Separation of Church and State
Amendment I (1791)
Original Text
"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."
Explanation
"The first ten amendments comprise the Bill of Rights. The first amendment protects religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of an official or exclusive church or sect. Free speech and free press are protected, although they can be limited for reasons of defamation, obscenity, and certain forms of state censorship, especially during wartime. The freedom of assembly and petition also covers marching, picketing and pamphleteering."
Article VI
Original Text
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Explanation
'State and federal officials, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, must take an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution. No religious test, either an avowal or a repudiation of any religious belief, shall ever be required of any public
officeholder in the United States."
QUOTES
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death".
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion".
"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 and the State."
a.k.a. 'The Father of the Constitution of the United States of America'
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
“The appeals court has reaffirmed both common sense and the Constitution, No American should enter a courthouse and feel like an outsider because he or she does not share the judge’s religious beliefs. No judge should be free to use his or her power over people’s lives to subject them to his personal religious proselytizing.”
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
"Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the interests of each, subversive of human rights and potentially persecuting in character; to oppose union, lawfully and honorably, is not only the citizen’s duty but the essence of the Golden Rule–to treat others as one wishes to be treated."
"The bloody rise of theological politics in the Islamic world, and especially in Iraq, reminds us how rare and fragile an achievement the separation of church and state really is."
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."
The following 5 quotes come from the
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .”
— Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
— Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.
“Almost all human beings have an infinite capacity for taking things for granted.”
— Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World.
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)
About the First Amendment ~ FirstAmendmentCenter.org
"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."
The First Amendment was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms.
Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.
When the U.S. Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, it did not contain the essential freedoms now outlined in the Bill of Rights, because many of the Framers viewed their inclusion as unnecessary. However, after vigorous debate, the Bill of Rights was adopted. The first freedoms guaranteed in this historic document were articulated in the 45 words written by James Madison that we have come to know as the First Amendment.
The Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, when the state of Virginia ratified it, giving the bill the majority of ratifying states required to protect citizens from the power of the federal government.
The First Amendment ensures that "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein," as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.
And as Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that "debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
However, Americans vigorously dispute the application of the First Amendment.
Most people believe in the right to free speech, but debate whether it should cover flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, hate speech, pornography, nude dancing, solicitation and various forms of symbolic speech. Many would agree to limiting some forms of free expression, as seen in the First Amendment Center's State of the First Amendment survey reports.
Most people, at some level, recognize the necessity of religious liberty and toleration, but some balk when a religious tenet of a minority religion conflicts with a generally applicable law or with their own religious faith. Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but decry the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.
Further, courts wrestle daily with First Amendment controversies and constitutional clashes, as evidenced by the free-press vs. fair-trial debate and the dilemma of First Amendment liberty principles vs. the equality values of the 14th Amendment.
Such difficulties are the price of freedom of speech and religion in a tolerant, open society.
NEWS & INFORMATION
It was announced that our six- year anniversary is coming up soon.
Our next meeting on July 9 will be on the topic of "The Psychology of Religion-Research on Religiosity, Fundamentalism, and Atheism" to be presented by Luke Galen, Assistant Professor of Psychology at GVSU and FAoWM member.
That day- July 9- will also be our next board meeting, with further discussion on long term planning. It will commence at 5:30PM, prior to the 7PM regular meeting. All members are welcome to attend.
An update to the schedule of meeting topics is the July 23 meeting where Renu Malhotra and Fred Stella, of the Interfaith Dialogue Association will present "The Philosophy of Vedanta." Other changes and updates are noted in the schedule sheet available at meetings and can be seen online at our website.
Our topic for this meeting was "Why the Religious Right is Wrong about Separation of Church and State" and was presented by special guest speaker, Rob Boston, of the Washington based church and state watchdog group, Americans United for Separation of Church & State. He is the author of a book by the same title as this presentation's as well as Close Encounters with the Religious Right and Pat Robertson: The Most Dangerous Man in America? He was flown in by FAoWM for this timely presentation, especially in our current climate where Jefferson's "wall of separation" is regularly besieged and eroded.
