Religion and Political Rights

Religious toleration was the primary concern of early colonial leaders like Roger Williams, the legacy of debates like this continue into the present. Still it is not always easy to distinguish those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, many times these conflicts are played out within the same person. Take John Locke for example who besides being the great champion of human rights and government by consent of the people, also thought that Catholics should be denied the right to vote. Part of this is because of the unique dynamics of English political life, the political battle lines were basically drawn between Catholics and Protestants (Locke was a Puritan).

But on another level, this distrust of Catholics stems from Locke's belief that they were unfree people. They were subservient to the Catholic Church and they were subservient to the local authorities and political bosses, so the argument went. The fear was that they would bring their unfree ways of doing things with them, corrupting good political institutions and ruin things for those who are truly free. In many ways this idea carries into the present on contemporary debates on immigration. Not coincidentally the immigrant groups that have received the most attention and controversy, past and present, have been from Catholic countries or regions--Ireland, Italy, and now Latin America. So that problems like the mafia for example were believed to be directly caused by the Italians lack of political freedom and dependence on local power brokers for protection and advancement. As recently as the 1960s when John F. Kennedy was running for President, conservatives warned that he would swear his allegiance to the Pope (The modern version of this is calling President Obama a Muslim).

How would you evaluate this claim that unfree people bring their unfree ways of doing things with them? If people come from a background that is not democratic is it harder for them to learn the ways of democratic political life?

Natural Rights

Sometimes it is good to consider things from an outside perspective because they notice things that those who are brought up from the inside take for granted. Consider this statement from Liang Qichao, an early 20th century Chinese scholar on the idea of 'sticking up for your rights':

If an Englishman traveling to the European continent is one day asked to pay an irrational charge by the hotel's carriage driver, in every case he will resolutely scold the driver. If the driver will not heed his scolding the Englishman will struggle for justice without tiring always preferring to extend his stay; even if his room charges were to increase as much as tenfold he would not cease. Unknowing people all laugh at this great fool but none of them understand that this person's struggle over a few schillings is in fact a vital part of what allows the nation of England to stand tall by itself in the world.

What do you think the meaning is of Liang's statement? What kind of commonsense practical value does he see in human rights? How does a strong 'culture of rights' contribute to a strong public? These are just some things you might want to consider as we get things going. The idea of natural rights was something we spent a lot of time discussing last class and as you will see it will continue to be an important theme in class. Remember at the most fundamental level the purpose of the Lockean inspired American political system as designed by the founders was to protect natural rights. It is impossible to understand American politics without understanding the importance of natural rights.