Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
[from the February 21, 2005 issue of THE NATION]
It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.
Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.
In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].
In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.
The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."
If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.
George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as "God" but with some nondenominational moniker like "Great Author" or "Almighty Being." It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.
No more of this half way crap.
Let's eliminate the idea of "holidays"-since the term derives from the words "holy days" and we cannot allow ANY governemtn recognition of anything "holy". I think we can get agreement that there should be "days of recognition" for veterans and the memorial day of recognition for those who have sacrificed for the nation.
However, we MUST eliminate the federally recognized "holidays" of Chsritmas and Thanksgiving, since they are clearly religiously motivated. If businesses wish to observe "holidays", those are private entities and they are entitled to work however they desire, except where there is conflict with national interests.
And I believe we should no longer recognize Sundays as anything but another day of the week. The government (federal, state, and muni) must stagger operational staffing so that governemtn service are available 7 days a week.
While we're at it, WHY does the military (an OBVIOUS governmental function) permit religious services and chaplains? That must cease IMMEDIATELY.
We either recognize that the attempt of first ammendment was not to create a "Church of the United States", yet still allow the govenrment to acknowledge religion-or we declare religion to be unconstitutional and ANYTNIG with ANY TYPE of religious affiliation is not allowed to exist within the realm of government.
We cannot ignore that our country has its origins in Judeo-Christian beliefs and that the First Amendment was designed to prevent the Congress from establishing a national religion. Atheists and agnostics were not the driving force behind these principles.
But under the orginial vision of the United States, the "states" were viewed as having much more autonomy thatn we have today. And there was nothing in the constitution, until the 14th Amendment, to preclude the states from setting up a state religion.
Over time, the "separation of church and state" concept has become stronger, and we are now ever so careful when it comes to religion and our government.
I do not like it when the government attempts to step into my life, and the only basis for this intrusion is a religious belief. These issues are obvious when we begin to address criminal law. For example, robbery should clearly be punsihed. Does the crime have a basis in religion? Yes. "Thou shalt not steal". But it is more than that-- it is necessary for the safety and well being of all of us, whether religious or not.
So what about consensual sodomy between two adults? The Supreme Court, thankfully, has recently concluded that the government cannot intrude into this area of the law. The only basis for such a law is religious-- because a certain percentage of society believe that it is offensive to god and that they are saving other souls by prohibiting it. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case, justifying the law in question, is frightening to read.
So, I have no problem with celebrating holidays, or Christmas. And I have no problem with posting the Ten Commandments in a public place-- it does demonstrate where the "law" began, and the "law" began intertwined with religion. But I do have a problem with the inclusion of "god" in the pledge of allegiance, which was put in the pledge merely to demonstate that we are not "ungodly communists".
Yes, we do have religious origins, and we cannot ignore those beginnings. But religion has served its purpose, and is not a basis to govern our society, which must remain secular.
My posting however, goes to the fundamental problem.
There is a vocal minority who do have a problem with the ten commandments, and any form of religious association with government.
To fit within the confines of the strictest interpretation of "separation of church and state", you must eliminate the governmental recognition of any religious festivities in the form of "holidays" or other preferential treatments.
But where does it stop? What about parades? There are Christmas parades, easter parades, etc. These parades require governmental permits and the parades block free access to public roads. I guess we need to look at preventing any types of parades that have religious connotations.
I go back to my original thoughts that we have becoma a lazy, self serving and self cenntered society, where we care only about ourselves and to hell with the welfare of others. This crusade for absolute individual rights to the detriment of society will lead to the collapse of the US within three generations.
The answer is YES we should eliminate them if they have any type of religous connotation.
If the constitution itself does not prove it, the quotes in this piece prove beyond any doubt that the founders did not intent to create a Christian or religious nation at all -- in fact they wanted governmant separated from religion.
