MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

The Great Debate of Our Season

News: Introducing a Mother Jones special issue on the interplay of conservative Christianity and the U.S. government.

December/January 2006 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

THOSE WORDS, PENNED IN ARTICLE 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, are as succinct a statement as we have from the Founding Fathers on the role of religion in our government. Their authorship is ascribed variously to George Washington, under whom the treaty was negotiated, or to John Adams, under whom it took effect, or sometimes to Joel Barlow, U.S. consul to Algiers, friend of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and himself no stranger to the religious ferment of the era, having served as a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army. But the validity of the document transcends its authorship for a simple reason: it was ratified. It was debated in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Adams without a breath of controversy or complaint concerning its secular language, and so stands today as an official description of the founders' intent.

And it wouldn't stand a chance in the government of the country we've become.

The idea of America was always informed by the ideals of its religious citizens, expressed, often, in religious terms. But the genius of America was the establishment, by those same individuals, of the world’s first secular government. That government wasn't at odds with religion—even the separation of church and state might be construed as a policy extension of Jesus' admonition not to pray as the hypocrites do, in public. And many religious factions (among them the 19th-century evangelicals) lobbied for secular governance, to protect themselves from the tyranny of mainstream denominations. Yet some among the faithful, uncomfortable with America from the start, saw secularism as the nation's fatal flaw, instead of its core strength, and have fought to transform the United States into an expressly Judeo-Christian nation.

Recently, the inheritors of this viewpoint are prevailing. The measure of religion's intrusion into our government and politics can be found whenever the White House markets a Supreme Court candidate by flaunting her religious convictions and church affiliation, whenever liberal Democrat politicians ostentatiously genuflect to show they can be prayerful, too, whenever a FEMA website directs the public to contribute its hurricane-relief funds to a right-wing ministry. Kansas senator Sam Brownback, gearing up to run for president on a faith-based, antiabortion platform, calls the role of religion in government "the great debate of our season."

The religious right didn't come by this prominence by accident, by casually capturing (and capitalizing on) the desire of many Americans for a more meaningful and spiritual life, nor even by the simple tactic of wrapping itself in the purloined flag of the founders and in a misconstrued Constitution. They organized, crafting a far-flung and intricate network of political pulpits, media outlets, funding organs and think tanks, and integrating it into the political machinery of the Republican right. The religious right shares the conservatives’ will to power and also, more than previously, a conviction that it is obligated by destiny to remake the country in its image.

This issue of Mother Jones is dedicated to illuminating the interplay between conservative Christianity and the U.S. government. We regard the movement's history, chart its arteries of funding and influence, and locate its wellsprings of support and aspiration. And we also show how such national issues as Intelligent Design and the death penalty are being debated within the church. It’s been more than 200 years since the founders established the separation of church and state. The assault on that principle now under way promises to alter not only our form of government but our concept of religion as well.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

