It has become a popular refrain among the religious right that all of our nation's problems exist because there is not enough Christianity in our government and in our schools. If we were only to mandate prayer in schools and arm our teachers with Bibles then certainly all that ails us would be healed. That if only our government were a bit more holy, all of our financial woes would disappear and the hurricanes would cease to blow and the earthquakes would cease to tremble.
The nation of China is currently kicking our proverbial economic behinds and has youth which rank number one in all relevant categories of education. Should we take those facts to mean that China, which is guilty of numerous human rights violations is also holier than thou?
I am a proud unshakeable member of the Christian left, yet I find it amazing that many people refuse to accept this "crazy" notion that government has no role to play concerning religion.
I have a hunch that the same people who believe that this so called recent diversion from God is directly attributable to the present administration in the White House are the same ones who believe that President Obama is deserving of the entirety of blame for the current economic environment.
The present field of Republican presidential candidates includes many disciples of the professor of revisionist history, David Barton. Candidates such as Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry use their conservative Christian beliefs as a very effective tool to obtain votes and campaign donations.
All three have overtly stated their opposition to the separation of Church and State through either their words or their actions.
Utilizing the same methods as David Barton to recreate history and rewrite the Constitution of the United States they have taken to the tactics of Fundamental Christians who must find a way to twist themselves into a pretzel trying to justify supporting someone who believes; a person should die if they don't have health insurance, that state sponsored executions are worthy of hearty applause, or that "real" American Republican Presidential candidates stay silent, sacrificing all decency, honor and integrity, when an audience boos an American soldier who is currently risking his life fighting for our country in Iraq for the sole reason that he is gay.
There are multiple sources of information which Christian conservatives can peruse to justify their fever for theocracy. These sources bend over backwards to push the belief that the Constitution only demands that Government stay out of the Church and not the other way around. They venture to the far reaches of their imagination to suggest that every one of our founding fathers intended that our government be subject to the Christian religion. They simultaneously fail to acknowledge that when the founding fathers had the opportunity to make this desire obvious they chose not to do so.
Unfortunately for them the very first Amendment of the Constitution is nothing but clear that there should be a separation of Church and State. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They shout that it does not say separation of Church and State. Who cares? The intent is obvious and the result is the same.
The Supreme Court has often used the words of our third President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, to help them interpret and enable others to understand the intent of the very first Amendment. Contained in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association from Jefferson were the following words, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Less than ten years after the ratification of the Constitution in the treaty of Tripoli which was initiated by President George Washington, signed by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate were the words,"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."
There was no outrage expressed by the populace and no public debate over the painfully clear intent behind the inclusion of such words. Why were there no protests held? For the simple reason that the fact that we are all free to worship as we choose is something to take pride in. Our forefathers had determined that we should all be free, not just some.
They understood that in order to keep the government out of religion that we must keep religion out of government. You cannot have one without the other.
James Madison is often referred to as the father of the Constitution and we find in the Annals of Congress the following statement from Madison: "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
The thought occurred to me while contemplating the current state of public opinion, how weak and powerless some Christians must feel about our faith that they must task the Government with spreading the message that most of us have learned in our living rooms and in our churches. It was great comfort to me that another signer of the Constitution, Ben Franklin, expressed the same sentiment. "When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
While some Republican conservatives, such as leader Paul Ryan, express devotion to the currently very popular atheist Ayn Rand and her religion of selfishness, to a one they all also kneel at the altar of Ronald Reagan.
Many Republicans conveniently forget the fact that Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, raised taxes many times, orchestrated a substantial reduction in nuclear arms and left the nation in more debt than when he got there.
They will also surely look past what President Reagan had to say about the separation of Church and State, "We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral."
While some may prefer the idealized fiction of David Barton, I prefer the wisdom of Ben Franklin. While some stand behind Michele Bachmann, I shall stand with George Washington. While some look to Rick Perry for guidance, I look to Thomas Jefferson. While some prefer the intolerance of Rick Santorum, I shall enjoy the freedom to worship as I choose guaranteed to me by James Madison.
It is important for all to understand that my opinion in this matter makes me no less a Christian, nor no less an American. I fervently believe in my Christian home and my free nation.
Hoping for a Christian theocracy means you forfeit our democracy which was only created and held together through the tremendous loss of life of many great and brave men.
By mandating that Christianity reign as the sole authority in Washington you will reduce the voice of others to a whisper and will have lost the right to sing the song about the "land of the free."
