Breaches in the Wall of Separation

Currently we are riding a wave of threats to our liberties coming from the religious right. A woman’s right to control her body, struck down.  Tennessee passing a law allowing public officials, government officials, to refuse to perform gay marriages due to that official’s religious beliefs.  And Alabama’s ruling that a fetus is a person, even using quotes from the Bible as part of its reasoning. 

Given all of this I thought it appropriate to again go over why the separation of church and state is not only important but also critical to the protection of all our rights.  I did so once using history to show why.  This time I plan to use current examples, namely China, India, Israel, and the US. 

China

Some, perhaps many, will be quick to point out that China is not religious.  It does not endorse Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion.  It is an atheist state.  Which is exactly the point.  It proclaims a position on something considered religious – whether God exists.  While in one definition of the term secular China is indeed secular.  However, in another definition, the one I am using, it most definitely is not. 

What many do not realize is that there is a difference between being secular and being atheist.  Secular actually comes in three types.  However, in regard to government, it means that that government takes no stance on purely religious issues. They neither promote nor discourage any one religious view.  Even atheism.  And it is that meaning that I will be referring to in this blog when I say secular.  Let me also mention that as with all human institutions, there is no perfection.  There are several secular governments but some are more secular than others.  And many proclaim themselves to be secular but are not.

China though is not a secular government.  It officially describes itself as being atheist.  And although they recognize five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism – party officials have to be atheists.  And even the officially recognized five religions are closely monitored and restricted.  And if your religion is not one of these five – well, good luck. 

Through the years Chinese actions in regard to religion have changed.  However, they have always been regulated and those considered dangerous condemned and outlawed, while atheism has always been favored. 

The current government of China is “urging all religious groups in China to adapt to socialism by integrating their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture.”  They also have to pledge loyalty to the state. 

They have tightened controls on all the official religions – detaining Uyghurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang and cracking down on underground Quran study groups,  reinforced its ban on unauthorized Protestant worship sites, forcing house churches to join a state-run association and detaining Protestant religious leaders who refuse to cooperate and other actions.  They have though been more lenient towards the native religions – Buddhism and Taoism, allocating money for different projects relating to these two religions. 

So, unlike in secular governments, religion and religious thought and belief is heavily regulated.  Limits are applied to speech and to associations.  All flowing from the lack of separation of church and state.

One point of interest here.  Laws against homosexuality are often said to be related to religious beliefs. Yet, in China, an atheist state, while it is legal to be gay it is still illegal for them to marry or to have civil unions.  Further there are no protections against discrimination in regard to housing and employment, conversion therapy is allowed, gays are not allowed to donate blood.  And can only adopt a child if they are single.   

India

India is officially a secular state.  It says so in its Constitution.  However, in that same Constitution the government is allowed to interfere in matters of religious belief and actions.  Some of this though was necessary and good, such as the abolition of the untouchable caste, and opening up the Hindu temples to lower castes.  Others though, such as the partial funding of religious schools as well as religious buildings are not, are dangerous cracks in the wall of separation. 

An even more dangerous crack in that wall is their allowance of the individual states to make their own laws regulating religious institutions.  And unless they conflict with the central government laws, they stand.  This has led to a variety of laws in regard to religious rights within India, and greater breaches to the wall.  These laws include 11 states outlawing religious conversions.

This mix means that India is more of a quasi-secular state than an actual one.  And just as in the US, there is a conservative religious movement working to have India declared a Hindu nation, with motions to have their Constitution reflect this.  It is no surprise that there has been a rise in religious violence, – Muslims mainly, but also against Christians and Dalits.  As exemplified by the many violent acts during the recent inauguration of the Hindu Ram Temple. 

Israel

Israel is not a secular state.  It proclaims itself a Jewish state and Jews are favored over other groups within Israel.  It does not allow civil marriages and non-religious divorces, the Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish weddings, divorces, conversions and answers questions on who a Jew for purposes of immigration is.  The ministry of education oversees both the secular and religious schools of all faiths, giving them only a limited degree of independence along with a common core curriculum.  And although it protects some faiths, others are not so favored.  Including some Jewish groups. 

However, despite all of this, it does come closer to realizing the protections within its political structure for other religions than either India or China.  But that is trending downwards. Especially the rise of the religious right in Israel, the rights of non-Jews is becoming more precarious.

Even worse it is this religious belief on the part of the Jewish religious conservatives that is one of the main reasons why Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and controlling Gaza, with the claim that they both are part of the Israel in the Bible. 

Finally there is the fact that their religious identity conflicts with their identity as a democracy.  Currently that is not a pressing issue. Although it means that if Israel does formally make the West Bank and Gaza strip part of Israel they will be faced with a decision.  Name do they allow the Arab and mainly Muslim inhabitants to vote with the very real possibility that items related to Judaism and government may be changed?  Do they also formally make them second class citizens without the right to vote?  Or do they do a massive deportation?   None of those are good options, but that is what Israel will be facing someday, even without annexing the West Bank and Gaza. 

The United States

I came across this description of the state of secularism (from the above link about secular) in the United States and liked it.

“The United States is a secular country in theory, but it falls short in actual practice. The U.S. is a self-described secular state and is often considered to be constitutionally secular. The U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

On the other hand, many official U.S. materials still include clear references to religion. The Pledge of Allegiance includes the line “one nation under God,” which is undeniably non-secular. Also, the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on all United States currency (both coins and paper bills) and became the official United States motto in 1956. While religious references such as these are common in many countries, their presence inspires understandable debate about the separation of church and state, as well as whether the U.S. is truly devoted to secularism.”

There are many threats to rights from many different directions and with many different motivations and causes. Breaking the wall separating religion and state though is a common route for such threats to become reality.  That is because it involves matters of conscience and morality, and beliefs that most consider very important.

Once a state starts to identify with a religion then anyone not of that religion becomes, at the very least, slightly suspicious since they are not a good “insert name of state here”.  Worse case, they are persecuted.  Their speech is limited, their ability to associate with others limited, their ability to build houses of worship limited, their ability to hold office limited, their ability to marry and raise children limited.  Eventually these limits turn into being jailed, or forced to move to camps. 

When religions is used as the primary basis for passing laws then we see what we are seeing play out in the US – book bannings increasing, restrictions on bodily autonomy, making the fetus equal in the eyes of the law with a person, allowing government officials to refuse to marry gays, etc. 

The separation of church and state is not only important for the right of individuals to believe as they think best but also to protect us against unnecessary laws based upon other’s conscience. It is why there has to be a secular basis for laws.  It may coincide with a particular religious view – in fact it most often will. With several religious views in fact. But the basis for the law has to be secular not religious 

People look at the small things that encroach upon that wall of separation –  police cars with “In God We Trust”, a cross in a public school classroom, allowing students to fly the Christian flag on the public school flagpole, opening public meetings with a prayer, etc. – and think this is minor.  It is not a big deal.  However, it is through such small things that rafts are created that lift some people above others – those of the right religious beliefs.  The rest get left behind to swim, or more likely, sink. 