Right ON! The "Christian" right is set on creating a country just like the ones our pioneers tried to escape from because of bigotry and religious persecution. Religious freedom is a central freedom in this country; in fact freedom FROM religion is a central freedom in this country. In the immortal words of Martin Luther "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a stupid Christian."
Posted by:Terminal DegreeMay 29, 2007 6:41:49 PMRespond ^
Where, in ANY founding document of the US government, do you find ANY mention of a "separation of church and state"? You Don't- doesn't exist. The phrase ONLY appears in some of Thomas Jefferson's letters. This whole concept is but one of those lies that, told enough times, has come to be accepted as truth. Fact is, there is FAR and AWAY more evidence of our founder's Faith in the Judeo-Christian God, than there is of their supposed "secularism".
Posted by:Mr. Laurence RemalyJune 30, 2007 9:40:17 PMRespond ^
This article show clearly the the issues are clouded by a lot of twix and an attempt to re difine what religious people believe and want. It the constution has already establish the separation and is is still in place, what is the argument about." “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” what is the debate?, the constitution guarants that people can believe whatever they want, elect government official any which way they want, so what the issued, the religious right has the right to to canpaign for thier beliefs and if they happen to be the majority they will overcome.
Posted by:Manuel RiquelmeJuly 1, 2007 1:33:52 AMRespond ^
Sigh, I really hope that Democrats would "get religion" and liberals at least tried to understand Christian point of view too, at least to the degree that the extreme right could not automatically claim millions of American Christian believers as their own supporters without much effort and despite all their lies and false promises. We need more people like Martin Luther King Jr. was, a progressive thinker yet still a firm Christian believer, like Jesus was too, by the way. Liberals shouldn't just proudly sit on their fat asses laughing at Christian values and leaving those millions of Christians no other choice but to vote for right-wing Republicans who at least pretend to be Christians too, even though they wouldn't really follow the God of the Bible any more than the secular liberals do.
Posted by:Balance, pleaseJuly 6, 2007 11:34:09 AMRespond ^
If you call a pig's tail a leg, how many legs does that pig have? Four. just because you call it a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Posted by:LaHaRRJuly 18, 2007 10:05:35 AMRespond ^
Ok Mr. Remaly, then take a look at Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified 1797 ! Also, our Federal system IS a mirror of the Masons own Fraternal Government, which most of the Country's founders were a member of !
Posted by:Mike D.July 23, 2007 4:53:01 PMRespond ^
Re. Mr. Remaly's question. That is an easy one. The First Amendment of the Constition is clear: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Posted by:jim bordelonAugust 5, 2007 7:10:10 PMRespond ^
Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of Christianity knows that righteousness cannot be legislated nor can a conversion be coerced. A religion that is forced is not religion...its tyranny. However, when I go to the polls to vote, I'll be voting for the person who believes and practices "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and the person who believes they will ultimately me accountable for the things they do whether or not some senate sub-committee uncovers some wrongdoing they may engage in. I've never in 47 years met a Christian who even remotely thought that we should try to force this nation to be a theocracy. Never met one. However, I've met plenty who believe that this country would be better served by those individuals whose belief system is based on the basic concepts of biblical Christianity. This has nothing to do with forcing one's religion on someone else. You promote your candidates that base their decisions on their belief system and I'll vote for the ones who base their ideals on the values I agree with and may the best man (or woman) win.
Posted by:Michael BowmanAugust 6, 2007 9:49:18 PMRespond ^
In my time I have met a number of people that believe strongly that this should be a theocracy -- I work with two of them at this time. They guarantee to me and our office mates that we will see it in our lifetime. It is, they say, a commandment of their bible and is the actual intention of the founders. They ae very excited that they will soon live in a theocracy with old testament laws governing the country, citizens and non-citizens alike. Non-citizens are non-christians, christians that are not of their belief system and females.
Posted by:chris youngAugust 7, 2007 1:58:49 PMRespond ^
The damage religion has done and continues to do in the world is reason enough to keep it in the closet. None of them would qualify as Christians if you were to use the discription of Jesus as a definition.
Posted by:T Daniel KuhnAugust 27, 2007 7:36:06 AMRespond ^
Can't ignore the fact that while our founders wanted to force no religion, they still were JudeoChristian in their beliefs. I mean they did put In God We Trust on the money...yes?
Posted by:ChristothorSeptember 6, 2007 3:00:06 PMRespond ^
Mr. Remaly: Like so many others, you conflate the fact that most of the founders were religious men with the notion that ours is a "Judeo-Christian nation." Were you to study history and law you would understand that only the former is true. The better example of an untruth told many times - i.e., a myth - is that we are a "Christian nation." Bravo to Mother Jones for tackling this thorny, important, and unfortunately silly issue.
Posted by:J. ThomasSeptember 20, 2007 10:33:40 AMRespond ^
To Mr. Chris Young: I assure you that Christianity does not tech any of the things you are claiming. One of two situations has occurred. One, you have misunderstood your coworkers or, two, they are a part of some cult that claims they are christians when in fact they are not. Either way, I find it amusing how our country wants tolerance of ALL religions (including those that promote violence) but refuses to be tolerant of Christianity. This attitude only lends to the validity of the Christian faith. In the meantime, produce the body of Jesus and then all discussions can be settled.
Posted by:Brian KingOctober 2, 2007 4:39:17 PMRespond ^
