Epilogue: THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST

THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST:  EPILOGUE
NEUTRALITY VS THEOCRACY
By Matthew 5 
Assisted by BibleBelted, and SweetPea

"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
- Abe Fortas, Epperson v. Arkansas , 393 U.S. 97, 1968. [1]

You'd think that devoutly religious people would be in favor of governmental neutrality when it comes to religion. Granted, we have the First Amendment religion clause which supposedly protects us from an established national church and which protects our religious freedom, but governmental neutrality (separation of church and state, if you prefer)  is the mechanism that enforces our the religion clause.  I don't know about you but I find it very strange that the most religious people in this country are the same people who are so obsessively determined to undermine the method by which we enforce the religion clause.  Considering the fact that under normal circumstances the political/religious pendulum swings back and forth, from left to right and back again, one would assume that the religious right in this country would want to maintain government neutrality to protect their own religious freedom.

Roger Williams (December 21, 1603-April 1, 1684) a figure heard from to infrequently these days, understood this argument very well.   A separatist preacher, Williams was banished by the  the Massachusetts General Court on September 13, 1635 for advocating religious tolerance and for criticizing the Massachusetts Bay Charter.  Initially considered himself a Baptist, but as he aged, Williams revealed himself as one of those rare people who becomes more open minded with age, eventually becoming a nondenominational Christian ( i.e. a seeker).  Ironically, while the radical religious right attempts to tear down the wall between church and state, it was Roger Williams whose use of similar terminology way well have inspired Thomas Jefferson's use of the term.  Wrote Williams

"When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World." [2]

Note the similarities between the terms "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world," as used by Williams and the term "Wall of Separation" [3] that Jefferson used more than a century and a half later.  Contrary to what the radical religious right would have us believe, the truth of the matter is that both, Williams and Rogers believed that a Separation of Church and State was necessary to protect both, religion and government.  We have already read what Jefferson thought about establishment in earlier contributions to this series, but what did Williams have to offer?  Well, to be precise, Williams to believed that a marriage of church and state was detrimental to both, the religious and civil authorities and that it was better to keep the two apart.  In the preface to The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, Williams issued "Twelve Arguments for Religious Tolerance."   

"First, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.

"Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience."

"Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures, and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

"Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.

"Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

"Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God.

"Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.

"Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

"Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jew's conversion to Christ.

"Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

"Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all forts).

"Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile..." [4]

 

What does this mean?  It means that the wall between Separation of Church and State offers two way protection, not just one way protection of the church.  It means that history shows us how violent and brutal establishment has been and that the best thing government and religion can do is to maintain a wally between them for the benefit of all.  Unfortunately there are people who truly believe that church state separation and government neutrality is a form of hostility towards their particular religion. 

 

"... the .most devoutly religious people should also be the staunchest defenders of government neutrality in matters of religion. Given the awesome power of the modern state, religious people should want to do everything reasonable to reduce the risk that the state will interfere with their religious institutions, and that would include the state coming down against them in theological matters. Accomplishing this requires removing from the government the authority to support them in theological matters as well.

"Unfortunately, too few people seem to be aware of this — or, if they are, they don't consider the risk to be high enough to give up the benefits of state endorsement. This may seem like a reasonable gamble, given America's history as having a predominantly Christian population. It's an unwise gamble, though, given how much variety there is within American Christianity and how far religious pluralism has advanced in recent decades.

"There are people who believe that government 'neutrality' is the same as government "hostility," but exactly the opposite is actually the case. If the government is not neutral, then the government is taking sides. If the government is taking sides on behalf of one group or belief, then it is also taking sides against the alternative groups or beliefs. Perhaps it isn't the intention of the government to send the message that those alternatives are worse, but it does so necessarily when it signals that the chosen option is favored by endorsing, supporting, or promoting it. That, in turn, qualifies as a form of "hostility." [5]

But what the Dominionists fail to recognize is that theocracy, by its very nature, is a self destructive concept.  How many nations, past theocracies, have destroyed the very nation that it took over?  Theocracy, if nothing else, is a recipe for both religious and civil corruption.  In the end it contaminates everything it touches.  It stifles scientific curiosity; degrades the technological advancements that a nation needs to survive; and through internal violence in the form of inquisitions and through external violence through religious wars of conquest, bleeds the theocratic nation dry.  That's a hell of a price to pay for imposing a particular religious view on other people.  

"The sad reality of Dominionism is that in order to achieve power and control over other men some sort of accord or treaty must be established with the world system. Biblical Christians of the devotional evangelical variety are fully aware of this danger. They see any bid for power and authority in this world as a very dangerous move. The gathering and the 'unity' that is achieved by this means is artificial, cheap, and short-lived. The reason for this is quite simple. Any bid for power is based on compromise with the spirit behind that power. Dominionism is achieved by playing games with the systems of this world. And when they use the ways of this world to establish authority the Church that becomes established finally ends up running counter to true Christianity.

 

"History bears this out. The recurring pattern is as follows. Establishment Christians make deals with the worldly powers. Then they always end up beholden to these worldly powers. Compromised Christians then find themselves, (through fear of their worldly masters), being forced to persecute their uncompromised fellow Christians. Church history is absolutely full of strange stories based on this corruption. Sadly, it continues today. Dominion Theology will comes to its peak in the Apocalypse. It will become the future Harlot Church John saw. (Rev.17 & 18)"   [6]

 

That's ironic when you consider the fact that it is the radical religious right, the  Dominionists themselves who suffer from a paranoid delusion in which they see everyone except themselves as a part of a New Age Satanic plot. which includes:

 

"Acupressure, Acupuncture, Aerobics at the YMCA, The American Civil Liberties Union, Alcoholics Anonymous, Amway Corporation, Atari Computer Corporation, Biofeedback, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Buffalo (New York) Public Schools, Campbell's Soup Company,  the Catholic Church, Catholic Communion, Chrysler Corporation, the movie Cocoon , Norman Cousins, Creative visualization, Ending World Hunger, Environmentalism, Freemasons,  Globalism, Mikail Gorbachev, The Grapes of Wrath , Guided imagery for success and prosperity, Health food, Holistic health,  The Hunger Project, Aldous Huxley, Hypnosis, Information revolution,  Jehovah's Witness, Jewish Kabala, Life Magazine, Lions International, Lockheed Corporation, Minneapolis City Government, Mobil Oil Company, Monsanto Corporation, Mormon Church, Mother Theresa, The Muppets, NAACP, Ralph Nader. NASA, National Organization for Women, NBC Television, Native American religious ceremonies, Networking, Newsweek Magazine, New York City Government, Planed Parenthood, Pluralism,  Polaroid Corporation, Pope John XXIII, Positive thinking,  Prince Phillip, Princeton University, Proctor and Gamble,  Reader's Digest , Rock and roll,  Rockefeller Foundation, Rosaries, Save the Whales movement, Self realization, Social Security Administration, Stress management, Transcendental Meditation, Desmond Tutu, U.S. Navy, UNESCO, United Nations, University of Michigan, University of Texas, Lech Welesa, Vegetarian diets, Westinghouse, World Peace efforts, Yale University, Bois Yeltsin. " [7]

 

In other words, it isn't only gays, lesbians, and abortionists.  It's a wide range of people, entities, and practices which the radical religious right has lumped together for persecution,  including mainstream Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church, and nonchristian religions in general.  And now the bad news.  That list comes from late 1993-1994.  One can only assume that their recent taste of political power has made them even more hungry, more determined, and more fanatical in their hatred of religious dissidents. 

 

And God knows they've tasted enough power since George W. Bush came to power. 

 

For all intents and purposes the Dominionists compose a mere seven percent of the American population.  But, like past radical fringe groups, they are well funded, highly organized, and extremely underhanded.  Not only do they operate in the sunlight; like a pervasive fungus they also operate in the shadows, constantly undermining the Constitution and the liberties for which it stands.  This of course isn't surprising.  Lenin operated in a similar manner during the build up to the Russian Revolution.  After the Beer Hall Putch, Adolf Hitler decided to put a happier and friendlier face on the Nazi party to convince the German people that he had moderated his views.  But all the time he was working behind the scenes to establish a virulently racist dictatorship.  The Dominionists are no different.

 

FACT:   Having converted Christ's ministry into a hellacious bastardization of Social Darwinism, the Dominionists actively seek and collect funds from major corporations which allow them to exert even more influence over both, the Republican Party and the nation as a whole.  Tyson Foods, in addition to making major contributions to radical religious entities, has placed 128 part time chaplains--mostly evangelicals or fundamentalists, in 78 plants across the country.  Other huge backers include Wal-Mart, Sam's Wholesale, and Purdue  [8 ]

 

FACT.  In 2003 faith based organizations received 8.1 percent of the social service budget or $2.005 billion in funding.  In Fiscal year 2004 that figure jumped to 10.3 percent, or $2.005 billion in funding..  In 2005 the figure rose to $ 11 percent of all federal competitive service grants, amounting to  $2.15 billion.  To make matters even worse, many of the religious groups receiving tax payer dollars openly  discriminate  against gays, lesbians, and people of other faiths.  I In  many cases the only real qualification for employment is that the employee be a Bible believing Christian. [9]

 

FACT:  At the same time the Bush administration  was wasting more than $1 billion on chastity programs alone.  Programs, incidentally, that a majority of the American people did not want, and which have yet to be proven effective.  And yet approximately 30 percent of American Public Schools teach abstinence only. [10]

 

FACT:  Prior to the 2006 midterm elections, Christian Fundamentalists held a majority of seats in 36 percent of of all Republican Party state committees, or 18 of 50 states.  At the same time they also held large minorities in the remaining states. Forty-five Senators and 186 members of the House of  Representatives had been singled out for theocratic praise from  radical right groups such as the Eagle Forum, the Christian Coalition, and the Family Resource Council. [11]

 

FACT:  Tens of millions of Americans depend on Christian broadcasting as their only source of news.  Moreover, anywhere from 1.1 million to 2.1 million children are home schooled.  Almost all of them are Evangelicals which means that the vast majority of these children will  be taught incorrectly that America was established as a Christian nation.  Evolution is not taught,and they are almost never confronted with contrary ideas which might contradict their very narrow Biblical world view.    Instead they are often channeled into right wing universities such as Patrick Henry University, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, or Pat Robertson's Regent University; the last of which is a level four law school, level four being the worst rating that a law school can muster.  And yet George W. Bush has channeled graduates of these institutions into his administration, knowing full well that they are historical and legal revisionists who are more interested in establishing a Christian Theocracy than upholding the law and the Constitution. [12]

 

FACT:   We are all familiar with Ken Blackwell (another die hard religious fanatic) and his coordinated effort with Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold to deliver Ohio for George W. Bush during the 2004 elections, but how many people realize that the radical religious right, in addition to infiltrating elected positions and the judiciary, is also attempting to infiltrate the United States Military and law enforcement.  This became painfully obvious when senior military officers appeared in uniform in a video to promote a Christian Organization.  I am referring to Brigadier General Vince Brooks and the Christian Embassy, a Christian missionary group which concentrates on government employees. [13]  And then there's that matter of Blackwater, the world's most powerful mercenary Army which is led by a Fundamentalist Christian/former Navy Seal who apparently has enough money to open Blackwater facilities in strategic areas across the United States.  Which raises the question why?  Are we seeing the early stages of a Christianized SS or Gestapo? [14]

 

  I think we, as a people need to stand up and take our country back before it's too late.   For the most part Separation of Church and State has worked well for more than 200 years.  It isn't a panacea for every church-state issue that comes down the pike, but it has preserved our freedom of religion and prevented the establishment of a Theocracy, a form of government that our Founding Fathers would have found repugnant in the extreme.  In fact, when you really think about it, the idea that men like Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin, et al would have studied European and American History, recognized the corruption, hypocrisy, and bloodshed that stems from an established faith, only to turn around and then impose the same corruption, hypocrisy and bloodshed on the American people through a Theocratic Constitution is at best laughable.

 

Personally, I don't care what you want to worship.  If you want to believe that America should be a Christian Republic you have a right to believe so.  If you want to hate people based on their race, sexual orientation, or religion, you have a right to do so.  If you want to worship a taco that looks like the Virgin Mary or a grease stain on your garage floor you have a right to do so.  But your right to swing your theological fist stops where my nose begins.  When you want to use the power and financial resources of the United States government to impose your prayers, symbols, hymns, or doctrine on others you have crossed the line.

 

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he "declared eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

 

It was good advice then and it's good advice now.  Maybe we should start to embrace it again. 

In closing, we would like to leave you with the following thoughts.

"Be pleased then (honored Sir) to remember that thing which we call conscience is of such a nature (especially in Englishmen) as once a Pope of Rome, at the suffering of an Englishman in Rome, himself observed that although it be groundless, false, and deluded, yet it is not by any arguments as torments easily removed.  

"I speak not in terms of the multitude of all nations, which have their ebings and flowings in religion ( as the longest sword and strongest arm of flesh carries it), but I speak of conscience, a permission fixed in the mind and heart of man, which enforceth him to judge (as Paul said of himself a persecutor) and to do so and so with respect to God, His Worship 

"This conscience is found in all mankind, more or less:  in Jews, Turks, Papists, Protestants, Pagans...

