And ain't none of 'em wearin' white hats, amigo
Americans really need to ask themselves if they want one religion’s beliefs to be legislated into law. The reason should be clear to all: if one religion’s beliefs are legislated into law, inevitably, the beliefs of some -possibly all – other religions become, as a consequence, illegal.
It is a simple proposition: do you want to see substituted in place of the secular U.S. Constitution the Christian Bible? You can’t have both – the Constitution is not compatible with the Bible. If you remember nothing else about this debate, remember that. It is as clear an either/or proposition as has ever been. A country cannot be governed both religiously and secularly.
And this issue is what lay at the heart of the 2012 presidential election – will government of the people, by the people, for the people, be replaced by government of God, for God, and by God? It is clear what answer Republicans prefer. Look at the Thanksgiving Family Forum at the First Federated Church of Des Moines last Saturday, an event attended Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum – and yes, “libertarian” hero and fellow conservative Christian, Ron Paul. Significantly, no Mormon candidates were present or wanted. (Watch the full forum here if you dare. For those desiring to be tortured by sound-bites alone, see the Daily Beast’s collection of the forum’s low-lights here)
The fundamentalist Christian focus of the forum was made clear by its organizers if its megachurch setting was not obvious enough: The Family Leader sponsored it (you remember them and their crazy marriage vow) and it was live-streamed by the political arm of Focus on the Family. Frank Luntz, a GOP pollster, was the moderator for this debate about who the Christian god wants most in the White House. This is not a debate we should even be having. Certainly nobody asked whether God wanted George Washington in the White House. It was recognized at the time that all that mattered was that the people wanted George Washington in the White House. God didn’t get a vote and that is how it was meant to be.
Significantly, our Founding Fathers chose the Constitution over the Bible in laying the groundwork of our nation. This is a plain and indisputable fact of the historical record whatever revisionists like David Barton and his disciples (including Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry) may claim. The Bible was certainly available to them; they simply chose not to use it as the cornerstone of American government. Instead, after vigorous debate, they wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitution which mentions neither God nor the Bible.
So ask yourself: do you want the Constitution or do you want the Bible. Before you answer, remember that the former is a list of rights you possess. The latter is a list of all the rights you do not have; it is a list of restrictions.
I don’t know about other voters, but I prefer the idea of rights to restrictions. The Founding Fathers agreed. They did not start the revolution with a proposition that people do not have certain rights. The proposition they advanced was that people do possess certain inalienable rights – that all people possess these rights. Everyone has the same rights; everyone is equal before the law.
It’s a strange innovation of fundamentalist Christians that the granting of rights rather than their restriction is presented to their audience as tyranny. Generally, of course, tyranny is understood to be the restriction of rights. This is the peculiar and unnatural outlook of a religion that feels rights should not be shared but limited to members of that religion. Having to tolerate the other is not in their nature.
Of course, the U.S. Constitution necessitates toleration of the other as a pre-requisite for the modern liberal democracy. If you can’t or won’t tolerate other people and other beliefs, you stand opposed to the very principles according to which this nation was established.
The Constitution promises Americans equal protection for their religious beliefs. It’s right there in the First Amendment. If this is true, how is it that prominent fundamentalists claim that the First Amendment not only does not make this promise, but actually does the opposite, by establishing Christianity as the state religion the Constitution expressly forbids? How is it that religions other than Christianity are deprived of the promised protections?
This is the threat facing Americans, the threat of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, the repressive rule of an American Taliban.
A fundamentalist brand of Christianity takes precedence on the 2012 Republican platform; it has become essential to Republican political theology. Where the Constitution forbids religious tests, Christian fundamentalism demands them. Behind claims of religious freedom lurks the specter of one religion being privileged over all others. Look at the Family Leader’s forum – no Mormons were present; Romney and Huntsman were already out of contention on the basis of professed religion alone. Quickly following them out the door were Ron Paul (despite being a conservative Christian himself), and Herman Cain. The field was narrowed to only four would-be messiahs, all howling-mad with the Holy Spirit – Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, the latter perhaps on the basis of his wanting to put poor kids to work cleaning up after everyone else, as Jesus intended.
