The New Republic offers a window into the soul of Kansas Republican Senator and 2008 White House hopeful Sam Brownback.

The most illuminating nugget in Noam Scheiber's piece may be the themes of victimization and inferiority that underlay the rage and seething of red state crusaders Brownback represents. As Scheiber details, Brownback offers up a 21st century version of the elite blue state bogeyman sneering at his slack-jawed brethren in America's heartland...

For the details, see:
"Brownback on the Red-Blue Divide."

I can't tell whether she is simply advising candidates to avoid using that particular phrase, or to avoid the concept. One is a good idea and the other is horrible. It's not that hard to dress up the concept of separation of church and state in different language. Against prayer in schools? Then tell the voters there will be prayer in schools as long as there is algebra -- but who wants prayers dictated or selected by government bureaucrats? Against teaching ID? Tell the voters that science belongs in science class and religion belongs in classes about religion. And so on. It's not that hard to express the value in separation of church and state as protection for the integrity of religion. That it also protects the non-religious from discrimination is true and shouldn't be denied, but which true statement to emphasize in front of which audience is a fair tactical question, not a violation of principle.

...the phrase "separation of church and state," which does not appear in the Constitution's clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion

that's just boilerplate disingenuous rhetoric from predictable knee-jerk demagogues.

i fart in their general direction.

Is Vanderslice necessarily telling candidates not to support separation of church and state?

Is it possibly telling candidates to reframe in different language when expressing the principles that we attach to the concept "separation of church and state"? Is it possible that the word "separation" is in and of itself a word with hostile connotation and one that needs to be replaced?

She is a political feng shui "artist."

A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion. --Hugo Black

the left shoult start referring to the "separation of church and state" as a "separation of synagogue and state" or "mosque and state," so that Christian voters can begin to see the logic of the position.

So this little evangelical wants to make a few extra bucks teaching others the fine art of pandering. Anything wrong with that?

Ah, Kevin.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson

Steve, your post is in response to something that Vanderslice didn't say. According to the article, she said:

"she told candidates not to use the phrase "separation of church and state," which does not appear in the Constitution's clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion."

You then reply:

To tell candidates to avoid support for church-state separation, and to insist that the constitutional principle is somehow hostile towards religion, is not only to play the religious right's game, it's endorsing the movement's rules.

It seems to me that you are reading way more into Vanderslice's statement than is there. She isn't telling anyone to abandon the principle. She is telling them to avoid using those specific words. I would agree with you if she had actually said what you think she said. But that's not what she said.

To tell candidates to avoid support for church-state separation

I think you're misreading her advice. She suggests that candidates avoid that phrase, not the policy behind the phrase.

FYI: evangelicals go into frothing seizures when the phrase is mentioned; one can avoid the phrase and support the 1st Amendment. That's just smart politics: it's knowing the tics of the citizenry and adjusting one's rhetoric accordingly.

Kevin: have we really reached a point in which Democrats have to hesitate before embracing First Amendment principles, for fear that voters won't approve?

Of course. I saw yesterday that there are (I think I remember) 4 members of congress whose religion is "unaffiliated," but I doubt that an openly atheistic person can be elected to any national office.

In Vanderslice's defense, one can defend the separation of church and state, even on the grounds that this separation protects religion, without using the phrase. Her point seems to have been not that the concept is bad but that people misunderstand its meaning.

How about just saying the government ought not be in the business of deciding religious questions? (Of course, that means the government shouldn't be deciding who can and cannot partake in the religious sacrament of marriage, any more than it should decide who can be baptized.)

Steve Benen quotes:

"That language says to people that you don't want there to be a role for religion in our public life," Ms. Vanderslice said.

Ms. Vanderslice is lying. Separation of church and state has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is "a role for religion in our public life", nor is there any basis whatsoever for asserting that those who strongly support separation of church and state are opposed to there being "a role for religion in our public life".

Democratic candidates can of course do what they want, and listen to whatever advice they please, as they seek to influence voters and win elections. I hope that not many of them will choose to listen to such dishonest advice as this.

Steve Benen wrote: "No matter what your beliefs, the separation of church and state protects you, not inhibits you."

Not if you believe that the state should impose your particular religious law on everyone, as right-wing extremist Christian fascists -- like the Texas Republican Party -- believe. In that case, the separation of church and state is an obstacle to your goal of establishing an authoritarian theocratic government, and thus you seek to undermine and destroy that separation by peddling lies like the one that Ms. Vanderslice offered.

I try not to make the same point others have made just as well as I can, but in the time it took my to type my comment, half a dozen people made the same point. It seems to be a consensus.

Okay. Amy Sullivan put you up to this, right?

Arrrgh!

'Where it a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.' - John Morley

Steve Benon: The separation of church and state is what guarantees religious liberty in the United States.

This is incorrect. It's only in he last few decades that the Constitution was (mis)interpreted to call for SOCAS. Prior to that we had prayer in school, the Ten Commandments posted on government buildings, etc. And, yet religious liberty was preserved just fine.

