The composition of my family dictates that I watch too many kids’ movies. But, when I read this column by Michael Gerson (h/t Tipsy), I started thinking of the seagulls in the Disney movie, “Nemo;” the ones who form a mob, mindlessly chattering “mine, mine, mine.”
Gerson’s column uses Christine O’Donnell, darling of the Tea Party and Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, and her statements about the First Amendment as a jumping off point. O’Donnell has boldly declared that the First Amendment does not speak to the separation of church and state. This was even bolder inasmuch as it was done in a crowd of lawyers and law students; akin to going to a medical school and declaring that the heart has nothing to do with circulation.
Gerson’s column discusses the widespread belief among Tea Partyists that the United States is, and always has been, a Christian Nation. Knowing the history of the 16th – 18th centuries, and the ideas motivating the Founders, makes this a losing proposition. But O’Donnell seems to be one of those folks with such a beautiful mind she is unwilling to waste it on tedious details like Thomas Jefferson’s Deism and the racking religious wars that were recent history when the Constitution was written.
But, Gerson says that this isn’t really about true history or racism or bigotry. Rather, this religious angle to the Tea Party movement is “nostalgia for an idealized past in which government was smaller, social ties were stronger, and America was a Christian country.”
I realize that the Tea Party is something of a Rorschach test where you project your own views onto it. Proponents see the movement as championing their own views about government and minimize the less attractive aspects. Detractors see only the whack jobs playing dress up and carrying misspelled, racist signs. But, it’s fairly clear that these folks are against. Against “what” is somewhat open. (I’m reminded of the Overkill album entitled simply, “I Hate.”) Whatever they’re against, they want to “take this country back.” From whom is left conveniently undefined. And that’s where I find the resemblance to the seagulls. The opposition I see with my version of the Rorschach test has an “It’s Ours and They can’t have it” flavor to it. “Mine, mine, mine.”
There is a line in the Ultravox song “Mine for Life” that goes “I hate it all, but there must be more to hate than this.”
I suspect that many of those “take back my country” folks are railing agains demography. American is a multi-cultural nation in which the old order is being displaced. Old middle class white guys are on the decline and the “Them” are in the ascendancy. They are worried about what will be left for “their” children. The ultimate genetic privilege.
Okay: if you live in Delaware, okay. If you’re an Op-Ed columnist with a deadline, okay. If you, like I, think of politics as a sporting proposition, or the world’s longest-running comedy club, sure.
O’Donnell’s fair game. Teabaggers are fair game. But this is mainstream Republican thought for the past four decades, and the engine of the Right for the twenty years before that (it was always “Godless Communism” in certain circles: see, for example, the huge uproar over Cardinal Mindszenty, recast as St. Stephen in this country, or Ike’s insertion of “Under God” into our sacred Pledge Ullejance; for that matter, the quintessence of wingnuttery, anti-fluoridationism, began as a First Amendment protest of Big Brother crypto-medicating children whose parents objected to the germ theory of disease on Biblical grounds).
It’s fair enough to ask what Teabaggers believe, in contradistinction to the easy claims of having put culture war behind them, but doing so, in the first place, just fuels the myth that they’re some new force in American politics, rather than the most recently riled of the red meat Republican constituencies in funny hats. Christine O’Donnell is certainly not the first person to demand an end to judicial activism while displaying an encyclopedic ignorance of American jurisprudence. Pointing and laughing has its place, but I think we’d be much better off if the Gersons of this world had had the stones to hold them accountable, over the past four decades, for their teleological ignorance and their sham Originalism, instead of casting O’Donnell in the role of unique public ignoramus, however well cast.
As for me, well, lemme say again: there are 225 recognized Protestant denominations in this country, and God knows how many sui generis; once they all agree on everything they can go to work on the Roman Catholics, and when they’re all in accord on every detail of the One True Religion (I’ll throw in the Orthodox, the Copts, and the Gnostics at no extra charge!) they can start explaining to me how this is a Christian nation.
Doug:
I find this quote of yours to be interesting: “Knowing the history of the 16th – 18th centuries, and the ideas motivating the Founders, makes this a losing proposition.”
I have heard boths sides of that argument numerous times. For example, I have heard that Jefferson didn’t want the US to have a national Christian religion because he thought that would affect the capability of Virginia to have its own state Christian religion. What makes you so confident that your quote is accurate? I admit I have not researched this issue, but I am curious if you have read the arguments from both sides regarding it? It appears to be a fairly complex question with evidence supporting both arguments.
