It is frequently proclaimed in today's public discourse that the founding fathers of the United States were deeply religious men who founded this country on Christian principles and intended the federal government to carry out those principles in the course of its activities. Proclamations of that sort in the current political environment make for good sound bites, but apart from the fact that many of the founding fathers were religious men, the proclamations contain no truth.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, is recognized as the primary drafter of the United States Constitution. These were his stated views on government and religion:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."
"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."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, had these words to say on the subject:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. " --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810. ME 12:345
"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
It's hard for me to fathom these founding fathers, in light of their stated opinions, basing a government on Christian principles, not to mention advancing the notion that government should be an instrument for advancing those principles. In fact, just the opposite appears true.
You'll get no argument from me when it comes to the assertion that a nation full of people who follow Christ's directives would be a nation worth emulating, but that wouldn't necessarily be the kind of nation Madison and Jefferson had in mind, or even a democracy for that matter. Both Madison and Jefferson recognized the danger of mixing affairs of the church with affairs of the government, and the potential for tyranny that such mixing would create. That's why, despite their religious convictions, they fought furiously for the separation of church and state. It was a good idea when this country was born. It's still a good idea today.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
IF I WERE KING
If I were King…
I'd eliminate taxes and replace them with mandatory weekly Bingo night.
Infomercials would be restricted to Sunday mornings and televangelists would be given the 2 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. time slots.
Government officials (excluding the King) would be limited to one term in office followed by a mandatory 5 years in prison.
Doctors would be forced to taste their own medicine.
$1.00 coupons could be tripled at the grocery store.
The right to a free lawyer would be restricted to once in a lifetime.
Frosted Flakes would have 1/3 MORE sugar instead of 1/3 less.
Parents would have to pass a written exam before taking babies home from the hospital.
Colleges would be free and open to any students 30 years of age or older.
The Big Mac would include Ketchup.
College kids who violate NCAA rules would be banned from professional sports until they are 50.
Mouthy teenagers would be punished with Disco lessons.
Trash collecting would be a high-paying job.
I'd eliminate taxes and replace them with mandatory weekly Bingo night.
Infomercials would be restricted to Sunday mornings and televangelists would be given the 2 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. time slots.
Government officials (excluding the King) would be limited to one term in office followed by a mandatory 5 years in prison.
Doctors would be forced to taste their own medicine.
$1.00 coupons could be tripled at the grocery store.
The right to a free lawyer would be restricted to once in a lifetime.
Frosted Flakes would have 1/3 MORE sugar instead of 1/3 less.
Parents would have to pass a written exam before taking babies home from the hospital.
Colleges would be free and open to any students 30 years of age or older.
The Big Mac would include Ketchup.
College kids who violate NCAA rules would be banned from professional sports until they are 50.
Mouthy teenagers would be punished with Disco lessons.
Trash collecting would be a high-paying job.
Monday, August 23, 2010
AIDING FLOOD RAVAGED PAKISTAN
Pakistan has been ravaged by massive flooding in recent weeks, thanks to a horrendous monsoon season that, in many places, has dumped as much rainfall in a day or two as the region experiences over the course of an entire year. And the raining simply hasn't stopped, with many areas expecting substantially more precipitation over the coming weeks. When the rain will end is anybody's guess, but there's plenty of misery to come for a people already being pushed to the limit of human capacity to endure.
Thousands of Pakistanis have already died from the raging flood waters, and hundreds of thousands are in jeopardy of experiencing a similar fate if help does not reach them within the next few weeks. It's a human tragedy on a breathtaking scale.
Sadly, many Pakistanis are clinging steadfast to their huts and mud homes as the flood waters approach, hoping to preserve what little possessions they have in this world, knowing that if they leave, there is no turning back, nor will there ever be an opportunity to reclaim what they had before this horrendous rainy season commenced. Why? Because a great deal of Pakistan's infrastructure has been destroyed by the flooding, along with thousands of square miles of land.
I saw first-hand the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina to the state of Louisiana, and the city of New Orleans in particular, during a mission trip a few months after the hurricane struck. The amount of destruction was mind boggling, and I've never found adequate words to describe what I witnessed. But that experience left an indelible mark in my mind on the need for providing immediate assistance to people who've suffered horrendous destruction from the forces of nature, and I hope people who read this blog will make a point of seeking some way to contribute to efforts to deal with this calamity.
Church World Service is an exceptionally well-connected, efficiently run entity that is providing disaster assistance in Pakistan and is a worthy conduit for channeling emergency aid to Pakistanis in need. Their website is: http://www.churchworldservice.org
I hope you'll consider making a donation.
Thousands of Pakistanis have already died from the raging flood waters, and hundreds of thousands are in jeopardy of experiencing a similar fate if help does not reach them within the next few weeks. It's a human tragedy on a breathtaking scale.
