have. It’s the conservative that remains steadfast in a position. Not the liberal. Hayek, the man he loves to quote, would tell him that. Liberalism is a philosophy that is open ended. It’s never completely fulfilled like that of conservatism. In this sense, conservatism is ideological and dogmatic. It resists change. Liberalism IS change. That’s what it’s about.
The economist F.A. Hayek; whom Levin loves to quote, wrote in his essay, Why I’m Not a Conservative, “There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth”.

He goes on : “As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. The conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change “orderly.” A conservative is authoritarian by nature and his entire ideology is an appeal to authority. His very acceptance of a theory of rationality such as conservative ideology is an appeal to authority.

In John Deans book, “Conservatives without Conscience” he pointed out the authoritarianism of the conservative.

“It’s difficult for most rightwingers to talk about any subject about which they feel strongly without attacking others. Right wing authoritarians are motivated by a fear of a dangerous world. The factor that makes right wingers faster than most people to attack others, and that seems to keep them living in an attack mode is their remarkable self-righteousness. They’re so sure they are not only right, but holy and pure, that they are bursting with indignation and a desire to smite down their enemies.”

Right Wing Authoritarian – Followers:

  • men and women
  • submissive to authority
  • aggressive on behalf of authority
  • Conventional
  • highly religious
  • moderate to little education
  • trust untrustworthy authorities
  • prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions other than their own
  • mean-spirited
  • narrow-minded
  • Intolerant
  • Bullying
  • Zealous
  • Dogmatic
  • uncritical toward chosen authority
  • Hypocritical
  • inconsistent and contradictory
  • prone to panic easily
  • highly self-righteous
  • Moralistic
  • strict disciplinarian
  • severely punitive
  • demands loyalty and returns it
  • little self awareness
  • usually politically and economically conservative/Republican

Ad Verecundiam

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

Does the inclusion of comments by Hayek amount to an appeal to authority? No. Hayeks comments are his views on why is is not a conservative. Hayek is also a source used by Levin to support Levins conservatism. But Hayek is NOT a conservative and here he is telling us why.

Hayek adds : “This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-operating, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern advocates, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory”.

He continues : “Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people”.

“When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.”

“It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.”

“In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people – he is not an egalitarian – but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.”

These are the words of F.A. Hayek. Why I’m not a Conservative. A man that Levin, the conservative, loves to quote.
Today’s modern conservative will be quick to tell you that today’s modern liberal is not a liberal by their standards. But Liberalism doesn’t care about their standards. It never has. Liberalism doesn’t stay in one place. And the Liberalism of our founders was always meant to evolve. The conservative may not like what it has evolved into by their conservative standards, but that’s to be expected. Again, it isn’t liberalisms intention to meet conservative standards. Liberals have their own, and those standards continue to evolve as new challenges are confronted. It is still true that the American liberal believes that society can and should be improved, and that the way to improve it is to apply human intelligence to social and economic problems. The conservative, on the other hand, opposes efforts at purposeful change — especially when they threaten the existing distribution of power and wealth — because he believes that things are about as good as they can be reasonably expected to be, and that any change is more likely than not to be for the worse.”

One thing we have learned from the writers and spokesmen of the conservative movement is their love of tradition. As Kirk said, “Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted”. With this in mind, it’s hard to imagine a conservative going along with a radical revolution in 1776 that was certain to upset the custom, convention and continuity of the devil they knew, in order to replace it with the devil they didn’t know. It goes completely against the ideals of conservatism. Their DNA would reject it. I can only speculate, but I have little doubt in my mind as to who’s side the conservative would have been on. I believe they were called Tory’s.

The founding principles of this country are rooted in the rejection of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. It’s a rejection of the aristocracy, the embrace of self rule, and freedom from authoritarian dictatorship whether it be a monarchy or any other form of supreme authority. The freedom of speech is not a conservative concept. It’s a liberal concept. The freedom of religion is not conservative. It’s liberal. Freedom itself is liberal. It’s the liberation from those things that would restrict its freedom to think and act according to one’s own conscience. The American revolution took place during the late 18th century during the height of the Enlightenment. Looking back at Kirk’s claims, one can examine the statements that “A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society”, and ” Civilized society requires orders and classes.”
A divine intent pre-supposes not only that a divinity is at hand, but that its intent can be determined. A personal conscience is, of course, a matter of subjectivity. A religious view appears to be essential to conservative thought. According to Professor Gerhard Rempel of Western New England College, “to understand the Enlightenment and the foundations of democracy is to know that doctrinal substance was less important than overall philosophy.” It wasn’t as much Descartes’ reason as it was Newton’s Laws. Not abstraction and definition, but rather observation and experience.

The real power of reason lay not in the possession, but in the I of truth. The ideal for knowledge was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:

1. The particular rather than the general;
2. Observable facts rather than principles;
3. Experience rather than rational speculation.

Liberalism is more easily recognized for what it is not, than for what it is. Since it doesn’t subscribe to a rigid theory of rationality it doesn’t employ a positive or assertive methodology in determining truth. A liberal critical rationalist would recognize that there simply is no “positive” method whereby we can obtain the truth. Not only this, liberalism suggests that attemping to hold to such a “positive” method might narrow our viewpoint such that the quest for truth is made more difficult. In an attempt to get our decision about the truth to fit with some narrow view of what the method of truth “should” be, we will be restricting ourselves in a way that is unnecessary. After all, there is no one method that is the end-all-be-all of obtaining truth. Unless of course you are a conservative. Rush Limbaugh and certainly Mark Levin would tell you otherwise.

A liberal will argue against “positive” methods for obtaining the truth, which overly restrict our viewpoints.
Critical Rationalist Philosopher Matt Dioguardi, pointed this out in an essay:

“An important thing to note is that conservatism (traditional rationalism) leads to irrationalism. Imagine you have a theory of rationality. How did you decide about this theory? As this is your meta-theory, used to decide on a theory of rationality, it cannot judge itself in terms of rationality. Any “positive” argument in regards to rationality cannot judge itself without creating circular argument.”

For example:
A: Why are you rational?
B: Because I listen to God.
A: How do you know that listening to God is rational.
B: Because God told me.
That’s circular.

“By asserting there is a theory of rationality, this leads you to the next move, which is why is the theory of rationality, in and of itself, rational? Here you can only assert it was an irrational choice and all such first choices are by necessity irrational. As such you open the door to whole scale irrationality. If you allow one choice, then why not many. A critical rationalist avoids having to make this capitulation to irrationality by NOT offering any “positive” theory of rationality.”
“The only possible benefit you can possibly receive from having a “positive” theory of rationality is it can give you a sense of moral superiority when dealing with others. That is, if you think your theory of rationality is correct, you could be “sure” you were right and whoever disagrees with you is wrong. Or at least you could argue that way. However, your opponent could merely point out your theory of rationality itself was also irrational. At this point the argument ends. You both take your irrational stand and the only way to resolve the conflict is to engage in violence.”
“People with theories of rationality take stands, critical rationalists keep arguing. They keep trying to shift through the ideas to try and figure-out where the disagreement lays and what might resolve it. This is an endless process. It might not be resolved until some new ideas come along. But even then, this will probably only lead to new disagreements. All the better.”

Liberalism could almost be viewed as the complete absence of holding of any traditional theory of rationality. Of course this is the very thing that irritates the conservative who is steeped in traditional thinking.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Levin states that conservatives are the beneficiaries of thousands of years of human experience. He then refers to Obama and others as relying on philosophies a couple of hundred years old. That’s interesting considering that aside from the Ancient Greeks, Democracy as we know it is only as old as this country itself…approximately 218 years old. Those philosophies that preceded it were aristocratic, authoritarian, or theocratic. They were not democratic. They were exactly the philosophies that our founders rejected.

Essentially, Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world, which is exactly why it’s floundering today. Going back to Kirk, we see that In Kirks Fifth principle he states, “conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety”. In this principle he claims that “For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at eveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality”. What we have here is a justification for a hierarchal society. Otherwise known as an aristocracy. We also see a justification for prejudice and bigotry as being a good and necessary part of the conservative concept of society.