This form of Christianity is embraced by only a quarter of the U.S. population. If it is legislated into law, the other 75 percent of the population finds itself disenfranchised, deprived of its constitutional rights. How is it that Americans remain so unaware of the threat? Any sensible person would run screaming into the night from the likes of the Family Leader’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Not a day goes by when one of the Republican candidates for president does not invoke God, Bible, Jesus, or Holy Spirit. Not a day goes by when we are not told that the rest of us are not real Americans at all but interlopers in a country they claim was established not by the blood and sweat of patriots of all stripes, but ordained by God for white Christians alone?
Where then is the promise of the Constitution? And why would any American hesitate even for a second between which to choose, Bible or Constitution? Remember, the idea you can have both is a lie; you can’t. Choose the Constitution and get rights, or at least the promise of rights which can later be gained, as were freedom for slaves, the civil rights movement, the vote for women, non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, and marriage equality. Chose the Bible and you get a big long list of things you cannot do and cannot believe.
And if you want a group that thinks blacks were happier as slaves to choose your president that’s your right, but I think we can do better than that. It’s up to you, and it’s an important decision, because in 2012 Americans will have to choose either the Bible or the Constitution. There is no way around it.
PoliticusUSA
G+
Facebook
Reynardine
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:00 am
That even a quarter of Americans actually think this stuff is scary. It’s a testimonial to a school system prevented from educating people and a press, pushed by Fox, which actually diseducates them. It’s a tribute to an entertainment industry which, since the 1980′s, has deliberately Helotized those segments of the public who aren’t supposed to be “as good” and has functioned, in many cases, as a right-wing propaganda machine. In the Naughties, especially in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, I think we can all recall how “country music” was used to promote jingoism among the very classes of Americans who stood to benefit least, and what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they tried to buck the trend.
None of the candidates in question would have been qualified to run the country after 1856. If any are selected, it’s strictly as a vote-getter for mean, panicked, “ril uhMericuns”. Watch the veep. That’ll be the real power. Indeed, with a well-timed misfortune, that’ll be the real President.
I am not sure where you got your illustration, but with some acquaintance with Equus caballus, I assure you that all these Christian apocalyptic horses are actually Ay-rabs.
loading...
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Found it on – ready? – Christian website
loading...
mikeyhatesit
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Even funnier- those Arabian horses are evolved through natural selection from a species of horse that originated millions of years ago, before the continents split up, in the section now known as North America. Remember that there were no horses to be found in the Americas when “God guided our Christian forebears to these shores and liberated the New World from the heathens.” That certainly contradicts the Dominionist mythology that the Earth is only 6000 years old, which is tens of millenia younger than our association with horses.
And just because I think dogs are so noble, they’ve been co-evolving with us for close to 100,000 years. Without dogs, horses, and cattle, we never would have lasted long enough to become an agricultural species that relied on blood sacrifices to the sun. And that’s story of how we came to worship a zombie by symbolically eating his flesh every week…
loading...
marpwv18
Nov. 27th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Definitely Arabians! The arch of the neck and the head carriage are unmistakable. You will never forget the excitement of riding an Arabian. Their spirit and energy are exhilarating! Attributing Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich with such qualities is out of the question. Rented mules would be more like it.
loading...
Greg Wurz
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:04 am
This is the thing that scares me the most about the Republican ideology. The fact that these guys are invoking the bible at every turn, espousing god, and even chastising president Obama for not mentioning “God” in his Thanksgiving announcement is going to galvanize the Christians. It won’t matter that Newt wants to lower wages by hiring children, Herman Cain is a serial sexual harasser, or that Bachmann is plain old crazy. All they will see is that the person is a “christian” and vote for that candidate based on that fact, and only that fact. There will e preachers telling their congregations to vote for no other reason than to have a “christian” in the white house. This is the only chance they have of winning. But it is a good chance. How else are they going to keep the gays, Jews, and Muslims from taking over the country?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are howling batshit religion crazy. Gingrich has no religion except that of money and lying. But he fits right in with the rest.
Its pathetic that top be elected you have to commit to admitting you are a christian.
The rest of the world is going to shun us in time
loading...
