Comments on: De Tocqueville’s Terrorists

By: David Schraub

David Schraub — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:21:41 +0000

That’s cool. I also think there is probably a bit of dissonance over the word “terrorism.” Nowadays when we think terrorism (of the religious variety, anyway), we’re likely to think of the sectarian violence in Iraq, or suicide bombings in Israel, or perhaps the IRA in N.Ireland. But historically, I think the definition was much broader, and would include such things as the Philadelphia Bible Riots, or throwing bricks through the windows of dissenters, or beating up the children of religious minorities in school. Basically, things that terrorize.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:40:42 +0000

OK, I see…I guess then I’d say that I think you’re professor goes too far. I’d agree (again, relying on long term memory here!) that Tocqueville believed that the need for religious institutions was so great that he probably condoned things that he shouldn’t have, but equating this to advocating terrorism is over the top IMO.

And again, the missing piece is that I feel one can support Tocqueville’s (and GW’s) argument of the vital need for religious institutions as valid without saying that this means we should keep them intact at all cost. It just means that secularists have the burden of proof that secular institutions can provide the same support for democratic society that religious ones have historically provided (and given the rather lackluster job those institutions have done, that’s not a very high bar!)

By: David Schraub

David Schraub — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:01:29 +0000

Well, the bit about terrorizing was my professor’s interjection, not de Tocqueville’s. However, he does explicitly say that our religious consensus is held together because dissenters are afraid to speak up. And he does comment on unblinking suppression of atheists (citing an atheist who was not allowed to testify at trial solely due to his atheism, and how this did not strike anyone as the least bit odd). He seems to view both of these things as not just good, but necessary to keeping the religious consensus together–which suggests that we need to play a little G.M. Tarkin and let “fear keep them in line.”

It was the context of his book occuring in the midst of such things as the Philly Bible Riots and tarring and feathering dissident priests that made me wonder.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:43:35 +0000

David,
It’s been longer than I care to admit since I read de Tocqueville, but your assertion that he advocated nothing short of terrorism strikes me as a huge overstatement. Could you indulge me by providing an excerpt that backs up this:

De Tocqueville is quite explicit that the reason for religious consensus in America is because anyone who deviates from the orthodox position is simply afraid to speak up. And if they do assert an alternative position (e.g., atheism), American society will smite them down without blinking.

Again, my memory may not be serving me well here but the smiting them down comment seems a bit over the top. The way I see it, de Tocqueville took a view similar to George Washington’s, regarding the inherent and necessary value of religion in America. And while that might have left insufficient room for atheism and plurality, my own belief in that regard is that atheists might gain more trust and acceptance if they would acknowledge that religious institutions have played a support role for democracy but that perhaps there is a way to build secular institutions to fulfill a similar role.

You see, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be assuming that de Tocqueville felt that traditional Christianity was so vital to our society that any means of perpetuating it would be justified. My interpretation though, is he was just saying it was vital. This leaves room for the belief that anyone who wishes to remove it as a pillar simply has the burden of proof that they can replace it with another pillar.