"Christian Nation" mumbo jumbo cleared up once and for all.
By bluegal Friday Oct 05, 2007 2:59pm
Well, one can hope. Garry Wills and I are both believing Christians, though certain fundamentalists would argue that, since Wills is Catholic and I'm Quaker, we don't count. His interview on Fresh Air (NPR) Thursday was the strongest and most lucid argument FOR the separation of Church and State I've ever heard: separation of Church and State ENCOURAGES religious practice among individuals, rather than stymies it.
In a new book about the constitutional separation of church and state, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Garry Wills insists that that separation was meant as "the great protector of religion, not its enemy."
The entire interview is about twenty-five minutes long and well worth the listen.
Login or Register to post comments.
frist? if so, does that mean i get to go to heaven?
Christian Fundamentalism is what is hurting Christianity. The so called Big-Box church's, they're kind of like the Wall-Mart of Church's and the goods just as cheap.
There is no heaven, but maybe reincarnation? Bush will get cut in half next life by someone digging in their garden.
actually, no reincarnation either, I was just joshing.
none the less, bush will get cut in two in the garden.
Maybe the good folks at ORU can help in this matter - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8S38PR80
James Madison argued for the separation of church and state by explaining that both religion and government would exist in "greater purity" the less they are mixed together. Indeed, there is a fascinating paradox in the western world. Countries with established religions have less religious populations. The U.S. has one of the most devout populations among western, industrialized democracies.
Karen @ 6:
and closing in on being the rottenest
Thanks for the link, Ricky Bones (#5). No wonder these people think that they should be running the country: They have so much in common with the kleptocrats who already do!
Throughout the 20th century, when religion has been completely separated from govermnment the result has been:
1. Nazi Germany
2. Communism
3. Fascism
4. France
Not a good track record.
Maybe people should see how a theocracy works out for the people of Saudi Arabia.
Ricky Bones @ 5:
Thanks, that was a breath of fresh air....I hope the media keeps this up ... what media was this anyway?
Randy @ 9:
HUH??????
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 11:
AP
There is reincarnation...
Notice the branches of Christianity that demonize other religions the most often accuse other types of Christians as being "non-Christian"... it should really be no surprise.
Ricky Bones @ 13:
I'd like to see them lose their tax exempt status first, then prosecuted second.
In the Southern Baptist Church, where I grew up, I was told to convert anyone I could to my religion.
i have thought long and hard about this !but ive made up my mind , the lord said if your hand offends you cut it off, well dear god my penis no longer is uplifting for me, as such it must offend me because it pisses me off , therefore tonight ill whack it off for the last time!!!praise be to jebus!
Karen @ 6:
... and yet on a per capita basis, the US is one of the industrialized nations that spends less on foreign aid, on the same per capita basis is one of the nations that donates least to humanitarian charities. On the same set of industrialized nations the US spends more of its budget distribution on weapons of mass destruction, and of its budget spends a relative poor (again compared to other industrialized nations) percentage on welfare.
So I think that you meant that the US has one of the most hypocritical populations among the Western industrialized world. If they are really that devout, then they must be really fucking idiots, which part of "Thou shalt not kill, thous shalt help thy neighbour, blessed are the meek, and it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven" do they not understand/get?
I think that a big portion of this population is made up of selfish pricks and assholes (take your pick), who use a perverted version of Christianity to justify their bullshit and go to sleep with a clean conscience that their bullshit is somehow justified by some sort of god. The fact that you see a lot of these so called preachers dressed to the 9s in an Armani suit while talking about the gospel tells me that somehow the cognitive dissonance of a lot of "Christians" in this country is deafening. Christianity in this country has been perverted into some sort of weird compendium of charlatans and motivational speaking.
Anyone with half a brain knows it was set up to keep the government from interfering in religion. I guess tha's why the conservatives don't get it.
Randy @ 9:
The only one that is correct on that list is #2. Hitler often entwined Christianity with Nazism (he does it a lot in Mein Kampf), and while Mussolini was officially an atheist, he did nothing to shut down the churches, and even got baptized in the Catholic Church in order to appease the Catholic majority of Italy. And while France doesn't have an official religion, I can't think of anything they did to actively separate church and state.
I always thought Revelations said the anti-Christ would fool the believers, not the non-believers. Why is this always lost on the fundies?
Not that I believe G.W.'s the anti-Christ...
He's just a regular old @$$#0le who happens to have been born into privilege.
Randy @ 9:
Moran Alert! Moran Alert!
Blue Buddha @ 21:
Don't try and muddy the issue with rational discourse dude....