Levin re-iterates that “our principles are tried and true. They’ve been tried for centuries”. Yet again, Democracy as we know it only began at the time of the ratification of the constitution. So what philosophy is he talking about that preceded democracy? Certainly it wasn’t something that our founders sought to replicate. Levin hits the main problem with conservatism. He states that we can’t salute a philosophy that is antithetical to our history (that’s a subjective view and could be debated forever) or to our BELIEF SYSTEM. And that is where the problem lies. Conservatism is by Levin’s own admission, a belief system. But being so it can never demonstrate itself as being true. It’s an ideology actually formalized by Russell Kirk who provided 6 canons that conservatives follow. Canons? Conservatism today has taken on the mantle of a religious cult. It has a doctrine that must be followed religiously or you risk excommunication. It is a Theory of Rationality that cannot justify itself through any authority other then itself. It’s a circular argument and irrational. A theory cannot use itself to justify itself.

The problem with ideological thinking like this is that it assumes its own infallibility. That it is flawless. Yet it was created by fallible men. Is it even remotely possible that it could be wrong? Can an idea created by fallible men be infallible? The question is can it even demonstrate how it’s true. If it can, then maybe Levin could provide the methodology that he uses to prove it. He writes a book that is the Conservative Manifesto, defining conservatism. By defining it, he is unconsciously limiting the reach of its own effectiveness. Once he defines it then it’s not possible to be something beyond that definition. Its potential for greatness is limited to what he’s described. That is self limiting and completely contrary to free-thought and democracy. If, in a democracy those ideas are rejected as they have been recently, then perhaps he might reevaluate his ideas. But no! That isn’t possible because the ideology can’t be wrong. He can’t demonstrate how it’s true, but it can’t be wrong. But if something cannot possibly be wrong, then how can it be right. In order for something to be right it must contain the possibility of being wrong. For something to be true, it must contain the possibility of being false otherwise you’re merely preaching a belief, rather than something that can be proven right or wrong empirically. You would have nothing to compare that truth to. In the world of Mark Levin, conservatism cannot be wrong.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Mark Levin has no interest in democracy. His only interest is a return to an aristocratic society of Lords and serfs.

I was asked by a poster on a political forum once to tell why I thought conservatism is a “twisted ideology”. I was expected by this Poster X to define conservatism. But that isn’t my job. That’s the job of conservatives. They look for definition but since the Enlightenment, liberal thought realized that it wasn’t abstration and definition, but rather observation and experience that was important. That the real power of reason lay not in the possession but in the acquisition of Truth.They present themselves and say,” this is me”. They don’t present themselves and expect me to define them to satisfy my preconceptions. But these very people will attempt to define a liberal in a monolithic sense as if all liberals are this, or all liberals are that. Liberals want to kill your granny. Liberals want to take your money. Liberals want to eat your kids. Liberalism = tyranny.

Sweeping generalizations that are simply stunning in their stupidity. It would be like me trying to define what a muslim is. Not being a muslim, how could I possible know what it means? A Muslim can define his religion far better and more accurately then I ever could. So the complaint that I’ve used the definition of conservatism as provided by conservatives themselves, is empty headed and shows enormous ignorance of how the process of critique is done. This critique is based on conservative definitions of themselves and the lack of logic and rational critical thinking that it uses. There is no basis for it to rationally justify itself, any more than any other religion. As Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, the man that gave the Conservative movement its name, and Ronald Reagans political guru said: “Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. It cannot demonstrate itself as true, and is simply another authoritarian theory of rationality that has all the charactoristics of a cult religion complete with it’s own doctrine, rigid ideology and dogma.



The question seems really strange to me. I understand that there are some out there that think racism is dead and gone, (Chief Justice Roberts is one of them) but these are people that don’t seem to have any awareness of what’s going on around them. The election of the country’s first Black American President, (Some still don’t think he’s an American, and that includes members of Congress ) hasn’t erased centuries of hate. Obama won two terms because of his appeal to minorities that outnumbered the majority white population.

Despite Chief Justice Roberts declaration that “Racism is dead in America”, I have to disagree and suggest that the Chief Justice is wearing blinders. The systemic institutionalized racism that exists has recently been uncovered with the Justice Department’s investigation of the Police Department of Ferguson MO. The Police actions in Staten Island with the killing of Eric Garner caught on video tape and no indictment defies reason. The video tape of the SAE Fraternity, and most recently the murder of Walter Scott in North Charleston SC, with the attempted cover up and planting of evidence all caught on video lead us to think that this kind of thing is happening with too much frequency to be coincidental. We’re seeing “Snuff” Films on TV now showing white police killing black men and even children. We ask ourselves, did all of this start with the advent of the cell-phone camera? Probably not. It’s probably been going on for a long time. The available technology is just bringing it to light. The victims are all black. A young (black) boy is shot and killed by a cop in Cleveland within seconds of arriving on the scene because the boy is waving a toy gun. Had it not been for the video in North Charleston, the officer would not be in jail charged with murder, but back on the job. In fact, without the video it’s quite likely that a campaign of destroying the credibility of the only witness would have been launched on Fox News immediately vilifying the witness as a liar or worse and the victim, Mr. Scot, as a Thug who got what he deserved. Are we post-racial? I don’t know what that means. Are we post-racist? Absolutely not.

I would say that as long as conservatism exists as a “legitimate” ideology, racism will be with us. It’s woven into the very fabric of the ideology. That’s probably going to offend some people, but I really don’t care about offending them. I’m offended by what I see, and it seems that we are deliberately avoiding the elephant in the corner of the room. Nevertheless, I’ll give my reasons, but first we’ll need to understand what is meant by “conservative”.

Let me begin by saying I don’t define other people. I certainly don’t define myself. I could never put a fence around who or what I am and say… that’s me. No more. No less. I hope to continue to grow and learn each day for the rest of my life. There’s a line from a song that goes, ” There are so many things that I’ve left undone, so many places to see. And there ain’t enough time in what’s left of this life, but it’s more than I thought it would be”.

Life is for learning, and that makes everything interesting for me. Thinking that I know all I need to know, would be a huge mistake. I’d stop growing. For one thing, it locks me into a box of my own making. I can’t be more or less than the definition. And the definition then becomes dependent on other definitions. I’ve been asked many times by conservatives in political debates, to define conservatism. My response is always the same: It’s not up to me to define what a conservative is. I’m not a conservative. I leave that to them. Besides, if I were to put forth a definition, I would likely be told that I don’t know anything about it. So I leave it to them to define themselves which they are more than willing to do.They’ll tell me about it whether I ask them or not.

Conservatives seem very big on defining things, and that includes conservatism itself. They’re very proud of their conservatism and love to aggressively demonstrate it at every opportunity, usually in the most belligerent manner possible with snarky and snide attempts at humor intended to insult – always falling flat but never failing to give them a perverse sense of satisfaction . My position is to critique the definition that others are giving, to see if there are any holes in the logic or reasoning process. I think that all positions are open to criticism. There are no sacred cows when it comes to ideas. I’ve been asked to define Liberalism as well, and the best I can offer is to tell those asking that I can more easily tell them what it is not then what it is.

So, with that in mind, my own understanding of conservatism comes from those that defined the ideology itself. I figured, that would be the best place to start. The conservative movement goes back to the anti-Enlightenment views of Edmund Burke in the late 1700’s. Burke was an Irishman of a Catholic sensibility in believing that the authority of tradition, lies at the core of Christian practice. This stands in stark contrast with Locke’s workmanship ideal, with it’s emphasis on the sovereignty of each individual’s subjective relationship with God. Burke was a traditionalist – conservative. As a traditionalist-conservative, he thinks about social change in a cautious and incremental way and characterizes the social contract as binding on those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. He was the major voice of the anti-Enlightenment, and of course this country was founded upon the Enlightenment ideas of Locke, Voltaire, and others of that time. If there is a single overarching idea shared in common by adherents to different strands of Enlightenment thinking, it is faith in the power of human reason to understand the true nature of our circumstances and ourselves. The Enlightenment outlook is optimistic to its core, supplying impetus to the idea of progress in human affairs. As reason’s reach expands, it seems plausible to think that understanding will yield the possibility to control and perhaps even improve our environments and our lives.