As a bit of an aside, for those who call us a Christian nation and who say our country was founded upon Christianity, you need to consider why I chose this time to write my blog.  My idea for this blog actually came about when listening to a Christian religious talk show discussing how the government of India was no longer protecting the religious rights of non-Hindus and of the dangers of “Hindu Nationalism”.  I think they should have used a mirror during that discussion. 

Read Full Post »

Democracy Does Not Trump Rights

The other day I came across this story about how a small school district in Texas, the LaPoynor school district, had been raising a Christian flag up the school flagpole every day.  When challenged on it, and told it violates the separation of church and state and was thus unconstitutional, they, reluctantly, took it down.  However, after a great deal of protests by many of their students the school district came up with another idea that would still allow them to fly the Christian flag most days.  From the Texas Tribunes article: 

“After the controversy about the Christian flag, the district formed a group of students to serve as a committee that selects what flag flies on that third pole. The group is made up of the student from each grade level with the highest grade-point average and meets on a monthly basis under the supervision of a district parent, according to Superintendent Marsha Mills.

The group has chosen different flags, including one for Breast Cancer Awareness Month and one with the district’s mascot. It raises money to purchase any new flags, Mills said. But the Christian flag seems to be a frequent choice.”  

There are several important problems with this reasoning though. 

First, the equating of Breast Cancer Awareness and mascots with religion.  Religion and religious beliefs have a much more emotional and greater importance to people and their lives than the other causes mentioned.  It is why there is a freedom of religion.  It is why wars have been fought in which religion played a prominent role.  Religious belief is why people were and still are persecuted, exiled, martyred, and killed.  Supporting Breast Cancer awareness is not and has never been a reason for such. 

Further, this guise of fairness and democracy is actually a disguise. One that hides a push for making one religious view dominant over all others.  Consider, how many Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, and other religious beliefs do you think there are in the student body?  Some, yes.  But not enough to have the numbers to vote against the raising of the flag.  Further, given the sentiment within the school and community, and in the face of possible/probable harassment, condemnation, bullying, would they dare do so?  Think about the meaning in practical terms of those who differ of the following statement from the article: 

But back in East Texas, there does not appear to be enough concern over the flag for students to mount such a battle. Parents in the district say they are in support of the Christian flag and do not know of anyone who is upset about the religious symbol.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, and I would not let my children go to school somewhere that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” said Ashley Hamby Brauher, who has three children in the district. “I support the flag 100%.

This tactic of using voting to overcome Constitutional Rights, especially the separation of church and state, is one that is also in play in another area in schools – counselors.  The Texas Legislature recently passed a law allowing school districts to vote on allowing chaplains to serve as school counselors.  Chaplains who are not required to be trained as counselors.  However, as many of its supporters have said, since they are helping bring God back to the school they will obviously improve it, and reduce the amount of violence and drugs.  Their words reveal their real motivation, the promotion of a particular religion.

This all illustrates a very basic and deep misunderstanding of what rights are and how they relate to democracy.  Rights are there to put limits on democracies.  Limits that protect the words and actions and lives of citizens.  This protection cannot be overridden by voting.  Otherwise, it becomes mob rules, with those, the often many those, who are not part of that mob either politically, religiously, socially, becoming its victims. At best relegated to second class citizenry in which they are not free to speak their minds, to associate, to promote their candidates and views, to practice their faith or lack of faith.  At worst, they are persecuted, jailed, exiled, or killed. 

Those of us living in the United States all identify ourselves as Americans.  It is an identity that is supposed to transcend religious belief , social status, politics, and the rest.  By the way, transcending does not mean that it is more important to a person than a particular belief, only that they can hold and practice that belief and also be an American.  This is one reason the separation of church and state is so important.  Otherwise, anyone who is not a Christian would not be a true American.  You do not foster unity and identity by excluding unnecessarily. 

Here is a small personal example from my wife of how it feels when it doesn’t.  It happened just after 9/11.  She was working for the city of Fort Worth at the time and the city decided to hold a memorial service to both provide support for its employees and to foster unity in the face of this tragedy. 

She and a couple of her workplace friends attended.  One of them was Hindu.  American diversity in action.  Until a pastor took the stage to lead everyone in a prayer.  It was a very Christian prayer, complete with references to the Bible and Jesus and ending in an in Jesus’s name.  No other prayers were given.

Both she and her Hindu friend felt excluded.  They were shocked at this and no longer felt a part of a greater whole.  That their beliefs were seemingly not as important and were not as American as this particular version of Christianity.  They seemingly did not need to be supported by those who were the right sort of Americans.

Perhaps a small thing you might think.  But of such small things larger attitudes are created.  That cultures are created. Exclusionary ones that will eventually lead to persecution.  Imagine how such small things accumulate – Christian flags at school, Christian prayers at school, untrained pastors as school counselors, and so forth.  The message received that it is only Christians who are allowed this and no others. 

It is through such things that us becomes divided into us and them. And them eventually become seen as a threat to the state since they are not of the same religion as the state.  A look at history clearly shows this.  Instead of a United States of America we would become a United Christian States of America with anyone who was not Christian not considered a good American and viewed with suspicion. 

And this is why Rights always trump democracy.  And always must. 

Of course, if rights must be protected from the whims, thoughts, and actions of the majority, that brings up the question of what are rights?  Interestingly enough, that is the subject of my next blog. 

Read Full Post »

A Future History Class – Again

This old post is even more true today, sadly. 

I first posted this on March 27, 2010.  Today, 13 years later, this history class seems even more possible, even more likely to become a reality.  Continual actions against libraries and school curriculums, against the LGBQT+ , against minorities, the war against women’s rights most prominently showcased by the recent Supreme Court Dodd ruling and the hard assault on abortion rights, and so forth are evidence that we are in greater danger of making this future history class a reality than we were when I first posted this 13 years ago.  Or first wrote it almost 16 years ago.  It needs very little revision for it to be fully applicable to today.  By the way, I did not revise any of it.

With the Republicans trying to hold on to power through changing the election process – gerrymandering, who can vote, how voting is held (what days, how long, and where), etc. – to make it much more difficult for those who would vote against them to vote the odds of such a history lesson happening are increasing. Not to mention the harmful effect of a small but definitely present and prominent strain of Republicans denying fair and honest elections that they lost has also greatly contributed to the odds of this history class coming into being.

To add a bit of light to this depressing thought though, let me say this is by no means a sure and certain future.  It is far from being set in stone. It is only one possible destination out of many. There are many people, groups, and politicians working to prevent this history class from ever forming, and actions and reactions are being taken that give some hope.  But we need to be aware of our possible futures and what leads to them in order to prevent the worst of those possible futures from becoming real. The times are always in flux, always capable of being changed, for better or worse. We need to work to make it for the better. And then work to make it even better still.   

Preshambles

This is something that I actually wrote a long time ago but never published.  I found it whilst rummaging through my almost forgotten writings, and with the Texas Board of Education’s recent actions on curriculum for social studies and history thought now would be a good time to dust it off and publish it.

