Wednesday, April 01, 2026
An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 4
In the chapter “Prohibiting Evil”, Ed Dobson examines the relationship between law and morality. This is accomplished primarily through consideration of the temperance movement and Prohibition. In doing so, it is hoped a number of lessons will be learned that can be applied to contemporary Evangelical social involvement and activism. For it could be argued that the temperance movement serves as a preeminent case in American history regarding the implications of unintended consequences.
Given the amount of alcohol consumed in America during the 1800's, the morally concerned could not help but be moved by the social implications of such as manifested in the form of dysfunctional families, soaring rates of crime, and squandered economic productivity. It was believed in an era often characterized by an eschatological perspective best described as expectant postmillennialism that it was a Christian obligation to exert power and influence for the purposes of perfecting social institutions and elevating conditions for the greatest possible number. Composed primarily of an alliance of Protestant clergyman and reformist suffragettes motivated in large part by religious principles hoping to advance the plight of women, the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League achieved their ultimate objective in the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which on the national level forbade the production, sale, and distribution of alcohol.
Dobson admits at first Prohibition was a success since for a brief period the consumption of alcohol did decrease. However, consumption eventually returned to previous levels thanks to an elicit want met as a result of a network of criminal bootleggers and law enforcement unwilling or too overwhelmed to enforce these statutes. This resulted in the need to repeal the amendment, it was argued, in order to preserve respect for the law in its totality without which the entire political system could potentially collapse. With the advance of assorted forms of socialism across Europe such as Bolshevism in Russia and Nazism in German, the potential of revolutionary upheaval was a viable possibility.
Dobson is correct that one cannot hope to transform a culture through law alone without corresponding changes also taking place in hearts and minds. However, Dobson's viewpoint is disturbingly deficient in the role law ought to play as a bulwark standing for what is right irrespective of popularity and to protect the innocent from those capable of imposing their viewpoint on the basis of accrued power or brute strength alone. Dobson argues that respect for the law is based on moral consensus with this also serving as the foundation of legislation as well.
Yet such a position differs little from pluralism or relativism. Endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency a few years later despite emphasizing throughout Blinded By Might his reticence as a member of the clergy to endorse one particular candidate over another, it is evident that Rev. Dobson cared profoundly for what he considered issues of civil rights or what some might refer to as racial justice. But utilizing Dobson's reasoning, one would possess little leg to stand on in decades past opposing laws that upheld racial segregation, a practice now deemed deplorable by most Americans. For at one time did not sufficient majorities within distinct cultural regions of this country have few moral qualms against the practice and in certain instances even upheld the notion as inherent to the divinely established social order? One might even make the case that the philosophical critical mass for such a monumental paradigm shift to take place was not reached until a definitive pronouncement was set down in law or at least judicial rulings. In certain instances, the decision had to be implemented by force in areas where such ethical conclusions were not initially embraced.
By Frederick Meekins
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)