Randy @ 9:
Yeah, this tired argument will never go away no matter how many times it's discredited. People dead-set on believing that separation of church and state equals established atheism or that atheism leads to regimes like those quoted above are going to believe it no matter what. I guess that's why they call it faith.
The Nazis did not separate church and state. First of all, their goal was to kill all the Jews in the world, so basic religious freedom was not exactly on their list of priorities. Moreover, Hitler invoked his Catholicism throughout his rise to power and his reign over Germany. He justified his actions as the actions of a Christian Soldier. Not to mention that the Nazis also wanted to establish this weird neo-paganism once their conquests were completed.
Communism, as we've experienced it, was officially atheistic, and the Soviet Union did claim to separate church and state. But frankly, all it did was substitute theistic dogma for Marxist/Leninist dogma. And like any dogma, when questioned, it felt threatened, and had to kill of anyone who dared to disagree. Perhaps it did separate "church" and state, but it certainly didn't separate dogma and state, and for all practical purposes, the effects of the mixture are the same: Tyranny over those who believe differently from the established order.
Fascism has nothing to do with the separation of church and state any more than democracy does. They're both just forms of government. Each can use the church for its tyranny, and each has.
And France . . . . uh . . . um . . . er . . . what the fuck?
Throughout the 20th century, when religion has been completely separated from govermnment the result has been:
1. Nazi Germany
2. Communism
3. Fascism
4. France
Not a good track record.
_____________________________________
WTF he is talking about. Why don't you to move to Iran? There the government consist of priest or muhlas if you will. Is that what you want? Look at the religious leaders we got. Are you impressed? I'm not! Sooner or later one of them is a pervert with a thousand excuses when is caught. Come on move to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia. There are plenty of places where you can be happy forever after.
Blue Buddha @ 21:
Actually #2 doesn't fit either. Communism as it has been realized in the past REPLACED religion with the state's dogmatic ideologies and authoritarianism. And both dogma and authoritarianism is what most official religions have in abundance So technically they created a non-theological state centered religion and got rid of all others.
Randy @ 9:
You had to count fascism twice to make your list long enough? Incidentally there is nothing in the tenets of Fascism that forces the separation of religion and government. German fascism did not enforce separation of church and state at all, it just did not pick a specific flavour of Christianism due to the Protestant-Catholic division among Northern-Southern German states. In Italy and Spain, Fascism was not only embedded into the government. But in Spain specifically, Franco prided himself of being more Catholic than the pope, Catholicism was the official religion of the state, not only that but non-catholic religions were for the most part banned and prosecuted.
And BTW, until recently France had quite the Christian foundation in its government.
... if we want to play that game though, when religion was part of the official government, we have had:
All the classical empires and the merry reign of "fun," the decline of Rome, the dark ages, the crusades, the slaughtering of natives in Africa, Asia, and America, the 100 year war, the inquisition, the witch hunts, the Armenian holocaust by the Otoman empire, the fun and games that has been modern day middle East. Israel, Arabia Saudi, Iran, the rest of the Maggreb countries, the series of conflicts between India and Pakistan, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
So I don't know if you were just trying to be ironic/sarcastic in your comment, or you really are that ignorant.
Ricky Bones @ 17:
One of the more bizzare tales I heard about growing up Southern Baptist was by this one guy who grew up in the foothills of Kentucky in the mid to late 60's.
When he got out of high school, he went to a local lumber yard to get some lumber for a home project for his parents. After picking out his lumber, he asked a "good ol' boy" at the yard to cut some of it. While the good ol' boy was cutting with a handsaw, he asked in a friendly banter, "So now that you're out of high school what are you going to do?"
He replied, "I'm going to attend [such and such] seminary college." The good ol' boy got a threatening look in his eye, and rattled his saw at him and said, "Well, while you're wasting your time at school, you could be saving souls in the name of Jesus!"
Ricky Bones@17
I think I missed something!
Here in NYC, when the Jeebus people approach me on the subway, I tell them to get off the train, go to the nearest bar they find, get plastered, and get laid. Usually, they move on.
Blue Buddha @ 29:
Ignorance is bliss, ... but only for the ignorant ... we have to suffer their ignorance.
There's both GOOD NEWS and BAD NEWS FOR THE EVANGELICALS
Blue Buddha @ 21:
I'm not sure I would include #2 on that list either. I can think of several early US Christian populations that practiced a brand of communism for the good of the community as a whole. The Marxist-Leninist brand of Communism, however, was officially atheist.
