Freedom, religion and the state

Via Peter Risdon's blog, I found this excellent piece by Matthew Parris, commenting on the Archbishop's sharia speech.

Properly understood, the effect of devolving national law and national morality to local and group level is profoundly conservative. Dr Williams's ideas really represent the wilder fringes of a bigger idea: communitarianism. Communitarianism can come in a surplice, a yarmulka or from a minaret and is all the more dangerous because armed with a divine rather than a local loyalty. It almost always proves a repressive and reactionary force, fearful of competitors, often anti-science, sometimes sceptical of knowledge itself, and grudging towards the State.

There is absolutely nothing “left-wing” or woolly-liberal about empowering it. A Britain in which Muslim communities policed themselves would be more ruthlessly policed, and probably more law-abiding than today. But it would be a Britain in which the individual Muslim - maybe female, maybe ambitious, maybe gay, maybe a religious doubter - would lose their chances of rescue from his or her family or community by the State.

The State, not family, faith or community, is the guarantor of personal liberty and intellectual freedom, and it will always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look. Some two centuries ago Nonconformism in Britain, by offering the individual an unmediated approach to a personal God, started to liberate Christians from the Church. Dr Williams seems not to understand this. Or perhaps he does, and is on the other side.

The highlighting is Peter's, pointing out that Matthew Parris "sounds a note we minimal-government people ought to consider carefully".

He's spot on. Without the state, there can be no liberty, unless you happen to be the leader of the biggest and strongest war band.

In the comments thread to the article, a number of people have protested that the state constrains and in many cases completely destroys liberty. The twentieth century provides plenty of examples of state-slavery.

That is true but it doesn't refute Matthew Parris's argument. While the state can oppress it is only the state that can create the conditions for freedom and can protect people from those who would curtail that freedom. Other forms of social organisation, such as religions, tribes, gangs, political cults and companies, cannot do this and, in many cases, do just the opposite.

It is no coincidence that the world's free societies are those where tribalism and religion were tamed by the nation-state. In some countries, such as France and the USA, religion was detached from the state by constitutional rules, in others, like the UK and Denmark, it was absorbed by the means of a state-church. The principle was established that the state was the sole temporal authority, giver of law and arbiter of justice. Only then could universally applicable laws and rights be created, providing the framework for individual liberty. 

In countries where the state is weak, personal liberty is diminished. There is little freedom for ordinary people in Iraq, Somalia and Kenya. If the rule of tribal leaders and religious leaders replaces that of the state, personal freedom is the first casualty.

For this reason, any attempt to set up alternative centres of authority should be resisted. Those who consider themselves to be liberals or libertarians, while wanting controls on the state's power, should not wish to see it weakened or superseded by anything else.

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury sought to clarify the comments he made last week. Again, he raised the possibility of increased power for religious courts:

The question remains whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law ... for resolving disputes and regulating transactions.

For anyone who values personal freedom, the answer to the Archbishop's question is clear. There should be no power for religious courts and no legal recognition of them by the state.

And, while we're about it, we should remove the last remnants of religious power altogether, by kicking Dr Williams and the other bishops out of our legislature.

Comments

[the flamer]

"In countries where the state is weak, personal liberty is diminished."

So you mean where the state is strong, personal liberty is strong?

BAAWAHAAAAA.
You fucking idiot.

"And, while we're about it, we should remove the last remnants of religious power altogether, by kicking Dr Williams and the other bishops out of our legislature."

It's the weakening of principles that lets the left wing toynbee cunts in, in the first place.

BAAWAHAAAAAAAA.
You fucking idiot.

A little canary singing, tweet, tweet.
Gotcha.
You fucking idiot.

BAAWAHAAAAAA

[Steve]

I think the evidence of who is the "fucking idiot" is plain for all to see from your gibbering, Mr Flamer.

[steve the best]

No-one is gibbering other than the idiot who penned the post.
Thats you!!!

Baawahaaaa.

HOWEVER.
In a moment of serious intellectual consideration, I would like you to consider this epitaph to our unloved, unelected, unbrained, prime minister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZQkYnPo2sA&NR=1

You gotta laugh!

[PRODOS]

Greetings from Melbourne, Australia.

I also found Matthew Parris' article very perceptive, and agree that "... where the state is weak, personal liberty is diminished."

The state CAN be oppressive and often is. Yes, we all know that.

But weak government or no government is a GUARANTEE of tyranny.

Political freedom isn't about doing whatever you want. It's not be being free TO do things.

It's about being free FROM coercion, thuggery, intimidation.

Only a strong government - one that is a LOT stronger than local and international thugs - has the capacity to reliably protect its citizens.

I've never liked the terms "small government" and "big government" that are often bandied about by some Classical Liberals and libertarians.

"Big" government is supposed to be bad, and "small" government is supposed to be good. Does that mean, therefore, that that NO government is best? Far from it.

I look forward to visiting your blog more often.

It was recommended by a friend here in Melbourne, who wrote to me, saying "pubphilosopher.blogs.com ... is always worth reading."

It looks like she was right!

[Numerous]

"In countries where the state is weak, personal liberty is diminished."

So you mean where the state is strong, personal liberty is strong?

BAAWAHAAAAA.
You fucking idiot."
If the state is moral, yes. But your logic is kinda flawed. By your logic:
If you have no hands, you can't punch everyone. Therefore if you have both hands, you can punch everyone.
I'm sure that at least once, some lunatic has tried to punch everyone, in the last 5000 years. I really, really