My God Can Beat Up Your God (Defining "Tolerance")

(This post is part of the annual Blog Against Theocracy. The twitter hatchtag is #AgainstTheocracy.)

Tolerance is a worthy value, but it's important to recognize that different religious traditions do not share the exact same beliefs (not even under different names), that atheism is not just another faith (as the saying goes, atheism is not a religion any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby), and that not everyone believes in, or practices, religious tolerance.

Occasionally, someone (almost always a conservative) will complain that someone else (normally a "liberal") is being 'intolerant of their intolerance.' (For instance, see Kirk Cameron's complaints that his religiously-based anti-gay views are not tolerated by "those who preach tolerance.") At first glance, such situations may seem to reveal a paradox or hypocrisy, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it just ain't so.

Most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege." Typically, they do not recognize this, because they view their preferred power structure as the natural order. Theocrats and other religious authoritarians will raise a great hue and cry about their religious freedoms being violated. Most will honestly believe this, but they do not truly seek freedom of religion, which they already possess. What they seek is power and preferential status, the ability to impose their religious beliefs on others. Consequently, to use a shorthand, it's important to recognize the difference between personal beliefs – for instance, an individual's specific religious beliefs or lack thereof, that affect that person – and system beliefs – beliefs about how our overall system should be organized, including whether religious faiths (as well as no faith) should be treated equally and neutrally, or whether a particular faith or faiths should be given precedence. These are not equivalent, and when we discuss "belief" and "tolerance," we must put them in context. Individual, personal beliefs that affect that person primarily are categorically different from shared, public policies that affect everyone. The First Amendment contains both an exercise clause and an establishment clause regarding religion; theocrats consistently ignore the latter (in fact, that's one of the defining characteristic of theocrats). While the law makes a number of accommodations for religious beliefs (and individual communities may make far more), as a rule religious beliefs do not trump the law; a murderer could not successfully argue that prosecuting him was a violation of his First Amendment rights because he belonged to the Cult of Kali. Understanding these distinctions is crucial.

The Local House of Worship

Back in December, I took a family member to a Christmas Eve service. This particular church is not really my crowd, but so what, as long as my family member likes it and is treated nicely by the congregation and church staff? One passage in the sermon really struck me, though (emphasis mine):

We live in a time when people demand that we assign equal value to all religious viewpoints. People bristle at the idea of just "one way to God." Tolerance is a wonderful virtue which we all need, but even tolerance must kneel at the cross of Jesus.

If you believe the New Testament story that God willingly sent his only son to be rejected, spit upon, trampled upon, maimed and mutilated, can you possibly believe that God would have sent his son to this if there had been any other way of salvation? Would you send your child away for such a fate, if it could possibly be avoided? No, to turn away from the cross and say I choose another way is really saying, "God, the sacrifice of your son wasn’t good enough for me. I want another option, I think I have a better alternative."

Is that tolerance, or is it pride?

Someone is very unclear on the concept of "tolerance."

Now, if there is any place where proselytizing is acceptable, clearly it is in a house of worship. Some congregations are more tolerant and inclusive than others, and this will appeal to some potential members. However, when on their own turf, obviously it's that congregation's right to proclaim that theirs is the best faith or the one true faith, that they're right and others are wrong, to cheerlead and trash talk, or even talk seriously about important theological differences. To quote an earlier post:

My assumption is that religious people think their religion is the best. If they grew up with the religion, they've probably heard that it's the best, or just naturally assumed it. Those that reflect on their religion as they grow older and stay with it come to some conclusion that their specific denomination is the best – or else they'd change it. Those that convert to a religion obviously think their new religion or denomination is the best, or else they wouldn't have chosen it. Some may choose to be part of a place of worship more for the community, or convert for a spouse, and may not subscribe to all of a religion's tenets nor that communities' practices. Still, generally speaking, it's not surprising if a religious person thinks his or her religion is the best, and/or the truest path.

At most churches, Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday are the most heavily attended services of the year. This makes sense given those events' centrality to Christian belief, and it would be surprising if a sermon did not touch if not dwell on the core stories of the faith.

All that said, the view expressed above is that we will "tolerate" other religious faiths, but they are inferior. That's not really tolerance; it's advocating social politeness (if we're being charitable). I was also struck by how that passage was delivered with a sense of indignation – 'how dare you reject this wonderful gift?' Technically, I suppose the "if" gives an out, but that was not the tone at all. The preacher was expressing anger at those who do not subscribe to his particular interpretation of Christianity. I want to make it very clear – if I or any individual voluntarily attends a worship service, and we hear something we deem offensive, the proper response is to either speak with the leadership afterwards (if one is a congregant) or not to attend again (more likely if one is a visitor, or "church shopping" or similar). The congregation has every right to say what it wants in its own space.

However, the rules change when it comes to debating public policy; anyone can still say anything, but their views are not given automatic deference just because of religion. To quote a recent post, "of course people of faith have a role in the public square, they just shouldn't have a privileged role. They can propose public policies, but they don't automatically get to have their way by citing their religion. They don't automatically get to win."

I don't really care if a particular house of worship thinks its religion is the best; I expect it. In a sense, I don't care if they don't practice religious tolerance while on their own turf (even if that may turn off some potential congregants). I do care, however, if they don't understand or respect that other people exist with different faiths who also feel their beliefs represent the one and true faith (and that some people reject religion altogether). I do care if, when they enter the public square, they don't understand how tolerance and the establishment clause of the First Amendment work. Such failures have very real, negative consequences.

The Pope and Ms. Lopez

Recently, Susan of Texas wrote a good post on authoritarianism, National Review editor Kathryn Jean Lopez and Lopez' praise for the Pope's supposed "defense and explanation of the essential nature of religious freedom." If you're not familiar with Lopez, she is an extremely conservative Catholic. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, "Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%)." Lopez opposes both abortion and birth control, putting her far to the right, even among women in her own faith. (Anyone who truly wants fewer abortions shouldn't also oppose birth control, but the agenda is social control.)

In any case, while in Cuba, the Pope gave a homily. Follow the link to read it in full, but much of it is proselytizing:

Convinced that it is Christ who is the true measure of man, and knowing that in him we find the strength needed to face every trial, I wish to proclaim openly that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. In him everyone will find complete freedom, the light to understand reality most deeply and to transform it by the renewing power of love.

The Church lives to make others sharers in the one thing she possesses, which is none other than Christ, our hope of glory (cf. Col 1:27).

I'm not offended that the Pope would proselytize; that's a huge part of his job. Nor am I surprised he thinks his religion is true and the best one. I'm more struck by his lack of diplomacy and lack of understanding of "freedom of religion" elsewhere in the homily (but not truly surprised, given Ratzinger's track record on this front). This paragraph is probably the least obnoxious and most inclusive:

The right to freedom of religion, both in its private and in its public dimension, manifests the unity of the human person, who is at once a citizen and a believer. It also legitimizes the fact that believers have a contribution to make to the building up of society. Strengthening religious freedom consolidates social bonds, nourishes the hope of a better world, creates favourable conditions for peace and harmonious development, while at the same time establishing solid foundations for securing the rights of future generations.

This is rah-rah for religion, and doesn't mention non-believers, but okay. The rest of the piece is more problematic in terms of "freedom of religion," as when he says:

Furthermore, the truth which stands above humanity is an unavoidable condition for attaining freedom, since in it we discover the foundation of an ethics on which all can converge and which contains clear and precise indications concerning life and death, duties and rights, marriage, family and society, in short, regarding the inviolable dignity of the human person. This ethical patrimony can bring together different cultures, peoples and religions, authorities and citizens, citizens among themselves, and believers in Christ and non-believers.

Re-read that carefully. Ratzinger apparently believes you can't be truly free unless you're a Christian – and specifically, a conservative Catholic one. His view of religious tolerance is that everyone, including atheists and people who are religious but not Christian, should submit to the true faith, the Catholic Church. He's not just talking about being moral and leading by example, either. He both proselytizes and explicitly endorses proselytizing several times elsewhere in this piece. Again, it's not surprising, but this does confirm that he can be fairly viewed as a religious zealot (if an extremely prominent one) versus a person of tolerance. Religious zealots often seems terribly astounded that other people don't eagerly capitulate to their views and authority. This is not a good sales pitch to non-Catholics he hopes to win over. Ratzinger also says (emphasis mine):

When the Church upholds this human right, she is not claiming any special privileges for herself. She wishes only to be faithful to the command of her divine founder, conscious that, where Christ is present, we become more human and our humanity becomes authentic. This is why the Church seeks to give witness by her preaching and teaching, both in catechesis and in the schools and universities. It is greatly to be hoped that the moment will soon arrive when, here too, the Church can bring to the fields of knowledge the benefits of the mission which the Lord entrusted to her and which she can never neglect.

