EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Santorum Abuses ‘E Pluribus Unum’
Americans get manipulated daily by the Right’s false references to U.S. founding principles, most recently by Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum and his misrepresentation of what “E Pluribus Unum” means.
The phrase, Latin for “from many, one,” was a motto of the 13 original colonies banding together in 1776 to demand independence from the United Kingdom. It has remained a national slogan for the togetherness of a diverse country ever since.![](/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/epluribusunum-300x300.png "The motto "E Pluribus Unum" in the Great Seal of the United States")
The motto "E Pluribus Unum" in the Great Seal of the United States
However, Santorum has transformed this motto of unity into the latest cultural wedge issue of division, claiming it means the United States, as “a moral enterprise,” must reject government secularism respecting religious diversity in favor of “traditional Judeo-Christian principles” based on the Bible.
At a campaign event in Tucson, Arizona, on Wednesday, Santorum said, “The greatness of America is we have such diversity, with the proviso — ‘E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one.’ Essentially we are going to need to hold together on some set of moral codes and principles.” The ex-senator from Pennsylvania then added, “And we’re seeing very evidently what the president’s moral codes and principles are about. We see a president who is systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian principles in this country.”
In other words, Santorum believes that despite the wide-ranging differences in the United States regarding religious and moral issues, Americans must abide by one Biblical standard of “traditional Judeo-Christian principles,” Santorum’s version of “E Pluribus Unum, from many, one.”
Yet, America’s founding documents, particularly the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, created a secular system of government, one that guaranteed both freedom of and freedom from religion. Americans were free to practice their religious faiths but they could not use the government to impose their religious views on others.
The Constitution, which is as secular as any document could be, contains not a single word regarding the supremacy of Judeo-Christian religions or values. It makes no reference to God at all. Indeed, its singular reference to religion is that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, a Bill of Rights was added in 1791. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means the government can do nothing to promote religion or punish people for their religious views, the so-called separation of church and state.
However, it has become a central goal of the Religious Right to confuse Americans about these core principles, by insisting that – contrary to the governing documents that the Founders created – they really intended a form of theocracy committed to Biblical teachings and imposing religious tenets on the people of the United States.
Similarly, the Right has snatched a few quotes out of context to transform James Madison and other drafters of the Constitution into people who opposed a strong central government and favored a system of states rights, when the historical reality is nearly the opposite: the framers scrapped the Articles of Confederation because that original governing structure hamstrung the new nation with a weak central government dominated by “independent” states. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Right’s Inside-Out Constitution.”]
Now, Rick Santorum is using America’s founding motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” as if it meant that out of the Many differing views that Americans had then and have now about public religion and personal morality that One set of religious/moral standards, based on “traditional Judeo-Christian principles,” must be established for the United States and imposed on its people.
Presumably, a President Rick Santorum would be in charge of selecting which Biblical edicts must be followed.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
9 Comments so far
Show AllWell, that does it!
I'm definitely not voting for that dangerous, truthless kook Santorum.
Now what?
Thank you, Mr. Parry for this important analysis. Santorum reminds me of Reverend Sun-Moon who under the guise of unity, via his "Unification Church," condensed all ideas into one set: his. This is a very seductive sleight of hand for authoritarian types as they manage to fool their followers into believing that diverse needs can be answered through only ONE "right" set of beliefs, actions, values, and principles. This quote, as taken from the article reflects the ongoing deceit best:
"Rick Santorum is using America’s founding motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” as if it meant that out of the Many differing views that Americans had then and have now about public religion and personal morality that One set of religious/moral standards, based on “traditional Judeo-Christian principles,” must be established for the United States and imposed on its people."
From an esoteric perspective, the onset of monotheism used similar tactics for its promotional devices (added to the power of the sword). Whereas people had formerly worshipped gods and goddesses of fertility, passion, intellect, etc. They were told that only ONE god would supplant them all. What's evolved out of this ethos, as should be clear to anyone observing modern Amerika, is that the uber: identification with one God (as taken from the Judeo-Christian hybrid) has led to a sickening identification with war, violence, aggression, competition, and lawless militarism. This is why I believe the case I make for Mars rules holds so much weight... and can be explained through the historical phenomenon known as the Great Ages. When all the previous archetypes were subsumed into one, the God-frame became that of an angry, violent male father figure, i.e. the prototype of Mars crossed with that of old Saturn-Cronus.
Good point on 'unum est totum' of the 14th century Christian institutions of Europe. If in colonization a land was discovered with peoples who were not "Christian" the Papal Bulls, and other charters granted the right to enslave, take their lands, destroy them as pagans if they would not submit to catechesis. This is known as the Doctrine of Discovery.These heinous distortions of spiritual traditions has become part of US property case law cited most recently in 2007 by the Supreme Court.
In May the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will be addressing it as a special theme in analysis of its present day status.
Chief Oren Lyons, is among the elders who have spent their lives in working to rectify the legacy of this is poison to life that is all over the world - wherever colonization occurred..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVZDbqh7WgM
The Haudenasaune can be credited with what is good and strong in the US Bill of Rights drawn from the Iroquois Great Law of Peace. Some points were missed - such as women being responsible for oversight of the Chiefs, who were required to step down if the women determined that role was not being fulfilled. We can see where that went....For a good read on that - free online -- Forgotten Founders
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html
Robert parry needs to realize that the motto of ALL of the corporate owned politicians is now,
Out of many, the One Percent.
Obama shares most of Santorum's arrogant unconstitutional beliefs.
What Habeas Corpus?
Any of these corrupt tools will proudly murder people based upon suspicion and will proudly show disdain for equal justice.
So, go ahead and have us look AGAIN at the crook with the loudest mouth while complicitly ignoring the commonalities,
which are overwhelming.
"Presumably, a President Rick Santorum would be in charge of selecting which Biblical edicts must be followed."
You can bet your bottom dollar that
"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matt 19:21, Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21)
won't be one of them.
Regarding the motives of those who wrote the Constitution, there were 55 of them. One was an ordained minister, the others were businessmen, lawyers, plantation owners, and politicians.
Creating a theocracy was the last thing on their minds - they were sent to Philadelphia by the various state legislatures to protect the interests of their states. Which they did very well.
Regarding Madison, he was the main proponent of a strong federal government because he did not trust the various legislatures to resist passing bills which would create inflation, and thereby reduce the value of property (e.g. his property). Madison was definitely an member of the 1%.
In fact, Madison suggested a clause in the Constitution (which was not adopted) which would give the federal congress the right to veto any bill passed by a state legislature. That certainly doesn't sound like someone who valued state's rights.
Religious freedom is not only about being able to worship within the confines of ones church building, but also being able to proclaim ones beliefs openly, in the public forum, as we are commanded to do by our baptism. If you attempt to silence me by calling my words hate speech or bigoted rhetoric or unpatriotic vitriol, then you become the oppressor we all disdain. The Church does not tell women or men how to control their bodies, but she does point out the spiritual, emotional, and eternal consequences of not following God's laws. It is her right and duty to do so and to those who disagree, we bid you go in .....
Peace
Santorum is a sanctimonious dimwit, but, I have to say, he is also an interesting study in right-wing psychopathology.
On topic after topic--from gay marriage to the evils of modern feminism--he spouts the most banal conservative platitudes. But in his own mind, it is as if he is communicating the theological complexities of St Thomas Aquinas! He is delusional in all aspects of his being--that is why it is so hard for him to understand how others could disagree with him. His delusions have the virtue of placing him beyond all rational argument and common sense. Hence his bombastic pronouncments which he thinks of as pearls of wisdom. Of course, he is ignorant and uneducated, but not in the usual way of not "having read enough." His ignorance is wilful; his anti-intellectualism is proudly worn---he seems to think that "strong feeling" and "faith" are adequate susbstitutes for right thinking. It wouldn't matter if he did read, beacause his mind is fundamentally closed. It's something of a mystery how a grown, "sane" man can go about the world in this way. Santorum is a horribly fascinating spectacle. And the real horrror is that not a few people would like him as their leader...
Perhaps Santorum's real problem is that his family in Italy are Communists -- a proud line of Communists who fought the fascists and then, after WW II, remained loyal to the Party.
His grandfather, about whom he loves to boast that he fled Italy because he was opposed to tyranny, quite possibly was not simply a run-of-the-mill antifascist but a Communist.
From such a family sprang this creature who would love nothing better than to have walked with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden and slapped the apple out of Eve's hand; his mission is the mission of the Opus Dei: to infiltrate government and implant a theocracy. Same mission, essentially, as many ultra-right Evangelicals. Hence all the talk of Satan this and Satan that, which makes some of his rhetoric indistinguishable from Pat Robertson's & his ilk.
Atheists, agnostics, Quakers and Unitarian Universalists had better consider emigrating.