A New American Holy War
Take this nation back for Christ: the phrase echoes the language of Jerry Falwell, who was against ministers' mixing in politics when the subject was civil rights but changed his mind after the Roe decision in 1973. In a Moral Majority report, Falwell's organization urged "an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn America back to God." Such talk was precisely what the Founders had hoped to avoid.
In truth, the separation of church and state—including a constitutional prohibition against a religious test for federal office—was essential to them, but they also understood that religion and politics were always going to be mixed up together. The critical thing was to manage this human reality, to minimize its ill effects and make the most of the possible good it could do. Led by Madison, the Founders were determined to make religion one of the many contending forces in the republican arena—forces that would check and balance one another.
The alternatives were—and are—bleak. To try to banish faith altogether would fail, for the religious would become martyrs, and religious belief is a perennial force in human affairs. ("All men," said Homer, "need the gods.") And to give faith a dominant role risked repeating the gloomy experience of the Old World and the worst parts of our Colonial history, a history checkered by theocracy and persecution from Jamestown to Massachusetts Bay.
Taken all in all, religion, like commerce and nationalism and so much else in history, has had its bright and dark hours. In 1808, Jacob Henry, a Jewish-American, was elected to the state legislature of North Carolina, which refused to seat him unless he was (a) a Protestant and (b) conceded the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments. Here is what Henry said to them: "Governments only concern the actions and conduct of man, and not his speculative notions. Who among us feels himself so exalted above his fellows as to have a right to dictate to them any mode of belief?"
Too many people do feel so exalted, which is why religious believers, who far outnumber those who do not believe, have a special obligation to be humble and gracious and respectful. John Jay, the chief justice and a warden of Trinity Church Wall Street in New York, was a devout Anglican, but he firmly understood what America was to be about: "Real Christians," he said, "will abstain from violating the rights of others." Or better yet, real Americans will abstain from violating those rights.
Last Thursday morning, his speech done, Romney and his family had a short visit with the Bushes, and then took their leave. The governor had closed his remarks with the image of the Continental Congress at prayer in Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia amid what John Adams called "the horrible rumor of the cannonade of Boston." The delegates had argued over whether those of different denominations could pray together, but they were brought together when Sam Adams announced that he was "no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue who was at the same time a friend to his country." An Episcopal priest was summoned, and read the psalm assigned for the day: "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me; fight against them that fight against me." Back in Iowa, at war, one suspects it is a prayer that resonates with Romney.
With Sarah Kliff
© 2007
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:51:54 AM
Comment: There are people who abuse the term or concept ???freedom of religion??? without really understanding the true depth of the words involved. Lets start with the word religion. What is a religion: the belief, habit, ritual, thought, or faith? I believe all synonyms would apply to the definition of the word. Religion could be how I tie my shoes, my political ideas, my thoughts on science, or my feelings toward a particular brand name (in some cases consumerism qualify as religion). Many only argue that religion is strictly a word with a monopoly pertaining only to God or the Church. If you can make the argument that even atheistic approaches that of a religion; then one has to accept that my views on foreign policy or free trade qualify as a religion. Religion is a single or series of repeated behaviors and or thought. That is why we have a freedom of speech, privacy, and the freedom of religion within the constitution. All the concepts of the document from our revolutionary era uphold one another. They cannot exist without the other. These rights are all a form or relative or thought. They are all an attempt to protect the freedom of thought. Such wording of the constitution has to be interpreted with the full meaning of the word. For words are ideas, concepts, or theologies in and of themselves. Now think about the word freedom. I hope we all understand what freedom is. As well we should also think about what we do not have the freedom to do. There are many thoughts that are originated within Biblical religion that people do not have the right to do; consider many verses of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Revelation, and other books of the Bible. (I would hope we all know which verses they are) We do not have a total freedom for Biblical Church based religion. If we did, we would be living in a world of chaos, torture, and general madness including witch burnings, stoning, forced conversion, or beheadings. There are concepts in the secular world that are beliefs which are illegal they are the current laws on the books. Those laws are a record of what belief or thoughts you shall not hold. So beware when Biblical religion claims they have the power, the right, or the protection to conduct their actions when in conjunction with the government. There are some who would claim that Biblical religion has the freedom of religion as to fuse with the government or take on the responsibilities/functions of government with tax dollar support. My faith-based program is the issue and unconstitutionality of faith based programs and any vicarious use of those programs for the potential of converts via the heading of people to faith based services. The Church should function independently from government at all times. This serves the society in protection of the true freedom of religion, our freedom of thought.
Posted By: Conner @ 01/17/2008 3:59:13 AM
Comment: I'm backtracking quite a ways, but Mormonism isn't a cult, if a cult is defined as "anything that diverts from historical orthodox Christianity," I pose the question, who can define "historical orthodox Christianity?" The Church of Jesus Christ considers itself a restoration of original Christianity, as in, the doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. The Trinitarian doctrine was invented by the Nicean Creed in the times of Constantine, (at that time the Pagan emp. who presided over that counsel). That's one of many doctrinal misconceptions. Main stream Christianity has been polluted by papal theocrats, paganism, and biblical mistranslations. The Bible is the word of God, as long as it is translated correctly. Many plain and precious truths have been lost over the centuries. Therefore the bandwagon fallacy which transports the common contention that "Mormonism is a cult" merely denotes that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it..."(St. Matthew. 7:14).
Posted By: cyberella @ 01/07/2008 11:45:30 AM
Comment: The problem here is not Huck's faith or Romney's faith. When is the last time you saw someone of their faiths blow themselves up?