I belive people should have a given number of floating "holidays" that they can use however they want (except for certain secular holidays like Presidents day, 4th of July, etc) -- if the majority wants to use them for Christmas, so be it. If other want to use them for Jewish holidays or Quanza who gives a flying fuck? That is the kind of freedom republicans should LOVE. ...What, people aren't smart enought to figure out what holidays they want -- the government needs to figure it out for them? ...You get the gist...
Any religious parades that involve public funds or property should not be allowed. Winter solstice parades are fine and people can wear anything they want in those parades INCLUDING any religious signs, costumes or ornaments as an expression of free speach -- but these parades should not be "Christmas" parades.
Why is this such a problem? If Christians have such confidence in their beleifs why do they act so insecure about them? Are their beliefs really THAT fragile that they have to worry about this?
The answer is YES we should eliminate them if they have any type of religous connotation.
If the constitution itself does not prove it, the quotes in this piece prove beyond any doubt that the founders did not intent to create a Christian or religious nation at all -- in fact they wanted governmant separated from religion.
I belive people should have a given number of floating "holidays" that they can use however they want (except for certain secular holidays like Presidents day, 4th of July, etc) -- if the majority wants to use them for Christmas, so be it. If other want to use them for Jewish holidays or Quanza who gives a flying fuck? That is the kind of freedom republicans should LOVE. ...What, people aren't smart enought to figure out what holidays they want -- the government needs to figure it out for them? ...You get the gist...
Any religious parades that involve public funds or property should not be allowed. Winter solstice parades are fine and people can wear anything they want in those parades INCLUDING any religious signs, costumes or ornaments as an expression of free speach -- but these parades should not be "Christmas" parades.
Why is this such a problem? If Christians have such confidence in their beleifs why do they act so insecure about them? Are their beliefs really THAT fragile that they have to worry about this?
How do you answer this excerpt from that piece:
In 1797 (only 20 years after indepence was declared)
The U.S. government concluded a "Treaty of Peace
and Friendship between the United States of America
and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now
known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of
the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any
sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws,
religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the
said States never have entered into any war or act of
hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared
by the parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the
harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State
Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was
then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was
unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this
was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required
by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in
the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or
dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in
the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers,
but there were no screams of outrage, as one might
expect today.
Most of you right wingers will avoid discussing this, but why are those of you who spout this right wing religious stuff even on this board? What are you doing here? Don't get me wrong, you have every right to be here and I support your right to be here saying whatever you want. However your presence and comments here makes you either extreme hypocrites or phonies or both. Can any of you explain?
-- Modified on 3/4/2005 8:14:12 AM
Actually...THIS board is supposed to be political discussion, where is the hypocrisy (aside from the fact that the board is associated with a website oriented towards sex).
But, as I said, this specific board is political.
Also, you are making a very broad generalization and accusation with nothing but your jaded perceptions as support. The so called "right wing religious stuff" I spout is support for those I perceive as being repressed by extremeist liberals with an agenda to eliminate religion from society, under the guise of "Constitutional" interpretations.
The hypocrisy in all this is the strident minority that attack the associations between religion and any form of government.
It used to be that the legal system was used to redress LEGITIMATE injury. You were physically injured and lost your job or something tangible-you filed suit and received compensation. In the latter part of the 20th, if you suffered from civil injustice-and legitimately suffered-you sued for justice.
Now, it's all about feelings and the desire to not be offended, or the "potential" for "possible" abuse.
None of the recent lawsuits related to religion and government have established ANY injuries. And you cannot demonstrate how these allegations about the first ammendment violations havecaused any harm or injury. Instead it's all political bullshit motivated because a few people with nothing better to do, or who want to make themselves famous, decide to ptich a crying fit and sue.
It's these kinds of frivolous lawsuits that clog up our leagal system and turn the whole concept justice into a joke.
the most important issues that need to be addressed are the constitutional ones.
I could care less how much someone receives because they have been bitten by their neighbors dog. I do care when someone tries to circumvent the constitution.