Of course he and the Church are claiming special privileges. It's not as if other faiths don't also feel they are serving a higher purpose, or for that matter, that many secular organizations don't feel the same. Members of the Catholic Church can preach all they want in their own churches and on street corners, and they can even be invited to schools and universities, but why should they be given automatic access? Furthermore, "special privileges" is precisely what American Catholic bishops have sought in trying to ban gay adoptions, and trying to ban insurance companies from providing women basic contraceptive coverage. What gives Catholic officials the right to interfere with legitimate medical decisions? Why should their beliefs be given precedence over those of their employees, and over the medical judgment of doctors? (Obviously, the contraception battles form a larger discussion, but likely you've caught some other pieces on it.)

Lopez herself ends with a laughable claim of religious persecution: "we ought to do our utmost to curtail our government’s eroding of our own first freedom." However, it's typical to hear such specious complaints from religious conservatives and authoritarians. More important is Lopez' selection of passages from the Pope (you can read her full post here). She could have just quoted the third paragraph she features about freedom of religion ("The right to freedom of religion..." quoted above). Instead, she says that the Pope offered a "self-consciously Christian statement — but one that highlighted why more than religious believers should care to insist on it..." and then Lopez quotes:

Convinced that it is Christ who is the true measure of man, and knowing that in him we find the strength needed to face every trial, I wish to proclaim openly that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. In him everyone will find complete freedom, the light to understand reality most deeply and to transform it by the renewing power of love.

The Church lives to make others sharers in the one thing she possesses, which is none other than Christ, our hope of glory...

Wow. More than religious believers should care to insist on it. Like her leader, the Pope, but even more blatantly, Lopez has just argued that atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and all other faiths should submit to her specific religion. Apparently to her, this constitutes "religious freedom." (As usual, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege.")

Now true, K-Lo is a chronically inept writer, so that may be a factor here. But she, like Ross Douthat, really does seem to think that everybody would be better off if they were Catholic and submitted to Catholic authority, and that, deep down, everybody else wants to (or should). Naturally they think their religion is the true one, the bestest ever, and all that. But despite being reasonably educated adults, presumably with some life experience, they still remain utterly flabbergasted by the prospect that other people might see things differently, and not eagerly want to subjugate themselves to K-Lo's own personal deity.

To be clear, once again I fully support the right of the Pope and Lopez to believe whatever they want in terms of religious faith, and proselytize to their hearts' content. However, it's important to note that they do not truly understand or practice religious tolerance, nor do they respect "freedom of religion" as it is commonly understood (certainly not in terms of the First Amendment, not that its approach is unique in the world).

Kirk Cameron

If you missed the Kirk Cameron story, here's a pretty good summary from the New York Daily News (emphasis mine):

Kirk Cameron, who has come under fire for calling homosexuality “unnatural,” says he’s the one who’s a victim of “hate speech.”

The 41-year-old “ Fireproof” actor has been on the defensive since igniting an uproar after saying same-sex marriage was “destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization” during an interview Friday with CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Though he became a break-out star on the 1980s sitcom “Growing Pains,” Cameron has since become an evangelical Christian who is vocal about his religious.

“I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community,” he told ABC News in an emailed statement Tuesday. “That is not true. I can assuredly say that it’s my life’s mission to love all people.

“I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”

Cameron added that he has been encouraged by the support of gay friends...

“Saying that gay people are ‘detrimental to civilization’ might be ‘loving’ in Kirk Cameron’s mind, but it’s gay youth and victims of bullying who truly suffer from adults like Cameron who espouse these ideas,” said Herndon Graddick, GLAAD’s Senior Director of Programs and Communications...

“So many Americans, popular celebrities and Christian leaders have stood up and said his views are out of touch. The fundamental dignity of gay people should no longer be a debate in this country.

“Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.”

John Aravosis had a similar reaction (echoed by many commentators):

First off, if you want to talk about 2,000 year old traditions that were supposedly rooted in the Bible, let's talk slavery. Should we have been tolerant of that, Kirk?

Second, speaking honestly doesn't preclude you from being a hateful bigot.

As for your right to free speech, what about our right to free speech? You have every right in America to be a bigot, and a loud spoken one at that. No one is taking that right away from you. But we have the right to call you on your bigotry.

As for your supposed gay friends who are supporting you in this, name one.

The slavery comparison is very apt, because Cameron isn't just expressing a personal belief that affects his own personal religious life; he's expressing a system belief about how society should be organized. He's seeking to impose a power dynamic and control other people's lives. His personal beliefs cannot override their personal beliefs without their consent. He is not automatically allowed to dictate to others how they should live. He can certainly state his opinion, and proselytize all he wants, but his claims of persecution reveal his ideological narcissism; he is discounting others' beliefs, and saying his trump theirs. He is not simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong," which is common enough in debates. That's to be expected. He's saying (even if he doesn't realize it) that gay people are lesser beings who do not deserve equal footing with him. When discussing "tolerance," power dynamics and the actual consequences of "beliefs," the system aspect, should not be ignored.

These discussions can play out something like this:

Tolerance Advocate: I believe we should all have equal rights.

Intolerant Person: No, you're a second-class citizen.

Tolerance Advocate: Go to hell.

Intolerant Person: Why are you so rude and intolerant?

Civility Troll: Yes, why are you so rude?

Cameron's First Amendment rights have not been violated. The government has not banned him from speaking, and he can practice his religion all he wants – up to the point when it conflicts with the law and public policy. For instance, it's legal to be a bigot in terms of thoughts and speech, but not legal to racially discriminate in hiring practices. Cameron's personal beliefs are unfettered, but his system beliefs about how the overall system should work, including his rude, intolerant notions about gays being second-class citizens, do not need to be given any respect. They can and should be challenged.

A System of Tolerance

It's worth taking a step back to consider the big picture on tolerance, as we've looked at before (in "The Social Tolerance Charts" and "The Religion-in-Society Charts," among other posts; I'll be using graphics from both of them here). Within the context of the law, a tolerant person says, "I will live my life the way I like, and you can live your life the way you like." An intolerant person will say, "I will live my life the way I like, but you must also live your life the way I want you to." These are not equivalent. It is absolutely essential to recognize this and point it out whenever this distinction is obscured (as it is often). Talking about different individual beliefs, and tolerance for them, is crucially different from discussions about the overall system and whether it is tolerant or not. Political discourse often ignores power dynamics, or assumes that a dominant culture is the norm. A tolerant system looks something like this:


(Click any graphics for a larger view. These aren't drawn to scale, naturally.) A tolerant system allows room for both the personally tolerant and the personally intolerant. Since there can be competing intolerant groups, we can further picture the system like this:


In contrast, what intolerant people want (this would include theocrats) is to set up a hierarchy with themselves at the top:


Needless to say, this is a lousy system for "everybody else."

Because freedom of religion means that the government is neutral when it comes to matters of faith and no faith at all, America has something like this, with the religious, non-religious and anti-religious all equal when it comes to the law:


If we want to contrast a religiously tolerant society with a theocratic one, it would look something like this:


Finally, since I do know nice religious folks who feel a bit persecuted, I offer this slightly exaggerated and tongue-in-cheek graphic:


Change the terms slightly if you wish. (This version substitutes "authoritarian" for theocrat[ic].) "Liberal" is, as noted, liberal in the Enlightenment sense, which would include tolerant small "c" conservatives and the like, anyone who is committed in general to basic social equality. As for "smug hipster asshole," basically, if a religious person or anyone else feels, say, Bill Maher is an asshole, that's perfectly fine. It's fine for them to condemn Maher or others for being obnoxious to them, or personally "intolerant," as the term is commonly used. However, Maher does not support locking people up for their religious beliefs (unless I've missed something). He supports a legal system of tolerance, no matter how obnoxious he may be personally. Meanwhile, there are "friendly but misguided theocrats," religious authoritarians who may be fairly nice on the interpersonal level, but truly believe the country would be better if it was a theocracy. There's nothing wrong per se with hanging out with them socially, but any theocratic measures they take politically should be opposed. (The same goes for theocratic assholes, obviously, and they tend to be a very nasty bunch.)

As I've written in previous posts, I have some sympathy for nice people who are religious and wind up in a situation where they feel someone is degrading all people of faith as idiots or zealots. (I've spoken up for them in some cases.) However, the solution to such situations is social in nature, not legal. When it comes to politics, I'm much more concerned about theocrats and others who don't support a system of tolerance. Unfortunately, these two types of "tolerance" are often conflated, and this makes for needlessly poor discussions.

Yet again, most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege." Anyone is free to bring his or her religious beliefs into the public sphere, but when it comes to public policy and debate, those beliefs don't automatically "win" because they're religiously-based. Last year's post explored this in more depth, but a world of difference exists between bringing in religion into the public sphere in an authoritarian way – "We must help the poor because God commands it" – and having faith inform one's beliefs, or even citing scripture, to invoke a greater, shared principle that is not dependent on specific religious beliefs, like so:

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. And I know that a lot of people are the least of my brothers because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and they have no rights.