Nah, the evidence supporting the Christian Nation types is feeble and often fabricated. Ed Brayton does a good job of deconstructing these things from time to time. Here is one example. (By way of correction, I see that I am wrong by calling Jefferson a Deist. He just wasn’t a “Christian” by any definition that would be recognized today. See: here and here. Jefferson wasn’t an atheist, but he rejected, among other things, the trinity and the virgin birth.)
Doghouse,
Your points are well taken. I also see very little new about the Teabaggers. One perusal of the Texas Republican Party platform demonstrates that Teabaggery is mainsteam Republican policy. Teabaggers are just another funding conduit and footsoldier cadres.
Doug:
You post reminded me of this lyric from Big Country’s song “Beautiful People”:
If beauty is an ecstasy and anger keeps you poor
A hungry man is never free, a rich man never cured
Things were never what they used to be
Now every crowd has its silver lining, we all got stuff to sell
And you may live your life so bitter, but you remember it so well
Things were never what they used to be
On the subject of whether the US is a Christian nation, I recommend the writings of Chris Rodda (http://www.liarsforjesus.com/) who has set out to debunk much of what passes for history on the right (especially by people like David Barton).
Paul,
Just some more color to Doug’s statement. It wasn’t just the founding fathers that felt this way. John Winthrop’s Massachusetts Bay Colony (yes, of “…shining city on the hill…” fame) believed in many of the same principles in the 1630’s.
Winthrop believed that mixing their separatist Puritanism with the political machine would corrupt the religion. The colony banned religious leaders from holding political positions within the chartered colony.
As to Jefferson, depending on the particular writing, he displayed various levels of devotion to religion, varying from indifference to near atheism. Most of it comes across as not so much a failure to believe in a higher power, but a distrust of established religious infrastructure.
Here is a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut, often cited as the first appearance of the actual words, “separation of Church and State.” Note this was written after ratification.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Doug, I am not persuaded by the linked material. For example, one of the criticisms was that only 24 of the 56 Declaration of Independence signers had seminary degrees (as compared to 27). Ok fine, let’s say there was only 24. Does that criticism change the suggestion that the signers were religious people?
How about the fact that prayer was a common occurence in Congress, and was started with a prayer? See http://thefoundationforum.com/2007/09/the-first-prayer-in-the-united-states-congress.html
Also, please review here, which contains some interesting quotes regarding the founding fathers and Christianity:
http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm
I fully admit these are possibly biased sources, but I doubt all of the evidence can be disproved. To me, there seems to be ample evidence on both sides of this coin, making it very difficult to state that we are or are not a Christian nation without recognizing our own biases.
Marc: I am not sure what the relevance of Mass. Bay Colony of 1630 has to our country’s foundation. The question is what principles did the founders of our Constitution and our country have, yes? In other words, did the people who founded our country have Christian theological beliefs, and possibly want to incorporate those beliefs in how our country works?
To me, the important time period would be from the start of the Revolution to the approval of the Constitution in 1791. 1630 is as relevant to that discussion as the 1950’s.
Tea partiers seem especially concerened about fascism and communisim, and I’ve always understood these concerns as a perception of creeping totalitariansim. That is, they see “the government” as injecting itself where it simply isn’t wanted or needed.
Okay, so wouldn’t a group or individual concerned with government intrusion want a defined separation of state and religion? This puzzles me. The O’Donnells and tea partiers and Beckites want the government out of their lives but decidedly in their houses of worship.
In the words of Jack Nicholson (in The Departed)…
“That’s what you call a paradox”
But I’m going to suppose something. I suppose the aforementioned groups definitely don’t want “the government” in their houses of worship. But perhaps they do want to make sure that I am in the right house of worship, reading the right Bible, saying the right prayers, and of course… filling the right coffers. And they probably wouldn’t mind if the powers that be could some how encourage me to do so.
The argument they try to make is that the founders were Christian, and therefore anything they created (such as, the government) is Christian also.
The problem is, the founders specifically avoided saying “God” or “Jesus Christ”, or anything about religion at all, other than to say the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. It’s pretty striking that the country that we broke away from had a church whose leader was also the nation’s head of state, and yet our governing document was nearly devoid of any religious references. Was that some kind of accident? Doubtful.
T,
Your points are well taken. In my contitional law classes we start with a brief history of the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact and the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. I am always struck by the paucity of reference to anything but the Creator.
Textual ommissions of the fealty to religion is very telling to me.
T – I see your point. But how do you reconcile this absence of religion with prayers to start official meetings of the constitutional convention and the legislature?
Paul,
To address your points:
1. As for the statistics of 24 vs. 27 bible scholars – you missed the author’s critique. It wasn’t that there were two different counts, but rather that the count itself was flawed in that it counted anyone from a school that started as a divinity school as a bible scholar, regardless of degree. For example, all Harvard degrees were counted as divinity degrees, even when the degree was in law. The author was pointing out that both numbers were wrong.
2. The relevancy of the first settlers’ doctrinal writings is based on the same theory as us looking at the founding fathers. We look back to what they thought at the time, and part of that is looking back to what influenced their thinking. It isn’t very informative to limit the survey of philosophies to such a narrow window. The point is that the idea of not having state sponsored religion goes back to the very beginnings of European settlement.
As for the sites you referenced, I cannot find anything that speaks to Christianity. All the quotations from the Founding Fathers speak of “God Almighty”, “God”, “Our Creator”, etc… The distinguishing feature of Christianity is the existence of Jesus as Messiah. I saw no mention of that in any of the quotations. Seems like a stunning omission for a devout Christian intent on NOT separating Church and State.
Similarly, the quotations do not address the confluence of Church and State at all. They refer to things such as law being based on the Bible as being similar to the laws they contemplate. Most, if not nearly all, Biblical law is in the Torah, not the Christian New Testament. So I guess we are a Jewish state? For that matter, many of the laws in the Bible are similar to Hammurabi’s Code. Maybe we are a Sumarian state.
My point is that a person is allowed to have faith, act on that faith, legislate in congruence with that faith, yet still believe that the State itself should not establish a particular faith.
Faith can inform one’s beliefs and actions. One cannot use the government as a mechanism to spread faith. Only actions. Like the Jefferson letter I referenced earlier, he speak about government existing in the world of action, not opinion.
I refer everyone in this discussion back to the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Senate in 1797 – the 5th Congress of the United States.
” Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
If that isn’t enough evidence that we were not founded as nor intended to be a Christian Nation, go read some of the writings of the founding fathers, like Jefferson and Madison.
Deism – which is belief in a non-specific god is not the same as Christianity. In fact, Deism rejects a lot of the beliefs of Christianity outright, like the Virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the divinity of the Bible, etc.
Many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe and even Ethan Allen were all well known and pronounced deists. They were the elites of the day and in that circle, Christianity was considered common and hokey.
Thomas Paine so profoundly espoused the notion of Deism and non-Christian attitudes in Age of Reason, he was thought of as an atheist, which wasn’t the case.
Go read some Susan Jacoby as well – Freethinkers is eye-opening.
In any case, I find little compelling evidence there was a remote intention for this to be a Christian nation, but there is loads of evidence to the contrary.
Here we go again with most people arguing two extreme ends of a point, seeking only to be “right”. Isn’t it clear that our nation was founded in COMPROMISE and CONTROVERSY between the religious and the non-religious? Upon this foundation ‘between ideals’ our history has vacillated from pole to pole. Indeed, to me, what we are discussing now surely had some parallels with arguments made while drafting the Constitution itself, no? Didn’t they debate this issue at some length? And aren’t the seeds laid during that begrudging compromise of values partly responsible for our eventual Civil war? Isn’t it, then, clear that this argument itself is at the core of our nation? And that the strength of our nation can be found not by winning the argument, but by forging acceptable compromise? Technically noone wins here, which is why we always fight about it. But what is also clear is that only through separation of Church and state can there be any objectivity, and can there be any compromise that made our country unique. The moment Christianity takes over, compromise itself is ended, and thus, the foundation of our country.
Paul–“But how do you reconcile this absence of religion with prayers to start official meetings of the constitutional convention and the legislature?” The same way we reconcile the absence of morals among those who espouse family values and wrap themselves in the flag while kissing the bible. Hypocracy. Christians and other religionists have always been very good at hypocracy. At the same time the founders were supposedly fighting to establish a country based on christian beliefs, they were denying permits to jews and catholics to build places of worship–in New York City. And besides, all of these very christian religous founders during the age of the constitution supported or acquiesed to supporting slavery and many owned slaves. So if they were religionists, to hell with them and their god!!!
Barton and his many sites on the web and his collusion with beck is a joke and is cited frequently by those who think they are doing research to back up their arguments. Many are the same folks who think the creationist museum in KY is based on facts.
History overwhelming establishes that the Founding Fathers did not mean by the Establishment Clause a strict separation fo church and state, as it was later interpreted in Erickson.