The part of Communism which frightens the hell out of these Kleptocratic Klowns, however, is the portion of the M/L Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
Don Davis @ 33:
Very funny Don, That was good for a few chuckles.
Dr. Who @ 19:
Indeed.
No, I meant what I said. There's a weird paradox, at least in the western world, as we've experienced it. With the separation of church and state, we end up with religious people. In countries with established religions, we have less religious people.
This is an impossibility? Idiocy and devoutness are mutually exclusive? Please. We have a "free market" of sorts with religion in our country. And a multiplicity of interpretations on the predominant religion, Christianity. And more devout people, devoted to their own particular version of their faith.
Heh, well, they have their own interpretations. By the way, Thou Shalt Not Kill, was actually Thou Shalt Not Murder, and under the original meaning, it wasn't murder to kill someone of a different (read: wrong) faith. And the Christian Bible is loaded with enough contradictions and evils to justify everything from slavery to witch-burning to stoning gay people or people who work on the sabbath.
Just because folks are not devoted to your particular version of Christianity doesn't mean they're not devout.
I don't disagree. Though I'm not necessarily sure their version of Christianity is the "perverted" one. The southern slaveholders seemed to be on the winning side of the theological debate in the 19th Century.
And the weird paradox stands. This is what happened in the U.S. with our free market of religions. In liberal democracies with established religions, the populations often tire of the dogma, and grow into secular societies.
Don't misunderstand me. I'll fight tooth and nail for the separation of church and state. I'm not advocating abolishing it. I treasure it. But I would personally rather live in a secular society.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 35:
My Fav::
The Good News: Your Mayor refuses to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
The Bad News: Your Mayor is found in a theater balcony with a young boy.
Ricky Bones @ 17:
I attended a Baptist church and school in Miami and was sent to Miami Beach to "convert Jews." An elderly jewish woman handed the pamphlet I gave her back to me along with a tongue lashing I would never forget.
Randy @ 9:
That's funny. The Catholic Church supported the Nazis.
Dr. Who @ 19:
Just a point of correction here, out of interest. When the Bible was translated into Latin from the Greek, the "translators" used "Kamelos" instead of "Kamilos". Kamelos is Camel, Kamilos is rope, so it SHOULD read "it is easier for a ROPE to pass through the eye of a needle"...
What other things got mis-translated, either by accident OR design, hmmmmm?
xoites defends Constitution @ 39:
POPE Pius XII actually, then he apologized before he died.
garcia @ 26:
The connection between kicking god out of the public square and these terrible governments is a lack of respect for individual dignity.
If public policy were motivated by the idea that we're all children of a loving god, we would emphasize that our rights come from our Creator, and therefore do a better job at protecting individual dignity, individual rights, and individual responsibility.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 41:
Thank you for the clarification. :)
Randy @ 42:
That wont fly for most .... too deep most of the desenters here just come in, make a stupid remark and then giggle as they watch people respond.
believing in god is red state
believing in god is a mental defect
believing in god is killing us
believing in god is a product
believing in god is marketed
believing in god is so easy
Anyone with half a brain knows it was set up to keep the government from interfering in religion. I guess tha’s why the conservatives don’t get it.
I'lll stand in as the other half... The seperation of church and state was designed to keep religion out of the states affairs.
Randy @ 42:
Ehh, sure. I suppose. Can we consider "nature" to be the "creator?" That's what many of the founders believed. Personally, I don't think we need a "creator" concept at all for the sense of individual rights and dignity.
And hey, I wouldn't have a problem replacing the idiotic pledge of allegiance with the Declaration of Indpendence's
I'd be fine with kids reciting that each morning, if it would satisfy folks.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 37:
Great thanks, Bob. Btw, what's the status of gay rights in Northern Thailand?
America was not set up to be a "Christian" nation. It was set up to be a free nation that recognized all practices or none at all.
The main exception was historically charities were run by religions so in some cases you had to accept their teachings or be preached to by them before you could accept their help, there being no welfare state as such.
The problem with being a Christian nation is how do you define that status? Wars had been fought for close to a thousand years over that very definition and practices. In the Cromwellian wars, you actually had Protestant against Protestant fighting.
I called my cable company recently to complain about the increase in religious programming and was told that we are a "Christian Nation" and to expect even more. I wonder what is going on.
DUBAI - Dubai's influential police chief has said Western powers should be warned that their relations with Gulf Arab states would suffer if they launch a military strike on Iran over its nuclear programme.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=22546
Quakers should know. When the puritans came over here, it wasn't for "religious freedom" as we were taught. It was for the freedom to impose their religion on others. They weren't allowed to do that back home, so they came here to escape the "religious persecution" of not being able to persecute. They ficed that when they got here. The puritans had a particular distaste for Quakers, and made it illegal to be a Quaker in Massachusetts, punishable by death. They meant it - they burned people at the stake who were guilty of being Quakers. The Quakers finally found refuge in PA.