"The maker and Searcher of our hearts knows with what bitterness I write, as with bitterness of the soul I have heard such language as to proceed from yourself and others, who formerly have fled from ( with crying out against) persecutors:  "You will say this is your conscience; you will say you are persecuted, and you are persecuted for your conscience.  No, you are conventiclers, heretics, blasphemers, seducers.  You deserve to be hanged; rather than one shall be waiting to hang him.  I will hang him myself.  I am resolved not to leave an heretic om the country.  I had rather so many whores and whore mongers and thieves come among us. 

"Oh Sir, you cannot forget what language and dialect this is, whether the Gardiners and Bonners, both former and latter, used to all that bowed not the state golden image of what conscience soever they were.  And indeed, Sir, if the most High be pleased to awaken you to render unto His holy Majesty His die praises, in you truly broken-heated confessions and supplications, you will then proclaim to all the world, that what profession soever you made of the lamb, yet these confessions could not proceed from the Dragon's mouth..

"Oh remember it is dangerous combat for potsherds of the earth to fight with their dreadful potter.  It is a dismal battle for poor naked feet to kick against the pricks; it is a dreadful voice from the King of kings and Lord of Lords:  'Endicott, Endicott, why huntest though me? why imprisonest thou me?  why finest, so bloodily whippest? why wouldst thou (did not I hold thy bloody hands) hang and burn me?'  Yea, Sir, I beseech you remember that it is a dangerous thing to put this to the may-be, to the venture or hazard of the possibility.  'Is it possible," may you well say, 'hat since I hunt, I hunt not the life of my Savior and the blood of the Lamb of God:  I have fought against many several sorts of consciences; it is beyond all possibility and hazard that I have not fought against God, that I have not persecuted Jesus in some of them?'  

"Sir, I must be humbly bold to say that 'tis impossible for any man or men to maintain their Christ by the sword and to worship a true Christ, to fight against all consciences opposite to theirs, and not to fight against God in some of them and to hunt after the life of the true Lord Jesus Christ.  Oh remember, wither your principles and consciences must in time and opportunity force you!.

"Sir I know I have presumed much upon your weighty affairs and thoughts; I end with an humble cry to the Father of mercies that you may take David's counsel, and silently commune with your own heart upon your bed. reflect upon your own spirit, and believe Him that saith it to his over zealous disciples, 'You know not what spirit you are of'; that no sleep may seize upon your eyes, nor slumber upon your eyelids, until your serious thoughts have seriously, calm;y, and unchangeably (through help from Christ Jesus) fixed, 

"First on a moderation towards the spirits and consciences of all mankind, merely differing from or opposing with only religious and spiritual opposition,

"Secondly, a deep and cordial resolution (in these wonderful, searching, disputing, and dissenting times) to search, to listen, to pray, to mast, and more fearfully, more tremblingly to enquire what the holy pleasure and the holy mysteries of the most Holy are:  in whom I humbly deserve to be. 

 

"Your poor fellow servant, unfeignedly

respective and faithful

Roger Williams"

(A letter by Roger Williams from 1651 from Roger Williams to Massachusetts Governor John Endicott on the occasion of the arrest of  of three Baptists in Massachusetts:)   [15]
 

 

END

 

 

SOURCES

[1]  From:  About:  Atheism/Agnosticism
Abe Fortas About Government Neutrality Towards Religion
Copyright 2007 About Inc
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/fortas01.htm

[2]  From:  Ronald Bruce Meyer.com
Roger Williams Banished:  1635
Separation of Church and State
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0913almanac.htm

[3]  From:  THE U.S. Constitution Online
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter
By Steve Mount
Copyright 1995-2007 by Steve Mount
Last modified January 30, 2007
Accessed May 16, 2007
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0913almanac.htm

[4]  From: The Constitution Society
http://www.constitution.org/index.shtml (home page)
Article titled:  "A Plea for Religious Liberty by Roger Williams
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/religlib.htm
Copyright 1994-2005 by the Constitution Society
Last updated November 18, 2006

[5]  From:  About: Atheism/Agnosticism
Abe Fortas on Government Neutrality Towards Religion
Copyright 2007 by About Inc
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/fortas01.htm

 

[6]  From : Dominion Theology in Recent History

By Gavin Finley MD

http://endtimepilgrim.org/dom.htm

 

[7]  From:  Educational Leadership magazine

Pages 6 through 11

December 1993/January 1994

Article titled "When Two Worldviews Collide

byRobert J. Marzano

 

[8] From:  American Fascists, The Christian Right and the War on America

Page 21

By Chris Hedges

Published by The Free Press

Copyright 206 by Chris Hedges

 

[9]  Ibid

Pages 23-24

 

[10] Ibid

Page 24

 

[11]  Ibid

Pages 22-23

 

[12]  Ibid 

Page 26

 

[13]  From:  NPR:  The Nation

Religious Group's Ties to Pentagon Questioned

December 11, 2006

Copyright 2007 by NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6610025

 

[14]  From:   Democracy Now

Blackwater Plans for New Facility Near San Diego Draws Fire From Residents, Peace Activists, and Local Congressman

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/19/1349211

[15]  From:  A Documentary History of Religion in America to the Civil War (Second Edition)
Edited by Edwin S. Gaustad
Pages 114-117
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids
Copyright 1982, 1993 William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Part V: THEOCRATIC REVISION A ITS WORST

THEOCRATIC REVISION AT IS WORST
Distorted Facts:  The Cultural War Against Gays
By SweetPea

During the 1920s and 1930s the world learned that when sociopathic
leaders, such as Adolf Hitler, were megalomaniacal to put their insane
ideas in print, the world should wake up and listen. Today I would
humbly suggest that the same holds true for public statements made by
megalomaniacal religious leaders on the far right.  If we don't wake
up and both, listen, and infer the lessons from the past, we may not
only lose our Constitution and our freedom.   Some of us may well lose
our lives.

EXECUTION MANIA

If we take the Holy Bible at face value  there are anywhere from ten,
to eighteen, to twenty-three capital offenses. They are as follows:
Murder (Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:15);   Murder (Exodus 21:12, Exodus
21:15);  Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16); Disobedience to parents (Exodus
21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18); Juvenile delinquency - incorrigibility
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21);  Bestiality (Leviticus 20:15); Violations of
the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15); Adultery (Leviticus 20:10); Abominations
(Leviticus 20:2); Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16); Incest (Leviticus
20:11); Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13); Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18,
Leviticus 20:27); False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5); Worshiping a
false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10); Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus
22:20); Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13); Sex with a woman
betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25); False witness in a capital
crime (Deuteronomy 19:16-20); Fornication by daughters of priests
(Leviticus 21:9); Failure to abide by a decision of the High Court
(Deuteronomy 17:12); Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24); Cursing
someone (Leviticus 24:14); Negligence resulting in death (Exodus
21:29).

Wow!  That's quite a list, but whether like it or not the truth of the
matter is that there are pastors, laity, and members of congregations
who seriously believe that the above list of capital crimes should
indeed result in executions if the perpetrator is found guilty.
Consider the remarks that follow:

"Brute beasts ... part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be
utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven."
Jerry Falwell On homosexuals, as quoted in The Bible Tells Me
So, 1996  [2]

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be
blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him
and tell God he died."
The Reverend Jimmy Swaggart in a September 2004 evangelism
 television broadcast [3]

"The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to
prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as
confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the
subversion of children toward this lifestyle."
Roy Moore in a 2002 concurrence in a custody case involving a lesbian
mother. [4]

"In Stranger at the Gate , I recalled my experience in a fifty thousand
watt Seattle radio station where I had gone to debate a
Reconstructionist Presbyterian Pastor on a Popular call in show.  When
I asked him how he interpreted the passage in Leviticus that calls for
the death of a man who sleeps with another man, he replied without
hesitation, 'It means you should be killed.'  After swallowing hard, I
asked him, 'Who should do the killing?  You church folk?'  He answered
without pause:  'No, that's the civil authority's job. That's why we
have to get more good men of God elected into government.'"   [5]
Mel White describing an encounter with a popular west coast
Presbyterian pastor

"(R. J. ) Rushdoony used that verse in the book of of Romans (Romans
1:32) to prove that the Laws of Moses, written thirteen centuries
before Christ, still apply to twenty-first century Christians.  In
Leviticus, the author makes it clear that men who sleep with other men
are an abomination and should be executed (Leviticus 20"13).  I have
met fundamentalist Christian Clergy and laity alike who take the whole
verse seriously and warn me in letters and on radio talk shows that it
s God's will that I be executed for accepting my homosexuality as
God's Gift."    [6]
Mel White on R. J. Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation
and of Reconstructionist theology.

I have no doubt that the majority, indeed a vast majority, of the
people in this country aren't so crazy as to call for the execution of
Gays and Lesbians, but for some reason, certain individuals with
authoritative personalities have obsessed over this issue and it has
become their idee fixe. I'd like to say that they weren't sincere,
that their desire to use the state to commit genocide against the gay
and lesbian community were something beyond the confines of their very
dark and twisted "faith," but the truth of the matter is that when
these people say that gays and lesbians should be put to death, they
are not kidding.  They are operating on the same paradigm and Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban.  One may worship Allah and the other may
worship the Old Testament Yahweh ( I see very little Christianity in
their fanatical rants), but in the end both, the radical right wing
Muslims and the radical right wing Christians operate under the same
principles.  They genuinely believe that their Holy Books are superior
to any secular document such as our Constitution and they want to
replace those governing documents with a very brutal and repressive
form of theocracy that will justify the execution of those who dare to
dissent.

Part of the problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that
it fails to recognize the fact that some passages are more relevant
than others.   Those who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible
believe that all parts of the text are equally without error, so you
literally end up with a form of Christianity in which the four Gospels
of Jesus Christ are as important as the Book of  Haggai or Malachi.
Lesser prophets are placed on the same level as Jesus Christ.   That
is a very twisted form of Christianity when your central prophet is no
more important than any other figure in the Holy Text.  But it does
provide a convenient excuse, a brutal justification for selecting the
violent and repressive parts of the Bible which promote bigotry, hate,
violence, and death.  And it allows your typical homophobe to
ignore the portions of the New Testament which call for love, mercy,
charity,  humility, and forgiveness.

I suspect that there are Christians who either won't admit, or who
can't understand that what they say can have an effect on what other
people do.  I do not deny them the right to speak their minds )freedom
of speech is one of the corner stones of our democratic republic), but
I DO retain the right to counter their hateful, obsessive scorn with
what I perceive to be the truth.   In short, I claim the right to
speak the truth to power--or if you will, I claim the right to speak
the truth to what I consider distortion, revisionism, and, often, out
right lies.

Where to begin?  So much of what the far right says is little more
that Orwellian Double Speak, revision at it's very worst. All to often
the far right attempts to portray itself as the innocent victim of
Gay and Lesbian Propaganda, but when you read their material,
listen to their rhetoric, and watch them on television you realize that
they are actually engaged in some of the most hypocritical projection
one could ever imagine.  In short, they are calling the kettle black.
As a mater of fact, many of the accusations they hurl at my
community sound as if they were penned by Hitler's Propaganda
Minister, Doctor Paul Josef Goebbels.

As an out-of-the-closet gay male I am getting a little sick and tired
of being compared to everyone and everything from Typhoid Mary to
Jeffrey Dahmer.  For all intents and purposes gay males are compared
to the worst kinds of people that you could ever possibly imagine and
the sad truth of the matter is that all too often what the far right
promotes as the truth is often picked at random out of their
proverbial asses.

This is the kind of garbage that we hear on an all to regular basis.

GAYS ARE DISEASED

First let's get something straight.  Homosexuality is not a disease.
Countless respected, mainstream organizations will tell you this,
including:  The American Psychiatric Association, the American Law
Institute, American Bar Association, the World Health Organization,
The American Psychological Association, the American Medical
Association, the Academy of Pediatrics, and  the Council on Child and
Adolescent Health.  Moreover, in 1999, the American Academy of
Pediatrics,  the American Counseling Association, American the
Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of
Teachers, the American Psychological Association,  the American
School Health Association, the Interfaith Alliance Foundation,  the
National Association of school psychologists,  the National
Association of Social  Workers and the National Education
Association, issued a document called Just the Facts About
Sexual Orientation in which they:

"Expressed concern about harassment of gay and lesbian youth;
condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or
no effectiveness,  and describe transformational ministries as
representing only one part of Christianity--those faith groups which
view homosexuality as outside God's will. and incompatible with
Christianity.  The site other denominations as supporting equal
rights, and protection against discrimination, for gays and lesbians."
[7]

The idea that gays are either diseased or the disease itself is
nothing more than a reworking of what Nazi propaganda had to say
about the Jews during the 1920s and 1930s.  In the Nazi propaganda
film, The Eternal Jew, Jews were described as disease spreading rats:
"In this way, they (the rats) spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid
fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly, and
cruel, and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they
represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction -
just like the Jews among human beings." [8]  Today, right wing
theocrats describe gays as carriers of STDs,  as disproportionately
diseased, as more likely to carry syphilis than straight men. "The
disgusting details of the homosexual lifestyle explain why so many
diseases are present in the homosexual community." [9]  That from
The American Family Association.