Now I know we are still a long way away from having this little story become reality, but I do get concerned.  When you figure in the book bannings, the continuous creationist political assault on science education, the large number of far right religious advocacy groups, the largely religious based objections to gays and to reproductive rights, and the high-jacking of the Republican party by the religious right along with the Texas Board of Education’s shenanigans it can cause a rational person some concern. 

My concern is that someday the Christian right will get their way and turn our secular government into a Christian one and make their now false claim true.  If that ever happens then we will walk the same path of every other government which took a stand on which was the true religion (and this includes atheism).  Religious intolerance and persecution will become the norm.  Certain religious beliefs will be outlawed and suppressed at the very least.  At the very worse – well, just read a bit of history, both in the early colonies and in Europe. 

Shambles

Once upon a time our beloved and blessed country promoted evil and ignorance and was a great help to Satan in his war against God for the possession of men’s souls.  It did this not through malice, although there were many in the government then who knew what they were doing and took great pleasure in destroying the souls of their fellow men. Rather, our country did this because of a twisted, perverted line of reasoning that allowed a separation between God’s church and state and that allowed men to think for themselves on issues too complex and great for them. 

They believed, wrongly of course, that the state should not foster a religion or any group of religions upon its people.  They believed that each person should be free to believe as they please.  This idea was even protected in a document they called the constitution, one of the subtler works of Satan.  This damnable constitution of theirs even protected those whose beliefs ran counter to those of the Christian majority.  This constitution protected the rights of all individuals – ungodly as well as Godly –  so that the government, even with the will of the majority of a Christian nation, could not infringe upon those rights.

Satan had implanted in our ancestors the idea that there had to be limits to the powers of government.  According to this idea if there were not certain basic individual rights that were not protected from both the government and the will of the majority of God’s people then either a tyranny of one man, group of men, or the mob would develop.  Of course, in their own twisted and perverted way they were right.  Without the moral and spiritual guidance of the one true church, to allow any government absolute power would indeed be foolish.

Following this line of reasoning these deluded souls even went so far as to ban organized prayers and displays of the Ten Commandments in the public schools and courtrooms.  Their rationale was that this was a land of diversity containing many people with different beliefs and that the government was bound by this constitution to respect those beliefs no matter how wrong and blasphemous. 

They maintained that this diversity of thought and belief was this country’s greatest strength.  According to these people this obscene diversity allowed society to grow and mature, enabled it to find new and better solutions to problems, and let it adapt in an easier and better way to a continuously changing world. 

This satanic government said that the place of religion should be in the hearts and minds of people and not enshrined in government institutions set up to serve a diverse people. 

Praise God though that the people of this Christian nation finally saw through this twisted reasoning and elected responsible men who changed the laws and this constitution and put prayer back in schools, eliminated Darwinism from the classrooms, displayed the Ten Commandments in all the courtrooms along with enforcing all of its commandments and not just some of them.  Gradually, for Satan had invested much time and effort into building up this unnatural and evil barrier between the church and state, the separation between church and state was done away with. 

With the help of God these good men and women returned this blessed government of ours back to its Biblical and Godly foundation.  A foundation now protected against those who believe wrongly by laws against them promoting their errors.  It’s need is seen by the vast numbers of those in prison for violating those laws. 

We have much to be thankful for.  But we must be ever vigilant lest we once again let church and state separate and allow people to grope blindly through the darkness and arrive at their own misguided beliefs, for humanity is too easily led astray.  We truly are the descendants of the fallen Adam.

That is all for today class.  Remember that after the closing prayer there will be a book burning held in the football field.  All the works of the Great Heretic Thomas Jefferson will be consigned to the flames.  This will be followed by the witness of a newly outed and converted Jewish classmate of yours.   

I know all of you will show up.

Read Full Post »

Religion At Its Most Dangerous

Many, perhaps most, people believe that religion and religious beliefs are dangerous things, often a threat to liberty and even life.  Most disagree on which religious belief though is the threat – atheism, Islam, Christianity, etc. – and believe that their particular religious view is the exception.  I slightly disagree with most though.  I think any and every religious view, including my own, atheism, can become dangerous. It depends greatly on the circumstances surrounding that religious belief.  The circumstance that most often, usually in fact, make a religion dangerous occurs when a government supports one particular religious view over all others.  Then religion, any religion becomes a very dangerous thing. 

This was brought home to me again by two particular news items. The first item is a new Pew Poll finding that “Religiously unaffiliated people face harassment in a growing number of countries”.  The other is the recent flare up of in hostilities between Israel and the Palestinian people, which has religion as one of its biggest root causes.  More specifically, a particular religion tied to, identified with, and supported by a government.

Unlike many atheists I do not view religious belief not supported by a government as being more dangerous than other beliefs. In other words, it can and often does cause problems on an individual level, and even across a society. But the damage is more limited and often transitory. Then there is the fact that religious beliefs are also often beneficial.  What matters more than the fact that it is religious is what particular type of religious belief it is in those cases.

However, when a government supports one religious view over another then religion becomes very dangerous indeed.  It doesn’t matter the religion, only that a government and a particular religious belief is merged. 

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as atheist you get the USSR and its actions against Christians, or China and its actions against Muslims and Christians.

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Buddhist you get Burma and its actions against Muslims.   

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Muslim you get Saudi Arabia and its actions against Christians. 

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Protestant Christian you get Ireland against Catholics.  

Many more examples could be found all through history. 

The reason for this is twofold.  First a person’s religious belief, which includes how best to live a moral life and their and their loved ones fate after they die, is of high importance to most people in the world.  Witness the fact that even when a particular religious belief is persecuted people continue to hold that religious belief – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhists, Atheists – even though it may lead to fines, imprisonment, or even death (both with and without torture beforehand). 

The second fold is that we need government.  Governments are a necessity for a given group’s survival.  In fact, government is necessary for the survival of our species overall.  Which means they have a great deal of power over its citizens. 

Separate each can do a great deal of good (and harm too).  Combine them though and only bad things result (with one possible exception, although I think that a more fragile one than most realize).

The reason for this is If a government identifies itself with a particular religious belief then there is usually favoritism in government policies and actions to that group. Which creates a sense of unfairness among the citizens who are not so favored.  Further, such inequalities on such an important personal issue can increase creates friction and conflict leading, often, to greater inequalities.  Causing those who hold different beliefs to becoming in effect, second class citizens.

What’s more, it becomes much easier to label those who are not members of that particular religious group to be viewed with suspicion and identified as enemies of the government.  Censorship, purges, discrimination, unequal justice, and persecution are the normal fruits of the mixing of the two, religion and government. 

You can see this some in many modern countries who identify as Christian today: Argentina, England, Denmark, etc.  This unfairness is ameliorated to some extent by the fact that their governing documents explicitly protect all religious beliefs and usually make exceptions to some religious requirements for those who doe not believe the same – for example, in some of these countries the tax money that goes to the favored church can, for those who are not member of that church,, go into the general fund instead.  It is ameliorated much more by the fact that they are often very secular societies. However, it still exists and can cause friction.  If you look at the Pew Report you will find that two countries that have increased levels of harassment of the religiously unaffiliated are Ireland and Iceland. 

