Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Or better yet, like a mafia don whose reputation for violence provides the talking points for his goons. "Mr. Vincenzo has been very patient wit youse so far, but his patience...it's running out. If we don't receive payment soon, you might just meet with an accident. This is a beautiful country you got here; would be a shame if something happened to it, capiche?" I find it absolutely baffling.

One should also note the distortion of history in his statement. We did not, of course, take either prayer or Bible reading out of schools. We took mandatory, government-required prayer and Bible reading out of schools. So his argument comes down to this: "if you don't force people of other religions to participate in religious rituals that they don't believe in, I'm gonna come and mess up your country. I can get very angry about people worshipping other gods. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." And of course, he's right. Why anyone would find such a god worthy of worship is beyond me.

Then there's the reaction from our old pal Nathan Bradfield at STACLU, who lends us the benefit of his non-existent reasoning skills in reaction to this non-event. He quotes with approval this statement from Tony Perkins:

No one can legitimately challenge the fact that the God America refers to in the pledge, our national motto, and other places is the monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith. There is no historic connection between America and the polytheistic creed of Hinduism. I seriously doubt that Americans want to change the motto, "In God We Trust," which Congress officially adopted in 1955, to "In gods we Trust." That is essentially what the United States Senate did today.

I think this whole argument about monotheism v polytheism is quite amusing, and highly hypocritical. Ironically, one of the primary criticisms that Muslims make of Christianity is that it is polytheistic, having three divine beings who, it is claimed, are really one. The leading founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin) all were unitarians who found the notion of the trinity to be absurd. Jefferson, in private letters to friends, savaged the idea. In a letter to John Adams he wrote:

It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies.

In a letter to the Rev. Jared Sparks he wrote:

The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.

And to James Smith he wrote:

The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.

So, ironically, a large part of the reason why Jefferson rejected orthodox Christianity was its insistence on polytheism, which he considered "metaphysical insanity." The other irony, of course, is that Hinduism, if it is viewed as polytheistic at all, is so in precisely the same way that Christianity is. Hindus believe in one god with many avatars or representations. How is that any different than trinitarian Christianity?

Indeed, John Adams, who was also a unitarian, recognized this about Hinduism and, also being a universalist, pointed out that Hinduism and Christianity had much in common. In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote:

Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? "God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs -- Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and Goodness, in his Works."

Jon Rowe and I have both been writing for months about the universalism and unitarianism of the leading founding fathers. None of them would have been the least bit shocked by having a Hindu priest say a prayer to "the deity supreme." All five of them were theistic rationalists but also universalists. They all believed that there was but one god and that all religions worshiped that same god in their own way. That's why they went out of their way to address those of different faiths by their own names for god, for instance by referring to God as "the Great Spirit" when corresponding with the Indians. Patrick Henry would not have liked it, but those leading founders would have been just fine with it.

While God did not write our laws, He was certainly a consultant in the process.

Ah, let us return once again to John Adams, who wrote a document explaining to the people of Britain how the government of the US had formed. He wrote:

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.

There is not a word about God or Christianity in the Constitution. Nor is there a word about either in the Federalist papers, written to explain and defend the Constitution. We know who the founders viewed as "consultants" because they referenced those works in the Federalist papers and their other writings repeatedly in explaining and defending the provisions of the Constitution. John Locke was a "consultant" in that regard. So was Montesquieu. So were a few other Enlightenment philosophers. God was not among them.

Reid may think this opening prayer is nothing more than a check mark on his daily to-do list, but anyone that holds any reverence for this country and the duties expected of our elected officials understands that the prayer is, or should be, a plea to God to guide our steps and give us wisdom as we make decisions that will effect our citizens, future generations, and even the rest of the world.

Funny, I thought that's exactly what the Hindu chaplain did, made a plea to God to guide us. Here is the full text of his prayer:

Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening.

That's about as generic a prayer as any Methodist has ever prayed. Indeed, it would fit perfectly in the writings of George Washington himself, who liked to use broad names for god like "supreme being" and "grand architect." And yes, he did ask god to give us wisdom and guide our steps. Oh, I know Nathan doesn't think he was praying to THE god, but so what? A Zoroastrian thinks Nathan is praying to the wrong god too.

America's unparalleled success and blessings are a witness that these prayers to God have paid off.

Funny, because Nathan's ideological forebears - the religious right at the time of the Constitution - were screaming exactly the opposite. The Constitution, they declared, was a Godless document that would bring down the wrath of God upon us all. They tried repeatedly to amend the Constitution to add "Christian nation" language to it, but they failed. They kept it up for decades, even claiming at the time that the Civil War was proof that God was angry at us for our godless Constitution. Funny how times change, isn't it?

The fact is that it's quite easy to use God's pleasure or anger to explain anything you wish. Storms, poor crops, losses on the battlefield - all easily explained as resulting from God's anger with us. A good hunt, a victory in battle, a healthy child - all just as easily explained as resulting from God's pleasure with us. Of course, rational people know that storms and poor crops are the result of natural weather patterns or other mundane causes, while losses in battle are usually the fault of stupid leaders, not divine disappointment.

The Senate has been opening with prayer to God since its beginning. The invocations have always reflected the same God and should do so in the future. Senate prayers that exclude all faiths but God, does not mean that we aren't diverse or that we are forcing other faiths to convert to Christianity. It simply means this nation believes in God, but as a citizen, you are free to worship as you please.

This is gibberish. There is no "this nation" that is capable of belief; only individuals are capable of belief. Some people in this nation believe in Christianity; some do not. But as Madison reminded us time and again, the government has no belief at all and has no legitimate authority to make any statement at all on such matters, leaving it instead to each individual. Indeed, Madison argued that the very fact that Congress had chaplains was a violation of the first amendment:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt

Notice that he used the example of Catholics, then a very small sect in the US. Today he might well have said Hindus. And that is precisely the problem. Madison here has predicted precisely what has happened over the last few days, that if someone from a small sect manages to become chaplain, even for a day, there will be a great outcry based purely on the whim of the majority. And he calls this "evil" and a "naked deformity", this doctrine "that religious truth is to be tested by numbers."

The problem, of course, is that if a strict separationist filed a lawsuit claiming that having government-paid chaplains in Congress opening every day with prayer is a government endorsement of Christianity, people like Tony Perkins would scoff at that. This isn't endorsement, they would say, it's just an acknowledgment of the role Christianity has played in our history. It's just "ceremonial deism."

Yet let a non-Christian say a single prayer for one day, interrupting a steady stream of some 60,000 Christian prayers spoken daily in that same chamber, and Perkins declares that this is an obvious act of government endorsement that "essentially" changes the motto of the country to "in gods we trust." Funny how 60,000 Christian prayers can't possibly be seen as endorsement, but one Hindu prayer manages to reverse all that history. Consistency? Who needs consistency when God is on their side?

Where did our founders make this desire for a separation of church and state? One man used the phrase in a certain context, which liberals have obliterated. What about the fact that the Founders talked, wrote, and spoke about God and His influence on their lives, and they prayed to Him for guidance?

How many times does this idiotic argument have to be answered before it gets through to halfwits like Bradfield? Both Jefferson and Madison used that phrase many times to describe the first amendment religion clauses. The fact that many founders spoke openly about their faith in God has precisely nothing to do with it. One can be deeply religious AND believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Indeed, some of the most outspoken advocates of strict separation were Baptist ministers like Isaac Backus and John Leland. Being deeply religious does not mean that one has to believe that the government should endorse or support one's religion. As Jefferson wrote, in a second letter to the Virginia Baptists, in 1808:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

Or as so eloquently stated in his Notes on Virginia, "It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

But somehow one phrase plucked out of a letter written by an ambassedor not even in the country translates to a "desire by all Founders to have a separation of church and state." If that was the case, Mr. Lynn, it would be in the Constitution.

Another idiotic argument. Nathan, can you find the phrase "separation of powers" in the Constitution? How about "checks and balances"? No. Gosh, then those concepts must not be in the Constitution! Our history books must be lying to us! Or, in the alternative, someone with an IQ above that of a pot roast might notice that the founders used many different phrases to describe the provisions of the Constitution and we still use those phrases today.