So, those claiming a conservative tradition in this country, are claiming that we were a product of the Anti-Enlightenment, and that’s simply false. Jefferson was profoundly interested in the work of the French Enlightenment philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author. Jefferson even had a bust of Voltaire in his home in Monticello. We are and always have been an optimistic people, going back to the time of actually believing that we could break from England and defeat the most powerful army in the world. Today, Modern Conservatives look back to Burke as the father of the movement. That’s not me saying this; it’s Conservatives themselves. Thinkers like Burke place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions.

Burke believed that conserving an imperfect inherited world from the worse imperfections that human beings are capable of contriving is the business of political leadership; hence his emphasis on preserving tradition. He is famous for propounding the doctrine that a Member of Parliament— which he was for a good part of his life— owes it to his constituents not to sacrifice his judgment to conform to their opinions. ( I can certainly see how he would make for a good Republican) He was unimpressed by the human capacity for reason to understand much, let alone to reshape the world in accordance with the particular wills of any generation.

Therefore, the anti-Enlightenment is a rejection of both of the central tenets of the Enlightenment; the commitment to individual rights, and to science and reason. So tradition plays a profound role in the conservative ideology. Conservatism wraps itself in traditional values. Now, I don’t see how they can demonstrate those values as true, but – that’s at the core of the ideology, and that’s on them, not me. They are defining themselves along these terms. And in doing so, are establishing a foundation for the ideology. So, it’s foundationalist from the onset. The problem is that Foundationalism leads to infinite regress. What that means is there’s no way to establish a basis for the basis that will justify the basis required to justify the original foundation. Attempting to do that leads into a black hole with no escape. So, it just sits there, proclaiming itself as its own authority which is an exercise in circular reasoning. It’s authoritarian in it’s nature, and it is its own authority.

The Ideology of Conservatism:

In 1953, Russell Kirk wrote a book called The Conservative Mind. In his lecture on The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it “ordered liberty”.

Now, I’m looking at a Conservative ( Lee Edwards) lecturing on the origins of the Modern Conservative Movement to the Heritage Foundation which is a Conservative Think Tank. I have to assume that this man understands conservatism as well as, if not better than most.
His resume’ reads; “Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. As Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought, Lee Edwards, Ph.D., is Heritage’s in-house authority on the U.S. conservative movement. “
“A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards is the author or editor of 20 books, including biographies of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Edwin Meese III as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation and the movement as a whole.”

Ok. I accept his credentials as somebody that can tell me what conservatism is.

Edwards states this:
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society.
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity.
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes.
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected.
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.
6. Society must alter slowly.

This is interesting. Canon #1, “A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society”. He introduces a religious element to conservatism. and in #2, ” Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity.” Traditional life”. Religion and Traditional life are his first 2 Canons. One of the key elements of Tradition is preserving existing institutions. Especially those institutions that blend easily with or enhance other traditional institutions, that help define traditional life to the conservative.

This is demonstrated by the conservative view on same-sex marriage. The gist of the argument centers around a challenge to traditional values on the subject of marriage.

Canon #3 says that Conservatism requires “classes”. He doesn’t say what he means by classes. Social classes. Economic classes. So there needs to be an upper and a lower class of people either socially or economically or both. Conservatism is class conscious.

This is all very Burkean, but updated to appeal to a more contemporary audience. So, that is what is called “ordered Liberty”.

Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.”

So Russell Kirk is providing the “Canon” of Conservatism. This is the doctrine as he defines it, and Edwards proclaims it as the definition of conservatism. And there we have it. And of course, definitions are open to criticism. To begin with I find that issuing what he calls the Canon, is pretty presumptuous. He’s proclaiming himself as the authority of what conservatism is, but Dr. Lee Edwards at Heritage agrees, so who am I to argue? It sounds more Ecclesiastical as if it’s a religion, then a political philosophy. Nevertheless, he’s setting the foundational table for the movement. If you aren’t following the 6 Canon’s, you aren’t a conservative. He later expanded on this with his 10 Principles of Conservatism. Ronald Reagan ( Mr Conservative) was a big fan of his and gave him the Medal of Freedom, so he seems to have struck the right chord with the right people. I think I can draw from this that Kirk has articulated the “essence” of conservatism. If I see these values being expressed, I can probably see the conservative mind at work. Actually, what I see today, are these ideas taken to the furthest extreme, but they still call it conservatism.

Conservatism is the product of the anti-Enlightenment ideology of Edmund Burke and the re-affirmation of it by Conservative writer Russell Kirk. Burke was a traditionalist conservative as was Kirk and traditional values are held fast by conservatives. (There’s probably a strong connection here as to why so many conservatives are evangelical Christians as well. They can easily identify with traditional and fundamentalist values as expressed in the Bible. Conservatism seems to adopt the mantle of a religion requiring the same commitment of belief.) These “authorities” that identify themselves as “Conservative” have told me so. They are describing the conservative ideology. I have no reason to doubt them.

In his chapter on Southern Conservatism from his book, Kirk writes “that while human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, yet the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were quite as slippery a foundation for political decency”.

In the practice of Critical Thinking, the language used by the arguer may not be especially unclear, but often it is awkward to deal with because it does not even take the form of proper sentences. Rewriting the material in terms of ‘if— then’ sentences makes the argument easier to handle and its logic more obvious. This is what we mean by logical streamlining. There are many, many ways in which ordinary language can be awkward to reconstruct, and in which logical relationships can be concealed; But here is one ‘rule of thumb’ that you should apply whenever you can do so in a way that remains faithful to the arguer’s apparent meaning:

1.Where appropriate, rewrite sentences as either conditional or disjunctive sentences of one of the following forms:

If A then B. If not-A then not-B
Reconstructed, Mr, Kirk says this; IF human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, Then the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency”. Really? What kind of demands would the abolitionists have made that could be worse than slavery?

I think we could even simplify Kirks statement with this: “human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, BUT the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were just as slippery a foundation for political decency”, without distorting the meaning at all. Kirk seems to find a moral equivalency between slavery and the “wild” demands of the abolitionists. Just remember; everything before BUT, doesn’t count.

Kirk describes“Negroes” as; “the menace of debased, ignorant and abysmally poor folk” he argued they “must tend to produce in the minds of the dominant people (re:White) an anxiety to preserve every detail of the present structure, and an ultra-vigilant suspicion of innovation”.

In complete accordance to the high values of traditionalism that are embedded into the Canon, and reach back to Burke, the preservation of existing institutions is vital and necessary to the conservative theory of rationality. Any challenge to them will be met with conservative resistance.

According to Kirk, “In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.” (He gets this directly from Burke, and rewords it for those who never heard of the man.)

Kirk is justifying prejudice here. Again, prejudice is necessary to the conservative theory of rationality, and we have many examples of conservatives over the years, decades and centuries, taking that justification to heart.

What we gain from this is an understanding of what Conservatism means to the Conservative, as told to us by the very Conservatives that defined the ideology and the movement that followed it. I don’t define them. They define themselves.They use tradition to justify prejudice.

Conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. It’s not difficult to see that the conservative position on race would necessarily follow form. They have strong solid values that they don’t compromise, and they take great pride in that non-compromising stand.

Being an ideology that is definable by its adherents, it would be open to a logical syllogism:.

P1. Conservatism believes in preserving existing institutions as a value
P2 Slavery was institutionalized in America
C: Therefore, Conservatives believed in preserving slavery.

That seems to have been born out with the fact of the Civil War. If the premises are true in a deductive syllogism, the conclusion MUST be true. The premises are true. So, the conclusion must logically follow.

Or this:

P1. Conservatives believe in preserving existing institutions as a value
P2. Segregation was institutionalized in America
C: therefore, Conservatives believe in preserving segregation

Again, if the premises are true, the conclusion Must be true.

Or this:
P1. Conservatives in the South believe in traditional values
P2. White Supremacy is a traditional value in the South
C: therefore, Conservatives in the south believe in White Supremacy.

If they no longer hold that as a value, then they have obviously compromised their values by letting it go, which is something that conservatives simply don’t do. To do so would be hypocritical, and demonstrate a crack in the ideology. If they are maintaining their Conservative principles, either they still hold that view, or they are demonstrating their own hypocrisy by compromising a traditional established value. If they are traditional-conservatives, then they would hold that view.