GAYS ARE A POWERFUL ELITE

In this very weak argument, the percentage of gays in the overall
American population is reduced to a mere one percent.  Having
dramatically reduced our numbers, the would be theocrats then go on
to accuse us of running the entire country!  Haven't you heard?  We
control Hollywood, we're wealthy, we control television and radio.
We're more powerful than other Americans.  Does that sound familiar?

It should.

It was the same thing that the Nazis said about Jews in the
first half of the 20th Century.  Again, from The Eternal Jew: At the
beginning of the twentieth century, the Jews sit at the junction of the
world financial markets. They are an international power. Although only
one per cent of the world's population, with the help of their capital,
they terrorize the world stock exchanges, world opinion, and world
politics. New York is today the center of Jewish power." [10]

GAYS ARE RICHER AND MORE EDUCATED

According to James Kennedy, "The homosexual community does
not fit the bill (of a legitimate minority) Homosexuals as a whole, are
better educated and better off financially than  Average Americans.
In fact, homosexuals hold a disproportionate number of professional
and management positions in our economy!" [11]  Robert Knight of the
Family research Council agrees:  "Homosexuals are among the most
economically advantaged people in our country. Research by
marketing firms shows that as a group homosexuals have higher than
average per-capita annual incomes ($36,800 vs. $12,287), are more
likely to hold college degrees ( 59.6 percent vs. 18 percent), have
professional or managerial positions (49 percent vs. 15.9 percent..."
[12].  But then again, so did the Nazi Propaganda machine."Fifty-two
 out of every 100 doctors were Jews. Of every 100 merchants, 60 were
Jews. The average wealth of Germans was 810 marks; the average
wealth of Jews 10,000 marks." [13]

To all of that I would ask one question:  "So what?"   Isn't that the
American Dream?  Work hard.  Get a good education.  Move ahead
in life.  That's what the far right itself spews whenever it wants to
slash or eliminate spending programs for the weak and the needy,
but when gays, lesbians, and Jews actually succeed suddenly the
American dream becomes a matter of being a powerful elite or over
privileged.  The message could no be more clear.  The American can
only be dreamed by white, male, reactionary Christians who can pass
a theocratic litmus test. Why am I not surprised? 

GAYS THREATEN CHRISTIANS

"Fundamentalist Christians see homosexuals as the primary threat
to the Christian Church as well. Says (James) Kennedy:  'It's obvious
that many in the homosexual community feel intolerance, even
contempt for the Christian faith.' Dobson:  'For more than forty years
the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master
plan with goals that include muzzling the clergy and the Christian
media.'  Falwell:  'Complete elimination of God and Christianity from
American society is being designed by homosexual activists) right
now.'  Robertson:  'Just like what Nazi Germany did to Jews, so liberal
America is doing to evangelical Christians.  Its no different.  It is the
same thing.  It is happening all over again.  It is the Democratic
Congress, the liberal-based media, and the homosexuals who want to
destroy the Christians." [14}  Those are rather interesting statements,
when you consider the fact that Robertson calls for the assassination
of foreign leaders and makes knee jerk predictions in which he almost
salivates at the idea of mass destruction. As for Jerry Falwell's remark,
what can I say?  The man certainly has guts, because this is the
same person who asked his if his followers would join him in a
declaration of war, stating explicitly that "There is no middle ground...
For Christians there can be no peaceful coexistence with these
sodomites whom God has given over to a reprobate mind."  [15]
And would it surprise you to know that the Nazi propaganda film,
The Eternal Jew, would have agreed with all of the above statements?
"What does the ancient Talmud law teach? Let us hear some quotes...
(now supposedly quoting the Talmud) Praise to the Lord who has set
apart the holy Israelites from other people. The heathen, who do not
keep the law, will be destroyed." [16]

GAYS ARE A THREAT TO CHILDREN

Ah yes.   The age old myth that all homosexuals want to do is
molest children.  Considering some of the sex scandals that rocked
the televangelist community in the 1980s, plus the Ted Haggard
fiasco, you'd think that this would be the last thing our beloved
Theocrats would talk about, but you have to say one thing--our
beloved theocrats certainly have chutzpah, because this allegation
simply is not true.  It's another scare tactic in the right wing war
against the other, against the dissident.  According to Doctor
Nicholas A. Groth, "The research to date all points to there
being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle
and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage
of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male
who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual ."
[17]  But that doesn't stop the far right from spreading the same
old package of prevarications.   "They commit over 33% of the
sex acts with children. Of the pupil molestations, homosexual
teachers commit as many as 80% of those acts."  [18]  Or, if you
prefer, the delusional rantings of Jerry Falwell:  "'Mark my words,"
he writes. (The homosexual's) primary target is the nation's public
schools and our impressionistic children."  Translated into modern
English, homosexuals want to indoctrinate and convert children
(an ironic statement when you consider the fact that it is the radical
religious right which has obsessed over the idea of indoctrinating
homosexuals through restorative or conversion therapy until they
behave like heterosexuals).  Does anyone besides yours truly see
the similarity between this tactic, this particular example of revision
and the manner in which the Nazis dehumanized Jews?  "This
parasitical Jewish race is responsible for most international crime.
In 1932, Jews, only 1 percent of the wrld's population accounted for...
47 percent of crooked games of choice--82 percent of international
crime organizations--98 percent of prostitution."   [19]

GAYS ARE UNNATURAL, PERVERTED, PATHOLOGICAL

How do you answer something like this?  According to a majority
of the psychiatric and psychological organizations, homosexuality is
not pathological.  That isn't to say that gays and lesbians don't
suffer from other disorders such as depression as a result of
constant persecution and harassment by their indefatigable opponents,
but would humbly suggest that those who argue that homosexuals,
gays and lesbians, are by nature perverted and/or pathological should
take a few long strides into the 21st century.

 "Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal
attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and
professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a
form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.
.
"The foregoing should not be construed as an argument that sexual
minority individuals are free from mental illness and psychological
distress. Indeed, given the stresses created by sexual stigma and
prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest
psychological problems (Meyer, 2003). The data from some studies
suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well
adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk
for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to
exclusive heterosexuals." [20]

WHO SUFFERS?  WE DO.
The Inevitable Results of Threats and Hate Speech

The verbal attacks continue.  Gays and lesbians are compared to
everything from rats to Devil worshipers, which makes me wonder,
what kind of effect does this have on the society at large?  Well, we
already know, don't we?  It creates an atmosphere in which those who
are less than balanced, in which the highly disturbed feel free to act
on their violent impulses.  Can you say Matthew Shepherd?  Can you
say Harvey Milk?  They were individuals who were quite literally
murdered because of their sexual orientation, and they aren't the only
ones who have suffered such a tragic fate.

*Nicholas Ray West, a 23-year-old Southern Baptist singer was
kidnapped, tortured and executed in a gravel pit because he was
gay. [21]

*January 1994,  Michael Benishek, another gay Texan, was found
dead in San Antonio.  The coroner was uncertain if he died from a
severe blow to his head with a blunt instrument or from a knife slash
across his throat.  [22]

*February 1994, Tommy Musick, age 48, a gay hairstylist from
Midland, Texas, was shot four times in the head.  His 18-year-old
killer, Ramsey Harrell, received a mere twelve year sentence because
the jury held an an obvious bias against gay people. [23]

*In March 1994, police discovered the body of Joe Trevino, another
gay man who had been strangled and bludgeoned to death in his
home by two teenagers. [24]

*April 1994, John Anthony Burwell, age 26, was shot to death by
a 16-year-old youth from San Antonio.  The youth dragged Burwell's
body to his pickup truck, drove his victim's body to a nearby creek,
where he dumped his victim off a forty foot birdge into the water
below.  [25]

*June 1994, Paul Quintanilla's body was found in a field near Dallas
Texas.  The young man had been stabbed twelve times and his
genitals had been slashed.  [26]

* "On May 8, 1995, Bill Clayton, 17,  committed suicide after
having been brutally assaulted for being bisexual. [27]

* "Born Teena Brandon and raised as a girl, he was living as a man
 known as Brandon Teena in Falls City, Nebraska, when he was
 murdered at age 21. In December of 1993, two men who
discovered his gender raped him. His attackers later shot and
killed him after learning Brandon had reported the rape and
was to help police in the investigation."  [28]

* "On August 7, 1995, Tyra Hunter died after DC fire
department emergency medical technicians called her epithets,
backed away, and refused to render treatment on discovering that
she was a transgendered woman." [29]

* "On October 6, 1998, 21-year-old college student Matthew Shepard
was tied to a fence in Laramie, Wyoming, pistol-whipped, then left
for dead in the freezing night.  He died six days later." [30]

* "Billy Jack Gaither, 39, of Sylacauga, Alabama was bludgeoned
to death by two men on Feb. 19, 1999, then set on fire with
automobile tires because he was gay. [31]

* "Pfc. Barry Winchell, 21, was beaten to death by fellow
service members while sleeping in his cot on July 5, 1999 at Fort
Campbell, Ky.  His Army colleagues thought (correctly) that he
was gay, so they killed him." [32]

* "On September 22, 2000, a man looking to "waste some
faggots" entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire,
killing Danny Overstreet, and injuring 6 others."  [33]

*On the Fourth of July, 2000, JR Warren, 26, who was black and
gay, was beaten to death by three men in West Virginia, then run
over by a car to make it look like a hit and run."  [34]

The upshot to all of this is that despite what the radical religious
right says about homosexual men being more violent than
heterosexual men, the truth of the matter is that there are more
heterosexual on homosexual crimes than there are homosexual on
heterosexual crimes.

In 2004 there were 738 incidents of anti-male homosexual hate
crimes; 164 incidents of anti-female homosexual hate crimes; 245
incidents of anti-homosexual hate crimes; 33 incidents of anti -
heterosexual hate crimes, and 17 incidents of anti-bisexual hate
crimes. [35]

In a similar vein, there were 855 anti-male homosexual offenses;
201 anti female homosexual offenses; 297 anti homosexual
offenses; 35 anti-homosexual offenses; 35 anti-heterosexual
offenses, and 18 anti-bisexual offenses. [36]

There were 902 male homosexual victims; 212 female homosexual
victims; 314 homosexual victims; 36 heterosexual victims, and
18 bisexual victims.  [37]

There were 832 offenders who acted out against homosexual
males; 163 against female homosexuals; 224 against homosexuals;
22 against heterosexuals; and 17 who offended against bisexuals.
[38]

THE PHONY EXPERTS

Where does this garbage come from?  Usually from bona fide quacks
in professional garb.  The most deplorable of which is Paul Cameron.
"On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association
sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped
from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American
Psychological Association received official written notice that
"Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a
violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists"
by the APA Board of Directors. Cameron has posted an elaborate
argument about his expulsion from APA on his website,  claiming
that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership.
Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member
to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's
claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the
largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States
(and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such
lengths to disassociate itself from one individual."  [40]

Moreover, Cameron, who falsely claims that he is a sociologist, was
also dropped by the Nebraska Psychological Association, which
adopted a resolution stating, "formally disassociates itself from
the representations and interpretations of scientific literature
offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements
on sexuality."  This is important because Cameron repeatedly states
that homosexuals are pathological, that we are perverted; essentially
doing everything in his power to dehumanize gays and lesbians. 
(For more information about Cameron's insane rantings please be so
kind as to see the links in the source given in Footnote Number  [39]

IN CONCLUSION

So here we are, two years later, and we have a flip flopping president
who once supported gay rights, but who now sides allies himself with
the most visceral and rapacious haters that the House and he Senate
have seen since the run up to the Civil War.  Consider the following
comments by United States Senator John Boehner, R-Ohio:
"This unconstitutional bill would effectively give the federal government
authority to punish American citizens for 'thought crimes' — a concept
that has Big Brother written all over it. There are already state and local
laws on the books that punish violent crime against any and all
Americans,"  said Boehner..."  [40]

Senator Boehner should talk about Big Brother.  He's the one who is
engaged in Orwellian Doublespeak.  He's the one who is trying to revise
the issue into something else.  Obviously the attempt here is to
convince the American people that the government will try to arrest
people based entirely on what they think, when in fact hate crime
legislation only goes into effect after a a violent or abusive event has
taken place--a minor detail that the Senator seems to have omitted.
As Church Lady might have said, "How con-VEEEEE-nient." 

Other arguments claim that hate crime legislation violates the 14th
Amendment because it puts the federal government in a position where
it favors one group over another.  Not so. If a group of homosexuals were
to commit murder based on the fact that the victim was a straight man
or woman the hate crime legislation wold come into play.  In other words,
whenever the perpetrator is trying to terrorize an entire community, the
hate crime legislation would kick in.  The only thing that matters is
whether or not the act was intended to send a message to the victim's
community as a whole.  It has nothing to do with the federal government
taking sides. 

Even worse is the phony suggestion that hate crime legislation has been
designed to silence Christian speech.  In many ways this is a return to
the old Nazi argument that Jews want to hurt Christians.  As stated above
it has now been revised to read that gays and lesbians want to hurt
Christians.  It's sheer and utter foolishness on the part of fanatical
paranoiacs, but the point has to be covered.  The hate crime legislation
is primarily concerned with violent crime and what the perpetrator intended
at the time of the attack.  Period.  Granted, I can't blame some Christians
for worrying.  As I have already demonstrated, some of their rhetoric
isn't only ugly, moronic, and paranoid.   It can, and is, at times outright
hateful.  But that doesn't mean that the federal government has a right to
silence the speech.  Indeed, I want the public to hear what these people
are thinking. I don't want to drive their insanity underground where it will only
grow and fester like a deadly fungus.  I want their hurtful sermons, their
half baked sermons exposed to the light of day where it can be debated
and countered with better speech.  But, as I said earlier, I don't have to
like it. I can tolerate, even celebrate their right to freedom of speech, but
I suspect in my heart of hearts that this is a right that they do not
treasure as dearly as I do.

SOURCES


[1]  From: Wikipedia
List of Capital Crimes in the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_bible
Last updated on 6 December 2006

[2]  From: Southern Poverty Law Center
Intelligence  Report/Watch Your Mouth Slide Show
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=522

[3]  Ibid

[4]  Ibid

[5]  From:  Religion Gone Bad:  The Hidden Dangers of the
Christian Right
Pages 109-110
By Mel White
Published by the Penguin Group
Copyright 2006 by Mel White

[6]  Ibid
Page 108

[7[ From:   Religious Tolerance.org
Professional Associations Statements About Christianity
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm

[8]  From: hatecrome.org
Matthew Shepard Online Resources
Nazi Anti-Jewish Speech vs Religious Anti-Gay Speech
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

[9]  Ibid

[10]  Ibid

[11] From:  Religion Gone Bad:  The Hidden Danger of the
Christian Right
Page 237
By Mel White
Published by Penguin Group
Copyright 2006 by Mel White

[12] From:   hatecrime.org
Matthew Shepard Online Resources
Nazi Anti-Jewish Speech vs Religious Anti-Gay Speech
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

[13]  Ibid

[14]  From:  Religion Gone Bad:  The Hidden Danger of the
Christian RIght
Pages 235-236
by Mel White
Published by Penguin Group
Copyright 2006 by Mel White

[15] Ibid
Page 238

[16]  From:   Hatecrime.org
Matthew Shepard Online Resources
Nazi Anti-Jewish Speech vs.Religious Anti-Gay Speech
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

[17]  From:  Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Copyright 1997 to 2007 by Gregory M. Herek PhD
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

[18]  From;   hatecrime.org
Matthew Shepherd Online Resources
Nazi Anti-Jewish Speech vs Religious Anti-Gay Speech
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

[19]  Ibid

[20]  From:  Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health
Copyright 1997-2007 by Gregory M. Herek PhD.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

[21]From:  Religion Gone Bad:  The Hidden Danger of the
Christian RIght
Pages 307 - 309
by Mel White
Published by Penguin Group
Copyright 2006 by Mel White

[22]  Ibid

[23}   Ibid

[24]  Ibid

[25]   Ibid

[26]  Ibid

[27]  From:   hatecrime.org home page
Hate Crime Victims List
http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html

[28] Ibid

[29]  Ibid

[30]  Ibid

[31]  Ibid

[32]  Ibid

[33]  Ibid

[34]  Ibid

[35]  From: infoplease
Summary of Hate Crime Statistics 2004
(Source: Crime in the United States, 2004,
FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.)
Copyright  2000–2007 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004885.html

[36]  Ibid

[37}  Ibid

[38]   Ibid

[39]  From:  Paul Cameron's Biosheet
House OKs Bill to Expand
Copyright, 1997-2007 by Gregory M.  Herek PhD
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

[40]  FOXNews.com
House OKs Bill to Expand Hate Crimes Law to Attacks on Gays
Thursday May 3, 2007
Copyright 2007 FOX News Network
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269853,00.html 

Part IV: THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST

THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST:  PART IV
WOMEN AT RISK:  The Consequences and Dangers of a Christian Republic
By Donatra, Shakti, and Katie


PROLOGUE
By Katie
(Katie is a member of the political blog, The Coalition for a Democratic America, at
http://coalitionforademocracticamerica.blogspot.com/ )

How many people do you know still read the Bible on a regular basis? Not many, I'm betting. Even more difficult, can you name anyone who lives by its principles—other than the obvious things like the ten commandments—? I'm also willing to take a leap and say that you can't. There are people, though, who wish to take the good book at its word. I know it doesn't sound scary, but let's take a look at what those words are and what they mean.

There are those who argue that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. Then there are those who say that's complete rubbish and a bad interpretation. So who's right? I think the fact that there's so much debate over it speaks for itself: maybe we shouldn't be jumping all over something we can't prove concretely. Then again, given the track record of those that would insist the Bible does, in fact, outlaw homosexuality, they're probably exaggerating or misinterpreting the verse on purpose. It certainly wouldn't be a surprise.

Or what about that pesky issue of women's rights? We the people finally obtained some semblance of them (at least in America—it seems as though other civilized countries got there way before we did) in 1919 and we've been fighting for them ever since. I'm not going to go so far as to say that the women in America are oppressed, because they're not, but all of this emphasis on "family values" has me wondering. The implication of that statement means a woman at home, raising children and doing laundry, while a man goes off and lives his life. It means sexual slavery and the loss of any kind of control. These are based, in part, on the Bible's teachings that women are subservient to men.

All anyone needs to know about how scary biblical inerrancy really is can click on the following links and find out.

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/dontclick.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

THE CONSEQUENCES AND DANGERS OF A CHRISTIAN REPUBLIC
 
"When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.  And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found  in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.  But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones,the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.  Thou shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are the cities of the nations here.  But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the Lord your God commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your God."

Deuteronomy
Chapter 20, verses 10 through 18
Revised Standard Edition of The Holy Bible
Published by William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd



If there was ever a reason for not adopting the Holy Bible as the governing document of the United States it is patriarchal passages such as the one that we selected to open this particular post.  Seriously, read that passage again.  Not only does it reduce women to mere property; it could also serve as a blue print for modern day warfare in the Bush Administration.  If that passage doesn't chill chills down your spine remember this.  The radical religious right (we just can't bring ourselves to call them Christians anymore) believes that every single book, chapter, and verse in the Bible is true and should be used as the blueprint for American government.  That may be good news for the sociopaths and pseudo Christians on the far right but it is not good news for those who do not accept a literal interpretation of the Bible and it is even worse worse news for women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals.

In the classic PBS series, The Power of Myth, the late Joseph Campbell submits that matriarchal societies were finished by the year 1750 BC.  According to Campbell, when you have hunters and herders you have killers "because they're always in movement, nomadic, coming into conflict with other people and conquering the areas in which they move.  And these invasions (in today's Middle East) bring in warrior gods, thunderbolt  hurlers like Zeus or Yahweh."  True, one might argue that transforming the Virgin Mary into a co redeemer is, in some small manner, a way by which far right wing Catholics can assuage some of the guilt that they must have acquired for their abominable attitudes towards women; and one might also argue that the acceptance of female Saints shows a certain reverence for women; but the fact that remains that women in both, conservative Catholicism and Protestantism are considered little more than property, second class citizens to be dominated by their male superiors.  In other words, the Patriarchal Society is alive and well on the far right.

We have to wake up and admit some basic truths.  In so far as the treatment of women is concerned, the Judeo-Christian tradition has a very long and brutal record when it comes to the oppression (and at times, outright slaughter of) women, and a very short,  record for the liberation of women.  It makes us wonder:  might western civilization have been a little different if the matriarchal societies of the Middle East had successfully beaten back the Patriarchal invaders?   As Mister Campbell and Mister Moyers wondered in The Power of Myth, might western society have been more gentle, and more compassionate, and more considerate if the prayer of choice began with the words "Our Mother Which art in Heaven?"

Clearly the Holy Text is not a friend of the "the other," women in particular.

According to the Old Testament, fathers retain strict control over their daughters--to such a degree that they should not be allowed to leave the homes of their fathers until they are married, after which they quite literally become the properties of their husbands. Once married a woman not allowed to leave the home of her husband.  According to the Old Testament women are seldom allowed to appear in public places, and when they do they are supposed to be doubled veiled.  Women are not allowed to speak to strangers and they are not allowed to testify in court.  Moreover women are considered unclean when they learn that they are expecting a child.  After they give birth to a male child they are considered unclean for a week.   When they give birth to a female child they are considered unclean for two weeks.  In the Book of Genesis, men are allowed to have concubines, the concubines having an even lower social position than wives.  Fathers are allowed to sell their daughters as servants; women can be stoned to death if they are not virgins on their wedding night; and of course, women were not allowed to inherit property or other forms of wealth. [2]

Save for a few choice exceptions that are automatically ignored by male theocrats,  the New Testament is little better. Saint Paul specifically states that "Christ is the head of every man and a husband the head of a wife (1 Corinthians 11:3).  Women are commanded to remain silent in the churches and are forbidden to teach  Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, and to learn in quietness and submission, and of course, the New testament wouldn't be complete if it didn't remind us that Eve was tempted prior to Adam, an act for which all subsequent women have paid dearly. [3]

"The Christianization of Europe was accompanied by Inquisition, religious persecution that claimed the lives of an estimated nine million, many burned in public squares between the 15th and 17th Centuries, sometimes referred to as the 'women's holocaust...'"  [4]  In the 16th Century witch hunting evolved into a lucrative business ventures, as the assets of a convicted witch were utilized to pay trial costs.  Women were banned from the the university, and banned from practicing midwifery, in essence buttressing the male dominated medical profession.  Traditional herbal therapies, midwifery, and the feminine role as healers gave way to medical monopolies dominated by the Catholic Church, and with them a wave of quackery which included everything from blood letting to the use of leeches.  At the same time the Catholic Church, through a celibate male priesthood that wasn't supposed to know anything about sex, spread the message that sex, was the root of all evil, a message which eventually devolved into another, even more destructive message,  namely, that women were the root of all evil.  Women, the church insisted, were flawed creations because--you guessed it-- of the original temptation in the Garden of Eden.  To make the situation worse, during the Thirty Years War, both sides, Protestants and Catholics, managed to slaughter each other whole sale, and still had enough time to torture and burn thousands of so called witches.*

The only problem is this:  Some of us**  are getting a little sick and tired of being blamed for what a mythological figure did in a mythological place; and even if the Bible were literally true, you just have to wonder about a God and sexually frustrated (or should we say insecure?) men who insist on blaming an entire group of people for the mistake of one person.

You would think that by the 21st Century most men would have matured to the point where they are comfortable working with and beside strong women, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Rather we have a situation in which  professional misogynists are verbally and politically trying to tun back the clock to Biblical days when women are little more than chattel.  And the thing that annoys us the most is that it's being done in the name of a Christian Republic.  Watch carefully the current administration in Washington; watch even more closely the reactionary base of the Republican Party which, at the very least, can be described in terms of woman hating.   You can judge an administrations, parties, and base constituencies by the kinds of policies that it proposes and promulgates and what we've been getting from the far right during the last twenty years or more can only be described as theocratic and dangerous.   Christian Republic?  Hogwash.   This is nothing less than religious totalitarianism wrapped in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy to make it more acceptable to an unsuspecting public.

Time and time again the far right revealed its obsession with original sin and the original temptation of Eve through it's truly barbaric policies and proposals. Welcome to the bizarre alternative universe of the Theocratic Right where men abandon their wives because women challenge patriarchal values; where wealth disparity among women is a direct result of a woman's refusal to marry;  where women are responsible for men's behavior; and (we just love this one); where husbands protect women from predatory men while women channel the husband's sex drive into productive. non predatory directions.  This is especially disturbing because it quite literally makes women responsible and dependent on a potentially abusive male.[5]  Needless to say that in such a bizarre alternative reality, sex is only for procreation, which of course means that both, contraception and safe, legal abortion must be banned or at least severely restricted. In other words, the fetus is sacred, the adult woman is not. 

But we don't want this to digress into a discussion about abortion.  Rather, we want to discuss some of the policies that the far right has proposed (some successfully passed into law, some not) to further demonstrate exactly how dangerous our modern day theocrats really are.  Consider the following: 

FACT: "The administration requested $546 million for domestic violence programs in fiscal 2007, a decrease of $20 million--or 3.5 percent--from the amount appropriated in 2006, the anti-violence network's figures indicate. The amount does not include any funding for 21 newly enacted programs, the largest of which is a $50 million program that provides services for survivors of sexual assault." [6]

FACT: "Although President Bush vows to leave no child behind, his proposed 2006 federal budget and the budget resolution passed by Congress in April does just that—by calling for a cut of over $500 million from the Department of Education. These budget cuts stand to particularly impact female teens. 'Since women make up a disproportionate share of low-income students, they will be particularly affected by planned cuts to the Perkins Program, TRIO and GEAR UP,' said Jacqueline King, director of Policy Analysis at the American Council on Education. About 61% of the students who stand to lose the Upward Bound and Talent Search programs are female, according to the Washington-based Council for Opportunity in Education. The Council says the budget cuts will leave female teens across the country without a lifeline to higher education." [7]

FACT:  "On March 18, 2005, the Bush administration released a clarification to Title IX, the 1972 federal law that requires equal opportunity for women and girls in education and sports. The clarification allows schools to show compliance with Title IX even if they do not provide equal funding and opportunity for women's sports, provided they show that their female students do not have the same level of interest in sports as the male students. The change also allows schools to avoid a 1996 guideline that states that multiple factors should be used in determining the level of student interest in sports. This clears the way for schools to use a flawed email survey of their female students to duck their Title IX obligations." [8]

FACT:  "Enacted under Clinton, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for a serious illness, to care for a seriously ill family member or to care for a newborn or newly adopted child. This important legislation allows workers to avoid having to choose between family and job. Opponents of FMLA - the very groups that fought the law's original passage 12 years ago - are reportedly pressuring the Bush administration to weaken the law by eliminating some of the circumstances in which employees may take unpaid leave and by restricting the use of intermittent leave. Though the Department of Labor reportedly has denied plans to propose these changes, it has said it will make changes to regulations governing notice for leave time." [9]

FACT:  "The Bush administration's plan to curtail mercury emissions is less stringent than many environmental groups had hoped. The plan will allow the coal-burning power plants that are responsible for dangerous amounts of mercury being released into the environment to buy and sell emissions credits as they see fit and as their budgets allow. Mercury is a poisonous metal that has been found to harm the developing nervous systems of infants and fetuses along with women of childbearing age." [10]   In a similar vein this reveals a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible on the environment, specifically, since Jesus will return to destroy the earth anyhow, why bother to preserve and improve the health of the planet, its many ecosystems, and life forms. 

FACT:  "With new leaked White House salary figures and an Excel spreadsheet, crack Washington Post researcher Margot Williams determined in July that men in the Bush White House earn an average of $76,624 a year, and women earn $59,917 on average. That means Bush women are paid about 78 cents for every dollar that Bush men earn—similar to the wage gap that still exists between men and women throughout the U.S. (In 1963, women employed full-time in the U.S. were paid, on average, only 59 cents to the dollar received by men; in 2001 women were paid 76 cents for every dollar received by men.) At the White House, the gap is the result of the predominance of men in highest-paid jobs; 12 of the 17 White House staffers earning $157,000—the top of the pay scale this year—are men. Men and women are paid similar salaries for similar work, says The Post, but fewer women hold top positions." [11]

FACT:  "Overruling the advice of its own scientific advisers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 6 rejected over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception (EC), prompting NOW and other critics to accuse the agency of responding to political pressure from the Bush administration. In December, two FDA scientific panels voted 23-4 in support of making EC available without a prescription. Afterward, the agency was subjected to political pressure from conservatives who argued that increased access to EC would encourage teenagers to be sexually active. While acting drug chief Dr. Steven Galson denied that politics played a role in his decision, women's rights advocates said otherwise. 'The FDA is playing politics with women's lives and contributing to the deterioration of public health in this country,' NOW President Kim Gandy said. 'The FDA has set aside its mission and caved to political pressure from the Bush administration and its allies who oppose birth control.' Barr Laboratories, makers of the Plan B emergency contraception brand, plan to rapidly seek approval for nonprescription sales for people aged 16 years and older. 'It's a matter of weeks and months to deal with this objection,' said Barr chief executive Bruce Downey, saying that means the FDA could reconsider the issue within a year. 'Clearly ... the door's open, and we plan to go through it.'" [12]

FACT: "The Bush administration has quietly deleted and altered information on women's issues from government agency websites, a research group has found. A report from the National Council for Research on Women (NCRW), released in mid-April, says the deletion of information on subjects including pay equity and childcare was 'apparently [done] in pursuit of a political agenda.' At least 25 publications were removed from the website of the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau alone. Some items that were not deleted were reportedly altered: For example, information about the use of condoms to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases was changed to say that the effectiveness of condoms was 'inconclusive.' The National Cancer Institutes's website was changed in 2002 to say studies linking abortion and breast cancer were inconsistent; an outcry from scientists resulted in an amendment to say abortion is not associated with an increased risk. The NCRW report also indicated that key government offices such as the Office of Women's Initiatives and Outreach in the White House and the President's Interagency Council on Women have been disbanded, with attempts made at the Pentagon to disband the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Finally, the report found that as of March 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft had failed to conduct and publish a study required under the Violence Against Women Act to investigate discrimination against domestic violence victims in getting insurance."  [13]  This, as you might have guessed is exactly what we have been talking about.   When theocrats don't like the facts they revise them.  Or in this case, the both, revise and delete them. 

FACT:  "Salon.com  reports that 'some nonprofit organizations that don't agree with the Bush administration's 'abstinence only' philosophy have been 'repeatedly investigated by the government, while faith-based groups get a free pass.'  Advocates for Youth, a national nonprofit that provides teens with comprehensive sex education, had never in its 18 years as a federal grantee been subject to an audit by the government. Over the past year it has been subjected to three. The organization claims that 'it's being unfairly targeted because of its negative views towards the administration's abstinence-only education policies.' Their claims are supported by a leaked Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo published by the Washington Post in July 2001. The memo describes Advocates for Youth as 'ardent critics of the Bush administration.' And Advocates for Youth are not the only ones being targeted. Three reviews have been conducted over the past 10 months of San Francisco's STOP AIDS program. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) has undergone two audits this year. While Advocates for Youth, STOP AIDS, and SEICUS have all 'come through their audits with flying colors,' last year a number of faith-based organizations receiving federal grants were found guilty of misusing government money. For example, a number of sex-education programs funded by Louisiana Governor Mike Foster's Program on Abstinence 'were found guilty in a federal court of openly violating the constitutional tenet of separation of church and state.' However, none of these Louisiana nonprofits have been subject to an HHS audit. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth says, 'Our complaint is not with getting audited' but 'with the selective and political nature of these audits. Ideology is invading—if not
subverting—science within the Department of Health and Human Services.'" [14]

FACT:  In the 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating required contraceptive coverage for female federal employees and for federal employees' dependents. Lawmakers in both houses of Congress indicated they would fight to keep a provision that requires federal health plan providers to offer federal employees the five birth control methods approved by the Federal Drug Administration. Andrea Brooks, director of the women's and fair practices department at the American Federation of Government Employees, called the proposal "extremely discriminatory." [15]

FACT:  "Bush's 2002 proposed budget seeks to cut the Maternal and Child Health Block Grants that provide health care to women before, during and after pregnancy, according to the House Democratic Policy Committee. The budget would also freeze the Healthy Start program, which has been shown to reduce infant mortality and morbidity. [16]

And our favorite!

FACT:  At a recent press conference, George W. Bush indicated through White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer that he does not consider discrimination against women to be an offense as serious as racial or ethnic discrimination. According to Fleischer, membership in a group that excludes women is not 'a disqualifying factor' for candidates to Cabinet posts. However, when prodded, Fleischer stated that racial or ethnic discrimination is a 'very different category for the President.'" [16]

Should we expect anything different?  This is what you get in a patriarchal society where men are frightened of female intelligence and (dare we say it?) female sexuality. 

Sadly, we all know what attitudes such as these can lead to.   We're talking about Domestic Violence (everything from verbal and psychological abuse to rape, physical assault and murder), employment discrimination, glass ceilings, poverty, ad infinitum. 

We already know that when a woman is raped or physically assaulted that there is a 76 percent chance that her assailant was either a former husband, her current husband, a partner with whom she cohabitats, or a date.   Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women.  Globally, at least one out of three women have been beaten or forced to engage in sexual relationships.  Nearly 25 percent of American Women alone report having been raped or physically assaulted by a former spouse or cohabiting partner.  Women are five times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner. ad infinitum. By all means, click on the link in our foot note.  The statistics you encounter will give you a good idea as to what happens when men fail to respect and accept women as partners and equals. 

Will we return to the bad old days when women will be forbidden the right to own property?  Will we see the establishment of a kind of Christian Sharia?  Will women be required to stay in their husbands and fathers homes?  We don't know.  We don't know because we don't know if the radical theocrats have enough political power to stage a complete takeover.   We'd like to think that the 2006 midterm elections were a sign that the American people have grown weary of being told what to think; that they don't want a narrow minded group of authoritarian theocrats intruding into their homes, personal lives, and churches.  We'd like to think that we have truly come a long way.  But liberty is a tricky thing.  You may think that you have acquired it, only to learn that there have been clandestine or perhaps even violent forces to undermine.

As suggested in Part III, we must be ever vigil, because the freedom that we lose may well be our own. 

Author's Notes by Shakti
*For a more thorough discussion of the Thirty Years War please go to "The Thirty Years War" at http://www.pipeline.com/~cwa/TYWHome.htm

**We use the term "some of us" because there is a variety of religious beliefs within our group.  Our group is composed of everything from atheists and agnostics to deists, unitarians, and practicing Christians who support the concept of church/state separation as a means to protect both, our religious freedom and neutral government. 

GENERAL SOURCES (Prologue)

From:   Wikipedia
Biblical Inerrancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Copyright Wikipedia Foundation Inc.
Last Moderated 30 April 2007

From:  Online Baptist
http://www.onlinebaptist.com/index.html
Article titled,  You're Just Like Adam and Eve
http://www.onlinebaptist.com/dontclick.htm
Copyright 2000 by Online Baptist


SOURCES (Article Proper)

[1]  From::   Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers
Page 169
Published by Doubleday
Copyright 1988 by Apostrophe S. Productions Inc and Alfred van der March Editions

[2]  From:   Religious Tolerance
The Status of Women in Hebrew Scriptures
Passages Treating Women as Inferior to Men
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
Copyright (c) 1997 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2006-SEP-13
Author: B.A. Robinson

[3]   Religious Tolerance
The Status of Women in the Christian Scriptures
Women in the New Testament's Scriptures
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm
Copyright (c) 1997 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2006-SEP-13
Author: B.A. Robinson

[4]  From:   Democracy Under Assault (Theo Politics, Incivility,  and Violence on the Right)
Page 168-169
By:  Michele Swanson
Published by Sol Ventures Press
Copyright 2004 by Michele Swansen

[5]  Ibid

[6]  From:  Feminist.com
Budget Falls Short for Domestic Violence Programs
Washington Lookout
By:  Allison Stevens--Washington Bureau Chief
http://www.feminist.com/news/vaw59.html
Copyright 2006 by Womens eNews
http://www.womensenews.org/

[7]  From:  The Truth About George W. Bush
Womens Rights
http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/women/
Copyright 2002-2006 by the National Organization for Women

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16]  Ibid

[17] Ibid

[18] Family Violence Prevention Fund
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/DomesticViolence.pdf

Part III: THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST

THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST PART III
Turning The First Amendment Provisions Against Themselves
A Schizophrenic Reading of the Framing Document

By ThomasPaine, BibleBelted, and Praetorone

"When I speak at a church or a university, I carry a copy of the Bible in one pocket and a copy of the Constitution in the other.  When I hold up both documents and ask, ''Which is more important, the Constitution or the Bible?' invariably people, even progressive people, answer, 'The Bible.'  That is a dangerous notion.  When it comes to guiding our democracy and running our government, the US Constitution must always trump the Bible, because the Constitution protects our rights to disagree about what the Bible says,  It is the only protection we have from  the ever-increasing incursion of fundamentalist Christian values into our religious and political lives.  The Constitution offers every citizen an umbrella of protection that will guarantee his or her right to read or not to read the Bible, to believe in God or to ignore God altogether, to attend or not attend church, synagogue, temple, or mosque." [1]

From:   Religion Gone Bad:  The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right
By:  Mel White

A Brief History of the Constitutional Convention and the Bill of Rights

When Theocrats try to rewrite, or at the very least, distort history, they often remind us that Benjamin Franklin,suggested that the delegates begin each day of the Constitutional Convention with a prayer.   But what they fail to mention is that there was not enough money to secure a chaplain, and more important, that there was a belief among the other delegates that such a move would create a sense of insecurity and thus deadlock the convention.   The fifty-five delegates to the Convention were businessmen, lawyers, clergy, lawyers, traders, and farmers who understood that they were creating a government of men for men, not a Christian Republic.   Religion was important to some, indeed many held religion in high regard, but they were attempting to create a document that would govern all the people, not those who happened to practice a particular faith.  They did not intend to create a Christian Republic.  And yet,despite a preponderance of evidence which says differently, right wing revisionists insist that the Constitution does not endorse the separation of Church and State because the words do not appear in the document itself. [2]

Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights and its First Amendment Religion Clause, the Constitution only made one reference to religion and that was a negative one.   It was Article VI which reads:  "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."  As far as Madison was concerned, that simple statement, taken in conjunction with his attitudes towards freedom of religion and Church/State Separation, made any further statements about religion and Church-State separation superfluous. The Article itself was introduced to the convention by  Charles Pinckney, a pompous, even aristocratic delegate from South Carolina who openly defended Quakers, Catholics, and dissenting Protestants. The Article was adopted with little debate, although a few, a very tiny minority attempted to use Article VI and the absence of any reference to God in the Constitution itself, as an excuse to foil the entire Constitution.  Clearly their attempt failed.    Beginning in 1792, Delaware was the first state to bring its state constitution in line with the federal constitution.  Only two states held out.   They were North Carolina which finally followed the federal model in 1868, and New Hampshire which remained obstinate until the year 1946.  The other states quickly banned State religious tests.  [3]  Some on the right still argue that the states have a right to impose religious tests and established faiths based on the premise of States' rights.  That sounds good on the surface but there's that nasty little problem with the 14th Amendment which essentially makes the states subject to and obedient to the Federal Constitution. 

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
for additional information and the text of the 14th Amendment)

 The Constitution had no sooner become the law of the land, when it was felt that the document needed a Bill of Rights.  This brings us to the First Amendment Religion clause. Madison, as suggested above, did not believe that a Bill of Rights was needed, but on May 4, 1789, Madison announced in the House of Representatives that he would introduce a Bill of Rights. [4]  Madison's version of the religion clause read as follows:  "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed." [5]  Another, somewhat more familiar version, came from the United States Senate. That version read:  "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference of another."  The House of Representatives proposed another version:  Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."  The Senate then revised the proposal to create the religion clause that we recognize today:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  [6]

We Do Indeed Separate Church and State:
The Schizophrenic Right Wing View of the First Amendment

So what about the term "Separation of Church and State?"  Where does it appear in the Constitution.  Well to be perfectly frank, the First Amendment Religion clause doesn't need to mention the concept by name because, by its very nature, it is the definition of Church/State Separation, exactly as the Framers intended.  The non establishment section guarantees that we will not be compelled to support the religious beliefs of others, that we will not be forced to support any church or faith  that we might find repulsive or in violation of our own belief systems,  that we will not have a national church nor official state churches.  We have the freedom section which guarantees us the right.  We have the freedom section which guarantee and protects our right to join any church or to embrace any faith that we desire. 

"Religious Right activists like to play up the supposed tension that exists between the Free Exercise Clause and he Establishment Clause.  Actually no such tension exists,  Interpreted properly the two clauses compliment one another and do not clash.  The problem occurs in the way the religious right interprets 'free exercise.'

"Americans have the right to worship as they see fit within the bounds of the law.  But no American has the right to expect the state to endorse or promote his or her religious beliefs or to demand the power of the government for help in spreading sectarian messages.  The understandable refusal of government to support religion is often what the Religious Right means when they talk about 'free exercise problems'"  [7]

In other words, the religious right has adopted a schizophrenic understanding of the First Amendment Religion clause.   They are in effect, arguing that their freedom of religion is being violated because they are not allowed to establish their religion.  They not only demand the right to practice their religion, they also demand that the government provide the site and the funding so that they may do so.  Or, if you will, they demand governmental power and funding to shove their very repressive religious views down the throats of their fellow Americans.  As if that weren't bad enough they claim they support democracy, but this is only partially true.  They support Democracy to the degree that they can use the democratic process to destroy democracy as we know it in favor of a rigid, totalitarian state.  Or if you prefer, a Christian Theocracy based more on the rantings and ravings of the blood-thirsty Old Testament God than the loving, accepting, and forgiving Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

"They will end democracy not by violence but by the legitimate means provided by the same democracy they would overthrow.  And they will govern their theocratic version of democracy by the 'righteous' men they select.  Remember that Jerry Falwell said to an audience of millions of Americans who didn't even blink when he said it  '... is my goal that before I die, every national state, school board, or board of supervisor election will elect and re-elect men of God into positions of authority...We must elect the righteous into office who will see that righteousness prevails.'"  [8]

It would not be going too far to say that American Theocrats have taken the old Puritan practice of dragging religious dissidents into Puritan Churches for compulsory public worship on its head.  Instead of dragging the religious dissident to the church however, they seek to use the resources o f the federal government to drag their repressive practices, their authoritarian churches,  to the religious dissident.  The end result is the same in both methods.  One religious group exercises tyranny over the other. 

Remove the Motes From Your Own Eyes

Another common argument used against Separation of Church and State is the ridicules notion that Church/State Separation causes societal decay and moral degradation.  That may play well to the glassy eyed followers of snake oil men and flam flam artists, but the truth of the matter is that there are more powerful and more dangerous forces at play in society than church/state separation.  A good place to begin might be the unregulated form of capitalism that the Social Darwinists on the far right insist is what Jesus intended for us to live under.  No matter how you read the four Gospels, the teachings of Christ are, for the most part, teachings of love, peace, forgiveness, generosity, and charity towards one's fellow man.   Not the cut throat law of the jungle economic system that is being promoted by the radical religious right.  If you want to know what is tearing this society apart one might look at the materialism and consumerism that is imposed on us on a regular basis.  If you want to know why public morality is what it used to be, by all means, take a close look at the television programming that is focused on our children.  We have to face the fact that our media are now operating under a model which panders to the lowest common denominator.  So if you're unhappy because television programming--both Network and Cable--aren't what they could be, you might want to take a look at the economic model which so greedily and willingly undermines the culture on a daily basis with argumentative talk shows, shock jocks, mindless situation comedies and fluff dramas.   If your children are compulsive shoppers who want the latest and brightest toy, don't look at church/state separation.  Look at the economic model that is promoted by the our Theocrats and that should give you some idea as to why mommy and daddy are dismayed and bewildered by both, their children's behavior and the lack of civility and compassion in the culture as a whole.  If children are sexually promiscuous, don't blame church/state separation of liberal human secularism, take a look at the bizarre, often abusive sexual expressions that children watch in our corporate media on a regular basis, and then remind yourself again that it is the Radical Christian Right that supports the economic model that makes so many of our social problems a part of our every day lives.

"Separation of Church and state is not the villain.  Separation of church and state does not mean that moral values and government are separated. It does mean that the government is not in the business of legislating religion.  Separation has always meant that the government cannot establish one religion over others, or, for that matter, attempt to establish religion, period.  It does mean that government, as much as possible, stays out of religion.

"Separation means that religion will not take over the engines of government as has happened in places like Iran.  Separation of Church and State is the best way yet t devised to ensure a free church in a free state"  [9]

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM--FOR THEOCRATS ONLY

And that's the problem.  For all intents and purposes Separation of Church and State is the means by which we protect our religious freedom, and, as we shall see in the next installment, that is not what our Theocrats have in mind.  Because of Separation of Church and State, America is one of the most religious nations on the faith of the earth.  We accept Catholics, Baptists,  Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim, the Greek Orthodox, ad infinitum. [10]  And that's the last thing the religious right wants.  When your reason for living is the establishment of a Christian Republic one of the last things you want is that damnable Separation of Church and State protecting people of differing faiths from your authoritarian intentions.  The last thing you need is a religion clause in a bill of rights that prevents you from subverting and over throwing a democratic form of government. 


So how far are they willing to go?  Perhaps you have heard of the Constitutional Restoration Act.  Proposed in 2005, the House Version reads as follows:

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:

`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.

TITLE II--INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRA JURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRA JURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

The above bill, if it had been passed, would have forbidden the Supreme Court to rule on issues and legislation which might inevitably lead to the creation of an American Theocracy.  Indeed, it would allow the federal judiciary to impose Biblical punishments, a frightening scenario when you realize that there are eighteen offenses for which the Bible promotes the death penalty, including:  adultery, premarital sex, practicing witchcraft of astrology, refusing to obey ones parents or even talking back to ones parents, blasphemy, homosexuality, etc.  Please remember that the Radical Religious Right considers secular government and democracy to be the enemies of their faith.  They genuinely believe that the Bible should trump the Constitution, that religious pluralism and tolerance are sinful, and that every aspect of the American nation, from the top of the government on down to the conduct of our personal lives must be dictated by the diktats of the Old Testament.   They genuinely believe that men should be subservient to God and that women should be subservient to their husbands.  They genuinely and truthfully believe that women are flawed creatures because--at least in far right Christian theology--Eve was tempted first in the Garden of Eden.  

Gays and Lesbians won't be treated any better.

"...since a judge may assert that God is the sovereign source of law under HR 3799, may not that judge decree God's law as stated in the Bible to be supreme over every law written by mere mortals? By definition the word "sovereign" means: "the supreme repository of power in a political state." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary). So the sentence in HR 3799 (and S. 2082) establishes the right of an individual to assert God's sovereignty over all laws in the United States.

"If a judge can make this assertion with impunity, what prevents him, should this ill advised law pass Congress, from applying biblical law instead of the law of the state? Of course he could be struck down by the appellate courts in his state—but what if all those courts are packed with Dominionists or the legislative body can impeach any judge in the state for failure to follow God's sovereign laws?

"Let's take a hypothetical situation. A homosexual or an adulterer is arrested for violating the sodomy laws of Texas. Regardless of the punishment for the crime of sodomy in the statute, the Old Testament portion of the Bible establishes the death penalty. So the Dominionist appointed judge finds God to be the sovereign source of law.

"He then finds the defendant guilty as charged and issues the death penalty. All the appellate judges in the state uphold the lower court judge out of fear. If HR 3799 (or S. 2082) is passed and becomes the law, the defendant would not be able to appeal to the Supreme Court or any federal court for help because the law prohibits the Supreme Court from hearing a case decided upon the basis of [an] individual's belief that God is the sovereign source of law."

By all means, read the Old Testament.  Not only does it apply the death penalty for a variety of offenses.  It also reduces women to less than second class citizens (some might say chattels) and establishes criteria for the conduct of slavery and the treatment of slaves.  Of course a majority of our radical Christians would hasten to claim that they do not endorse slavery nor the death penalty for given offenses, but by the same token, when Hitler was running for office during the 1920s he managed, quite successfully to tone down the antisemitic, often violent, rhetoric of previous years, successfully convincing the German people that he had moderated his views. 

The fact that the radical religious right, the domionionists and theocrats of the 21st Century would go so far as to pass a bill that would tie the independent judiciary in a pseudo Christian straight jacket should tell us that these people are nothing less than serious when it comes to the overthrow of our democracy. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and other delusional madmen announce that they want their literal interpretation of the Bible to trump our Constitution in favor of a Christian Republic we might do ourselves a favor and start taking these people seriously. If we don't, the democracy that we lose will be our own and we will only have ourselves to blame. End Part III SOURCES [1] From: Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right Page 257 by Mel White Published by Jeremy P Tarcher/Penguin Copyright 2006, Mel White [2] From: Separation of Church and State, Guarantor of Religious Freedom Pages 58-59 By: Robert L. Maddox Published by Crossroad Publishing Company Copyright 1987 by Robert L. Maddox [3] Ibid Pages 60-61 [4] Ibid Page 63 [5] From: Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State Page 63 By: Robert Boston Pubished by Prometheus Books Copyright 1993 by Robert Boston [6] From: Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom Page 63 By: Robert L. Maddox Published by The Crossroad Publishing Company Copyright 1987 by Robert L. Maddox [7] From: Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State Page 152 By Robert Boston Published by Prometheus Books Copyright,1993 by Robert Boston [8] From: Religion Gone Bad, The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right Page 269 By: Mel White Published by Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin Copyright 2006 by Mel White [9] From: Separation of Church and State, Guarantor of Religious Freedom Page 11 by Robert L. Maddox Published by the Crossroad Publishing Company Copyright 1987 by Robert L. Maddox [10] From: Religion in America/Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Religious_bodies Last modified April 2007 [11] From: Yurika, News Intelligence Analysis The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20%26%20Legal/ConstitutionRestorationActOf2005_S520.html#anchor37931 [12] From: The Yurika Report, News Intelligence Analysis Dominionist Bill Limits The Supreme Courts Jurisdiction The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004-2005 http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm

Part II: THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST

THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST
PART II
Theocratic Crusades Against The Constitution and Freedom of Religion
By BibleBelted and ThomasPaine


You really have to give our beloved Theocrats credit. When they decide to take the wrong side in an argument they don't go half way. When they decide to rewrite history they don't only go half way. Not only do they recast Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as proponents of a Christian Republic. They also embrace the losing side of the church-state argument as it took lace in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.

James Madison Defeats Patrick Henry

"While it is certainly true that John Adams and Patrick Henry were in favor of established faiths in their respective states of Massachusetts's and Virginia, the truth of the matter is that in the long run their argument, the idea of established churches in the various colonies, was already a losing proposition by the end of the 18th Century. More reasonable ideas, ( i.e. the Separation of Church and State and the disestablishment of state churches) had already been argued by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason even before the Framers met in Philadelphia to rewrite the woefully inadequate Articles of Confederation.

Patrick Henry, for the record, clearly came down on the establishment side. In 1784 he introduced the "Bill Establishing a Provision for Teaches of the Christian Religion." This, as one might expect is a provision that contemporary Theocrats would find quite enjoyable. in that it required all people in the State of Virginia to "pay a moderate tax or contribution annually for the support of the Christian Religion, or of some Christian Church, denomination, or communion of Christians, or some form of Christian worship." [1]

In some ways it was more tolerant than what he Puritans had established in the 17th Century in that it allowed the citizens to select which denomination they would support, but James Madison still found the provision dangerous and obnoxious. Madison fought the bill via procedural maneuvers until 1875 when he Virginia House of Delegates introduced another bill. This bill was even more serious, more repressive, in that it would have made the Episcopal Church the official Church of the State of Virginia. At this point Madison rove himself a shrewd politician. Madison threw is support behind the establishment bill because a) he knew that the people of Virginia were not in favor of establishing the Episcopal Church and b) he considered Henry's bill more dangerous. Madison knew what he was doing. Within two years the establishment bill was repealed. During this time Madison penned the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.[2] In addition, Madison, also helped Patrick Henry in a successful attempt to become the governor of Virginia, a move on Madison's part which removed the eloquent Henry from a speaking position on the floor of the House of Delegates.
The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom

Nor was Madison finished. Having defeated the Henry Bill Madison then resurrected Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for Religious Freedom." Originating from 1777, the bill declared that "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." Now Known as the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the measure passed the Virginia House of Delegates in January 1786. [3] Not an especially long Bill, it reads as follows:

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitation's, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, 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 endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. "And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right." [4]

That of course raises the obvious question. Why would Jefferson and Madison want to disestablish the Episcopal Church in Virginia? The answer is obvious. The Church of England, the Episcopal Church, had become tyrannical. In 1705 the Virgina Assembly decreed that if any "person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military."[5] There were additional punishments for a second offense. A father could lose guardianship of his son, said son being removed from the father's custody and placed with individuals who were more devout in their belief.

Of course you can hear the modern day Theocrats crying out that Thomas Jefferson was not a Framer of the Constitution, that he was in Paris during the summer of 1787 when the new Constitution was being drafted, but that argument falls flat on at least two counts. First, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were in constant correspondence on this and many other issues. Second, Jefferson and Madison were like minded on the issue. Both firmly believed in the disestablishment of state churches. Indeed, Jefferson believed that disestablishment, the separation of church and state, was the means by which one protected freedom of religion. At the same time one can almost hear Theocrats of every stripe crying out that that the Statute uses the words Almighty God and Holy Author. Indeed it does. But our indefatigable Theocrats use the same argument about the Declaration of Independence. And in both cases their arguments are irrelevant. You must have to remember that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian in the sense that many modern day Americans would understand the term. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and as such he did not believe that Christ was divine. Rather, he believed that God had created and wound up the universe as if it were a great, watch or clock, and then sat back to watch the universe play out according to nature's rules and forces. As for Jesus:

"But he produced his little book...the Life and Morals of Jesus, printed for his own use and for a few family members and friends. He continued to to to pin down his religious beliefs. He became convinced that early Christianity most closely resembled;ed Unitarians of the early 19th Century and fund that his concept of God most closely resembled theirs. After stripping away the accretions of time since the first century, he found a simple and moral Jesus." [6]

Translated into modern English. he stripped out the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection and ascension, to reflect his belief in a fully human Jesus.

As for Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, it went on to become the model for the First Amendment Religion Claus in Federal Constitution

The Enigma of John Adams: Unitarian and Establishmentarian Not What Our Theocrats Would Find Acceptable

"Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions. "Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life. " [7]

And yet there were moments when Adams openly condemned the Christian Religion for its intolerance. At the age of eighty Adams, as a delegate in a state convention designed to revise the Constitution of Massachusetts, found at the center of a debase over an amendment which would have guaranteed complete and religious freedom for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to Adams, who believed that all were equal in the eyes of God, it was only logical to give the people the right to worship God as they saw fit. This included people of the Jewish faith. In a letter to Mordecai Noah, a New York editor, Adams wrote:

"I have had occasion to be acquainted with several gentlemen of your nation and to transact business with some of them, whom I found to be men of good liberal minds, as much as honor, probity, generosity, and good breeding as any I have known in any sear of religion or philosophy. "I wish your nation to be admitted to all privileges of citizens in every country in the world. This country has done much, I wish it may do more, and annual every narrow idea in religion, government, and commerce." [8]

Jefferson, of course could not have been more pleased, rejoicing in his friend's effort on behalf of the "advance of liberalism." Regrettably, the measure failed to pass, and Adams, in a letter to Jefferson maintained that he (Adams) had "Boggled and blundered more than a young fellow just rising to speak at the bar." That said, Adams complained privately that he regretted the "the intolerance of Christians" [9] On a somewhat separate note that both Adams and Jefferson had no qualms about using the word liberal. Despite what the far right would tell us today the Founders were often among the most liberal individuals of their day, the word liberal being used proudly, not as an attack phrase to denigrate political opponents ion smear campaigns. In other words, this country is based on liberal ideals, not theocratic delusions. As for Adams, while the above example may paint him as the epitome of an enlightened free thinker, it should also be remembered that he believed in state established churches, and that his idea of an established church looked suspiciously more like his own brand of Unitarianism than it did mainstream Christianity.

The upshot to all of this is that in addition to recasting the Framers into fanatical, Christian Theocrats, the religious fanatics of our time are also presenting the losing argument of established state religion as the winning arguments. They not only present a distorted picture of the free thinking founders such as Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and others, who they would recast as obsessive religious fanatics; they don't have have an accurate picture of those whose names they would use to further the cause of theocracy and established religion.

In some cases they take early statements by Madison and present those statements of the mature James Madison. They maintain that early in his career, Madison supported the ideas of state supported Chaplains and the punishment of Sabbath breakers. Or they point out that at another point in his career, Madison supported the idea of an established Anglican Church. But what they fail to point out is that these were early attitudes which Madison outgrew and eventually recognized such beliefs as tyrannical and would ultimately evolve into a fully evolved separatist. In a similar vein Madison also declared days of prayer and fasting, but here again, in his mature years, Madison believed that such measures were unconstitutional [10]


In his Detached Memoranda, Madison specifically takes these issues to task. In many ways it is almost as if he foresaw the danger that future theocrats might pose to the freedom and the republic:

"The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation. "The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor. "If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt "Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality? "Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura." "Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one." [11]*
In closing, Part II one additional thought must be expressed. When the Radical Theocractic Right presents "facts" claiming to support the idea that our Framers wanted to establish a Christian Republic they are in fact playing loose and free with the facts. All too often they take statements out of context, or relay--as in the case of Madison--u[upon statements which do not reflect the vast majority of other letters or documents which do not support the Christian Republic point of view. In short they have engaged in the worst kind of prevarication. They have incorporated just enough truth into their big lie to make their arguments resonate with the American people. As mentioned above, their tactics and rhetoric reveal either an ignorance about the history of our Secular Republic and Church/State Separation, or a willingness to tell whatever combination of truth, half truths, and outright prevarication to promote their very repressive and very Anti-American Agenda.



CREDITS

[1] From: Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State
Pages 58-60
By Robert Boston
Published by Prometheus Books
Copyright 1993 by Robert Boston


[2] From: WE THE PEOPLE: Religious Freedom Page
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html


[3 ] From: Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State
Pages 60-61
By Robert Boston
Published by Prometheus Books.
Copyright 1993 Robert Boston

[4] From: Project for Global Democracy and Human Rights
At: http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/relindex.html\
From: Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom
At: http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html


[5] From: Thomas Jefferson, A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity
Page 174
By: A;f J. Mapp Junior
Published by Madison Books
Copyright 1997 by Alf J. Mapp Junior

[6] From Thomas Jefferson: A Life
Page 555
By: Willard Sterne Randall
Published by Henry Hold and Company
Copyright 1993 by Willard Sterne Randall


[7] From: The Religious Affiliation of Second President John Adams
At: http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html
Created 13:November 2005 / Last updated 20 November 2005

[8] From: John Adams
Pages 631-632
By; David McCullough
Published by Simon and Schuster
Copyright 2001 by David McCullough

[9]] Ibid
Pages 631-632

[10] From: Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State
Pages 71-710]
By; Robert Boston
Published by Prometheus Books
Copyright 1993 by Robert Boston

[11] From: The Founders Constitution
Amendment I (Religion)
James Madison Detached Memoranda
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
Copyright 1987 University of Chicago
Published 2000

*Authors Note by Bible Belted
The "misspellings" in this particular quote are not misspellings at all. They are abbreviations and notations used by James Madison in the original document.

Part I: THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST

THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST:
PART I
HOW FAR RIGHT THEOCRATS DISTORT LANGUAGE, HISTORY, AND THE CONSTITUTION

By SweetPea, BibleBelted, Thomas Paine, and PraetorOne The Redefinition of Equal Rights: Equality is Not a Matter of Special Privilege s



Whenever I hear people talk about gays and lesbians wanting to promote
the "homosexual life style" I don't know if I want to laugh or cry.
In the first place the idea that we want to promote a given life style
is just one bread slice short of a sandwich, and to be perfectly
honest, the term "homosexual life style" is usually bantered about by
people who have a lot more to promote than just a so called "life
style."

The only thing that gays and lesbians seek is the right to be treated
in the same way that heterosexuals are treated. That includes the
right to marry, the right to raise families, equal employment
opportunities, and just about any other right or convenience that the
heterosexual community takes for granted on a daily basis. And yet,
for some reason, whenever we seek what the majority already enjoys, we
are accused of promoting a life style or of asking for special
privileges. Strange, I never thought that asking for the rights and
benefits that others routinely enjoy could be defined as special
treatment, but for some reason a few people choose to redefine the
argument in those terms.

Of course you also have to remember that many, indeed the vast
majority of the people who use that kind of Orwellian argument
themselves have something to promote, and as I have already stated it
is a lot more than a mere lifestyle. It is a form of religion-based
government which is not recognized by our constitution. In short the
people who want to delegate gays and lesbians to second class
citizenship are attempting to impose their religion in what can only
be described as a Christian-oriented theocracy which would have made
our Founding Fathers cringe. Or to put it another way, the would be
theocrats, instead of taking the attitude that they don't have to
engage in activities which they consider sinful, have taken the
attitude that they have the right to impose those values on others who
do not consider homosexuality to be sinful. They truly believe that
their religious views should reign supreme, and instead of taking
personal responsibility for their own actions they want to impose that
responsibility on those of differing faiths and creeds.

Now if that isn't an establishment of religion will someone please
tell me what is?

THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON RELIGION: Confusing the 17th and 18th Centuries

I'm not claiming that the Founding Fathers would have been entirely
understanding of homosexuality, but they certainly would have
understood that the method by which the so called Christian Right
wants to eradicate homosexuality is a direct violation of the First
Amendment Religion clause, so I think we can safely say that the
Founders would have been appalled by some of the arguments that are
being made by the Radical Christian Right today.

The Founding Fathers, by virtue of the time in which they lived, were
a lot closer to some of the religious conflicts and abuses that had
taken place in both America and England. They understood well the
horrors which had been perpetuated during conflicts between Puritans
and Anglicans; they knew well terrors that accompanied religious-based
civil wars in jolly old England; and they were certainly aware of the
many abuses which had taken place during Puritan reign in
Massachusetts and Connecticut . And yet for some reason, the prudes
in 21st America truly believe that the Founders would have studied
these abuses and then created the same kind of religious-based system
that created those abuses in the first place. At its heart the
Radical Christian Right argument for entanglement doesn't make any
sense and it never well. Not from an historical point of view, not
from a Constitutional point of view, and not from a practical point of
view.

Those on the far right mistakenly believe that the repressive,
witch-hanging Puritans, who arrived here from Jolly Old England, were
our founding fathers. This of course is an error, and it is not
accidental. Historical revision is one of the most important weapons
in the Radical Christian arsenal of mass deception. The true Founding
Fathers were the intellectual giants of the 18th Century who fought
the Revolutionary War and who created the Constitution that we all
know in love at Philadelphia in 1787. But if the Founding Fathers
were products of the late 18th Century then who, exactly were the
Puritans? Where did they fit in?

It might be useful to stop thinking of the Puritans (and the Pilgrims,
for that matter) as the poor persecuted victims of religious
persecution who came to the New Jerusalem to seek religious freedom.
In England they had often been the instruments of persecution; and
when they came to the New World they were not seeking universal
religious freedom. In England they had made life a living hell for
Anglicans and Catholics, and they were no better when they came to the
New World. They were in no way open minded when others dissented and
chose to worship differently. [1] Indeed, the only liberty that early
American Calvinism recognized was the right to impose its dictates on
others. Baptists were forced to practice their beliefs in secret
because of Puritan persecution.
The Tyrannical Puritans

In 1651 an elderly blind man wrote to Baptist friends in Rhode Island.
requesting that they pay him a visit. Responding, were a certain
John Crandal and the Reverends John Clark and Obadiah Holmes. During
the course of their visit they were arrested at their host's home and
dragged off to a Puritan church for mandatory, pubic worship. When
they refused to acquiesce to Puritan demands they were arrested for
holding a private meeting, disturbing public worship, and re-baptizing
one or more persons. The sentence, like all Puritan sentences, was a
harsh one: heavy fines or flogging by default. Clark and Crandal were
lucky; friends paid their fines for them. Holmes, however, was flogged
30 times. Sympathetic spectators who dared to offer compassionate
words of support were also fined.

Quakers fared no better. Massachusetts's Cart and Whip Laws decreed
that a Quaker be "stripped from the middle upwards and be tied to a
cart's tail and whipped through the town." The victim was then taken
to the next town where he was whipped again. This continued from town
to town until the victimized Quaker had been removed from
Massachusetts.

Puritan social life was no better. Repressive Blue Laws discouraged
loud singing, exuberant laughter, drinking, gambling, dancing, while
prescribing severe restrictions on social etiquette and sexual
morality. So of course, they were prone to closet drinking, compulsive
gambling ( i.e. horse racing), and premarital sex. According to
surviving documents (such as birth records) from the period, nearly a
third of Puritan children were conceived out of wedlock, assuming a
child born within six months of marriage had been so conceived).

