Contra Christian Nationalism

For me, the most frightening aspect of the George W. Bush presidency was the prominence given to Christian Nationalists. Based on things like references to “God” on Federal buildings, these right-wingers proclaim that our nation was founded as a “Christian” nation and our government should therefore promote and enforce “Christianity” in our laws and schools. And by “Christianity” they mean fundamentalist Christianity, the kind that believes in the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

I want to point out that several individuals who were prominent in the founding of our nation were not Christians in this sense. They believed there was a “God”, but they did not accept traditional Christian theology.

Tom Paine
Mr. Paine spurred the hearts of the American colonists toward Revolution with his renowned essays “Common Sense” and “The American Crisis.” For these words he was celebrated. At a later date, however, he wrote an essay deeply critical of the Bible and Christianity, commenting,

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity.” [The Age of Reason, Ch. 3, p. 100]

After he published this essay, he was reviled and abandoned.

Ethan Allen
Ethan Allen is a famous war hero of the American Revolution. Less well known is the fact he did not consider himself a Christian:

“In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one....” [Preface to Reason, the Only Oracle of Man]

Thomas Jefferson
I have mentioned Mr. Jefferson’s views in an earlier post, but they bear repeating as a challenge to those who claim that he and the other Founders intended to establish a Christian nation. In brief, Mr. Jefferson believed in a God and admired Jesus, but rejected “Christianity” as a perversion of Jesus’s principles:

“...But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State....” [Letter To S. Kercheval, 1810]

Ben Franklin
Ben participated in many of the conventions leading to the foundation of the United States of America. He believed in the existence of a Deity, but he had this to say regarding 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 is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity....”

I am not suggesting that these leaders were atheists or that they represented the beliefs of the majority of our nation’s founders. My point is that there was not even a universal belief in traditional Christianity among the founders. How then can we say that that they wanted to create a "Christian" nation?

Indeed, Founder and President John Adams later signed a treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, with the following clause:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Article 11, the version in English]

Finally, I note that James Madison, one of the principal architects of the U. S. Constitution, had this objection to a government action which would establish Christianity as the State religion:

"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." [Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785), Clause #7]

In his view, government should not establish a coalition with Religion at all. I agree with him entirely.

Alex Budarin

The Little Teabag Realty Company

You know you’re not a Racist. You just want to live where there are no taxes, no unions, no gun control, no regulations, no welfare, and a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub. You want to live in SOMALIA!

There’s no need to take this country back. Somalia is already there! Make your Tea Party dream come true. Come home to Somalia!

www.my-tea-party-dream.com

"Have You Thought About Somalia?"®

(Photo source here)

A Republic AND a Democracy!

When I first saw Conservative bumperstickers shouting, “A Republic, Not a Democracy!,” I could not understand what the fuss was about. Were they saying that Democracy was bad? Impossible! Ronald Reagan reportedly said that “Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.” Were they saying that the USA was not a democracy? George W. Bush would disagree. He once said that Philadelphia was “the city where America's democracy was born.”

To understand the slogan, I had to survey the Conservative blogosphere. There I discovered that the slogan was derived from two propositions: that a “Republic” is materially different from a “Democracy;” and that the delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention had sought to create a “Republic,” as opposed to a “Democracy.”

The first proposition is said to be a matter of definition. A “Democracy” is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections.” A “Republic” is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”

I read these definitions and conclude that a Republic is a form of indirect Democracy. But Conservatives read these definitions and conclude that a Democracy is based on the sovereignty of the people collectively, whereas a Republic is based on the sovereignty of individual citizens. Put another way, Conservatives argue that a government in which “the people” exercise power through elected representatives is materially different from a government in which “a body of citizens entitled to vote” exercises power through elected representatives. I think they are ignoring the fact that, in a Democracy, “the people” in whom supreme power resides amounts to the “body of citizens entitled to vote.” No vote, no power. That is why American women demanded the right to vote. That is why Southern Whites created laws to disenfranchise non-White voters.

As for the second proposition, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention sought to create a “Republic,” as opposed to a “Democracy,” on the basis of practicality. Delegate James Madison explained that, “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the Government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” It was based on this definition of "Democracy" that he argued in favor of a Republic, because only a small territory would permit remote citizens to assemble and participate directly in their government. In the end, however, Delegate James Wilson declared that he would describe the Constitution thus: “In its principles, Sir, it is purely democratical....”

I conclude that Conservatives are bellowing “A Republic, not a Democracy!” simply because they refuse to acknowledge responsibility for the American people collectively. Probably because their fellow Americans include Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, liberals, Democrats, Muslims, atheists, intellectuals and other people they hate. Personally, I don’t care if they hate me. But don’t say the Constitution justifies Conservative policies of hatred and privilege.

Happy 4th of July, fellow democrats!

Alex Budarin