A response to the so-called Christian-American heritage
There is nothing more delicious to a statist than quoting the Constitution to conservatives. Except quoting it to libertarians. by Logical Premise
(statist)
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
I've noticed a fair number of articles popping up, both here on the Nolan Chart and elsewhere, in response to the Tea Party, and tea-partier (is that the correct word? Tea partyist? Help me out here) claims that America was "founded as a Christian nation", that the founding fathers established a clearly "Judao-Christian heritage that must be reclaimed", etc, etc, etc.
I must admit I am, ah, confused. I know that both Tea Party people and libertarians, and quite a few conservatives, disagree with the statist view that the Constitution is a "living document", that it's original form is irrelevant if it is amended OR if a super-majority of the population views it's meaning in a different light.
So when I read articles, such as some of the stuff on World Net Daily, or even HERE, I get .. ah, confused. Because I'm pretty sure that article VI reads something like :
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (emphasis mine).
It seems to me if you only wanted Christians running things, you'd have not put that silly line in the Constitution. Oh, my friends, tell me, what they meant by that was you didn't have to belong to a particular church, like the old church of England ....
..yeah, stop right there. You can't have it both ways folks. You want a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Sure. Everyone can own a gun. You want strict implementation of Article V so you can amend the Constitution easily? Great! You want Article VI to actually be used as it's , y'know, written?
No, because if you aren't "Christian" you are "bad". Mind you, of course...this is the same brand of Christianity that murders gays on Wyoming fences, preached that blacks and Chinese were subhuman for literally centuries, denegrated women and even today doesn't feel they should be holders of any kind of position of merit, and is responsible , in it's time and today , for just as many atrocities and idiocies as Islam, or fascism, or even nationalistic Balkan pride.
The Christianity I follow is based on the words of Christ. Not whatever psycho interpretation some nut may put on it, just HIS words. Not the Old Testament, where people ignore 90% of the book to rail about the 10% that fits whatever message they want. Not most of the New Testament, where King James did Lord only knows what to the language, which reads, ah, different than the Latin.
When you make America into something it never was, to cater to a religion mostly full nowdays of modern-day Pharasees, so hopped up on their own so-called moral superiority that they see no problems with screwing over the poor and downtrodden, you end up really ruining what this country was about.
It was -- and is -- and always be about the ability not to be in a tyranny of dictators, while having a strong governement that the people make up, and lead. There is no aristocratic class to lead , there is NOTHING stopping someone from being the next huge corporate CEO and having all the influence you want, and there's nothing saying all that CEO's money will change a thing if the people want something else. Obama's election, if nothing else, should show that, because I doubt most corporations saw his socialist policies as a good thing.
No, what we end up with is , at best, a sort of ersatz copy of the Confederate States of America. What we end up with is a tyranny of the perceived, propertied majority, a majority that wants to feel as if the reality of technology bringing the world closer together could just be made to go away.
What we end up with is isolationism , which is of course what has always made America strong -- by the wars we have to fight to FIX everything after we isolate ourself and some nut starts trying to conquer the world or kill all Jews or murder god-knows how many of his own people in gulags. What we end up with is cultural stagnation, where the only approved culture is faux-Christian sneer down your nose at your poorer neighbor culture, and everything else is "unapproved" and forced into darkness.
That is your freedom? The freedom you espouse so dearly? The only difference between that and statism is that at least statism says "well, the people have to give us the powers they refuse to use" and that what you are saying is since YOUR view of God says X is okay, that's the way the entire nation should be.
I grow tired of people not heeding the words of Jesus. How about, before you go digging around, saying we need a theocracy and telling us everything is going to hell in a handbasket because we don't have "God on our side" , you take a look at that beam in your own eye. When ministers stop living like CEO's, when churches stop having scandals about "building funds" and wasted money, when Catholic priests stop molesting boys and being let off the hook, when Middle-American Christianity means more than going to church on Sunday and sneering at gays and making worried noises about D&D corrupting their children, when people start actually LOVING their neighbor instead of trying to judge them like Pilate himself, well, then maybe we can have this conversation.
Now? All I can see is some shallow nut like Falwell being president, and that isn't even worth thinking about.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Logical Premise only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Logical Premise is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Wow! On one issue, a pure statist and a pure libertarian agree! Theocracy surely has no place in a civil society. The point of disagreement, in this instance, turns on the notion that theocracy is a freedom view. In more ways, it's just the opposite. It's actually an argument for statist interventionism in many forms.
Pay close attention to the theocrats and you'll find that most of them favor interventionist foreign policies. They also favor "safety", in the sense of fighting a war on terror (as if an emotion can be the subject of an actual war). They're terrified of economic competition, and in that sense they are isolationist. It's one very important reason why I don't consider myself to be an isolationist. Rather, I consider myself to be a non-interventionist...a very different concept.
Isolationism implies withdrawal and battening down the hatches. Non-interventionism implies respecting the rights of others while insisting that they respect ours as well, a concept that clashes with a statist view and has very little to do with withdrawal, except in the sense of withdrawing from the act of interfering in others' affairs.
So no, theocracy isn't representative of the freedom that true freedom advocates support. It's actually equally close and possibly closer to the statist view of freedom, interestingly enough.
Now here's the big question. Why do theocrats like to frame their arguments as if they're freedom fighters? The answer is simple. Freedom is still popular, even if it's been trodden upon by the very same people who claim to support it. Freedom is even popular among those who would trample upon it the most, the statists. But like statists, theocrats often can't handle the idea of total freedom. They're terrified of the idea that people might behave in ways that they don't like or approve of. So, they frame their interventionist ideas as if they are actually defending freedom, when in fact they're defending freedom's nemesis.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: January 4, 2011 10:03:02 AM
By your own statement you believe in a centralized, controlling government, but you don't believe in morality. So you were a supporter of Hitler? i ask that question because you tell us everything you are not, but not what you are, or where your standrads of right and wrong come from. Christiams can point to the Bible. Which you seem to do, in your response. That's curious, since pointing to the Bible would infer some morality. If you dont believe in morality...than what is the pointing to the Bible...or the statement that you are a Christian about? I dont ask these questions with any expectation of an answer, but rather to point out that your monica "logical premise" must be intended as a joke or misdirection.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: January 4, 2011 11:05:34 PM
Walt, I did not make the distinction between "isolationism" and non-intervention because I sort of agree with "loose" non-interventionist polices as long as they don't lead to Lindburgh-era crap. Statists are not very good at respecting rights because most people fail to exercise them and fail to defend them, and too many of those who chose to do so abuse them. I believe I've made the point before that in a world with fewer idiots, there would be no need for statism, and libertarian ideals would work. In a world where positing most of the population with a room-temperature IQ is being disingenuously generous , well... exhibit A, Obama.
I have a differing theory on the Theocrat position, which is always of course some debased tricked up argument from authority and appeal to emotion -- it's not because freedom is popular, it is because they actually believe anyone who doesn't believe as they believe is a "slave" to (insert whatever they hate here). Statists dislike total freedom because people (sometimes well meaning people) get in the way of total societal progress. But I do not believe, and no statist I knows believes, that our position is "right" or "better" or more "moral" , just more efficient if less fair. And I freely acknowledge criticism of that. Theocrats, on the other hand, hate total freedom because so much of what passes as religion (not just Christianity either, most modern day Muslim is just as full of made up crap that never came out of the mouth of the Prophet) is bunk and makes zero sense. They want intervention so they can have free reign to brainwash people.
Ah, Mr. Vogl. I must admit, I had to read your , ah, statement several times before I could find a coherent line of thought in it. But I digress, to answer your question
1) I did not say or state I don't believe in morality. In fact, in testimonial to your reading comprehension ability, morality does not even appear in my article. Nor does your interpretation of whatever sub-creed of Christianity you profess make you or anyone else an arbiter of what exactly "morality" does or does not entail. This is called a strawman argument, which is of course a logical fallacy.
2) From there, you claim I support Hitler....based on I tell you what I am "not" but not where my standards of right and wrong come from. First, a nice personal attack and poisoning the well, more logical fallacies, and AGAIN a lack of bothering to read the article, sir. I clearly state, in case you forgot your glasses, I base my morality on the WORDS OF JESUS. Not your interpretation or anything around them. Merely his words. That's it. He says love thy neighbor, honor thy mother and father, obey the Ten commandments, turn your cheek to your oppressor, be kind, gentle, forgiving, compassionate, understanding, and open minded. Jesus did not turn away prostitutes, tax men, foreign invading centurions, or gentiles. That is where my morality comes from.
What you want to say is "since you don't agree with my view then you don't believe in what I believe in and so you can't be a moral person". My answer, of course, in who the hell are you to judge me such? Logically speaking, if you read my article what you should have taken away from it is
1) Religious conservatives feel that only their "morality" matters, regardless that America is and always was supposed to be based on freedom.
2) Religious conservatives cannot answer why they chose to misrepresent the Constitution and it's stance on religious tests for office.
3) Religious conservatives want to destroy the freedom of this country to oppress anyone who disagrees with them, to legislate morality, and basically are exactly what Pharisee's were in the days of Jesus.
You, sir, have not and cannot answer any of these points. You utilize illogical and non-sense logic chopping to make points that have not even a modicum of concurrency with the article as written, and your rebuttal is to hurl Hitler at me?
In the future sir, please utilize the following resources before bothering to even attempt conversation with someone who is not locked into your modes of thinking:
1) Logical fallices -- using these in arguments makes you look like , well, a fool: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ --- there is also an article on that god-hating Wikipedia.
2) State constitutions , since you brought them up in what is supposed to pass for a rebuttal:
Pennsylvania
Religious Freedom
Section 3.
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
Virginia
Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion. (emphasis mine)
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. 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 all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.
New York
[Freedom of worship; religious liberty] (emphasis mine again)
§3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.
...and so on. Almost all of them give thanks to "almighty God" for their liberty. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM sets down Almighty God as the source of law. Not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM sets down a religious test for office. The most psychotic and restrictive I've seen is Maryland, which states :
"Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.
Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place. "
No atheists, in other words. Mind you this language was stricken by Article VI and ratified by all states, which leads me back to my original question. Why do you think you can set aside the law of the land and still maintain you are for freedom when you are not?
Posted By: sarasile
Date: January 6, 2011 04:44:15 AM
Hello, great article. I am a long-time Libertarian Party activist and score 100/100 on the Nolan Chart. I am also a born again christian and yet I have the same position as you, sir, regarding religion and the proper role of government. A quick examination of history will show that religious theocracies do not ever result in good government and certainly not personal liberty either. I also hold that without personal liberty no "moral action" is even possible, as how can one's actions be moral if they have no choice?
Those who quote (selectively, of course) passages from the bible to justify imposing their personal beliefs on others through the (miss)use of the power of government are an abomination. One's religious beliefs/interpretation can and should be the basis of ones' personal morality but unless one can demonstrate some others' behavior is an actual threat to the person or property of themselves or others then they should not insist that government criminalize or regulate others' conduct.
I am so tired of opponents of gay marriage claiming that it would somehow "harm" heterosexual marriages and using scripture to justify their infringement of the right of gays to marry, or to outlaw all abortions, to cite the two most egregious examples, or to justify making war on people of another faith as it seems we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A true Christian, in my mind, uses persuasion, reason and example to influence the behavior of others, except for self defense or defense of another when an actual threat or harm is being done to the life or property of themselves or another. I do understand that the pro-lifers feel they are defending the unborn but for over a thousand years of Anglo-American jurisprudence human government and law do not attach until a child is born alive and outside the womb. To quote some scripture myself here, "judge not, lest you be judged". Christ and Jehovah are the rightful judges, as men are all to prone to hubris and unjustified self-righteousness.
While I must disagree with you for your support of an authoritarian state, I do agree with you that religious belief is not a valid means to justify it. So, what is your justification?