Excuse me Christothor, but they did not put "In god we trust" on money. That particular phrase did not start to appear on currency until the mid 1800's. Ignorance is bliss for theocratic twits like you.
Posted by:E.V.October 4, 2007 10:46:58 AMRespond ^
Mr. Rmaly, Did you happen to read the quote leading this tory from the Treaty of Tripoli? Perhaps you have read the sentence in the Constitutuion forbidding religious tests for people assuming office? I imagine you have heard of the Establishment Clause in the same document? These refereces, and more, define the wall of separartion between church and state. Why don't you people get over your meglomanical quest to turn our government into a Christian theocracy, complete with new Crusader warriors and thought police goons to make the citizen sheeple conform, and simply go about your business engaging in all manner of private worship...go to church 24/7/365 for all I are...give all your money to your charismatic mega-church charlatan 'holy men'. But it's not about your private worship, is it? You people want to be the Lords of a new Christian autocracy and control everyone in the country, thn the world. We will stop you.
Posted by:Mr. SecularOctober 14, 2007 6:12:48 AMRespond ^
"Congress shall make no law favoring any single religion."
Posted by:Read the ConstitutionNovember 3, 2007 4:48:24 AMRespond ^
I beieve "In God We Trust" just as "One Nation Under God" were products of the 1950's red scare- not completely sure about it-
Posted by:HodgerNovember 9, 2007 1:50:34 AMRespond ^
I totally agree. If you are looking for a candidate with a christian belief system but still a champion of civil rights check out the most inspiring speech given in 40 years regarding politics and religion http://link.brightcove.com/services /link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
Posted by:MaryNovember 21, 2007 6:09:07 PMRespond ^
Obama personifies the ideals of the founding fathers. He is a Christian, has Christian beliefs, yet still believes in America the free. Free to choose to believe whatever WE CHOOSE. He has great ideas on how government and religion can live harmoniously and do not have to be polar opposites. Check out his speech on Politics and Religion http://link.brightcove.com/services /link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
Posted by:MaryNovember 21, 2007 6:14:19 PMRespond ^
It's very ironic to me that that these supposed Christians vote for the neocon 'chickenhawks.' Jesus said: do not kill, do not be greedy, etc. Most Republicans are greedy, war-mongering false Christians...they will say anything to get elected. The reason there is a seperation--or supposed to be--between Church and State is to prevent this kind of corruption, and to guarantee that religious institutions, all of which have different belief systems when it comes to details, do not end up infringing upon people's rights. A lot of people were put to death by "Christians" in the past for simply advancing truth--scientific, indisputable truth--like the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe.
Posted by:AlanNovember 23, 2007 10:41:11 PMRespond ^
I totally agree. What is it about Americans that make them unhappy unless they can make everyone else believe and live as they do? We are the most intrusive people in the world. If you are so sure of your beliefs, why do you need to try to convince others? This is called condescention and it's very rude (even if spelled incorrectly). This same principle is reflected in our foreign policies and explains why people despise Americans. We just can't seem to mind our own business. There is a big difference, too, I believe, in the Christian or Catholic Church, which has many agendas that I personally think the Christ of the Bible would look down upon...as one person said, He said to pray in private, in one's closet, not in public as the hypocrites do...So Christ would probably view the politician's use of proclaiming belief to be quite hypocritical--and it obviously is. George Bush, a good Christian!?? He's killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of American Empire and our greed for oil and the money it brings to the elite few. G.W. better hope there isn't a Heaven and Hell, 'cause there's no doubt which way he would go. I also don't understand the Christian Right's beliefs that the only lives that matter are those of the unborn...Do everything to save an unborn foetus, but once they are 18, ship'em off to fight the neocons' wars--wars they have never fought in, nor any of their offspring. Our own President is a deserter!! Yet he has the nerve to stand with the real heroes on Aircraft carriers...it makes me sick!!!
Posted by:AlanNovember 23, 2007 11:00:18 PMRespond ^
Unfortunately, our Constitution is being dismantled piece by piece, starting with the Bill of Rights (for those of you who don't know, that's the first ten amendments to the Constitution that establish and protect our Civil Liberties)
Posted by:AlanNovember 23, 2007 11:10:48 PMRespond ^
The pretend christian churchianity-religionists support for the Republican party is easy to determine, the "leaders" are bribed for their endorsements of Republican candidates. When did Pat Robertson ever do something for nothing, never. These phony preachers, the Biblical Harlots, are bribed outright and with American taxpayers monies, thru Faith Based Initiative funding. They are easily bribed because of their tax exempt status and that donations are tax deductible. All this results in government subsidized religion, god communists. The complain about godless communists but why are god communists any better?
Posted by:bogi666November 30, 2007 2:47:07 PMRespond ^
Our founders who authored the constitution and bill of rights and who defined america's new principles of govt were not judeo christians. they were Deists. God was not put on money til much later. Apparently your information sources are not accurate
Posted by:varlettaNovember 30, 2007 3:20:39 PMRespond ^
