The United States of Christianity

The last crumbling stones supporting the weakened wall separating Church and State have tumbled to ground. The Bush Administration no longer even pretends to honor the primary founding principle of our country. Religion has dominated Bush's domestic and foreign policies from the start, but now Christianity has become a functioning arm of the federal government.

Bush has determined that he is above secular law, answerable only to god. We learn in a recently-disclosed memorandum, issued by the Department of Justice in 2007 but hidden until now, that King W declared himself able to bypass laws that forbid the use of taxpayer dollars to support religious groups hiring only like-minded faithful. Contemplate for a moment the significance and arrogance of that disdain for the rule of law. In subverting this particular bit of legislation, Bush has removed the last vestiges of secularism from our government. Despite the best efforts of our Founding Fathers, the United States is now officially a Christian Nation.

The memorandum granting Bush these extraordinary powers to topple our Constitution has a bad odor and sour taste but good pedigree in Bush's long war on reason. In a perverted twist of logic, the memo concludes absurdly that even federal programs clearly covered by anti-discrimination laws can fund groups that blatantly discriminate against those who share a different faith. Giving taxpayer dollars to one sect that allows no non-sect members into the club is establishing religion. The First Amendment explicitly and precisely prohibits such acts. But to Bush the Constitution is nothing but old parchment to be ignored at will, whenever convenient.

Listen to the sick arguments made in defense of a deep intrusion of religion into government. Bush granted $1.5 million to World Vision, a group that has an open policy of hiring only fellow Christians. The money comes from a Justice Department program that prohibits the use of funds for any group that uses discriminatory hiring practices. Immediately that would disqualify World Vision from this DOJ pot of tax dollars. Well, then, how did Bush fund World Vision when clearly prohibited by law from doing so? The Justice Department invoked a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows for some exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation if a federal statute would create a substantial barrier to the free exercise of religion. In other words, Bush argued that by not giving $1.5 million to World Vision, the federal government would create a "substantial burden" on that organization's right to practice its religion. Only with complete surrender to faith, and by cutting all ties to logic, could that argument be made palatable. The bizarre conclusion is that the lack of federal dollars itself creates a burden to religious practice.

Bush has inverted the idea of separating Church and State. The default position now is that Church and State are one and the same, and that the two shall be separate only under extraordinary circumstances. Taxpayers must now fund discriminating religious organizations as a normal function of government. If we do not send our money to these organizations, we are preventing them from practicing their religion. By this perversion of our Constitution, anything less than open funding for religion would prohibit the free exercise thereof, destroying the words and meaning of the First Amendment.

Let us be clear about the ramifications here. The pillars on which this amazing country was built have been shaken by a powerful earthquake of anti-secularism. We are becoming ever more like the theocracies of the Middle East we claim to disdain. The logic, impetus, and drive to form these United States into a functioning union are now under attack. We should all tremble in fear as the ground shifts beneath us. Be afraid. Be very afraid for the future of our country. Iran is not a good model for us to follow.

Comments

[rjmiller]

"Bush argued that by not giving $1.5 million to World Vision, the federal government would create a "substantial burden" on that organization's right to practice its religion."

There is a clear difference between the right to act and the ability to act. I have the right to buy a Ferrari, that doesn't mean the government has to pay for it. This needs to be challenged in court.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Another reason why we need a clear majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. All of Bush's actions will go unchallenged without such a majority.

[Zanti]

Fifty percent of businesses don't pay taxes. We, the taxpayers, are footing their bill. Does this upset you as much as World Vision getting $1.5 million?

Just wondering.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

The two issues are different, requiring different responses. One is an objection to how taxes are spent; the other is dissatsfaction with how taxes are collected.

The first addresses the separation of Church and State, and the growing intrusion of religion into secular government, and the use of taxes to support religion. The second issue you raise is the fairness of our tax structure -- how our taxes are collected, rather than spent. I am no fan of current tax law.