Personally as an atheist it all seems very silly to me, but there you go.
47 Karen
One thing I always found interesting about that quote from the Declaration, "...endowed by their creator..." is the use of the terms THEIR creator and not OUR creator. It implies a distinction being made. For some people they take an entirely naturalistic view that their creators were their parents.
Another thing I found interesting is the so called strict constructionists view of the US Constitution seems to dovetail with those who are strict believers in the exact phrasing of the scripture. It's a form of secular sola scriptura, and makes no room for tradition and reason.
ysbaddaden @ 49:
Yep. Recognition of that state of affairs is what led to disestablishmentarianism. None of the individual states or people in them wanted to be oppressed by state or religion with a larger population. They reached a point of rationality, saying, hey, look, we've all experienced first hand the devastation of religious intolerance. How 'bout we all have an equal right to exist, and leave one another alone?
And indeed, the founding generation felt much closer to religious tyranny than we do. They experienced it. Perhaps that accounts for the paradox of the disestablished nation and the religious population. People in Europe feel much closer to tyranny at the moment. It wasn't that long ago for many of them.
Jesus white lol.
Chances are he looked more like Corporal Klinger than George Bush.
Randy @ 42:
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Randy@42
If public policy were motivated by the idea that we’re all children of a loving god, we would emphasize that our rights come from our Creator, and therefore do a better job at protecting individual dignity, individual rights, and individual responsibility.
_______________________________________________
This kind of talk scare the shit out me. As you can see, we are not doing a good job at:
protecting individual dignity
individual rights
and individual responsibility
anywhere in the world. Wherever we put our fingers in, somebody dies. We are killing hundreds of loving children in the name of the loving God you are talking about. Some how, the connection gets interrupted. We are nothing but hypocrites. Religion is padded by the millions of dollars they collect in every church. Eric Prince, super Catholic! Well he sure is spreading his love for the children of God by fucking everybody in Irak and ransaking the Treasury with help of Boss.
You nothing than naive blind human being.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"so they came here to escape the “religious persecution” of not being able to persecute. "
That's a great take on it actually. The seperation by the founders recognized this and intelligently placed the seperation of church and state in to keep the religion(s) from interfering with the state.
And this country was not founded as, or to be, a "Christian nation". It soon became clear, however, that the peaceful peoples that were here before the ships landed (Indians) would have to be murdered by the so called "good Christian" folk in order to appease their wrathful blood hungry Christian god.
Craig,
Silly, although it does have that a bit, is the understatement of the day. It is inhuman, repugnant, murderous and insane.
Don Davis @ 48:
Gays and Transexuals are not look down on too much. Transexuals are looked at as special "ladies" but no one ever treats them with disdain.
right now, on Ring of Fire / AirAmericaRadio:
Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, joins us to talk about the Pentagon's secret support of the right-wing fanatical group called the "Christian Embassy".
http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
this guy's story is also scary... "they're everywhere! they're everywhere!"
Ring of Fire will rebroadcast tomorrow evening... also podcasts...
http://ringoffireradio.com/
54 Karen
In our Founding Father's day, the British Parliament had it as a rule that Jews and athiests could not serve in Parliament. They gradually relaxed that, so those voted in would be allowed to take their seats on one day when there was a relaxation of the rules. I think Jews were allowed by 1860, so one of Britains greatest Prime Ministers was the Jewish Disreali during the Victorian Era. To this day sovreigns of Britain must swear upon their coronation that they don't believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, a holdover from the Glorious Revolution between the Catholic King James II and William III of Orange.
Additionally at the same time the dissident Christians, those who refused to swear to a belief in the 39 articles of Anglican belief were not allowed into universities like Oxford and Cambridge. These groups included the Church of Scotland (Presbyterians), Baptists, Methodists. Unitarians, Quakers etc. There are a few more but my memory is faltering. This meant their taxes were supporting universities they could not attend, thus closing off many professions to them. They ended up opening their own universities in Scotland, and became known for the practicality of their education. They were particularly known as the engineers. I had one History of Technology instructors say in a lecture, that to this day it's no coincidence that the TV show Star Trek had a very Scottish engineer.