The question now becomes, are these values that the conservative holds today, or has he compromised those values? And if so, how many other values does he cherry pick, and still claim that he doesn’t compromise his conservative values? What parts of traditional conservative values has he let go of, and what has he maintained? Is Conservatism a unified system of thought, or is it a hodge-podge collection of unrelated absolute values without any basis that can never demonstrate their truth?

I think that any time an ideology defines itself, it opens itself to that kind of logical scrutiny.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/ 5’ s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held traditional social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate.

It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it. The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. I don’t pretend to be a psychologist, but when long held beliefs are not only challenged but overturned, and deemed illegitimate values, some people are probably not happy about it and might be filled with resentment, and even hatred for those that made that happen. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order and traditional institution, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order or traditional institution.

It’s my observation, that these are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. Maybe it’s that “class” thing that Kirk was talking about in Canon 3. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Just because a law or an amendment is passed doesn’t meant that the attitudes that opposed that law have changed. Passing a law doesn’t change conservative ideology. A conservative isn’t going to change his position just because a law that challenged it was passed. If anything, he’s more likely to take on an even more defiant position. We saw that after the Civil War and Reconstruction with Jim Crow. The south may have lost the war, but even if the slaves were freed, the conservative would see to it that those that were freed, were now worse off than they were as slaves and nobody would be there to stop them from making that a reality.

This is the ideology of conservatism as presented by those who gave the conservative movement its name. Racism and prejudice are embedded into it, and conservatives must grapple with this as long as they call themselves “conservative”.

When I’m asked; “how long I thought racism would exist in America”. My answer is that it will exist as long as Conservatism exists. Racism is Conservative ideology DNA as much as tradition itself. It can’t be stripped away without altering the concept of preserving traditional institutions and values. Preserving existing institutions and traditions are the very things that define the ideology for conservatives. Slavery was an institution in this country. It was embedded into our constitution in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2, and 3. A Civil War was fought to preserve that institution. After Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws were established to preserve the racial and social hierarchy (Class) in the South. Those laws were racist, and an era of racial terrorism spanning decades was established to preserve those traditions. Segregation was an institution that conservatives fought to preserve.

The conditions imposed upon Blacks in the South were so intolerable that it took Acts of Congress in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to force Conservatives, especially those in the South that were the most vocal in their opposition, to accept the fact that blacks now had equal rights and the days of White Supremacy were over.

The fact that the laws were passed does not mean that the attitudes of the conservative mind accepted those laws. The laws violated the conservative Canon. If you are a conservative you don’t compromise your values. You don’t compromise the Canon. You believe in it. You’re not an apostate. If you are a conservative, you hold those values as essential to who you are. This is the thinking of the ideologue. It’s a fundamentalist way of thinking, and shares the same commitment to the dogma as found in any fundamentalist religion.

We can see today that there is no room for the “moderate” in the Republican Party. Each person running for office must demonstrate that he’s more conservative than his opponent, and that pushes them ever further to the extremes of the right wing. You can’t demonstrate that by compromising your beliefs. If you do that, you’ll lose your base. Your conservative beliefs must be without question or compromise. Each candidate becomes more extreme than the next, and his commitment to those beliefs must be demonstrable.

William Bartley said: “Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.”However, this is a requirement that can never be adequately met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism.

And that’s the dilemma of the conservative. There is no justification for the continually extremist views that he holds, and his traditional views must include its embedded racism in order to maintain consistency. He is staring into the black hole of infinite regress of justification with each position more extreme than the last. The only outlet for him is to say the conservatism is based on itself, which is a circular argument.

The Conservative ideology is foundational. It’s fundamentalist. It requires bases. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis.

David Miller, in his book Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense, points to Bartley’s formulation of Comprehensively Critical Rationalism:
In speaking of his Pan-Critical Rationalism: “This framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, decisions, and basic philosophical position, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.”

If Bartley, or anybody else for that matter, subscribed to that idea, how can prejudice enter into it? There doesn’t seem to be any room for it in that statement. Because if you are willing to criticize even your own most fundamental standards, goals, decisions, and basic philosophical position, then your own prejudices would be included among them. In other words, if you subscribed to this thinking, it would force you to confront those prejudices wherever and whenever they arise, and you would not be able to resort to faith, or irrational commitment to any ideology to justify that prejudice. All your positions are open to criticism and that would include your prejudices. It seems to me that a person committed to the idea of criticism must be willing to direct that criticism at himself as much as he is toward any outside ideas presented to him by others. Although it’s impossible to be completely objective about ourselves, if we are confronted with a prejudice that lies somewhere hidden within us, and we hold to the Pan-Critical Rationalism that Bartley has put forth, we can either address that prejudice and rid ourselves of it, or accept our own hypocrisy and inconsistency in our thinking, and look for some way to justify it, but we can’t do both. You can’t hold two opposing positions simultaneously. Well…I suppose you can, but not rationally.

When I look back at this country’s history, it’s impossible to separate race as a major factor in who we are as a nation. It’s been there from the beginning. It’s our “original sin”. It was a factor in the Constitution. I never had to fight for my place in the social fabric of this country. I never had to fight, bleed or die for the right to vote. My ancestors were never held as slaves. I was never denied access to a hotel, a restaurant, a school. I was never beaten, or tortured, or lynched for not saying “sir” or stepping off the sidewalk when a white woman was coming toward me, or refusing to work without pay. There was a time when I was told I couldn’t marry a person of another race, but we eventually got past that. Other than that, I benefited from the genetic lottery. My church was never bombed. My home was never burned. No family member was ever lynched. No blood was ever shed to have the same rights as everyone else. They came to me free of charge courtesy of the genetic lottery. I had nothing to do with it. No strings attached. I never had “the talk” that black parents give their sons on how to act if stopped by the police. I never feared the police. Not being black, I can’t really put myself in their shoes. But if I can empathize with others, and I think I can, then I can begin to understand how blacks might not be too trusting of the motives of some people, especially those whose entire ideological identity is grounded in the very traditions and values that were deployed against me, or my ancestors over our history, to block or deny me the same rights that everyone else enjoys, and relegated me and my family to second class status. Why would I believe that their Canon, that is the doctrine and dogma of the ideology that they base their identity on, has somehow been modified and altered for my sake? If they really believe this stuff, they aren’t about to change it on my behalf. I can look at the legislation that is offered by these people, and see clearly that it impacts people of color in ways that it doesn’t affect others. I can see on TV the video snuff films of unarmed blacks being killed by white cops, and see no indictments coming forward, and I question if this is justice. Racism isn’t simply using the “n” word. It’s the complete benefit of the doubt toward one group, and the total skepticism toward another.

This is how I see the racial situation in our country. I see it perpetuated by an ideology that will never let go of its traditional views on race. I think that Conservatism is a racist ideology and that racism is literally woven into its fabric, and it can’t escape that fact without radically altering the entire concept of conservatism. Are there black conservatives. Of course. Not many, but there are a few. I have no idea what they see in it. It may be profitable for them. Whatever their reasons are, I doubt that they’ve been able to justify its views on race. Maybe they look the other way. They are certainly useful to other conservatives to illustrate how open to minorities they really are. That would certainly be a way of showing inclusiveness, but why would conservatives feel a need to show that, unless they recognized that it was a problem with the ideology all along? It’s like the time when they called themselves “compassionate conservatives” (?) Why would they feel a need to call themselves that unless they knew that they weren’t.

We have a long, long history of that ideology that would inform us that the ideology isn’t going change to accommodate a few minorities. In order for that to change, Conservatives would have to discard the most significant part of the Canon; Traditionalism, and their dedication to preserving existing institutions and never compromising on their traditional values…(except maybe when it’s expedient to do so). But without that, Conservatism no longer exists, and we’d all be the better for it.

The Hobby Lobby Decision

In her dissent on the contraception ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes that “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.” That used to be true.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals explained last year that courts have “long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself.” Ruling that “a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise” would “eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.”

