Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
So says Rep. Bill Sali (R-etard) in this article from Agape Press:
"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.
He's obviously right. We should pass a law that says only Christians can be elected to Congress. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be for that. What's that? The Founding Fathers put a clause in the Constitution explicitly forbidding religious tests for public office? Why, that's a predicament, ain't it? Here's the funniest part:
Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God.""You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.
According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."
You know, it's funny, but that exact same argument was used against the Constitution by the religious right of that day. Calvinist ministers in particular railed against the new Constitution precisely because it allowed non-Christians to be elected to office. In January 1788, an anti-constitution article appeared in papers in New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts as they debated the ratification of the Constitution. It warned of the dangers of the no religious test clause, allowing people like this to hold office:
"1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence - 2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the Trinity - 3dly. Deists, abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews etc. etc."
Indeed, the writer said, since the president commands the military, "should he hereafter be a Jew, our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem." Anti-Federalists throughout the states railed against the Constitution as a godless document and declared that if it was not made explicitly Christian, the wrath of God would be upon us all and the country would be destroyed.
It's rather ironic, isn't it? The religious right in the time of the Constitution declared it to be a godless document that would bring down the wrath of God, in large part because it allowed Muslims, Jews, deists and infidels to hold public office. The religious right today argues that the Constitution was a godly document all along and that having non-Christians elected to office - something that document explicitly allows - will cause God to remove the "hand of protection" we've enjoyed all these years.
Comments
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds Ed!!
Posted by: Paul Merda | August 9, 2007 9:52 AM
Geez, once again Buddhists get ignored, even though our congressional delegation now outnumbers the Muslim delegation 2-1. Are we not also a threat to Mr. Sali's "Christian principles?"
Posted by: MJ Memphis | August 9, 2007 10:05 AM
"Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil" - I love that line! "Beggars Ride to the Devil" should be the name of a rock band.
Posted by: Taz | August 9, 2007 10:05 AM
It is almost as if they make these arguments out of a cynical belief that their fellow Americans are too stupid to know any better, isn't it?
Then again, maybe its less complicated than that; after all, this is the social movement which has, for the last 30 years, ran on the idea that if you just repeat something long enough, it'll magically alter reality and make it true. Given their electoral success over that period, maybe they're on to something...
Evangelicals explode when exposed to sunlight,
Evangelicals explode when exposed to sunlight,
Evangelicals explode when exposed to sunlight....
Posted by: Julian | August 9, 2007 10:09 AM
Obviously, Ed, you've been duped by them there revisionist historians who seek to destroy our Christian Nation with facts. You need to listen more often to Godly men like Sali who the Lord has inspired to see American history in its proper light. Otherwise you risk contributin' to the collapse of civilization that is sure to be brought about by Hindus praying in the Capitol building.
As Mark Twain said, "Suppose I were a Congressman. And suppose I were an idiot. But I repeat myself."
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | August 9, 2007 10:11 AM
MJ,
Q. What did one Zen Buddhist say to the other Zen Buddhist?
A. Don't just do something; stand there!
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | August 9, 2007 10:14 AM
Ed--Could you point us to the source of that remarkable 1788 article?
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | August 9, 2007 10:21 AM
Ed,
You're too gentle this time! First, we should point out that this "uber-patriot" who serves in our federal legislature does not even know the Constitution that he has taken an oath to uphold. For those readers who aren't sure where the ban on religious tests is, it's in Article VI, paragraph 3, the last line: "...no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Second, while the right-wingers have co-opted the terms "true Americans" for themselves, and succesfully labeled anyone who opposes them as "un-American" and "un-Patriotic," it's high time we started being explicit, public, and vocal, about how the religious right (not all Christians, just those pushing for a theocracy) as un-American radicals who are undermining the Constitution.
But thanks for bringing this kind of nonsense to our attention, and I also would appreciate it if you would give us a source for that letter you referenced. (As a professor, I'm now reducing your grade for inadequate sourcing.)
Posted by: JamesH | August 9, 2007 10:40 AM
Quaker -- making the downtrodden saucy for over 200 years! I'm so proud (in a humble sort-of-way).
