-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Goshen College in Indiana, a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, has banned The Star Spangled Banner at all sporting events. The main value with which the college seeks to be identified with is: Christ-centered.
Although Christianity and patriotism do not appear mutually exclusive, there are inherent philosophical conflicts. Devotion to one’s god and devotion to one’s country can be opposing forces. Many Christians place devotion to God above all others, including country.
The Christian denomination, Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God. Hence, they refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The first of the Ten Commandments, “you shall have no other gods before me,” is in direct conflict with the First Amendment guarantee that an individual has the right to freely express their religious beliefs. Many military chaplains, sworn to uphold the constitution, are resigning rather than support the equal protection that is manifested by the repeal of DADT.
Same-sex marriage, opposed by many Christians as being against God’s will, is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The principles that constitute this country, as enumerated in the constitution, and the principles of God’s law, as enumerated in the Bible, are often irreconcilable.
Ironically, religion and patriotism have many similarities. Both eschew reason. Both treat submission as a virtue. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited like a catechism. George Washington is often called the father of this country. Like the Bible, the Constitution is treated like a object of reverence. Like the Bible, the Constitution is cherry-picked to suit the biases of the individual reader.
Samuel Johnson famously referred to patriotism as “the last refuge of the scoundrel.” The same can be said about religion.
H/T: NBC Washington.
Overgeneralization may be a form of error.
While many “religions” may demand submission, I happen to be a member of a local religious community in which submission may plausibly be deemed an unconscionable atrocity.
Primacy of individual conscience may be a religious principle, one which precludes submission to such extent as primacy excludes submissiveness..
Martin,
1. Yes
2a. No laws should be passed at all.
2b. Life begins at birth. If the life of the mother or child is at stake it is the Mother’s choice, or her agent who decides.
2c. Only laws dealing with exploitation of minors and laws dealing with all kinds of sexual coercion.
3a. I’ve already made clear they don’t have to change the 1st Amendment, only ignore it, which the country has a history of.
3b. Yes, though specifically their definition of it.
4. Apples and oranges question. Socialism is an economic system and would be a valid as capitalism, since the Constitution is neutral on economics. As far as corporations go, despite the incorrect SCOTUS ruling they are not people and should be regulated quite carefully. This is probably a Quixote-like effort though because they already are in control.
Now Martin, i’m finished answering questions for the time being since your use of the Socratic method is becoming boring, since you seem hesitant to give your own opinions, which is i think a necessity for real discussion. I’ve visited your website and find we actually like almost all the same music, share many favorite movies in common and some books. I’ve read all of Asimov, for instance and while he was a Sci Fi pioneer, Scientist and prolific writer, I’ve heard the man speak on a few occasions and found him pompous, which unfortunately clouds my judgement.
However, I feel that you seem to be testing me and I do resent that, especially because you began by disparaging my ability to communicate. I’m
at the point of life where I am not into either what people think of my beliefs, or their judgments of me. If you wish to continue this dialogue, then please stop playing games and relate just what you think about these issues.
Thank you, Mike, for helping me to understand what you think, where you draw your lines, so to speak.
Here is what I think you are saying in response to my questions.
1. You say (my interpretation) “The southern church is trying to alter what the First Amendment says.” I assume that if the church succeeds in getting the government to pass laws that agree with church laws, then you think that they are getting the government to violate the First Amendment, and they are recognizing a religion.
Are you saying that the government should be wary of passing any law that a church lobbies for?
2a. The “Blue Laws” deal with businesses being open on Sunday. What additional businesses would you like to see open on Sunday?
2b. Regarding abortion: at what point do you feel comfortable recognizing that a mass of living cells is a legal person, and the due the protection of the law?
2c. Banning homosexuality. What government laws about sexuality do you feel are proper, if any, and on what basis can they be adopted?
3a. I meant if they change the First Amendment, what will the new text be, not what do you think their objective is.
3b. Do you think that their objective is to get the police to enforce the ten commandments?