Stephen Colbert cites scripture obliquely here, but this is not a theocratic argument; he's invoking a greater principle of compassion which does not depend on specific religious beliefs. (However, such beliefs may be a given individual's way of coming to compassion and understanding it. Meanwhile, let's also note that religious authoritarians rarely concern themselves much with the poor.)

Privilege, Not Equality

The difference between privilege and equality deserves more discussion, particularly the fact that theocrats seek the former, not the latter. Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians (2006) is extremely helpful for explaining how authoritarians (and specifically, religious authoritarians or theocrats) think regarding freedom of religion, personal conduct and public policy. Chapter 4, "Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism," is particularly relevant. Consider this extended passage:

“In the United States [Mark Noll] writes, it is simply impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual.” “Modern American evangelicals have failed notably in sustaining serious intellectual life.”

I have found nothing in my research that disagrees with this assessment. Indeed almost all of the findings in the last chapter about the authoritarian follower’s penchants for illogical thinking, compartmentalized minds, double standards, hypocrisy and dogmatism apply to religious fundamentalists as well. For example, David Winter at the University of Michigan recently found that fundamentalist students, when evaluating the war in Iraq, rejected a series of statements that were based on the Sermon on the Mount--which is arguably the core of Jesus’ teachings. Fundamentalists may believe they follow Jesus more than anyone else does, but it turns out to depend a lot on where Jesus said we should go. And we can augment such findings by considering the thinking behind three of the fundamentalist’s favorite issues: school prayer, opposition to evolution, and the infallibility of the Bible.

A. School Prayer: Majority Rights, Unless... Suppose a law were passed requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in God, pray together in school several times each day, memorize the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Bible, learn the principles of Christian morality, and eventually be encouraged to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. How would you react to such a law?

The great majority of people in my samples who answered this question, including most of the Christians, said this would be a bad law. But most fundamentalists liked the idea, for this is exactly the kind of education they would like to see public schools give to everyone’s children. When I asked fundamentalists about the morality of imposing this learning on the children of Hindus, Jews, atheists, etcetera, they responded along the lines of, “This is a Christian country, and the majority rules. If others don’t like it, they can pay for private education or leave.” (As I said, most people do not favor this proposal, but since the days of the “Moral Majority” fundamentalists have tended to overestimate their numbers in society.)

What do you think happened when I asked people to respond to this parallel scenario?

Suppose you were living in a modern Arab democracy, whose constitution stated there could be NO state religion--even though the vast majority of the people were Muslims. Then a fundamentalist Islamic movement was elected to power, and passed a law requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in Allah, pray together facing Mecca several times each day, memorize important parts of the Koran, learn the principles of Islamic morality, and eventually be encouraged to declare their allegiance to Muhammad and become a Muslim. How would you react to such a law?

Again, a great majority of my samples thought this would be quite wrong, but this time so did a solid majority of Christian fundamentalists. When you asked them why, they said that obviously this would be unfair to people who help pay for public schools but who want their children raised in some other religion. If you ask them if the majority in an Arab country has a right to have its religion taught in public schools, they say no, that the minority has rights too that must be respected. Nobody’s kids should have another religion forced upon them in the classroom, they say.

So do fundamentalists believe in majority rights or minority rights? The answer is, apparently, neither. They’ll pull whichever argument suits them out of its file when necessary, but basically they are unprincipled on the issue of school prayer. They have a big double standard that basically says, “Whatever I want is right.” The rest is rationalization, and as flexible and multi-directional as a reed blowing in the wind.

[pp.115–117]

Incidentally, Altremeyer found that atheists overwhelmingly opposed laws:

...requiring strenuous teaching in public schools against belief in God and religion…

Atheists typically hold that religious beliefs/practice have no place in public schools, and that includes their own point of view. No double standard there.

[p. 117]

I still remember reading this chapter for the first time, because it (and another passage) answered some questions for me about theocrats. I wanted to assume, charitably, that some religious authoritarians were merely cloistered and unreflective, and had not really thought through the logical consequences of their positions. (Similarly, I'd say that a deep understanding of civics is severely lacking in America.) The what-if-you-lived-in-a-Muslim-country question is fairly obvious. (I've posed a similar question in the past, as have many other writers.) Clearly some theocrat leaders were acting in bad faith (no pun intended, although it works), but perhaps that did not apply to all of their followers. However, the studies indicated otherwise. True, religious authoritarian followers are not a reflective bunch, but apparently, even when starkly confronted with the choice between equality and privilege, they choose privilege.

The Threat of Theocracy

Apologies for the occasional repetitiveness of this post; I may be beating a dead horse, but I find myself frustrated by the seemingly constant complaints from social conservatives that others are 'intolerant of their intolerance.' (Sometimes they say this almost verbatim.) It's a ridiculous argument if one adds a little thought and nuance to the notion of "tolerance," and points out the role that power dynamics play, or the difference between "personal" and "system" beliefs (pick other terminology if you like). Alas, thought and nuance seem to be very rare when dealing with social conservatives and authoritarians, religious or otherwise. They have a sense of aggrievement, but little command of history, and no commitment to a fair system.

The ultimate point is that theocrats already possess freedom, but they are pushing for more – privilege and power over others that infringes on others' freedoms. They may be sincere, and some may even be nice on the individual level, but they are also dangerous and dead wrong about how society and the government should be organized. If their personal practices are wonderful, there is nothing to prevent them from saying so and winning converts. But their preferred power structure is inherently unfair, and historically, has lead to horrible abuses. Truly upholding freedom of religion necessitates opposing theocracy.

(Revised slightly for clarity. For more on the notion of tolerance, see the paradox of tolerance, John Rawls on tolerance, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry. For more VS posts on this general subject, see the categories for Blog Against Theocracy, Religion and the Religious Right. The most pertinent posts may be "The Social Tolerance Charts," "The Religion-in-Society Charts," "The Conservative Brain Trust Takes On: Freedom of Religion!" "You Damned Kids Get Into My Church" and "I'll See Your Jesus and Raise You 10,000 Buddhas.")

Surely the Constitution Must Match My Theocratic Beliefs

(This post is part of the annual Blog Against Theocracy. The twitter hatchtag is #AgainstTheocracy.)

Rick Santorum's understanding of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state matches his understanding of almost everything else. Santorum's corruption should not be overlooked, nor should his vengeful hyper-partisanship, but what truly defines him is his combination of belligerence, zealotry and ignorance. It's what makes him an authoritarian's authoritarian. He can be completely, utterly wrong on factual matters, even matters of basic civics and history, but he will not let that temper his relentless attacks on his perceived foes. (Being one of the Righteous has its perks.)

It's hard to keep up with all of Santorum's factual inaccuracies, but Blue Texan summed up the highlights back in February:

It's difficult to recall a presidential candidate who had such a poor grasp of the basic facts of history [as] Rick Santorum. He's mangled the Crusades. Less than two weeks ago, he botched the French Revolution. And Saturday, he revealed an astonishing ignorance of U.S. history as well with his remarks on public education.

That list doesn't even include his amazing claim that the Dutch euthanize their elderly.

Certainly Santorum's political views are also extreme, including his positions that contraception is a "grievous moral wrong" and abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest. Instead, women should be forced to just "make the best of a bad situation." Because, holds Santorum, life is precious (not counting people we kill overseas), and "The right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you."

Santorum's religious knowledge doesn't seem any more impressive. As Mike Lux asks, What Bible is Santorum reading? Meanwhile, Juan Cole points out the top ten Catholic teachings Santorum rejects while obsessing about birth control.

There's plenty more to be said about Santorum, but for the moment, let's focus on his misunderstandings about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. As a reminder, the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The actual phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" appears in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, echoing earlier writers, and further explains the establishment clause. Freedom of religion was further defined by the highly-influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, penned by Jefferson, with the help of James Madison. (More on this later.)

So where does Santorum stand on all this? On Sunday 2/26/12 on This Week, Santorum defended his previous remarks that John F. Kennedy's famous speech upholding the separation of church and state made him want to "throw up":


Here's the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison—

STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you wanted to throw up?

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: -- the perfect remedy. Well, yes, absolutely, to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can't come to the public square and argue against it, but now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

Santorum cites the exercise clause, but conveniently completely ignores the establishment clause. While Santorum defended his "throw up" line several times with Stephanopoulos, he later said "I wish I had that particular line back." However, he stood by everything else. Moreover, some readers may recall Santorum attacking JFK's speech before. Steve M. chronicles at least five occasions Santorum has done just that, dating back to 2002. This was not a one-off; Rick Santorum is a theocrat, and his misrepresentations of the First Amendment and Kennedy's speech have long been central to who he is as a political figure.

You can watch the video of Kennedy's speech here, or read a transcript and listen to the audio here. The context is important; as NPR reports:

On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.