However, Israel is an example of a country where this is going very wrong – and a possible object lesson for those other countries who have protections for freedom of religion in the constitution but still support a particular church. 

Israel was created for a particular people of a particular religious belief – Jews.  Because of this it had a strong bias for those who are Jewish (especially the more conservative Orthodox groups) over other religious beliefs.  It was created to be an expressly Jewish state. 

It was also created to be a democracy.  One respecting the rights of all its citizens.  Those two ideals conflict.

Even though it has written protections for all believers no matter their belief in its Basic Laws, they have also enacted laws and changes that make it even more biased in favor of Jews.   In fact, given its identity as a Jewish State it almost has to.  Taken from the 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom, and the Jewish Virtual Library:

• The state of Israel recognizes a limited number of religions with others having to apply for State recognition –the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox and the United Churches Council of Israel (an umbrella organization of Protestant churches in Israel) are currently pending approval. 
• Marriage and divorce are the exclusive jurisdiction of religious courts applying Jewish law whether the those involved are Jewish or not.
• There is a Ministry of Religious Affairs
• Religious education is financed out of state funds.

All of these and more is problematic, especially as the Israeli government becomes more conservative and religious and insisting upon a closer and closer identification with Judaism, especially of the Orthodox variety.  For example, their passage in 2018 of the Nation State Law that declared “the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People”, and in which the national flag of Israel is confirmed to be the Star of David, the national symbol of Israel the menorah, and the national anthem to be this:

As long as within our hearts

The Jewish soul sings,

As long as forward to the East

To Zion, looks the eye –

Our hope is not yet lost,

It is two thousand years old,

To be a free people in our land

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

Now, imagine if you are a non-observant Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist citizen of Israel.  Already you are marked as different and not truly an Isreali, or, at best, second class.  This is far from a theoretical possibility, it is a daily reality.

The US State Department report on Human Rights in Israel, while properly noting that it is much better in regards to human rights than the neighboring countries, noted several serious issues: institutional discrimination of the Arab citizens of Israel as well non-Orthodox Jews.  Other human rights reports point out that Israel’s Palestinian Bedouin citizens who live in so called “unrecognized” village in the Negev suffer home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally, this despite the fact that these villages existed before the creation of the state of Israel.  Or on lands which Israel gave to its Bedouin Citizens.  And of course, there is the unlawful transfer of Jews settlers to occupied territory, and the taking away of those lands from the Arabs. This is occurring in the city of Jerusalem too.

Then there is the fact that Israel, if it wants to retain its Jewish identity, cannot absorb too many Muslims or other religions into its country as full citizens without losing that identity. 

Interesting and relevant fact here is that Israel does not have a Constitution as most countries do.  Instead they have a series of Basic Laws.  Netanyahu explained why this was when he said “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides.” 

What happens then when the majority of citizens though are no longer Jews?  Or, more importantly, Orthodox Jews? 

This is why the question of the Palestinians is so intractable.  It is made worse by the fact that, due to the religious beliefs of the conservatives who now control the government, the land the Palestinians are living on now, should be Israel’s too. And so they continue to go further in occupying land the Palestinians live on and forcing them off. And because they are a Jewish State they cannot declare the occupied territory as being Israel and all its people citizens without getting rid of the Palestinians.  Otherwise, their democracy would wind up doing in their Jewish State. So, instead, their Jewish state is doing in democracy and rights for all of those who are not their particular type of Jew. 

And that is why the joining of religion and government is dangerous. 

This is also one reason why I like the United State Constitution – in addition to protecting the rights of all even against the will of the majority, it also explicitly separates religion from government.  Because of their long history of violence due to the unification of religion and state, the European countries have developed a more secular society that has put protections in place despite retaining an allegiance to a particular religious group.  Should that secular change though, those governments could go the way of Israel.

The US with its more religious society still often provides better protections because of its secular government.  Which is why those of us who live in the United States need to be pushing back very hard on those who want to change this, and who have made some inroads in doing so.  Religion plus government is dangerous.

Read Full Post »

The United States, Democracy, and Their Founding Christian Values

I have seen many Christians argue that the United States is a Christian Nation, founded upon Christian values and thought.  They usually claim that democracy and the idea of human rights is due to Christian thought and values, that without Christianity democracy and the idea of human rights would not have existed.  Or, at the very least, been very much more limited in scope. 

However, this claim faces many severe problems showing it is not true. Or, at best, just a very small bit of the truth. 

The first problem is the 10 Commandments.   In fact, the First Commandment of this integral part of both Jewish and Christian religions creates a severe problem with this claim.

“³ Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 20: 3 – 5. 

Contrast that First Commandment with the United States Constitution’s First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments is in direct conflict with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Of you should now look at how this First Commandment has played out in history you come across the Second problem with this claim of Christianity being the foundation and cause of the United States Constitution and Democracy.   None of the early Jewish states allowed for freedom of conscience. Instead, these states often harshly punished those who believed in a pagan religion.  The Christian countries that followed them also followed their examples and understanding of the First Commandment.  The countries of Christian Europe outlawed blasphemy, heretics and other religions (including Jews of course, often greatly limiting the free speech, free press, and free assembly of those who did not believe rightly. And, like the Jewish states before them, they too often killed those who believed differently, even and especially other sects of Christians.  For that matter, in most of Colonial America this persecution of those who believed different was just as true on our shores as on European shores, and the earlier Middle Eastern shores. 

You find this same lack of all the human rights we take for granted today in our day – freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. – until very recent times, the late 18^th century. 

Yes, there were precursors of some of these rights to be found in the Bible.  For that matter, such precursors of some of these rights can be found just as strongly in many sources other than the Bible: the Law Code of Hammurabi, the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great, the Qur’an, the Analects, the Hindu Vedas, some of the Incan and Aztec codes of conduct, the Iroquois nation and more.  

But none of them included the complete package.  Many of them had limits on these rights that we do not recognize today in regards to people and places.  And very, very few of these were applied to entire governments rather than individuals. 

But that is human rights.  What about the idea and form of our government?  Democracy? Perhaps they had a Christian origin. 

Again, there is the problem of history for this claim.  Both the Popular Democracy and the Republican form of Democracy, were originally pagan institutions.  Yes, there are passages in both the New Testament that talk about the equality of all people before God.  Yet, again, this was before God and was about individuals.  The ancient Jewish state was not democratic, and nor were the early Christian nations of Europe. 

So, no.  Christian values and ideals were not the foundation of the creation of the United States government and its Constitution.  Yes, there were some ideas and beliefs within it that were conducive with many of the right, and with the idea of democracy.  However, you will find those same ideas expressed in other religions, and often much earlier than in Christianity and Judaism.

Another fact that creates problems for this claim is the fact that you not find discussions or mentions of the Bible and Christianity in the records of the Constitutional Convention as our founders hammered out our founding document.  You do find a great deal of discussion of and references to the writings of Locke and Rousseau, Greek and Roman democracies, the Venetian Republic and so forth.  But not the Bible. Not Christianity. 