In the Hobby Lobby ruling, the court’s conservative  majority  made up of 5 Catholic  men, makes the opposite assumption. Justice Alito wrote:

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.”

And there we have the crux of the problem with this decision. The religious inclinations of the owners of a corporation are now extended outward into the corporation itself. This is made possible by the ridiculous “Citizens United” ruling by the SCOTUS that Corporations are People.  And that money = speech. Clearly, if money = speech, then speech isn’t Free.  The more money you have, the more speech you have at your disposal.  Those with very little money, have virtually no speech at all. With campaign’s now hitting the Billion Dollar mark, the transition from Democracy to Plutocracy is completed. The owners of the corporation most certainly have their own individual religious identity which is respected as well it should be. However, they are accountable to no-one but themselves for their beliefs.  They are free to hold whatever beliefs they may have, but now have the added legal authority to impose those beliefs on their own employees. If proselytize  means, promote, advocate, champion, advance, further, spread, proclaim, peddle, preach, endorse, urge, recommend, boost, which Hobby Lobby engages in even to the extent of pumping Christian religious music  into their stores, then it’s clear that every employee and every customer is a target for conversion to the owners own brand of ideological thinking.

The Hobby Lobby ruling makes those religious beliefs a priority within the corporation itself and felt by those that work for the company, whether they subscribe to them or not. How far can this be applied? Who knows? Depending on the owners religious inclinations they could claim that their beliefs oppose all forms of vaccinations, or medications. They could oppose other laws on religious grounds that are designed to counter discrimination in the work place. They could oppose providing services to some people based on their religious beliefs. This doesn’t guarantee that they will. But it does mean that by using the logic that the court applied to Hobby Lobby, there is nothing standing in their way. They are now afforded the same religious exemptions as a church which is exempted from the Civil Rights Act.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:


SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]


(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII contains only one religious exemption, which applies to any “religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.” Such groups are allowed to make employment decisions on the basis of an individual’s particular religion. The same protection is extended to any “school, college, university, or other educational institution” if the curriculum is “directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.” That exemption now applies to a for- profit, closely held corporation that claims to have a religious identity.

This exemption does not apply to the other protected classes like sex, race, and national origin — it only says that religious organizations can discriminate based on religion. Again, Hobby Lobby now qualifies as a religious organization in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

Hobby Lobby is not a religious corporation. It’s a for profit corporation owned by a Christian family. If it were a religious corporation it could enjoy the same tax free status as that of a church. It’s also a corporation licensed to do business by the state, which cannot allow discrimination of any kind, religious or otherwise, to be acceptable. In effect, the state now engages in religious discrimination as well. It is casting a favored status  toward one religion, that other’s do not enjoy. And the taxpayer is paying taxes to that government which is now offering a favored status to one religion. Hobby Lobby can avail itself of the benefits of religious exemptions previously extended to the church but denied to secular organizations. How is that possible where the separation of Church and State is the very principle that is necessary for a Democracy to exist?

In his statement; Alito believes corporations have the right to exercise religious beliefs – and that right demands protection. The court majority takes it as a given that a corporation, and not the literal people in it, can attend worship services, pray, contemplate moral quandaries, read scriptural texts, and reach spiritual conclusions that now include what medications their employees can avail themselves of through their healthcare plans. And that right trumps the individual rights of its employees to exercise their own religious beliefs or non-beliefs, in favor of those held by the owners.  A  persons religious or political or philosophical beliefs belong to him. He doesn’t surrender them for the privilege of working for Hobby Lobby. Forced to do so, Hobby Lobby would be openly guilty of violation of the Civil Rights Act Title VII which prohibits discrimination in the work place with regards to among other things; Religion.  Assuming that Corporations are People Too, when may we expect to see a corporation playing Tight End for the Patriots, or second base for the Cubs? If a corporation is responsible for the deaths of people using their product, are they capable of receiving the death penalty in a place like Texas? Can a Corporation run for public office? In a place where torture is redefined as “enhanced interrogation”, I suppose anything is possible.

Alito stated this; “Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law.” This is hard to digest since corporate law has actually said the exact opposite. The Constitutional Accountability Center’s Doug Kendall specifically noted in a press statement, “For the first time in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court has ruled that for-profit corporations have religious rights and have accorded them religious exemptions. Despite their attempts to qualify that ruling, it opens the floodgates to claims by corporations for religious exemptions.”

Alito is fairly explicit on this point, saying, “Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate” and does not apply to corporations that may raise religious objections to “vaccinations and blood transfusions.”

Ahh…so there he qualifies this ruling as only applicable to contraception;  a direct shot at the Affordable Care Act which he opposed . Justice Alito it appears, is not above playing politics. This presents a very tricky situation. If any degree of logic has been used to come to this decision, then what Alito is telling us is that Logic is arbitrary. It applies when we decide it’s useful to achieve a particular result, but denied in all other circumstances. In other words, the “Ends justify the Means”.

By what reasoning do the five conservatives conclude that a Corporate Person’s objections to contraception are more legitimate than a Corporate Person’s objections to blood transfusions? What is the logic that is being used to come up with this? Apparently, it’s true because Alito says it is.

According to Justice Ginsberg; “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.’ The Court, I fear has ventured into a minefield.”

The issue is ridiculous for the simple unavoidable fact that the first Amendment, (Religious Liberty) which Hobby Lobby and of course the Conservative Republicans; which would include the majority of the members of the SCOTUS,  are claiming is their basis, clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“.

The First Amendment forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an establishment of “religion.” It does not say “a religion,” “a national religion,” “one sect or society,” or “any particular denomination of religion.” It is religion generically that may not be established.

Examine this phrase:

  • Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Clearly the example  makes no sense on its own. It must refer back to the establishment clause to get its meaning. When a Conservative  stands on his soap box and preaches “Whatever happened to the first amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion?”; he says this being completely oblivious to the wording of the amendment he is citing. His argument is over birth control, which is not a religion. However, he’s framed it as such. He is claiming birth control violates his religious beliefs and his freedom of expression. However, when he cites the free exercise of religion , he must refer back to the establishment clause for his definition.

The establishment clause does more than ban the federal government from establishing religion; it bars even laws respecting establishment.

The Supreme Court’s decision violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

  The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Whether “respecting” means honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional.

The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons.  In the terms of economic  theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects. They rise or fall on their own merits without the table being tilted by the government. Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause actually trumps the Free Ex clause.  In 1940, the SCOTUS said this:

Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, – freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be”. Cantwell v. Connecticut

Obviously, a person cannot engage in murder and claim that his religion calls for human sacrifice, and he’s simply engaged in the Free Exercise of his religious beliefs. There are limits to what we may see as Free expression of our beliefs. You may believe anything. You may not expect a free pass to act on those beliefs.  Free Exercise is not absolute.

An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among  Conservative/Republicans, is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of “religion.” This is why scholars and even the court itself have made the argument that the two clauses act against each other and present a paradox. The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of “religion,” while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise “thereof.” Logically, the word “thereof” must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as “religion” for one clause must count as “religion” for the other.

The free exercise clause makes no sense unless the word “religion” is read to encompass more than a church, denomination, or sect. The state abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an individual’s religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it must provide contraception coverage even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. Private prayer and contraception are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitutes religions in and of themselves.

If prayer and contraception count as “religion” for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as “religion” for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so too does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it must provide contraception coverage, so too does it establish religion when it makes a law that would deny contraception coverage to people outside the realm of the church , based on a religious exemption argument. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes “religion” for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that Conservative/Republicans want to read the “thereof” in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of “religion” in the establishment clause.

This ruling is really a totally transparent attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. It opens a loophole that you could drive a battleship through. It gives a religious or moral exemption to anything an employer may object to. To accept the logic and reasoning of Alito, if an employer decides that prayer cures all, then he could deny any kind of health care to his employees based on a religious or moral objection. It introduces government mandated discrimination based on religious or moral objections outside the title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act for the church. If held as valid, then logically that same argument could be used for denying a veteran a job because the employer doesn’t believe in War, and it could also introduce discrimination based on a host of other moral or religious objections.

