Editorial Article on Religion in America

[archeiron]

Convert or be damned

The secular left's attitude to religion is as fundamentalist and flawed as anything you hear in Riyadh or Utah

Gary Younge
Monday November 15, 2004
The Guardian

The week after evangelists propelled George Bush to the White House, a court in Cobb County, Georgia, heard the local school board's defence for placing in science textbooks stickers claiming that evolution is "a theory not a fact". "God created Earth and man in his image," said one parent when the books first came out. "Leave this garbage out of the textbooks. I don't want anybody taking care of me in a nursing home some day to think I came from a monkey."

To write this off as the product of ignorance, poverty, underdevelopment or isolation would be both tempting and flawed. According to the US census, 40% of the residents of Cobb County have a bachelor's degree or higher, one in eight was born abroad, the poverty level is half the national average and the median family income is more than $67,000 (£36,000).

There are no excuses you can make for the people of Cobb County. And that is just as well because they are not asking you to. Much though it may irk some, particularly in Europe, people who own both a satellite dish and a mobile phone, whether in Kuwait or Kansas, still believe the jury is out on whether the Earth is or is not flat.

This apparent contradiction is one which the liberal left has proved singularly inept at dealing with. The influence of religion in politics provokes in them not a thoughtful response but a mixture of ridicule and contempt.

Those who denied that there was any political context to the September 11 attacks sought refuge in psychology and cultural superiority. The hijackers, they argued, were "jealous" of America's wealth and modernity. The suggestion, which would soon become quite explicit, was that Islam was somehow the creed of a primitive, unaccomplished people. Even as the Catholic church became ever more deeply mired in child sex abuse scandals, Islam remained the principal target of western - particularly European - intellectual disdain.

For the colonial mind in the post-colonial era, Islam was an underdeveloped religion, hateful of the developed world. Its followers, we were warned, were prone to irrational and spontaneous expressions of fundamentalism - no one associated with Christianity, it seems, had ever committed terrorism or hated gays and women - that are incompatible with western values.

The elevation by popular demand of an evangelist to the White House suggests fundamentalism and economic and social modernity may be incongruous but can still coexist. It also shows that western values aren't quite as uncontested or immutable as secular Europeans claim they are.

Sadly this is still news to some on the liberal left. Failing to distinguish between fundamentalism and religiosity, they regard engagement with religious communities as compromising progressive values rather than an opportunity to win people over. They berate the religious right for introducing gay marriage amendments in 11 states without stopping to think what they might have done differently to prevent each being passed with a thumping majority.

Fundamentalism, of all kinds, is a thoroughly reactionary political and social current. Devoted to eternal and exclusive truths, it brooks no dissent and tolerates no debate. Those who believe in gay and women's rights are not going to win over Finsbury Park cleric Abu Hamza or Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma senator who wants the death penalty for abortion doctors, any time soon. But these leaders move from the margins to the mainstream only at times of massive polarisation. When the centre ground has been torched, those caught in the middle are forced to choose a ditch to die in. Faced with a nation where one-fifth of the electorate vote fascist and the state wants your headscarf, some young French Muslims may well end up in the arms of a misogynous imam.

But that's not where they have to be or where they have to stay. Fundamentalists are not born, they are made. The same is true for the secular. But if they are going to make their presence and values felt and understood, then the secular will have to be a bit more adventurous than the missionary position.

At the moment all the liberal left offers is the choice of full-scale conversion or total alienation - baptism into the secular or banishment from the state, off with your headscarves and out with your loyalty cards. They want to win elections without persuasion and impose social cohesion without negotiation.

When dealing with religious communities that have power, like US evangelists, the liberals respond with impotent rage and condescension. Poking fun at the president of "Jesusland" has helped to ease the pain in Europe and the US. But each insult confirms one of the religious right's principal contentions - that there is a foreign and coastal liberal elite that despises almost everything that is not secular and cosmopolitan.