He began with items from the news from abroad and then here in the U.S. It was noted that in countries where there is a state sponsorship of religion, the clergy tend to become more complacent. One cleric from Denmark, who asserted that God does not exist could not be fired because he was a state employee. Religious practices are more likely to become merely ceremonial with citizens going through the motions for tradition's sake. In one country where 85% of the population belongs to the State church only 5% attend regularly. Many Europeans scratch their heads over why so many Americans listen to TV preachers. Far from weakening religiosity, as the Religious Right asserts, our Constitutional separation of government from religion has made our country the most religious industrialized nation, with more diversity of faiths, vibrant expression and freedom to flourish than anywhere else on the planet. We have also the liberty to not participate in any faith community and, officially at least, no religious test for public office (see Article VI of the Constitution). Houses of worship have no governmental oversight and members are free to practice their faith in the manner they choose and since no faith group is favored over another by the government, they may all fade or bloom by dint of their own efforts, neither impeded nor sponsored by the State.
In articles Boston brought regarding items in the news from the U.S., there were examples of the erosion of science education due to the efforts to get Creationism into the classroom or water down the scientific theory of evolution, the wearing away of individual rights and most germane to this discussion, the assault on religious freedom by the Religious Right via ongoing attempts to wed our secular government to their personal religious beliefs. That is an important point: it is not an attempt to empower religion per se-there is no desire in the Religious Right for Taoism or Islam or Buddhism, for instance, to thrive, but rather to give special favor to Christianity and in general the Protestant sects-especially the more Fundamentalist varieties-to hold sway over our citizenry.
Boston took pains to counter the myth that being opposed to the Religious Right's agenda is somehow anti-religious or anti-American. Quite the opposite, in fact, since keeping government from meddling in religious activity only serves to make for a robustly liberated religious populace. And since our Bill of Rights contained in our American Constitution-the supreme law of the land-is what Church- State separationists defend and uphold, it could scarcely be any more pro-American. He also noted that many religious leaders are beholden to these central laws and are deeply committed to ensuring their survival. Also, while the Religious Right has concentrated almost exclusively on making major inroads into the GOP, those staunch Republicans who want less governmental intrusion into private affairs, among some other stripes along the spectrum of this political party, are also strong supporters of a decoupling religious faith from state and federal governance.
Some specific separation-eroding activities spearheaded by our current administration were mentioned, including the controversial "Faith - based Initiatives." This is clearly unconstitutional in that it favors and funds certain private sects with public tax money. Likewise, school vouchers are a way to get public monies into the coffers of private and religious schools. It is misleadingly touted as providing an improved educational environment for disadvantaged, poorer students, and given euphemistic labels such as "choice" but since these schools retain their ability to discriminate against any student for any reason as to admissions, participation or expulsion, and since the costs not covered by vouchers still exceeds what poor families can typically afford and these students have further burdens of transportation and other peripheral challenges, there really is little validity to these arguments of assistance to the downtrodden. There is also no empirical evidence of these schools performing better, even though they can select from the "cream of the crop" and are not required to deal with special educational or behavioral challenges. And they can be exempt from governmental oversight, testing or other ways of determining success and they do not have to work against constricting budgetary impediments or follow strict guidelines for instruction.
Other faith-based service providers can likewise, under the Faith- Based Initiative, take government money while refraining from operating under the provisions of our secular government. They can discriminate against who they hire, have operations (in some cases) that are little more than Bible study groups and force service recipients to participate as captives for their religious proselytizing-yet still get public money from a government that supposedly operates to uphold the Constitution, which does not allow for these practices by those receiving such funding. It forces everyone to support sectarian agencies regardless of their personal beliefs and backgrounds.
The Religious Right push for such mergers of public support for private entities makes no more sense than getting money from your neighbors to finance your private library, especially when a public one is available. And (unconstitutionally) taking more money out of the already fiscally restricted public funds for the benefit of sectarian services, is likewise to the detriment of established public ones. While there is no evidence that faith-based services and institutions do a better job than their public, secular counterparts, the drawing away of funds from the latter makes for an ever harder, more challenging way to go for them. If they were serious about improving education and other public services for the greater society, the Religious Right would invest in and commit to those providers who serve the bulk of the nation, rather than leeching away resources and then lambasting them for the consequences of these actions.
