How To Tell that the United States Does Not Have a Christian Government

“….no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI, U.S. Constitution
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” First Amendment U.S. Constitution

________________________________________________________________________________________________
“You shall have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20: 3. New International Version (NIV).

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” Exodus 20:5. NIV

“12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,” Deuteronomy 12: 13 – 16. NIV.

“10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign. ….12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman: 2 Chronicles 15: 10, 12 – 13. NIV
Emperor Constantine I: In 317 he issued an edict to confiscate Donatist church property and sent the Donatist clergy into exile. In 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea to determine what should be church doctrine.

The Northern Crusades: Crusades carried out by the Christian Kings of Sweden, Denmark, and Poland against their pagan neighbors in the 12th and 13th centuries.

The Inquisitions: A group of institutions within the Catholic Church set up to combat heresy and blasphemy starting in 12th century France and lasting into the 19th century. Usually used in conjunction and with the support of the state. For example: King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478.

In England the Act of Supremacy of 1534 made the King or Queen of England “the only supreme head on earth of Church in England”. Due to this, being Catholic made one a traitor and was an act of treason against the state. The Scottish Reformation in 1560 also made it illegal to be a Catholic in Scotland.

The persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1656 the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed laws against anyone bringing Quakers into the Colony or anyone harboring them. They would be fined 100 pounds and then either imprisoned or banished. Other fines included 54 pounds for possessing Quaker books or writings, 40 pounds for defending the teachings of Quakers, 44 pounds for a second offence of defending the teachings, followed by imprisonment until the offender could be shipped out. The laws also allowed corporal punishment ie., whippings, cutting off of ears, boring holes in tongues, and hanging.

In the recent past all countries had laws against blasphemy. Usually it was OK to speak out against other religions but not the religion of that country. Many countries, including those in Europe, still have laws against blasphemy on the books, although the last prosecutions using these were usually in the early 20th century. Despite this, some countries have resisted the elimination of laws against blasphemy. As recently as 1998 an attempt was made to rescind Finland’s laws against blasphemy, and failed.

In the United States the authors of the Constitution were heavily criticized for not enshrining God and Christianity into its text. This omission of God and Christianity was denounced by the Reverend John M. Mason who declared it “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” He went on to warn “we will have every reason to tremble lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck.” Others warned of the dangers of not putting God and Christianity into the Constitution because it would be an “invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us.” and that “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States.” This was one of the arguments made against ratifying the newly proposed Constitution.

Attempts were periodically made to correct this “mistake”. For example, during the beginning of the Civil War, the National Reform Association was founded in order to correct the mistake that was tearing our nation apart. No, it was not slavery that was the mistake in the eyes of these clergymen but, instead, it was the lack of an acknowledgement of God and Jesus in our Constitution.

In 1863 an attempt was made to amend the Constitution’s preamble and there acknowledge not only God but also Jesus Christ as the source our government. The clergy involved in the National Reform Association devised a statement that would not offend any of the mainstream Protestant denominations (they were not worried of course about Jews, Quakers, or Catholics who, being religious minorities, were aghast at the idea). It proposed replacing “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” with “Recognizing almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government…”

The National Reform Association met with President Lincoln in February 1864 and presented him with their petition for a Christian government. His response was the observation that “…the work of amending the Constitution should never be done hastily.” and a promise to “take such action upon it as my responsibility to my Maker and our country demands.” He then took no action at all. Neither did Congress, instead tabling the resolution for years until it was forgotten.
The last attempt to insert a Christian amendment into the Constitution was in the early 1960’s. It never made it to Congress for a vote.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The contrast between the words of the Constitution and the words of the Bible and the example of history are stark and apparent. The Constitution is a secular document creating a secular government, not a Christian one.
“16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28: 16 – 20 NIV”

Given the above task given to Christians by Jesus – the Great Commission – governments have argued that to not promote Jesus and God leads to the eternal damnation of those not aware of Jesus and God’s mercy. To save people from this fate by bringing them to Christ is a basic Christian responsibility and a basic responsibility of a Christian nation. This is one of the major reasons governments promoted one religion and persecuted and condemned others. This is something Christian governments have done from the very beginning. Their not doing this is a thoroughly modern event.

In fact, it is our government, the government of the United States, that started this split between government and religion. It declared that no longer would government be concerned with the state and fate of an individual’s soul. Instead, that would be the province of each individual to deal with as they best saw fit. Instead the government would deal with purely secular matters.