Admittedly this area of consitutional law is amporphous-- the Supreme Court is interpreting language. But that is the great part about our constitution, it is flexible and can be changed over time.
It is through redress to the court system that these "injuries" are redressed and we ensure that there is no tyranny of the majority.
What would your congregations think of you being here?
This questioning seems to violate the liberal position of accpetance and tolerance.
Besides, how cna you know they are fundamentalist christians. Perhaps they are merely people who are troubled by what they perceive as overzealous attacks by others that seem to be contrary or persecution?
-- Modified on 3/4/2005 10:59:35 PM
I take being non-judgemental so far. Hypocracy is over the line in my opinion.
BTW, I know I have struck a nerve and have made my point when the question does not get answered and the subject is changed or twisted back on me.
You swerved the subject from government and religion to attempting an attack on what you called "fundamentalist christians".
So I guess I struck the nerve since you changed the subject.
If the following is true (and I hope you will tell me if it is true)
1) Are you a Christian.
2) You are on a board (and I presume participate in this hobby as well) that promotes, advocates and sells carnal sin.
How is it NOT Hypocracy?
"1) Are you a Christian."
The answer depends on what you define "christian" as.
I do not attend any organized religious activities, I accept the current concept of Christ because I was not there to witness the events of the time and I find the widespread acceptance of the existence of Christ as an indication of something of importance.
Unlike the atheistic kneejerking fools, I am convinced that God exists. Having studied astronomy and physics, I am amazed at the incredible existance of what exists. According to the big bang theory, the universe began with the explosian of the primordial mass-but where did that mass originate?
As to your charges about hypocrisy and christians, some might point to the beliefs that man has a natural tendency to sin and it is through Christ's forgiveness that man can be saved.
My issue, as I have mentioned before, is what I think is persecution of religion by people such as yourself.
Now, THAT is some deductive reasoning! Ha!
The law of conservation of matter makes it clear that matter can be neither created nor destroyed-it can only change energy states.
Accepting that the big bang is probably correct, that still leaves the basic question-where did the original primordial mass originate?
If there is a god, beeking omnipotent, the law of conservation would not apply.
HA HA!
You must be so insecure about what you beleive that you have to attack people like that at a personal level. That is not very "Jesus like".
I've dealt with both of you and your stupidity.
Neither of you actually READ what I posted, you just ripped out responses in your typical zeal to argue a counter point.
Your lack of comprehension and obvious fialure to read my posts validates my position that you are not worth my time.
It is impossible for me to engage you in a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
Nobody's forcing your fingers to type, bro.
I would read your post if you would only post it. If you want to make a point, then the responsibility is yours to explian it -- it is not my responsibilty to search all over this board for a post you made some time ago. I did not see that post. If you want to claim you've made a point about something -- show it to me.
If not, maybe you are right and you should not try to "engage wits" since I am so unworthy of your superior intellect.
You obviously did not READ what I wrote, or your level of reading comprehension is lacking.
I said I accepted the existence of Christ. Unlike the twisted interpretation you obviously have for what Christians mean, accepting the existence does not mean I have become a born again Christian.
But I would not expect someone with your attitudes to understand the distinction.
I'll try to make it as simple as I can. The very first post of mine (2003?) contained the phrase "For Christ's sake it wasn't Reagans fault" and it was related to a thread condemning Reagan for the explosion of the AIDS virus in San Fransisco.
It was a complete phrase of speech and had absolutely no religous connotation whatsoever. Just like when someone says Goddamn or Holyshit... At that time, I had been a veep on TER for a couple years but had never bothered to look at this board until that day. I was immediatly attacked as a religous zealot by several posters and forced to either affirm my faith in Christ or disclaim and agree to a bunch of aetheists, anarchists, socialists et al.