Here's the key section Santorum was criticizing:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Clearly, Santorum has grossly misrepresented Kennedy, who was expressing a fairly mainstream and historically sound understanding of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Kennedy never said that "people of faith... have no role in the public square." He said precisely the opposite. This should be glaringly obvious to anyone who actually reads Kennedy's speech (plus, Kennedy was publicly a person of faith himself). He's also an odd figure for Santorum to attack since Kennedy, the only Catholic to be elected president to date, remains a source of pride for many American Catholics even if their political views differ.

So who exactly is Santorum's audience? And why does he misrepresent Kennedy so badly? Scroll back up and read what Santorum said again, and it is truly astounding to see how utterly, completely wrong he is. This makes his anger even more disturbing. Discussing his motivations, we're entering the old stupid-evil-crazy debate. Obviously Santorum is a theocrat, a far right religious authoritarian, and his views on JFK should play well with other religious authoritarians in the conservative base. But he doesn't seem aware that his take on this speech is far outside any mainstream reading. It won't play with the general electorate, and it would be hard to disown all his theocratic statements later. In truth, his reading is strikingly anti-textual. Is he just dumb? The evidence to date suggests Santorum isn't a bright man, and stupidity probably is a factor, but I think that the dominant factor here is "crazy," or zealotry.

There's a tendency among some people to project their own notions of wisdom into exalted works. It is common for people to cite the Constitution, the works of Shakespeare, and sacred texts such as the Bible or Koran as sources of wisdom. People of very disparate views will agree that these works contain wisdom, but they will often disagree vehemently about what that specific wisdom is. Among people of reasonable intelligence and good faith, there's room for disagreement and earnest debate, of course. However, not all interpretations are created equal. Nor is the level of effort that goes into those interpretations equal. Certain people never really take the time to read these works carefully and reflect on them, or to study their history and context. Certain people take an anti-textual approach, projecting whatever they consider wisdom onto the work itself even when the text directly contradicts their views. Needless to say, this is a highly ideological approach. Subconsciously, it goes something like this: "The Constitution is wise, and my views are righteous and correct, so surely the Constitution must match my beliefs." (Who actually needs to read the damn thing?)

I think that's part of what's going on with Santorum here. What we're seeing is zealotry fueling pure denial. He simply cannot accept the words in front of him, nor the concepts behind them. He hears "separation of church and state," and to him this is dangerous and threatening. If we're feeling especially charitable, we could say that because Santorum feels his religious beliefs are under siege, he interprets "separation of church and state" as an attack, and this irrationality overwhelms him. Of course, he has a B.A., M.B.A., J.D. and is an adult, so he should be able to follow a logical train of thought. (Nor is this cognitive collapse an isolated incident.) Fundamentally, the First Amendment promises religious equality and neutrality, and that is precisely what Kennedy espouses in his speech. This is only a threat to theocrats, for people who don't want equality, but dominance. Most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege," and that is definitely operative here. Of course people of faith have a role in the public square, they just shouldn't have a privileged role. They can propose public policies, but they don't automatically get to have their way by citing their religion. They don't automatically get to win. That's really what Santorum objects to; he opposes any sort of meritocracy when it comes to policy and ideas. He believes his faith is the true one and he knows the truth. Therefore, he is entitled to impose it on others. In his fevered mind's eye, equality is a threat; anyone who does not capitulate to his righteous order is a threat. This is why he can stare at Kennedy's words and transmogrify Kennedy's defense of religious freedom into an attack on it. Santorum is a poster boy for belligerent opposition to the reality-based community. Even when Santorum's completely, absolutely wrong, he'll angrily fight for his beliefs, and if anyone has the temerity to push back, why then, he believes they're infringing on his freedom of religion. Santorum's petulant, stunningly anti-textual approach to these and other matters may fairly be called ignorant, but his is a hard-won, hard-fought ignorance full of pride and driven by religious zealotry.

On that note, let me return to one of my favorite attacks by Rick Santorum against JFK and freedom of religion, from back in March 2011:

Rick Santorum told about 50 members of the group Catholic Citizenship that he was “frankly appalled” that America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, once said “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

“That was a radical statement,” Santorum said, and did “great damage.”

The Boston Globe reports that Santorum, who is Catholic, criticized the increased secularization of politicians, which he related back to a speech Kennedy gave at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. Kennedy had made the speech to a group of Protestant clergy as a presidential candidate, in order to allay fears that the Catholic church would influence his decisions if elected.

“We’re seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process,” Santorum said Monday.

“Jefferson is spinning in his grave,” he added.

He actually said Jefferson. It's hard to think of a worse choice among the founding fathers (maybe Thomas Paine) for Santorum to invoke. I believe Santorum said "Jefferson" because of his poor understanding of the Declaration of Independence and childish demonization of government. However, Jefferson was a deist, who rewrote the Gospels (the so-called "Jefferson Bible") to take out the supernatural elements (basically, he admired Jesus' moral teachings, but disliked what he viewed as evangelical additions). He studied theology and owned a Koran. (Jefferson was also a fierce advocate for public education, contrary to Santorum's beliefs that the founding fathers opposed it, so his ignorance on Jefferson specifically is particularly impressive.)

Most importantly, Jefferson actively fought for the separation of church and state that Rick Santorum so despises. As mentioned before, the very phrase "wall of separation between church and state" comes from a letter by Jefferson, even if similar sentiments were expressed by earlier writers. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the three accomplishments he listed on his tombstone (being president was not one of them), and the statute was highly influential. (You may also recall that Kennedy mentioned it in the speech Santorum so distorted. Apparently, this did not prompt Santorum to study more about Jefferson and freedom of religion in America.) Susan Jacoby provides some important background.

In America, where the great debate over the federal Constitution was just beginning, Virginia's law was hailed by secularists as a model for the new national government and denounced by those who favored the semi-theocratic systems still prevailing in most states. As the Constitutional Convention opened in 1787, with George Washington as its president, legally entrenched privileges for Protestant Christianity were the rule rather than the exception in most states. The convention could have modeled the federal constitution after the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, which extended equal protection of the laws , and the right to hold office, only to Christians. And not all Christians: Catholics were only permitted to hold public office if they took a special oath renouncing papal authority "in any matter, civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual." Even that restriction was not enough for the most committed descendants of the Puritans; sixty-three of Massachusetts towns registered official objections to the use of "Christians" rather than "Protestant," bearing out a prediction by Adams that "a change in the solar system might be expected as soon as a change in the ecclesiastical system of Massachusetts." State religious restrictions were grounded not only in old prejudices but in the relative political strength of various religious constituencies. The 1777 New York State constitution, for example, extended political equality to Jews -- who, though few in number, had considerable economic influence in New York City -- but not to Catholics (who were not allowed to hold public office until 1806). Maryland, the home state of Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed full civil rights to Protestants and Catholics but not to Jews, freethinkers, and deists. The possibility of equal rights for non-Christians had not even occurred to Carroll. In this old age, he wrote, "When I signed the Declaration of Independence, I had in view not only our independence of England, but the toleration of all sects professing the Christian religion, and communicating to them all equal rights." In Delaware, officeholders were required to take an oath affirming belief in the Trinity, and in South Carolina, Protestantism was specifically recognized as the state-established religion.

But the framers of the Constitution chose Virginia, not the other states, with their crazy quilts of obeisance to a more restrictive religious past, as the model for the new nation. The Constitution is a secularist document because of what it says and what it does not say. The first of the explicit secularist provisions is article 6, section 3, which states that federal elective and appointed officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." No religious test. This provision, much less familiar to the public today than the First Amendment, was especially meaningful and especially sweeping in view of the fact that the necessity of religious tests and religious oaths for officeholders had been taken for granted by nearly all the governments of the American states (not to mention those of the rest of the world) at the time the Constitution was written. The addition of the affirmation is significant, because it meant that the framers did not intend to compel officeholders to take a religious oath on the Bible. The intent could not have been clearer to those who wanted only religious men -- specifically, Protestant believers -- to hold office. As a North Carolina minister put it during his state's debate on ratification of the Constitution, the abolition of religious tests for officeholders amounted to "an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us."...

The significance of Virginia's religious freedom act was recognized immediately in Europe. News of the law was received with great enthusiasm -- not by the governments of the Old World, with their entrenched state-established religions, but by individuals who wished to promote liberty of conscience in their own countries. The Virginia law, translated into French and Italian as soon as the text made it across the Atlantic in 1786, was disseminated throughout most of the courts of Europe, and, as Jefferson wrote to Madison, "has been the best evidence of the falsehood of those reports which stated us to be in anarchy." Expressing his pride in Virginia's leadership, Jefferson observed that "it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles, and it is honorable for us, to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare, that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."