IMHO the radical SOCAS movement is effectively and anti-religion movement -- more precisely, anti-Christianity. E.g., a private company I worked for prohibited singing Christmas carols at their Christmas party. The chorus was allowed to sing "Frosty the Snowman", but not any song mentioning Christmas. I can't recall whether Santa Claus was banned.

In other words, the trend is not only to prohibit Christianity in the government, but to prohibit it anywhere in the public sphere. I think that's unfortunate, because IMHO Christianity promotes mostly good moral values, values that are useful to non-Christians as well as Christians.

Good post.

Pretty fucking good blogging, as I glance down the page.

hey egbert,

in that Jefferson quote you posted, Jefferson was writing in opposition to slavery, and not about the "separation" in question.

on the other hand...

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.
-- T Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802

I think that the phrase, "Congress shall make no law...." to be quite clear.

ex-liberal makes the mistake of thinking that things that happened earlier were never mistakes.

E.g., a private company I worked for prohibited singing Christmas carols at their Christmas party.

Given that this is a private company, that decision was not foisted upon them, they made the decision on their own, with no intercession by the ACLU.

E.g., a private company I worked for prohibited singing Christmas carols at their Christmas party.

big fucking deal. you can sing all the jesus songs you want on your own time.

I see a big difference in refraning from using the term "separation of..." and actually putting it to practice. Perhaps Vanderslice is playing to the feelings of those who feel threatened by the anti-religious forces in the world. I consider myself a progressive liberal, especially in my social life, but I have conservative ideals when it comes to raising my family. I am a faithful member of what most would consider a conservative Christian church, although some would consider our theolgy extremely liberal. Nevertheless, I agree with my conservative churchmates that pornography is pervasive in our society and should be held in check. I believe firmly in the First Amendment rights of free speech but I know, equally as well, that the free distribution of pornography in so many accessible places is harmful to my children and my grandchildren. It is a paradox of significant proportion for those who believe in the First Amendment and also in the blessings of virtuous living. When I hear anyone stand and openly defend pornographers I can't help believe that they are actually supporting pornographers at the expense of those who hold opposite views about the troubling pervasiveness of that media. Perhaps Vanderslice is simply suggesting that we not rub the Constitution in their faces.

I think it is high time that a whole lot of people had the Constitution rubbed in their faces.

The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional. --Hugo Black

ex liberal: And, yet religious liberty was preserved just fine.

yap. long as you love Jesus and ain't one a them nasty folks what kilt our lord. You know who I mean...

Santa Arrives!

boingboing posts full pdf of NRA graphic novel Freedom in Peril,

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/24/fearmongering_graphi.html

ex liberal: IMHO Christianity promotes mostly good moral values, values that are useful to non-Christians as well as Christians

yes indeedy, but I don't need your Jesus stuffed up my fucking ass to know I ain't supposed to kill steal or lie and I'm sick of these yahoos(tm) telling me the 10 commandments are the basis of American law. 7 of the 10 commandments are specific religious injunctions. the other 3 were codified into law long before, in many "barbarian" pr "pagan" civilizations.

oh, and happy holidays!

Global Citizen - with all due respect, I think you missed my point. Reverent respect for another person's beliefs is all I am suggesting. While it may be true that many only interpret the Constitution as far as it supports their position, frankly, arrogance is what lost liberals the support of the common man in the first place.

And, yet religious liberty was preserved just fine

and it still is. you can worship any damn-fool critter you like. just don't make the mistake of being a Muslim, or the conservatives will accuse you of trying to destroying America - the same way they used to accuse Catholics and Jews of the same thing.

yap. long as you love Jesus and ain't one a them nasty folks what kilt our lord. You know who I mean...

Or a heathen that thinks that Jesus was just a nice man that knew some magic tricks.

Lamonte, it's a personal hurdle for me to show the reverent respect you suggest, as I am rarely accorded same.

I am a Jewish, Feminist biochemist. Three strikes right there as far as many christianists are concerned.

Prior to that we had prayer in school, the Ten Commandments posted on government buildings, etc. And, yet religious liberty was preserved just fine.

Religious liberty was so well preserved prior to 1950, that a lynching took place everyday somewhere in the South for decades.

Oh - I'm also an academic. With a Constitution fetish.

There is something about me for everyone to hate! Don't be shy! Pick something!

I see I'm a little late to the comments party here, but I also think that saying something like "the Constitution keeps the government out of the religion business" is a useful way of supporting the First Amendment without falling prey to the GOP's dog-whistle sloganeering about our secular form of government.

Egbert,

Get the fuck lost. Kevin is not here. He hasn't been here for a few days. He will not be here for several days. Apparently, you have the same reading and comprehension skills as GW. That's not a compliment.

Posted by: bigcat on December 26, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

not me: yap. [religious liberty was preserved just fine] long as you love Jesus and ain't one a them nasty folks what kilt our lord. You know who I mean...

not me, what are you talking about? In what way was religious liberty not preserved? Prior to the current SOCAS rulings, were mosques and synogogues banned? Were govenment positions denied to people on the basis of their religion? Were non-Christians prohibied from owning property? From voting? Were non-Christian religious leaders prohibited from conducting marriage ceremonies?