Sadly, many Pakistanis are clinging steadfast to their huts and mud homes as the flood waters approach, hoping to preserve what little possessions they have in this world, knowing that if they leave, there is no turning back, nor will there ever be an opportunity to reclaim what they had before this horrendous rainy season commenced. Why? Because a great deal of Pakistan's infrastructure has been destroyed by the flooding, along with thousands of square miles of land.
I saw first-hand the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina to the state of Louisiana, and the city of New Orleans in particular, during a mission trip a few months after the hurricane struck. The amount of destruction was mind boggling, and I've never found adequate words to describe what I witnessed. But that experience left an indelible mark in my mind on the need for providing immediate assistance to people who've suffered horrendous destruction from the forces of nature, and I hope people who read this blog will make a point of seeking some way to contribute to efforts to deal with this calamity.
Church World Service is an exceptionally well-connected, efficiently run entity that is providing disaster assistance in Pakistan and is a worthy conduit for channeling emergency aid to Pakistanis in need. Their website is: http://www.churchworldservice.org
I hope you'll consider making a donation.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
MONEY OVER GOD
Some politicians regularly campaign on the notion that they are members of ‘God’s Own Party’, but campaigning to cut billions in food and medical assistance for the poor from the federal budget while increasing tax cuts for the rich illustrates that, when it’s time for some legislators to make the hard choices, Christ's will takes a back-seat to the will of the wealthy.
It's hard to imagine that choosing tax cuts for the wealthy over feeding the poor will strike a positive chord with the Almighty on Judgment Day, but you have to give some lawmakers credit for having the guts to draw a line in the sand and stand by a conviction, their souls be damned. Greater love no legislator has than to give up his soul for that of a constituent’s pocketbook…or something like that!
It's hard to imagine that choosing tax cuts for the wealthy over feeding the poor will strike a positive chord with the Almighty on Judgment Day, but you have to give some lawmakers credit for having the guts to draw a line in the sand and stand by a conviction, their souls be damned. Greater love no legislator has than to give up his soul for that of a constituent’s pocketbook…or something like that!
MY OWN PRIVATE WAR ON TERRORISTS
Sadly, but true, this pacifist has decided to renew my own private war on terrorists – the furry variety: squirrels!
Several years ago they made their way into the eaves of our home and built a nest in the rafters. During the day, we could hear them scamper in the bathroom wall and their sound, not to mention the possibility of their causing structural damage, was extremely irritating. A broken piece of soffit allowed their entry, but as soon as the opening was repaired and the squirrels were trapped and removed (humanely, of course), the problem disappeared.
Like most terrorists who've been thwarted on their path of destruction, the squirrels have begun probing the spouting for another entry point. In turn, I’ve responded with my own form of preemptive action – a massive ‘shock and awe’ campaign that entails capture and relocation of the furry pests to a distant forest habitat.
In my own personal war on terror, there are no 24-hour interrogation sessions, no blindfolding of prisoners, no use of ‘water-boarding’ to simulate drowning, no sexual humiliation of the entrapped and no use of equipment to inflict physical pain. There’s no ‘extraordinary rendition’ for torture either, just one last opportunity for the furry rodent to finish eating the trap’s food before being released back into the wild, albeit at a location far removed from my humble abode.
My friends point out that with each departing rodent, another takes its place, and that may be true, but my vigilance – not any overreaction to the problem – will provide the best chance to insure the continued structural safety of my home. It’s a war I can wage without violating my conscience.
Several years ago they made their way into the eaves of our home and built a nest in the rafters. During the day, we could hear them scamper in the bathroom wall and their sound, not to mention the possibility of their causing structural damage, was extremely irritating. A broken piece of soffit allowed their entry, but as soon as the opening was repaired and the squirrels were trapped and removed (humanely, of course), the problem disappeared.
Like most terrorists who've been thwarted on their path of destruction, the squirrels have begun probing the spouting for another entry point. In turn, I’ve responded with my own form of preemptive action – a massive ‘shock and awe’ campaign that entails capture and relocation of the furry pests to a distant forest habitat.
In my own personal war on terror, there are no 24-hour interrogation sessions, no blindfolding of prisoners, no use of ‘water-boarding’ to simulate drowning, no sexual humiliation of the entrapped and no use of equipment to inflict physical pain. There’s no ‘extraordinary rendition’ for torture either, just one last opportunity for the furry rodent to finish eating the trap’s food before being released back into the wild, albeit at a location far removed from my humble abode.
My friends point out that with each departing rodent, another takes its place, and that may be true, but my vigilance – not any overreaction to the problem – will provide the best chance to insure the continued structural safety of my home. It’s a war I can wage without violating my conscience.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
TAKING A GUN TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Religious freedom is something Americans take for granted, because we recognize that the First Amendment guarantees that right. We may or may not choose to exercise that right, but we know it exist.