Posted by: Melody | August 9, 2007 10:41 AM
Quakers -- making the downtrodden saucy for over 200 years! I'm so proud (in a humble sort-of-way).
Posted by: Melody | August 9, 2007 10:41 AM
Carl, I googled "Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy", which brought me to "The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness" By Isaac Kramnick. The book credits a January 1788 article in The New York Daily Advertiser as the original source of the quote. The references for the book were unavailable online.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any results on the impact that the Nixon administration had on the sauciness of the blacks.
:)
Posted by: Tim | August 9, 2007 10:47 AM
This guy is just contradicting himself all over the place. I'm used to Christians insisting that the concepts of constitutional democracy, human rights, and equality are "derived from Christianity," but they usually go on to point out that therefore the only reason atheists and non-Christians can vote and hold office is because the Founding Fathers were inspired by the tolerance of Jesus. Here, Rep. Salis seems to make the first part of the argument, but then argues against the democracy and equality he says came out of the Bible.
And that's not the only place. According to Sali, the only way our country will survive is "under the protective hand of God." Therefore, we should always take care to do what is right and just, so that God does not remove his protective hand. And then he goes on to support this by explaining that "You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike."
Well, which is it? Does God protect only the just and cause disaster to fall on the unjust -- or does God cause disaster to fall on the just and unjust alike, no difference?
It's not only that Rep. Sali doesn't pay attention to the actual words of the Constitution -- he doesn't even seem to be paying attention to what he's saying.
Posted by: Sastra | August 9, 2007 11:02 AM
Hmmmmm. Let's update this quote:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: Wes | August 9, 2007 11:12 AM
I've spent far too much time on the internet, because "Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy" read like the plot to a porno to me, and what's worse it sounded kinda familiar.
Posted by: pough | August 9, 2007 11:18 AM
This guy clearly doesn't know the New Testament. The verse, Matthew 5:45, says God does cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
I think Sali is confusing God with Sauron. I wish these guys would study the books they claim to like.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 9, 2007 11:39 AM
So if you don't vote the right way God will keep it from raining on your farm?
Reminds me of this:
"After Franklin invented the lightning rod, many of the Puritans effectively accused him of sorcery. Reverend Thomas Prince, a prominent Congregationalist Puritan pastor of Boston's Old South Church and a graduate of Harvard, led the the charge. Franklin, Prince decreed, had defied the will of God, the "Prince of the Power of the Air," by interfering with His heavenly manifestation. Prince also asserted that Franklin's rods had caused God to strike Boston with the earthquake of 1755."
from http://www.quaqua.org/pilgrim.htm
Posted by: BaldApe | August 9, 2007 11:58 AM
Wait--now the Hindus have an actual god to pray to? I thought these conservative ~coubullshitgh~ Christians believed there was only one God, and it wasn't any Hindu "god." I am SO out of the loop.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | August 9, 2007 12:05 PM
Understandable mistake.
Posted by: Chuck C | August 9, 2007 12:08 PM
What if the "hand of protection" is really coming from the likes of Glenn Murphy?
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | August 9, 2007 12:12 PM
""Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil" - I love that line! "Beggars Ride to the Devil" should be the name of a rock band."
So true. And "Saucy Blacks" would be a killer name for a rap group.
Posted by: Philip T | August 9, 2007 12:27 PM
"The rain it raineth on the just, and also on the unjust fella; but chiefly on the just because the unjust steals the just's umbrella." - Ogden Nash
I guess you have to decide whether rain is a good thing or not, to know if that's threat. I think in the Bible it was just an observation of the way things go.
Posted by: The Ridger | August 9, 2007 12:27 PM
On the saucy Quakers.
Verified Jan 18, 1788, page 3 (it is online at http://infoweb.newsbank.com/ but restricted though most universities probably have access)
Posted by: Erp | August 9, 2007 12:34 PM
Carl Zimmer wrote:
It is quoted in Kramnick and Moore's The Godless Constitution, along with many other pamphlets and sermons from the time condemning the new Constitution as a godless document sure to bring down God's wrath upon us all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 9, 2007 12:46 PM
Unlikely to be Ogden Nash as it was apparently known before Nash was old enough to write it. It is usually attributed to Charles Bowen who was a judge in late 19th century Britain.