Prior to that we had prayer in school, the Ten Commandments posted on government buildings, etc. And, yet religious liberty was preserved just fine.

ExLib, no it was not and you are so ignorantly wrong.

My religious beliefs are such that I am required not to participate in public religious ceremonies or rituals.

Seven years ago, while attending a HS football game, in a community I had just moved into, I was quite surprised when the announcer told the audience to stand for a recitation of a prayer. I quietly remained seated eyes forward.

Besides being harassed at the game, I came damn close to losing the job that I had just accepted. This was not the first and only time.

Nearly as old as you say you are, I attended public schools at a time when officially led public prayers where common. As a school kid I had to defend myself physically on occasion when I would not participate in the religious activities of others.

So pardon me if I view you as a septic douche bag, who cares nothing about how the liberty of others is aborted my your silly, majoritarian views.

Global Citizen - I'm sorry you have experienced bigotry in your life. For what it's worth, my specific religous and family upbringing has never taught me to disrespect those of the Jewish faith or feminists. And my particular theology supports stem cell research. I know that many who claim to be Christians often display the opposite opinions, however. Although it sounds simplistic and naive, I think we should only expect the same respect as we give.

Her point seems to have been not that the concept is bad but that people misunderstand its meaning

And she's absolutely correct. SOCAS is pretty roundly maimed by all partisan stripes. It creates more heat than light, so it's best avoided on the campaign trail.

Global Citizen wrote: "I am a Jewish, Feminist biochemist [...] also an academic. With a Constitution fetish. There is something about me for everyone to hate! Don't be shy! Pick something!"

Gosh, Global, that's a tough one. Nothing much there to even dislike, let alone "hate".

Biochemist? Hmmm, maybe you experiment on animals?

Help me out here.

One of the talking points of the Christianist right is that "separation of church annd state" isn't in the Constitution. Since, in a literal sense, they are right, this is a compelling argument to low information voters. It is not a compelling counterargument for a Democrtat to come back with "Yeah, but the concept is there" because 1. the audience isn't responisive to abstract concepts, and 2. it sounds like a blue state intellectual word game.
So she may be suggesting that rather than profering a concept in an abstract way, Democrats need to teach the principle in a concrete way. I think that Democrtatic politicians in areas where well-finainced powerful Christianists are spreading disinformation should respond by saying that in American religion is private and a matter of personal choice. People understand and like that. Then follow up with a few Constitutional quotes. But our side's argument should be a libertarian one, rather than an Constututional scholar one, so that the debate becomes personal, private relgion verse those that want to seize government power to promote their religion.

should respond by saying that in American religion is private and a matter of personal choice.

It doesn't have to be private, it just can't be state-sanctioned. The difference between the two is critical in reaching out to religious folks that would otherwise by sympathetic to dems.

ex-liberal: In what way was religious liberty not preserved? Prior to the current SOCAS rulings? [followed by a bunch of straw-man questions]

Were non-Christian kids intimidated, or even sometimes getting the crap kicked out of them, for not wanting to pray the Lord's Prayer? YES

I just read upthread more carefully, and Keith G said what I'm trying to say much more elegantly.

and Global: Not much for me to hate yet. What color car do you drive? ;]

maybe you experiment on animals?

Well, you make the call. The last animals I worked with were camels, not lab animals. I collected blood from the "control group" in American zoos for a study on the effects of U-238 (Depleted Uranium). I can tell you that the hematologic parameters of the animals from Iraq and Algeria are totally fucked up.

Oh yeah, that 80% are all going to be delighted when the Southern Baptist Convention, or the United Methodist Church, are established in the Federal government, aren't they? "80% religious", even if it were true, would be a bullshit statistic, because they're all different religions. Which is the reason the Constitution was written to keep them from each other's throats.

Democrats can't use generalized "religion" to be a party of the majority the way Republicans can use a select few Protestant Christian denominations to be a party of the minority. They should get over that fact and consciously walk another path.

I own a ferest green Escape Hybrid that I have had for 11 months and it has about 3000 miles on it.

My primary transportation is a royal-blue Cannondale mountain bike.

I own a ferest green Escape Hybrid

See, I knew it! You do hate America, don't you? Everyone knows Jesus rides a '57 Chevy (in East LA, anyway!)

The founding fathers created a Democracy not a Theocracy, and the seperation of Mosque and State, is how we keep it that way.

Ah, but there is a twist - I also own a 68 Cougar XR-7 with sequencing tail lights and the pop-up headlights. Get's about 10 miles to the gallon, and comes out once a year for a parade.

ex-liberal: Were govenment positions denied to people on the basis of their religion?