So in other words religions could be seen as states having their own rights, but not over each other, and none of the federal government, where in the late 19th century in Reynolds v US (1878) the Supreme Court said they can't regulate religious belief, but they can regulate behavior no matter what claims of religious freedom are made. The Supreme Court basically reaffirmed that later in Prince v Massachusetts (1944) and even added the caveat that when children are involved the government's interests increase.
ysbaddaden @ 53:
Hmm. I suppose. That could just be the result of Jefferson's using the standard grammar he was taught. Not to mention, the end of the Declaration reads:
Although the line has a funny history. At the beginning of the Declaration, Jefferson speaks of the rights entitled to people by "Nature" and "Nature's God." Nature's God was a largely Jeffersonian construct, and many, knowing that Jefferson was largely agnostic (deist at most in his beliefs, atheist at least), were unsatisfied. One of the more religious members of the Continental Congress moved to amend the document, at the very least, to add in at the end that they were relying on "Divine Providence" to see them through the war they knew would inevitably follow. Jefferson's response to this motion was essentially, "Whatever." He (and other supporters of the Declaration as written) let the amendment stand, figuring it made very little difference in the grand scheme of things. :)
Heh, there are very few genuine "strict constructionists" on the bench. That's a good thing. Strict construction is nonsense. But most people who invoke it just think their personal interpretation of the law conforms to strict construction. If you really want to see strict or narrow construction, check out Judge Richard Posner.
As for methods of interpretation, I'm a textualist. A lot like Scalia (come on, now, hear me out before you kill me). I part ways with Scalia on relying on cultural tradition when a law or Constitutional phrase is vague or ambiguous, but I agree that laws should not be interpreted either strictly or loosely, but reasonably. I actually use Scalia's method a lot, though I come to staggeringly different conclusions than he does -- but I think his prejudices get in the way of his otherwise brilliant reasoning.
In any case, I thought you might find it interesting that Scalia would agree with you, quite explicitly, that strict construction makes no room for tradition or reason. ;)
Karen @ 36:
Maybe it is due to the human trait of always wanting what we can not have? :-) Or maybe the perception that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
It goes with the old adage than in order to make something more desirable, you just have to outlaw it.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 60:
Some people say that it doesn't matter what color skin Jesus was, it only matters what he stood for. That's all okay to think if you want, but it does matter what color of skin Jesus had if one is to truly study the foundations of "Christianity" or do a thorough assessment of the man who was supposadly the son of God. Those that say this (white people) when one points out that the original text in the bible says that "Jesus was a wooly haired man with bronze skin." take the fall back position because it wrangles thier sensibilities and gives a whole new context to the "son of God" to think or imagine that he was dark skinned. -Just another of the many reasons that a majority of the people of this country are so terrible with geography.- ;>)
ysbaddaden @ 62:
Yep. And I find it fascinating that Britain's population is far more secular than ours. And their attitude towards secularism and atheism is far more tolerant and respectful than ours.
Yep again, though I didn't know that about Scottie. Interesting then that he'd be the one "beaming them up?" :)
Yeah. Though I find the law in this area very wishy washy and useless as a guide. I mean, it doesn't clarify much to say that behavior can be regulated no matter what claims of religious freedom is made as long as you're not regulating belief. When Mormons protested that laws against polygamy violated their religious freedom, the Court said essentially that they are entitled to religious freedom, but that they're not allowed to break the law. Thus, the laws against polygamy would stand. What? Isn't the whole point of religious freedom that one can practice his religion without interference by the law?
Frankly, our jurisprudence hasn't come up with very good articulations of American liberty in this regard. That's why we end up with idiotic decisions that uphold outlawing vibrators as long as the state reasonably believes people's morals are adversely affected.
katy @ 61:
Interesting thing is Mike is a Methodist and RFK (or course) is a Catholic.
“the great protector of religion, not its enemy.”
ABSOLUTELY!!!! And that's why the seperation of church and state is one of the things I'd fight for!
Religion = Control, scourge, blight, rape, delusion, exclusion, cast, mental illness, no burden of proof, denial, war, false righteousness, excuse for mistakes...... The list goes on and on and on! I feel better already!
bilhelm-X @ 70:
And how would you describe Martin Luther King?
Regulations on behavior are based upon their intent being to regulate the behavior of all, and not some target group.
However, the Supreme Court constantly says their job does not entail mind reading and they don't want to speculate upon the intents of the legislators if it is not otherwise clear in the language of the law.
It's like in Bush v Gore they used the XIV amendment to protect the vote of a minority to basically disenfrachise those whose votes wouldn't be counted due to the halting of the recount.
At least one of the authors of the RICO statute is still alive, and resentful that it's being used to limit political protests.