The reason why our founders went against the clear teachings of the Bible and the example of almost 1800 years of Christian governments is due to their clear view of history. During the almost 1800 years of good Christian governments trying to follow the precepts of the 10 Commandments and the Bible religious conflict was pandemic. People within a country were often persecuted, tortured, and killed for being of the wrong faith. Religious differences made warfare between countries even more horrific.

This history made men of conscience such as Roger Williams and, later, our founders, realize that man cannot dictate the conscious of others through the use of government. Roger argued that Man and thus his creation governments, are fallible and can favor the wrong belief, thus causing many more to go to hell than would have otherwise.

Our founders dispensed with this part of the argument and kept to the fact that too much conflict, spilled blood, and evil is done when governments attempt to dictate the conscience of its citizens. Therefore it is best to be left to the individual if the goal is to create a just, long lasting and fair government.

I posted this in light of the recent Public Policy Poll showing that 57% of Republicans favor establishing Christianity as the national religion and only 30% opposed this idea (the relevant question is on page 3). This, as the above shows, displays an astonishing lack of knowledge of both Christian history and of our own Constitution. Or rather, it would be astonishing if I had seen so many displays of such ignorance before.

And that is not even mentioning the fact that so often these same people criticize Islam for wanting to establish Islam as the state religion (although this is not universal in Islam– either today or in history). It seems that whether mixing state and religion is a good idea or not depends on whose religion is about to be bonded to the state.

However, the establishment of state religions – whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever – is always a bad idea. It is not religion alone that leads to the greatest conflicts and abuses but rather the mixing of the two that does so.

This is something I expounded on in an earlier blog “What Most Have Forgotten”.

“Although some of our founders were traditional Christians, most, while devout, were not traditionally so. Many believed that religion encouraged morality in the common people and so followed religious practices. All, though, recognized the danger that comes from religion and government becoming entangled. All recognized the necessity for a secular government. All remembered the reasons why a strict separation between church and state is necessary. I think it is time that many of us read more thoroughly our own and European history and take a good look at the world around us.

I think it is time that we start remembering again.”

Read Full Post »

What Most Have Forgotten

The sight of gallows loaded with the bodies of men and women hanged and sometimes mutilated just for their beliefs. Men such as the Jesuit John Ogilvie who was sentenced to death by a Glasgow court and hanged and disemboweled on March 10, 1615.

The thousands of men and women deprived of their property due to being of the wrong religion with the definition of the wrong religion changing when the English rulers changed. First Protestant, then Catholic, then Protestant again.

The thousands of Lutheran men, women, and children who starved and froze to death when, on October 31, 1731, 20,000 of them were expelled from their homes in Salzburger, Austria by the Archbishop Leopold von Firmian. They were given only eight days to leave their homes.

The drowning of Protestants by the Irish Catholics in 1641. After holding them as prisoners and torturing them, the Catholics then forced them to the bridge over the River Bann, forced them to strip, and then drove them into the water at sword point. Those that survived the plunge were then shot.

Our Founders remembered this and more. It is why there is no mention of Christianity, no mention of God, no mention of Jesus in the Constitution. Our Founders set up a secular state so that freedom of conscience would be guarded for all men.

The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris on August 24, 1572 when thousands of Huguenots (Protestants) were butchered by Catholic mobs. This was just the worst of the many killings and riots that occurred during the 30 years of war between the French Protestants and Catholics that started in 1562.

The Huguenots disemboweling and burying alive priests. The killing of Catholic children. The torture of priests and Catholics during the same 30-year war.

John Rogers being burned alive at Smithfield England, the “first Protestant martyr” executed by England’s Catholic Queen Mary.

The smell of burning flesh as John Lambert was chained to a stake in 1537 at Smithfield, England and then burned. He had defended his conscience and faith after being summoned to an inquisition.

For not enshrining God and Christianity into its text the Constitution was heavily criticized. This omission of God and Christianity was denounced by the Reverend John M. Mason who declared it “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” He went on to warn “we will have every reason to tremble lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck.”

 

Others warned of the dangers of not putting God and Christianity into the Constitution because it would be an “invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us.” and that “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States.”

 

Our Founders knew that, with most of the states having religious tests for citizenship and holding office, that pushing a thoroughly secular Constitution would be difficult. Yet they did push.