The Constitutional Conventioin started each session with a prayer. During the debates delegates repeatedly quoted from scripture to make their points. The first Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, including the Establishment Clause, started each day with a prayer. The Bill of Rights did not even apply to the state when it was passed. Many states had official state religions for decades if not longerr. It wasn’t until the Erickson case in 1957 that the Establishment Clause was even applied to the State. Congress and state legislatures have had chaplains and prayers from the very beginning.
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to prevent fighting between Christian religions over which would be the official national religion of the country. The Founding Fathers answer was none of them.
Currently the interpretation of the Establishment Clause is that government cannot endorse or promote a particular religion or religion over non-religion. I think that’s probably a good policy. I, however, don’t at all think that’s what the Founding Fathers intended by the Establishment Clause. Think about it, if they intended the very broad interpretion given the clause today, do you think the Founding Father’s would have used the word “establish? Obviously they were referring to the ESTABLISHMENT of an official religion, not that government should be strictly separated from government which, although it might be good policy, certainly isn’t the history of this country.
Very good coverage of the issue by many posters. It is likely this debate will continue for many years. Point is that at least here the debate can go on in a very open manner contrary to any consideration of the issue in many parts of the world. Particular point is that while there are many common threads among “christian” groups there are many that will contend their beliefs are the only true way to heaven and all others will go to hell. Wish there was less uproar on what “our founding fathers” established and more common sense reality that understands who “they” were and very importantly that things are no where close to they way they were then. It has served well that the consititution is difficult to change but the other side of the coin is that it has been held by some that there should be no change as if it were “written in stone.”
I guess my second comment was eaten; apologies if it now shows up twice.
First, I don’t feel compelled toward compromise by the fact that someone else characterizes my position on fundamental rights as one extreme end of a continuum; oddly, I myself characterize it as “right”, and others’ as “the opposite of right”. In this, as I understand it, I’m not alone.
Second, one reason I feel this way is on display here: the rewriting of history as a morality tale for children, the elevation of Effluvia to Evidence, and the whole thing being wrapped in an unspoken and ill-considered theory of Law which holds as its sole function the reading of 18th century minds. (Where, unsurprisingly, the modern-day political necromancer always discovers that the Founders thought just like he does!)
The religious concepts of the First aren’t the handiwork of an ad hoc committee trying to avoid the excesses of the English religious wars. They’re an outgrowth of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which itself had been inspired by that state’s fight over the Anglican church’s attempt to make citizens foot the bill for its losses in the Revolution. The Anglicans had thoughtfully included “all Protestant denominations” in their ransom demands; so much for amorphous Christianity being somehow distinct. Madison’s response, in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments upheld the concept that the majority must be prevented from trampling the rights of the minority.
It’s interesting how thoroughly this common concern–the basis, after all, of that Bill of Rights of which we’re discussing the First–gets shunted aside when we sit at the Ouija board of Originalism. But the fact that 18th white male landowners of English descent opened sessions with a prayer–about as surprising, and relevant, as the fact that they had the House Negro powder their wigs, rather than do it themselves–is supposed to trump 200 years of precedent. Rights trampled are not rights relinquished.
Finally, Madison cautioned that legislators ought not threaten to “exceed the commission from which they derive their authority”. So, again, I await an explanation for how anyone–including, perhaps especially, a collection of grafters elected through the popular selection of which of two juvenile liars is the most effective–determines the “Christian” position on any issue.
“History overwhelming establishes that the Founding Fathers did not mean by the Establishment Clause a strict separation fo church and state, as it was later interpreted in Erickson.”
That is an outrageous exaggeration, particularly given the fact that Jefferson used the exact words, “wall of separation” to describe the First Amendment.
The fact that someone prayed before starting a meeting is at best circumstantial to the outcome of the meeting itself.
Most football teams pray before each game. By your logic, the game itself becomes an exercise in religion, which is ludicrous.
Marc,
Jefferson wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson’s view was not at all widely shared by the Founding Fathers. How do you possibly reconciled that the FF started each day of the convention with a prayer, constantly quoted scripture, that the first Congress started each day with a prayer as did state legislatures. And from the very beginning they had chaplains.
The historical evidence that the FF intended this major wall between church and state just isn’t there. The Establishment Clause was about their not wanting an official national religion like there had been in England. That’s what it was about. Trying to read it more broadly than that might make for good policy, but it’s revisionist history.