Notice that had religiously intolerant forces in 18th century America had their way, Rick Santorum's Catholic faith would have been officially persecuted. Instead, the Convention voted for religious freedom and neutrality, a separation of church and state. It would be one thing if Rick Santorum and other theocrats made an honest argument, and said, "Even though the Constitution forbids theocracy, and centuries of legal decisions uphold that, we want to impose theocracy on America. We seek to overturn the establishment clause of the Constitution." But honesty and basic civics literacy are not their style. This is always the way of theocrats – they yell and whine about being oppressed, but they already have freedom – what they really want is privilege and power over others. They are petulant, dangerous bullies, and this is why, in the democratic process, they must be prevented from gaining power. They do not truly know or care about the actual founding of America and freedom of religion. Rick Santorum is free to exercise his own religion, and free to express his own bigotry and ignorance, precisely because the founding fathers he knows so little about chose a different and better path.

(On a related note, a 2007 post looked at Mitt Romney's "anti-JFK speech.)

Promoting Religion in the Courtroom

Americans United for Separation of Church and State highlights an interesting recent decision:

A federal appeals court made the right call in requiring a state judge in Ohio to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that James DeWeese, a judge of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, ran afoul of the Constitution when he put up a display entitled “Philosophies of Law in Conflict” that contrasted the “Moral Absolutes” of the Ten Commandments with the “Moral Relatives” of humanism.

“Judge DeWeese was improperly promoting his personal religious beliefs in his courtroom, and I’m glad the appeals court put a stop to it,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

Added Lynn, “Our courts are supposed to provide equal justice for all, not promote religious law. Judges should never send the message that some religious traditions have a preferred place in the courtroom.”

The case goes back to 2000, when DeWeese hung a poster of the Ten Commandments opposite a poster of the Bill of Rights, presenting each as “the rule of law.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sued and won. In response, DeWeese created the new display. The ACLU sued over that as well.

If you head over to the AU site, you can read or download the PDF of the decision (or click here). It's only 17 pages long, and I thought it was a good read. The decision cites case law on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I found it educational to read about the "three prongs" of judging such matters, which seem quite fair and sensible. The decision's thorough and methodical, finding that Judge DeWeese violated two of the prongs – and presents plenty of support for each of these findings. Additionally, the decision makes a useful and clear distinction between DeWeese's free speech rights as a private citizen and the "government speech" he engaged in this situation. I would imagine (or hope) all that thoroughness would make subsequent overturning less likely. I also found it interesting to see how the court dealt with the issue of credibility and bad faith from DeWeese.

As for DeWeese himself – he seems pretty out there. Back to AU:

In addition, Americans United pointed out on its website that DeWeese has been affiliated with Christian Reconstructionism, the most extreme manifestation of the Religious Right. Reconstructionists believe in imposing “biblical law” on America based on the legal code of the Old Testament.

Read the decision for the full text of what DeWeese posted, but he seems pretty hostile to legal opinion for a judge, setting it up in direct opposition to the God he believes in. His main claim is that (emphasis mine):

The cases passing through this courtroom demonstrate we are paying a high cost in increased crime and other social ills for moving from moral absolutism to moral relativism since the mid 20th century. Our Founders saw the necessity of moral absolutes. President John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God as Creator, Lawgiver, “Supreme Judge of the World,” and the One who providentially superintends the affairs of men. Ohio’s Constitution acknowledges Almighty God as the source of our freedom. I join the Founders in personally acknowledging the importance of Almighty God’s fixed moral standards for restoring the moral fabric of this nation. Judge James DeWeese.

In other words, the problem with America is it needs more God and religion – specifically, DeWeese's conception of both God and religion. I'm reminded once again of Mitt Romney's anti-JFK speech and his ahistorical, illogical, false and pandering bullshit claims that "freedom requires religion" and that morality is impossible without religion. While Romney is a disingenuous snake oil salesman, I suspect DeWeese is quite sincere. If he believes what he says, okay – but the job of the judge is to apply the law fairly and justly, and that includes respecting legal precedent. It's not a good fit for him. He'd be better off as a preacher, who could try to sell his social conservatism and any extremist, crackpot notions he liked. He could rail against those he saw as sinful for not obeying his commands – lord knows that approach always works well.

Is that unfair? Is DeWeese really that extreme? AU gave more background back in March 2010:

In fact, his critics note, the poster makes it clear that DeWeese is on one side of the alleged religion v. relativism debate. The judge has even gone so far as to claim that societies that do not follow the Decalogue end up like Nazi Germany.

“When Adolf Hitler butchered millions of fellow citizens as biologically inferior, he was acting as a moral relativist,” DeWeese said. “Moral relativism furnishes no ground to condemn Hitler.”

DeWeese’s controversial worldview seems to be shaped by his relationship with some of the most radically theocratic elements of the Religious Right. He is a graduate of the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, a seminar its sponsor, Vision Forum Ministries, describes as “a four-day crash course in biblical principles of law and public policy.”

Vision Forum reminds its students that they cannot “ignore God’s Word as the foundation for law and liberty.”

At first glance, the San Antonio, Texas-based ministry looks like a typical conservative Christian outfit that promotes home schooling, male-dominated families and a literal interpretation of the scriptures. In fact, the group is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, a movement that seeks to replace secular democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

Reconstructionists argue that “God’s law,” including the harsh legal code of the Old Testament, should be binding on modern-day America. They insist that believers of their stripe should re-order (“reconstruct”) governments and establish theocratic rule to pave the way for the Second Coming of Jesus.

Reconstructionists say the Old Testament mandates the death penalty for various offenders, including homosexuals, the “unchaste,” blasphemers, adulterers, witches, those who worship false gods and even “incorrigible” teenagers.

Vision Forum is run by Douglas W. Phillips, son of Howard Phillips, a longtime Republican operative and former Nixon administration official who drifted into Reconstructionism during the 1990s. The organization doesn’t flaunt its alignment with Reconstructionism – probably aware of its controversial nature – but Reconstructionist writers are a staple on its Web site.

Tellingly, the site is littered with columns by William Einwechter, a Pennsylvania pastor who in 1999 authored a controversial essay arguing that the Bible mandates the stoning of “disobedient” teenagers. (Einwechter spoke at the Vision Forum’s 2008 Witherspoon seminar in Fredericksburg, Va., offering lectures on “Christian Jurisprudence” and “The Bible and Female Magistrates.”)

DeWeese has a featured article on the Vision Forum Web site as well. In it, he argues that America was founded on “the fixed law of God” and criticizes court decisions upholding church-state separation, school integration, abortion rights and gay rights as examples of judges changing the law by judicial edict.

That's pretty far out there – and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all of his principles privilege white, straight, male social conservatives. A theocratic judge presents, at best, an inherent conflict of interest. How exactly does that work, being a judge of law in America when one disagrees with the very foundation of law in America, the Constitution itself? This is hardly some minor dispute or difference of opinion; DeWeese is going against plenty of history (as do all the "America was founded as a Christian nation" crowd) and a trail of case law – some of it cited against him in this very decision. I imagine it was cited in the previous decision against him too, but if so, he ignored it – and this is a recurring theme with theocrats. The ACLU is currently considering legal action against the Giles County School Board (in Virginia) for deciding to post the Ten Commandments in their public schools – which they did despite the advice of their own attorney. It's not that they don't know this is illegal – they don't care. These are power grabs, perhaps fueled by spite as well. I'd bet DeWeese doesn't truly understand the First Amendment and the history of separation of church and state in America, but the more important point is that, like all Christian dominionists, he's made it absolutely clear he rejects it.

 

Pete Seeger and HUAC

I was just watching Pete Seeger's 90th Birthday Celebration on PBS. American Masters did a good piece on him, and he just played the 50th Newport Folk Festival this past weekend. I've written about Pete twice before this year (here and here), but I figure it's best to celebrate the guy while he's still around. Pete has seen a great deal over the course of his life. He made a great observation in an interview segment about how these days, he finds people proud of the diversity in the cities and towns, unlike years ago.

The Wiki entry on Pete Seeger is pretty good, and I won't go over all his contributions here. But among other things, Pete helped introduce music to several generations of kids. KCET, one of my local PBS stations, was doing a fundraiser during the program, and were stressing how important the arts are in childhood development. The arts help older kids, too, and adults as well, but the arts fuel learning in a special way. While all the arts are great, music is especially good at cutting across language barriers, and getting people engaged. Pete's been getting classrooms and audiences singing for a long time now.

One of many other reasons to admire Pete Seeger, though, is the way he dealt with the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). Watching the program, I felt the urge to read up on that episode again. Despite the threat of jail time, Pete felt compelled to push back against bullying and stand up for the Constitution. A good Pete Seeger appreciation site has his full testimony. I just had to post the whole thing. It's long for a post, but worth your time.

