pj Monday, 10 September 2007 at 14:00

Agreed … with a few minor amendments:

1) One ought to say “Judeo-Christian nation,” because Jewish beliefs are also within America’s “civic religion.”

2) I think you should be a more open to allowing state establishments. What would be wrong with a State of Israel that established Judaism, but complied with the Constitution, providing free exercise and equal protection of the laws to all? Anyone who disliked the establishment could move to another state.

erp Monday, 10 September 2007 at 17:38

pj, too clumsy I think. Jews and everyone else can practice their religion, or not.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

That’s it.

pj Monday, 10 September 2007 at 19:40

erp, the original meaning of the establishment clause was to prevent Congress (therefore any branch of the federal government) from making a law regarding any state or federal establishment — thus it protected the state establishments of the time from federal interference. So your “That’s it” would seem to support my position, rather than oppose it.

And, of course, the point of an establishment is not to stop anyone from practicing their religion, but to give favors to the established religion. An establishment of religion is compatible with free exercise for all.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 10 September 2007 at 20:22

pj;

The best argument against such a thing is that it’s bad for religion.

Also, I didn’t use “Judeo-Christian” because Jorge didn’t.

erp;

pj is quite correct that the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights in no way prohibited the establishment of churches in a state. Certainly such things existed at the time the Constitution was adopted and no one then thought there was a problem.

pj Monday, 10 September 2007 at 21:49

AOG - It depends on the nature of the establishment, I think, whether it is bad for religion or not. In general subsidies are destructive, I would agree, and I would not want the state making fine theological distinctions in its distribution of favors. However, assuming we adopted a voucher system for education, I would not necessarily want the vouchers to go to every conceivable school & brand of moral instruction. I think it would be desirable to restrict funding to schools that teach a morality broadly consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Jorge Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 00:14

To clarify, my concern — and therefor my theoretical question — there are so called “Christians” out there who are intent on stating that this country was founded on Biblical laws and that we should return to recognizing the Bible as the supreme law of the land. The Bible is subject to many denominational interpretations and this begs the question what variety of Christianity would become the guiding dogma if America were to move from being a “Democratic Republic” to a “Theocratic Republic” or “Theocratic Democracy” ?

A tangent but highly relevant question is what happens to those varieties of Christian citizens that disagree with the “winner” theology (not to mention the non-Christian citizens) ?

tom c., stamford,ct Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 06:37

jorge- I belive your premise is mistaken. One can’t ‘return’ to where one never was. The country was founded on a ‘Christian’ morality in the sense that the founders were generally Christian holding Christian assumptions regarding morality, the nature of the human being and the proper realtionship between citizen and state. The federal, constitutional system pre-empted any establishment of religion becoming a dominant national church. The Northwest Ordinance as well as the writings of the various founders make plain their belief in the importance of morality and religion in fostering the ‘public virture’ necessary in maintaining the republic and ordered liberty. If men are to govern themselves with minimal interference from the central state, each citizen needs be equipped with the foundation to live the virtuous life as understood by the framers. I think they understood that belief in God is the better alternative to the exclusive belief in the state. A bottom up morality is always better than the top down version imposed by statist systems.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 09:39

Jorge;

Those Christianists are a minute faction that no one takes seriously. You might as well worry about the CPUSA taking over. Your point about the factionalism is sufficient in itself to show why a true theocratic party won’t be taking over in our lifetimes.

A tangent but highly relevant question is what happens to those varieties of Christian citizens that disagree with the “winner” theology (not to mention the non-Christian citizens) ?

What happens to them now?

Jorge Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 11:07

tom c: I fully agree with your comments. We never were the kind of Christian Nation that Revisionist Christians would like others to believe, however…

AOG: While the Revisionists are indeed a minute faction, their message is striking a chord with many Fundamentalist leaders and followers. Call it wishful thinking but such are the stuff which dreams are made of, and dreams become goals very easily.

I think you both may be underestimating the influence that the Evangelicals, and in particular the Dominionists have in our current political landscape. Consider if you will the following:

In the last two elections a lot of churches have been willing to enter the political fray on conservative values. These values have always been with us but what changed in the past decade that caused such an radical increase in religious political activism? The sad fact is that the reason churches are getting active is because the funds to BE active (make no mistake, politics is an expensive game to play) are suddenly available from somewhere…

There is right now a multi-billionaire (yes, that is with a “B”) who is a very conservative (read: “anti-gay, anti-abortion, family values, etc”) religious leader who wants to see an American Theocracy come into existence. He contributes (directly and indirectly) vast amounts of money to various politicians that agree with his conservative values. He likewise contributes astronomical amounts to many Fundamentalist churches and church-sponsored organizations to further the cause of a Conservative Fundamentalist America with the Bible as the supreme law of the land.

Before I identify (and document) who this “philanthropist” is, let me ask everyone what they think about the influence such a single money source represents in our current political system ? (Keep in mind how often our politicians — of both parties — have been caught being influenced and corrupted by unethical lobbyists.)

