McCain and the Godless Constitution

Recently John McCain--whose presidential campaign is in the sewer--declared that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." What an ignoramus! McCain should go back to school and take Civics 1, where he might learn that the United States Constitution was called "the godless constitution," by its opponents, because it was the first constitution in history not to include references to God or some dominant religion. The Constitution mentions religion only once, in prohibiting any religious test for holding office under the United States.

The Bill of Rights mentions religion twice, once in prohibiting an establishment of religion (a clear reference to any branch of Protestant Christianity, which was then the dominant religion) and a second time, in guaranteeing the free exercise of all religions. Several years after the ratification, the Senate ratified a treaty with the Barbary regime of Tripoli which expressly proclaimed that "the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." In fact, many of our Founding Fathers, including the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, were not Christians but rather were deists. In other words, they believed in the existence of God, but not in the divinity of Jesus or the divine authorship of the bible. Today they might be called Unitarians; in fact, John Adams, another author of the Declaration, and the President under whom the treaty was ratified, is buried in a Unitarian church, along with his wife Abigail and his son John Quincy.

Roger Williams--the religious leader most responsible for separating church and state in America--put it very well a century earlier: "no civil state or country can be truly called Christian, although the Christians be in it." That is what is so striking about American history, namely, that a nation of Christians ratified a Constitution that did not in any way establish "the United States as a Christian nation." We are in fact the most diverse nation in the history of the world and that is the secret of our success. McCain may prefer to vote for someone who "has a solid grounding in [his] faith," namely, Episcopalianism (though he is apparently thinking of changing his faith to Baptism), but in doing so, he is violating the spirit of our Constitutional prohibition against requiring a religious test for the holding of office in our diverse country.

Comments

[laocoon]

I think God likes it that we prohibit the establishment of a religion and allow religious freedom. Doing so keeps Caesar out of the temple. Doing so keeps the government from interceding between God and man. In ancient Israel prophets would often be killed by the people. by insisting that "church" and state be separate it becomes less likely that we would do so in this country. if your religion is true it should win out without resort to government prompting and assistance.

[KerwinMcLaughlin]

I think people confuse seperation of church and state from elimination of church from state. The Declaration of independence mentions a Creator and Nature's God.

These christian sentiments have made this the most powerful country on earth. People talk about our differences being our strength, diversity and the great melting pot. Yet, people want to come from places they didn't like and the first thing they want to do is make America more like the place they didn't like.

Go figure!

[Egyptsteve]

how is a reference to a "creator" and "nature's god" a Christian sentiment??? Why not Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan, or any other religion???

[waiguoren]

Amazing that Dersh misspeaks about the Constitution when he says religion is mentioned only "once."

Check again: Religion is mentioned three times, including the "no establishment" clause.

[LeoMarvin]

What's amazing is how often commenters criticize a post apparently without reading all of it.

He said that religion was mentioned once in the Consitution and twice more in the Bill of Rights. As I assume (hope) you know, the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses are in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, not the main body of the Constitution.

[RickO]

THere absolutely IS a religious test for running for office in the country. Can you imagine an admitted agnostic or atheist ever making any progress in a race for high office? You definitely must have an imaginary friend if you want to be president, and it needs to be the right one...you know, the fair-haired blue-eyed English-speaking Jesus, the one whose dad is the republican from the district of Heaven.

Presidential campaigns are scuttled over matters about as important as the names of Santa's reindeer.

[Zanti]

The religious right has done its best to create precisely that false stereotype of Christianity. If we buy into it, we're sort of letting them win.

That's my take, anyway. We can fight them by refusing to accept their shallow version of religion and faith.

[Doofus]

The American political system (embodied in
the Declaration of Independence, the US
Constitution & Bill of Rights) is undoubtedly
the culminating result of the Age of Enlightenment,
which is a substantially christian, liberal 'intellectual
movement' of 18th century Europe.

Calling it an 'intellectual movement' doesn't
really do it justice, for US, as it is really
the basis for our culture. There is much more
to it than simply insisting it's 'deist' & 'secular'.

By constantly harping on our 18th century
origins, we are locked in a past defined by
our F-F's, which we don't quite understand.
The nations of Europe, by comparison, from
the very same roots, have moved on to become
modern, 'socialist' states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

[ThePlumber]

The TRUE father of our Constitution was John Locke. In Locke's "First Treatise", he laid the biblical foundations for individual liberty, equal rights, private property, etc.

In his "Second Treatise", he established enumerated powers, checks and balances, etc.

Dershowitz is right that some of the Founders were diests, but there is no doubt that without the Bible, modern ideas of tolerance and pluralism may have never found their way into Law.

[Chalkeater]

The right wing doesn't just want God in government, they want Jesus.

The "Father of the Constituti­on." James Madison also believed strongly in the separation of church and state -

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State"(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

[Balzac]

Right on Mr. Derschowitz!

[charlietuna11]

i never thought it would happen in my life time,but alan wrote an article i agree with.hope it happens again but i wouldnt bet on it.whats that old saying,even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[ControlledBurn]

There is good reason why the Founders made sure to stress that the U.S. was not a Christian nation, most of them were Freemasons and therefore worship Lucifer (not Satan, learn the difference).

If you don't believe that just look at the Masonic symbols on the dollar bill. They aren't there by accident.

[GoodwithWood]

This one is split 50/50 as to wether it is real or a parody.