When dealing with religious communities that have less power, like Muslims in Europe, liberal secularists tread a narrow line between sanctimony and bigotry. The murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a lone Muslim extremist unleashed a spiral of Islamophobia. Responding as though the actions of this assailant represented the wishes of an entire community (imagine if black Britons had held all white people responsible for Stephen Lawrence's murder), the Dutch government is considering the closure of mosques that spread "non-Dutch values". Would these be the values of the people who sheltered Anne Frank or those who shopped her?

The notion that fixed national identities are being contaminated by fluid foreign bodies is as fundamentalist and obnoxious as anything you hear out of Riyadh or Utah. As a continent where, in most countries, the number of people voting for openly xenophobic parties exceeds the number of Muslims, let alone the tiny number of Islamic extremists, Europe poses a far greater danger to Muslims than Muslims do to Europe.

"Whether I like it or not, Islam is the second biggest religion in France," said Nicolas Sarkozy, the finance minister, and once the interior minister. "So you've got to integrate it to make it more French."

Mr Sarkozy obviously doesn't like it at all. More importantly, it clearly has not occurred to him that if this relationship is going to work, France will also have to become more Islamic, just as the French made parts of Asia and west and northern Africa become more Christian.

This is only a problem for those who believe Islam has nothing positive to offer France. It is up to them to explain why any self-respecting Muslim would want to integrate into a society that saw his or her faith as incapable of making a valuable contribution. It is the liberal left's choice to see religiosity as a potential threat or an opportunity. The trouble is that right now they don't seem to see its potential at all.

g.younge@guardian.co.uk

[Voronwë]

hey i live in Cobb County! i havent heard about this story, but i already have ruled out any chance of sending my child to public school here. The sad thing is Cobb schools are the best in Georgia (no thats not saying a ton).

[Xorian]

Fundamentalists are not born, they are made.

I totally agree with this.

However what kind of newspapper is The Guardian ? (Politicaly speaking?)

Was interesting read, even if i didnt understand well what was the meaning, the goal of the article ( need to improve my english l33t skeeelz)

[Tenuvil]

This was meandering drivel.

What was the point the writer was eventually going to make? That there are fundamentalists in the USA? Whoot. The whole "secular left" thing made no sense at all. And the cultural references were more obscure and obtuse than Dennis Miller's -- and that's saying a lot.

[archeiron]

This was meandering drivel.

What was the point the writer was eventually going to make? That there are fundamentalists in the USA? Whoot. The whole "secular left" thing made no sense at all. And the cultural references were more obscure and obtuse than Dennis Miller's -- and that's saying a lot.

The article was written for a British (foreign) audience that may be making assumptions about liberty and moderate thinking in America that do not match up with the actual state of the facts. The article explains how some of the fundamentalist hatred the West associates with Islam are not exclusive to Arab Islamic nations. The author observes that the polarization of thought in America has created the same close minded hatred that the West despises so much in the Middle East.

Thank you for your intelligent contribution.

[Rekaar.]

The Guardian is about as left as it gets. I have to hand it to the author though, at least he's actually trying to figure things out rather than name-call and fling shit everywhere.

the liberals respond with impotent rage and condescension. Poking fun at the president of "Jesusland" has helped to ease the pain in Europe and the US. But each insult confirms one of the religious right's principal contentions - that there is a foreign and coastal liberal elite that despises almost everything that is not secular and cosmopolitan.

indeed

and for some balance in the thread

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/char ... 1112.shtml

the conservative perspective.

[Lohrno]

Just a reminder, 50+ million people voted for Kerry. I don't think 1/6th or 7th of our population is the 'Liberal Elite.'

Look, we just want separation of church and state, is that too much to ask?

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

Pretty broad term, each person that says that phrase is asking for something different. That's one of your main challenges - no unified message.

[Voronwë]

Hey Rekaar-

Isnt Charles Krauthammer the columnist who fabricated that story UNC fraternity having its money "stolen" by the state for refusing to let non-Christians in?

cause i would have hoped you would have stopped reading that guy after that ridiculous fabrication that was posted about a year or so ago. assuming this is the same guy.

[Brotha]

Hey Rekaar-

Isnt Charles Krauthammer the columnist who fabricated that story UNC fraternity having its money "stolen" by the state for refusing to let non-Christians in?

cause i would have hoped you would have stopped reading that guy after that ridiculous fabrication that was posted about a year or so ago. assuming this is the same guy.