David Cohen Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 11:13

An issue we’ve discussed a lot at Brothers Judd, perhaps most successfully here.

One source of confusion here is mixing up the nation with the state. The state is secular. The nation is Christian.

David Cohen Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 11:19

As for the Establishment Clause, it always seemed to me that the really important lesson was that the states voluntarily got rid of their establishments quickly and without much controversy. The last establishment, Massachusetts’, was gone by 1831. The states then went about 100 years without establishments even though they were constitutionally free to adopt them. It seems odd to argue from that history that the federal courts and ACLU must be eternally vigilant to prevent religious persecution.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 11:35

Jorge;

How is that philanthropist any different from George Soros? Even if everything you wrote is 100% accurate, I would still worry far more about Soros. Even Pinch Sulzburger is scarier.

I think the number one motivator of greater church involvement in politics has been President Bill Clinton and the success of other ideological faction groups (such as MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.).

David Cohen Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 11:44

Jorge: How the Evangelicals came to be politically active is very well understood. It was Roe v. Wade and, more generally, the trend of the left using the courts to disenfranchise voters and achieve through the courts political ends that could not be achieved through politics. Right now, gay marriage is a nice illustration of this dynamic.

David Cohen Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 11:46

And, by the way, another word for “single money source” is “citizen” and for “money,” “speech.” Also, I’m very skeptical that I’m going to agree that your billionaire is a “religious leader.”

pj Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 12:48

The reason for the evangelical entrance into politics on the Republican side has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with feeling that their culture is under assault by the left. With political correctness in the schools and universities, and the exclusion of Christianity from government and education and media, there was a sense that the left was trying to “take their children away”, instilling a leftist, anti-Christian spirituality in their children through the coercive power of the state and the Gramscian seizure of institutions of culture. This was not only an assault on Christianity, it was an assault on the very principles of America — that we are to be a cooperative society of equal, free citizens, in which everyone can participate in government on equal terms and form their own associations to pursue happiness in their own way. And in assaulting America, the left was also assaulting civilization itself, for civilization globally would not survive the loss of liberty and the loving spirit in America. Rather than let the culture and institutions for which we have the deepest affections be destroyed, conservative Christians banded together to contest the left for institutions of government. This was a cooperative venture of tens of millions of people, not just of one billionaire and some stooges.

Tom C., stamford,Ct. Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 13:33

jorge- ‘…churches entering the political fray…’, is nothing new. Churches are composed of people and politics in the form of a ridiculously large and centralized administraive state has, sadly, made everything political. The first amendment, remember, concerns speech and religion. The War for Independence was heavily discussed among congregations as was the abolition movement during their times as is abortion and ‘gay’ culture today. This fixation on evangelicals is right out of the NYT op/ed pages. It is nonsense. The threat of ‘theocracy’ in the US is simply absurd from any reading of the constitution and our history. The irrational and ahistorical fear of evangelicals has become a religion of it’s own. You betray some paranoia and historical fantasy with your concerns. Where do you get this stuff?

erp Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 14:15

This paranoia is the reason so few Jews deviate from the left. I’ve had Jews I know well, people who’ve had the best education and whose intellect is second to none actually tell me that they’ve afraid of the Christian right. It’s nutty, but there it is and no amount of “reasoned” discussion can shake these conviction. The MAL have done their job well.

Michael Herdegen Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 21:19

There is some small possibility of the U.S. becoming a Mormon-dominated, more explicitly Christian nation. It depends on for how long current trends in religious conversion, Mormon demographics, and American demographics continue.

But Mormons are no more monolithic than are any other bloc; even under the above scenario, there would be vigorous debate. It would just be centered further right than it is now.

Also, although Salt Lake City is heavily Mormon, the Mayors have been Democrats for the past thirty years.

Jeff Guinn Wednesday, 12 September 2007 at 07:37

… that we are to be a cooperative society of equal, free citizens, in which everyone can participate in government on equal terms and form their own associations to pursue happiness in their own way.

Speaking of undermining, someone didn’t get the memo.

Of course, Jews have been the most graphic evidence that the religious are perfectly happy to agree with the statement above, except when it comes to people of other religions.

pj Wednesday, 12 September 2007 at 13:02

Jeff - I’m not sure how your link is relevant. Perhaps you could explain. On the issue of religious views being a campaign issue, part of having “free citizens … [able to] form their own associations” means that no one is entitled to votes or campaign support from other citizens. Just because atheists don’t win elections doesn’t mean there’s been a loss of freedom or equality.

Hey Skipper Friday, 14 September 2007 at 15:29

pj:

I was responding to your quote, which, with regard to the religious, is wrong. Jews did not get to participate on equal terms. The Texas GOP, in using tribal language (which is distinctly un-American), chose to use exactly the same approach with the opposing candidate as had long been the case with Jews.

Of course, the GOP religionists could have focussed on their opponents actual record, thereby treating him as an individual, rather than imputing upon him the presumed characteristics of the group to which he allegedly belongs.

All the while completely ignoring how that brush leaves even more tar on themselves.