Not that long ago, Jews in fact were denied promotions in government and in business, and were denied admission to college and graduate school on account of their being Jewish. In large swaths of the U.S., the KKK brought actual punsihment to Jews and Catholics who had the temerity to try to buy property. These shortcomings of American democracy were overcome by persistent litigation.

the goal enunciated in the quoted passage is to respect the role of religion in politics while insisting on the separation of church and state. Examples are the quotes from Thomas Jefferson posted above. Similar in spirit was John Kerry addressing a religious convocation and extolling the Christian spirit behind laws to support people who need it, while simultaneously insisting that he couldn't impose his own views of abortion in a nation that largeley disagreed with his (strict) view.

It's an poorly charted border region, where the rhetorical line is not clear. But you can respect people's religious beliefs while simultaneously insisting on the supremacy in law of the First Ammendment.

Another point about the rhetoric. You can't really win over the Christian Republicans with rhetoric, any more than you can win over the far left Christian Democrats. The point of good rhetoric has to be to win the swing voters.

Global Citizen: I own a ferest green Escape Hybrid

That's patently absurd. Ferrets are brown.

Global Citizen:

Do you know why they call camels "ships of the desert"?

Because they are full of Arab se(a)men.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

Joe

Touche Matthew.

And I owe the kitty a quarter for committing a speed-typing infraction.

oops! That's probably forest. No wonder some people here think I can't read.

Ah, Kevin.

This isn't Kevin, you dickwad. Read the posting before spouting off.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Let me give you a few more Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

A George Washington quote:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."

And a gem from Ol' Honest Abe himself:

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

The Founding Fathers were NOT Christians. Most of them were atheists who mouthed false pieties about God and religion in order to get themselves elected to public office. Just like today's politicians do.

I think we really SHOULD do away with church-state separation in this country.

I'd LOVE to see the US end up with some bastardized soulless state-church hybrid like England ended up with. Besides - that would do away with the Mormons, and probably the Scientologists too.

And 20 years later, Americans would look at their screwed up country and say; "Conservativism? WTF were we thinking?"

Winda Warren Terra - When you're quoting strong statements like that don't you think a little reference noting might be appropriate? I'm not saying you don't have them, I just want to see them.

FYI: evangelicals go into frothing seizures when the phrase is mentioned; one can avoid the phrase and support the 1st Amendment.

True, but then you give up the pleasure of watching them go into frothing seizures.

because IMHO Christianity promotes mostly good moral values, values that are useful to non-Christians as well as Christians.

I know you would like to believe this. But it's bunk.

Hey Extradite Rumsfeld - Did you know that in 1843 Lilburn Boggs, the GOVERNOR of Missouri, issued an extermination order on the Mormons? In other words, it was legal to kill a Mormon. And that order stood until 1976 when Governor Kit Bond rescinded it. Looks like you and all the other bigots missed your chance!

Winda Warren Terra - When you're quoting strong statements like that don't you think a little reference noting might be appropriate? I'm not saying you don't have them, I just want to see them.

Ever heard of Google? Try it sometime.

Global Citizen, Some of my best friends are Jewish, feminist, academic, biochemists.

An unusual combination is Conservative Jewish, Political feminist academics in numerous disciplines. They demand the equal political and scholarly rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but accept the different moral and social obligations of their religion. They demand separate hours for male and femal swimming in the JCC swimming pools, but not in public swimming pools. And, of course, they vote their consciences, bringing some of their religious beliefs into the political process.

We are not supposed to use that phrase some of my best friends anymore because of the condescension. But it's true, and I know from their life experiences that bias against Jews persists, though not like it was.

WWT - So I guess that means you don't have any references - right?

MatthewRMarler: Not that long ago, Jews in fact were denied promotions in government and in business, and were denied admission to college and graduate school on account of their being Jewish.

My career was in a field that was traditionally quite bigoted. I know several Jews and other minorities who spent their career in government, which did not discriminate against them, although the the private sector did. Of course, religious discrimination by private colleges or other private organizations is perfectly Constitutional, although it is odious.

I am not a lawyer, but I know that the Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test for government office. So, I should think that one wouldn't need to stretch the meaning of the Establishment clause to rule that the government could not discriminate against Jews.

In large swaths of the U.S., the KKK brought actual punishment to Jews and Catholics who had the temerity to try to buy property. These shortcomings of American democracy were overcome by persistent litigation.

Obviously we all detest the thuggish behavior of the KKK. I'm in favor of anything that was done to resist them. Nevertheless, the fact that some litigation was good doesn't mean all litigation is.

What's spectacularly wrong, and frankly, a little bit dangerous, is giving one or two cranks veto power over the wishes of the vast majority. The public policy part of me wants you to realize how utterly stupid and unproductive your secular jihad against expressions of faith are, but the crass politician in me says, "Go for it." No other single issue has as much payoff for my side in the '08 elections, and will guarantee that you are enjoying a two-year sublet on Congress.

What religious maniacs are looking for is state acknowledgment of their truth, that is, acknowledgment of the impressive primacy of their authoritarian mental disorder. If the state withholds that their authoritarian mental disorder is completely flipped, alienated and 'democracy just isn't working anymore'.