4. If a group is able to gain political power, on what basis do you feel that they should be denied the ability to exercise that power? Would you feel the same if Socialists or Corporations gained political power?
What Mike and others have said.
THESE are the people who fear Sharia law? Oh my!
Mike S.,
You are not alone in your fear if fundamentalist Christians are able to redefine the First Amendment. They Right has been hard at work redefining history, why not start working on the Bill of Rights?!
“Many questions as to what you are referring to, if you don’t mind, in as much detail as you like:”
Martin,
My answer to you in detail is this. Since I have already shown that you used deficient reading skills in thinking I was portraying you as having any specific religious beliefs whatsoever, when I cited the paragraph that showed I clearly wasn’t. I would urge you to again read what I’ve written, with the clear connotations of my thinking. It’s all there for you to see, or not see as seems to be your wont. Let me make it even simpler for you, since I am assuming that you have some knowledge of US history and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not just playing verbal games akin to defining “just what It is”.
1. The anti-abortion movement and the Southern Baptist Church are two examples. In addition to all those followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
2. A “Sunday Blue Law” is an abrogation of the First Amendment as I see it.
As are bans on abortion and bans on homosexuality.
3. A country whose statutes reflect Fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
4. By gaining enough political power to control the government and the courts.
All else is commentary, now go and study.
Would it ally your concerns if churches were not tax exempt?
Is that it, as far as needed governmental action?
—–
You are concerned that Fundamentalist Christians will be again able to redefine the First amendment.
Many questions as to what you are referring to, if you don’t mind, in as much detail as you like:
1. [WHO] Can you give a few examples of the fundamentalist christians you have in mind
2. [WHEN] you say “again” – have they redefined the first amendment before? (from what to what)
3. [WHAT] if they are able to again redefine it, what will they be changing it to
4. [HOW] will they do it by amending the constitution or in some other way?
Recognize that their political support of issues might be their right, but because of it they shouldn’t be tax exempt. If you respond by saying why aren’t non-profits doing the same thing to be taxed and my answer is that to be a non-profit you must use all money taken in in a fiscal year in that fiscal year. You also must be subject to audit by outside agencies.
“However, to completely ignore the issue of a religious body trying to take over the State is folly. ”
What is it you have in mind to keep a religious body from taking over the state?
“I admit I got annoyed when you conjectured as to what I and my other “co-religionists” wanted – you hardly know anything about me.”
Martin,
When it comes to reading and responding to what is written the cliche “It takes two to tango” comes to mind.
My opening paragraph in my response to you was:
“I think your response ignores American history {and this comment in answer to Fruit flies Like Pears comment I think has equal weight here} when discussing the threat that exists to our religious freedom if fundamentalist Christians are able to again redefine the First Amendment.”
What followed was my response to FFLP, who is a fundamentalist Christian, on another thread. The enclosed part of that paragraph above clearly stated that was what would follow. Perhaps you in your reading of my words didn’t pay attention to that qualifier and so wrongly felt that I was attacking your religious beliefs. Frankly, your reading comprehension is not my problem. While it is possible for you to make the argument that I was unclear, although I think it would be a weak one, a fair reading of my statement would be that I make no judgments as to your religious beliefs, if any.
“This was my main point, can I say it any more clearly? The church can legally oppose the state, but the state cannot legally oppose the church. The separation is one-sided, although I believe many want to weaken the ability of the church to oppose the state, and place their hopes on a reading of the phrase “separation of church and state”.”
We of course we should not try to muzzle the ability of a religious body’s free speech. However, to completely ignore the issue of a religious body trying to take over the State is folly. Since anyone who is able to attract a following can form a religion, which due to freedom of taxation might be said to be a good business model, up to what point is the State obliged to ignore the attempt by said religious body to control it? This is especially true when that religious body wants to impose its beliefs on the entire populace. This is the clear intent of many in the Christian Fundamentalist Movement and they state it clearly.
Judaism, for instance believes that life begins at the first breath, yet the freedom of Jewish women to exercise their religious beliefs is being threatened by the Anti-Abortion Movement. Your formula of Church/State
separation is simplistic in that it has and can invariably lead to the imposition of one segments religious beliefs upon those of the rest of the populace.
“Originally, this was meant to keep the government out of church issues” and then continue on as if you completely disagree.”
As you can see from the paragraph above your quote I have my reasons for disagreement and believe we must evolve beyond it. As for the legal cases you cited i’m not interested because legal decisions come and go, reality remains. The “Sunday Blue Laws”, Mann Act, anti Homosexual Laws, book banning, anti-fornication laws, anti-divorce laws, Prohibition and literally hundreds of others have demonstrated the need for an expanded interpretation of the first Amendment.
“You end by saying that you are not sure that I can understand the difference between your being compelled to sing a carol, and singing a carol because you like it. I don’t believe that you really think that, but of course my idea of you may be as far off as your idea of me.”
Your interpretations of me I’ve shown already to be flawed. I also enjoy “Amazing Grace” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Both Country and Black Gospel and many other expressions of Christian entertainment
because they are musically pleasing to me. Martin, all of my parent’s best friends were Italian American and Polish Catholics. Where do you think I spent Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day? What do you think I ate on Easter Sunday? By the way who do you think shared the Passover Seder at my house with my family. The discussions of religion were only ones of respect, both ways. As for your religious beliefs I don’t have a clue, nor is it important to me. What is important is that I do disagree with your position and clearly stated my reasons.
As far as the RCC goes, as a Jew I do have historical quarrels with it, the inquisition and the pogroms of European Jews on the way to the Crusades, underlies that antipathy. However, I do recognize the RCC has made many contributions to social justice. In fact while their position on banning abortion is completely wrong, they are the only major part of the anti-abortion movement that actually cares what happens after birth, which at least gives them the benefit of being logically consistent. They cannot, however, be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the country who are not Catholics. While abortion is the most hot button issue, anti-homosexuality and birth control are equally important.
I would ask in the future for you to read my writings with comprehension and then to agree, disagree or even attack me if you are so inclined. In this issue the problem wasn’t my lack of clarity, but your cursory reading comprehension.
Ok that helps.
My belief is that any rational person, any sane person, could understand why “not everyone” would go shopping at Christmas time and have a Christmas tree in the living room.
If you know a lot of idiots, join the club.
You ask, I think, is so-called Christianity entangled with so-called Americanism. Yeah, you could say so.
But occasionally people in the church, motivated by teachings to help the weak, oppose the policies of the government. Other institutions that can check the power of government, as Chris Hedges lists, are the media, the university, the arts; they can critique, can ridicule, can disdain, can oppose. This was my main point, can I say it any more clearly? The church can legally oppose the state, but the state cannot legally oppose the church. The separation is one-sided, although I believe many want to weaken the ability of the church to oppose the state, and place their hopes on a reading of the phrase “separation of church and state”.
I admit I got annoyed when you conjectured as to what I and my other “co-religionists” wanted – you hardly know anything about me.
And what mostly made me give up was that you start by agreeing to everything I had to say, namely: “Originally, this was meant to keep the government out of church issues” and then continue on as if you completely disagree.
You say “I was referring to all American History pertaining to First Amendment issues “. Can you give me one example of what you are thinking of here? USA v. Mary Grace? White House Vigil V. Clark? Schenck v US, Gitlow v. NY? Brandenburg v Ohio? Whitney V. Calilfornia? What?
What is the drift you see in the law? What is the direction of this history that you point towards? Or give me some “dots” to connect. I just don’t know what you mean.
You end by saying that you are not sure that I can understand the difference between your being compelled to sing a carol, and singing a carol because you like it. I don’t believe that you really think that, but of course my idea of you may be as far off as your idea of me.
“I am sorry I cannot respond more directly to your ideas, because they are “all over the place”.”
“I think that “your” definition of separation of church and state will prevail only if you learn how to present your argument more coherently. And you should be worrying about the fates of your progeny in any case.”
“If you are just complaining about your experiences as a kid, forgive my post.”
Martin,
I was referring to all American History pertaining to First Amendment issues and while I respect that you found that statement and subsequent ones hard to follow, I think it was clear within context of what was being discussed. I also felt that it was apparent that I was referring to the experience of Jews in America, from the perspective of my own experience and that of my parents.
While I have never claimed great skill, nor craftsmanship in my writing, your critique of it is in my experience somewhat unique. While it is true that I tend to write from my visceral experience of things, academically and in my career my writing, mundane as are my literary skills, has generally met with stylistic approval though not always content agreement.
Let me go further, though please understand this is meant in a general sense and not specifically directed at you or your attitudes. The experience of being Jewish has often been misunderstood by non-Jews, not from an expression of bigotry, but simply because from American Christian perspective we seem exotic. For instance many of my non-Jewish friends have had a difficult time understanding why I would never have a Christmas Tree in my home, or participate in exchanging Christmas presents. Adding to this confusion has been that I would happily celebrate their holidays with them and have attended Christian Churches on numerous occasions in their company. I understand that from their perspective it seems peculiar since they’ve been reared in a society that has closely mingled Christian belief with social/political activity.
It was because of this misunderstanding of Jewish beliefs by Christians that I answered FFLP’s comments from a personal perspective. I have enjoyed and sung Christmas Carols and love many of them as music, yet that singing has been voluntary, since the music is lovely, but the words are meaningless to me. If somebody tries to make me sing them, as happened in Elementary School, then they are trampling upon my right of religious freedom. I trust that is a distinction you might understand, but given the pointed nature of your comments and their condescending tone, I am dubious.
Mike, for example, you start by saying “I think your response ignores American history”, as if it is obvious what part of American history you are alluding to. And why “Fruit Flies Like Pears” is appropriate here, or what it means, clever as the phrase is, is too much trouble to try to figure out.
But to make one point: do you think that the role of the catholic church in the Gdansk shipyard strike in 1980, and Fr Jerzy Popieluszko were a force for evil, or, say, was Oscar Romero?
I am sorry I cannot respond more directly to your ideas, because they are “all over the place”.
Partly you are saying that there was freedom of religion only for Christians, which, while an overstatement, is true enough. But the First Amendment limits only the actions of the Federal Government, and of the states; not the kid who sits next to you.
I think that “your” definition of separation of church and state will prevail only if you learn how to present your argument more coherently. And you should be worrying about the fates of your progeny in any case.
If you are just complaining about your experiences as a kid, forgive my post.
Mike, I tried to read your post, but I couldn’t get through it. I wish people would make their point, especially in the lead sentence if possible, and clearly.
I could go through your post sentence by sentence I suppose and tell you what problems I have understanding you as I go along, and I would be willing to do that via private e-mail, but it would be a lot of work, for no reason, unless you are curious. guginom@yahoo.com
raff,
My ideal of going to school was not high on my priority….Therefore, I did not go… I took my chances…
Carol,
I do remember some of the Goys using the Jewish holidays as an excuse to miss school too!
Rafflaw, and Mike, our school was 75% Jewish; yet on the day after the High Holy days we had to come with a note to explain our absence. It was ridiculous watching 3/4ths of the student body standing in long lines with notes in our hands, waiting for a teacher to acknowledge we had a legit reason for our absence. (and Rick H—, a christian boy, was always in line with his forged excuse slip.)
Swarthmore mom:
Rick Perry Signs Anti-Gay Marriage Pledge Before Mingling With Virulently Anti-Gay Activist
“WASHINGTON — Republicans who support gay rights have seen their brief hopes for Rick Perry’s candidacy dashed as old quotes surface, new pledges are signed and news of his forthcoming campaign events and associations emerges.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/rick-perry-gay-marriage_n_938125.html
NoWay:
The First Amendment (among others) has been incorporated against the states.
An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god/gods.
Thanks for the interesting facts about the states and religious tests. I find it particularly telling that Virginia, home of Jefferson and Madison, had no religious test.
SWM,
We were lucky maybe about 15 mins….