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hlight=unc

Was Mike S. Adams.

[Lohrno]

Pretty broad term, each person that says that phrase is asking for something different. That's one of your main challenges - no unified message.

I think it's pretty clear. Nothing Government should have anything to do with anything that has to do with Religion. Of course short of protecting people's rights to practice any religion they want so long as it does not endanger others.

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

The Guardian is about as left as it gets. I have to hand it to the author though, at least he's actually trying to figure things out rather than name-call and fling shit everywhere.

This is misleading. The Telegraph favours the Tories, while the Guardian and the Times lean towards the Labour Party. However, in recent years it has been difficult to distinguish between the party platforms on many topics. British candidates would not run on a platform supporting pro-life, for example, because the British people consider this a basically closed issue. As a result, even the more conservative papers in Britain would appear to be liberal or moderate by American standards. Furthermore, there are publications much further to the left wing than the Guardian by a long way.

Conservative politicians in America have no equivalent in mainstream British politics, which was one of the underlying points of this article: to show that American politics is becoming more religious and polarized than most average Brits would imagine. The unified party line of the Republicans in the US is matched by the Labour Party in the UK, which actually more closely resembles the Democrats in the US.

[Voronwë]

Hey Rekaar-

Isnt Charles Krauthammer the columnist who fabricated that story UNC fraternity having its money "stolen" by the state for refusing to let non-Christians in?

cause i would have hoped you would have stopped reading that guy after that ridiculous fabrication that was posted about a year or so ago. assuming this is the same guy.

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hlight=unc

Was Mike S. Adams.

thanks =). same website, so at least my memory is partially working!

[Aabidano]

I don't think US politics are becoming more religious. The people at the extremes are just getting louder.

[Zaelath]

I dunno... that bullshit about the poor filthy arabs being "jealous" of the US is pretty damn mainstream.

[Seebs]

Best sex I had in college was with the preacher's daughters at Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia Arkansas.

Praise the Lord!

[Rekaar.]

Pretty broad term, each person that says that phrase is asking for something different. That's one of your main challenges - no unified message.

I think it's pretty clear. Nothing Government should have anything to do with anything that has to do with Religion. Of course short of protecting people's rights to practice any religion they want so long as it does not endanger others.

-=Lohrno

You mean govt should have nothing to do with religion, right? Since the opposite is not possible. If you believe it is, stop trying to impose your secular humanism on my govt!

[Lohrno]

You mean govt should have nothing to do with religion, right? Since the opposite is not possible. If you believe it is, stop trying to impose your secular humanism on my govt!

Right. No ten commandments statues outside courthouses, no 'under god' on our dollar bills, no rewarding certain religious organizations more than others, etc. The government should never support any particular religion more than others. If certain politicians want to be bible thumpers, fine. But the government should not be.

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

I can understand your point of view, but I disagree with you.

There is no Constitutional basis for your argument that I am aware of. Our country was founded on monotheistic faith. Our country does demand that no religion be persecuted and I wholeheartedly agree with that. That's not the same, however, as saying we should abandon our roots.

This was not founded as nor intended to be a godless society. It never will be. Canada however...

[Lohrno]

There is no Constitutional basis for your argument that I am aware of. Our country was founded on monotheistic faith. Our country does demand that no religion be persecuted and I wholeheartedly agree with that. That's not the same, however, as saying we should abandon our roots.

Congress shall make no law regarding religion. I think that's pretty clear as far as intent. Even if not, it is something we need.

This was not founded as nor intended to be a godless society. It never will be. Canada however...

No, the gov't is not our society, it is what provides for our safety and well being. Let the people choose what religion they want to have, and let the gov't butt out of it and worry about more practical things like protecting our borders, ensuring a healthy economy, etc. Society is what lives inside gov't. Government is just what lets society fluorish.

-=Lohrno

[Xzion]

Best sex I had in college was with the preacher's daughters at Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia Arkansas.

Praise the Lord!

because it was the only sex you had in college?

[Rekaar.]