In fact, still another problem with this idea of a Christian origin for the Constitution is that after the Constitution was published before it was ratified by the people of the United States, there was a great deal of criticism of it not including at least a general reference to Christianity, or at least to God.  Despite the challenges involved in the Constitution’s passage, none of the writers of it seriously considered changing it in order to make it’s passage more assured. 

So, this claim fails the test of historical fact.  However, that does not mean Christianity does not contain elements within itself that can lend themselves to democracy and rights. 

The thing about being a condominium of either 66 books (Protestant Bible) or 73 books (Roman Catholic Bible), or 81 books (Ethiopic Bible) is that there are materials in there for several directions and views, often conflicting ones.  Some of the ideas within these varied books are easier to see and use than others, but they are all still there, ideas waiting for just the right collision with new thoughts and views to come to fruition. 

Among these ideas within the Bible and Christianity there are some that can and were used to support the ideals of democracy and rights and freedoms for all, not just the majority or the powerful minority.  The first is, of course, Jesus’s words: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matthew 22:21., as well as verses discussing all men being equal before God, and the Golden Rule.

This is one reason why the first person to advocate for a total and complete separation of church and state was not Locke or Rousseau, but was, instead, an Enlightenment era Calvinist theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America, John Williams.  His arguments included not only the items mentioned above, but also the fallibility of man.  No man, and hence no man-made institution, no matter whether divinely inspired or not, is perfect.  Not only can they be wrong but will be wrong at times and on some issues.  And if wrong in areas such as salvation the consequences would be severe – eternal damnation for those forced to believe. 

Because of this Roger Williams argued and believed that religion and state should be totally separate. The state should neither help nor hinder religion, nor should the church influence the state.  In fact, he held to a stricter standard than is held today on this issue.  And showed he believed it when he founded Rhode Island with this being one of its bedrock principles, and held to them even in regards to a religious group he despised, the Quakers.  His book, “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience” is considered by many to be a classic defense of the right of freedom of conscience. 

So, yes, Christianity did help in promoting some of the values and ideas in our modern democracies and in our current view of human rights.  But, they did not create them.  They were not foundational in the creation of the United States Constitution.  And some variation of them would have come about even if Christianity had never existed. 

But wait. There is one other possible meaning that those who claim Christianity was responsible for the founding of this nation, and that without Christianity human rights and this country would never have come about.  This involves a more basic claim than democracy and rights.  A claim about the whole concept of right and wrong, of morality.  I have seen some Christians argue that without Christianity the morality and respect for all individuals that is needed for a democracy would never have come about. 

And yet, this too has severe problems with historical fact.  Mainly the same ones mentioned above.  you find democracies arising first in non – Jewish and non- Christian cultures and nations. The same with respect for individuals and morality.  Morals and the idea of right and wrong, as well as the idea of an orderly universe pre-date both Christianity and Judaism, and is present in cultures all across the world.    

Let me end this with a challenge for those who still believe Christianity was responsible for the creation of the United States Constitution and of the rights protected therein.  Here is a list of the rights contained within the Bill of Rights. 

• Freedom of religion.
• Freedom of speech, press, petition, and assembly.
• Freedom to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. 
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, and double jeopardy. 
• Right of accused to a speedy and public trial.
• Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
• Freedom form excessive bail as well as cruel and unusual punishments. 

Please find me the relevant Bible passages as well as the history of how these have been manifested throughout history in ancient Israel and Christian Europe before the 18^th century.  As well, do a search for those rights you think are in the Bible and in the history of Christian nations to see if they were also present in other non- Christian nations, in other religions, and if they pre-dated Christianity. 

I think such an exercise will make it very clear indeed how little support there is for this claim. 

Read Full Post »

Separation of Church and State From Both Sides Now: Part 1 –The Church

“Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state.”  Roger Williams, “Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered”

What follows is a look at a part of the relationship between church and state, one focused on the benefits that such a separation provides to both.  It is also, of necessity, simplified.  This blog focuses on the arguments from religion for the separation of church and state and the benefits to religion of such separation.  The next blog will do the same but from the point of view of the government.  For both blogs, when I refer to “church” it can apply to all institutional religions; Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc., as well as ancient religions that no longer exist. 

In the beginning the state was the church and the church the state.  The two were married and were united not only in acting as one but were often one in actuality. Religion’s role during these early cultures was to promote a shared identity among those of different family groups that comprised the first cities; to motivate individuals to work for and even die for the good of the new, larger groups; to help redistribute the wealth in ways both good and bad; to teach and promote the morality of that culture.  Most of these goals were achieved through a mingling of both state and individual ceremonies, and sacrifices done at certain times and in certain ways.  Such was necessary for family groups to merge to become cities consisting of many different family groups. It was necessary if these cities were to group together to form states and empires, and then nations. 

However, as time passed, a strange thing started to happen.  Instead of always being a part of the state with the goal of keeping the state together an individual moral concern came into being; one focused on the relation of the person to their god.  A natural outgrowth from these beginnings, but one that meant that no longer was religion and state were always joined, but, instead, they could, and often were, in conflict.  For an example, look through the books of the Old Testament to see how the prophets challenged and condemned the kings and rulers. 

Just as governments changed over the years to eventually result in our different democracies – along with the more traditional dictators and kings and just plain thugs – so too did the role of religion change.  Religion split.  Not along theological lines, although it did that too, but upon its character and purpose.  Gradually religion came to cover not just the ceremonies and sacrifices, not just keeping on god (s) good side and doing his will.  It also came to include morality, how we should treat each other, even if it conflicted with the actions of the state. And while not a clean and clear split, it nonetheless was there. The choice between being a servant/master of the state or calling for moral actions, even including challenging the state if needed.    

In looking back through history most of the atrocities of religion were committed when religion and state were entwined.  The reason for this is that when entwined, just as most married couples share a name and identity, so too with religion and state – what was a threat to religion was a threat to the state and what was a threat to the state also a threat to religion.  To not be the religion of your state was traitorous.  To not support your state was blasphemy. Religion became a quick way to identify if you were friend or foe of the state.  And thus blasphemy and forced conversion became necessary, and acts of aggression against other states in order to gain resources gained a religious cover. 

It is interesting that the founder of Christianity was also one who was concerned about the individuals and not the state.  Jesus passed on no parables, no sermons, no words for how to run a state, the best way to govern, what the state should and should not do.  His words were about a person’s relationship with God and how to treat each other.  The running of the state and the role of religion are different, and at times contrary.  Jesus used his position of being an outcast to challenge the existing order. 

However, that role was largely ignored by most of the Christians then when Constantine became converted and converted his empire into a Christian one. Instead of being concerned with individuals it became concerned with forcing individuals to be Christian and to furthering the empire.  And so the violence that is now, inaccurately, laid solely at the feet of religion, also has its roots in the needs of the state.

Eventually, as we developed better ideas of governance, people began to realize that keeping the state and church entwined as in the past was not a good idea. We had grown beyond that as new institutions developed and news ways of creating identity were developed, so much so that most see the joining of church and state as before as being harmful to the state.  However, it was also harmful to religion, or, at least religion as practiced by those who were concerned about morals and individuals. 