 

George Washington, John Adam, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the others of our Founders considered the lack of religion in the Constitution important enough to weather the firestorm of criticism to get the Constitution ratified as it was – without God and without religion.

 

In fact, eventually all the states would follow the lead of the writers of the Constitution and erect their own wall of separation between church and state.

Anne Hutchison defending her beliefs and being banished by the Puritans from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637. The same Puritans who were persecuted in England and sailed to the New World carried the Old World’s intolerance of dissent with them. Anne Hutchison, her servants, and 5 of her children were killed by Indians in New York in 1643.

Roger Williams’ defense of the separation of church and state in the mid 17th century. He believed that the state should not be involved in religion at all. He believed that all men — the Muslims, Jews, infidels, and atheists – should have freedom of conscience and for the state to be involved in any way with religion would infringe on this right. His books were banned and burned in England. In America he was banished by the Puritans.

The persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1656 the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed laws against anyone bringing Quakers into the Colony or anyone harboring them. They would be fined 100 pounds and then either imprisoned or banished. Other fines included 54 pounds for possessing Quaker books or writings, 40 pounds for defending the teachings of Quakers, 44 pounds for a second offence of defending the teachings, followed by imprisonment until the offender could be shipped out. The laws also allowed corporal punishment ie., whippings, cutting off of ears, boring holes in tongues, and hanging. Mary Dyer, William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson were some among many who braved these punishments in order to speak their conscience. All three had been banished, endured flogging, and were eventually hanged.

Today we take the benefits of keeping church and state separate too much for granted. It has allowed us to avoid most of the religious violence that has embroiled much of the world despite our being the most religiously diverse nation on earth.

 

Even though we are home for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics we have avoided the strife that plagues India from the Hindus and Muslims, the wars that consume the Middle East between the Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and Christians, and the violence between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

 

We take these so much for granted that many do not understand why the state cannot favor any religion; why the state shouldn’t fund or help religious groups and organizations.

 

In An Essay On Toleration Benjamin Franklin wrote, “If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.”

In his statement about why he refused to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer Andrew Jackson in 1832 said, “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”

James Madison, the chief author of our Constitution, wrote in a letter objecting to the use of government land for churches in 1803, “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 in blood for centuries.”

The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, carried unanimously by the Senate reads, “As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) … it is declared.. that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”

In a letter John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

These and more statements from our founders, from George Washington to Thomas Paine, from Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson all attest to the fact that they set up a secular government in order to preserve the new country that they had created from being torn by religious wars. A country where all men, not just Christians but all men, would be free to follow their conscience and express their beliefs.

During the beginning of the Civil War, the National Reform Association was founded in order to correct the mistake that was tearing our nation apart. No, it was not slavery that was the mistake in the eyes of these clergymen but instead it was the lack of an acknowledgement of God and Jesus in our Constitution.

 

In 1863 an attempt was made to amend the Constitution’s preamble and there acknowledge not only God but also Jesus Christ as the source our government. A foreshadowing of one of our recent President’s use of Jesus as his political mentor.

The clergy involved in the National Reform Association devised a statement that would not offend any of the mainstream Protestant denominations (they were not worried of course about Jews, Quakers, or Catholics who, being religious minorities, were aghast at the idea). It proposed replacing “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” with “Recognizing almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government…” Shades of the Islamic constitution in Iran.

The National Reform Association met with President Lincoln in February 1864 and presented him with their petition for a Christian government. His response was the observation that “…the work of amending the Constitution should never be done hastily.” and a promise to “take such action upon it as my responsibility to my Maker and our country demands.” He then took no action at all. Neither did Congress, instead tabling the resolution for years until it was forgotten.

 

Now these and other histories have been forgotten. We have taken for granted the benefits of a secular government. Now a new mythology is being created that our founders would be appalled by. The myth that the United States of America was created as a Christian Nation.

 

We no longer remember why that road is such a dangerous one. We no longer seem to understand why a secular government is necessary for the continued freedom of belief and conscience that we now so blithely enjoy.

 

Even such seemingly laudable actions such as giving government money to religious charities creates problems and raises troubling questions.

 

When the government gives money, as in the faith based charity programs, it decides which religions get money and which do not. Is it really any surprise that during President Bush’s Presidency the vast majority of the money is given to evangelical organizations that supported him?  Is it any surprise that only they, out of all the organizations that our government supports with our money, are allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion with that money?