Discrimination appears to be a common thread running through conservatism. It appeals to a sense of individualism. But we live in a pluralistic society whether we like that or not. We all sacrifice certain amounts of our individualism in order to function in that society. The object is to balance that important sense of individuality within the framework of our society. We cannot function with 300 million people making decisions over what laws they will follow based on moral or religious objections.

We cooperate with each other in order to make that society work. To the extent that some of us are unwilling to make that effort, our nation is suffers the consequences. When your ideology is so all consuming that you cannot recognize its own built in fallibility as well as your own, the countries interests are never served. Only the interests of that ideology are being served. And why would anybody follow an ideology  that presents itself as infallibly true, but can never demonstrate why?


Larry Allen Brown

Brattleboro, VT

Chapter 10: Arabs

Chapter 10: Arabs.

Chapter 5

Hitching a ride on the Cultural Revolution
    After high school, I briefly attended Southern Illinois University. To this day, I have no idea why. I had no interest in anything the school had to offer at that time. By this time, I was immersed in music and I left after one semester to pursue music back in Chicago. After a year of knocking around with a local band, I moved to the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. My parents were now living there as my father was now working for the State Department. I was 20 years old, and I was there in one of the most extraordinary times of my life. It was 1968 and the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing along with an anti-war movement regarding Viet Nam. There were drugs everywhere and readily available for those interested in “dropping out” of conventional thinking. Racial animosity was disappearing among people my age, and harmony prevailed.  Then things erupted.
On February 4, 1968 Martin Luther King Jr. delivers a sermon at his Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta which will come to be seen as prophetic. His speech contains what amounts to his own eulogy. After his death, he says, “I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to give his life serving others. I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to love somebody… that I tried to love and serve humanity,. Yes, if you want to, say that I was a drum major for peace… for righteousness.”
On April 4, Martin Luther King Jr. spends the day at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis working and meeting with local leaders on plans for his Poor People’s March on Washington to take place late in the month. At 6pm, as he greets the car and friends in the courtyard, King is shot with one round from a 30.06 rifle. He will be declared dead just an hour later at St. Joseph’s hospital. After an international man-hunt James Earl Ray will be arrested on June 27 in England, and convicted of the murder. Ray died in prison in 1998.
Robert Kennedy, hearing of the murder just before he is to give a speech in Indianapolis, IN, delivers a powerful extemporaneous eulogy in which he pleads with the audience “to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”
The King assassination sparks rioting in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Newark, Washington, D.C., and many others. Across the country 46 deaths will be blamed on the riots.
On June 4/5, on the night of the California Primary Robert Kennedy addresses a large crowd of
supporters at the Ambassador Hotel in San Francisco. He has won victories in California and South Dakota and is confident that his campaign will go on to unite the many factions stressing the country. As he leaves the stage, at 12:13AM on the morning of the fifth, Kennedy is shot by Sirhan Sirhan, a 24 year old Jordanian living in Los Angeles. The motive for the shooting is apparently anger at several pro-Isreali speeches Kennedy had made during the campaign. The forty-two year old Kennedy dies in the early morning of June sixth.
On August 26, Mayor Richard Daley opens the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. While the convention moves haltingly toward nominating Hubert Humphrey for president, the city’s police attempt to enforce an 11 o’clock curfew. On that Monday night demonstrations are widespread, but generally peaceful. The next two days, however, bring increasing tension and violence to the situation.
August 28 By most accounts, on Wednesday evening Chicago police take action against crowds of demonstrators without provocation. The police beat some marchers unconscious and send at least 100 to emergency rooms while arresting 175.
Everything appeared to be out of control at this time. 1968 had seen the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Then came 1969, which author Rob Kirkpatrick calls “a year of extremes.”  It was a tumultuous time when it seemed as if history were being made almost every day:
•For the first time, gays fought back against the New York City police as they raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village on June 28.
•Camelot lost its luster when Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge at Chappaquiddick on July 18. His young female passenger drowned.
•Neil Armstrong walked on the moon July 20, the first man to do so.
•Charles Manson’s followers killed actress Sharon Tate and four others in Los Angeles on Aug. 8.
•Woodstock, the now-mythical music festival in upstate New York, began Aug. 15.
•Lt. William Calley was charged on Sept. 5 for his role in the 1968 My Lai Massacre, in which American soldiers slaughtered more than 500 Vietnamese civilians.
•In an effort to bolster his standing amid protests against the Vietnam War, President Nixon delivered his “silent majority” speech on Nov. 3. Nixon was also employing something called “the Southern Strategy” which was designed to attract those that were dissatisfied with the Democratic Party which was now embracing Civil Rights as the foundation of their platform. If you opposed Civil Rights, then the Republican Party was for you.
Fortunately for me, my father was offered an assignment overseas with the State Dept. and asked if I wanted to move to the Philippines with them.  This would be an opportunity to live outside the country and reflect a bit on what I was looking for…which turned out to be myself. What I saw in the Philippines stunned me. I saw extremes of poverty and wealth. There was no middle class. These were the years of Ferdinand Marcos. They were years of brutal dictatorship. Of course the United States viewed the Marcos regime as a friend.  We always seemed to be friends of brutality.
I left the Philippines after a year, and moved to San Francisco. It was quite different. Discrimination seemed to be absent. Black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight…everyone worked with everyone. During this time it was still safe to hitch-hike and I took advantage of the opportunity. I was first hitching rides around the city, and into Marin County. Then a friend and I decided to hitch to Chicago. I had no idea what to expect. I’d never attempted anything on that scale before. With hardly a dime in my pocket, and a sandwich to eat, we stuck out our thumbs and headed east. We would part in Chicago and I would continue on to the east coast. My parents had returned to the states and I thought I’d make it there for their anniversary. It took a week, but I made it to Falls Church VA in time much to their surprise. Of course along the way I had a gun pointed at me in Nevada and was told to get a haircut. After a short visit I took a Grayhound back to San Francisco. I now felt I was experienced enough to try it again when the opportunity presented itself which it did about 3 months later. This time, I left San Jose and headed north through the Redwood Forest, to Portland, then Seattle and then up to Canada. Once there I got a great ride from a man who stopped and got me breakfast. We then proceeded to Revelstoke BC. I thanked him for the ride and headed to the youth hostel in town.  There were many young travelers and they told me it was rough getting a ride from there. Some people had been there for a week. But…there was another way. A freight train came right through town a block from the Hostel and it headed east. I could always hop the freight if I wanted to leave.
 Sure enough, within about an hour I heard the train coming into town. I grabbed my things and headed to the tracks where the train would roll through. It was moving too fast, but it was very long and began to slow down enough for me to run along-side it. It slowed even more and I could almost walk at the same speed. I found an open car and  climbed aboard, and hid up in the front of the car. The train slowed to a stop and I could hear some men walking up the track. They never checked the car and I was safe and ready for the next leg of this strange adventure.
After what seemed like about a half-hour, I could hear the sound of the cars being yanked in succession and the sound was getting closer. Finally the car I was in jerked into motion and we were moving.  As the train built its speed I ventured toward the back of the car and peered out to see what I could see. As I looked out I was astonished to see myself in the midst of the Canadian Rockies. The train was off the beaten path of highways and I could see waterfalls coming right out of a mountain. I couldn’t see either the front or the back of the train. It was very long. I watched the stars and the moon and the incredible mountains that only the engineers would see.  It was a magic carpet ride for sure.
It was getting colder and I retreated back into the car to keep warm and fell asleep. I woke up when I sensed the train was slowing down and it felt much colder and this was in the late summer. I went to the back of the car and peered out again, and I thought I was in the Alps. Huge snow- capped mountains everywhere and the train was slowing down. I was in Banff National Park and about to enter the small town of Banff. The train slowed enough as it entered the town, and I hopped off. I would continue on from here via my thumb.  I cleaned up at a public restroom and went into a café for something to eat. There I met three girls headed to St Paul. They offered me a ride and I was on my way to the states. From St. Paul I found a ride to Chicago where I had relatives. I spent the day with them and had a great steak dinner. Strip steaks that my uncle Barbequed. One of the best meals I can remember eating.  My cousin gave me a ride into Indiana and we spotted a driver with Pennsylvania plates and asked him for a ride to PA. I switched cars and headed to Pennsylvania. I got off in Somerset and from there another ride to Washington DC.  Again, the trip took a week and I look back on it as one of the great adventures of my life. I was 22 years old.
 I had grown up seeing bigotry and racism as a kid. I had travelled to the other side of the world and saw poverty and more bigotry. I’d lived in California and although my immediate environment seemed free of this ugliness, it was still there in abundance lurking just outside of my safe zone. I’d hitch-hiked across North America twice, and hopped a freight train taking me through some of the most beautiful sights that nature has to offer.  All of this had shaped me in some way that I still wasn’t completely certain of.  And although I was changing, and growing as a person, I was still existing in a hostile environment that fed off of prejudice, bigotry and hate.  I found that those that I knew were still immersed in this ideological prison that served as a convenient comfort zone for their ignorance. They were older, and certainly had different experiences than I had, and yet…they were still consumed by a narrow minded belief system that stunted their growth and perpetuated a divisive ideology.  Instead of opening their minds to what people had in common, their minds appeared closed to those that they determined were different and therefore a threat.  Ideologies are like that. They never admit new information. How can you grow, if you think you know,  all there is to know?