Paul,
so which religionist view would you have the government promote or endorse or use for their “prayers” (I noticed you ignored my answer to your question–Hypocrisy)? Which one will make you happy? For too long it was the christian religion ( and now a mostly watered down mish mash of meaningless words done for show) but now perhaps we should choose the muslim, or my favorite-the Aztec, so that we may once again sacrifice to our god.
Once the government endorses, or promotes, or uses a religion, it is the same as establishing a state religion. Hate is always hard to overcome, just because we have an ancient history of it, and our country was founded by people who practiced these beliefs that god would grace them and bless them with good lives and allow them to prosper and win a war when they owned slaves, and killed humans, is a poor reason to allow it to continue. War never resolved anything, and religion has never led to peace. We are still dealing with the stupidity of the christian crusades in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the middle east.
First, let me agree that the founders didn’t want this to be a “Christian Nation”, or any type of religious-based government. They had been there and done that.
I don’t agree, though, that the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” mean that a school can’t have a class about (insert religion here) or a politician can’t act like a Pharisee & pray in the statehouse, be it for Jesus or Allah.
“Shall make no law” does not mean “All government officials will act like atheists while at work.” It means, “Shall make no law”, at least that’s what my 2nd grade English class taught me.
My thoughts are that if we could ask the founders their views on this, they’d tell us to grow up & quit being offended by every little thing. Praying in school isn’t even the same sport as being executed for your faith, or lack thereof.
Pretty sure no school has been prohibited from having a secular class about religion. The problem is when they start treating one religion as special or treating religion as somehow distinct from other forms of academics; like by setting aside time for a monotheistic tribute at the beginning of a football game or whatever.
And, as I’ve said before, that’s not so much about worshiping as it is about marking territory. Those little rituals always strike me as being more a display of power than of piety; perhaps showing to other forms of belief that, maybe they’ll be tolerated, but let’s not forget who’s in control here.
Y’know, I’m thinking that before we ask The Founders to straighten us out on religion, we might wanna bring ’em up to date. Like how the German theologians of the 19th century proved the Bible wasn’t inerrant, and how textual analysis has demonstrated multiple authors, linguistic shifts, and the polemical influences as Christianity grew. They were intelligent men. They’re sure to be interested in Darwinism, germ theory supplanting the Theory of Humors, and that the homunculus model of fetal development has been supplanted by Mendelian genetics and now the map of the human genotype. They’d probably be astonished to learn that Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the US (“No Religion” being second), though they’re probably no more unaware that Buddhism is a religion which is specifically atheistic than are most modern Americans.
Me, what I wonder is how long it would take ’em to fully understand how, despite all those prayers for guidance, the Christian God never explained to any of ’em how wrong it was to own another human being as property, and how morally repugnant they’d look 200 years hence as a result.
Doghouse,
Your point that the constitution drafters were intelligent and curious men is well taken. The embraces a radical theory of governmental self-determination and representative government. They would not bow in fealty to any sovereign.
Your other point about the abomination that was slavery is also interesting. But when I look at the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the Constitution, we do see a gradual “pushing out” of power to a broader group of individuals.
Akla: Please re-read my comments, as you interpret my comments into something they are not. My comment stated that there is historical references on both sides of the coin regarding the amount of religion. Your posts incorrectly assume that I am am advocating that we have govt. sponsored prayer. That is not something I have said. I merely state that they occurred.
If you want me to give my opinion, I will. Whether govt. is “officially” religious or not is irrelevant. Govt. certainly is “moral”, and makes value judgments. For most people (including the Founders) a large portion of morals come from religion. I don’t want govt. prayer, but it is pointless to pretend that the Puritans’ religion (which differs from my own) was not a part of the backbone of the founding of this great country (and the Constitution). To state such a claim is silly.
You mentioned that I didn’t respond to your first post. I didn’t respond because it proved my point. The Founders were a bit hypocritical on the issue of religion in govt. These mixed messages are exactly what I am pointing out. With mixed messages, the amount of religion we accept becomes a line-drawing exercise, rather than an absolute either way.
Doug, what I want to know, specifically, is where “Congress shall make no law” enters into the decisions of school administrators.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m offended by pious-acting “Christian” politicians as much, if not more, than you are. I’m just saying that I don’t get where the 1st Amendment prohibits them from doing offensive and stupid things. It is a fairly short sentence that seems to be focused on what laws they are allowed to pass.
If it pisses you off that a football game starts with prayer, then that is a discussion between you, your community, and your local school system. I don’t see that as a violation of your 1st Amendment rights.