House Unamerican Activities Committee

August 18, 1955

Pete Seeger

A Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met at 10 a.m., in room 1703 of the Federal Building, Foley Square, New York, New York, the Honorable Francis E. Walter (Chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Walter, Edwin E. Willis, and Gordon H. Scherer.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., Counsel; Donald T. Appell and Frank Bonora, Investigators; and Thomas W. Beale, Sr., Chief Clerk.

MR. TAVENNER: When and where were you born, Mr. Seeger?

MR. SEEGER: I was born in New York in 1919.

MR. TAVENNER: What is your profession or occupation?

MR. SEEGER: Well, I have worked at many things, and my main profession is a student of American folklore, and I make my living as a banjo picker-sort of damning, in some people's opinion.

MR. TAVENNER Has New York been your headquarters for a considerable period of time?

MR. SEEGER: No, I lived here only rarely until I left school, and after a year or two or a few years living here after World War II I got back to the country, where I always felt more at home.

MR. TAVENNER: You say that you were in the Armed Forces of the United States?

MR. SEEGER: About three and a half years.

MR. TAVENNER: Will you tell us please the period of your service?

MR. SEEGER: I went in in July 1942 and I was mustered out in December 1945.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you attain the rank of an officer?

MR. SEEGER: No. After about a year I made Pfc, and just before I got out I got to be T-5, which is in the equivilant of a corporal's rating, a long hard pull.

MR. TAVENNER: Mr. Seeger, prior to your entry in the service in 1942, were you engaged in the practice of your profession in the area of New York?

MR. SEEGER: It is hard to call it a profession. I kind of drifted into it and I never intended to be a musician, and I am glad I am one now, and it is a very honorable profession, but when I started out actually I wanted to be a newspaperman, and when I left school –

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Will you answer the question, please?

MR. SEEGER: I have to explain that it really wasn't my profession, I picked up a little change in it.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you practice your profession?

MR. SEEGER: I sang for people, yes, before World War II, and I also did as early as 1925.

MR. TAVENNER: And upon your return from the service in December of 1945, you continued in your profession?

MR. SEEGER: I continued singing, and I expect I always will.

MR. TAVENNER: The Committee has information obtained in part from the Daily Worker indicating that, over a period of time, especially since December of 1945, you took part in numerous entertainment features. I have before me a photostatic copy of the June 20, 1947, issue of the Daily Worker. In a column entitled "What's On" appears this advertisement: "Tonight-Bronx, hear Peter Seeger and his guitar, at Allerton Section housewarming." May I ask you whether or not the Allerton Section was a section of the Communist Party?

MR. SEEGER: Sir, I refuse to answer that question whether it was a quote from the New York Times or the Vegetarian Journal.

MR. TAVENNER: I don't believe there is any more authoritative document in regard to the Communist Party than its official organ, the Daily Worker.

MR. SCHERER: He hasn't answered the question, and he merely said he wouldn't answer whether the article appeared in the New York Times or some other magazine. I ask you to direct the witness to answer the question.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer.

MR. SEEGER: Sir, the whole line of questioning-

CHAIRMAN WALTER: You have only been asked one question, so far.

MR. SEEGER: I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this. I would be very glad to tell you my life if you want to hear of it.

MR. TAVENNER: Has the witness declined to answer this specific question?

CHAIRMAN WALTER: He said that he is not going to answer any questions, any names or things.

MR. SCHERER: He was directed to answer the question.

MR. TAVENNER: I have before me a photostatic copy of the April 30, 1948, issue of the Daily Worker which carries under the same title of "What's On," an advertisement of a "May Day Rally: For Peace, Security and Democracy." The advertisement states: "Are you in a fighting mood? Then attend the May Day rally." Expert speakers are stated to be slated for the program, and then follows a statement, "Entertainment by Pete Seeger." At the bottom appears this: "Auspices Essex County Communist Party," and at the top, "Tonight, Newark, N.J." Did you lend your talent to the Essex County Communist Party on the occasion indicated by this article from the Daily Worker?

MR. SEEGER: Mr. Walter, I believe I have already answered this question, and the same answer.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: The same answer. In other words, you mean that you decline to answer because of the reasons stated before?

MR. SEEGER: I gave my answer, sir.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: What is your answer?

MR. SEEGER: You see, sir, I feel-

CHAIRMAN WALTER: What is your answer?

MR. SEEGER: I will tell you what my answer is.

(Witness consulted with counsel [Paul L. Ross].)

I feel that in my whole life I have never done anything of any conspiratorial nature and I resent very much and very deeply the implication of being called before this Committee that in some way because my opinions may be different from yours, or yours, Mr. Willis, or yours, Mr. Scherer, that I am any less of an American than anybody else. I love my country very deeply, sir.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Why don't you make a little contribution toward preserving its institutions?

MR. SEEGER: I feel that my whole life is a contribution. That is why I would like to tell you about it.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I don't want to hear about it.

MR. SCHERER: I think that there must be a direction to answer.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer that question.

MR. SEEGER: I have already given you my answer, sir.

MR. SCHERER: Let me understand. You are not relying on the Fifth Amendment, are you?

MR. SEEGER: No, sir, although I do not want to in any way discredit or depreciate or depredate the witnesses that have used the Fifth Amendment, and I simply feel it is improper for this committee to ask such questions.

MR. SCHERER: And then in answering the rest of the questions, or in refusing to answer the rest of the questions, I understand that you are not relying on the Fifth Amendment as a basis for your refusal to answer?

MR. SEEGER: No, I am not, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I have before me a photostatic copy of May 4,1949, issue of the Daily Worker, which has an article entitled, "May Day Smash Review Put on by Communist Cultural Division, On Stage," and the article was written by Bob Reed. This article emphasizes a production called Now Is the Time, and it says this: Now Is the Time was a hard-hitting May Day show of songs and knife-edged satire. New songs and film strips walloped the enemies of the people in what the singers called "Aesopian language." And other persons [participated], including Pete Seeger. Lee Hays is recited to be the MC, or master of ceremonies. Did you take part in this May Day program under the auspices of the Music Section of the Cultural Division of the Communist Party?

MR. SEEGER: Mr. Chairman, the answer is the same as before.

MR. SCHERER: I think we have to have a direction.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer the question.

MR. SEEGER: I have given you my answer, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: The article contains another paragraph, as follows: This performance of Now Is the Time was given in honor of the twelve indicted Communist Party leaders. And then it continues with Bob Reed's account of the show: This reviewer has never seen a show which stirred its audience more. Add up new material, fine personal and group performances, overwhelming audience response-the result was a significant advance in the people's cultural movement. Now Is the Time is that rare phenomenon, a political show in which performers and audience had a lot of fun. It should be repeated for large audiences. Mr. Lee Hays was asked, while he was on the witness stand, whether or not he wrote that play, and he refused to answer. Do you know whether he was the originator of the script?

MR. SEEGER: Do I know whether he was the originator of the script? Again my answer is the same. However, if you want to question me about any songs, I would be glad to tell you, sir.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: That is what you are being asked about now.

MR. TAVENNER: You said that you would tell us about the songs. Did you participate in a program at Wingdale Lodge in the State of New York, which is a summer camp for adults and children, on the weekend of July Fourth of this year?

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: Again, I say I will be glad to tell what songs I have ever sung, because singing is my business.

MR. TAVENNER: I am going to ask you.

MR. SEEGER: But I decline to say who has ever listened to them, who has written them, or other people who have sung them.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you sing this song, to which we have referred, "Now Is the Time," at Wingdale Lodge on the weekend of July Fourth?

MR. SEEGER: I don't know any song by that name, and I know a song with a similar name. It is called "Wasn't That a Time." Is that the song?

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you sing that song?

MR. SEEGER: I can sing it. I don't know how well I can do it without my banjo.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I said, Did you sing it on that occasion?

MR. SEEGER: I have sung that song. I am not going to go into where I have sung it. I have sung it many places.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you sing it on this particular occasion? That is what you are being asked.

MR. SEEGER: Again my answer is the same.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: You said that you would tell us about it.

MR. SEEGER: I will tell you about the songs, but I am not going to tell you or try to explain-

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer the question. Did you sing this particular song on the Fourth of July at Wingdale Lodge in New York?

MR. SEEGER: I have already given you my answer to that question, and all questions such as that. I feel that is improper: to ask about my associations and opinions. I have said that I would be voluntarily glad to tell you any song, or what I have done in my life.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I think it is my duty to inform you that we don't accept this answer and the others, and I give you an opportunity now to answer these questions, particularly the last one.

MR. SEEGER: Sir, my answer is always the same.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: All right, go ahead, Mr. Tavenner.

MR. TAVENNER: Were you chosen by Mr. Elliott Sullivan to take part in the program on the weekend of July Fourth at Wingdale Lodge?

MR. SEEGER: The answer is the same, sir.