This was one reason why the very first advocate and practitioner of a complete and thorough separation of church and state was not a secularist but was, instead, a Puritan theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America – Roger Williams.   A man who not only preached complete separation but also practiced it when he set up Rhode Island colony under a charter from Parliament in 1644. 

Williams argument for a complete separation of church and state was inspired by the religious wars and conflicts he saw around him, and based on the fact that humans are flawed and limited creatures.  As such, their institutions are also flawed and limited. This included the institution of the church.  Given this, for the state to force people to follow any particular religious doctrine could wind up damning them if those doctrines were wrong.  Rather than forcing the damnation of so many people, far better for each person to be responsible for their own beliefs, and any change in belief done through persuasion instead.  The power of the state must be separate from the actions of the church. William’s focus was on the individual and not the good of the state. He even applied this to atheists and Catholics. 

So, how has having the church and state entwined hurt the church?  Looking behind you can see it in strife and blood of history, as did the writers of the US Constitution.  Looking around today, you can also see it playing out today. 

• Instead of holding those accountable for their moral failings, they excuse and defend them; even exalt them if they feel that they can gain a political victory.  They become hypocrites and lose status among many.
• Instead of identifying with people no matter who they are and no matter where they are from, they identify with country first.  Even at the expense of the needy, the poor, the suffering, the children; the very people that were Jesus’ special concerns.
• They make the church a tool of the state; Christian Nationalism has a great deal more nationalism than Christianity in it.   
• They tolerate a great many wrongs in order to get and keep power.  And then use it to force others to follow their beliefs. 

All of the above weakens what has become and should be the proper role of religion – challenging power.  Governments, at least effective ones, have a great deal of power.  Power can be abused. And even when not abused, it can be misused through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or unchallenged beliefs.  Because of this, even the best of governments need institutions outside of itself to view it critically and to challenge it when needed.

When the church instead is joined to the state, then it becomes its tool and becomes identified with all its excesses and wrongs, as it should be. This can and usually does result in bloodshed and loss of liberties for many.

As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.”  When the church is joined to the state it can no longer act as the conscience of the state but, instead, becomes the justifier of the state’s actions, no matter how reprehensible those actions might be.  The church becomes tarnished and an institution of the state, and we lose one of the great moral forces for change in our country.

Read Full Post »

The Existential Problem of Israel

“Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it….the nation state not of all its citizens but only of the Jewish people”.  Netanyahu.

 

Normally the identification of the state with a particular religious belief or tradition is the recipe for censorship, purges, persecution; for the establishment a group as second class and other problems that make maintaining a just democracy impossible.  History and modern events show this to be true.

Malaysia, whose official religion is Islam and where other religions are persecuted and discriminated against. Changing one’s religion from Islam requires going through several courts and religious bodies, and are then usually rejected.

China, whose official religion is atheism, persecutes and imprison Muslims, Christians and other religious groups.

Mynmar, whose official religion is Buddhism, persecutes Muslims.

Although not as virulent as it once was since most of the countries who had some form of Christianity as their state religion have now transitioned to secular governments, secular societies, or both.  However, less than 100 years ago, there was persecution of those who were not members of that government’s particular Christianity, often leading to imprisonment, banishment, or death.  Even today, most of those governments who still are officially Christian provide tax breaks as well as funding for religious programs and buildings for their favored form of Christianity; breaks and funding not available to other religious groups.

When a state identifies with one particular religion – whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, or anything else – and members of that religious tradition receive preferential treatment from those who are not. Further, those who are not members of the official religion are looked at as not fully part of the nation, as being other, as being suspect.  And, during times of stress especially, those others are subject to persecution.

In short, mixing government and religion is a dangerous thing to do.  This danger and trying to avoid it poses a special challenge and problem for Israel due to the reason for Israel’s existence.

In my opinion, in a perfect world, Israel would not exist. It would not need to. However, as I think most have noticed, we do not live in a perfect world.  And it is this imperfection which created the need for Israel.

For thousands of years, no matter how welcome in certain countries and at certain times they might have been (and most of the time they were not welcome, merely tolerated) there would come a time when they would be attacked, often over and over again, and then banned.  Even into the modern era with our democracies and fine talk of human rights, this was true.  This then culminated with the Holocaust.  The Shoah as many Jews call it, and which I actually prefer myself after reading why.

Although the Germans were the proximate cause of the murder of six million Jews, they had help.  Both by their actions and their inactions, the United States, France, UK, Australia and other countries, both before the rise of the Nazi’s and after their rise, contributed to these murders, and made all of these countries accessories to them.

It also cut the ground out from under those Jews who argued that with the rise of modern democracies Jews could safely live and be part of another country.  And so, the creation of Israel.

Its creation was haphazard, and poorly done for a variety of reasons, and by creation I am talking about the times from the late 19^th century up until it was actually created.  But, it exists.  And it exists for a reason – a place of refuge for a people who have been persecuted for millennia and who were recently targeted for extinction by modern Europe.  And with the increase in anti-Semitism being seen, it is still relevant.

However, that poses a dilemma for their democracy. Making a religion the state religion, or favoring one over any other will destroy a democracy.  Yet, if they stay a democracy they may well lose being a Jewish country.

The Israel Democracy Institute in its Constitution by Consensus explains the idea behind the Jewish State of Israel.

The State of Israel is a Jewish state in the following two senses: it is the political framework in which the right of the Jewish people to self-determination is manifested and it is a “Jewish nation-state.” A first and necessary condition to being a Jewish and democratic state is a decisive majority of Jews in the State. Israel’s attribute as a Jewish and democratic state is conveyed through aspects of Zionism and Jewish heritage; first and foremost, each and every Jew has the right to immigrate to the State of Israel. Other aspects are Hebrew being the main official language of the State and the inextricable link to Jewish culture in public life. On the other hand, the characterization of the State as Jewish is not intended to bestow extra privileges on its Jewish citizens and does not obligate the imposition of religious requirements by state law.

The State of Israel is democratic in the following sense: the sovereign is the entire community of the nation’s citizens (and it alone), irrespective of ethnic-national origin. In the main, the character of the State as a democratic country is manifested by two basic principles: the first being the recognition of the dignity of man qua man, and the second, derived from the first, is the recognition of the values of equality and tolerance. Arrangements regarding free and equal elections, the recognition of the core human rights, including dignity and equality, separation of powers, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, are all drawn from these principles. Democracy’s basic principles require equal treatment of all those included as citizens of the State, without regard to their ethnic, religious, cultural, and linguistic affiliations.

 

However, history shows that the two goals of being a defined Jewish state and being a democracy are contradictory goals.  Yes, I know they said that they do not “bestow extra privileges” on its Jewish citizens, but  the very fact that it is a Jewish state implies and creates an outlook that one group is more important than any other.  And indeed, this can be seen playing out in Jewish society where those who are not Jewish, or even not the right type of Jew.

