Friday, April 27, 2007

How Bush Breached the 'Wall of Separation'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

When the US House passed the "Defense of the Ten Commandments" amendment to the juvenile justice bill, zealots of the Religious Right chanted the mantra: the USA is a Christian Nation! A press conference was attended by Gary Bauer and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R, Alabama), the sponsor of the amendment. Aderhold said: "The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of the values this nation was built upon, and the basis of our legal system here in America".

Nonsense! On various message boards, a chant, a mantra was taken up:
The legal foundation of this nation is the Ten Commandments
That, of course, is pure nonsense and recent nonsense at that. It is indicative of just how effective fundamentalist propaganda has been that such absurd ideas have just recently become the subject of public debate. In fact, the "framers" intended to create in this nation a government strictly neutral with regard to religion. Put another way, the US was not founded upon the principles of the Christian religion, nor any religion. This nation did not pattern laws after the Ten Commandants. The Constitution does not derive its authority from God. Bush is not on a mission from God.

I suggest radical fundamentalists read the Constitution, count the number of times the word "God" is used! As E.L. Doctorow so accurately pointed out in his essay, Jack London, Hemingway and the Constitution, the word God is not used once. Nor are the names of any deities used. There is, in fact, no reference to any deity of any religion, no reference to a source of supernatural power, no reference to a transcendent being, a primordial force, a first cause, an elan vital, a non-temporal, non-spatial Platonic ideal, an unmoved mover. The framers were having none of that. This is not merely significant from a legal standpoint. Bluntly, with Faith-Based initiatives, Bush has robbed you and he has done so in the name of God.
Opposition to Bush's faith-based initiatives has come from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both organizations have stated that the initiative represents an unconstitutional merging of church and state.

-- Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives Launched
In constitutional terms, charitable choice boils down to this: religious organizations can receive government money to provide public services without sacrificing their religious character provided (1) the funding scheme does not somehow give bonus points to organizations simply because they are religious, and (2) individual users of the services have meaningful choices among providers and are only exposed to religious providers voluntarily. It’s an approach to First Amendment interpretation that over the last two decades has been gaining ground at the Supreme Court, evidenced most dramatically by this summer’s landmark decision blessing the use of education vouchers at religious schools.
--Dennis R. Hoover, Faith Based Administration
It is doubtful that any of Bush's "faith based initiatives" money has gone to Jewish, Islamic, or, indeed, any organization but Evangelical Christian organizations!
"Bush's faith-based initiative also privileges Christianity above all other religions. After sifting through every grant announcement I could get my hands on from Bush's faith-based offices, I couldn't find a single grant issued to a religious charity that wasn't Christian -- no Jewish charities, no Muslim charities, nothing. And when I spoke with Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, he confirmed that no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group. This kind of religious favoritism is exactly what the Constitution's establishment clause was put in place to prevent."
--Esther Kaplan, Journalist and community activist
This is highway robbery. Unless you are a bible thumping evangelical you have been robbed.
"We will rid the world of evil doers"

--George W. Bush
Bush might have started with himself! Much good could have been done.

The Bush administration represents an insidious, dangerous sea change in how this nation views its own history. Right wing attempts to rewrite our history are insidious and Orwellian. The US, it must be repeated, is not a theocracy. The founders have cited no other authority for their work but the people themselves. God does not get even a footnote.

The US Constitution is not a "Ten Commandants" believed handed down by God. The US Constitution is the work of men, a convention of elected delegates to Philadelphia in 1787. If the Constitution should prove faulty, unworkable, or, in any other way, impractical, the people themselves bear the responsibility.

It is no use blaming God. The US Constitution is an existentialist document, a matter of deliberate choice by a people facing up to the facts of their founding, a people willing to take responsibility for the future they believed they could create. If God is to be summoned, it is done by individuals acting alone and within the dictates of their consciences. It is not done by a theocracy; it is not done by an act of Congress; it is not done by a single article or phrase in the new charter.