The old familiar “dog-whistles” were there, including the scapegoating of others in order to mollify their own inadequacies.  The more things had changed, the more they stayed the same.
Chapter 4
Growing up
 My family moved from all white Forest Park, to all white Westchester Illinois which was another town that made up Proviso Township. My parents weren’t deliberately looking for a white neighborhood. They simply wanted a nice house with a good school.  They weren’t concerned with the color of their neighbors skin. There I attended Junior High School, and found the very same attitudes.  During the seventh grade, I had a Social Studies teacher that seemed to spend an entire month on the virtues of the  country of South Africa. I learned about the “heroic” Afrikaners that kept the black majority under their racist rule. That very same teacher staged a ridiculous production of “Little Black Sambo” for the PTA. One of my best friends had the starring role, black-face and all. He was carefully coached to speak his lines in an over-the-top exaggerated “black” dialect.  It was hideous.  All the kids in my graduating class would be attending West High which was all white. Not because it was officially segregated,  but simply because blacks didn’t live in the villages that were in that district. It was actually economic segregation.  During my last year of Junior High, my parents were looking to move once again, and I begged them to find a house that was within East High district. All my family had attended that school. All my Aunts, Uncles, both parents and my brother went there. I wanted the same experience. East High was also already integrated with kids coming from Maywood where the school was located. Most of my friends were bigots as were their parents. None of them could understand why I’d want to go to school with the “N”’s. They never imagined I wouldn’t want to go to school with them.
 I entered High School in 1962. We had an enrollment of around 4,000 and about 35% were African-American. There were never any incidents at the school involving race relations. Not then at least. That would come later. There was one incident that caught my attention. It was the Senior Prom. The star athlete was a handsome black guy. He was taking a pretty white girl to the prom. The Administration wouldn’t allow it. So, my brother and his girlfriend, double dated with them. They skipped the Prom, and they went to Second City in Chicago and caught a show and then a dinner at a nice restaurant. I thought that was pretty cool of my brother.  I looked up to him a lot. He always set a good example for me to follow.
The Civil Rights movement was beginning to take hold and I was immersing myself in folk music and blues music as opposed the pop of the time (although I was taken completely by the Beatles).  In 1964 word came that three Civil Rights Workers were murdered in Neshoba County Mississippi just outside of the town of Philidelphia. (Hardly the “City of Brotherly Love” that we know about).
The following provides historical context for the first installment that appeared in the print edition of the Neshoba Democrat on April 28, 2004.— Jim Prince
“On June 21, 1964, three civil rights workers were murdered in Neshoba County. The trio had come here to investigate the burning of the Mt. Zion Methodist Church in the Longdale community off of Mississippi 16 east.
 The night the church was burned three parishioners were beaten, some severely. The murders of Michael Schwerner, 24, James Chaney, 21, and Andrew Goodman, 20, were part of a plot hatched by the Lauderdale County unit of the Ku Klux Klan and carried out by members of the Neshoba County unit.
The civil rights workers were part of a broader national movement that hoped to begin a voter
registration drive in this area, part of the Mississippi Summer Project, what became known as Freedom Summer.
A coalition of civil rights organizations known as COFO (Council of Federated Organizations) conceived of a project in the state with massive numbers of student volunteers who would converge on the state to register black voters and to conduct “freedom schools” which would offer curriculum of black history and arts to children throughout the state.
Chaney, a plasterer, had grown up in Meridian, in nearby Lauderdale County, and even as a young student had been interested in civil rights work. Schwerner, a Jewish New Yorker, came south to Meridian to set up the COFO office because he believed he could help prevent the spread of hate that had resulted in the Holocaust, an event that had taken the lives of some of his family. (this obviously struck a nerve with me)
 Chaney volunteered at the Meridian office, and the two young men began to make visits to Neshoba County to find residents there to sponsor voter registration drives and freedom schools. They made contact with members of Mt. Zion Methodist Church and Mt. Nebo Missionary Baptist Church, as well as other individuals. They made plans for a COFO project in the area.
Tensions were mounting that summer as some of Mississippi’s segregationist newspapers propagated the idea of a “pending invasion” of civil rights workers. The state was a powder keg, as the Ku Klux Klan increasingly made its presence known and fears were heightened among both blacks and whites. In April 1964 the Klan burned about a dozen crosses in Neshoba County. The Neshoba Democrat spoke against the cross burnings and the coercion and intimidation employed by the Klan.
The Ku Klux Klan and other groups had become more active in response to increasing civil rights activity, especially since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision outlawing school segregation. In addition to the Klan’s resistance, the state of Mississippi was continuing to monitor activists through the Sovereignty Commission, which worked in conjunction with the White Citizens Council, to use economic intimidation and threats to attempt to keep blacks in subservient positions.
Undertaking such struggles for equality, exemplified by the trio was dangerous and courageous work. In mid-June, Chaney and Schwerner traveled to Oxford, Ohio, to participate in the Freedom Summer volunteers training session being held there. While they were away, on June 16, Klansman assaulted members of the Mt. Zion church, looking for Chaney and Schwerner. Later in the evening, they burned the church to the ground. Having been alerted of the attack, Chaney and Schwerner, joined by new volunteer Goodman immediately drove south to investigate and offer solace to the church members.
On Sunday afternoon, June 21, Father’s Day, the three young men drove to Philadelphia from Meridian and visited members of Mt. Zion. On the way back through town they were pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy. Chaney was charged with speeding and Schwerner and Goodman were held on suspicion of burning the Mt. Zion church.”
The details of the murders came later. The group took the activists to a remote area and beat them until they died. Special treatment, however, was reserved for James Chaney, the one black in the group. The Klansmen, in addition to beating Chaney, also used a small handgun to shoot him through his penis and anus, ostensibly because he “knew better” than to be consorting with outside agitators looking to change the status quo in Mississippi. After several weeks of searching, and after recovering more than a dozen bodies not belonging to the missing civil rights workers, the authorities finally found them buried under an earthen dam. Several Klansmen, including Price, were arrested and tried for the brutal killings. The jury, made up of their cousins, friends, and sympathizers, found them all NOT GUILTY. Some time later, the federal government charged the murderers with violating the civil rights of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney. This time the Klansmen were convicted and served sentences ranging from two to ten years. And that…was called justice.
News of this nature was beginning to have its effect on the black students at my school and I felt
ashamed and helpless to stop the mistrust that had to be taking place. Still during my time there, our affections for each other were quite open. We were all friends in school and competed on sports teams together, even though we tended to go our separate ways outside of the school environment. By my senior year, two African-American girls were elected to the Home Coming Queens court. One of the girls was in several of my classes. She was a friend and much loved by everyone at school. She’d laugh at your stupid jokes and listen to your boring stories. She was a classical violinist and her father was a doctor. I voted for her, as did most of the kids in school, but she somehow wasn’t selected as Queen. She went on to study music at the University of Illinois, and later married a man named Robert Johnson. Together they founded BET and she became the first African-American female billionaire. Her name is Sheila Crump Johnson.
I graduated Proviso East High School in 1966 and the next year something happened that was bound to happen sooner or later. Proviso East was pretty famous for an illustrious alumni that included, NBA Basketball stars Jim Brewer, Doc Rivers (coach of the Boston Celtics) All Star Michael Finley, NFL Hall of Famer Ray Nitschke, actor Dennis Franz, business woman Sheila Crump Johnson, Grammy winning folk singer John Prine,  and US astronaut Eugene Cernan…the last human to walk on the moon.
Proviso East was caught up in a great deal of the racial turmoil that was prevalent in the country in the late 1960s. The 1967-68 school year saw local tensions become violent.
In September 1967, a large fight, started in the school cafeteria when five aucasian girls were selected by school officials as finalists for the school’s Homecoming Queen, escalated as students were dismissed. Property damage, some caused by the use of gasoline bombs, and fighting caused more than 100 state troopers to be called in, and a strict curfew to be enforced. Principal Hubert Pitt announced that he would appoint a racially balanced group of students to select a new slate of candidates. Apparently after selecting two African-American girls just the year before, the school administration had decided not to let something like that happen again. God forbid one of them be elected Queen.
One of my classmates was Fred Hampton. He graduated with me in 1966. Although black and white students at Proviso East rarely mixed socially outside of classes, because of his popularity among both groups, Fred was selected to be head of the Inter-racial Council, which met whenever there was racial friction. Fred could always calm the situation.  The year after we graduated, the principal called Fred back to ease the growing racial tensions.
Fred promoted Black Power. The response of the media and most whites to the term Black Power was swift, negative, and over the top hysterical. Many saw Black Power as an attack on all white people. Blacks saw it differently. It was about a positive message to them (the black community), to bring blacks together and build their confidence.  Fred said that “blackness was what was in your  heart, not the color of your skin”. But any symbol of black unity, including the modest Afro that Fred wore, threatened many whites.  By 1967, Fred was put on the FBI’s Key Agitator Index;  a list of activists that FBI director J. Edgar  Hoover ordered FBI agents to monitor closely.  Fred became a leader of the Black Panther movement in Chicago. He was killed in a police raid on Panther headquarters in October of 1969. Like Emmett Till before him, his body was viewed at the Raynor Funeral Home in Chicago.

