The Protestant Empire

[Michael deHaven Newsom]

Michael McConnell wrote:

> There is no doubt that Protestantism is culturally very powerful, and
> no doubt that a Protestant sensibility (often in its secular garb,
> liberalism) pervades our legal culture. By "Protestant" I mean the
> view that, in principle, religious truth is accessible to all
> persons, without distinction of person -- what we Protestants call
> "the priesthood of all believers."

Hold on a minute.  Catholics believe that "religious truth is accessible
to all persons, without distinction of persons."  We may differ in the
mode of accessibility, but not in the fact thereof.

>
>
> Thus, in a sense, Michael Newsom is right to complain of a
> "Protestant Empire." Protestantism is difficult to escape, much the
> way that postmodernism is difficult to escape: even to come to
> terms with it requires that one accept its premises. Indeed, the very
> idea that there should be free exercise of religion -- and that
> governmental establishments are bad -- are products of Protestant
> thought. (This is not to accuse non-Protestants of harboring
> establishmentarian intentions, or to deny that some Protestants are
> establishmentarian, but simply to point out the historical origins of
> the idea and their logical connection to Protestantism.)

Again, I think that you have failed to take into account the view of
those like Joseph Story who understand the First Amendment rather
differently than you imply.  The fissiparous quality of Protestantism has
as much to do with the Religion Clauses as any broader notions of
"liberty."

> Thus, I
> think Michael is caught up in a paradox. To complain of the
> Protestant Empire he must champion the primacy of individual
> conscience in matters of religion -- and hence to be, in a sense, a
> Protestant himself (much as I find myself using postmodern insights
> in my critique of postmodernism).

I disagree.  All that I am championing is the right of minority religious
communities to survive more or less intact in a distinctly hostile
environment.  The touchstone of my thinking in this area has very little
to do with "the individual" but rather with minority groups and
communities.  Again, I do not think that the Religion Clauses have much
to do with "individual conscience" except in the context of
pan-Protestantism, the outcome of the tendency of  Protestants to
splinter into a multiplicity of groups.  The Religion Clauses have
underscored and supported that tendency.  It is debatable as to what else
they have done.

>
> Moreover, contrary to Eugene Volokh, who thinks there is no evidence
> to support Michael's thesis, the problem is the opposite: there is a
> superabundance of evidence to support it. Indeed, given the dominance
> of Protestant thought (often in its secular garb, liberal thought),
> one can usually tell a plausible story in which every outcome to
> every case would be in the service of the Protestant Empire. It is a
> thesis that cannot be falsified, because there will always be a way
> to show that any piece of evidence "fits" within the Protestant
> hegemony.

There may be a superabundance of evidence, but it does not follow that
the evidence is incoherent.

>
>
> Michael McConnell (U of Utah)
> 332 South 1400 East
> Salt Lake City, UT 84112
> mcconnellm at law.utah.edu