The US State Department report on Human Rights in Israel, while properly noting that it is much better than in the neighboring countries, noted several serious issues: institutional discrimination of the Arab citizens of Israel as well non-Orthodox Jews.  Other human rights reports point out that Israel’s Palestinian Bedouin citizens who live in so called “unrecognized” village in the Negev suffer home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally, this despite the fact that these villages existed before the creation of the state of Israel.  Or on lands which Israel gave to its Bedouin Citizens.  And of course, there is the unlawful transfer of Jews settlers to occupied territory, and the taking away of those lands from the Arabs. This is occurring in the city of Jerusalem too.

Within their borders Israel does a good job overall of being a free democracy, although I predict that will change if current events continue.  Events such as the passage of Nation-State Law in 2018 is evidence that the rights of those who are non-Jewish will erode within Israel.  Consider all that this Basic Law does.

It establishes the official flag of Israel and the symbol of Israel with uniquely Jewish symbols – the Star of David for the Former and a Menorah for the latter.  In addition it establishes the song Hatikvah as its national anthem.  The words of Hatikvah are:

As long as within our hearts

The Jewish soul sings,

As long as forward to the East

To Zion, looks the eye –

Our hope is not yet lost,

It is two thousand years old,

To be a free people in our land

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

These symbols are meant to identify who is a true citizen.  Now, imagine yourself a non-Jewish citizen of Israel.  How can a Muslim, or a Christian, or an atheist, consider themselves to be part of that state when the state is so fully identified with being Jewish.  The fact that only Jewish symbols are used automatically makes the Jews first class citizens and the others second class.

However, there is more. This law also establishes that “the right to exercise national self –determination is unique to the Jewish people”, and that Jewish settlement is a “national value” that the government should “encourage and promote its establishment and development”.

By the way, Israel does not have a Constitution, one of the very few democracies that do not.  Instead they have a series of Basic Laws.  This law is now part of what passes for their Constitution.

 

 

“We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides.”  Netanyahu

 

 

Now, imagine what will happen if the non-Jewish part of Israel someday outnumber the Jews within Israel.  What then?  What if the majority are not Jews but Muslim?  In a democracy where “the majority decides”, how can Israel keep up its Jewish government when Jews are in the minority?  In the past and among other countries, the solution is not a good one.

It is one reason why making the occupied territories part of Israel is not a solution for the Israeli government.  And why they are pushing the Arabs off those lands and replacing them with Jewish people instead.

As I said, Israel has an existential problem. Israel was created for a reason and in a form that it cannot sustain.  At least not in its present form.

A possible solution, in fact the only one that I can see that would allow them to be a truly free democracy, is to make their Basic Laws much more secular in character and then find ways to acknowledge their unique purpose and history as a place of refuge for a people that have been persecuted for millennia and founded by survivors of one of the worst atrocities in history.

Yes, I know, this is a vague answer.  However, I will say that currently Israel is already experiencing problems due to its explicitly Jewish nature.  And those problems will become much worse as the years go by until Israel is no better than its neighbors in regards to being a democracy and protecting rights. At least a vague answer provides a starting point.

Read Full Post »

God and Country: Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander

This blog has been lurking around in the corners of my mind for quite a while now, ever since July 1, 2016 when I passed a church bulletin calling for all to come to its celebration of God and America. This sign bothered me for several reasons.  Of course, me being an atheist will probably cause most to figure out some of the reasons it bothered me. But only some. As for the rest, well, the rest I thought would be surprising and I hope interesting.

It bothered me because not only is such a mingling of church and state bad for the state, but it is just as bad for the church.

Let me first say that this church, and the many others that I saw with a similar message, have every right to do so.  However, not everything that is legal and that people have a right to do is also wise. And in this blog I plan to discuss why it is not wise for a religion, in this case Christianity, to mix religion and nationalism. To do so, I will speak as if I were a much younger me, young enough to still be a Christian.

Let’s start with a question – what is the purpose of the Church?

Answer, to spread the good news of the Gospels, the news about Jesus and his redemptive death and resurrection.  The church was also meant to provide support and teaching to fellow Christians, and to those who come to its doors seeking. And the church was also meant to serve as a moral guide and conscience of people, of societies, of nations, of the world.

While spreading the news of the Gospels might be easier done when part of a government, as part of the inside group, it does so at the expense of corrupting the church, and of causing great pain and suffering to others outside of that church.

A church is not the state.  Nor is it meant to be.  It is not meant to be a supporter of the state, an auxiliary of the state, a co-ruler with the state.

A church is meant to be an outsider in regards to government.

Christianity was born an outsider.

Jesus was born an outsider with Mary being pregnant before being married

Jesus was born into and preached to a people who were outsiders, the Jews.

Jesus served the outsiders among the Jews; tax collectors, the lepers, the unclean, the sinners.

An outsider preaching to a people of outsiders, that is part of what gave Jesus’ message its power.   His message was not to the rich and powerful, although it was theirs for the taking should they choose to listen.  His message was to the poor and powerless.

His message was not how to create a civil society, how to govern a country or state or city.  His message was about God’s love for humanity and how best to receive and spread that love.  It was a message of hope, not political positions.

Jesus, as the outsider, accepted all, but did not change his message, his standards, nor himself for any.

Jesus changed the world.

From its birth to its early years, Christianity was a religion off outsiders looking in.  Often ridiculed, sometimes persecuted, they nonetheless still for the most part, held firm to their standards and beliefs.  And they grew.

And then came the great split. No, not the Catholic and the Protestant split. Nor the disagreements among Christians, which had been present since the beginning as can be seen in the arguments about the nature of Jesus and his relation to God.

No, the great split I am referring to concerns the split from being outsiders to becoming insiders. The conversion of Emperor Constantine transformed Christianity from being a religion of outsiders to being a religion of the insiders, of those with power and money. Or rather, one particular set of Christians became insiders.  As part of the bargain, with Constantine, they had to have a uniform set of beliefs.  So, one set modified some of their beliefs and won, the others became persecuted and died, along with the pagans.

As Paul Johnson wrote in his A History of Christianity:

How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac in its theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most from this unseemly marriage between Church and State? Or, to put it another way, did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?”

Now, instead of criticizing the government and society, Christianity and the government were one, and actions against the government were also actions against Christianity, and actions against Christianity were also actions against the government.  Given this, how could most Christians criticize any government action, no matter how bad or how flawed?  How could any government allow any deviation from the established religion, no matter how well argued and supported?

They couldn’t

An attack on the religion supported by the state was an attack on the state, and an attack on the state was an attack on the religion.  Such was the root cause of most of the religious violence and persecution throughout the years; the Inquisition, the forced conversion and persecution of the Jews, Catholics vs. Protestants, Protestants vs. Puritans, Puritans vs. Quakers, and on and on and on.

In addition to the violence against people, was the violence done to beliefs and morals as Churches assumed stately power. Compromises with principles and beliefs were common, as were the flat out ignoring of such principles and beliefs.

This violence against people and against the teachings of Jesus and of God is probably why the first person to propose an absolute and total separation of church and state was a Puritan theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America – Roger Williams. And he lived up to that ideal when he founded the state of Rhode Island.

The United States was the first secular government in the world. Something that the writers of the Constitution did intentionally, and with great forethought.