Global,

Did you mean Afghani camels?

No, Algerian. The French used DU there and the Algerian camels represent the long-range manifest effects of exposure.

So I guess that means you don't have any references - right?

just copy the quote, paste it into Google and behold!

I do not find in orthodox Christianity...

the bible is not my book...

i'll leave you the rest

Cleek - I know how Google works. I was hoping WWT had done some actual homework or maybe even some reading on his own.

I wouldn't vote for any of her candidates.

Shows how much I know --I'd thought DU was uniquely American.

The public policy part of me wants you to realize how utterly stupid and unproductive your secular jihad against expressions of faith are

please, get this through your thick head, once and for all: the objection is to spending tax dollars on symbols and displays that are specifically religious.

a trivial mental exercise should be enough to convince you of why this is how it should be: imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth you and your comrades would go through, if your state government spent thousands of your tax dollars to put up a Ramadan display every (Muslim calendar) year.

if you want to pretend there's anything more to it than that, then you're welcome to your fantasy. but don't complain if everybody else thinks you're a lunatic.

Hey Extradite Rumsfeld - Did you know that in 1843 Lilburn Boggs, the GOVERNOR of Missouri, issued an extermination order on the Mormons? Posted by: Lamonte on December 26, 2006 at 2:52 PM

No. I did not know that. Interesting "fun-fact" there. What did it have to do with what I posted?

Looks like you and all the other bigots missed your chance!

Oh - you mistook my post for bigotry!
So, do you agree with my premise, that Church-State separation is a good thing? Or not?

If so, then I assume you'll be working side-by-side with me to undo Utah's religiously-based Liquor prohibition laws.

If not, then I assume you'll be working with the Republican Party as they continue to try to establish an official state religion in the US which will effectively ban minority sects like Mormonism.

ER - I most definitely believe in the separation of church and state. I don't want the state or the federal government meddling in my religion or anybody else's and I am most disturbed by the Bush created Faith Based initiatives which is just another means of giving tax dollars to religious organizations.

It seems to me that the only way to do away with the "religiously-based Liquor prohibition laws" in Utah would be to get yourself elected to the legislature and change them. I think that's the way it was intended by the founding fathers. And since the Utah legislature is dominated by Republicans I wouldn't have much of a chance of getting elected.

Perhaps I mistook your previous comment to mean that you delighted in the elimination of Mormons and Scientoligists. If I did then I apologize. I'm just a little tired of some who claim to be open minded and then blow the theory by expressing their true beliefs.

By the way, do you suppose the liquor laws in Utah are the only religiously based laws founded in the individual states? Something tells me that isn't true. Those laws and all others passed across the land were passed by people informed by their own personal convictions and religion is one of the strongest personal convictions.

Not altogether off topic, an excellent article on the Precipitate Deline of the Iranian Oil Industry

concluding,

"If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year," he said. "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."
If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years, it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Mr. Stern said, is good reason to control any instinct to take on Iran militarily.
"What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.
"The one thing that would unite the country right now is to bomb them," Mr. Stern said. "Here is one problem that might solve itself."

The article has the idea, sort of behind the screen, that it isn't sanctions against Iran that are having this serious effect, since oil sanctions leak like a sieve, but rather something endemic to theocratic government.

ex-liberal: Were govenment positions denied to people on the basis of their religion?

if racists like glen beck were to have his way, then yes. this shit continues to this day, and isn't some quaint historical relic. the conservative base can usually find someone to hate.

Shorter Benen?: "Better to cede all political power to Republicans than for a Dem candidate to mention that he was taught to love his neighbor at church." Where, in the piece on Vanderslice, is it revealed that she is counseling candidates "to avoid support for church-state separation, and to insist that the constitutional principle is somehow hostile towards religion"?

Can we please win a few elections and safeguard the enlightenment before we get all floaty and poetic -- perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.

The "Washington" quote ("[T]he Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion") is actually from Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was approved by President John Adams and ratified by the Senate. Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli, November 4, 1796.

Mark - Now that's what I call a reference! Thanks.

By the way, do you suppose the liquor laws in Utah are the only religiously based laws founded in the individual states?
Posted by: Lamonte on December 26, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Certainly not.

I admit that my intention in placing Mormonism and Scientology in the same category was to inflame.

The point I'm trying to make is the same point that's been made on Church-State separation. Iraqi Sunnis and Shias lived in relative peace under the iron fist of Sunni Saddam. Saddam's regime was secular, his mouthpiece Tariq Azziz was a Christian. Then the US came in and removed the Baathists, and now they've got an Islamic Theocracy - with the Shia's attempting to get rid of the Sunnis, (and the Christians, and other smaller groups that aren't getting as much press).

This is our fate. This is America's fate - if we continue down this road. Yeah, there's a lot of bad precedent as far as religious laws goes in this country.

Those laws and all others passed across the land were passed by people informed by their own personal convictions and religion is one of the strongest personal convictions.

Just because it's a strong conviction, doesn't mean it's right. Nobody has a right to make me pay for a religious display for a religion I do not follow. Nobody has a right to make my kids pray to their God in school. Nobody has a right to prohibit me from behavior that does no harm to anyone else. And yet "strong personal convictions" are overruling my rights on a daily basis. It seems clear to me that what people are taking home with them on Sunday, is making them ignore what they should have brought home with them in civics class. The strongest personal conviction any true patriotic American should have, is the personal conviction of inviolate Constitutional Rights.

My Creator knows that He owns my heart. He doesn't need me to say ". . . under God" when I pledge allegence. He doesn't need me to force my neighbors to behave a certain way. And He does not bless or curse entire nations based on some perceived bad group behavior.

Nads: "Were govenment positions denied to people on the basis of their religion?"

if racists like glen beck were to have his way, then yes. this shit continues to this day, and isn't some quaint historical relic. the conservative base can usually find someone to hate.

I've never listened to Glen Beck. A quick glance at his web site doesn't indicate racism. Does he recommend that blacks be prohibited from holding government jobs?

Extradite Rumsfeld - I think I agree with everything you say. I am, however, wondering what actions "prohibit (you) from behavior that does no harm to anyone else." This seems similar to claims of the religious right that they could not properly celebrate Christmas because the ACLU banned free religious expression. Poppycock! We live in a pluralistic society and some communities have traditions or practices strongly related to their religious observance. Certainly your children should not be forced to pray in school, unless they attend a church sponsored school that requires it. And certainly you should not be subjected to someone else's ideology pertaining to religion. I consider myself a religious person. I have experienced religious bigotry (I am a Mormon - but a liberal one so I have experienced bigotry and persecution from within and without) but I have never experienced anything that I couldn't deal with in an adult way. I'm simply saying that in our efforts to speak to conservatives, or more appropriately put - traditional Americans, we need to be sensative about the language we use in informaing them of our convictions.

lamont - My mother retired from Graceland University and my youngest sister graduated from there. I took classes there one year when my husband was overseas and with three little people, I went "home to my mommy" and let Mom and sisters pitch in! It was a great experience, and my Mom and I were the only Jews on campus, but it revealed my ignorance.

Professor Bill Russell was a formative influence in my liberalism.

Glenn Beck is a cartoon hysteric.

"No other single issue has as much payoff for my side in the '08 elections, and will guarantee that you are enjoying a two-year sublet on Congress."

It didn't have much of a payoff for Roy Moore. He couldn't win with his Christian victimhood in Alabama, and you want to run with it nationally?

But then again, you see a jihad against expressions of faith in this country, so you must be very familiar with delusions.

ex-liberal: I know several Jews and other minorities who spent their career in government, which did not discriminate against them, although the the private sector did.

I did not actually assert that discrimination against Jews was universal, only that it existed. At some times and places, it was prevalent, that is, it prevailed.

Global Citizen,

"I am a Jewish, Feminist biochemist [...] also an academic. With a Constitution fetish. There is something about me for everyone to hate! Don't be shy! Pick something!"

That you're unavailable? Hmmm...hate seems to be to strong a feeling for that...besides its really more jealousy of the Major (IIRC--at any rate Mr. Global Citizen is to whom I refer).

royal-blue Cannondale mountain bike

AHA! well I ride a royal-blue Giant road bike.

still..."hate"...hmmm

*Blushing here*

The existence of a higher spititual power -- call that higher power whatever you will -- can neither be proven nor disproven by man. That is why an individual's belief in that higher spiritual power, if undertaken voluntarily in the absence of physical evidence to sustain that belief, is called "Faith".

Mandating official recognition of a higher spiritual power, under penalty of law, is akin to removing faith from religion.

Thus, such a mandate dooms one's belief to a stagnant existence in the realm of official dogma, and reduces religion's place in one life to that of a temporal agent of the state.

For those people who truly take their faith seriously, I would offer that as a primary rationale for supporting the separation of state and church.

Global Citizen - I'm glad you had a good experience at Graceland University. That school is operated by the Community of Christ, which was formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is based in Salt Lake City. We share beliefs with the Community of Christ in that we both believe the Book of Mormon to be an authentic and devinely inspired scripture and in the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. When Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844 those church members separated from the main body believing that leadership of the church should be handed down from father to son. Brigham Young led the remainder of the church across the plains to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847.

I think we all have our eyes opened at certain times in our lives if we are willing to open our ears and our hearts.

those church members separated from the main body believing that leadership of the church should be handed down from father to son. Brigham Young

Did anyone else immediately think "its suprisingly like the Shia and Sunni split"?

Donald from Hawaii wrote: "The existence of a higher spiritual power -- call that higher power whatever you will -- can neither be proven nor disproven by man."

What do you mean by "higher" and "higher" than what?

"Higher" -- meaning more powerful than -- humans?

In that case, there are plenty of "higher powers" that are more powerful than humanity, that are "spiritual" if humans are "spiritual", whose existence can be easily proved.