[dadw5boys]

President H.W. BUSH change that in March of 1991 when he signed the PUBLIC BILL 102-14.
The Bill was DISGUISED as an Education Bill in fact made the USA a Jewish State.
My Government declared me as being JEWISH 16 years ago and I only found out this week.
What have I miss at Temple over 16 years?
Will Begals taste good with Collard Greens and Fat Back?
Where can I buy a Used Tora?

[outnow]

Alan,

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. McCain is not the man we thought he was. As soon as he started signing, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran," he discredited himself for me. He bombed people in Vietnam. Once per customer, I always say.

You aren't signing that tune, are you?

I always had great respect for you as a champion for civil liberties but lately you seem to be representing a certain zealous religious group that crosses the line into politics. What is it that you are preaching?

Can't we just get past the myth that a little man up there is going to fix things down here on planet Earth. We would all be better off if we were to seek justice for all while we are here. If there's a God, then he will be happy that we treated each other with respect and sought justice for all.

Thanks, Alan.

[Zanti]

"Today they might be called Unitarians­."

Or mainline Christians, since that happens to be the mainline Protestant position. And has been for at least half a century.

"The Bill of Rights mentions religion twice, once in prohibiting an establishment of religion (a clear reference to any branch of Protestant Christianity, which was then the dominant religion) and a second time, in guaranteeing the free exercise of all religions.­"

Correct--which lays waste to the misconception that the C. and the Bill of Rights are secular, i.e. irreligious, documents. No document that guarantees freedom of religion is secular. It is, by definition, neither secular NOR religious. Neutral, I think is the word.

Then again, the Democratic party has grown so anti-middle, it's no wonder neutrality doesn't register as a concept anymore.

" McCain may prefer to vote for someone who 'has a solid grounding in [his] faith,' namely, Episcopalianism (though he is apparently thinking of changing his faith to Baptism), but in doing so, he is violating the spirit of our Constitutional prohibition against requiring a religious test for the holding of office in our diverse country."

You're offering a play on words--we're talking about McCain's own, private test, and thus it doesn't violate the spirit of that prohibition. The Founding Fathers did not intend to stifle such expressions of faith (or faith preference, whatever). They very much were trying to do the opposite.

Surely, there are REAL issues to get angry over. McCain has a right to his faith, even if he hasn't been totally clear about it. Even if he flip-flops. Let the other side hound people for such inconsistency; don't we have better things to do?

[TruthOarConsequences]

Zanti,

You state that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not secular because they offer freedom of religion. However, the Constitution also offers us the separation of church from government. This pretty much defines a secular country unless you think that Russia with its laws that prevent the official forming of religions, even though it does happen, is an example of a secular country.

It is inherit in the freedom of religion that your religion can be ANYTHING, Satanism, Buddhism, Santeria, Christian, Jewish, Islam, etc. etc. even freedom FROM religion, which also insinuates a secular government.

Where McCain states that he prefers someone from his own faith as the leader of our Country because it was founded on Christian principles he is wrong on two counts. One, the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for the holding of office, which means that the best qualified candidate to lead our country should be the one voted for. Two, this Country was founded on the freedome FROM religion as the pilgrims set off to America to form a government where religion was not the dominate theme. However, no government has been dominate in this world where NO religion was allowed, so our wonderful founders came up with the PERFECT solution. Religion would not be allowed within government on any offical level, however, individuals would be free to practice ANY religion they saw fit. So, I say to John McCain, that the United States was founded on the Freedom of AND from religion. While he is free to vote for a Christian, he would be wrong to vote for one if he was not representing the majority of American citizens whose values he also holds.

MyKull…

[Zanti]

" However, the Constitution also offers us the separation of church from government­."

It sure does. And it does so to ensure freedom of (and from) religion. A document that deals with religion in such a brilliant and unprecedented way is NOT a secular document.

And, no, freedom from religion doesn't insinuate a secular government. This is nothing but word play on your part, because you're actually referring to freedom of choice. And freedom of choice implies more than one. The documents in question, by not dictating choice, are acting in neither a pro nor con manner, but in a neutral fashion.

Therefore, when secularists insist the C. favor their views, they're wrong. When religionists make the same claim for their side, they're equally wrong.

"One, the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for the holding of office, which means that the best qualified candidate to lead our country should be the one voted for."

What?? Do you honestly think the C. is forbidding us to use any "test" that we, as INDIVIDUAL VOTERS, choose to hold a candidate to? In reality, if we choose to vote for someone because he's tall, rich, and male (the reasons that inspire most Americans at the polls), no one's going against the Constitution. Or the Bill of Rights.

The collective will of the people is represented only when everyone is free to vote via his own "tests."

"While he is free to vote for a Christian, he would be wrong to vote for one if he was not representing the majority of American citizens whose values he also holds."

I was under the impression that, when we go to the polls to vote, we are doing so as private citizens. Regardless of who we may be in "real" life. That's the beauty of the vote--one vote (at least in theory) doesn't count more than the other. In principle, my vote is as powerful as the president's. Or a CEO's. The ballot doesn't know who I am (or shouldn't).

[JohnJames]

Well, duh, McCain isn't interested in the Constitution or the fussy faggotty Founding Fathers with their queer Enlightenment ideals. He's making a desperate grovel for the yahoo vote.

[Doofus]

Even the Founding Fathers would not admit to
a single atheist among their membership.

I'd like to think there must have been one or two.

What is it to be 'Judeo-Christian' anyway?

You have to wonder if any of the F-F's were
among such a group either.