These are the narrow-minded, totalitarian individuals who the Radical
Right Wing Theocrats would claim as our Founding Fathers. And to make
the situation even more ironic, they also claim that the real Founding
Fathers, the towering intellects, deists, and scientific thinkers of
the late 18th Century were devout, fanatical Christians who were
intent upon creating a Christian Republic, and to support their claim
they routinely use quotes out of context, or worse yet, make up facts
to fit their deluded, unconstitutional world view.

The Recreation of James Madison

This may come as a shock and a revelation to the Radical Christian
Right, but James Madison was not a rabid religious fanatic. He did
indeed support the concept of Church State Separation.

Consider these words by James Madison: "During almost fifteen
centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity 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. Enquire of the Teachers
of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest
luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its
incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this
primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary
rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which
Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when
against their interest?" [2] They come from Madison's Memorial and
Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments of 1785 and they do not
sound like the words of a devout, mainstream Christian. Of course
there is a reason for this. James Madison was not the kind of
Christian that the radical Theocratic Right of today would find
acceptable. Moreover the above quote is only the seventh of fifteen
such points, all of which can be found in a link at the bottom of this
article.

Thomas Jefferson, Rewritten by the Christian Right

Thomas Jefferson, a life long deist, took a similar attitude: "It is
error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand
by itself. Subject opinion of coercion: Whom will you make your
inquisitors? Fallible men; governed by bad passions, by private as
well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce
uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of
face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then and there is
a danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all a size, by
lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion
is advantageous in religion. The several sect perform the office of a
censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of
innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we
have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the
effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other
half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
[3[ That isn't what you'd expect to hear from the pulpit of the
Reverends Falwell, Dobson, or Robinson, is it? Again, those who
would turn Thomas Jefferson into a Bible thumping Christian simply
have the facts wrong. Not only was Thomas Jefferson a Deist, who
believed that Christ was not divine and that God merely wound up the
universe and stood back to watch it unfold, Jefferson was, on
occasion, openly hostile towards various forms of Christianity,
Calvinism in particular. ""His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If
ever man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his
five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more
pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the
atrocious attributes of Calvin" [4]
Benjamin Franklin: Super Moralist?

Of course any attempt at historical revision would be complete if the
Radical Theocrats didn't try to paint Benjamin Franklin with their
totalitarian tar. Not only was Benjamin Franklin a dedicated
scientist, he also evolved into a free thinking Deist who had his own
questions about the nature of Christ and the trinity. In a letter
dated March 9, 1790 to Ezra Stiles, Franklin offers the following
opinion on the nature of Jesus Christ: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my
opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals,
and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw
or likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting
changes and I have, with most of the dissenters in England, some
doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize
upon, having never studied it and think needless to busy myself with
it now." [5]

On other occasions, Franklin used language which gave the appearance
that he believed in reincarnation. "'When I see nothing annihilated,
and not even a drop of water wasted, I cannot suspect the annihilation
of souls, or believe they will suffer the daily waste of millions of
minds ready made that now exist, and put himself to the continual
trouble of making new ones.' Franklin included his own soul in the
conservation scheme. 'This finding myself to exist in the world, I
believe I shall, in some shape or other, always exist, and with all
the inconveniences human life is liable to, I shall not object to a
new edition of mine, hoping, however, that the errata of the last may
be corrected." [6]

Radical Theocrats frequently take Franklin's remarks about Jesus out
of context, that much is for certain, but they seldom quote statements
in which Franklin questions the divinity of Christ. Of course they
can't mention the section in which Franklin expresses his doubts,
because you can't have a Fundamentalist Franklin who was a lifelong
deist who questioned the very foundation of the Christian faith. But
that doesn't stop the would be Theocrats in this country from
rewriting American History.

And if anyone believes that Benjamin Franklin possessed a superior
morality, one should remember that this was the same individual who
routinely flirted with attractive women while he was in Paris.
Franklin also wrote a personal code based on various religious beliefs
which, on the surface might be construed as Christian, but when you
read them very closely, leave specific loopholes for misbehavior; a
favorite being his take on Chastity: "Rarely use Venery but for
Health of Offpsirng; Never to Dullness, Weakness, or the Injury of
your own or another's Peace or Reputation." [7] Note that Franklin
left just enough wiggle room to excuse any potential indiscretion on
his own part. But then again, we're talking about the same gentlemen
who wrote a list about the eight reasons to marry an older woman and
who took frequent air baths, in which he stripped himself naked,
opened a door or window and allowed the outside air to enter, thus
bathing him. You just have to wonder how Pat Robertson would like to
have Franklin for a neighbor! In other words, old Ben was a bawdy
one! In fact he was a bawdy young one! All too often we think about
the plump, middle aged Benjamin Franklin with the benign facial
expression and flowing white hair. Seldom do we remember that the
youthful Benjamin Franklin was a an energetic, muscular young man who
stood approximately five feet nine or five feet ten inches tall who,
like most young men, had a a active libido. Or to be blunt, there was
a time in his life when Franklin found an outlet for his passions with
ladies of the evening, i.e. prostitutes.

Thomas Paine: Too Outspoken to Reinvent!

Another Founder who throws a brick in the
Framers-Were-Devout-Christians argument is the most outspoken Deist of
them all, Thomas Paine. In his classic treatise, The Age of Reason,
Paine openly admits that he is not a Christian. In Part 1, Chapter 1,
he writes: "I believe in one God and no more and; and I hope for
happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of men, and I
believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy,
and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy. But lest it be
supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I
shall in the progress of this work, declare things I do not believe,
and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed
professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek
Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any
church I know of. My own mind is my own church." In Chapter Two (Of
Missions and Revelations) Paine states that he cannot accept the above
mentioned religions because they are based on hearsay. In Chapter
Three (Concerning the Character of Jesus Christ and His History) Paine
clearly and openly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, writing:
"Jesus wrote no account of himself, of his birth, of his parentage, or
anything else. Not a line of the New testament is of his writing.
The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to
the account of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary
counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought
him into the world in a supernatural manner were obliged to take him
out in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have
fallen to the ground. The wretched contrivance with which the latter
part is told exceeds everything that went before it. The first part,
that the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted
publicity; and therefore tellers of this part of the story had this
advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be
detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not
one of those things that admitted proof, and it was impossible that
the person of whom it was told could prove it himself." [Clearly
American children will not be reading Age of Reason in their Sunday
school lessons because Paine was, quite simply a dyed in the wool
Deist who rejected the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and
ascension. [8]
George Washington: Not a Bible Thumping Fanatic

As a supposedly devout Anglican, Washington often used unusual
phrases to describe the Christian God that the modern Day Theocrats
would force all of us to worship. "Almighty and Merciful Sovereign
of the Universe" or "Wonder-working Deity." Those were the kinds of
phrases which Washington used to describe his God. And yet 21st
Century Theocrats insist that George Washington should be included
among their numbers. But before you can do so you need to answer a
number of questions. Why, in his first Inaugural Address, did
Washington not mention the word God nor use frequent references to
Christ and Christianity? Instead he referred to "the invisible hand
that guides the affairs of man," and "the benign parent of the human
race." The truth of the matter is that while Washington was a nominal
Anglican he walked in step with the Deists of the late 18th century.
"Washington's religious belief was that of the enlightenment: deism.
He practically never used the word "God," preferring the more
impersonal word "Providence." How little he visualized Providence in
personal form is shown by the fact that he interchangeably applied to
that force all three possible pronouns: he, she, and it." [9]
Washington's attitude towards his Anglican Church was revealed quite
clearly by the fact that he would take Martha to Church but would not
set foot in the church himself, instead preferring to wait outside
until the service was finished. In addition, Washington, on his death
bed, never received an kind of last rites.

"Washington believed that several apparently dead people, perhaps
including Jesus, had really been buried alive, a fate he wished to
avoid. His statement also calls attention to a missing presence at
the deathbed scene" There were no ministers in the room, mo prayers
uttered, no Christian rituals offering the solace of everlasting life.
The inevitable renderings of Washington's death by nineteenth-century
artists often added religious symbols to the scene, frequently
depicting his body ascending into heaven surrounded by a chorus of
angels. The historical evidence suggests that Washington did not
think much about heaven or angels; the only place he knew his body was
going was into the ground, and as for his soul, it's ultimate location
was unknowable. He died as a Roman Stoic rather than a Christian
Saint." [10]
John Adams: More Open Minded Than Some Would Suspect

John Adams, perhaps because of his Puritan background, is frequently
reshaped into the modern day equivalent of right wing theocrat; but if
the truth is to be known, Adams was infinitely more tolerant of other
religions than our current roster of televangelists, dominionists, and
Bible thumpers ever could have imagined. In A Defense of the
Constitutions of Government of the United States (circa 1787-1788),
Adams wrote: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps,
the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of
nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse
themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they
will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the
detail of the formation of the American governments is at present
little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may
hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended
that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the
gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than
those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or
agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments
were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." [11] In
1814, in a letter to John Taylor, Adams wrote: "What havoc has been
made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are
fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius?
Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by
order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index
Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and
the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not
worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten.
Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has
raged and triumphed for 1,500 years." [12] And in one of his last
letters to Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote: "We think ourselves
possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of
conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and
private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these
exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the
whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt
the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments,
from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is
punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England
itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot
poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts,
which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in
religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end
of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former
laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those
blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free
inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or
imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the
divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating
Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much
at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions
to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear
examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine
inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to
put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons
are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they
continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and
clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The
substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal
and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been
mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear
examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu." [13]

Say what you like, but statements such as those would not be accepted
by the conservative religious base of the Republican Party. AS a
matter of fact, none of the above statements are in line with the
theology of the contemporary Christian Right, and yet for reasons
which defy explanation, the indefatigable theocrats are perfectly
willing to overlook the Founders doubts about Christianity and Christ
as they revise history to make the intellects of the late 18th and
early 19th century the modern day equivalents of Calvinistic witch
hunters.

But Didn't the Original Colonies have Established Religions?

Why yes, as a matter of fact they did, but what the Right Wing
Theocrats fail to mention is the fact that only two of those colonies,
Massachusetts and Connecticut actually retained their established
religions into the 19th Century. The rest had been disestablished
before 1800. (As an interesting side note, one can't help but raise
one's eye brows at the fact that it was Massachusetts and Connecticut,
two Puritan Colonies which engaged in witch hunts, which retained
their established religions the longest!)

The ties between church and state began to weaken as a direct result
of the American fear of aristocratic power. Prior to the Revolutionary
War, the colonies did in fact have their own established religions.
Rhode Island embraced the Congregational Church; the Church of England
was embraced in the Southern colonies. But during the American
Revolution the Church of England fell out of favor and was cut off
from state support. The New England states maintained their
established faiths after the Revolution, but as church-state
entanglements weakened, the taxpayers were allowed to specify the
Protestant Church to which their money could be directed. When the
new State Constitution's were created religious freedom became a part
of those Constitution's. Some of the original thirteen states still
required elected officials to take a religious oath, but that began to
change in Virginia with Thomas Jefferson's Statute of Religious, the
document which became the basis for the First Amendment Religion
clause of the United States Constitution. So when modern day
Theocrats try to tell you that the Founding Fathers approved of
established religions because the original thirteen states had
established religions, just remember that it was the same generation
which fought the American Revolution and which framed the United
States Constitution which removed those established religions.

End Part I




Sources for Part I

[1 From " They are a trouble unto me": The Quakers in the Massachusetts BayColony , 1656-1689 "
by Douglas Lehman
http://www.uvm.edu/~hforum/Fall2004/article3.htm

[2] From: James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments of 1785
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm

[3] From: Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
Published privately in 1784-1785

[4] From Six Historic Americans: Thomas Jefferson
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html

[5] From: A letter by Benjamin Franklin Postdated Philadelphia, March
9, 1790 to Ezra Stiles
My Religious Credo by Benjamin Franklin
From: Heritage of American Literature Volume I
Edited by James E. Miller Junior
Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Copyright 1991
Pages 438-459

[6] From: The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin
By H. Brands
Pages 657-658
First Anchor Books Edition, March 2002
Copyright 2000 by H.W.Brands

[7] From: Benjamin Franklin
By Edmund S. Morgan
Pages 22-23
Yale Press 2002
Copyright by Edmund S. Morgan

[8] From: Age of Reason
By Thomas Paine
From: Heritage of American Literature Volume I
Edited by James E. Miller Junior
Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Copyright 1991
Pages 565-571

[9] From: Quotations that Support The Separation of Church and State
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html#II
By Ed and Michael Buckner
From 1993
Scroll Down to Section on George Washington

[10] From: His Excellency George Washington
By Joseph J. Ellis
Page 269
Borzoi Book Published by Alfred A. Knopf
Copyright Joseph J. Ellis

[11] From: Positive Atheism's Big List of John Adams Quotations
From http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
Copyright 1996-2006

[12] ibid

[13] ibid

--
Ciao
Daniel Andrew Gallagher