Posted by: Erp | August 9, 2007 12:50 PM
Tegumai Bopsulai:
I think Mr. Murphy might more accurately be "the mouth of protection".
How is that a group which is obviously deluded, and in the minority, wields such disproportianate power? Because they are fucking tireless and have no scruples, moral or otherwise, that get in the way of their zealotry. We need to stop giving these fucking loons a pass. Howsabout a bumper sticker that says, "I brake to confront fundamentalist whack jobs!!"?
Posted by: democommie | August 9, 2007 1:05 PM
It's ok as long as you're lying for Jesus. Once the rapture comes they get to make their own reality where all the lies they've told pre-rapture become Truth post-rapture.
Posted by: Soldats | August 9, 2007 1:06 PM
I feel happy. As an Idahoan myself, I have been waiting with not so bated breath for Sali to bring enough crazy to start receiving mockery from the outside world. He has been disturbingly mellow compared to his Idaho legislature years.
Much of the time in the Legislature, critical thinking skills are not necessarily needed. -- Bill Sali
That idiot is just an absolute idiot. He doesn't have one ounce of empathy in his whole fricking body. -- Republican Speaker of the Idaho House referring to Sali
If you want to debate this, I'll put the House at ease and we can go back into my office and I'll throw you out the window. -- another R Speaker of the House referring to Sali
Any man who can get the leaders of his own political party trash talking him...impressive. Unfortunately, once Sali won the primary, the Republicans closed ranks and took one for the party.
And now for the pet peeve that Ed stepped on. Rep. Bill Sali (R-etard)? Is that not in the same vein as...
You see what he did there? He turned Nancy Pelosi into Nancy "Pee-lousy." *sigh* 7 year olds are just so cute when they try and act like adults.
Posted by: Sean | August 9, 2007 1:17 PM
I found tis part amusing:
"Indeed, the writer said, since the president commands the military, 'should he hereafter be a Jew, our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem.'"
Apparently, the Christian idea that Jerusalem needed rebuilding so it could be re-destroyed to hurry along the end times wasn't yet in vogue.
Posted by: Adam | August 9, 2007 1:54 PM
I made the mistake of reading the comments on that article. It's sickening how many people are praising this man for "finally speaking the truth" or some other bullshit. This one in particular is appalling:
And as an aside, I kinda wonder if Representative Ellison was in the room at the time this guy went on his tirade.
Posted by: Skemono | August 9, 2007 2:24 PM
Sean wrote:
No, I don't think it is. The "R-etard" reference is clearly a comment on the stupidity of the things the guy is saying - and it applies quite well, obviously. The guy is being an idiot. "Pee-lousy" can't possibly be construed as any sort of criticism, it's purely a 7 year old attempt at a pee pee joke.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 9, 2007 2:37 PM
Besides, (R-etard) is funnier.
Posted by: Russell Claus | August 9, 2007 3:02 PM
Rep. Sali should be commended; he spoke his mind and did so in furtherence of his conviction. That is the mark of a great man. Rare is it today to find anyone in office who will stand up for his beliefs instead of kowtowing at the alter of Political Correctness.
That being said, he's an idiotic bigotted ass! Fucking go read the Consititution, Sali!
Posted by: jonolan | August 9, 2007 3:09 PM
I see your point but disagree with it. I will call Mr. Sali a variety of unpleasant names because I believe his views and opinions are batshit insane. That I see is different than twisting either his name, or the name of an associated group, into an insult.
How do you feel about the use of 'rethuglicans'? Descriptive or juvenile?
What if one drops an 'e' to Pe-Lousy, removing the urine reference, and just uses 'lousy' as a descriptive of her political acumen? Descriptive or juvenile.
*shrug* As I said before, is an old pet peeve of mine. Attack someone. Mock someone. But leave their proper name alone. Must be part of my personal legacy. Too many years of receptionists calling "Scene. Scene, the doctor is ready to see you."
Posted by: Sean | August 9, 2007 3:11 PM
At the end of the day, it's really this simple: These people do not believe in pluralism.
Posted by: Captain Comeback | August 9, 2007 4:13 PM
It's amazing how these obviously anti-American theocrats are not treated like the potential terrorists they are. In order to form a Christian theocracy they woudl first have to overthrow the Constitution. Sounds like these are a call to war. Patriot Act them!
Posted by: Scott D. | August 9, 2007 7:25 PM
It's oddly comforting to see that attitudes at least aren't any WORSE than they were 250 years ago.
Posted by: Andrea | August 9, 2007 8:25 PM
Eh? Sauron seemed to know what he/she/it was doing. The invisible magic women in the sky is so clewless he/she/it can't even convince anyone he/she/it exists.
Posted by: blf | August 9, 2007 9:34 PM
If it's the Senate prayer that got him riled up, he's a little late. The House of Representatives had a Hindu prayer seven years ago.
And why, I wonder, does he single out the lone Muslim in Congress? The House also received its first two Buddhists this year. They don't seem to upset Mr. Sali. And the House has had a Scientologist for going on nine years. Surely that's more offensive to his religious sensibilities than Islam. So why focus only on the Muslim...
Posted by: Loren | August 10, 2007 12:13 AM
because he also happens to be black?
Posted by: MAJeff | August 10, 2007 12:18 AM
Point taken, but I was really just referring to the world dominion, subdue-the-earth-and-take-mastery-of-it aspect of the affair.
No, he didn't speak his own mind: he doesn't have one. Surrender of one's individual intellect is part and parcel of fundamentalism. And it's the mark of a moron and an asshole, not a 'great man'.
Posted by: Chuck C | August 10, 2007 12:23 AM
The sad thing about the congressman's bigot eruption is that he is not the only person in this country who believes this bile.
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 10, 2007 2:17 AM
Perhaps, but one of the two Buddhists, Hank Johnson (D-GA), is also black.
Posted by: Loren | August 10, 2007 9:41 AM
Because Islam is Teh Evil, don't you know? Buddhism and Scientology are just weird, they're not out to Destroy The American Way Of Life.
The monotheistic faiths always seem to be harsher towards their own kind than towards the non-monotheists. Christians in the Roman Empire killed more "heretical" Christians than pagans, despite the pagans being a majority.
It seems the Muslims are the new Jews. It's no longer okay to call Jews evil, so they need a new scapegoat, and Islam is quite useful, since there are some Muslims who are motivated by their religion to attack the West, so it's easy to extend that to ALL Muslims.
Posted by: Nik | August 10, 2007 10:40 PM
Because Islam is (and has been for centuries) especially threatening to fundamentalist Christians. And there is a current strand of thinking among many Christian fundies that regards *ALL* Muslims as terrorists, or at least potential terrorists--not just the extreme Islamists who blow up buildings and declare a jihad on the West.
Posted by: Sadie Jane | August 10, 2007 10:54 PM
This belief is also heavily prevalent among Jewish fundies, at least of the Zionist sort. It's crap like that that finally drove me away from Zionist blogs.
Posted by: Skemono | August 10, 2007 10:58 PM
Writing from a country where we until recently had religious tests for public office I feel I must point out that Representative Sali would not have been eligible for office here as he apparently does not follow the "pure and true Lutheran teachings" but rather belongs to some heretical American sect; certainly you don't want just anybody who claims to be "Christian" to hold office then, you'd get papists and anabaptists and all kinds of riff-raff, right, right?
Posted by: kai | August 11, 2007 1:21 PM
I'm glad to see Sean tell the Sali stories I knew about. (Is it true that when the then-Speaker suggested throwing Sali out the window, some other Republicans protested because the Speaker's Office was on the 3rd Floor and there were perfectly suitable 4th floor offices? That Speaker is, I believe now the Congressman from Idaho's other district. What fun!)
I agree with Sean as well in disliking the name-calling. (Yes, 'Rethuglican" makes me shudder as well.) I'm not interested in just 'preaching to the choir,' I have the insanely optimistic hope, whenever I write, that it might make people on the 'other side' think, and name-calling -- while great for 'rallying the troops' -- eliminates that possibility.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | August 11, 2007 1:23 PM