 

And how will you react when Moslems charities start receiving money? How about Scientology? Wiccan charities? Secular Humanist charities? Do you approve and trust our government to start picking and choosing what religions are “worthy” of receiving money and government approval and which are “unworthy?”

 

Despite all the talk about original intent we are moving away from what our founders intended.

 

Although some of our founders were traditional Christians, most, while devout, were not traditionally so. Many believed that religion encouraged morality in the common people and so followed religious practices. All, though, recognized the danger that comes from religion and government becoming entangled. All recognized the necessity for a secular government. All remembered the reasons why a strict separation between church and state is necessary. I think it is time that many of us read more thoroughly our own and European history and take a good look at the world around us.

 

I think it is time that we start remembering again.

Read Full Post »

Secular Governments and Religious Cultures

I have seen some atheists decrying what they see as the religious government of the United States.  Some have even gone so far as to label it a theocracy.   It is not though.  What such people fail to do is distinguish the government from the culture of the United States.

The Flavor of a Democracy

The government of the United States is most assuredly secular.  However it is also equally assuredly a democracy and a strongly religious culture.  These two points are important.  They are important because all democracies take on the flavor of the dominant culture.  It is inevitable.  After all, a democracy reflects the will of the people – they elect officials, vote on laws, and are polled on what they believe and want and if elected officials desire to be re-elected such desires have to be considered.  Further, elected officials are drawn from the culture which means that whatever is the predominant strain running through a culture and society then people who believe in that strain and think like that strain will get elected more frequently than those that do not.

This fact is highlighted by the recent Pew poll on the composition of our 2013 Congress.

http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Faith-on-the-Hill-The-Religious-Affiliations-of-Members-of-Congress.aspx

“Members of Congress are often accused of being out of touch with average citizens, but an examination of the religious affiliations of U.S. senators and representatives shows that, on one very basic level, Congress looks much like the rest of the country. Although a majority of the members of the new, 111th Congress, which will be sworn in on Jan. 6, are Protestants, Congress – like the nation as a whole – is much more religiously diverse than it was 50 years ago.”

While there is some variation in religious representation in Congress with that of  American society, most notably among the nones, as a whole it fairly closely matches.  Given all of this it would be surprising if our government did not have a religious flavor.  It is made up of religious people and is reflective of American society at large.

However, our government having a religious flavor is not the same as it actually being religious.  It is rather more like those fruit juice drinks with artificial flavoring but containing no real fruit juice.

A Secular Government

Let us start this section by noting that the United States Constitution is a starkly secular one.  There is no reference to God or Christianity in it.  The only religious reference are the ones telling the government to stay out of the individual’s religious beliefs – the no religious test for public office clause and the 1^st amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Indeed, as an outline for the workings of government it is more secular than almost any other such document for any other government.

It is more secular than Canada’s, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

It is more secular than Denmark’s, “The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State.”

It is more secular than Germany’s, “”Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, … the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.”

It is more secular than Australia’s, “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown … Be it therefore enacted … as follows:”

Much more secular than Ireland’s, “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, … do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”

It is more secular than Switzerland’s, “In the name of Almighty God! The Swiss People and the Cantons … adopt the following Constitution:”

And the list goes on.

So, despite what some believe, both atheist and theist, the United States is a solidly secular government.  One though set in a religious culture, in fact one of the most religious cultures in the industrialized nations.

So, how does the interplay of religious culture and secular government work out then.

Secular Government Meets Religious Culture

The United States secular government restricts how far legislation based solely on religion can go.  It does so through several different methods.

First, the fact that our Congress represents the views of a great many diverse people means that the more radical religious acts die without even being voted on.  Of those that do get voted on the majority will wind up never passing.  And then it still has to be signed by the President.

Keep in mind that there are numerous voices clamoring to be heard during this whole process.  This includes the secular and those who value church/state separation as well as the religious who wish to impose their views on all.

Even should such legislation (overtly religious) get passed there is still another check point – the judiciary system.  Such laws can be challenged in court and the courts can and have overruled them.

Now, keep in mind that all of this is not an automatic process, nor is it one that happens instantaneously.  It cannot be so due to the fact that the Constitution is a document that has to be interpreted and that men of good will can disagree on this; and that a democracy is inherently a messy and inefficient system of government.  Also, the weeding out involves a process and the process, as all processes do, can and usually does take time.