Glenda Aul
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Just because they claim to be Christians means nothing. The teachings of Christ do not support their actions. They don’t adhere to the teachings of the Ten Commandments, the judge not, the love thy neighbor, etc.
I don’t understand why people cannot see this. God did not preach hate.
loading...
Jim Faubel
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Unlike every Nation or Government before it, the United States of America was founded in the name of “We the People”…not in the name of any God or religion.
Didn’t Jesus say “My kingdom is not of this world” and “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s”?
Religion and Government can learn from (inform) one another. As both are social phenomena, they will inevitably influence one another. But they can and must be separate in their spheres of influence.
Woodrow Wilson said the “Government is nothing but organized force.” [ie, force meaning the military and police powers]
Religion is also a power: the power of faith, belief, vision, mission, etc. But not a military or police power.
Lord Acton said that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Whenever the religious powers have been combined with Government power, religions have used the military and police power of the Government to oppress and kill “unbelievers” and those who believed in “other gods”.
To give religious significance to any nation, man, party (or denomination), law or statute is idolatry.
Religion can inform and guide us in how we conduct Governmental policies and activities and how we make law and the kinds of laws we make…but religion cannot make laws for Government (that’s theocracy) nor can Government make laws for religion (the “disestablishment clause”).
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution enumerate all the rights of man [see Amendments #9 and #10]. One of the rights not enumerated but very important to the Founders was the “right of conscience” [i.e., the right to choose one’s religion, one’s beliefs about God or to choose not be believe]. Part of what the disestablishment clause means is that the Government has no right to prescribe what any person shall or shall not believe.
The Founders sought to avoid the religious wars, purges and Inquisitions that had plagued Europe for centuries.
So long as Government does not interfere with one’s “free exercise” of religion, a religious person should obey Government authorities.
Governments should not support religions (other than to leave them alone so long as they do not endanger public safety) and religions should not support governments. If Government chooses to support religions in general, it must remain fair and even-handed.
For the Government to support a particular religion (church or denomination) is to play favorites, and to cease to be fair and even-handed.
For religion to support a particular Government (or nation or party) is to play favorites, and to promote a god besides God.
If a religion says it obeys a God or faith for all mankind, then it cannot play favorites. Let them praise good deeds and condemn evil deeds, but they must refrain from identifying themselves with any nation, government, political party or politician.
God is not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor an Independent. God is also not an American, European, or Russian. God is not a Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Jew or Hindu. “God is no respecter of men.” He treats all alike. “He makes the sun to shine on all and the rain to fall on all, the just and the unjust.”
Like political parties, religions tend to be exclusivist (in spite of the “big tent” rhetoric). Political parties can sometimes rise above partisanship; religions almost never can.
Jefferson believed that other people’s belief in “one god or 20 gods…neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket” and therefore was not any business of government.
While Jefferson objected to many of the policies of the Adams administration, he never suggested that Adams should be barred from public office.
Govt makes laws to regulate commerce and behavior. But if it makes laws to regulate opinion or belief, it has overstepped its authority.
Religions typically seek to regulate both belief and behavior. However, it is presumed that religions promote “good deeds” and therefore should be tolerated by governments.
Some believe that governments can support religions as long as they do so fairly and even-handedly and don’t play favorites. Others believe that if religions cannot maintain themselves without government support, they should be allowed to fail.
loading...
SinghX
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Here is a link to Bruce Wilson’s article with video clip of Newt and David Barton (if you can stomach it) lying to their base. Newt says that 80%, yes, 80% of Americans want a biblical law over the “secular-atheist” government of today (amazing)…Barton sites “hundreds” of places in the Bill of Rights where biblical scriptures are used as their base…their lies are all about power to over throw the constitution and the government for the people, by the people. Why they are not picked up for treason is beyond me…
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/11/24/105429/41
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 26th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Excellent link, everyone should read it
loading...
Acebass
Nov. 27th, 2011 at 9:42 am
And I would hate to think of this country without some religious restraint. Just don’t assume that because you need to fear an after life of torment in order to keep from doing wrong to someone else means none of us have self control enough to do it on our own.
loading...