I'm not seeing how what you're saying translates into changing our traditions and foundations. In God we Trust type things have nothing to do with the rule of law per se. Everything you said is right on, I think. I don't see it as transferrable as you do I guess.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

He's saying he doesn't want your religion, the religion of the majority imposing its beliefs and values on people who either reject such values and beliefs or have their own. It seems people like Jerry Falwel and many of the religious right are trying to do that. People like myself and other non christians feel threatened by this attempt at violation. We're all Americans regardless of religious, and people's personal religious should not leave their homes and places of religious worship.

[Lohrno]

He's saying he doesn't want your religion, the religion of the majority imposing its beliefs and values on people who either reject such values and beliefs or have their own. It seems people like Jerry Falwel and many of the religious right are trying to do that. People like myself and other non christians feel threatened by this attempt at violation. We're all Americans regardless of religious, and people's personal religious should not leave their homes and places of religious worship.

Almost. I don't think public demonstrations of religion are wrong. It's just that by using religious words in governmnet documents/pledges/slogans, it is like the government is endorsing some religion(s) over others. Let the government butt out of it totally, and only do what it needs to do it's job. The government should have no opinion or endorsement of any religion.

This does not mean banning of evangelical protests, demonstrations, etc. All this is and rightly so covered in the first ammendment. People must keep their freedom of religion!

-=Lohrno

[Atokal]

He's saying he doesn't want your religion, the religion of the majority imposing its beliefs and values on people who either reject such values and beliefs or have their own. It seems people like Jerry Falwel and many of the religious right are trying to do that. People like myself and other non christians feel threatened by this attempt at violation. We're all Americans regardless of religious, and people's personal religious should not leave their homes and places of religious worship.

Yes Riv, and you want to foist your views on Christians. /golf clap

All people in the USA and Canada have the freedom of choice. You can listen to the religious right or choose to follow your own moral code. Some of the things you think are the result of mainstream religious thinking are in fact simply people following their own moral code. Just because religious folks back a certain bill etc does not mean there are not others who back it for their own reasons. Like gay marriage and the issue of abortion.

But to expect people who have strong beliefs to sit back while the country they live in makes choices that go against their beliefs is absurd. You have the same rights (as a religious person) to lobby for your own views.

Cheers

[archeiron]

He's saying he doesn't want your religion, the religion of the majority imposing its beliefs and values on people who either reject such values and beliefs or have their own. It seems people like Jerry Falwel and many of the religious right are trying to do that. People like myself and other non christians feel threatened by this attempt at violation. We're all Americans regardless of religious, and people's personal religious should not leave their homes and places of religious worship.

Yes Riv, and you want to foist your views on Christians. /golf clap

All people in the USA and Canada have the freedom of choice. You can listen to the religious right or choose to follow your own moral code. Some of the things you think are the result of mainstream religious thinking are in fact simply people following their own moral code. Just because religious folks back a certain bill etc does not mean there are not others who back it for their own reasons. Like gay marriage and the issue of abortion.

But to expect people who have strong beliefs to sit back while the country they live in makes choices that go against their beliefs is absurd. You have the same rights (as a religious person) to lobby for your own views.

Cheers

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

You are arguing that when someone suggests that we remove Biblical references from government documents is a form of "imposing personal (religious) belief" in much the same way that the group that first suggested that they be put there. This is incorrect. For all that you know Rivera may have religious references that fits better with his personal beliefs that he could suggest be put in their place; rather than doing so, he is suggesting that no religious phrase be used by the government so as to not select one religion over another.

You have further argued that pro-choice supporters are trying to impose their beliefs on pro-life people. Quite the contrary, once again, the pro-choice lobby supports just that, choice. Some people support abortion and some do not, the current laws allow both of those groups to make personal decisions based upon their own beliefs. Pro-life groups seem to be upset that they don't get to make the choice for everyone else, which is where the line is crossed.

Being pro-choice does not mean that I believe that someone should or should not be allowed to have an abortion based upon MY beliefs; it means that I believe that someone should have the choice to make the decision based upon their beliefs. If their beliefs tell them that it is wrong, then they should not have an abortion, but if their beliefs tell them that it is ok, then the option should be open to them.