Jason: Supreme Court jurisprudence incorporated the provisions of the 1st Amendment into the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is a prohibition that applies to the states (and smaller levels).
Doug, thanks again for your website, it is always entertaining – my viewpoint is based on what is observed on nearly every building in Washington DC, including the home of the Supreme Court. There are simply too many references to God to not think religion had a lot to do with early America. It’s been my experience when something is promoted, and in such public places as the old buildings in DC, then it’s a good thing. To simply ignore all of the references to God in the early writings of our founding fathers seems a bit shallow to me.
Paul,
I assume you’re referring to this text of the 14th:
Ok, so Indiana can’t pass a law requiring people to worship at the Catholic church. Great, I’m all aboard.
My point is how we go from “make or enforace any law” to “can’t teach X” Teaching the Qur’an in a public school, even in a totally religious way, isn’t passing a law. It might be offensive to people, and I don’t think it is a good idea in most cases, but that isn’t a Constitutional issue.
So many people seem to accept that the 1st amendment means that anyone on a government paycheck must act like an atheist while at work. I’m challenging that, as I just don’t see the proof of that in the document that is claimed to support it.
Jason,
A public school delivering a religous message is an action by the state promoting the establishment of a religion. That is black letter law.
Ranbo, I’d suggest to you that what’s shallow is the casting of the (often unclear) religious beliefs of educated, mostly well-to-do, late 18th century political leaders as though they were informed by late 19th century denominational orthodoxy and late 20th century, politically-partisan, faux-ecumenicalism (q.v. the “Judeo-Christian tradition”). The most glaring example of this is the long practice of pretending that the Deists of the Enlightenment count as amorphous Christians on the big Establishment Clause Tote Board. (Similar to the way each pre-Industrial Revolution mention of “God” gets counted as legal precedent, without regard for a social milieu in which no European intellectual counted himself as an atheist, a Buddhist, or a warlock.)
So, no, this doesn’t deny the religious and cultural heritage of the men who happened to wind up establishing the framework for our present system of government; it merely denies the supernatural supremacy of their (gratuitously generalized) theology, the accuracy of that generalization as it is frequently expressed by people trying to score partisan political points two centuries later, and its applicability as a determining factor in all matters of law, in perpetuity, even if it were an accurate parse. If one wants to know what the law is one is best directed to legal precedent–Justice Story’s influential commentaries, Everson v. Board of Education, and the numerous cases which have sought to hammer out the boundaries of state aid to religious schools. “Establishment of religion”, it turns out, is clearly–if not always a clear-cut–something which goes beyond the elevation of a particular sect. The inscriptions on our public monuments are a far less certain guide; thanks, for example, to the Daughters of the Confederacy the credulous tourist would be forgiven for imagining that the South won the Civil War, and that slavery is the common practice from Virginia to the Dakotas.
Todd,
So, if a school teaches something that is in conflict with someone’s religious beliefs (evolution, for example), isn’t that black letter law in violation of the 1st Amendment? After all, the school is saying “You religion is wrong, you must believe what we say to pass the test”.
Either we accept that schools are going to teach things that we disagree with, be it a scientific or religious message, or we must make sure that the only thing schools teach are things that are not disputed by any religion, up to and including the Pastafarians and Jediism.
I don’t think that is the direction we want to go.
Jason: You are changing the argument to a slightly different issue. Generally, govt. can create laws and impose policies that have an effect on religion, as long as it is done for non-religious reasons and has no overt religious effect (or something like that).
An example of this would be the requirement you show your face on a driver’s license. Some muslim women do not show their face in public, but the purpose of the law is not discriminatory against muslims, so it is constitutional.
If this were not the law, I’d believe in any religion that found taxes to be sacreligious, and I’d go to church every week.
Jason,
I do not agree with your analysis and the supreme court does not agree with your analysis. People are freely able to exercise their religion. That does do not mandate state accomodation of religous belief.
In fact, the “accomodation” of religous beliefs that defy accepted science would be specifically be unconstitutional under the Lemon test:
.
The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
Such “accomodation” would be violative of all three prongs of the test.
And one can learn things while disagreeing with them, although in the case of evolution, there is no “disagreeing.” Such a disbeliever chooses ignornace over established science. In America, you have the right to be as dumb as you want. Many Americans to do so publically and with much fanfare.
Paul: “Whether govt. is “officially” religious or not is irrelevant. ” That is the scarriest comment / idea I have heard, even counting the idiocy of the republicants and faux media. If it is officially, then we have the taliban leading us (see Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc). If it is unofficially doing it, then we have hypocrisy and, well, the mess we have in the USA concerning religion and the state. The founders wanted no part of the church of England and its role in the state at the federal level, but some wanted a church role at the state level in state government. And so they let some have their way at the local level, but these official religions gradually gave way to ritual and formality.
Still, these religious views were used to support government (federal and state and local) laws, regulations and policies to discriminate, enslave, and keep the power in the hands of the few, the wealthy, and the white. This is the same reason we have those biblical phrases engraved on govt buildings, currency, and govt rituals. Hyprocrisy.
As illustrated by Jason, the religionists are still trying to make the scientific theory of evolution a religion so they can either get it banned or their religious views accepted into science courses. These people have rejected science and the scientific method and believe the earth is about 7000 years old. You cannot fix stupid. If these people are elected into office and allowed to legislate based on their religious views, we are doomed.
Akla: Your comments are Don Quixote-like, as you are seeing windmills as ferocious giants. The “official” recognition of the U.S. as a non-denominational Christian nation does not turn us into the Taliban any more than being Muslim means you are a terrorist.
Nor does the “unofficial” recognition of our country as a Christian nation mean we are hypocrits. “The Founders” were not one person, and they had different beliefs on ths subject. In fact, let’s look at this website…. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html Note that people had the option of having their taxes converted into a tithe for the church of their choice. That doesn’t sound like a policy we would pursue in the 21st century, does it? The title of this blogpost, that we are “taking our country back to where its never been” just isn’t accurate.
Furthermore, your rant (which I had a feeling was coming and tried to avoid by ignoring your post, includes cheap and pointless puns on Fox News and Republicans, is juvenile, discriminatory, and almost unreadable. We are a nation of men, and are not infallible. Various policies that have been instituted in our 234 years as a nation have certainly been disgusting and revolting, including: slavery, Jim Crow laws, the internment of the Japanese in WW II, lack of women’s suffrage, and so on. That does not mean we cannot attempt, and strive to be a good nation. It also does not mean we cannot be, and are not an imperfect Christian nation.
I have no problem with Jason’s question. I also don’t want creationism taught in the classroom. But that should be a decision of your local school board to decide what they believe is science. Is that what you meant by “these people”? Furthermore, if your biggest issue with a politician is that they might have different ideas about whether a science teacher can spend a day talking about creationism, you should be damned happy.
Paul said: “But that should be a decision of your local school board to decide what they believe is science.”
So if a bunch of people who reject established science get elected to a public school board, they should get to decide what is science and what isn’t? Are you familiar with Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? If so, I take it that you don’t agree with the outcome.
Also, since when does being a Christian mean rejecting established science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Pila:
(1) As I stated, I don’t want creationism taught in the classroom. However, unless I am on the school board, it isn’t my choice. If there is a .01% chance that intelligent design is a possible theory, I think it should be allowed to be taught (that doesn’t mean I think ID is correct). Perhaps Judge Jones has studied it more than I have and concluded differently. But right now, I think that .01 chance exists.
(2) It should be noted that the democratic process worked well in this instance. The Board Members who wanted creationism taught were voted out after the controversy, most likely due to the fact that the board’s beliefs in this matter did not match the beliefs of the population that elected them. I also predict that voter interest in electing the school board of Dover is now significantly higher than in most other jurisdictions.
(3) Being a Christian does not mean rejecting “established” science. I did not mean to suggest otherwise and am not sure why you think I did.
Paul, do you really imagine that 18th century anecdote should trump decades, even centuries, of legal precedent? You might want to consider the answer very carefully before you’re required, for example, to oppose money lending or the regulation of pharmaceuticals, incorporation as a means of limiting personal liability, and to support abortion on demand, without restriction.
By the way, I’m always interested in how people come to imagine that evolution could be stripped from the teaching of biology without destroying biology; it’s like removing the foundation but keeping the house. Or why the same should not be done with geology, paleontology, genetics, and health class, not to mention the social sciences, en masse. (For that matter, you’d imagine that Hoosiers, so profoundly starved for attention that Erik Estrada coming to Muncie is news, would recall that their state’s major contribution to the sciences is having come within a hair’s breadth of legislating pi–because of religious objections to irrational numbers–before suggesting we leave matters of fact to the democratic process.)
As I’ve said before, most creationist I have heard do not say that evolution does not exist. They agree that things evolve. The point they disagree with is that life evolved from hydrogen gas.
In other words, life was created, then it evolved.