To provide an example of what I mean, consider creationism.  Every year numerous bills are proposed in the states and occasionally at the national level that would promote creationism.  The vast majority never get beyond the proposal state.  They either die in committee, or are not passed by the legislature, or are vetoed by the governors.

Of the few that do get enacted so far each and every one – every single one that has managed somehow to be passed – has been struck down by the courts.

Or consider the fate in Florida of Amendment 8.  This proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution in 2012 that would have prohibited state government from discriminating (specifically in terms of financial aid) against religious organizations, including schools with religious affiliations.  It needed 60% of the population to vote yes in order to pass.  It didn’t even get half the votes, winding up with only 44.5%.

Even had it passed it would still have been successfully challenged in the courts.

I know that there are some religious trappings to our government.  I would like to see them banished, however they are trappings and not substance.

The swearing of oath of office on the Bible is one such.  However, keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution requiring this, nor does the Constitution require saying “So help me, God.”  This is cultural only, and one that is changing.  Today we have Muslims swearing in on the Qur’an, a Hindu who swore her oath on the Bhagavad Gita, and a “none” who swore on nothing at all.  Here is a link to a very good article that provides a bit of background on this particular practice.

https://www.au.org/church-state/january-2013-church-state/featured/so-help-me-gods

Some Comparisons and Their Meanings

All of the following information is from “Freedom of Thought 2012; A Global Report on Discrimination Against Humanists, and the Nonreligious”

 

http://www.iheu.org/new-global-report-discrimination-against-nonreligious

 

Several countries have hate crime laws that make it illegal to insult religions.  These include Germany where the German magazine Titanic was prosecuted after their front page showed a crucified Jesus appearing to be receiving fellatio from a Catholic clerk and also a German businessman who printed “Koran” repeatedly on toilet paper who was initially sentenced to one year of prison and 300 hours of community service.

 

Other countries with such hate crime laws include the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  All of these countries have used these laws against those making strong statements against religious groups.

 

You will not find that here in the United States.  It would be considered unconstitutional and a violation of free speech as well as religion in many cases.

 

Many countries also give preferential treatment to one religion over another.   In Sweden Swedes can designate part of their income tax to go to their church or religious body, but secular Swedes have been denied the right to do this for the Humanist Association.

 

While I would like to do away with the tax exemption for churches in the United States it is at least applied to all religions and includes Humanist organizations.  I will note that sometimes the atheist organizations receive a tax exemption on grounds other than religion, but it still is a tax exemption and is a level playing field as opposed to actively giving money to all religious organizations except secular ones.

 

Other countries that financially contribute to religions includes Ireland, the United Kingdom, Iceland which promotes Lutheranism, Norway which supports the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Switzerland which supports one of three traditional communities through church taxes and Canada in which six of the ten provinces provide partial or full funding to religious schools, usually Roman Catholic.

 

Yet despite all of this and more, the United States is the government considered the least secular and most religious.  Why?

 

The difference here is culture.  Were the United States to have a constitution like many of these other countries have then I would imagine we would be in danger of becoming a religious theocracy.  However, I would argue that fact that our constitution is so secular has prevented and will continue to prevent this from ever occurring.  The flip side is God, so to speak, help the citizens of those countries should their culture ever become dominated by conservative religious groups.

 

What Need to be Done in the U.S.

 

The government of the United States has a good secular foundation.  It does not require any change in regards to this, only protection of its secular nature and skilled, consistent use of its laws and nature to continue to fight back against religious legislation.

What is needed instead though is a change in our culture.  To my mind this involves focusing on three areas.

1)       A PR effort to educate the religious public about atheists and atheism; that we are not evil and immoral people and can be trusted.  This would make it easier for us to work together with theists in areas where we have common cause and also increase the odds that an atheist can be elected to public office.

 

2)      Work to encourage the questioning of religious “truth” and ideas with the rationale that once such questioning begins some (although not nearly all) would become atheists.  The others, although not becoming atheist would become more liberal and progressive and more willing to work with us for the common good.  While this questioning might lead these theists to becoming even more religious it would be a religion that is more intelligent and rational.

 

While there is a need for the firebrands and hardliners in this, most such efforts to encourage questioning should be more low key and part of an on-going dialogue.  Why?