To Mr. Laurence Remaly: For those who argue that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, it can be said that the phrase 'right to a fair trial' also does not appear there. Does this mean that we don't have such a right? Can the state subject us to an unfair trial so long as it is: speedy, public, with an impartial jury, with a defense counsel, with witnesses, etc.? Apparently. Bloomberg reports (via Jurist) that the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man in California who defended himself, but was allowed almost no access to his jail’s law library: The justices said that because there is no established right of access to a prison law library for defendants representing themselves, Espitia couldn’t win reversal of his state-court conviction in federal court. Espitia, who was in jail while awaiting trial, was given no law library access before his trial began and about four hours of access just before closing arguments. ... His lawyer, W.C. Melcher, said in court papers that jail authorities defied repeated orders from the trial judge handling the case to provide law library access. “Espitia was deprived of any pretrial access to legal research materials and, accordingly, of any opportunity to make a meaningful defense,’’ Melcher argued. Once again: there is no explicit constitutional right to a fair trial. This is what the Constitution actually says: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Do you see the words “fair trial” above? No. Therefore, so long as the above listed provisions are all adhered to, no constitutional violations have occurred — right? That’s arguably the case. Those who insist that the absence of the phrase “separation of church and state” means that the concept isn’t present, either, would have difficulty arguing that the concept “right to a fair trial” exists without the phrase being there. Now, though, we have an example of how the government might create a situation where the formal provisions listed in the Constitution are followed without also substantively providing a fair trail to the accused. It probably wasn’t smart of Espitia to defend himself (notice that he obtained a lawyer for his appeals on this constitutional matter), but given the fact that he did make this choice (which he has a right to do), it was wrong for the prison to defy court orders to provide Espitia with materials that were already generally available.
Posted by:patriotinbostonDecember 2, 2007 1:15:15 PMRespond ^
If you are interested in a view from overseas...Here in Britain the Religious Right is not seen as a Christian movement but Fascism masquerading as religion. You are not faced by a threat to religious freedom therefore, but all freedoms; nor will you combat this group successfully until the Democratic Party finds the courage to call them by their right name and challenge them accordingly. Meanwhile, whereas they would give you no voice whatsoever, they are thriving on the respectability you give them by liberal debate such as this. For all our sakes, take the gloves off. You may not have much time left.
Posted by:Jeffrey ThompsonDecember 18, 2007 7:44:37 PMRespond ^
It seems there are two kinds of people in the world, THIEVES & SLAVES & some are both. I don't want to be either.
Posted by:JerryDecember 24, 2007 4:55:17 PMRespond ^
I confess I am a Christian. Perhaps I am not a good Christian, or maybe I just haven't been fully indoctrinated, I don't know. I have never been invited to any of the meetings at church where we discuss how we are going to take over the world. I'm sorry I just had to throw that out there. To be honest with everyone out there I must admit I understand where all the "hate" or "disgust" with Christians originates. It is the few (I hope) closed minded Christians who can't seem to understand that Jesus wants us to love everyone whether they conform to our lifestyle or not, that most people think of when they hear the word "Christian". I apologize I know that was rambling. The thing that I wanted to say is that as a Christian voter I don't vote based on religion I vote for the candidate that I think is the most capable of running our country. It would do a lot of good for our country if everyone would stop voting based on one or two personal issues and view all political candidates as people who are going to be leaders of our country. I don't care what religion my boss is, I don't care what religion my co-workers are all i care is that they do their jobs properly so that we can all prosper. Isn't that how our country should run as well? I don't know maybe i'm just being gullible again.
Posted by:KedronJanuary 8, 2008 3:28:50 PMRespond ^
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it." -- Benjamin Franklin ////// "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." -- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by:John Lewis-DickersonJanuary 8, 2008 4:29:59 PMRespond ^
Trust me, that's how a lot of Americans see it too.
Posted by:TerrilsJanuary 30, 2008 2:20:00 PMRespond ^
The problem is that liberals tend to be narrow minded bigots when it comes to any group of people that disagree with their world view. As you can see from reading these comments, there are plenty of conservatives trying to understand the liberal view point, but I never see liberals on conservative Christian sites trying to understand their viewpoints. Liberals don't want to hear it, I guess. It takes so much convincing to believe that animals should have more rights than babies, for example, that they are afraid they will be convinced otherwise. Liberalism is like its own little cult. If you stop believing, all your liberal friends will reject you, so you have to keep to your narrow minded "Mother Jones" like publications so they can keep reinforcing your beliefs for you.
Posted by:BobJanuary 31, 2008 9:18:44 PMRespond ^
Why are we always trying to figure out the true intent of the founding Fathers? And why do we believe that if discovered, their ideas should be reflected in how our laws should be set up? What if their true intent is not in the best interest of our country in 2008? Perhaps we need new vision instead of always trying to dig up evidence about the founding Fathers true intent. Who cares what their true intent was! They were just a group of men trying to figure out what would be best for the country in their time. True- their vision has held up well- but it is not infallible. Their intentions were based on what they knew and understood at that time. Their religion and beliefs was largely due to the time period and locations they lived. It was based on the experiences they had at that time. We need to look at today, how the country is today and figure out what is best now.
Posted by:JenFebruary 25, 2008 4:00:18 PMRespond ^
Re: Brian King -- "Produce the body of Jesus...." Are your for real? First, you produce a shred of evidence Jesus is but a myth. Whats that? The Gospel is your proof? The most laughable thing about Christianity is its insistence that its own dogma proves its validity.

