The Founding Fathers, Patriotism, and our "Christian" Nation.
I have been presented several times in the past couple of weeks with opinions and thoughts regarding the nature of the United States. Many people, including our president, have claimed that the United States is a "Christian Nation". Many people who are faithful Christians adhere to the beleif that for a person to be a "Good Christian" they must vote republican. . .because it is the conservative republicans that will stop abortion and keep homosexuals from being able to marry. For some strange reason, the integrety and intactness of their famiy is threatened if Gay people were to have the same rights as other Americans. Go figure. These individuals and groups equate "Patriotism" with political and religious conservatism, and use all of the rhetoric of a Bad Toby Keith song. Flag waving is good, questioning or criticizing the (Republican) president is bad. I should note that I am not a Democrat, nor would I consider myself to be anything other than a political moderate. . .however, the emphasis that is put upon the concept of "patriotism" really is starting to chap my hide. Maybe this is simply a Southern thing, and I read the Atlanta paper too much. Who knows. Regardless, I, being an individual who GREATLY love America and what she stands for resent the hell out of people who think that THEIR view is the only right one, and that diversity gives them liscence to question someone else's patriotism.
The rationale that many use in identifying our "Christian" nation is that our founding fathers were Christian. In many cases, this is true. . .John Hancock and others were indeed faithful Christians, but it is important to note that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were generally considered to be Deists, not christians. Jefferson gave an enormous amount of respect for the teachings of Jesus and called him the greatest Philosopher of all time, but he definately was remiss to attribute divine qualities to him (he even wrote his own version of the Gospels, which included the teachings of Jesus, but left out the miracles, etc.) The concept of the freedom of religion, is, in our present time, frequently touted by fundamentalist Christians to be referring to the right of all Different Christian Denominations to worship as they choose. this is unlikely, as Jefferson said in an 1808 letter to the Virgina Baptists:
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Thus the idea that "freedom of religion" should only be available to Christians is absurd.
I think basically, where this stems from is the desire of many conservative Christians to be able to use the constitution to endorse and validate their desire to legilate morality to other people. I think it comes down to wanting to be able to use the Constitution to be able to enforce their own religious and even political agenda. I think that, ultimately, this is an error, and that the Ideoligies of our founding Fathers, their intention for our nation, and their understanding of Patriotism differs greatly from this foolishness.
First of all, the Constitution was intended to be a document that evolved. . .something that continued to grow and change as people and society did. For an individual to look solely at the thoughts and beleifs of the framers of the Constitution would be a mistake fo their intentions. The mere fact that the constitution was designed to be amended, and through that amendment the nature of our nation has changed, means that the consitution, and the ideologies behind it were NOT written in stone.
Secondly, there is s significant emphasis on civil rights, but not on morality in the constitution. Usually when individuals talk about "morality" they are talking about an individuals sexual habits. The constitution is silent about these things (except maybe the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part). I think that to view our nation as immoral simply because we do not attempt to legilate what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults is a fallacy. I would contend that it is representative of an immoral nation to turn it's back on millions of people dying of AIDS in africa or starvation. . .or diseases that could be easily treated. . .but for so many, Homosexuality is the earmark of immorality. I think that Outspoken Politicians who use Fundamentalist Christianity to further their personal advancement are really BIG to throw out words like "Christian Values", but really could care less. Jesus talked a heck of a lot more about feeding the hungry than he did about homosexuality or abortion. I think that our founding fathers were more concerned about what they considered to be "inalienable rights" and "civil rights" than they were about things like sexual mores, etc. I think alot of politicians could learn from bo0th Jesus and our founding fathers in this area.
Thirdly, and along those lines, we DO need to keep in mind that there is a difference between leadership and politics. One is striving for the common good, the other is striving for prestige and power. The ego-ridden state of our present political system appears to be pretty far away from what the founding fathers tried to achieve with the Constitution. . .where a two party political system was something to be avoided. The plight that we have today, is that there are few politicians that can be trusted, and they adopt platforms based on what they think is going to develop the greater constituency, rather than what is really good or right. Again, the "Liberals" cater to their own special interest groups, and the conservatives do as well. . .all the time, big businesses are backing the players in BOTH parties. The republicans, who are dependent upon fundamentalists like falwell and robertson for their endorsements, are by their nature, going to maintain a platform against abortion and homosexuality, while the democrats, soliciting the support of organizations like ACLU, and NOW, are going to adamantly oppose these things. . .all the while, economic stability, the need for workable educations systems, relief to the inner cities (which are little more than 3rd world countries within our urban areas), and partnership with other governemnts to create workable solutions to worldwide problems like illiteracy, hunger, and disease.
Is this what the founding fathers intended? I would think that our pioneer philosphers were hopeful for something better when they established a government to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Maybe I am an optimist, or maybe my patriotism is a little more deeply rooted than to be moved by the charade of leadership that we have seen in the last 45 years in this country.
The rationale that many use in identifying our "Christian" nation is that our founding fathers were Christian. In many cases, this is true. . .John Hancock and others were indeed faithful Christians, but it is important to note that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were generally considered to be Deists, not christians. Jefferson gave an enormous amount of respect for the teachings of Jesus and called him the greatest Philosopher of all time, but he definately was remiss to attribute divine qualities to him (he even wrote his own version of the Gospels, which included the teachings of Jesus, but left out the miracles, etc.) The concept of the freedom of religion, is, in our present time, frequently touted by fundamentalist Christians to be referring to the right of all Different Christian Denominations to worship as they choose. this is unlikely, as Jefferson said in an 1808 letter to the Virgina Baptists:
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Thus the idea that "freedom of religion" should only be available to Christians is absurd.
I think basically, where this stems from is the desire of many conservative Christians to be able to use the constitution to endorse and validate their desire to legilate morality to other people. I think it comes down to wanting to be able to use the Constitution to be able to enforce their own religious and even political agenda. I think that, ultimately, this is an error, and that the Ideoligies of our founding Fathers, their intention for our nation, and their understanding of Patriotism differs greatly from this foolishness.
First of all, the Constitution was intended to be a document that evolved. . .something that continued to grow and change as people and society did. For an individual to look solely at the thoughts and beleifs of the framers of the Constitution would be a mistake fo their intentions. The mere fact that the constitution was designed to be amended, and through that amendment the nature of our nation has changed, means that the consitution, and the ideologies behind it were NOT written in stone.
Secondly, there is s significant emphasis on civil rights, but not on morality in the constitution. Usually when individuals talk about "morality" they are talking about an individuals sexual habits. The constitution is silent about these things (except maybe the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part). I think that to view our nation as immoral simply because we do not attempt to legilate what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults is a fallacy. I would contend that it is representative of an immoral nation to turn it's back on millions of people dying of AIDS in africa or starvation. . .or diseases that could be easily treated. . .but for so many, Homosexuality is the earmark of immorality. I think that Outspoken Politicians who use Fundamentalist Christianity to further their personal advancement are really BIG to throw out words like "Christian Values", but really could care less. Jesus talked a heck of a lot more about feeding the hungry than he did about homosexuality or abortion. I think that our founding fathers were more concerned about what they considered to be "inalienable rights" and "civil rights" than they were about things like sexual mores, etc. I think alot of politicians could learn from bo0th Jesus and our founding fathers in this area.
Thirdly, and along those lines, we DO need to keep in mind that there is a difference between leadership and politics. One is striving for the common good, the other is striving for prestige and power. The ego-ridden state of our present political system appears to be pretty far away from what the founding fathers tried to achieve with the Constitution. . .where a two party political system was something to be avoided. The plight that we have today, is that there are few politicians that can be trusted, and they adopt platforms based on what they think is going to develop the greater constituency, rather than what is really good or right. Again, the "Liberals" cater to their own special interest groups, and the conservatives do as well. . .all the time, big businesses are backing the players in BOTH parties. The republicans, who are dependent upon fundamentalists like falwell and robertson for their endorsements, are by their nature, going to maintain a platform against abortion and homosexuality, while the democrats, soliciting the support of organizations like ACLU, and NOW, are going to adamantly oppose these things. . .all the while, economic stability, the need for workable educations systems, relief to the inner cities (which are little more than 3rd world countries within our urban areas), and partnership with other governemnts to create workable solutions to worldwide problems like illiteracy, hunger, and disease.
Is this what the founding fathers intended? I would think that our pioneer philosphers were hopeful for something better when they established a government to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Maybe I am an optimist, or maybe my patriotism is a little more deeply rooted than to be moved by the charade of leadership that we have seen in the last 45 years in this country.
posted by Thomas J. at 7/12/2006 07:44:00 PM
6 Comments:
We are dangerously headed toward out and out fascism, and most people won't get concerned about it until another country/countries take it upon themselves to inform us. Come to think of it, they did that on 9/11, and nobody got concerned anyway.
I totally agree. . .I think this is why the separation of Church and state were initiated. . once that line is crossed, it is a slippery slope. Undoubtedly, the current administration feels that it is justified in anything it does, based on it's ideologies. All of this grand rhetoric is simply a mask to cover greed and lust for power.
It is interesting to me to hear the White House try to make the link between the events in Lebanon and Iran (W's new target). All that has happened can;t just be the activities of a repressed people threatened by the posturing of a hostile government on it's borders. . .it has to be some massive conspiricy by "Terrorists". Fascits, indeed.
The sad thing is, that people fail to realize what it is that fuels the fire of these third world extremeists. It is the collusion between the american military and the corporations. The targets of 9/11 were not selected at random. They are representative of the forces in america that are responsible for the oppression of their homes and people were indeed the target of the terrorist attacks.
Please don;t misunderstand me, I am NOT saying that the attacks were justified. Let me say again, I do NOT think that the attackswere justified or deserved. The bottom line is, however, that Osama Bin Laden was hand-picked and trained by the american military. . once his usefulness expired, he was cut loose. The cultrues in that part of the country have been exploited in a criminal way.
It is as if you train an attack dog to be mean, then turn him loose in the neighborhood, provoke him with your kids out in the yard, and then get pissed when he bites your kids.
OBL is a mean dog. It is wrong that the people have been hurt by him and killed by him who have. It is also wrong that the american governemtn created this monster, turned him loose, and then continued to exploit the same region that they trained him to "liberate"
I had better stop now before the FBI or OHS comes to knock on my door.
Wow Thomas, so much that I would like to add AMEN to, but I thought I might keep this brief.
1
I don't think George Bush is a buffoon or as stupid as some of the more flippant media portray him. But I just cannot understand why his government and advisors don't flood places like Iran, North korea, Syria, etc with aid and humanitarian programs. Surely they are wise enough to see the advantages of making friends with your enemies? Is it that they are so afraid of negative domestic opinion in such a policy?
2
The rise of the Christian fundamenatilst right has its place in my country (suffice to say that I need all my godly and Christ-likeness to live with these, my brothers and sisters). But it is also tempered by an older and more socialist based christianity that is hugely concerned with the disadvantaged and downtrodden (praise God). The two live somewhat in harmony and neither holds any dominant political sway. I would assume that you have similar groups in the US?
3
Thanks for the courage for putting all this out there. I know that some people really take these kinds of thoughts hard and immediately shut down or become abusive, thinking you are some kind threat to their freedom and security (I do know where they get this, I think there are those on the left who are far more intolerant than anything I've ever seen from the right). All debate becomes impossible in these circumstances, and it is the debate we must all have.
God Bless
Leo
Thanks Leo. . you need to have your own blog. . .you have so much good to say (but then of course I would not have the pleasure of your company here!)
Regarding your first point--I beleive the Bush administration is far less concerned with humanitarian aid, democracy, and human rights as he wants to protray. I think that this is largely about American Imperialism and the desire to have military and governmental control in the Middle East in order to exploit the Oil Wealth that is there. To help create stable, democratic, self-sufficient governments is counter productive to those aims. To destabilize the region and to continue provoking the extremeist groups there will "prove" the necessity of a military occupation of the region.
In regard to your second point--The american culture has about a 20 second attention span. What is news today will be forgotten tomorrow, unless it is sensationalistic and histrionic. As a result, there is very little follow through on any proposition. This is charachteristic of the nature of fundamentalist Christianity that does alot to decry "immorality" but it usually ends there. There appears to be very little going on regarding true humanitarianism, but, for reasons stated above, it may simply be because of the lack of media coverage. Doing good is not sensational enough.
Regarding your third point--thank you so much for the compliment, but I am not sure that it is deserved. I think of myself as far less courageous than I am self-indulgent--I just don't know when to shut my damned mouth. It will get me in trouble one of these days. You really want to talk about courage? You talk to the people who have gone over to the middle east and served because it is their duty. You talk about the people who are bold enough to live their beleifs. You talk about the humanitarian aid workers who put their lives ont eh line to help others in dangerous parts of the world. THAT is courage.
Thanks for your comments Thomas. (And, by the way, you are quite right, I don't want anything I say here to diminish the courage and integrity of those who serve in the armed forces.)
But I have to ask, why do you think the US wants a military and executive-like control in places like the Middle East? Isn't this just bowing to the fears of a fearful voting public?
Ok, I'm going on a rant now - I expect our governments to be better than that. They are made up of well-educated, moneyed and powerfully connected people. For God's sake open up aid (increase it a thousandfold) into the Middle East, broker a deal through Syria and Iran and shut the war in Iraq down. They could do this.
But what about terrorists, won't they prosper in places that we don't control? You know if we put a fraction of the money and effort into monitoring these nations through the UN of what we are currnetly paying to keep our armies fighting in Irag and Afghanistan then we would be as safe as we are now.
Why don't we do it? Why isn't there a lobby for it? I only know one politician who speaks along these lines. Dear God, this just cuts me up.
Leo
Actually, Leo, I personally beleive that it is related to corporate gain. . .The ush administration and most of it's cronies have ties to Oil companies, etc. They are going to PERSONALLY benefit financially if they have military control in the Middle east. This is a situation of an attempt at economic totalitarianism. A way of making sure that ALL of the Oil is under the control of the few american countries.
Post a Comment
<< Home