[texanna]

First of all, W simply took the perverted logic of SCOTUS that installed him in the office and translated it to this situation. Secondly, there are so many ways that Shrub has perverted our government that one hardly knows where to start to right the wrongs. Third, this is exactly why I was so alarmed at Obama's pandering to the theocrats earlier in the campaign, when he asserted that he wanted to expand the role of faith-based initiatives. I was surprised and appalled that a former professor of constitutional law would make such a statement. It's clear to me that the effort that progressives have put in to this election are going to have to continue if we are going to keep our representatives on the course we've set. Given history, though, I suspect that most will go away from the polls with their "I voted" stickers self-satisfied and that will be the end of it for them.

[Zanti]

Texanna,

I hate to break it to you, but our government doesn't exist to serve progressives--it exists to serve everyone. No wonder so many progs are annoyoed by neocon dominance--YOU want to be the dominant force. They've taken your slot.

But we're a democracy. A representative democracy. That means everyone.

I hate neocon rule, too, but I don't fancy replacing it with something just as narrowly focused and self-serving. To wit, I'm tired of hearing the same ol' us-vs.-them talk, regardless of who's talking it. I wish progs and neocons would get over themselves and wake up to the fact (okay, ideal) that we're the form of government Lincoln spoke of--a government for everyone.

That's the greatness of democracy. We've yet to get there, but at the moment we're sure straying dangerously from the vision, whether it's the far right or far left trying to seize the reins.

[feo]

When you have a Pledge of Allegience written with the same poetic cadence as the Lord's Prayer, you should expect problems. Religious nonsense is embedded in everything we do. Why else do we not only have "chaplains" in the military, they are made officers by virtue of the fact that they promote some credo endorsed by the state?

[drut]

The conservatives claim they love freedom. Thats crap. They want to invite the government into the home to 'help' with the most personal and intimate decisions anyone can ever make. How is that representative of freedom? I am so sick and tired of the religious right sliming its way into my everyday life- no reasoning, no original thinking, and the beleif that they know more about subjects like biology or geology than a scientist with a PhD because they read their bible. Pharmacy workers use religion to excercise discrimination and over rule a doctors prescrption thanks to the religous facists. This nonsense has got to stop. The church needs to stay focused on their own business on Sunday and leave the rest of us alone.

[Dave24]

The First Amendment is beautiful. It isn't followed, but it's beautiful nonetheless.

[Zanti]

I'm sorry, but the Constitution forbids the formation of a state church. And it forbids any requirement for membership in same. That's it.

What you're describing, while unethical, hardly amounts to the establishment of a state church. And a theocracy, as a form of government, goes way beyond the mere presence of a state church. So we're about as close to becoming a theocracy as we are to establishing trade routes with Martians.

Our founders knew that freedom of religion depended on diversity thereof. And they may have guessed (correctly) that diversity of religion would prevent any possibility of a central church. To wit, what would that central church be? Its beliefs? Its name? Who would head it?

Put any four mega-church celebrities (like Rod Parsley) in a room together, try to get them to agree on a single detail regarding the coming theocracy, and watch what happens. Lots of nit-picking over tiny details, disagreement over who will be represented, and how, and so on. I guarantee you that each leader will want HIS vision of a theocracy to serve as the model. Which could cause some slightly massive issues, no?

What is our state church? The Church of Christianity? Which, among the zillions of readings of the Bible, will serve as the foundation for our theocratic rule? Since these things are already here, you only need point to them. Unless they're not already here.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Establishing religion, and establishing a State Church are not synonymous. The language, meaning and intent of the First Amendment are clear, and Bush has violated the letter and purpose of the law.

[quadman]

Jeff,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Which denomination has been established by Congress? Which denominations have recently been denied their ability to exercise their religion?

Unfortunately, your authority is tainted by the fact that your writings are tinged with not-so-subtle scorn for religion.

Sorry, but NO religion has been 'established' by Congress despite your attempts to twist words to suggest it.

[lthuedk 1]

Fundi religion may bring the Republican Party to the brink as surely as it's embrace of Neoconservatism.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/darwins_twofer.html

[Zanti]

"Establishing religion, and establishing a State Church are not synonymous."

Yes, they are! Sorry, but that's the standard reading of the clause.

And even if we go with the more abstract theme of "establishing religion," no religion has been established as our official religion because Bush caters to conservative Christians, any more than the endless taxpayer-funded perks to big oil makes our form of government an oil-ocracy.