This fallacious double talk of liberal people "imposing" gay marriage and abortion on the conservative right is tedius and absurd. No one is knocking on YOUR door asking that you family start having regular abortions or demanding that YOU marry another man. The groups supporting gay rights are asking that gay couples have legal standing free from the religious persecution of people like yourself so that they may quietly go about their business (without bothering you!) but have rights protecting them just like any other couple.

[Voronwë]

its funny. on one hand Conservatives tend to want reduced government influence in personal lives, and less government control of markets, health care, retirement investing, etc.

Because the government doesn't handle your retirement investing (Bush's plan), doesn't mean our society is DEVOID of retirement investing.

By extension, the lack of government mention of religion does not mean that society then becomes Godless.

Government offices are closed on Sundays typically, and I imagine the doors to your church are wide open. Government offices tend to be closed Wednesday nights, but i imagine your church could have Bible Study going on in its Parish Hall.

Most fundamentalists are good people (like everybody else). What illicits such a strong reaction from persons like myself who do not share those beliefs, is that the intertwinded political/religious organizations like the Christian Coalition are actively working to deepen the government's relationship with a particular brand of Christianity.

So in summary, it is antithetical to true Conservatism, as well as antithetical to George Bush's brand of Conservatism to say that if the government does not coordinate certain things then our society does not contain them. The private sector is the bulk of our society, and for the most part, it is regulated by the participants without the constant intrusion and manipulation by our government.

There is no need for tacit endorsement of religion in our courtrooms, in our public schools, or in other government agencies.

The New York Yankees don't need the City of New York to put a "Lets Go Yankees" stamp on Metro Tokens to sell out Yankee Stadium. Your Church doesn't need the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse wall to fill its pews on Sundays or to keep the Offering Plate full.

[Tenuvil]

its funny. on one hand Conservatives tend to want reduced government influence in personal lives, and less government control of markets, health care, retirement investing, etc.

Because the government doesn't handle your retirement investing (Bush's plan), doesn't mean our society is DEVOID of retirement investing.

By extension, the lack of government mention of religion does not mean that society then becomes Godless.

Government offices are closed on Sundays typically, and I imagine the doors to your church are wide open. Government offices tend to be closed Wednesday nights, but i imagine your church could have Bible Study going on in its Parish Hall.

Most fundamentalists are good people (like everybody else). What illicits such a strong reaction from persons like myself who do not share those beliefs, is that the intertwinded political/religious organizations like the Christian Coalition are actively working to deepen the government's relationship with a particular brand of Christianity.

So in summary, it is antithetical to true Conservatism, as well as antithetical to George Bush's brand of Conservatism to say that if the government does not coordinate certain things then our society does not contain them. The private sector is the bulk of our society, and for the most part, it is regulated by the participants without the constant intrusion and manipulation by our government.

There is no need for tacit endorsement of religion in our courtrooms, in our public schools, or in other government agencies.

The New York Yankees don't need the City of New York to put a "Lets Go Yankees" stamp on Metro Tokens to sell out Yankee Stadium. Your Church doesn't need the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse wall to fill its pews on Sundays or to keep the Offering Plate full.

Thank you for the most lucid argument yet on this topic.

[Lohrno]

Yes Riv, and you want to foist your views on Christians. /golf clap

Please, quote me where he says "I want to foist my views on Christians."

I know you can't do it, so zip it.

-=Lohrno

[Rivera Bladestrike]

Ya good post...

Heres a given example, I'm an atheist. I think that people would be just a little bit offended if I went around and said "God isn't real, its just a method of control", to shorten one of my arguments against his existance. I think you'd probably think I was imposing my beliefs on others. But you don't because I don't and no atheist really does. So I really don't force my opinion on others, outside of this board that is, I'm not going to post my ideas on the church welcome sign. I think I'd be murdered in the most brutal fashion by good christian men and women.

On the other hand is seems like almost all christians need to reach out to the "lesser" religions, with phrases like "good christian man" etc. Not to mention god being mentioned at every presidential speech, court hearing, monument, dollar bill, and the pledge of allegiance.

I don't like to hear any godly references from my elected government officials since it seems like they're just doing it to make the religious right crack a smile. Like Kerry's painful response at the debates in response to the religion question where he tried his very best and failed miserably to express devotion to his religion. For the most part, we know Bush is religious. Fantastic, let him do it on his own time, I don't need to hear that some other religion i don't believe in is pinpointing the direction of my country.

I think religion is one of the biggest issues now in politics as a result of the past two elections, I think someone mentioned it before, that the extremists are making more of a impression on the country and thats why we're seeing such an outcry from both sides. I don't want a country where people like Jerry Falwel or people who are educated but still reject science at every corner to actually have power in this country.

[Aabidano]

people who are educated but still reject science at every corner

The more I learn the more I'm convinced there is a God.

/shrug

[Rekaar.]

Ya good post...

Heres a given example, I'm an atheist. I think that people would be just a little bit offended if I went around and said "God isn't real, its just a method of control", to shorten one of my arguments against his existance. I think you'd probably think I was imposing my beliefs on others.

What you're not grasping is that you're doing EXACTLY that by trying to take God out of everything in the public domain. That's why there's resistance, because folks/activists that share your religious beliefs decided to pick a fight. Right or wrong you need to realize that you are trying to foist your beliefs on everyone else by chjanging the traditions and established norms.

It only makes sense there be resistance to your agenda.

I think at the core of the disagreement is that you want this country to be different than it is and was founded as, while your opposition wants to get back to its roots.

[Lohrno]

What you're not grasping is that you're doing EXACTLY that by trying to take God out of everything in the public domain. That's why there's resistance, because folks/activists that share your religious beliefs decided to pick a fight. Right or wrong you need to realize that you are trying to foist your beliefs on everyone else by chjanging the traditions and established norms.

It only makes sense there be resistance to your agenda.

I think at the core of the disagreement is that you want this country to be different than it is and was founded as, while your opposition wants to get back to its roots.

No. The public domain is not limited to the government. No one is arguing for removing bibles from libraries, etc. Nobody wants to ban churches, etc. That is what you are essentially arguing our position is. Nobody is arguing for a change in norms at all. (Well besides the pledge.)

Our country was not founded with all these things, our country was founded with the idea of separation of church and state, and acceptance of other cultures. Otherwise, this would be a theocracy, dictatorship or monarchy or something else.

Let me repeat it again since you don't seem to get it. We do not want to step on people's traditions/cultures, etc. We just want the government to be neutral about it. That's why the 1st ammendment says "Congress shall make no law...to freedom of religion." The idea was to make sure everyone has it.

You seem to equate changing what the government does to changing what the people do within it.

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

What you're not grasping is that you're doing EXACTLY that by trying to take God out of everything in the public domain. That's why there's resistance, because folks/activists that share your religious beliefs decided to pick a fight. Right or wrong you need to realize that you are trying to foist your beliefs on everyone else by chjanging the traditions and established norms.

It only makes sense there be resistance to your agenda.

I think at the core of the disagreement is that you want this country to be different than it is and was founded as, while your opposition wants to get back to its roots.

No. The public domain is not limited to the government. No one is arguing for removing bibles from libraries, etc. Nobody wants to ban churches, etc. That is what you are essentially arguing our position is. Nobody is arguing for a change in norms at all. (Well besides the pledge.)

Our country was not founded with all these things, our country was founded with the idea of separation of church and state, and acceptance of other cultures. Otherwise, this would be a theocracy, dictatorship or monarchy or something else.

Let me repeat it again since you don't seem to get it. We do not want to step on people's traditions/cultures, etc. We just want the government to be neutral about it. That's why the 1st ammendment says "Congress shall make no law...to freedom of religion." The idea was to make sure everyone has it.

You seem to equate changing what the government does to changing what the people do within it.

-=Lohrno

And for emphasis, let me quote the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Xzion]

cmon guys, we all know the constitution is about as left wing liberal as it gets...we dont need that liberal crap in our country, we should replace the constitution with something better...the 10 commandments!

everyone here has made a great argument, and for some reason the people on the other side cannot grasp that the government being neutral about god and religion is a lot different then the government supporting anti-religion

as mentioned, the religious right would be offended if instead of "one nation under god" it was "one nation, with no god" and rightfully so
they would also be offended if abortion was FORCED upon them and they had no right to not have an abortion. We would also be disgusted with having heterosexual marriage banned and only allowing gay marriage.

The religious right uses scenarios mentioned in the extreme situations above to support there argument, but of course all "culturally conservative" arguments are fundamentally flawed, unless of course they are able to publicly denounce the constitution.

Although we have hit a cultural road bump I still believe society will continue to evolve, yet unfortunately most people are not as open minded and culturally evolved as the “godamn liberals”

[Rekaar.]

Making a law that prohibits freedom of religious worship is not the same thing. There is nothing prohibitive about the dollar bill. And it's not a law.

[Xzion]

Making a law that prohibits freedom of religious worship is not the same thing. There is nothing prohibitive about the dollar bill. And it's not a law.

but integrating "in god we trust" violates the 1st amendment, as it integrates a religious figure (god) with the government...

what if it said "there is no god" on the dollar bill instead...i would love to see what jerry falwell would say about that

BOTH of these examples are wrong, as they violate a seperation of church and state....so there should be no mention of "god" on any government property

[Mak]

Making a law that prohibits freedom of religious worship is not the same thing. There is nothing prohibitive about the dollar bill. And it's not a law.

but integrating "in god we trust" violates the 1st amendment, as it integrates a religious figure (god) with the government...

what if it said "there is no god" on the dollar bill instead...i would love to see what jerry falwell would say about that

BOTH of these examples are wrong, as they violate a seperation of church and state....so there should be no mention of "god" on any government property

So you would say that the Declaration of Independence is in violation of the Constitution?

[Spang]

Making a law that prohibits freedom of religious worship is not the same thing. There is nothing prohibitive about the dollar bill. And it's not a law.

but integrating "in god we trust" violates the 1st amendment, as it integrates a religious figure (god) with the government...

what if it said "there is no god" on the dollar bill instead...i would love to see what jerry falwell would say about that

BOTH of these examples are wrong, as they violate a seperation of church and state....so there should be no mention of "god" on any government property

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

As a part of a comprehensive modernization program the BEP successfully developed and installed new high-speed rotary intaglio printing presses in 1957. These allowed BEP to print currency by the dry intaglio process, 32 notes to the sheet. One-dollar silver certificates were the first denomination printed on the new high-speed presses. They included IN GOD WE TRUST as part of the reverse design as BEP adopted new dies according to the law. The motto also appeared on one-dollar silver certificates of the 1957-A and 1957-B series.

BEP prints United States paper currency by an intaglio process from engraved plates. It was necessary, therefore, to engrave the motto into the printing plates as a part of the basic engraved design to give it the prominence it deserved.

One-dollar silver certificates series 1935, 1935-A, 1935-B, 1935-C, 1935-D, 1935-E, 1935-F, 1935-G, and 1935-H were all printed on the older flat-bed presses by the wet intaglio process. P.L. 84-140 recognized that an enormous expense would be associated with immediately replacing the costly printing plates. The law allowed BEP to gradually convert to the inclusion of IN GOD WE TRUST on the currency. Accordingly, the motto is not found on series 1935-E and 1935-F one-dollar notes. By September 1961, IN GOD WE TRUST had been added to the back design of the Series 1935-G notes. Some early printings of this series do not bear the motto. IN GOD WE TRUST appears on all series 1935-H one-dollar silver certificates.

[Aabidano]

society will continue to evolve, yet unfortunately most people are not as open minded and culturally evolved as the “godamn liberals”

That's not neccesarily a good thing.

Rot from within has been the root cause of destruction for most modern civilizations. In trying to be progressive and making everyone "free and happy", I think you're headed down the path to destruction myself. All the little steps erode societal bonds, and you end up with a very happy and diverse, but morally bankrupt shell ripe for the picking.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

So by Spang's article IN GOD WE TRUST was never put in by our founding fathers and was meerly the religious sentiment of the time forcing their beliefs on others. It says it right there in the first paragraph.

[Seebs]

All you religion haters can just go to nowhere!

[Rivera Bladestrike]

All you religion haters can just go to nowhere!

Lol, that made my morning, hilarious.

[archeiron]

Making a law that prohibits freedom of religious worship is not the same thing. There is nothing prohibitive about the dollar bill. And it's not a law.

but integrating "in god we trust" violates the 1st amendment, as it integrates a religious figure (god) with the government...

what if it said "there is no god" on the dollar bill instead...i would love to see what jerry falwell would say about that

BOTH of these examples are wrong, as they violate a seperation of church and state....so there should be no mention of "god" on any government property

So you would say that the Declaration of Independence is in violation of the Constitution?

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, so it is not bound by the laws of the Constitution.

[Spang]

The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

by Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995

"The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)


George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)


Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

[Xzion]

society will continue to evolve, yet unfortunately most people are not as open minded and culturally evolved as the “godamn liberals”

That's not neccesarily a good thing.

Rot from within has been the root cause of destruction for most modern civilizations. In trying to be progressive and making everyone "free and happy", I think you're headed down the path to destruction myself. All the little steps erode societal bonds, and you end up with a very happy and diverse, but morally bankrupt shell ripe for the picking.

how does "a morally bankrupt society"(morality is entirely subjective) going to lead to the downfall of our civilization? please explain this...im not talking ethics (murder, stealing, hurting others in anyway), im talking morality...i really want to hear this argument

Hell look at the roman empire, during there rise there were diverse religions and cults within the empire, and with a (for the time at least) a socially liberal society they continued to prosper,
then the rise of christianity comes, followed by the fall of the roman empire, and what do we have? the dark ages

oh, lets talk about another moral society...the taliban...there entire government was based on religious morality and look at there quality of life, for the taliban would the epitome of a very very far religious conservative government, and with our country going further and further to the conservative side, all we are doing is taking baby steps on a road that will lead us to the christian equivilant of the taliban

[Xyun]

Ya good post...

Heres a given example, I'm an atheist. I think that people would be just a little bit offended if I went around and said "God isn't real, its just a method of control", to shorten one of my arguments against his existance. I think you'd probably think I was imposing my beliefs on others.

What you're not grasping is that you're doing EXACTLY that by trying to take God out of everything in the public domain. That's why there's resistance, because folks/activists that share your religious beliefs decided to pick a fight. Right or wrong you need to realize that you are trying to foist your beliefs on everyone else by chjanging the traditions and established norms.

It only makes sense there be resistance to your agenda.

I think at the core of the disagreement is that you want this country to be different than it is and was founded as, while your opposition wants to get back to its roots.

There are two fallacies in this argument. The first fallacy is the idea that liberals are attempting to change this country in a way that is inconsistent with its founders intentions concerning the separation of church and state. While it may be true that through the years, our culture has adapted certain customs and traditions that may allow for or sometimes even call for some sort of acknowledgement of God within our government, this was never the intent of the founding fathers. They went so far as to explicitly state this in the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The fact that the highest law of the land has been traditionally violated does not mean that it is acceptable to do so, nor does it mean that the law itself has changed its meaning. Any assertion that the founding fathers intended for some form of cohesion between church and state is comically ridiculous.

The second fallacy, and probably the more critical one is the attempt to victimize yourself as the one whose rights are being taken away or whose beliefs are being trampled upon. Liberals do not want the government to be Pagan or Athiest or Buddhist or Muslim or Christian or what have you. We want the government to be neutral in religious matters while protecting all religions. We do not oppose religion or more specifically Christianity. We endorse neutrality, that is all. Neutral != anti-religious. Yet you want to argue that it does, that neutrality itself is opposition, which is a gross misunderstanding of the word.

[Fairweather Pure]

So by Spang's article IN GOD WE TRUST was never put in by our founding fathers and was meerly the religious sentiment of the time forcing their beliefs on others.

"One nation under God" was also tacked onto the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. That was added on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the words.

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

If it weren't for constant revisions, Christianity would've died out long ago. Of course, they also need lemmings to never question the reasoning or motives behind those revisions.