Jason,
Evolution does not deal with how life was “created” or began. It deals with what happened after the first organisms emerged. That is my recollection of the matter and what biologists I know tell me.
And my definitiont of a “creationist” is someone that does not accept the evolutionary model. Some are six-day creationists, some believe in so-called “intelligent design.”
Then your definition is incorrect, Todd. A “creationist” can accept the evolutionary model.
Or, what term do you use for people that believe that organisms evolve, but that life did not evolve from a “big bang”? Another term would be needed for those that believe that human life was created, but after creation still evolves. Most 6-day creationists I know if even believe that last sentence.
It is a divisive tactic to lump everyone that does not accept the Big Bang Theory or evolution from single-cells to humans as people who reject the very real and provable occurrence of evolution.
To clarify, we can watch an organism evolve over the course of a few hundred years (when we have had good scientific principals), or even over the course of a decade in cases of crop resistance to RoundUp or antibiotic resistance. We were there at the start of the process and there at the end of the process.
We were not around when humans started standing up. We will never know, absent a time machine, exactly what happened. Science will continue to put pieces together to build a narrative of what the most likely story was of how humans came into existence, but science will not be able to prove that the narrative is correct.
I can agree for calling people idiots when they refuse to believe evidence that is irrefutable, like evidence of antibiotic resistance. However, calling people idiots because they don’t accept a theory presented to them that can never be proven is just uncalled for.
You arguments about evolution being unproveable because it us “unobservable” would by utterly rejected by the established scientific community.
But believe what you want to believe. Just don’t package it as science.
Also, life did not begin with the Big Bang, approximately 13.7 billion years ago. The universe began with the Big Bang. The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Life emerged about 3.8 billion years ago.
This is based upon the best scientific knowledge available, according to what I read.
Doghouse… I disagree with your question. Our country has had a mixed (akla would call it “hypocritical”) relationship with the recognition of Christianity (or at least a single deity religion), throughout our history, and that fact is apparent in our Pledge, coinage, a frieze at the Supreme Court, judicial opinions which mention God, including Supreme Court ones, and so on. So no, I am not “relying on “that 18th century anecdote” to do anything.
I am not even sure which 18th century anecdote you are referring to. The prayer to open Congress? The taxation to go to the church of your choice? The use of the words “God” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence?
This “hypocrisy” is not unusual, as the same people who stated “that all men are created equal” were slaveowners and denied women the right to vote. If people wish to advocate for a less Christian country, they have every right to do so. But let’s not pretend that the evidence is completely one-sided in the matter.
Paul,
You are correct that our coinage, motto, currency, Pledge of Allegiance reference God. However, we must also recognize what courts have said about these references. Aronow v. US from the Ninth circuit upheld such deistic references as
“ha[ving] nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment
of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial
character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental
sponsorship of a religious exercise.
So if we look at these references in the light of Aronow, they are not actually recognitions of a religous heritage. As a practical matter, however, I beleive the court in Aronow recognized that it could not outlaw these expressions and found a somewhat “unique” logical structure to permit such deistic references.
I agree with you to some extent, though, that this country has a Christian heritage, just as a Bosnia and Albania have a Moslem heritage. But in I do not believe that Bosnia and Albania are Moslem nations, just as I cannot conclude that the US is a “Christian” nation.
What so many people can’t grasp intellectually is how we can have a secular Constitution but be a Christian nation.I’ve traveled enough to now that all of western Europe,from the Urals to Brittany is part of western religious thinking,including Soviet Union..all culturally Chistian..The USA is culturally Christian-Judeo,The Judeo part just means we include both New and Old Testaments,which some people dont understand.
How many people have stood( no seating) through an hours long Eastern Russian Orthodox Easter Celebration? That’s religion at it’s most colorful and grueling.But its surely Christian practice.
The USA is unique ,but its not Christianity that made us so. It was
thinkers educated in the European RCC church who brought down church and royalty. In Europe,each country had a different path.
We should thank the RC church for educating our own Revolutionary free thinkers,inspired by the French philosophes in the Age of Reason.The religious political movement in the USA is merely parroting a culture,certainly not teaching people to think.
I love the French! The mostly young crowd fought long and hard in the streets to keep the retirement age at 60,but they lost this time when the French legislature voted..The cause doesn’t count so much as the fighting of the tyranny,but constitutional law wills out in the end.
My original point, which I ended up not making, is that the above thread is an intellectual exchange.That’s lacking in American religious discussion. Right vs wrong,liberal vs conservative is the only context for discussion.