the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

separation of church and state?

I'm thinking about this today because I saw an article about Sarah Palin asserting that our founding fathers wouldn't have wanted church and state to be separate. Of course, the liberal talking heads have come down on this comment like white on rice, and the rhetoric is already rather nasty. Thus, I see a good opportunity to discuss how I feel about it and why, and to address the most common liberal talking points.

First—in the interest of charity—let’s take a look at whom Palin was speaking to and the context of her remark. She was speaking to the Women of Joy, an evangelical activist group. Call me crazy, but I’m willing to extend some benefit of the doubt here (not much, but still) because she was preaching to the choir, and when people do that, they tend to overstate the points they know their audience wants to hear. They also tend to glom onto talking points they’ve heard a great deal but never actually looked into themselves. I’ve done it myself from time to time in religious and political arguments, and I’ve seen normally level-headed people from my own side of the divide do it, too. I’m won’t condemn Palin on that point. It’s possible she’s innocently misinformed.

Her detractors, of which I am generally one, would probably say that “innocently misinformed” is a gentle euphemism for “stupid.” I’m not sure I agree with that assessment, though. She seems to lack some basic knowledge of American history, yes. However, I personally would not challenge her in the political arena. Politically, at least, Palin doesn’t seem very stupid to me at all. (Well, except that perhaps she hasn’t learned that what you say to one group of people quickly becomes global fodder with today’s technology.) In addition, I’ve encountered innumerable* people who believe what Palin is now being condemned for saying—regardless of its basis in truth or fact.

* Because I wasn’t counting.

Hm. I just blew at least 15 minutes trying to find (1) a transcript of the speech in question, or (2) a video of the speech I could actually watch. The sites supporting Palin advertise a “transcript”* of the speech, but seem to have mistaken this word to include a video of the event—which cannot be accessed as it is a private video (in every case).

* Is it just me, or is the word “transcript” unambiguous in that it’s clear that writing is involved?

As I’m unable to access the entire original in video or print, I’ll work from what I have. Palin said the following, according to the link above: "Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers," Palin told the crowd. "And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life." To be as fair as possible, there’s some equivocation in this statement. Whether or not our founding fathers were Christian is irrelevant to the question of whether they intended a separation of church and state. However, she does imply that this is her reasoning.

My kneejerk reaction here (and yeah, I admit it) is to ask that if the founding fathers did not intend a separation of church and state, why did they specifically say, in the Constitution, that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”? Think about it. If you want church and state to be unified, what is your first step? Requiring that all people who are elected in your new country take an oath to your god or faith of choice, of course. Otherwise, you might end up with a bunch of people who believe your faith is heresy being elected to office and making rules against it (in the time of the founding fathers, this would have been popery,* I believe)—something they were most familiar with, not being as ignorant of their own British history as we are of our own.

* Not to be confused with potpourri.

Another interesting question is why they saw fit to include this rule at all. They could have left it out altogether. Right? Let’s think about that….

Well. The first reason was probably the fact that England had religious tests for any public office. Wisely—an adjective we like to associate with our founding fathers—they found this appalling…in England. (Of course, as soon as their founding fathers* landed in America, they established colonial charters based upon their particular Protestant beliefs.) So there was more to the answer than that. By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed,* however, the founding fathers apparently had good reason for—and inadequate opposition to—including “no religious test for public office” in the Constitution.** From what I’ve read—and I can’t find the specific references right now—this choice was predicated upon the fact that many of the delegates were “religious” only insofar as they had to be to hold public office. In other words, for many of them, going to church was a requirement for their political careers.

* I’m amazed at how many people confuse the Pilgrims (1492) with the framers of the Constitution (1775). But I thought I’d toss this observation in just in case you’re one of those who accidentally conflate the two.

** I’m going to take this opportunity—think of it as a public service--to point out that while we listed our grievances with Britain as violations of our “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” these are not guarantees in our Constitution.

Even if you decide this is an unsupported assertion (which is entirely your right, as I have not taken the time necessary to prove it), you’re still stuck with the fact that the majority of the founders thought “no oath to any religion” was important enough to be included in the Constitution itself (as opposed to the Bill of Rights, drafted by James Madison; the Bill of Rights was understood to be a future part of the Constitution, although it had not yet been drafted; talk about your blank checks....).

So, there’s that.

Here are a couple of claims I’ve heard all too often along with my responses to them.

This country was founded on Christian values.

Wot…? No.

This country was founded in direct violation of Christian values, whether Christians know/admit this or not. Check Romans 13-1-7. We declared independence from the rulers who GOD HAD APPOINTED US. We rejected them, and according the bible, are destined for DAMNATION. So what happened with the American Revolution? In short, we decided that the Powers That Be were getting too big for their britches. They wanted taxes we weren’t willing to pay (even though the taxes they asked of us were lower than the taxes levied upon landowners in Britain, but that’s another story). The bible says rulers aren’t a terror to good works, but to “the evil.” That’s pretty clear, don’t you think? For some reason, though, we did NOT see the British government as God’s ministers. Instead, our “Christian” forefathers, in their own financial interests,* decided that the rulers appointed over them were not appointed by God (to say the least).

* Not much has changed, huh?

This country was founded on Christian principles.

Insomuch as this is a slightly different claim from the “Christian values” one (?), which values would those be, exactly? That were distinctly Christian, I mean.

I’ve asked this question, as you might imagine, before (at the risk of being redundant). I routinely get answers like, “Murder is wrong, isn’t it?” and such.

No…really. People say these things to me. I couldn’t come up with this stuff, I promise you. My brain doesn’t work that way.

Anyway. This country was not founded on the idea that murder is illegal, you incredibly dense excuses for human beings you. (Yeah, I know. I’m making my point with exclamation points instead of question marks. Some claims deserve nothing more, in my opinion. I’m open to being persuaded that I am wrong in this respect.) This country was founded on the notion that citizens were a better “sovereign” than royalty. Basically, we used the Greek—not Christian—idea of the democratic republic. Please read your bible thoroughly and report to me if it says anything about, let alone in support of, the distinctly Greek idea of a nation being ruled by its citizens. (If it does, you might have some harmonization to do with Romans, so be ready for that, ok? Thanks.)

At this point, I will acknowledge that I am tired and need sleep, so I’ll post this and sign off with much left unsaid. I will acknowledge that some of our founding fathers were, indeed, Christian. I assume, anyway. I mean, records show they went to church, even if some of them left at halftime. I really don’t care if all of them were devout Christians who had complete unquestioned Christian sympathies, frankly. Saying they were Christian and therefore this is a “Christian nation” (whatever you parse that to mean) is not unlike saying they ate ham sandwiches and therefore, this is a ham sandwich nation. It’s beside the point. This is a pretty simple concept, but I’ve learned to not take stuff like this for granted, as it apparently is not “granted” to all. Thus, against my urge to simply ridicule people who miss such simple points, I have chosen to explain it.

You’re welcome. They should teach this stuff in school...then I could just write about what a wonderful performer Allison Kraus is, and worthwhile trivia like that.

Then again, my understanding of the conservative/Christian claim could be completely off the wall. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

d