Chapter 3

Emmett Till


      I read a story in the Chicago Tribune about a local boy named Emmett Till. He was a Negro (as African-Americans were called then). What happened to him hit me between the eyes like a hammer. I was 7 years old at the time. Fourteen-year-old Emmett Till was visiting relatives in Money, Mississippi on August 24, 1955 when he reportedly flirted with a white cashier at a grocery store.  Four days later, two white men kidnapped Till, beat him, and shot him in the head.  The men were tried for murder, but an all-white, male jury acquitted them. Till’s murder and open casket funeral galvanized the emerging civil rights movement.
In August 1955; Till’s great uncle Moses Wright came up from Mississippi to visit the family in Chicago. At the end of his stay, Wright was planning to take Till’s cousin, Wheeler Parker, back to Mississippi with him to visit relatives down South, and when Till learned of these plans he begged his mother to let him go along. Initially, Till’s mother said no. She wanted to take a road trip to Omaha, Nebraska and attempted to lure Till to join her with the promise of open-road driving lessons. But Till desperately wanted to spend time with his cousins in Mississippi, and in a fateful decision that would have grave impact on their lives and the course of American history, Till’s mother relented and let him go.
On August 19, 1955—the day before Till left with his uncle and cousin for Mississippi—Mamie Till gave her son his late father’s signet ring, engraved with the initials L.T. The next day she drove her son to the 63rd Street station in Chicago. They kissed goodbye, and Till boarded a southbound train headed for Mississippi. It was the last time they ever saw each other.
Three days after arriving in Money, Mississippi, on August 24, 1955, Emmett Till and a group of teenagers entered Bryant’s Grocery and Meat Market to buy refreshments after a long day picking cotton in the hot afternoon sun. What exactly transpired inside the grocery store that afternoon will never be known. Till purchased bubble gum, and some of the kids with him would later report that he either whistled at, flirted with, or touched the hand of the store’s white female clerk—and wife of the owner—Carolyn Bryant.
Four days later, at approximately 2:30 in the morning on August 28, 1955, Roy Bryant, Carolyn’s husband, and his half-brother J.W. Milam kidnapped Till from Moses Wright’s home. They then beat the teenager brutally, dragged him to the bank of the Tallahatchie River, shot him in the head, tied him with barbed wire to a large metal fan and shoved his mutilated body into the water. Moses Wright reported Till’s disappearance to the local authorities, and three days later his corpse was pulled out of the river.
Till’s face was mutilated beyond recognition, and Wright only managed to positively identify him by the ring on his finger, engraved with his father’s initials, L.T. Till’s body was shipped to Chicago, where his mother opted to have an open-casket funeral with Till’s body on display for five days. Thousands of people came to the Roberts Temple Church of God to see the evidence of this brutal hate crime. Till’s mother said that, despite the enormous pain it caused her to see her son’s dead body on display, she opted for an open-casket funeral to “let the world see what has happened, because there is no way I could describe this. And I needed somebody to help me tell what it was like.”
In the weeks that passed between Till’s burial and the murder and kidnapping trial of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, two black publications, Jet magazine and the Chicago Defender, published graphic images of Till’s corpse.  By the time the trial commenced on September 19, Emmett Till’s murder had become a source of outrage and indignation throughout much of the country. Because blacks and women were barred from serving jury duty, Bryant and Milam were tried before an all-white, all-male jury. In an act of extraordinary bravery, Moses Wright took the stand and identified Bryant and Milam as Till’s kidnappers and killers. At the time, it was almost unheard of for blacks to openly accuse whites in court, and by doing so Wright put his own life in grave danger.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the defendants’ guilt and widespread pleas for justice from outside Mississippi, on September 23 the panel of white male jurors acquitted Bryant and Milam of all charges. Their deliberations lasted a mere 67 minutes. Only a few months later, in January 1956, Bryant and Milam admitted to committing the crime. Protected by double jeopardy laws, they told the whole story of how they kidnapped and killed Emmett Till to Look magazine for $4,000.

Coming only one year after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education mandated the end of racial segregation in public schools, Till’s death provided an important catalyst for the American Civil Rights Movement. One hundred days after Emmett Till’s murder, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on an Alabama city bus, sparking the yearlong Montgomery bus boycott. Nine years later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing many forms of racial discrimination and segregation, one year later it passed the Voting Rights Act outlawing discriminatory voting practices.
Although she never stopped feeling the pain from her son’s death, Mamie Till (who died of heart failure in 2003) also recognized that what happened to Emmett Till helped open Americans’ eyes to the racial hatred plaguing their country, and in doing so helped spark a massive protest movement for racial equality and justice. Before Till’s murder, she said, “people really didn’t know that things this horrible could take place. And the fact that it happened to a child, that make all the difference in the world.”
The images that came to my mind at that time, couldn’t even begin to come close to what I saw some years later. The pictures of Emmett Till lying in an open casket seared an indelible scar in my mind. He was unrecognizable as a human being. Mamie Till demanded that her son’s body be returned to Chicago. She defied orders of the Mississippi authorities, who had sealed his casket, and ordered that it be opened. Her son’s mutilated face displayed to the entire world what Southern racism had done.
Thousands of Chicagoans walked by the open casket in 1955 at the Raynor Funeral Home, aghast at what they saw. Years later,  Rosa Parks told Mamie Till that the photograph of her son, Emmett’s disfigured face in the casket was set in her mind when she refused to give up her seat on the Montgomery bus.

There were three lynching’s in Mississippi in 1955. All of them made the news up north.  I was a very young boy, and I was already aware of what hatred was capable of doing to people. I knew of the Holocaust in Germany and I knew of the horror that faced blacks right in my own country if they stepped “out of line” in the deep south.  I also knew that I detested bigotry and racism and those that practiced it should never be trusted. Something had to change, and that kind of change comes from inside of people.  They have to want to change, and I saw far too many that simply didn’t want to do that. They know it’s wrong, but try to find ways to justify it so they can convince themselves of their own righteousness.  It was at this time that I lost all interest in religion.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers