Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Christian Nation?
On August 6, 2007, the New York Times reported on an interesting dispute between the campaign of Sam Brownback and that of Mike Huckabee. According to Times reporter Sarah Wheaton, the following remark set off the dispute:
"'I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002," Mr. Rude wrote. "Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's." The message struck some as an attempt to highlight Mr. Brownback's Catholicism in a state with a large Protestant electorate.
The comment interested and even amused me, because on another website, I've recently been fielding comments from people who believe that we live in "a Christian nation." Yet here they were, Catholic and Protestant political figures, quarreling just as they did back in the 16th and 17th centuries-the very reason that a separation was proposed between Church and State.
My correspondents also informed me that the Founders were personally devout and orthodox in their views and that the Constitution was derived from the Bible. No doubt they also believe that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our legal system (actually, it's the Code of Justinian.)
It's hard to figure where in the Bible my correspondents found any discussion of checks and balances, the separation of powers, the regulation of commerce, or impeachment.
What about the influence of John Locke? I asked them. Locke, himself a devout Christian from a Puritan family, inspired Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom written in 1777 and passed, thanks to James Madison, in 1786. Jefferson's statute is particularly indebted to Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), which you can read in its entirety here. In it Locke declared, "Neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing."
As Locke knew, religious strife-not only between Catholics and Protestants, but among Protestants-had resulted in "factions, tumults, and civil wars," causing the death or exile of thousands of Europeans. "It is not the diversity of opinions (which cannot be avoided)," Locke wrote, "but "the refusal of toleration to those that are of different opinions (which might have been granted) ... that has produced all the bustles and wars that have been in the Christian world upon account of religion." The only way to avoid such conflicts was to separate Church and State, he concluded, because
"If each of them [Church and State] would contain itself within its own bounds - the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls - it is impossible that any discord should ever have happened between them."
Locke was not only the first influential proponent of religious toleration and freedom. His ideas inspired every Revolutionary in the Founding generation-all those who signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Ideas, passages, and phrases from his two treatises on civil government are echoed in numerous speeches and pamphlets of the American Revolution, including those of the teenaged Alexander Hamilton.
Right now, both a Marxist group and the right-wing Young Americans for Freedom, as well as many universities, have the second treatise of Locke posted online. Although the YAF calls it "a timeless classic of conservative thought," Locke is widely considered to be the father of liberalism, in the original sense of that word. The renowned historian C. Vann Woodward wrote of "the Lockean liberal consensus, from Benjamin Franklin to Abraham Lincoln, and on down." All major American statesmen and politicians, Woodward asserted, have been to varying degrees "apostles of Locke" and thus "liberals under the skin."
It's therefore all the more unfortunate that American citizens like my recent correspondents are ignorant of, or hostile to, our intellectual history and credit the Bible for every idea under the sun. It's unfortunate also that the MSM, particularly CNN, sees fit to interrogate presidential candidates about their "faith," because such interrogation is profoundly un-American. " I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another," wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1816. And to the scientist Joseph Priestly Jefferson complained:
"The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion & government, by whom it has been recommended, & whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure."
Carol Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley, an M.F.A. from Vermont College, and a B.A. in Comparative Literature from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her poems have appeared in many literary journals, including The Paris Review, The North American Review, Poetry Miscellany, The Gettysburg Review, Salmagundi, Poetry Scotland, and Frank (in Paris). Poems are forthcoming soon in DoubleTake (Johns Hopkins UP).

126 Comments so far
Show AllAs I was reading 'Things Fall Apart' by Chinua Achebe I realized that he was describing that deadly triad consisting of The Missionaries, The Merchants and The Military. America seems to be inflicted with the same deadly triad. I think that the missionaries are the most distructive because people lose their footing when they start to trust in the gods of Someone Else.
Every God and Goddess, every Heaven and Hell, every Saint and Sinner lies within us. Our life goal is to unite our self with the Self and everyone must search for the Holy Grail themself, going in a group is a disgrace. Organized religion is a self fulfilling racket in whatfools' opinion
Someone here mentioned the Code of Hammurabi as the basis of the Ten Commandments and all other moral codes since. This is something a lot of people seem to believe. If you're interested, Google for it (the first listing is the easiest to use). If you can find anything resembling the Ten Commandments, congratulations! I can't. There are 282 items, so be prepared for a long session of - well, pure horror.
I am as frightened if not more by Christians than I am of Muslims only because of the Christians that live in the out-of-control US who are pushing their agendas.
For another insight into how the founding fathers felt about the separation of church and state, see the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli which was ratified by the U.S. on June 10, 1797.
Article 11 begins "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
Ms. Hamilton is also wrong about the earliest source of American law. It's the English common law (made by judges), Parliamentary statutes and (of course) Magna Carta, not Justinian's Code, though the latter heavily influenced the law codes of Continental Europe.
Even earlier;
Code of Hammurabi from that backwater of Mesopotamia.
Fantastic essay. The first two sentences of the Locke Letter on Toleration contain the key:
"Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ."
Since power is the ruling force of politics, Christianity as a tool within political circles is an instrument used to acquire or advance power. The Gospel unequivocally celebrates service and condemns the lust for power, so in many ways the pursuit of power through politics is the polar opposite of Christianity.
Certainly, though, if we look at the way the business of the state is conducted, and we look at the way private business is allowed to operate -- we can clearly see that no one needs to worry that the US is a Christian nation.
I would imagine it would be quite difficult to convince most Iraqis that we are a Christian nation, seeing as how Christ is a major prophet in Islam and they are quite familiar with His teachings. And, anyone who can stand to take an honest look at the way we get on at work, in public, and in relation to other peoples around the world would be forced to conclude that we are currently quite close to the opposite of Christianity.
In fact, if an evil deity could retrofit America to its specifications, one wonders if any changes would be proposed.
One literally damning bit of evidence is the massive sex appeal of Ayn Rand's Objectivism in the US. If Americans were Christian, Objectivism would have no followers here and its ideas would be dismissed wholesale. But, in reality Objectivism is a very smart philosophy if one wants to succeed in the US accepting the terms of success as understood conventionally -- principally, acquisition of wealth and power and fame.
In a sense, the separation of Church and State maybe was too successful. The great irony is that these conservatives which operate in office in adherence to systems opposed to Christianity are those that pose as Christians to get in. That's terribly funny.
American Muslims, or at least their organizations--like the Council for American-Islamic Relations--have also started giving orders even though they're less than 2% of the population.
1. Demanding employer and public school accommodations for prayer times, which change from day to day; see, e.g. http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007/07/23/news/nebraska/doc46a3c6a2bc45c702275063.txt and http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070702-9999-1n2prayer.html
2. At Minneapolis airport, Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport alcohol--and this is a big deal because for some reason 3/4 of the cab drivers are Muslim http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm
3. Demanding the right to testify in court (Michigan) or get a driver's license photo (Florida) with face veiled http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6402346 and http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/florida.license.veil/
4. Demanding and getting footbaths in public restrooms so they can wash feet before prayer; these footbaths are to be paid for by student fees http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/SCHOOLS/706050368
5. In Canada they wanted sharia to become enforceable by the judiciary in family law disputes http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126181967010_31/?hub=TopStories
While the Christian Reconstructionists, creationists and all their ilk deserve the bad press they get on this and other web sites, Islamists also bear close attention. They are trying to reshape American and other Western societies to fit sharia. And through CAIR they have connections in high places.
It IS interesting that the calls for religious freedom and religious moderation came from devout Christians. No other religion that I know of produced people in power calling for understanding and FULL rights for those of another faith. Yet Christians are the ones vilified as intolerant today.
commoncensorship
Can you say "spam"?
Many codes of laws predate christianity and Moses. Most banned killing. And yet the christians would have the 10 commandments carved in stone outside court houses where death sentences are handed down. If they weren't too stupid to see the irony it might even make them laugh.
Taken literally the bible would sanction the killing of JFK for adultery. And I would have paid money to be in on the stoning to death of Ronald Reagan for divorcing his wife and marrying someone else. If only these people took the bible literally when it suited them...
It saddens me as I see more and more Christian religionists push for their brand of faith to be the "one, true faith" that no one as ever asked these questions:
"What armies did Jesus raise?"
"What political offices did he seek?"
"Who and when did Jesus declare an enemy?"
"When did Jesus play the victim card?"
"When did Jesus renounce Judaism to start Christianity?"
"What laws did he change to his advantage?"
A cursory reading of the Bible reveals that none of these things occurred. Yet there are people out there with their own agendas for self-enrichment that say and do these things in his name.
When are the true followers of Christ going to say, "Enough!" ?
"It IS interesting that the calls for religious freedom and religious moderation came from devout Christians." -- sigma
Actually, Muhammed wrote religious tolerance into the Koran, and merely required a tribute (tax) from any non-Islamic religious organization on predominantly Muslim land for it to continue operation. Moderate Muslims are well aware of this; the so-called fundie-extremists, who have been corrupted by tyrannical leaders, have strayed away from it, while corrupting the true meaning of the word "jihad" from a "spiritual conflict" to a physical one.
The wealthy corporate elite are most responsible for this accent on religious reactionism in U.S. politics. It follows their desire to prevent any real progressive changes in a nation where they have become extremely comfortable with the way things are (wealth and power-wise). Such people fear progressive changes because many of those changes may include socialist reforms, concepts that threaten to reduce their power and profits.
By ignoring history and playing their religious-ignorance hands, they hope to dumb-down Americans and keep them dumbed-down, just the way they like them.
The Four Noble Truths
1. Life is suffering;
2. Suffering is due to attachment;
3. Attachment can be overcome;
4. There is a path for accomplishing this.
The Eightfold Path
1. Right view is the true understanding of the four noble truths.
2. Right aspiration is the true desire to free oneself from attachment, ignorance, and hatefulness.
3. Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk.
4. Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex.
5. Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals.
6. Right effort is a matter of exerting oneself in regards to the content of one's mind: Bad qualities should be abandoned and prevented from arising again; Good qualities should be enacted and nurtured.
7. Right mindfulness is the focusing of one's attention on one's body, feelings, thoughts, and consciousness in such a way as to overcome craving, hatred, and ignorance.
8. Right concentration is meditating in such a way as to progressively realize a true understanding of imperfection, impermanence, and non-separateness.
I reckon all of those Buddhist's won't be "raptured" up but they probably do not dwell on such nonsense as the rapture and Armageddon and other man made spooks. There is much to be learned in a world where not only is your mind open but your heart is as well.
I must go now and seek cleansing after revealing and harboring ill-conceived thoughts about the religious bullies that run this country and the ignorant sheep that follow. I try to politely put up with them but some times are harder than others. I do not know all of the answers if any at all but I am mostly tolerant of those who pick and choose their exceeded limitations and then lie to their selves about it. At least I try but I am a failure at times and so I must try harder.
Christianity starts in the heart not in the mouth or at least it seems it should… but what do I know…
This is a very IMPORTANT article.
MIRF59: You made some excellent points except you conclude that the irony of those masquerading as Christians is FUNNY. Indeed it is anything BUT funny (and this goes to SIGMA'S insulated view of a Christianity perhaps based on her own sincerity, but miles apart from what is spreading like a cancer via the evangelical TV & church networks) in that this contingent represents a potential 50 million voters who are the ones supporting Bush's abysmal policies of DESTRUCTION. They are so naive, racist or stupid as to believe that just the NAME of Christ can be used as some kind of talismanic rationale and protection against policies that are not only opposed to everything Christ as teacher of Peace taught, but due to the inversion of Christ's teachings are tantamount to the ANTI-CHRIST energy that was prophesied by several mystical sources.
Is there a greater abomination that taking the name of God, any God (there IS a Supreme Divine Intelligence but we humans are not up to the tasks of either defining it or understanding it) to support the DESTRUCTION of Creation and all those tribes that are like a rainbow of branches from the tree of Life?
Couple this insanity with actual facts on the ground re: depleted uranium, the WISH to use nuclear war on a sovereign people, and the dangerous mental disease that is enabling the world's richest, most militaristically endowed nation with the WILL to keep on killing. Christian nation? I cannot imagine what Christ and the BEINGS of the spiritual hierarchy must make of this mutiny!
You can not legislate morality. It has never worked. Abstinence only sex programs don't work either, to be specific. Religion and reason have always clashed. Religion may make you feel good, that you are special, but that just feeds the ego. Making it easier for one group to step on the "non-believers". We are all the same, we all bleed red blood. And this one planet is all we have.
Thank You AMOS for the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. Materialism, and dishonesty of thought and action cause so much suffering.
George Carlin suggests another commandment: Thy shall keep thy religion to thyself.
Indijo, While I agree with some of what you said, "Muhammed wrote religious tolerance into the Koran , and merely required a tribute (tax)from any non-Islamic religious organization on predominantly Muslim land for it to continue operation." is not really the whole story.
First, the jizya (A tax for basically the right to not be killed) was paid by individuals first, religious organizations second. 2. The paying of the tax was not enough, according to the Koran, they must also "feel themselves subdued". 3. People of "the book" were not permited to build new churchs or repair old ones.4. They were not allowed to ride a horse. 5. They had to move out of the way if a moslem happened by. 6. They had to wear identifying clothing. 7. Men could not marry moslem women. 8. They could not testify in court against a moslem.9.They were not allowed to buy property from a muslim, but had to sell if approached by a muslim. Ect. Not exactly the full rights called for in the article by Locke.
.
This is not some long ago concept, it still goes on today.
indjio beat me to it correcting Sigma. But to add to it, in a time when Jews in Europe were suffering pogroms, they were being protected in Islamic contries as "people of the Book."
As to calls for religious freedom in the founding of the U.S., many of the founders were Deists. They had seen the result of religious intollerance in the wars in Europe, and seen it's fruits among the Puritans of Massechusetts. Furthermore, without the separation of Church from State as part of the Constitution, there could have been no U.S.
States varied in their religious proclivities depending on which group had founded the colony, and had reason to fear domination by any particualr creed. Maryland was founded by Catholics fleeing persecution. Massechusetts by Puritans fleeing persecution in England, and axious to turn the tables in their new home - not foster religious freedom at all. And so on.
The Christians today that are condemned for being intollerant, are only a particular strain of Christianity. On their radio networks they refer to themselves as Christian - and their beliefs as what Christians must believe - and yet the majority of Christian denominations do not share their beliefs. Yet they try to confuse the isue and claim the whole territory by never referring to their denomination, or even calling themselves "Non-denominational." And yet you know that adherents of the main Protestant churches, to say nothing of Unitarians, would feel most unwelcome amongst them.
My own ancestors were of the Society of Friends (Quakers) who fled religious persecution first from England then from Puritans in Mass. They finally landed in Pa. I appreciate the distinction between what I call "hate" christians and the majority of quite Christians like my ancestors. As for myself, my first roomate in college was a "hate" christian. When he found out that my Dad (who had passed away when I was 15) did not practice as he did, he said that he was sorry but he was "roasting in hell". I immediatly punched him in the face, and was thrown out of the dorm. I have had no tolerance for such people ever since.
If judged by their collective actions, Americans are no more "christian" than Charles Manson
turn the other cheek?
do unto others?
the meek share inheret?
HAHAHAHAHA
Militant liberal is wrong himself. Consider, for example, this passage from Reeves' History of the English Law: From the Time of the Romans...:
" It would be a great error to suppose that the Saxon
laws contained all the law the Saxons had. They derived
a whole system of laws and institutions from the Romans;
their written laws were only additions thereto, and for the
most part rude and barbarous. When the Saxons, like
the other barbarian nations which had conquered portions
of the Roman empire,became desirous of forming a regular
law, they could do no more at first than put into writing
their own barbarous usages. But by degrees they became
sensible of their barbarism; they learnt a better law, and
there grew up among them an unwritten law, derived from
the traditions of the Roman law, which remained when
their own rude written laws had become obsolete. And
hence a constant struggle after something better — a continual tendency towards the laws and institutions of
Rome. "
And Sigma seems to have missed the point of the article entirely!
Most organized religions fall victim to the egos of their priests, ministers, imams. etc. who imagine they possess the true word of God, Allah, etc., when in fact they lust for power over the minds and bodies of millions of people, which becomes a virtual satanic perversion as they launch religious wars in which millions are slaughtered, more over the centuries than Hitler and Stalin combined.
America too is susceptible to pseudo Christian fanatical madness, even to the extent that our insane President is deliberately maneuvering the World toward a nuclear World War Three to fulfill his Biblical prophesy of Armageddon, while the people cower in ignorance and fear, hoping God will protect them, or that it will all just go away - but it is whithin themselves, so they cannot escape.
As I have said before, lack of historical knowledge is crucial. The article shows how such ignorance is used to promote an agenda of almost any sort. Of course, our "tolerant" "founders" were also quite intolerant when not of their "race"--enslaving black Africans and carrying out a diliberate policy of "ethnically clensing [genocide]" Native Americans--an interesting omission.
I'm definitely more afraid of KKKhristians than I am of any other cult. They have their fingers on nukes!
Aren't Christianity, Islam, and Judaism from the same Jewish roots and as such related to one another? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Christians I've met who were actually kind and gentle, so I'm not impressed with the USA being a Christian nation. I'm more impressed with the nonviolent religion of Buddhism. I guess I was born in the wrong country.
There were three Buddhism monks who came to the town where I live in this Republican state. They were here for only one day, but wouldn't you know the right-wing Christian fundies were outside demonstrating against them. I've NEVER heard of Buddhists doing that to another religion. Buddhists are tolerant and respectful of other religions and don't proselytize and send missionaries around to convert people to their religion. They don't believe in violence, war, killing, revenge, etc.
Hey canuckchuck, soon your country will be part of the good ol'USA, so I guess it's ok for you to post. But think about he who laughs last.
Locke along with Marx, Rousseau, Paine and many others have been long forgotten in the schools in this country. The point being that we have allowed this separation of church and state issue to come back to threaten us again. I believe that corporate driven politics of the world IS the driver for the world's slide back into feudalism. Capitalism as we know it will soon be devouring itself, socialism is still relevant, despite what the media keeps saying. And maybe the future economic/political structure will be built on the current Chinese model, but the point made in the article should scare everybody (except those born again, the Mormans, and the Moslems) because we, not just the US, canuckchuck, but the world (people of the world) seem to forget everything that is over 20 years old. We should know better, but many people don't realize that the born again fad was just that twenty years ago. It was laughed at, now you laugh at your own risk. It is good to have brought this subject up, but the neo-Calvinists, Cromwellians, and even those followers of Thomas Jefferson's political enemy John Adams who still follow the chosen path are hard to shake.
They are ever ready to exploit a weakness, and we are showing that weakness.
Come on people, how many practicing Christians are there in the US??? I'd be surprised if the figure hit 10,000 out of 300 million. The rest are just pious posers whom Jesus loves only because he's extremely tolerant.
Nietzsche was a wanker in most respects, but he was right when he said, "The last Christian died on the cross."
Religion is the worst vice ever invented. Time we all got over it.
Why is the rationality of religion even being disgust anymore? It's ALL Manifest Insanity.
Organized religion is exclusive by its very nature. It is dangerous to all.
pwrmac5 is right about how Christ led his life.
This deviant political form of Christianity found in the US is used to justify political actions and wars and it is not based in the life of Jesus.
There are people, Nationalists, who believe in the government of the US as if it were a part of their religion and they have carried this belief into the Christian Churches, where it does not belong.
There are ministers who opposed the war in Iraq, as being unchristian, who did not speak up because they knew it would mean these Nationalists would leave that church for another that gave their vierw of a God who supported the US policies of war. Opposing war would mean a loss of some parts of their congregations.
There were religious leaders who opposed the war, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the former Pope and Bishop Desmond Tutu. But the mainstream media ignored these religious leaders. When I went to Washington to join in protests against the war before it began, there were busloads of people from churches around the coutry who were there. But that has not been reported!!!!
It isn't only the government that has had a problem because of these Nationalists infusing religion into politics, but it has also weakened the basic beliefs of Christianity. Christ died as a martyr for the sins of mankind.
Martydom does not translate well into war.
Real christians are very gentle souls.
Sigma,
I'd be interested to know exactly What Version of the Koran you are quoting, because there are many and, according to historians, many versions were corrupted by anti-Xtian and anti-Jewish fundies, for political purposes, to give them more power over their communities and the people under them.
I doubt very much that Muhammed ever suggested that all non-Muslims "must feel subdued", and I doubt very much that he ever suggested that they have to pay taxes to keep themselves from being killed. What you are quoting are corruptions of the original Koran.
Beware people, there are many corruptions of the Koran and Jewish and Xtian Zionists love to mass-produce them and dish them out to anyone and everyone. The Taliban in Afghanistan actually had most of their Korans published and given to them by an Xtian publishing company working out of Israel.
Bluedude - of course you can legislate morality! Virtually all legislation is about morality. Laws against murder, stealing, perjury, vandalism - they are all about morality. Morality has to do with how we treat other human beings and their property as well as how we treat the environment in which we live. Laws against pollution, therefore, are also about morality
I've heard many conservatives use the phrase "you can't legislate morality" when they really mean "you can't legislate equality" or "you can't legislate tolerance." I'm not sure what you had in mind, but my guess is that perhaps you are talking about legislating beliefs. You can't legislate religious beliefs, this is true. Or at least attempting to legislate them is doomed to failure.
But in essence, all laws are very concerned with morality and establishing moral priorities. Of course, much of it also has to do with power and maintaining the status quo, but even this is tied up with morality.
As far as the issue of our being a Christian nation, our government is not based upon Christianity. However, the majority of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. It's interesting to me that so many of the so-called Christians actually believe they are in the minority. I had a conversation with some Christian relatives not too long ago. I was trying to make the point that, as an agnostic, I sometimes feel a slight social disadvantage living and working among so many Christians. Their response was that they too feel discriminated against BECAUSE they are Christians since other people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians.
Amazing! Especially since there is not actually all that much difference among the Christian religions. It's just a matter of which loopy notions of dogma they adhere to. And those notions change from time to time (eating meat on Friday used to be a sin; now it's OK, for example). They all believe in one god - and it's pretty much the same god. Mythology based upon the writings of people who thought the world was flat and who never imagined the complexity of today's world. It's incredible that these ideas are still compelling to so many people.
Capitalism is America's state religion.
the rationality or irrationality of religion is not really the point. 90% plus of humanity is "religious" and that's not going to change any time soon. each of the great world religious traditions is complex and has scriptures/teachings which can be manipulated (including buddhism). it is not helpful in dealing w/people to say they are religious b/c they are stupid. such is the analysis of a 3rd grader. it is helpful to know how institutions manipulate people's faith, and to be able to combat that from within the complex tradition of a person's faith. that requires patience & study.
in any case, the religion of most USAans is the US itself. there's a long history of equating America w/"the promised land" or "kingdom of god", and all of our political discourse partakes of that mythology (even in much of secular/progressive thought).
debunking that religious myth, from whatever angle you care to do it, is probably the most important thing you can do on the religion front.
and, as several people noted above, fundamentalism is being encouraged around the world by military-corporate statists, and has been since the brits embraced the wahhabis to help overthrow the ottomans in saudi arabia (sound like afghanistan anyone?) rockefeller used to send the evangelist billy sunday out among the mine workers of West VA cuz he knew that if he could get them to embrace sunday's BS, workers would be much less likely to organize and make trouble.
Hi Indijo, I was referring to Koran 9:29. If this is not what it actually said in the past, then I apologize.
The basic problem is the human species itself is schizophrenic, forever divided between opposite ideas of how to live, predation or cooperation or a mixture of both,
male or female dominance or a mixture of both, dictatorship or democracy or a mixture of both, religious dogma or liberal arts or a mixture of both, etc. ad nauseum in ecocide. Thus all our dreams are devoured by the next chemical reaction, which now appears to be global corporate fascism and World War Three.....unless the people unite to create continental networks of eco-tech villages freely trading with each other surrounded by miles of healthy wilderness, or a mixture of both?! All existence is the process of paradox.
Jesus was religious. Conservative Christians are superstitious. If Islam has the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Christanity has the religious right and "Left Behind" delusional freaks.
War on terror? War on drugs? How are we doing on those? Our current President's religious views are typical of the ignorant and dangerous current brand of Christanity championed by political conservatives.
Good post entechy.
The Unites States is a "Christian Nation" in the same way that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are "Muslim Nations" or Vietnam and China are "Bhuddist Nations"--in name only and not in any practice.
Lee Ann--Thanks for saying what i was thinking and so very well!
Lil Lulu--I thought Alaskans were more congenial (even if they were of the neocon bent--I feel your pain becasue jacksonville FL just chock full of such intolerance!
Thanks Nietzsche,
To survive, all humanity needs to read and think honestly, and be open to peaceful revelation. Instead, it is ever so rare.
What's the difference between religion and superstition?
If the US were a Christian nation there would be universal health care and the illegal workers would be treated with kindness. There would be no death penalty and the prisons would be used to contain people from harming others and not as a form of punishment.
The US would be a completely different nation if it were a Christian nation.
Imo Christianity is not defined by a set of rules like eating or not eating fish but a way of behaving towards one another. It is a form of philosophy about humanity and its relationship to the cosmos.
I just noticed that there is someone on this posting as "Nietzsche." Earlier in the thread, I quoted Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and in preface to my quote I referred to the old German thinker as a "wanker." I just want to make it clear that I was referring to the dead philosopher (who I believe really was a wanker) and not to anyone participating in this discussion. Sorry if anyone took it any other way.
ezeflyer,
To answer your question, religion is superstition organized as dogma and centralized in city states, whereas random myths and fables change with tribal migrations.
All religion is a massive con and is responsible for much of the conflict in the world.
Given that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any god or any 'life after death', why religion continues to have such influence in our world is entirely beyond me.
It seems that many folk have not evolved beyond the status of superstitious savages to whom the killing of those who don't share their beliefs is an obligation.
I'll give a shot at it :)
Superstition is a primitive form of science without carefully used cause and effect and without scientific method.
Religion is a philosphical basis for values and beliefs that can not be decided using scientific method. For example: Another human being is of value by virtue of being a human being. That shared humanity makes the other significant.
Sometimes there is superstition in religion, but the basis for religion is not the superstition but the philosphical views of how the world is formed or constructed. Religion will probably have a moral code and a set of beliefs but may not have a belief in a deity to be a religion.
Even though Christian church and state are separated in the US constitution, there is little support for this in the US history.
The English Puritan revolution was justified repeatedly by biblical analogies drawn from the OT. Using a rather dubious interpretation of the book of Daniel, the revolutionaries saw themselves as "the Saints of the Most High," commissioned to execute judgment on kings and nobles. Oliver Cromwell drew a parallel between his revolution and the exodus and proceeded to treat the Catholics of Ireland as the Canaanites. He even declared that "there are great occasions in which some men are called to great services in the doing of which they are excused from the common rule of morality," as were the heroes of the OT. The Puritans of New England applied the biblical texts about the conquest to their own situation, casting the Native American tribes in the role of the Canaanites and Amalekites. In 1689, Cotton Mather urged the colonists to go forth against "Amalek annoying this Israel in the wilderness." A few years later, one Herbert Gibbs gave thanks for "the mercies of God in extirpating the enemies of Israel in Canaan." Similar rhetoric persisted in American Puritanism through the eighteenth century, and indeed biblical analogies have continued to play a part in American political rhetoric down to the present.
The presidents of the US in their "colonizing crusade" invoked the "Christian God". President McKinley said, "We're going into the Philippines to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos." He said: "I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and I guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me: 1) I That we could not give them [the Philippines] back to Spain — that would be cowardly and dishonorable; 2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany — our commercial rivals in the Orient — that would be bad business and discreditable; 3) that we could not leave them to themselves — they were unfit for self-government — and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the ... War Department map-maker, and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States (pointing to a large wall map), and there they are, and there they will stay while I am President!"
Until 1933, 120,000 U.S. troops occupied the Philippines. "Pacifying" those "heathens" took longer than McKinley thought and brought out the brute in the soul of U.S. Christian soldiers. A frustrated U.S. general even ordered troops to kill every Philippine male over age ten. Fortunately, that order was not carried out, but U.S. troops did slay up to 200,000 Philippine men and women in three years, until overwhelming superiority in weapons and sheer ruthlessness overcame local resistance forces. Two thousand U.S. "Christian crusaders" died, as well. This bloody war on the Philippines lasted seven years, which involved massacres and the extermination of populations. The US had "civilized" and "Christianized" the Filipinos and established its control.
One critical citizen satirized McKinley's war: "G is for guns/ That McKinley has sent/ To teach Filipinos/ What Jesus Christ meant."
U.S. President William McKinley's words should echo with President Bush. Bush has confessed that he talks to God and hears His words. Like McKinley, Bush understands that the stars and stripes stand for inseparable U.S. commercial interests and pious purposes.
The Christian zealots of the time praised McKinley's will in overcoming Satan (Phililippinos) with military force. Now the descendents of these zealots that counseled McKinley, win court battles to validate creationism and push Armageddon and Rapture as themes of U.S. Middle East policy. Few days after 9/11 President Bush called his war on terrorism as "This crusade." Here is the deeper significance of Bush's reference to the Crusades: violence was established as the perfectly appropriate Christian response to 9/11. George W. Bush is a Christian for whom this particular theology lives. While he identified Jesus as his favorite "political philosopher" when running for President in 2000, the Jesus of this Christian zealot President is not the "turn the other cheek" one. Bush's savior is the Jesus whose cross is wielded as a sword. George W. Bush, having cheerfully accepted responsibility for the executions of 152 death-row inmates in Texas, had already shown himself to be entirely at home with divinely sanctioned violence, while the majority of the US public is lustily cheering and praising at the WONDERS THEIR BLOOD-THIRSTY GOD IS DOING IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, SOMALIA, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, LEBANON, PALESTINE, and looking forward to THESE WONDERFUL DEEDS OF THEIR GOD IN IRAN.
Reasonable people don't think that God ordered Bush to bring freedom (free markets) to the Middle East. Indeed, as Lily Tomlin quipped, "Talking to God is prayer. God talking to you is schizophrenia."
If the president of the US represents all the US citizens, then why is that only a christian preacher preaches during the president's breakfast????