So why am I on here? Because I can be. Do I participate in the hobby? Yes. A lot? No. Is there a difference between sinning a little or a lot? No. So there, I have admitted that I have sinned and continue to do so because that is the point you were getting at. Yes there is hypocracy in my life.
Now, I haven't avoided you post, I just haven't noticed it until now. Does that satisfy your curiosity?
1. None of us were there.
2. There is a remarkable absence of illumination about the whole definition of what constitutes "seperation" of church and state.
3. People tend to define the language of the Constitution in the current vanacular and interpretation of the language-not the implied meanings of the language at the time.
4. We see the government "interpreting" well beyond what is written in the Constitution.
5. People tend to use only the quotations and writings that support their arguments, ignoring the scope of the history and heritage that preceded the founding of the nation.
6. People have distinct prejudices about this issue and nobody will ever be able to convince the "oppositon" that there is a correct definition/interpretation.
We can debate/fight about this forever, ultimately it will come down to one of three results: nothing will change, the Supreme Court will hand down a more delineated interpretation, or the Constitution will be ammended (attempted at least) to specify exactly what the delineation is.
Given the fact that this "separation" (below) was put in the very first amendement to the consitution and there was no other mention of Jesus or God in the rest of the entire constution?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, don't you agree with this:
The founding fathers were either:
1) Devout Christians who went out of their way to intentionally LEAVE OUT Jesus and God then inserted what looks to be a clear "separation" of church and state?
OR
2) They were not the devout Christians people say they were which is why they left out Jesus and God?
The reason I ask this is because there is and absense of God, JESUS and RELIGION in the constitution but you don't really acknowledge that. Why? What could be more patriotic than the constitution?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm
The lack of religious language in the Constitution does not validate the conclusion that the framers intent was to exclude religion.
While the basis for the governmental form is the Constitution, you must also include the documents that influenced the writing of the Constitution and the founding of the nation. Don't forget that the Constitution was drafted as a framework for the states to work in commonality, while still maintaining a degree of independence and self rule.
Aside from the Declaration of Independence, you also need to look at other guides-both good and bad. These include the Articles of Cofederation, the writings from the founding of Jamestown, the Magna Carta, and the laws of Hamurabi.
Why wouldn't they just say what they mean if they wanted MORE religion in governing of the country? They could have easily spared us all this grief by just saying we DO NOT WANT government and religion to be separated. But they did not do this. They did the opposite. If you are right why in the heck would they do such a thing? It makes no sense.
Perhaps because religion was more pervasive in their society than it is now and they never envisioned the societal changes.
As many have pointed out, they did not consider slaves to be their moral equivalent back then-it took a civil war and almost 100 years to abolish slavery. Women were not considered equal to men back then, but women now have voting rights.
Others have pointed out the flexibility and ambiguity in the constitution. The foresight to create three separate branches of government and the system of checks & balances.
I submit that they believed that there would be changes in government needs, societal evolution and they provided the ability to adapt.
Your assertions that just because they didn't mention God or religion must have the sigificance that they had no intention for religion to have any relation to government is fallacious reasoning. Begging the question in this case is your claim that there should be no religious recognition by government because they did not include the mention of religion.
I contend that by adding the first ammendment they recognized the importance of religion by including a right of religious association-specifically prohibiting government from suppressing religious beliefs. I agree with others in the belief that they did not want a church of the US, where the leadership of the government also held significant religious leadership positions- as in England, Spain and Rome.
If we follow the line of reasoning of the separtists, the leadership of government cannot be allowed to participate in their religion (the President cannot attend church or be an active member in any religious organization) since that would create a conflict between church & state. That would, of course, be a violation of the leadership's first ammendment rights.
Did you know this:
In 1797 (just 20 years after declaring independence) our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.
Ignore the rest of history and focus on one or two selected passages.
Just like the past state of the Union address where the Dem's focused on a few words out of the whole address as an indictment of the president.
Bottom line, you're on the wrong side of this discussion and you can't admit it.
I'm done 'splaining to you-it's a total waste of my time.