Specific individuals were also mentioned. One who has gotten a good deal of media attention is chief justice for the supreme court of the state of Alabama, Roy Moore. He became the darling of the Religious Right by his insinuation of hand carved Ten Commandments displays in courts of law and a huge stone one in the Justice Building of the city of Montgomery. In public legal institutions where all who are served are to be treated equally, having religious symbols of one group only automatically reduces to second- class citizenry all other groups and individuals who enter them. It even cheapens Christianity for the very devout who adhere to the symbols on display (crosses, the Decalogue, etc.) sincerely. Such matters of private, personal faith and conviction made into kitsch and garish displays, is anathema to such individuals. Like the insistence by some to have loud public announcement prayers at sporting events (which incidentally is in defiance of Jesus' own prohibition against public, showy prayer), this is mostly a means to bully and make a power play over others.
The Decalogue is defended by the Religious Right for being displayed in the public legal realm because it is asserted to be the foundation for our American system of laws. However, the commandments dealing with not stealing or murdering, for instance are universal-not an American phenomenon. Others are flatly opposed to our secular and religiously neutral laws of the nation, which does not hold that its citizens believe in any god or gods, or forbid the making of "graven images" (ummm, isn't the two-ton stone Decalogue erected by Moore a good example of flouting this prohibition?) or view women as the chattel property of men or recognize an official national Sabbath. That there is more than one version of this listing of commandments is also problematic in its exclusion of denominations that hold to a differing version. This was at issue in mandatory Bible recitations in public schools too, where some aspects of different faith's Bibles were at odds with each other.
The supreme document of our country is the Constitution, which to the dismay of the Religious Right is thoroughly secular. There is no mention of God or even any vague Deistic reference to a higher power, Jesus or Christianity in it anywhere to be found. The Jeffersonian/ Madisonian models of non-establishment of religion, intrinsic separation of government from religion and rights and liberties of all people to practice their faith without intrusion, suppression or sponsorship are some of the foundations of the nation. The myth that we were founded as a Christian Nation, as promulgated by the Religious Right continually, has absolutely no basis in Constitutional law or the thinking and writings of the Founders. And then there is that pesky Treaty with Tripoli where it was officially stated in flat, direct terms that our country was not founded as a Christian Nation.
The insinuation of "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" on our money and Pledge of Allegiance, respectively, are treated, Boston quipped, as if they were hammered in directly by the Founders upon inception of our country. In fact, these were reactions to the fear of "godless Communism" and other factors and didn't take place until the 1950's. There are also remarks and documents that support the "Christian Nation" ideas, but these are on the periphery, with little or no power, flatly overturned, or disregarded and embarrassing. The Northwest Ordinance is held up, for example, by the Religious Right for its wording as if it has the same central role in our government as the U.S. Constitution. Boston observed that in the 19th century, fundamentalist clerics bemoaned the godless nature of the Constitution and strove to amend it to make references to God and Christianity. Now, however, the spiritual descendants of these people are making wild distortions to somehow hallucinate such meaning into the same document.
Our Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms benefit everyone and therefore under the right circumstances everyone is a strong Church- State separationist. When it is your own personal faith beliefs that others seek to infringe upon, you do not want the Government giving official sanction and blessing to those who oppress your religious practices. While many people have known extreme prejudice and religious suppression in this nation, it is the application of our secular principles and over riding Constitutional law that has remedied these wrongs. And while the majority religion may be free to dominate other faiths (and people of no faith) in the Religious Right's dreams and fantasies, there is no guarantee that there's will be the dogma in ascendance always. Christianity, being a religion with vast splinterings, sects, and doctrinal differences, does not lend itself well, anyway, to being a single monolithic national religion…which brand of Christianity is to achieve headship as the governing law of the land? Like creationism, where there is no central defining theory and Young Earthers, Old Earthers, Intelligent Design adherents, Day-Agers, etc. all having disparate, highly emotionally charged worldviews, the Religious Right either does not understand or does not perceive the problems inherent in their strategy to make manifest a truly Christian nation.