Their foresight and awareness of history is something lacking today by too many Americans, and is evidenced by so much more than just the signs I saw that inspired this blog.  This lack of forethought and awareness is seen whenever anyone:

• Claims that the United States is a Christian country. And then advocates for laws to make it so – prayer in the schools, recognition of the Bible as the state book, etc.
• Work to limit or take away the rights of those who are not the right sort of Christian or believer.
• Tells Muslims to go home, even those who were born in the United States. And then tries to make it so.
• Whenever permits are denied to religious groups due to their beliefs.
• When President H. Bush commented that atheist could not be patriots due to not believing in God.
• When Trump sends out a White House bulletin in which he states “America is a Nation of believers. As long as we have faith in each other, and trust in God, we will succeed!”

We, as a nation, as a people, have never been very good at remembering. But, today, that

lack of memory, of awareness, seems stronger than ever.  The evangelical support forTrump shows how far too many Christians and Christian organizations, are willing to go in dealing with the devil in order to gain political power.  And how many of their values and morals, and how much of the teachings of Jesus they are willing to ignore or give up in their quest for political power.

 

I think that they need to go back and read the history of religion, and of what happens when it becomes part of the state.  Some Madison, or Jefferson, or several others would be good.  But, perhaps, it would be best if they rediscovered the writings and thought of Roger Williams.  Before they manage to harm not just people, but the Constitution that will allow such harm to, eventually, be redressed.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Protection by Suicide

“We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in sharia they should be deported

…………

“Look, the first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they’re doing on the internet. The third step is — let me be very clear — you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you’re not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke.” Gingrich on Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

 

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” campaign press release

 

“Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?” Yahoo Reporter

“We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” Donald Trump response

……….

“Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?”  MSNBC reporter

“There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems.”  Donald Trump response.

 

And with these statements both Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump have stabbed with intent to kill that which both have professed to love and protect – the Constitution

 “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..” Article 6  United States Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”  First Amendment, United States Constitution

 

An integral part of being an American is being able to live your life in accordance with the dictates of your conscience and religion.

For those Jews so inclined there are rabbinical courts.  For those Catholics so inclined there are diocesan tribunals.   For other religious groups both Christian and not, there are organizations that, for  those so inclined, will resolve marital issues, individual disputes, business disputes, rule on inheritances, and more – all based on the precepts of that religion.

All of this is allowed by the free exercise clause as long  as they meet the following standards:

• Participation is voluntary on the part of everyone.
• What is decided does not violate US laws.
• What is decided does not violate the US Constitution.

This is part of what being free to live in accordance with your conscience and religion means.  It applies not to just a few, not just to some, not just to most, but it applies to all Americans.

But Gingrich, Trump, and too many others wish to deny this Constitutional right to our Muslim citizens.  They would say to these Americans,

“No, you cannot follow your religious laws under the same guidelines as others follow theirs.  In fact, you are not allowed to follow them at all.  And yes, we are instituting a religious test on who is considered a full and good citizen of the United States.

And yes, although we may deny it, in doing so we are destroying that  which we profess to love and swore to protect.

And yes, by doing so we show that our true love is to the United States as a nation first and its ideals only a distant second.  And preferably a nation of Christians with a few Jews tossed in.”

 

Oh, what joy this must give our enemies who have charged us with hypocrisy, to have their once lies now made true.

Oh, what pain it gives seeing too many of our leaders recommending suicide as a way to protect our nation.

Read Full Post »

Literalism – The Way of the Lazy

Words. I am amazed at how many people seem to believe that words mean something apart from how we interpret them. Yes, sometimes the interpretation is easy. Most often though, especially with those words whose groupings are considered to be among the most important, they are not.

Two recent claims of a belief in a literal view of words was brought to my attention recently. Or rebrought rather since I was already aware of them. And both dealt with the U.S. Constitution.

The first dealt with the 2nd Amendment and its use of the word “infringe”. As in “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This person had posted the dictionary definition of infringed in an attempt to show that our Constitution is against any sort of gun control and that all laws regulating the purchase of firearms is an attack on one of our most fundamental rights. Now, I don’t remember exactly which dictionary this person used, but its definition was similar to if not exactly like this one from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

“to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)”

Of course, this person was focused on the words “limit or restrict” and interpreted “wrongly” as meaning all attempts to limit or restrict. However, I had a different take on this definition. Mine, and I believe most people’s, interpretation would be that “wrong” described a type of attempt, not that all attempts at limiting or restricting are wrong. In other words instead of any attempt then, wrongly means that some attempts are wrong but also strongly implies that there are also correct ways to limit or restrict.

I also pointed out to this person that they were ignoring the first part of the amendment, “well regulated”. Words when used in sentences or any other larger grouping cannot be understood fully in isolation Those other words can and usually do change or modify their meanings.
In this case, the dictionary definition supports the idea that there are ways to correctly “limit or restrict” this right, and when added to the words “well regulated”, then gun control laws are not unconstitutional. Some can be, others are not. This is recognized even in the recent Supreme Court case, McDonald v Chicago, that recognized an individual right to own a gun.
The other words under dispute was the phrase “separation of church and state”. As is usual for so many extreme conservatives, they like to point out that this phrase is not in the constitution. They then point out that what is in the Constitution instead is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Words known as the establishment clause.

And they are quite right about this. However, where they go wrong is in claiming that the establishment clause of the Constitution has a plain and literal meaning at odds with that of the phrase separation of church and state. They act as if the establishment clause needs no interpretation. And to add to the fun, they then often then go on to interpret it as meaning to establish a state church and nothing more.

To cap it all off, their interpretation flies in the face of how the word establishment was used during the time of the writing of the Constitution.

It ignores the fact that the man most responsible for writing the establishment clause and getting it passed, James Madison, also used this phrase of Thomas Jefferson to describe the intent of this clause.

They also ignore the history of the ratification of the Constitution and how, although its writers and promoters were justifiably gravely concerned about it being ratified, they did not respond to the many criticisms hurled their way that the Constitution did not contain a reference to Christianity or Jesus or even to just God.

They further ignore the historical fact that even after its ratification attempts were made to correct this supposed deficiency, attempts which were always defeated both during the time immediately after the Constitution and for all the years afterwards – during President Andrew Jackson’s presidency, during President Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and on into the 20th century.

So, in their attempt to say that it does not need to be interpreted, they interpret it in a way at odds with the writer of those words and with history. Seems to me that their view is more the result of their ideology than any sort of reality. Or laziness. After all, it is much easier to look at a word, put your interpretation to it, pretend it is THE literal meaning of the word, and then be happy that it confirms your own biases and prejudices. Look at how much easier that process is than the one I used in the last paragraph above, wherein I had to find out how the word establishment was used in regards to religion at that time, at who wrote those words and how he described the meaning of what he wrote, and at the history of the Constitution.

Of course, the greatest argument against this idea of a literal reading is the fact that those who claim to believe in such so often disagree on what those words mean when applied to life and when enacted in the world. This is true whether the words in question are those of the Constitution, the Bible, the Qur’an, or any other set of words.

Read Full Post »