You are welcome to counter with other treaties and legislation from that period to show how otherwise. In fact I would really like to see it. Maybe I will change my position based on new information.
But, honestly, doesn't that information show how non-religious of a country we were meant to be? I just don't know how anyone can read it another way.
If you have some other evidence to show me, I am more than open to considering it.
I explained my position already, you chose to ignore what I said.
And that was not an "explanation of your position" -- it was avoidance of stating your position. But, I should not be surprised.
their REAL agenda is NOT to separate Church from the State, but to separate Church from Society.
If we could dispose of religion, we would eliminate the base cause of war and oppression. It is religion that divides us.
political differences, more specifically political intolerance from the far-extremes of Left and Right are as much to blame.
Quite a few Communist regimes of the last century sought to eliminate religion. They also sought to eliminate their political opposition, literally. All in the name of "peace and stability".
Things didn't work out so well, especially for those at the wrong end of the barrels.
RLTW
the state was the religion, as it is now with North Korea.
The concept is to eliminate individual thought. Religion does it the same way- think what we tell you to think, and to think otherwise will condemn you to hell.
The USSR had to eliminate all alternate belief systems. As one would serve god, thus is the state served. It all boils down to thought control. Alternates "religions", such as capitalism, must be eliminated in communism.
With religion, non-believers must be silenced for the "good" of the majority. People cannot be allowed to dare think that there is no god, for if there is no god, laws based strictly on religious priniples must rightly disappear. Then right wing power disappears as well.
Religion finds any idea that detracts from god to be dangerous. For how many hundreds of years did it take the Roman Catholic Church to admit that it was wrong about Galileo? New ideas, especially scientific explanations, detract from god being the explanation. Amazingly, there are still those who take the Book of Genesis literally.
Eliminate "religion" and we could be a much freer, happier society.
I asked for an opinion about communism and this post.
I copied the entire text into an email and sent it to a coworker who emigrated from the former Soviet Union in the 90's.
I quote him now: "it's gibberish"
Basically he admitted that he was agnostic, but born into a Jewish household in Russia.
As he explained it, when the revolution first occurred in the 1900's, all the Lenin talk was about communism. Post WW2, the talk turned from practicing communism to practicing socialism as an end to achieving communist utopia. As I understand his explanation, the former Soviet government used to preach that there were "stages" of socialism that eventually lead to the perfect communist utopia.
During the period Brehznev was in power, the Soviet Union was not a bad place to live, but it was stagnated.
Furthermore, per his observations (having LIVED under the communist regime), a zealous state sanctioned atheism is, in fact, a form of religion. It's the religion of non-belief. An additional point he made was that when you try and suppress a relgion, that religion is not eliminated-it becomes more zealous, extremist, and fundamentalistic. We see that in many Islamic nations and we see it in the so called "religious right" extremists.
As I stated in a prior post, the bulk of the current idiocy about separation of church & state is not about injury or legitimate civil rights suppression, it's about idealistic stupidity over interpretations that are really aimed at garnering attention for people who lead such meaningless lives that they must create friction and disharmony to get attention.
Crosses and monuments do not cause harm-they reflect a heritage. The attempts to have cross memorials and ten commandment monuments removed is an attempt to alter history.
Since so many liberals have been happy to quote Orwell and cite his "fictional" observations, let me remind you of another Orwellian philosophy: "He who controls the past controls the future."
If you've read the book 1984, remember the passages where Smith describes erasing and changing history. The party member who no longer existed and the change in the wartime stance-Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia/Eastasia (I forget which one).
Are you saying that things would be much better now, if somehow, history had been different and the the whole GOD thing had never happened?
OR
Are you actually advocating that at this point in time it would be a good idea to try to eradicate religions?
Because your post sounds more like the later than the former.