For example, the Sun. The ancients had good reason to worship the Sun as a "god", since literally everything in our Earthly existence arose from the Sun, is sustained by the Sun and in the end will return to the Sun. And I see no reason that the Sun shouldn't be regarded as a "spiritual" entity, if a human being is.

ex-liberal; "I've never listened to Glen Beck. A quick glance at his web site doesn't indicate racism. Does he recommend that blacks be prohibited from holding government jobs?"

Glenn Beck may not consider himself to be racist, but he certainly promotes beliefs and policies on his program that can most kindly described as xenophobic, and talks to his audience using language that is often incindiary in its nature.

The British in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century thought of themselves as enlightened, having led the effort to abolish the slave trade throughout the world. Most certainly they bristled at the suggestion that they were racists. However, they also pursued a policy of accommodation with the Afrikaaners (ethnic Dutch settlers) at the end of the Boer War. This resulted in the complete disenfranchisment of the native population and the imposition of a policy of apartheid over the entire country once the Afrikaaners declared South Africa free of the British Commonwealth in 1948.

No doubt, many British and Americans protested apartheid after the fact -- but as long as there was money to be made in the gold mines of the Rand and the diamond mines of Kimberley, our respective governments officially looked the other way, even in the face of horrific racist atrocities like Sharpesville (1960) and Soweto (1976).

One does not have to adopt the overtly racist attitudes of an ignorant Georgia cracker in order to promote or support policies that have the effect of rwacism. One merely has to be self-absorbed, and / or in possession of a conscience that proves resolutely impervious to the obvious suffering in the world.

Edo - that is a very apt analogy. read No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie and the parallels become even more striking.

ex-lib: Nevertheless, the fact that some litigation was good doesn't mean all litigation is.

kind of like bush foreign policy huh...

SecularAnimist: "[T]here are plenty of 'higher powers' that are more powerful than humanity, that are 'spiritual' if humans are 'spiritual', whose existence can be easily proved. For example, the Sun."

That the Sun exists is a fact I can't dispute.

And if you are implying, by both your capitalization of "the Sun" as a proper noun and your use of the possessive "whose" (see above), that the sun itself is in possession of a life force -- rather than merely being a static source of physical energy -- then one certainly has every right to engage in its religious veneration.

Other peoples have worshipped the earth and the seas in similar fashion. And really, if one really thinks about it, who are we to dispute otherwise?

I believe that we would both agree that the very nature of spirituality is inherently personal, and it therefore defies both logic and reason to think that it can be imposed from without, rather than embraced from within.

Hey, mr. i, thanks for acknowledging that some of bush's foreign policy has been good. :)

Donald from Hawaii, I take your point, but I would encourage you to be careful about throwing around the accusation of "racist." What you wrote comes close to saying that people who disagree with your preferred policies are racist.

For example, I think that affirmative action in colleges hurts black students. It makes it easy to ignore the problems in el-hi schools. It puts black students in institutions from which they tend not to graduate. It provides the wrong motivation.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't accuse supporters of affirmative action of being racists. I think they simply have incorrect ideas about what policies would benefit minorities.

O Ye Religious Maniacs!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/crispiness/333488505/

You appreciate that she's well-intentioned---she's a dangerous, ignorant fanatic, with the intention of gutting the foundations of our system of government. I'm glad she's well-intentioned though.. does she wear stylish shoes as well?

Global Citizen,

and the parallels become even more striking.

and no doubt frightening. thanks for the book recomendation!

"Did anyone else immediately think "its suprisingly like the Shia and Sunni split"?" Edo

Edo - May I suggest that you investigate how both of these groups (The Mormons and the Community of Christ) have conducted themselves and you will find they have not only lived in peace for the past 160 years but their members have made significant contributions to society. You could take the time to check it out before you make such a statement or you could just bury your ignorant little head back in the sand where it came from.

I can see the theological parallels, without the attendant violence of the current Islamic intra-faith struggles.

A book I have read within the last year that was pretty good that addresses the schism currently erupting between fundamentalist sects and mainstream Mormonism that I recommend reading is Under the Banner of Heaven.

Global Citizen - how disappointing to see you siding with Edo. If you think Fawn Brodie knows the truth about Joseph Smith then you probably believe George Bush has been telling the truth for the past 6 years.

I'm sorry. I was looking at the allegorical rather than the literal.

That book was required reading for a class at Graceland. But I have regurgitated a lot of information on tests that is no longer part of the curricullum. As it is not my history, I don't feel it's my place to pass judgement on either version.

I understand that the Mormon church teaches its members that every family should store a year's supply of food in their home at all times.

I think that is a good teaching.

SecularAnimist - Thanks for the positive comment.

Global Citizen - That's interesting that the book is required reading at Graceland. I really don't want this blog to turn into a referendum on Mormonism. I just hope you WILL study both sides of the issue. I have a feeling you will.

Of course if you would like to know more I can arrange for some nice young men in dark suits to visit you...oh, never mind. ;-)

ex-liberal: "I would encourage you to be careful about throwing around the accusation of 'racist.' What you wrote comes close to saying that people who disagree with your preferred policies are racist."

Please do not put words into my mouth, nor ascribe to me motives that are rooted primarily in your own fertile imagination. Never at any time in my prior post (6:31 PM) did I ever "[throw] around the accusation of 'racist'".

Further, the only policy I discussed in detail in that post was the imposition of South Africa's apartheid in 1948. Surely, you are not saying that you find preferable to present South African society?

There -- do you enjoy having your own words twisted around and thrown back in your face?

In short, you have a very troubling habit of either sidestepping or perverting the issue at hand, preferring instead to set up straw men to knock down, as though you need to prove your own point to yourself. It becomes rather tiresome, and only invites ridicule from serious people.

ex-liberal: "I think that affirmative action in colleges hurts black students. It makes it easy to ignore the problems in el-hi schools."

The existence of affirmative action in colleges might make it easy for you "to ignore the problems in el-hi schools." However, those are two entirely different issues, and I would argue that dismantling of former will not necessarily lead to improvement of the latter.

Ands certainly you are not implying that we properly tended to the problems of inner city schools prior to the adoption of affirmative action policies, or assuming that such policies are akin to creating dependency that's akin to welfare? Oops, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, there I go again ...

But seriously, I would further argue that affirmative action served this country very well in the 1960s and 1970s, when we sought to promote diversity in our various institutions that reflected the true face of the country. However, our country's demographics have undergone tremendous change since that time, and the policies need to evolve to reflect the times in which we currently live.

However, the key to garnering future personal opportunity should always be the pursuit for self-improvement, not merely a desire to eliminate the competition.

I have no idea if it is still required reading or not. That was nearly 20 years ago. I imagine that professor has retired and I have no idea what the canon is now.

Those three "little people" who were preschool to kindergarden then and why I moved near my mom for a year are now two grad students and a med student.

Lamonte,

May I suggest that you investigate how both of these groups (The Mormons and the Community of Christ) have conducted themselves and you will find they have not only lived in peace for the past 160 years but their members have made significant contributions to society.You could take the time to check it out before you make such a statement or you could just bury your ignorant little head back in the sand where it came from.

Such aggression. Such vehemence. All because I noted an interesting (to me) parallel in the divergences in two seperate religions. Did I state that Mormons and/or Community of Christ "conducted" themselves the same as Muslims in any way?

Why are you so defensive. below please find my entire quote; pray tell what it is that you found so offensive:

those church members separated from the main body believing that leadership of the church should be handed down from father to son. Brigham Young

Did anyone else immediately think "its suprisingly like the Shia and Sunni split"?

Posted by: Edo on December 26, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

oh, and if you were somehow reacting to this comment of mine (indented as a response to the italicized phrase)

...and the parallels become even more striking.

and no doubt frightening. thanks for the book recomendation!

then perhaps you should ask someone what they mean, before you attack them. My response in no way was meant to equate the conduct of the two (four?) religious groups.

Cleek - I know how Google works. I was hoping WWT had done some actual homework or maybe even some reading on his own.
Posted by: Lamonte

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. As demonstrated by Cleek, all you have to do is Google the quote to find the source.

Dumbass.

Edo - you are right. I should have followed my own advice and done some reading. I now understand the point you were making. I could say that any reference linking my religion to the situation in Iraq creates an immediate defensive posture. I see now that is only an excuse. My behavior was uncalled for. Please accept my apology.

Damn you Mormons are polite.

Apology accepted. And please accept my apology for having unwittingly set you off--it certainly was not my intention. Have a good night all. I'm off to be with the family.

Goodnight Edo. See you on the internets.

done some actual homework or maybe even some reading on his own.

I have been typing these quote verbatim from memory for more than fifteen years to demonstrate that I HAVE INDEED DONE THE ACTUAL READING AND THE "HOMEWORK." You can find the sources on your own, if you're interested in the truth.

The Founding Fathers were not "Christians." Fucking deal with it already.

Lamonte: "May I suggest that you investigate how both of these groups (The Mormons and the Community of Christ) have conducted themselves and you will find they have not only lived in peace for the past 160 years ..."

With, I would very strongly note, the egregious exception of a notorious 1857 incident at Mountain Meadows, UT.

However, to the credit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (after trying for years to blame Paiute Indians), Mormons did finally acknowledge some sense of culpability in the atrocity and recently built a beautiful memorial to its victims on the crime site near St. George.

Donald from Hawaii - of course you are correct and thanks for setting the record straight.

Winda Warren Terra - Such eloquence we do not deserve.

Listening to some of the secularists on this thread, one would think that Eisenhower America was Taliban Afghanistan.

The Jacobin hatred of Christianity that pervades the ACLU and most of the cultural left has made 'separation of church and state' as poisoned a phrase coming from a Democrat as 'states rights' coming from a Republican. Avoiding it is a statement that you will not pursue an agenda of secularist 'cultural revolution from above' and actually believe that Christians have IQs above room temperature.

ex-lib writes:

E.g.,