MR. WILLIS: Was that the occasion of the satire on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

MR. TAVENNER: The same occasion, yes, sir. I have before me a photostatic copy of a page from the June 1, 1949, issue of the Daily Worker, and in a column entitled "Town Talk" there is found this statement: The first performance of a new song, "If I Had a Hammer," on the theme of the Foley Square trial of the Communist leaders, will he given at a testimonial dinner for the 12 on Friday night at St. Nicholas Arena. . . .Among those on hand for the singing will be . . . Pete Seeger, and Lee Hays-and others whose names are mentioned. Did you take part in that performance?

MR. SEEGER: I shall he glad to answer about the song, sir, and I am not interested in carrying on the line of questioning about where I have sung any songs.

MR. TAVENNER: I ask a direction.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: You may not he interested, but we are, however. I direct you to answer. You can answer that question.

MR. SEEGER: I feel these questions are improper, sir, and I feel they are immoral to ask any American this kind of question.

MR. TAVENNER: Have you finished your answer?

MR. SEEGER: Yes, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked "Seeger exhibit No.4," for identification only, and to be made a part of the Committee files.

MR. SEEGER: I am sorry you are not interested in the song. It is a good song.

MR. TAVENNER: Were you present in the hearing room while the former witnesses testified?

MR. SEEGER: I have been here all morning, yes, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I assume then that you heard me read the testimony of Mr. [Elia] Kazan about the purpose of the Communist Party in having its actors entertain for the henefit of Communist fronts and the Communist Party. Did you hear that testimony?

MR. SEEGER: Yes, I have heard all of the testimony today.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you hear Mr. George Hall's testimony yesterday in which he stated that, as an actor, the special contribution that he was expected to make to the Communist Party was to use his talents by entertaining at Communist Party functions? Did you hear that testimony?

MR. SEEGER: I didn't hear it, no.

MR. TAVENNER: It is a fact that he so testified. I want to know whether or not you were engaged in a similar type of service to the Communist Party in entertaining at these features.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Mr. Tavenner, are you getting around to that letter? There was a letter introduced yesterday that I think was of greater importance than any bit of evidence adduced at these hearings, concerning the attempt made to influence people in this professional performers' guild and union to assist a purely Communist cause which had no relation whatsoever to the arts and the theater. Is that what you are leading up to?

MR. TAVENNER: Yes, it is. That was the letter of Peter Lawrence, which I questioned him about yesterday. That related to the trial of the Smith Act defendants here at Foley Square. I am trying to inquire now whether this witness was party to the same type of propaganda effort by the Communist Party.

MR. SCHERER: There has been no answer to your last question.

MR. TAVENNER: That is right; may I have a direction?

MR. SEEGER: Would you repeat the question? I don't even know what the last question was, and I thought I have answered all of them up to now.

MR. TAVENNER: What you stated was not in response to the question.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Proceed with the questioning, Mr. Tavenner.

MR. TAVENNER: I believe, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will have the question read to him. I think it should be put in exactly the same form.

(Whereupon the reporter read the pending question as above recorded.)

MR. SEEGER: "These features": what do you mean? Except for the answer I have already given you, I have no answer. The answer I gave you you have, don't you? That is, that I am proud that I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I have never refused to sing for anybody because I disagreed with their political opinion, and I am proud of the fact that my songs seem to cut across and find perhaps a unifying thing, basic humanity,and that is why I would love to be able to tell you about these songs, because I feel that you would agree with me more, sir. I know many beautiful songs from your home county, Carbon, and Monroe, and I hitchhiked through there and stayed in the homes of miners.

MR. TAVENNER: My question was whether or not you sang at these functions of the Communist Party. You have answered it inferentially, and if I understand your answer, you are saying you did.

MR. SEEGER: Except for that answer, I decline to answer further.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you sing at functions of the Communist Party, at Communist Party requests?

MR. SEEGER: I believe, sir, that a good twenty minutes ago, I gave my answer to this whole line of questioning.

MR. TAVENNER: Yes, but you have now beclouded your answer by your statement, and I want to make certain what you mean. Did you sing at the Communist Party functions which I have asked you about, as a Communist Party duty?

MR. SEEGER: I have already indicated that I am not interested, and I feel it is improper to say who has sung my songs or who I have sung them to, especially under such compulsion as this.

MR. TAVENNER: Have you been a member of the Communist Party since 1947?

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: The same answer, sir.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer that question.

MR. SEEGER: I must give the same answer as before.

MR. TAVENNER: I have a throwaway sheet entitled "Culture Fights Back, 1953," showing entertainment at the Capitol Hotel, Carnival Room, Fifty-first Street at Eighth Avenue, in 1953, sponsored by the Committee to Defend V. J. Jerome. It indicates that Pete Seeger was one of those furnishing the entertainment. Will you tell the Committee, please, whether or not you were asked to perform on that occasion, and whether or not you did, either as a Communist Party directive, or as what you considered to be a duty to the Communist Party?

MR. SEEGER: I believe I have answered this already.

MR. TAVENNER: Are you acquainted with V. J. Jerome?

MR. SEEGER: I have already told you, sir, that I believe my associations, whatever they are, are my own private affairs.

MR. TAVENNER: You did know, at that time, in 1953, that V. J. Jerome was a cultural head of the Communist Party and one of the Smith Act defendants in New York City?

MR. SEEGER: Again the same answer, sir.

MR. SCHERER: You refuse to answer that question?

MR. SEEGER: Yes, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I hand you a photograph which was taken of the May Day parade in New York City in 1952, which shows the front rank of a group of individuals, and one is in a uniform with military cap and insignia, and carrying a placard entitled CENSORED. Will you examine it please and state whether or not that is a photograph of you?

(A document was handed to the witness.)

MR. SEEGER: It is like Jesus Christ when asked by Pontius Pilate, "Are you king of the Jews?"

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Stop that.

MR. SEEGER: Let someone else identify that picture.

MR. SCHERER: I ask that he be directed to answer the question.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer the question.

MR. SEEGER: Do I identify this photograph?

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Yes.

MR. SEEGER: I say let someone else identify it.

MR. TAVENNER: I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked "Seeger exhibit No.6."

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Make it a part of the record.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. TAVENNER: It is noted that the individual mentioned is wearing a military uniform. That was in May of 1952, and the statute of limitations would have run by now as to any offense for the improper wearing of the uniform, and will you tell the Committee whether or not you took part in that May Day program wearing a uniform of an American soldier?

MR. SEEGER: The same answer as before, sir.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer that question.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SCHERER: I think the record should show that the witness remains mute, following the direction by the Chairman to answer that question.

MR. SEEGER: The same answer, sir, as before.

MR. SCHERER: Again, I understand that you are not invoking the Fifth Amendment?

MR. SEEGER: That is correct.

MR. SCHERER: We are not accepting the answers or the reasons you gave.

MR. SEEGER: That is your prerogative, sir.

MR. SCHERER: Do you understand it is the feeling of the Committee that you are in contempt as a result of the position you take?

MR. SEEGER: I can't say.

MR. SCHERER: I am telling you that that is the position of the Committee.

MR. TAVENNER: The Daily Worker of April 21, 1948, at page 7, contains a notice that Pete Seeger was a participant in an affair for Ferdinand Smith. Will you tell the Committee what the occasion was at which you took part?

MR. SEEGER: I hate to waste the Committee's time, but I think surely you must realize by now that my answer is the same.

MR. TAVENNER: Do you know whether Ferdinand Smith was under deportation orders at that time?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I think that he was not under deportation orders until a little later than that.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: What is his name?

MR. TAVENNER: Ferdinand Smith, a Communist Party member and former vice-president of the maritime union. My purpose in asking you these questions, Mr. Seeger, is to determine whether or not, in accordance with the plan of the Communist Party as outlined by Mr. Kazan and Mr. George Hall, you were performing a valuable service to the Communist Party, and if that was the way they attempted to use you.

MR. SEEGER: Is that a question, sir?

MR. TAVENNER: That is my explanation to you, with the hope that you will give the Committee some light on that subject.

MR. SEEGER: No, my answer is the same as before.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you also perform and entertain at various functions held by front organizations, such as the American Youth for Democracy? I have here photostatic copies of the Daily Worker indicating such programs were conducted in Detroit in 1952, at Greenwich Village on May 10, 1947, and again at another place in March of 1948. Did you entertain at functions under the auspices of the American Youth for Democracy?

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: The answer is the same, and I take it that you are not interested in all of the different places that I have sung. Why don't you ask me about the churches and schools and other places?

MR. TAVENNER: That is very laudable, indeed, and I wish only that your activities had been confined to those areas. If you were acting for the Communist Party at these functions, we want to know it. We want to determine just what the Communist Party plan was.

MR. SCHERER: Witness, you have indicated that you are perfectly willing to tell us about all of these innumerable functions at which you entertained, but why do you refuse to tell us about the functions that Mr. Tavenner inquires about?

MR. SCHERER: Didn't you just say that you sang before various religious groups, school groups?