People who come here from countries where that right didn't exist, or worse, were persecuted for their religious beliefs, frequently marvel at the ambivalence our society displays when it comes to protecting the religious freedoms of those with whom we disagree. So it comes as no surprise to many non-Americans that the recent flack over building a mosque near ground zero in New York City exists. To them, we say we're in favor of religious freedom, but when push comes to shove, what we really mean is religious freedom for the Christian majority, and nobody else.
Let's face it. The right to own a firearm is valued more highly amongst the average American than the right of fellow citizens to practice the religion of their choosing, wherever they want. If anyone doubts the veracity of that statement, take a moment to reflect on how much uproar would exist if the government were to try to ban firearms within a two-block radius of ground zero. Card-carrying members of the NRA would descend upon the site by the thousands, federal courts would be inundated with suits to block the ban and the 24-hour news cycle on FOX TV would be jammed with nothing but outrage over such a proposal.
There's a bit of irony in the fact that those people who would move heaven and earth in defense of the Second Amendment right to own guns are the loudest in objecting to a First Amendment right to build a mosque near ground zero. Then again, maybe it's not so surprising. Guns are God in America.
People who come here from countries where that right didn't exist, or worse, were persecuted for their religious beliefs, frequently marvel at the ambivalence our society displays when it comes to protecting the religious freedoms of those with whom we disagree. So it comes as no surprise to many non-Americans that the recent flack over building a mosque near ground zero in New York City exists. To them, we say we're in favor of religious freedom, but when push comes to shove, what we really mean is religious freedom for the Christian majority, and nobody else.
Let's face it. The right to own a firearm is valued more highly amongst the average American than the right of fellow citizens to practice the religion of their choosing, wherever they want. If anyone doubts the veracity of that statement, take a moment to reflect on how much uproar would exist if the government were to try to ban firearms within a two-block radius of ground zero. Card-carrying members of the NRA would descend upon the site by the thousands, federal courts would be inundated with suits to block the ban and the 24-hour news cycle on FOX TV would be jammed with nothing but outrage over such a proposal.
There's a bit of irony in the fact that those people who would move heaven and earth in defense of the Second Amendment right to own guns are the loudest in objecting to a First Amendment right to build a mosque near ground zero. Then again, maybe it's not so surprising. Guns are God in America.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Judicial Intervention in Arizona Immigration Fiasco
Do I think U.S. District Court Judge Bolton's recent decision striking down parts of Arizona's Immigration Law was a wise decision? Absolutely! And before anybody gets their dander up, they should take the time to read Judge Bolton's decision, because she makes it crystal clear that Arizona has a legitimate interest in controlling illegal immigration and the attendant problems that go with it. Because of the legitimacy of Arizona's interests, Judge Bolton left standing a provision of Arizona's statute that made human trafficking a state crime, a provision that outlawed the stopping of a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and another provision that made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal foreign resident.
What has critics up in arms is Judge Bolton's decision to strike down those parts of Arizona's law that interfered with Federal statutes or infringed on areas of the law that are exclusively within the purview of the federal government. Understandably, those aren't legal concepts that the average American necessarily appreciates, but the application of those principles are absolutely essential to the orderly administration of the rule of law where you have two entities (in this case a state and the federal government) trying to regulate the same kind of activity.
Like a lot of issues, the devil is often found in the details, and the Arizona statute is no exception. For example, Arizona's statute required police officers to detain any person they arrested until his or her immigration status could be verified. Simply providing a valid driver's license would not have sufficed to prove a detainee's status. The officer would have had to submit a "status-check" request to the Immigration Service and detain a person for as long as it takes to get a reply. Just imagine spending a couple of days in prison awaiting clearance from the Immigration Service because you got stopped driving 40 MPH in a 35 MPH zone and didn't have a passport in your glove compartment. I wonder how many of us could prove out citizenship on a moment's notice.
Judge Bolton made an obviously unpopular decision, but having read the decision, I think her legal reasoning was solid and worthy of commendation.
What has critics up in arms is Judge Bolton's decision to strike down those parts of Arizona's law that interfered with Federal statutes or infringed on areas of the law that are exclusively within the purview of the federal government. Understandably, those aren't legal concepts that the average American necessarily appreciates, but the application of those principles are absolutely essential to the orderly administration of the rule of law where you have two entities (in this case a state and the federal government) trying to regulate the same kind of activity.
Like a lot of issues, the devil is often found in the details, and the Arizona statute is no exception. For example, Arizona's statute required police officers to detain any person they arrested until his or her immigration status could be verified. Simply providing a valid driver's license would not have sufficed to prove a detainee's status. The officer would have had to submit a "status-check" request to the Immigration Service and detain a person for as long as it takes to get a reply. Just imagine spending a couple of days in prison awaiting clearance from the Immigration Service because you got stopped driving 40 MPH in a 35 MPH zone and didn't have a passport in your glove compartment. I wonder how many of us could prove out citizenship on a moment's notice.
Judge Bolton made an obviously unpopular decision, but having read the decision, I think her legal reasoning was solid and worthy of commendation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)