With the increase in non-Christian faiths in our country and "do-it-yourself" spiritual groups, not tied to any specific religion, on the upswing, it becomes ever more a contentious issue when one religion tries to link itself with the powers of the State. It becomes, in fact, a recipe for major disaster. Do the Religious Right leaders believe there would be a smooth transition in their becoming the State religion, or do they see it as part of the Endtimes scenario…there is certainly a great deal of war rhetoric to be seen in the writings and speeches of Religious Right leadership. The harshest subspecies of the Religious Right is undoubtedly the Reconstructionists, or Dominionists, who make no bones about their plans to refashion the United States into that of the Middle East during biblical times and have a belief in a draconian system of punishment for a whole suite of behaviors, including what they see as "sins" (worship of "false gods" etc) and defiance of one's parents, among other things that are thankfully not under the scope of American jurisprudence, but would be Bible Law that all would be subjected to in their vision of America. It would be an error to magnify the numbers of this branch of the Religious Right, but just as the more mainstream R. Rt. has made significant inroads into the weft and weave of the Republican party, the more radical extremist versions of this group are also influential beyond their numbers into the main body of Religious Right. Just as there are "stealth candidates" with an extreme agenda for public offices, the more extremist groups in the Religious Right also cloak their goals and agendas that would be unacceptable to moderates and others while forming bridges and links within the larger party.
Exposure is the chief weapon against the more extreme groups. The majority of Americans, even among strong conservatives, do not hold to the views espoused by them. Speaking to our group directly, Boston said that it is now the freethinkers' turn to demand their rights. Even though firmly in the shadow of Christianity for size, the non-religious has numbers far exceeding that of other minority religions who have demanded their rights. And we do not have to go it alone. The Religious Right agenda runs against the rights of all minority groups and women. Groups can gather around the central unifying theme of equal protection as granted in Constitutional law that the Religious Right wants to dismantle.
Weapons mentioned by the Assistant Communications director for Americans United included learning our American history better and accessing groups such as his, the ACLU and others for assistance, guidance and support. Also mentioned was becoming more involved politically and/or supporting those who speak for you. The Religious Right coined the phrase "15% Solution", knowing that they did not have to change the hearts and minds of a majority of eligible voters but had only to target a small percentage of people who agreed with them and ensure that they get to the polls on election days. Voter apathy is one of the main reasons a minority group that is well organized and funded can get a disproportionate foothold in policy planning and agenda setting for larger society.
He also spoke of supporting public education and not allowing the censorship, book banning, and dumbing down of quality science education and other practices of the Religious Right. And he talked about writing letters to the editor. This portion of the newspaper is one of the highest read of the entire paper. When the false accusations and statements and revisionist history of the Religious Right go unchallenged and are all that are seen by the reader, it becomes a matter of fact for them. Grassroots is where the power has to come from, he contended. Some 70% of support for the Religious Right comes from fewer than 1000 very wealthy donors!
While in his talk, Boston had a message of the dire times we live in now, he ended on a positive note. Gradually, over time, there is progress. The Constitution and vision of the Framers has stood the test of time and weathered many storms. Rights cannot be removed from a previously free people too far before there is backlash.
In the Q&A portion we had a lively discussion. It was mentioned how the Unitarians are often socially and politically active in areas oppositional to the Far Right agenda. There was talk of how the Religious Right is hijacking the more moderate camps and going under the guise of speaking for Christianity to be seen as a positive force for truth justice and the American way.
Since Religious Right organizations operate legally in many operations, we need to be more assertive in employing those same strategies. They are free to donate books to libraries, for instance-and they do. We should provide an alternative. It was mentioned in this regard that people of minority religions and non-believers do not missionize or proselytize as a rule and that the "opposition" so to say is very vocal and fraught with the zeal of the black and white thinker who believes his crusade is a holy one. We discussed, too, items on the Religious Right agenda but not technically related to them, publicly, such as abstinence programs.
In talking about public gatherings where prayer is given at the beginning, it was noted that since, legally, they have to permit all forms of prayer, Wiccans and other minority groups can demand to lead with their prayers. Since this is awkward for the majority, they sometimes back down. As has been mentioned in other FAoWM minutes, those who want to force prayer in school, would be appalled if the students were directed to sit on mats and face Mecca and pray to "Allah." There were many other items mentioned but one that gives pause in particular is that the "Roadmap to Peace" outlined by the Administration is based on the Bible with boundaries as laid out in that text. It is a frightening thought to realize that current complex geopolitical decisions are being made based on Revelations.
Secretary: Charles LaRue
"To our ancestors, what mattered above all else was freedom, even if the results of that freedom were not what everyone hoped for and anticipated. In other words, even if the result of a constitutional prohibition against federal assistance and regulation of religion was that no churches were built, or the poor had no churches to attend, or that rich people refused to donate to the churches, or that there were unscrupulous ministers, or that everyone rejected God and religion, those were consequences with which they could live. Even if every one of those consequences materialized, our ancestors would not have reversed their position against federal involvement in religious activity."
Of course, as history has shown, their decision to separate church and state not only produced religious freedom — that is, freedom from the federal government — it also produced a wondrous outcome in which there are hundreds of thousands of churches and countless religious activities for both rich and poor alike, all voluntarily funded and self-regulated. And those who don’t believe in God or who reject religious activity are free to follow their convictions as well."
"What we need more than ever in this country at this point in our history is a rebirth of liberty. That entails Americans’ igniting a spark for individual freedom within themselves. It also entails the necessity of their gaining a sense of confidence and trust, not only in themselves but also in others and in freedom itself. Just as Americans don’t fear religious freedom and the potential adverse consequences that come with such freedom, they need to lose similar fears regarding charitable freedom. Once that day comes, Americans will be prepared to do with charity what our ancestors did with religion — separate charity and state.
What we need more than ever in this country at this point in our history is a rebirth of liberty. That entails Americans’ igniting a spark for individual freedom within themselves. It also entails the necessity of their gaining a sense of confidence and trust, not only in themselves but also in others and in freedom itself. Just as Americans don’t fear religious freedom and the potential adverse consequences that come with such freedom, they need to lose similar fears regarding charitable freedom. Once that day comes, Americans will be prepared to do with charity what our ancestors did with religion — separate charity and state."
"What if government ran our churches? Imagine the spectacle.
If the government were in charge of religion, there would be just one for everyone. No more competition between differing sects and denominations.
No longer would there be diverse and numerous places of worship flourishing all over our cities and countryside. No more black churches or white churches, or multicultural churches; small churches; rich or poor churches; churches in your neighborhood; liberal and fundamentalist churches. Such choices would be replaced by one big drab church attended by everyone."
"Luckily, America has escaped the dreary and inevitable consequences of a government-run religion by erecting and maintaining a solid constitutional wall between church and state. The result is a society where religion has flourished, and there is literally a church for everyone.
Sadly, most people don’t seem to connect the dots where education is concerned, for these catastrophes that we avoid by keeping government out of religion are instead haunting us in the classroom."
"It is unfortunate that morality is very often seen as the observance of and conformity to rules rather than an internalized system of values. This kind of confusion leads people to think that if they can create a situation whereby people are forced to conform to a particular set of moral standards, somehow virtue has been achieved."
In a fascinating study of the early relationship between church and state, Hugo Rahner, brother of the renowned Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner, makes the following observation in Church and State in Early Christianity:
". . . most frequently it has been the state which picked the quarrel with the Church, and as a result it was the Church that had to defend herself in a life and death struggle to maintain her freedom to fulfill her calling."
Rahner goes on to observe that part of what led to the confusion of the relationship between church and state was "the ancient Italic concept of the head of state as the 'supreme Priest,' 'king of the sacrifices,' . . . . [The Roman state] stubbornly insisted on treating religion as an exclusively political factor."
Religious fanaticism in all its forms leads inevitably to bigotry, hatred, and, too often, violent confrontations.
Last week, I posted an article here on Intervention titled The Religious Right Is Un-American (see below). This is a follow-up to that, and I have also included at the end some comments on Thomas Jefferson's attitude toward religion. In my other article, I said,
"Many people associated with the Religious Right in America would have us believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. They foster this lie because they want to force their narrow-minded religious beliefs down our throats. They would like us to envision that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison are standing with them shoulder to shoulder when they spout their distorted views on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, school prayer, evolution, etc. But to assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation is clearly un-American, if we define "American" as holding dear the precepts and values handed down to us in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. The framers of the Constitution had no intention of defining our country as Christian. On the contrary, they were deeply concerned about preventing any kind of religious tyranny."
I received, in response, a provocative email from a friend and colleague:
"What I find disheartening is that those that need to read and think about your essay will not give you the time of day.
Perhaps I am just too cynical for my own good, but I think that the "natural" course of events will lead us, again, to a time in history when religious war becomes inevitable. Not until we jettison the very idea of god and his or her false shadow, religion, will we have taken the first step toward the possibility of genuine enlightenment.
The founding fathers were willing to separate church from state but they hardly imagined a godless world. It seems to me (and I know nothing) that humankind's central problem has always been god and, later, religion. Think for a moment on [a mutual friend]: he cannot conceive of a world that isn't, somehow, validated by the existence of god. Why?
Most of us refuse, either out of temerity or incredulity, to consider a godless universe. To us, faith provides meaning to everything, especially our existence. And, most of us will, eventually, seek to destroy anyone and anything that upsets our view of life. It's not unlike the fifteen hundred year Ptolemaic model of the universe; how many died for the heresy of a heliocentric universe and why?
Humanity's next leap will be when we rid ourselves of god, entirely. If Marx is hated, especially today, for anything at all, it may be because he was willing to take the one step toward human intellectual evolution by writing, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." His willingness to criticize only religion and not god doesn't go far enough, at least not in my mind. When we finally rid ourselves of our superstitions, then we will have embraced the responsibility necessary for addressing and solving the problems of existence. Until then, my friend, there is only the metaphysical tug of war that results in nothing real."
My friend has pointed out that "the founding fathers were willing to separate church from state but they hardly imagined a godless world." This is true, and I believe I implied as much in my previous article. But we must not forget that the Founders lived in the 18th century at the beginning of the Enlightenment. To disbelieve in God would have been almost impossible for them, yet they took giant steps toward eradicating religious nonsense from public policy. We today should be ashamed for allowing that nonsense back in. One of my favorite quotes is from Denis Diderot, an Enlightenment philosopher: "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
I absolutely agree with my friend: The time has come when it may be essential to do more than follow John Lennon's wise advise and imagine a godless world.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagining just isn't good enough. God definitely has got to go, our pious mutual friend and millions like him notwithstanding. Why? Because this ridiculous God business is getting really out of control. The United States is becoming a nation guided by religious fanatics, just like the nations of the Middle East—a state of affairs that could lead, as my friend pointed out, to a worldwide religious war. One can only imagine the devastation such a conflict would effect. Obviously, God cannot be on everyone's side at the same time, no matter how omnipotent anyone claims Him to be. This is just one of many logical arguments against the existence of a personal God who is supposedly looking after us.
A less portentous example of the absurd roads that silly religious belief can take us down is brought to us by the Colorado Rockies baseball team. The following is from an article in The Nation by Dave Zirin titled The Rockies Pitch Religion:
"In Colorado, there stands a holy shrine called Coors Field. On this site, named for the holiest of beers, a team plays that has been chosen by Jesus Christ himself to play .500 baseball in the National League West. And if you don't believe me, just ask the manager, the general manager and the team's owner.
. . . The Colorado Rockies went public with the news that the organization has been explicitly looking for players with "character." And according to the Tribe of Coors, "character" means accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. "We're nervous, to be honest with you," Rockies general manager Dan O'Dowd said. "It's the first time we ever talked about these issues publicly. The last thing we want to do is offend anyone because of our beliefs." When people are nervous that they will offend you with their beliefs, it's usually because their beliefs are offensive."
Just listen to this delusional comment from Mr. O'Dowd:
"You look at things that have happened to us this year. You look at some of the moves we made and didn't make. You look at some of the games we're winning. Those aren't just a coincidence. God has definitely had a hand in this."
Do I have to point out how patently ridiculous this all is? The Rockies' management apparently believes that the team's record will improve if players are acquired who accept Jesus Christ as their "personal lord and savior." Oh, yeah, that's exactly what makes a guy an outstanding baseball player. What a howler! The absolute lack of anything approaching rational thought is astounding. Consider the greatest players who ever grabbed a bat and ball in the big leagues: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and—okay, why not?—Barry Bonds. I am sure it is due to their clean living and shared "born-again Christian" values that they have achieved immortality in the minds of all baseball fans.
What a bigoted point of view is coming from O'Dowd & Co. Let's look at an old Detroit Tiger named Hank Greenberg. Yes, he was Jewish and so presumably did not accept Jesus Christ as his "personal lord and savior." How odd it is, then, that he still managed to slug 58 home runs in 1938 and lead the league in homers four times. In 1937 he amassed no less than 183 runs batted in, and also accrued a .313 lifetime batting average. Just think: all this without Jesus' help. The mind boggles.
And who can forget that other Jewish infidel, Sandy Koufax? This mensch even had the audacity to refuse to pitch a World Series game on the Sabbath. Yet even so, obviously lacking the spiritual guidance of O'Dowd's lord and savior, he threw one of the most devastating curveballs ever seen. He made Mickey Mantle look bad! Koufax set a record by striking out 15 Yankees in Game One of the 1963 World Series. And, oh yeah, he also fanned 2,396 other batters during his shortened career, and he won the Cy Young Award three times.
To get serious again, let's face it: Religious fanaticism in all its forms leads inevitably to bigotry, hatred, and, too often, violent confrontations. Let's end it like reasonable human beings. How many more Crusades, Jihads, Holy Wars, whatever you want to call them, must we live through to see the light? Let's put belief in a personal God, who tells us that only we are right and that everybody else is wrong, on a dusty top shelf, out of reach, where it belongs.
I have also received a few emails that pointed out that the Founders were not atheistic heathens. I never said they were, but some people seem to have difficulty with the idea of religion being strictly personal and not part of public life. Remember that many people came to America in the first place to avoid religious persecution by authority figures who forced certain ecclesiastical beliefs and practices down their throats.
Perhaps a few words from noted historian Joseph J. Ellis, from his book American Sphinx, might go some distance toward explaining Thomas Jefferson's ideas on religion, especially organized religion:
"In 1816 [Jefferson] announced the completion of what he called "a wee-book," which was really an outline for a book entitled The Morals and Life of Jesus of Nazareth. The culmination of a similar project begun in 1802, when the attacks on his religious beliefs had begun in earnest, Jefferson intended his sketch of Jesus as moral exemplar to be "a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus...." What he really meant was that he admired the moral values of Jesus but preferred to separate "what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried" much in the way "as the diamond from the dunghill." Primitive Christianity, in his view, was similar to the original meaning of the American Revolution: a profoundly simple faith subsequently corrupted by its institutionalization."
As forceful as he was in his arguments to keep religion out of politics, Jefferson was not a godless man. In The Godless Constitution, Kramnick and Moore point this out clearly:
"Far from being one of "the bitterest enemies of Christ," as the Reverend [John] Mason claimed in 1800, Jefferson embraced a personal religion shaped by the life and teachings of Jesus. He called his own creed "the philosophy of Jesus" and referred often to "the purity and sublimity of his moral precepts." Christ was, according to Jefferson, "the greatest teacher of moral truths that ever lived." In Jesus’ life and teachings, Jefferson wrote to Adams, could be found "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." He emphasized the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' call to men to love all mankind. In Christ's teaching "that to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thy self, is the sum of religion," Jefferson wrote."