It isn't religion that divides us - it is how people use it. I think there are very few concepts as vulnerable to projection as the idea of "God." Can't see it, can't touch it, can't measure it, the descriptions are highly metaphorical, etc. And religion is very much a living social force that changes with the times.
Aas such, religion is a convenient outlet for certain needs - the need to control is one that you site. Another is to frame key moral prinicples that a society rightly revolves around. (And there can be other sources of good moral principles besides religion). These two vantage points (control, pursuade) are a function of the social context - the more stressed the environment, the more likely it is to want to control.
Finally, I also think some of the tension from religion is that it confronts us with our own inner conflict and our own internal principles. We know as individuals we are failing our best selves, we know there is some core human principles that are important to be true to, religions seems to have important things to say about this, but the goddamn rhetoric is so stupid that we can't see through the nonsense, so we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
this morning with Al Frankin. I have to admit that I am one of the 4 listeners of this station and I especially like Frankin. She was interesting and seemed to have done her homework.
The main thing I thought listening to her is that the tensions between the religious mass and people like the founders she sites were then and are now a function of basic differences in developmental stature, and will remain a place of robust conflict so long as there are people.
And about Frankin - he's no less a propagandist than Rush or Hannity, and is just as skilled at tilting the truth like a pinball machine to keep the ball in play. He's just more my kind of propagandist. But the whole process of these kinds of stations and biases seem like increasing the isolation among us. I'll listen to Frankin, you'll listen to Rush and neither of us will listen to balanced reason.
Finally, about the issue at hand. This is one of those issues that frankly is off-topic to the major things we should be focused upon. I neither care if the 10 commandments are there or if they are removed. It's just the stuff of emotion on both sides. How does this go toward resolving any of the major issues that we really need to be talking about???
that his voice sucks for radio. If there is any background noise, his nasally mumblimg voice is drowned out. Of course, I disagree with virtually everything he says, but I wish I could listen to him without have to work at it! When his show was carried on the Sundance channel, it would be late at night and my TV would have to be turned up so loud just so I could hear his bullshit that I would have to have my finger on the remote in the event his guest or counterpart spoke. Interesting enough, it seems Sundance dumped his sorry ass after election.
He was not dumped.
I am glad to see that the right is now taking Franken and Air America seriously. In the begining they told themselves that they would be off the air in a matter of days. I remember the word "Hindinberg" being used liberally by the right. Since then they went from 13 stations to 49 within a year.
Incase all you guys did not know it, over 57 million people voted against Bush who are now pretty pissed off. That is a pretty big potential radio audience.
Talking it DOWN is almost as good as talking it UP -- it makes people interested in what is going on -- you've heard the phrase "there is no such thing as bad publicity"? Keep it up guys. We love it!
Please don't misunderstand my earlier statement as "starting to take Air America seriously", I simply like prefer talk radio over music when I drive or some areas of my biz. I do believe that as more people hear his message, more will be turned off by him because he is so negative. Listening to him is very close to reading some of the sophmoric posts by [some of]the lefties on this board.
Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy....
Ed Shults [Big Eddie] (is not on Air America) but is awsome too!
.........there are plenty of "official governmetnal documents" that make explicit mention of God (namely the Dec. of Independance).
......... that the intent of the founding fathers is well documented in the Federlast Papers as having a strong beleif in God & that our socitey should be founded on 1. beleif in a higher power & 2. that that power is "God" (if you are unfamilure w/ the Federalst Papers, it's the series of newpaper articles written to educate the American population as to why the new constitution was a good thing & should be voted for)
.......... that numerous Governmetal buildings have religions monumnets and references to God.
............ the Supreme court it'self has a copy of the 10 commandments (Moses, remember him?) in it's main courtroom.
Let's forget all that & many more examples - cause - hey let's face it, the facts are stubborn things when the left wants to impose it's will on the majority of Americans who belive in God & think that he Exists.
BTW, the seperation of Church & state dosen't mean that we need to live in an athiest society, just that no sponsored state religion shal exist.