While nothing will ever drive me to the right, this business of demonizing religion and the religious is really straining my relationship with the left. Still, we're way better than the right, save for select areas of bigotry. We remain the lesser of two evils, by far.

[davism97]

The lack of comments to your article is a clear indication of why the evangelicals have such a firm grip on our country (if you wrote about Paris Hilton this article would have over 100 comments by now). I'm surrounded on all sides in my life by evangalicals. They absolutely can't be reasoned with.

Those of us who value reason and logic know the evangelical movement will eventually discredit itself through it's narrowmindedness and ignorance, but they have the power to take the U.S. down with them. If George Washington were alive today he would be ashamed of his country.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Could just be my bad writing is not inspiring enough outrage. I wish your conclusion were true, but I fear that ignorance is too strong an enemy to be conquered. All we can do is keep it at bay with constant effort.

[davism97]

Maybe we should hold off pressing the panic button until Obama gets settled into his new (white) house. Surely he would make it a priority to fix the Constitution that Bush and Cheney have seen fit to wipe their @$$es with. Obama actually understands and respects the Constitution (a novel concept for a politician these days), so I'm willing to place a little faith in the man.

I just can't help thinking that the religious conservative right is setting itself up for a massive crash. Nobody rides the dragon for very long without getting burned...

[PDinCA]

No, the lack of comments is because you said it all. :)

[MajorKong]

"I would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian." - Martin Luther

[zanzig]

King George III lost America for the English, King George 43 has lost it for the Americans.

[Lewes]

Nothing in our history has caused more decisiveness, war and death (or should I say murder) than the differences of our religious views. Our founding fathers had the forsight to see that freedom of religion goes hand in hand with freedom FROM religion. it has no place in our government or it's policies. Of course neither does George Bush

[proreality]

The Bush administration motto "how many ways to break the law, let me count the ways" This country needs a serious house cleaning. Now all the religious right whack jobs can claim that Obama is trying to target, destroy and persecute christians when he repeals these foul practices. These people have completely destroyed any resemblance of a free society and the rule of law. The very cleaning that needs to be done to put this country back on track will now be countered by the GOP hate machine as "see we told you so" the liberals are at war against real america, just by trying to return this country to the rule of law. When are these people going to go to jail?

[lwfky]

These people have caused me to lose all faith, and I resent that more than I can say.

[DEFIANCE]

I hope the people who read this can appreciate the negative impact this has on all people, all Americans, including those who believe and follow the teachings of Christ.

It is very important in order to combat these atrocities effectively that we do not group all people of faith in with those who distort religion to further power and greed. People of all beliefs and all faiths (including atheists) are endangered by these actions and should be allied against them.

I am not saying that this author is painting people of faith with the same brush as the Bush administration, but I have seen far to many commentators in other posts be too quick to attack people of faith in response to the likes of Bush and Palin. That is not right either.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

I am attacking the intrusion of religion into our secular government, and all the dangers that ensue.

Concerning your other point, Bush and Palin do not represent all people of faith of course, but they represent some non-trivial number who share their beliefs. They represent intolerance, perpetrated in the name of faith. Sadly, millions of Americans fall in that category, where they confound religion with patriotism, and faith with xenophobia.

[slg]

You become what you fear and hate. That's the power of the Dark Side.

[deliriousgod]

what if the principle tenets of your religion are discrimination and intolerance and federal and state laws prevent you from the free expression of your religion through Cross-burnings and decorating Jewish cemeteries with swastikas? Huh? See...got you there. Match point set touchdown. You have to give hate groups federal money if they call themselves a religion.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

The dangers of inserting religion into government are easy to see; all we need do is look at Iran. Our forefathers for good reason created a government based on the rule of law rather than faith in god; those two human endeavours of faith and governance do not mix well.

[deliriousgod]

but its so much easier if you can just do whatever you believe and it doesn't have to pass any other test than that. The Road to Theocracy is paved with Good Intentions.

[txbluedot]

Thanks, Jeff. You have hit the nail on the head again. And why do people insist on saying this country was founded on Christianity, when the Founding Fathers clearly intended to separate Church & State? Here's a quote from Jefferson:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom