J: Alex, you look very serious. What are you thinking about?
H: Religion and its role in American society and government.
J: That seems out of character for you. As I recall, when you were asked why God wasn’t referenced in the Constitution, you said “We forgot.”
H: I did say that. In retrospect, I wish I had taken the issue more seriously.
J: What do you mean by that?
H: I’ll start by saying what I don’t mean. For all of our disagreements, I was completely with you on whether government was created to serve man and not God. I had no more use for the divine right of kings than you did.
J: I’m glad we agreed on something. I never doubted you on that point.
H: And I never wanted to oppress anyone based on their religious views. Ultimate truth is not self-evident, and pure thought, unrelated to action, is not something that can or should be regulated.
J: Still on board with you.
H: Finally, in light of the vast proliferation of religious sects in America, it was probably unrealistic to think that we could ever establish a state religion here.
J: Why do I have the feeling that there is a “but” coming next?
H: Because there is, for two reasons. First, some institution in every society has to identify opinions that are so clearly indecent, they cannot be held without consequences. Second, strongly held and extreme religious opinions tend to get acted upon, with very negative consequences for the public. Just look at Germany in the 1520s and the UK in the Oliver Cromwell era, to say nothing of people like Osama bin Laden in a more modern context.
J: What would you suggest in a perfect world?
H: A very broad state church with minimal requirements would be best. One that excluded only the most extreme opinions, supported the legitimacy of the government, and left private worship alone.
J: That sounds like something out of the Roman Republic, or a Charles II wish list.
H: There’s probably some validity to those analogies. Just to be clear, I don’t think that is a realistic possibility in America today. You asked about a perfect world, and I answered your question.
J: What you really want is a gatekeeper other than the government to define and prohibit deviant political views. I agree, but I think public opinion as a whole is adequate to address your concerns.
H: For a long time, I would have agreed with that. In today’s world, I don’t. Have you seen what people are saying on the internet these days? Technology killed the gatekeepers, and the quality of public discourse has turned to sludge.
J: I won’t argue with that. But as long as it’s just talk, it doesn’t need to be controlled. Government has adequate resources to deal with it when it turns into action.
H: By and large, the job of enforcing decency on the internet has been delegated to right-wing and left-wing mobs. Do you think Trump will accept that as the ultimate solution, or will he go full authoritarian and use the government to crack down on free speech?
J: He’s an angry old man. I don’t see him tolerating dissent much longer. He won’t have any support in Congress for a new Sedition Act, but he’ll use his emergency authority for the same purpose and dare anyone to do anything about it.
H: I hope you’re wrong, but I’m afraid you’re right.