By Robert N. Minor, professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.
The long legal history in this country of religious leaders performing marriage ceremonies has enmeshed religion and marriage. The language of marriage as “sacred” invokes religious images. Most marriage ceremonies are performed by clergy.
The arguments behind the amendment are essentially religious even though its proponents try to couch them in terms of inaccurate history, poor science, rejected psychological theories and statistics unsupported by the social sciences.
Based on misguided understandings of the Bible, tradition and God, proponents argue that same-sex marriages don’t suit a traditional model of one man and one woman. The fact that even among the patriarchs and kings in the Bible polygamy was common must be explained away to make the argument. In an ultimate irony, the Mormon Church has been a major funder of amendments claiming that traditional marriage is between one man and only one woman.
But there are many religious people who believe that the Bible, tradition and God require them to confirm same-sex commitments. Their doctrines of marriage demand that they recognize loving commitment wherever it is found. They believe that government has no business telling God and two consenting adults whom they can and cannot love.
Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, the Central Conference of American Rabbis and others have spoken from their faith to testify that affirming same-sex marriage is a response of true belief.
An amendment to forbid the practice of these religions to perform same-sex marriages, therefore, is government establishment of one religious position while forbidding the religious practice of others. It’s religious discrimination.
The marriage amendment is anti-American, then, not only because it would be the first amendment to write discrimination of a group of people into the Constitution.
It’s also against religious freedom because it forbids the religious practice of clergy, denominations and faith communities that believe they are divinely called to affirm the love of two adults who happen to be of the same gender.
Warning of a growing campaign to "Christianize America," the national director of the Anti-Defamation League is calling on Jewish organizations to join him in coordinating a communal strategy for confronting the political and cultural initiatives of religious conservative groups.
"The Bill of Rights stands in striking contrast to the Constitution. While the Constitution was penned as a masterful document which lays forth the powers and offices of the new government, the Bill of Rights states the things over which the government's powers may not be extended. This was an ingenious invention because the Constitution doesn't provide protection from a repeat of the tyranny which had just been warred upon. That was the catalyst for the formation of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was the perfect compromise because, as seen in the Constitution, it is the people who grant power to the government, thus it is impossible for the government to grant freedom to the people. The Bill of Rights was not written to be a list of the freedoms of American citizens, it was provided as a list of the things upon which the government may not encroach. This safeguard helped put the fears of the citizens to rest and also instilled a sense of ownership in them in respect to the government."
~ Excerpt from "Synergism Within the Bill of Rights" ~ To commemorate Bill of Rights Day (December 15, 2003), the Advocates co-sponsored an essay contest with the Libertarian Party of Okaloosa County, FL. A $500 scholarship was awarded for the best essay submitted from high school students in Okaloosa County. The topic for the essays was, “Synergism Within the Bill of Rights." Our congratulations to Andrew Ausley, a 17-year-old homeschooled student from, Niceville, FL, who wrote the winning essay.
"Liberty is the freedom to act as you please so long as you don't coerce others. Liberty means you can associate with others voluntarily, you can speak and publish freely, you can practice the religion of your choice (or none at all), keep what you earn, run your own business, and love and live as you please (so long as you don't violate the rights of others)."
BOOKS
Robert Blair Kaiser, A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future who covered Vatican II for Time, has written extensively on reform in the Church. With Rob Miller, he is a co-founder of TakeBackOurChurch.org See his new book, 'A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future' (Knopf, March 15, 2006)
'The Godless Constitution ~ A Moral Defense of the Secular State'
Authors; Isaac Kramnick (teaches and writes about political thought at Cornell University ) and
R. Laurence Moore ( a professor of history at Cornell University. )
Links for;
Separation of Church and State, Freedom of Speech, The Constitution,
The First Amandment and The Bill Of Rights
Can be found on the following pages, a new window will open when clicked on;
Back to;