 

Because such a low key approach will be the most effective.  It also will not hurt our PR effort mentioned in #1 above, whereas the firebrand approach can create a backlash and be counterproductive to such efforts. Lastly, it is  matter of human fairness and courtesy – theists are deserving of being treated with respect even if we disagree with them about God (after all, aren’t we demanding the same sort of courtesy from them?)

 

3)      We need to educate theist about the benefits to them of a secular government.

 

Some atheist might laugh at this, along with some theists, but I would point out that the earliest arguments for the separation of church and state were made by very devout theists using the Bible as part of their arguments and rationale (Roger Williams is a good example of one such theist).

 

Further, many of the organizations today that are fighting to maintain a wall of separation between church and state consist of many or even mostly religious people.  Americans United for Church and State is headed by an ordained United Church of Christ Minister and consists largely of theists.  The Texas Freedom Network, who has done a good job here in Texas combating attempts to mingle religion and state consists largely of clergy and religious people.    The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is a group consisting mainly of Baptists (surprise!) who strongly support the separation of church and state.

 

I think a lot of the differences between the United States and many of the European and Canadian governments is due to the historical fact that we created a secular government first and are slowly working our way to a secular culture.  In Europe and Canada their culture became secular first and caused their constitutions to be used and interpreted and somewhat modified in a secular manner.   Broad generalization here I know, but I think there is a great deal of truth to it.

It is also why I am not overly concerned about the United States becoming a theocracy or being taken over by the fundamentalists.  I would be more concerned about this if our Constitution had more sympathy for religion and God as do so many European ones does, but it does not.  It is, at its foundation, a thoroughly secular government with some religious flavoring added.

Read Full Post »

God Drop Out As Cause

 

“We ask why there’s violence in our school but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools.  Should we be so surprised that schools have become such a place of carnage? Because we’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability,  That we’re not just gonna have to be accountable to the police if they catch us but one day we stand before a holy God in judgment. If we don’t believe that, then we don’t fear that,”

Mike Huckabee, former Gov. of Arkansas and ordained Baptist Minister

“When you have an anti-religious, secular bureaucracy and secular judiciary, seeking to drive God out of public life, something fills the vacuum.  I don’t know that going from communion to playing war games, in which you practice killing people is necessarily an improvement.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

I have already dealt with the idea that God either allowed or engineered the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School for his own purposes in my blog “Damning a God to Hell”.

https://badatheist.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/damning-a-god-to-hell/

In this blog I want to discuss something a bit more subtle than the immoral sledgehammer argument I dealt with in “Damning a God to Hell”.  This argument is something expressed by both Huckabee and Gingrich above, that because we are becoming a more secular society, because our government is not promoting religion, and because we no longer allow prayer and the teaching of Christianity in our schools that we have created a society that is more immoral, coarser, and more prone to such incidents.

When we are caught up in the rash of shootings and deaths – Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora movie theater, the Sikh Temple, Sandy Hook Elementary School, and too many others – it is easy to believe that something has changed in our society that has made it more violent, more prone to evil.

For the religious, and mainly the Christian religious, it is the fact that, to them, society is becoming more secular and more hostile to Christianity and Christian values.

I am not going to deal in depth with this misperception of theirs that our government and society has become more hostile to religion and the massive amounts of evidence showing them wrong.  I will mention however that contrary to ignorant propaganda, God has not been kicked out of our public schools.

Students are free to pray, read the Bible on their free time, talk to their fellow students about their religious beliefs, form religious associations at school and so forth.  What has happened though is that instead of school officials promoting religion they have now, quite properly, taken a neutral stance.  This is not an attack on Christianity, this is a leveling of the playing field so that all religious beliefs are treated the same.

Further, how anyone can say that American culture is not religious is rather puzzling.  In the Dallas- Fort Worth area where I live you can hardly go five blocks before seeing a church.  Signs abound promoting Christianity.  There are several 24/7 Christian radio and television stations.  Even on those stations that are not 24/7 there is significant programming geared to the Christian.  There are numerous magazines and newspapers for the Christians, as well as Christian publishing houses and Christian book stores.

Too many Christians seem to believe that if all of the surrounding culture does not fit with their religious ideals then it is hostile to them.  Wrong headed, but this is a common feeling for other groups too and seems to be a human thing.

But enough about this.  Now, lets look and see if we as a nation, we as a culture and society, have become so debased that atrocities are now to be expected.   Here are some interesting facts to consider.

1)      We are the most religious industrialized nation in the world.  Yet despite our religiousness, despite the overwhelming numbers of Christians and believers in God and an afterlife when compared to other countries we have by far the highest numbers of mass killings.

 

2)      Looking beyond the mass killings that our country is so prone to, our homicide rate is actually falling.  Last year it was at 4.6 per 100,000.  That is the lowest it has been since 1963.

 

In fact, although the numbers vary up and down, the overall trend has been down.  In fact, it has been trending down for the past 150 years.  The highest homicide rate in our country was between the years of 1846 – 1887; this excludes the Civil War dead.  For example, in Los Angeles in the 1840’s one in every 46 people were murdered.

 

Now, I will agree that the mass killings are somewhat different than straight forward homicides.  However, I would think there would be a link here.  If removing prayer and God from our schools and government really did create a society that promoted mass killings then I would think our homicide rates would be increasing and not decreasing.

 

Let me also note the same if violent games and movies played a large role in this problem.  I am not saying that they may not have a role to play, but whatever it is it is not a straightforward one and I do not believe they will prove to be a major contributor.

 

Let me also note that although our homicide rate is lower than in the past it is still much higher than all of the other wealthy nations of the world – the great majority of whom are also much more secular.

 

3)      Mass murders are not something new.  There have been mass killings throughout our history.  In fact, there was one that killed more elementary school children than the current Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity.

 

On May 18, 1927 at Bath Township in Michigan the Bath Consolidated School was blown up.  The explosion destroyed the north wing of the school building.  During the rescue efforts the man who planted the explosives – dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had hidden in the school basement over a period of several months – drove up to the rescuers and then used his rifle to explode the dynamite in his truck, killing and wounding several more people in the process as well as killing himself.

 

The killer was the school board treasurer.  The reason for his acts were – losing the town clerk election in 1926 and money problems caused by his wife being ill with tuberculosis, so much so that his mortgage was in danger of being foreclosed.

 

The total carnage – 38 elementary students between 7 – 14 years old dead, two teachers dead, four other adults killed (including his wife), and 58 people injured.  The rescuers discovered another 238 lbs of dynamite and pyrotol under the other wing of the school whose timer did not work.  His plan was to evidently blow up the whole school.

 

Bath is not an isolated incident of mass murder.  Our history has several more examples, all from the days when prayer was still in school and the government supposedly supported Christianity.  In fact there were more mass murders during the decade of the 1920’s than we have now.  Their nature and causes are different, but the people were just as dead.

 

4)      If the days of old were so superior to us morally, if a belief in Christianity and Jesus, the government support of prayer and churches created such a superior moral climate then why did slavery exist?

 

After slavery was abolished why was prejudice and discrimination so very much worse than today?  Why was it that not until modern days, days in which official school prayers were banned, were laws against interracial marriage struck down?

 

And what about women’s rights?  Why was it that back in the good old days women did not have the right of property, of person, to vote, were not allowed to work in so many occupations?  Why was wife beating considered acceptable and not illegal?

 

Why was child abuse not illegal until more recent times?  Why was it too often the norm? In fact, it was not until the time that official school prayers were outlawed that child abuse was addressed as a federal and government issue.

 

And what about child labor, sweatshops where children were made to work in unsafe jobs for long hours; why was such an abhorrent practice allowed to continue for so long if a Christian society was so morally superior?

 

The list could go on and on.  America has always been plagued by severe moral issues and problems – even when prayer was in the schools and God in the government, supposedly.

The nature of the problem has changed, the type of problems have changed; some that were in the background have now come to the fore, other news ones have come about.  However I believe that trying to make the case that we are a more immoral culture and society today than the one that existed in the 1950’s, early 1900’s, the 19^th century and so on is, basically, bull.

Such an argument is dependent on limiting your “evidence’ to only a certain time and a certain problem.  It depends on ignorance and selectively choosing your facts.  It is based on illusion bolstered by the emotions created by horrors such as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary.

God in the government and prayer in the schools did not bring about a better moral culture.  In fact, I would argue that today ours is a much more moral society than what existed before.  Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.  But better.

The injection of God and prayer and religion as the issues only serves to cloak and hide the real causes and make the creation of proper policies that actually will help more difficult.  We can continue to improve and solve our issues without the need of injecting God and prayer into the solution.

Read Full Post »