MR. SEEGER: I have said it and I will say it again, and I have sung for perhaps- (Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SCHERER: You are willing to tell us about those groups?

MR. SEEGER: I am saying voluntarily that I have sung for almost every religious group in the country, from Jewish and Catholic, and Presbyterian and Holy Rollers and Revival Churches, and I do this voluntarily. I have sung for many, many different groups-and it is hard for perhaps one person to believe, I was looking back over the twenty years or so that I have sung around these forty-eight states, that I have sung in so many different places.

MR. SCHERER: Did you sing before the groups that Mr. Tavenner asked you about?

MR. SEEGER: I am saying that my answer is the same as before. I have told you that I sang for everybody.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Wait a minute. You sang for everybody. Then are we to believe, or to take it, that you sang at the places Mr. Tavenner mentioned?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: What is that?

MR. SEEGER: It seems to me like the third time I have said it, if not the fourth.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Maybe it is the fifth, but say it again. I want to know what your answer is.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: I decline to discuss, under compulsion, where I have sung, and who has sung my songs, and who else has sung with me, and the people I have known. I love my country very dearly, and I greatly resent this implication that some of the places that I have sung and some of the people that I have known, and some of my opinions, whether they are religious or philosophical, or I might be a vegetarian, make me any less of an American. I will tell you about my songs, but I am not interested in telling you who wrote them, and I will tell you about my songs, and I am not interested in who listened to them.

MR. TAVENNER: According to the Daily Worker, there was a conference program of the Civil Rights Congress on April 2, 1949, at which you were one of the performers. On August 27, 1949, the People's Artists presented a summer musicale at Lakeland Acres picnic grounds, Peekskill, New York, for the benefit of the Harlem chapter of the Civil Rights Congress, at which you were a participant. At another meeting of the Civil Rights Congress of New York, around May 11, 1946, you were a participant. Will you tell the Committee, please, under what circumstances you performed, because you have said that you sang at all sorts of meetings. Under what circumstances were your services acquired on those occasions?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir. I can only infer from your lack of interest in my songs that you are actually scared to know what these songs are like, because there is nothing wrong with my songs, sir. Do you know-

MR. SCHERER: You said you want to talk about your songs, and I will give you an opportunity. Tell us what songs you sang at Communist Party meetings?

MR. SEEGER: I will tell you about the songs that I have sung any place.

MR. SCHERER: I want to know the ones that you sang at Communist Party meetings, because those are the songs about which we can inquire. Just tell us one song that you sang at a Communist Party meeting.

MR. SEEGER: Mr. Scherer, it seems to me that you heard my testimony, and that is a ridiculous question, because you know what my answer is.

MR. TAVENNER: Mr. George Hall testified that the entertainment that he engaged in, at the instance of the Communist Party, was not songs of a political character. He did say, however, that he was expected by the Communist Party to perform in order to raise money for the Communist Party. Now, did you, as Mr. Hall did, perform in order to raise money for Communist Party causes? (Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: I don't care what Mr. Hall says, and my answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: That you refuse to answer?

MR. SEEGER: I have given my answer.

MR. SCHERER: Was Mr. Hall telling the truth when he told the Committee about the entertainment he engaged in at the instance of the Communist Party?

MR. SEEGER: I don't feel like discussing what Mr. Hall said.

MR. TAVENNER: The American Committee for Yugoslav Relief has been designated as a front organization. According to the October 22, 1947, issue of the Daily People's World, in California, Pete Seeger headed the list of entertainers to appear at a picnic given by the Southern California chapter of that organization. Did you participate in that program?

MR. SEEGER: If you have a hundred more photostats there, it seems silly for me to give you the same answer a hundred more times.

MR. TAVENNER: What is your answer?

MR. SEEGER: It is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: There are various peace groups in the country which have utilized your services, are there not?

MR. SEEGER: I have sung for pacifists and I have sung for soldiers.

MR. TAVENNER: According to the Daily Worker of September 6, 1940, you were scheduled as a singer at a mass meeting of the American Peace Mobilization at Turner's Arena, in Washington, D.C. What were the circumstances under which you were requested to take part in that performance?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: You were a member of the American Peace Mobilization, were you not?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

MR. TAVENNER: Were you not a delegate to the Chicago convention of the American Peace Mobilization on September 5, 1940?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Is that organization subversive?

MR. TAVENNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: What is the name of it?

MR. TAVENNER: American Peace Mobilization, and it was the beginning of these peace organizations, back in 1940. Did you take part in the American Peace Crusade program in Chicago in April of 1954?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before. Of course, I would be curious to know what you think of a song like this very great Negro spiritual, "I'm Gonna Lay Down My Sword and Shield, Down by the Riverside."

MR. TAVENNER: That is not at all responsive to my question.

MR. SEEGER: I gave you my answer before I even said that.

MR. TAVENNER: If you refuse to answer, I think that you should not make a speech.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. TAVENNER: Did you also perform a service for the California Labor School in Los Angeles by putting on musical programs there?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you teach in the California Labor School?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. SCHERER: I think for the record you should state whether the California Labor School has been cited.

MR. TAVENNER: It has.

MR. SCHERER: As subversive and Communist dominated?

MR. TAVENNER: Yes, it has been.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. TAVENNER: Did you also teach at the Jefferson School of Social Science here in the city of New York?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. SCHERER: I ask that you direct him to answer.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer. Did you teach at the Jefferson School here at New York?

MR. SEEGER: I feel very silly having to repeat the same thing over and over again, but my answer is exactly the same as before, sir.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Has the Jefferson School of Social Science been cited?

MR. TAVENNER: Yes, and it has been required to register under the 1950 Internal Security Act.

MR. SCHERER: There are a number of people here who taught at that school, Mr. Walter.

MR. TAVENNER: I desire to offer in evidence a photostatic copy of an article from the September 21, 1946, issue of the Daily Worker which refers to music courses at Jefferson School, and I call attention to the last sentence in the article wherein Peter Seeger is mentioned as a leader in one of the courses. * * * According to the March 18, 1948, issue of the Daily Worker, it is indicated that you would entertain at a musical presented by the Jefferson Workers' Bookshop. According to the November 25, 1948, issue of the same paper you would perform also under the auspices of the Jefferson School of Social Science. Also you were a participant in a program advertised in the Daily Worker of June 1, 1950, put on by the Jefferson School of Social Science, and according to an issue of February 15, 1954, of the same paper, you were expected to play and lecture on songs and ballads in the Jefferson School. Will you tell the Committee, please, what were the circumstances under which you engaged in those programs, if you did?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you also engage in performances for the Labor Youth League in 1954?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before. Did you think that I sing propaganda songs or something?

MR. TAVENNER: In 1947, what was your connection with an organization known as People's Songs?

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: I take the same answer as before regarding any organization or any association I have.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: What was People's Songs, Mr. Tavenner?

MR. TAVENNER: People's Songs was an organization which, according to its issue of February and March 1947, was composed of a number of persons on the board of directors who have been called before this Committee or identified by this Committee as members of the Communist Party, and the purpose of which, from information made available to the Committee, was to extend services to the Communist Party in its entertainment projects. Mr. Lee Hays was a member of the board of directors, was he not, along with you, in this organization?

(Witness consulted with counsel)

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: Were you not the editor of People's Songs, and a member of the board of directors in 1947?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

MR. TAVENNER: You were actually the national director of this organization, were you not?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

MR. TAVENNER: Was the organization founded by Alan Lomax?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

MR. TAVENNER: Was the booking agent of People's Songs an organization known as People's Artists?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same.

MR. TAVENNER: Will you tell the Committee, please, whether or not during the weekend of July 4, 1955, you were a member of the Communist Party?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: Were you a member of the Communist Party at any time during the various entertainment features in which you were alleged to have engaged?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same.

MR. TAVENNER: Are you a member of the Communist Party now?

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same.

MR. SCHERER: I ask for a direction on that question.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer.

MR. SEEGER: My answer is the same as before.

MR. TAVENNER: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: The witness is excused.

Pete Seeger was sentenced to a year in jail for contempt of Congress but appealed his case successfully after a fight that lasted until 1962.

I find that pretty inspiring. Pete Seeger is a national treasure, the real deal, a patriot and a truly great American. He's got some wonderful lines there. In addition to his opening statement, the hobo speech is stirring, and I like when he mentions the specific counties to his interrogators. Still, one of my favorite lines is actually: "I am sorry you are not interested in the song. It is a good song."

If someone's incensed by a line like that, it's a sign he or she shouldn't be trusted.

But if you get what Pete's talking about - you're probably on the right side.

As the saying goes, if you can walk, you can dance, and if you can speak, you can sing.

Bonus: Paul Robeson's HUAC testimony is also well worth reading:

Mr. ROBESON: I say that he is as patriotic an American as there can be, and you gentlemen belong with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and you are the nonpatriots, and you are the un-Americans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.