What the US Constitution does not do is significant. It does not cite a transcendent being as its source of authority. It does not cite or reference the works of theologians, saints, or prophets. It does not anoint a "King" who, in turn, cites a "divine right" to rule. It does not endorse the Christian religion. Nor "Muslim", nor "Buddhist", "nor "Hindu". It does not mandate worship. It does not mandate a liturgy. It does not mandate a day of worship. The names of deities, religions or sects are not mentioned. It does not use the word "Christian".

The word "myth" is too kind for latter day ideologues who persist in re-writing our nation's history. Assertions that our legal system is founded on the Christian Bible is more than a "myth; it is a deliberate lie manufactured and perpetrated by American fundamentalists like Pat Robertson.
Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.' " Everson, 330 U. S., at 16, quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879). The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose . . . was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31-32 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.).
Following is the quote by Jefferson, referenced by the Justices, in which Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation" between church and state:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
--Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802
The justices have simply buttoned it all up. There is no ambiguity in the decision itself. There is most certainly none in Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation."

We may, however, dispense with some of the persistent myths about our "Christian" founders. For a start, few of them were Christian. Many were deists. Others were atheists.
Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being
--Wikipedia entry for "Deism"
Thomas Paine did say:
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
But Thomas Paine was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. He was not a founder however great his treatise: Common Sense.

Then, of course, there is the opinion of the man who was and is called the Father of his Country, George Washington:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."

George Washington
This sentiment would be echoed in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797:
Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
--1797 Treaty of Tripoli
About that, Tom Peters writes:
Does the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli say that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?" YES!...

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects [sic] the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway. ...
--Tom Peters, 1797 Treaty with Tripoli
I grow weary of this debate that is no debate. Should a fundamentalist stumble upon my blog by accident, let me say this: read my lips. This debate is over. The case is closed. The separation of church and state is complete. That is the law.
To bolster their case, accommodationists have produced reams of quotations from famous early Americans to the effect that religion is important to public life, or that the founders themselves were religious men. As we demonstrate elsewhere, some of these quotes are either fabricated or taken out of context. Others (as we suggest in this section) are taken from people who were either opponents of the Constitution (eg., Patrick Henry), or who played no role in the framing of the Constitution or other important American documents (eg., Daniel Webster). Finally, we argue that the overwhelming majority of these quotations are irrelevant to what's at issue in the separation debate: one can be religious, and even believe that religion is important for public life, without believing that the state should have the power to aid religion, either preferentially or non-preferentially.
--Separation of Church and State Homepage
Fundamentalists have lately tried a different tact, arguing that the wall is "one way". In other words, government may not prohibit or, in any way, interfere with religion but that religion may interfere with the functions of government. But which religion, I wonder. Islam? The late Steve Kangas asserts that that is an impossibility. By definition, religious control i.e, "interference" with the "state" infringes upon the rights of other sects, atheists, deists, or agnostics. The best refutation, however, is found in a decision of the US Supreme Court
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."

The Religous Right will often cite certain isolated professions of faith. In themselves, the quotes fall far short of proving that the founders had in mind founding the nation upon the Christian religion, indeed, creating a Christian theocracy.

Jefferson, moreover, backed up with deeds his belief that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. When Patrick Henry proposed to tax the citizens of Virginia in order to support "some form of Christian worship", Jefferson opposed it. He designed a bill for Religious Freedom which completely separated religion from government in Virginia. His bill passed while none of Henry's "theocratic" ideas were even introduced in either Virginia or US government.

The right will cite other aspects of American history, the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. It must be pointed out, however, that the original pledge, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892, did not contain the words "under God". I remember well when those were words introduced. Moreover, it was not until after the Civil War that US currency had printed on it the words: "In God We Trust".

Nor can fundamentalists find a principle of law in a SCOTUS decision of 1892. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." But Brewer wrote this in dicta i.e., a personal opinion. It does not establish case law. It is not a legal pronouncement. It does not have the force of law. Feeling obliged to explain, Brewer himself stated:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.
It may be left to the scrappy John Adams to close the book on the absurd assertions of religious folk.
"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.
--John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788],
Though he had hopes that " are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice", he foresaw the present debate. In doing so, he gave us the best ammunition against them. Reason! I love his line " will never be pretended that any persons ... had interviews with the gods ..." Isn't it interesting that the 21st Century is in danger of slipping into a new dark age. It is equally interesting that the antidote is found in the lucid minds of 18th Century statesmen - Jefferson, Washington, Adams et al. It is time to put aside the campaign of lies by the Religious Right!

Mixing governance with religion is a bad and discredited idea as evidenced by those who espouse it.
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

--Adolf Hitler
That might well have been said by Falwell, Robertson, Ashcroft, or George W. Bush and the American Taliban of John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Gary Bauer! At last, I refer interested readers to Joseph Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution - especially the significance he attributes to the Preamble which states:
"We the People of the United States, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Significantly, the Preamble does not state that God ordained it, nor, any lawgiver but the people themselves. Nor is the Constitution based - as Gary Bauer had said - on the Ten Commandments. The "Ten Commandants" are not cited in the Constitution. Though it has the tone and voice of "Sacred Text" [See E.L Doctorow previously cited], the only authority cited by the Constitution is that of the people themselves.

According to Joseph Story, a preamble may not enlarge or confer power that is not found in the body of the document:
§ 459. The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute.
§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.
--Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
But until he is impeached, removed, tried, convicted and imprisoned, Bush conducts daily "interviews" with God. He has always implied a special relations between him and a deity of his imagining. It is the basis of his dictatorship! It means that you are always wrong, Bush is always right. He's on a mission from God. He's not just a run of the mill, banana republic, tin horn dictator. He is infallible. He is the Pope!

Before George W. Bush was the Pope, Bertrand Russell was.
Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope". Russell immediately replied, "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."

-- A List of Fallacious Arguments
To close, President John F. Kennedy is certainly among those patriots who understood how absolutely necessary it is to a free state that religion and state be maintained separately.


Anonymous said...

Alas, Jefferson's "separation" sobriquet never made it into our Constitution. Ergo, no "wall" exists. In fact, SCOTUS approved the State's funding of religious indoctrination (guess, what kind) in 2002, provided "alternative" indoctrination is offered, too. The Bill of Rights guarantees the "free exercise of religion," which apparently includes ex-gay torture camps to cure homosexuals for Yahweh. Gitmo is just another "faith-based initiative" of the Fundamentalist kind, where Yahweh's Justice is meeted, along with their ex-gay torture camps. One wonders how Jesus would regard either of these efforts? But Evangelicals do not care about Jesus, they walk with God in their Reconstructed Christian Nation, insistent that this nation was founded on biblical principles, even if NOT ONE biblical principle can be found in any of our founding documents.

"Liberty" and "freedom" in the Bible refers exclusively to "religious liberty and freedom." "Equality and equal" cannot be found anywhere in the Bible, nor can "democracy." "Autonomy," "human rights," "separation of powers," "anti-tyranny," none of the Liberal Ideals of the Enlightenment can be found in the Bible, although they permeate our Constitution.

Finally, "justice" in the Bible is the Yahweh-kind for righteousness, not our sense of "fairness and equity." In fact, the Bible espouses Chosen People, Divinely Elected to their Destiny, which, whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic, is antithetical to Jefferson's "equality." How can equality exist when the Chosen get privileges for Yahweh's Election? Is Moses denied the Promised Land, Yahweh's permission of Satan to torment his righteous servant Job, offering virgin daughters to be raped instead of consensual sodomy, or nailing his Incarnate Son on a tree, "just?" Is Bush? Yahweh and Bush have a lot more in common than not, and Evangelicals relish their power, despite Jesus's opposition to all forms of political power.

This Country has been Hijacked by Religious Fanatics that bear no resemblance to historical Christians, all because we safeguarded "the free exercise of religion." What if it was Islamic? What if it was Heaven's Gate? What if it was Satanic? What if it is New Age Metaphysics? What if it practices torture? Disallows all pleasures (e.g., Prohibition)? In fact, it is all of these religions rolled into Evangelicalism. Praise Jesus. Praise Yahweh. The End is Near!

Anonymous said...

Forget about the Ten Commandments. The US is founded on the laws of Noah!

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush(snr), indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that:

"...the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization."

They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.

You weren't aware that the USA was founded on the laws of Noah? It's here in the library of Congress and it's discussed here. Well, you live and learn. And in case you had forgotten - THERE.IS.NO.LOBBY.

glitteringspear said...

A poster above said the word "equal" isn`t in the Bible, but he is unaware of the Proverb: "The legs of a lame man are not equal, nor a parable in the mouth of fools." "Equal" is used several times in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Yes, "equal" is used 38 times, but in terms or "balanced proportion," not in terms of "equality," as in "all individuals are created equal." The two senses are not the same.

Unknown said...

Alas, Jefferson's "separation" sobriquet never made it into our Constitution.

Of course it did by way of SCOTUS interpretation. I cited the case. Moreover, what is left OUT is of equal significance. Specifically, "God". Had the founders wanted a theocracy, they had only to rewrite the Preamble. They didn't.

Ergo, no "wall" exists.

Of course it does. I cited the case.

The Bill of Rights guarantees the "free exercise of religion," which apparently includes ex-gay torture camps to cure homosexuals for Yahweh.

More precisely...

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.

Anonymous said...

The Court decision cited has been ursurped by the 2002 SCOTUS decision to permit taxpayer-funding of religious indoctrination and faith-based programs (provided non-faith alternatives are also offered). How does a "wall" stand, when taxes support credal and biblical religious indoctrination by the State? The 19th C. decision is moot, the sobriquet not enshrined, and indoctrination now breaching any "wall" that most of us hoped was understood in the 18th C. The "free exercise" is enshrined, which SCOTUS affims allows taxpayer subsidies of religious indoctrination. I vehemently disagree with the decision, but hardly the only one.

Unknown said...

Well, of course, it doesn't! That's why I scream bloody murder.

My only regret is not having the time so far to take apart the 2002 SCOTUS decision you refer to. As they say in radio, stay tuned.

It will not have been the first time SCOTUS screwed up. Bush v Gore, for example, was so bogus that even the justices warned, in cynical proviso, that is MUST NOT be cited as precedent. How blatantly disingenuous can you get?

Bush v Gore, for example, cited the 14th as the pretext for hearing the case. Yet, their decision utterly failed to mandate a remedy consistent with the 14th. What utter bullshit!!

In the meantime, America's only hope is that it regain its sanity, replace the crooks in both WH and SCOTUS, and hope that future decisions will be more in keeping with the "Wall of Separation" - the only legitimate decision that an HONEST court can legitimately return.

Here's a "fundamentalist's" version of recent history: "Gah-uhd" [fundie speak for 'God']is so pissed off at America that he gave unto GWB two high court appointees".

Nameless Cynic said...

While you very accurately pointed out the history behind the separation of church and state, that was not actually the answer to your initial question.

You went into way too much detail on a separate question entirely. The answer to "The Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of American justice!" is simple. Count them up. (There are actually 12 sections to the Commandments, counted differently depending on your flavor of religion.)

I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your parents
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness
You shall not covet your neighbour's wife
You shall not covet your neighbour's house

No matter how you number those, there are only 4 illegal acts on the list - murder, theft, perjury and adultery. And the illegality of adultery varies depending on the jurisdiction you're in.

It doesn't matter which way you count it, though. Neither 30% nor 40% will give you a passing grade on any test.

Unknown said...

I didn't ask a question and then proceed to answer it. Try reading the article.

You went into way too much detail on a separate question entirely.

Hey, it's my blog. I get to raise whatever issue I want and when.

My thesis was not a question. I made an assertion: In fact, the "framers" intended to create in this nation a government strictly neutral with regard to religion. Put another way, the US was not founded upon the principles of the Christian religion, nor any religion.

There is more that I could cite and I may at a later date.

Your long quote of the Ten Commandants is completely irrelevant.

The answer to "The Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of American justice!" is simple. Count them up.

So what? Did you even read the article?

No matter how you number those, there are only 4 illegal acts on the list - murder, theft, perjury and adultery. And the illegality of adultery varies depending on the jurisdiction you're in.

What the hell does that have to do with the separation of church and state? What do you think that proves? I don't think you read the article. Sheesh.

I favor educational reform.