Great. Just great. A writer for my college newspaper who
previously wrote a column attacking Park51 is now out with a brand new masterpiece: "
www.news.sjsu.edu/31239/separation-of-church-and-state-misquoted-and-misunderstood." That's right, echoing Christine O'Donnell's
misguided complaint that the Constitution does not even specify S of C&S:
Many people would like to see 76 percent of the country — who claim to hold to Judeo-Christian values — forsake their heritage, culture, opinions and values.
The often-used argument I hear to block the 76 percent from asserting their opinions is the so-called Constitutional separation-of-church-and-state argument.
No matter how much you search, that misquoted phrase won’t be found in the Constitution — or even in the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, also know as the Establishment Clause, reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Do you see anything about the separation of church and state in that amendment?
It began in an 1801 letter to Thomas Jefferson, who was president at the time, from the Danbury Baptists Association.
The letter asserts that no government should make laws to govern the church because freedom of religion is an inalienable right, not a favor granted by the legislature.
In other words, the state should keep out of the church’s business, not that the church should keep from expressing their values in the public square.
In the original 1802 reply letter, Jefferson wrote, “confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that.”
It is in Jefferson’s reply letter the phrase separation of church and state appears, but the context is transparent — so that the powers of government should not prevail over the church, or establish a national or state religion.
It is clear the intention was not to provide state and government agencies the authority to keep those of faith from expressing their views in any public arena.
(links suppressed here but are cited in the original link.)
Regarding that last statement:
Cenk Uygur would say: "Of cooooourse!"
But then said author curves toward the Christian nation argument by citing American historical influences from Christianity:
The fact is that the very first American textbook, “The New England Primer,” used in the colonies in 1690 finds its origins in the Bible. And that makes it a part of America’s heritage.
The fact is that even though Obama recently omitted the words “endowed by their creator” when quoting from the Declaration of Independence, those words are a part of it.
The Declaration, signed by countless men of education and reputation, is also a part of American heritage.
Harvard, the oldest institution of higher education in America, established in 1636, began as a college that trained ministers. Part of its rules and precepts included knowing God and Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.
Harvard is also part of the American culture.
Oh yes, one more thing — have you read a dollar bill lately? It reads, “In God We Trust.” That is definitely part of American culture.
But guess what? Harvard is no longer a religious university, and the Declaration of Independence was written before evolution was even discovered.
Now for the silliest part:
Those with the greatest claims of diversity and tolerance are the very ones intolerant to those who dare to express Judeo-Christian values.
It’s the one heritage and culture the tolerant crowd seems set on obliterating from America.
Regardless of what this nation is now, the principles of the Bible and Christian values cannot be separated from American history.
The argument? America is a Christian nation, and believing otherwise (i.e. advocating a secular, multicultural society) is bigoted.
And regarding tolerance, well, it's pretty hard to tolerate "those who dare to express Judeo-Christian values" when they've often been advocating against gay rights and pushing for censorship of any media that offends the most extreme prudes (Parents Music Resource Center? Satanic Panic anyone?) and been openly fantasizing about a theocratic society run by Biblical law.
I searched around DU for discussion of this right-wing talking point. I found
this thread from Dec. 2005 in response to a mass email from the American Family Association denouncing a multicultural holiday education among other threads.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