Follow Dan Bimrose on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danbimrose
You do not feel that matters of faith belong in the schools? You mean things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion? You mean things like those students that voluntarily attend Bible studies on public school campuses, those same students who are learning things such as to love their fellow man, not to steal, not to cheat and to serve others? Just think if these sorts of values spread to the other students. Would we all be in trouble? Obviously we all, Christian or not, would be much better off.
Please do not shoot yourself in the foot and buy into the false notion of seperation of church and state that includes eliminating all Christian religious values and their discussion from the public arena. God bless!
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. They later buttressed this separation with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Wow, you are confused. You cite Barton, Bachmann, Santourum and Perry as having the wrong idea.
Now here is what James Madison says, as cited in your article " "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
What don't you understand about Madison's correct idea that not "one sect" might obtain pre-eminence..." or that "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law"....? Let me explain.
Prayer in schools, prayer before football games, prayer before a session of Congress, etc. and all things Bachmann, Santorum, Barton, Perry, etc. have said and done, have NOTHING to do with one religion or "one sect" as Madison says. Bachmann and all the others you mentioned above are perfectly within their rights to EXPRESS their faith in the political world and anywhere else they please in this great Nation. Please would you excercise your right to cease speaking on this issue until you get your facts straight, and I conclude with the following:........
While some may prefer the idealized fiction of Dan Bimrose, I perfer the wisdom of Ben Franklin. Yes Dan, you are confused. Please reply back. Thank you!
But you must seriously be joking when you say that Bachmann, Santorum, Barton and Perry have said and done NOTHING to do with one religion. Are you kidding me?
I beleieve you misunderstood me. All I am saying is that have had done nothing to violate the establishment clause of the 1st Ammendmendt, meaning the way they express their faith in Christ in the public arena of politics and any other public place or forum, is all within "the free excercise thereof" part of the 1st Ammendmendt. In other words, by expressing themselves in their faith, they obviously are not thereby advocating, nor creating, nor establishing any official State church or religion. Your article obviously implies that they have gone too far in their expression of their faith. You agree that a Pat Robertson can run for President, but do you agree that he is free to express his faith while running, meaning openly praying and or talking about his faith in Christ when he feels necessary?.........
.Also, it is historical fact, as I think you acknowledge, that the majority of our Founders where Christians and did advocate prayer and religious dialouge in the public arena. The Founders also had the wisdom to know the difference that by doing so did not marry a particular religion or Denomniation, to the State, which they were adamantly opposed to, which is referenced in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishnent of A relgion"......Thanks for the response. Please reply back. Thanks Dan!
I believe you misunderstÂood me. I believe you may have got hung up when I stated that "....all things Bachmann, Santorum, Barton, Perry, etc. have said and done, have NOTHING to do with one religion..." I will say they all believe in the same God, Jesus Christ, if that's what you mean by them having something to do with one particular "religion." However, the way they express their faith, obviously has NOTHING to do with establishing that faith as the law of the land, nor is that even their intent. Again, they are merely excercising their Constitutional right "of the free excercise thereof". You agree that a Pat Robertson can run for President, but do you agree that he is free to express his faith while running, meaning openly praying and or talking about his faith in Christ when he feels necessary?Â.........
Also, it is historical fact, as I think you acknowledgÂe, that the majority of our Founders where Christians and did advocate prayer and religious dialouge in the public arena. The Founders also had the wisdom to know the difference that by doing so did not marry a particular religion to the State, a concept which they were adamantly opposed to, and rightfully so, which is referenced in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishmÂent of A religion". Please reply back. Thanks Dan!
I might also note that there were objections to the language in the Tripoli Treaty, but those objections recognized that this was the inevitable result of a Constitution that placed religion outside of government supervision.
I take it you are Atheist? If so, I also take it that you need hard proof in order to believe if something exsists or is true, meaning good scientific data, etc., correct? Have you then explored the entire universe in order to gather all possible evidence or non-evidence, and see for proof positive or not that there is no God, or not?.........Didn't think so...... You have alot of faith to believe that there absolutly is no God.
I sincerely wish that other theists would act as you - this discussion would be unecessary.
All who wish to believe are welcome to their beliefs - enjoy! Just please keep it in your homes and churches - not in our public schools, government and laws - it is devisive and it disenfranchises those citizens that choose not to believe, and those who have other beliefs than the Christian belief system that is being pressed upon us all without regard to whether it's wanted or not.
A theocracy as Dominionists and their Christian followers would have in America would quickly reduce our freedoms to extinction - the framers knew this, that's why the first amendment language is there, and why future interpetations always erred on the side of great caution when religion want's to influence or involve our government.
Total Separation is the best and only way to ensure the maximum freedom for the most Americans.