I suspect the world will become tolerant of Christians when Christians become tolerant of any but themselves. If you recall, it's you folks who insist only Christians can enter heaven. How arrogant and exclusionary.

Be and think and do anything you want. But stay out of my life and my government.
Posted by:Rod TannerFebruary 25, 2008 4:59:08 PMRespond ^
Neat articles about fundamentalism and politics. My wife of 34 years is the daughter of a fundamentalist minister and was married in her twenties to a fundamentalist minister who used her as Suddenly Last Summer bait. Our politics are a bit to the left of Mother Jones, but you may want to check us out at matrix-evolutions DOT com to see if you want to establish a link with us, our primary take being that the lunatic evangelicals are taking us all to a religiously annointed nuclear WWIII. Dr. & Mrs. P. Calabria
Posted by:Peter CalabriaFebruary 26, 2008 2:52:03 PMRespond ^
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"

Doesn't history show the "intent"?...

George Washington (First President of the United States of America.)
"Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."May 1789

Thomas Jefferson (Third President of the United States of America)
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines or exercises." Words of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 5, pg 236

Theodore Roosevelt (Twenty-sixth President of the United States of America)
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed;" New York, October 12, 1915

Ulysses S. Grant (Eighteenth President of the United States of America)
"Declare church and state forever separate and distinct; but each free within their proper spheres." Seventh annual message, Congress December 7, 1875. "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate." Des Moines, IA 1875.

James A. Garfield (Twentieth President of the United States of America) "The separation of Church and State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute." Letter of Acceptance of Nomination for the Presidency July 12, 1880

Benjamin Franklin (Statesman, Inventor, Author)
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
Posted by:Mat 22 21March 31, 2008 2:22:51 PMRespond ^
Actually, Christothor, they didn't. In God We Trust was added to our currency during the McCarthy era to distinguish us from the so-called "Godless Commies". "...one nation [under God]" was also added to the pledge of allegiance at the same time. Also, just for kicks, read the presidential oath of office in the US Constitution -- God is not mentioned.
Posted by:LemontreeApril 24, 2008 7:05:00 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2005 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS