Of all the source material quoted by our Founding Fathers, Charles baron de Montesquieu was at or near the top. As one of France's top minds on political science during the Enlightenment (particularly his ideas on separation of powers), Montesquieu's pearls of wisdom were sure to filter down to America's founders, who were more than anxious to learn all they could about the ins and outs of republican government. And Montesquieu had plenty to say on the matter.
Montesquieu believed that there were essentially three key ingredients to ensure a republic's success and survival: education, morality and a relatively small geographic boundary. And when it came to morality, Montesquieu didn't hold back on his feelings. Though he admitted to having no personal interest in the validity/invalidity of any given religion (Montesquieu was no theologian), Montesquieu did believe that religion was fundamental to good government, and that some religions were better equipped for certain government systems:
The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. As this religion forbids the plurality of wives, its princes are less confined, less concealed from their subjects, and consequently have more humanity: they are more disposed to be directed by laws, and more capable of perceiving that they cannot do whatever they please.
While the Mahometan princes incessantly give or receive death, the religion of the Christians renders their princes less timid, and consequently less cruel. The prince confides in his subjects, and the subjects in the prince. How admirable the religion which, while it only seems to have in view the felicity of the other life, continues the happiness of this! It is the Christian religion that, in spite of the extent of the empire and the influence of the climate, has hindered despotic power from being established in Ethiopia, and has carried into the heart of Africa the manners and laws of Europe.
[...]
From the characters of the Christian and Mahometan religions, we ought, without any further examination, to embrace the one and reject the other: for it is much easier to prove that religion ought to humanise the manners of men than that any particular religion is true. It is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.
And Montesquieu got even more specific when he broke down which Christian religions he believed were better fit for certain governments:
When a religion is introduced and fixed in a state, it is commonly such as is most suitable to the plan of government there established; for those who receive it, and those who are the cause of its being received, have scarcely any other idea of policy than that of the state in which they were born.
When the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south adhered still to the Catholic. The reason is plain: the people of the north have, and will for ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not; and therefore a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independence of the climate than that which has one. In the countries themselves where the Protestant religion became established, the revolutions were made pursuant to the several plans of political government. Luther having great princes on his side would never have been able to make them relish an ecclesiastical authority that had no exterior pre-eminence; while Calvin, having to do with people who lived under republican governments, or with obscure citizens in monarchies, might very well avoid establishing dignities and preferments.
In other words, the Catholic version of Christianity is best for monarchies, while Protestant/Calvin faiths are suited to republics...or so says Montesquieu.
And while we could debate Montesquieu's understanding of Christianity, Islam, etc., the point I am trying to make is that Montesquieu, and the founders who quoted him, believed religion was as indispensable to republicanism as were the separation of powers (also a Montesquieu idea). And several of the founders actually appear to agree with Montesquieu's belief that Christianity was the best fit for their republican experiment:
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." ~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." ~Samuel Adams
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~Charles Carroll to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.
Now let's be careful here. These quotes are NOT proof that the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a Christian nation. Instead, they illustrate that the founders upheld Christianity (what brand of Christianity is another debate for another day) above other forms of worship as the best means by which morality and virtue could be preserved; a component of republican society which they believed was of the utmost importance.
Of course, this same desire to ensure virtue and morality caused many Christian zealots, then and now, to go beyond the mark:
"Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson." ~The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826.
It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. ~Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention.
"The great misunderstanding of ‘the separation of church and state’ is closer in spirit and letter of the law to the old Soviet Union than it is to the spirit, letter of the law, and actions of the founders of this country." ~D. James Kennedy, What If America Were a Christian Nation Again? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), 5.
"They [the founders] were quite clear that we would create laws based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments." ~David Barton, America’s Godly Heritage (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders Publishing, 1993), 36.
As with any new idea, a few overzealous, misinformed and even ignorant individuals have (and continue to) poison(ed) the well of understanding, causing scores of historically illiterate followers to believe in a false reality.
And though Montesquieu's ideas on religion may seem biased and even a little racist, there is no doubt that they played an important role (along with many of his other ideas) in the development of American republicanism.
The following is a debate between Herb Silverman (a distinguished mathematics professor and self-proclaimed atheist) and E. Ray Moore (pastor, theologian and passionate advocate for the Christian Nation thesis), held at USC just a few months ago. And though both of these men are not professional historians, their debate is still interesting to watch, since they address many of the issues that we have discussed ad nauseum at this blog. It also illustrates some of the typical ignorance of many "enlightened" thinkers on both sides. Moore spews the typical conservative rhetoric that America was once a great "Christian" nation but has lost its way, and that the only way to return to our former greatness is to recognize the "obvious" Christianity of our Founding Fathers. Silverman, on the other hand, exhibits the time-honored tradition of the left of exclusively referencing Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine (founders who fit his agenda) while conveniently ignoring the scores of other founders who would cringe at the notion of a completely secular America. Regardless of these obviously biased mindsets, this debate is still interesting to watch:
Part 1: Moore's opening statement:
-Moore reveals his stunning ignorance of the Holy Trinity Church v. United States case. Justice David Brewer's opinion was dicta, not part of the holding, and it had no relevance at all to the legal issue. This case had nothing...NOTHING to do with America's "Christian" heritage.
Part 2: Moore's Opening Statement (cont.) and Silverman's Opening Statement:
-Silverman, of course, only mentions the select few founders (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin) who fit with his view of "secular" founders. He never mentions the other founders who were quite religious.
Part 3: Silverman's Opening Statement (cont.):
Part 4: Moore's Rebuttal:
Part 5: Silverman's Rebuttal:
-Silverman brings up the important point that not all "Christianity" is the same. If America is a "Christian" nation, which brand of Christianity are we talking about?
Old Soviet cartoon from 1948 entitled, "Masha's Concert." The cartoon depicts a poor, Black doll (named Tom) who is sad in his homeland but finds happiness once Masha shows him the kindness of her land. A fascinating look at the typical Russian disdain of American society, mixed with several racist stereotypes:
And The Stupidity of the Dynamic Duo is Staggering
It's been a while since I did an installment of the Glenn Beck Check. To be honest, I just get so tired of this stupid windbag that it's hard to listen to his material. Nevertheless, I will try to press on because, as of late, I have come across a lot of material that is sure to make your head spin with the stupidity and ignorance that has become a trademark of "Beckonian" idiocracy.
Over the past couple of months, Glenn Beck has been on an American rock...er..."American Revival" tour to several cities where he presents his watered-down, dumbed-up, biased, and downright false take on American history. And guess what??? He isn't alone. Like Batman needs his Robin, Glenn Beck too needs an equally stupid sidekick...and he hit a home run with his choice. Beck selected none other than David Barton, pseudo-historian extraordinaire and the most passionate voice for the "Christian Nation" crowd out there today. If you don't know anything about David Barton get ready to hold on to your hats. He'll take you on a "patriotic" "inspiring" and "religious" Founding Fathers joyride that will excite any Bible-thumping, Jesus-jamming, tea-bagging zealot that Fox News has not yet inspired. There's only one problem: almost everything he says is false. Seriously. I've been following this nut-job for a few years now. He's a demonstrable fraud who has been forced to recant his "history" on so many occasions that he has zero credibility with anyone in the historical community. Simply put, Barton is to history what creationism is to science. He's historical and intellectual poison that should be outright rejected due to his obviously biased agenda and lack of any legitimate historical backing (not to mention the fact that he simply makes crap up). The only reason he has an audience is because he tells people what they want to hear: that America is Jesusland and the founders were all die-hard Evangelical Christians. Thanks to Barton's daily radio broadcasts from his website, Wallbuilders, not to mention his numerous books including The Myth of Separation, Barton's crap has spread to the ignorant masses at virtual light speed. And now, Glenn Beck too is drinking the Barton Kool-Aid!
Here's part one of Batman and Robin's debut performance on Faux News:
Ugh! Right out of the gate Beck hits us with more of that ridiculous "socialist" "Marxist" Obama crap. Seriously, Glenn, this part of your act is getting REALLY old. And as you can see (which is a standard practice for Glenn) he never provides a single shred of evidence for this stupid rant...other than colorful crap on his blackboard (which he is usually incapable of spelling correctly).
At 1:10 into his rant, Beck brings up a topic that he regularly mentions: restoring America to its former greatness. Of course, Beck assumes that this "restoration" is somehow in harmony with his extremely messed up and biased view of American history. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt here. After all, he claims to revere the Founding Fathers (which is a good thing), but how well does he understand them? Aside from saying that "we are on the verge of collapse" what other "pearls of wisdom" does Beck have to offer?
Let's find out.
Well, the "faith," "Hope," and "charity" component sure invokes passionate feelings but it proves nothing. Perhaps Batman needs a little assistance? Enter the one and only (thank goodness there is only one of him) David Barton! At 4:10 Beck states, "here's the history you are never taught in school." Uh, yeah, totally agree there Glen...because IT ISN'T HISTORY YOU MORON!!! Let's dissect the B.S. shall we:
At 4:38 David Barton offers up one of his biggest lies of all: that congress published a Bible. Sorry but this is a complete and total lie. Here's the truth about this Bible. A Philadelphia printer by the name of Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for permission to print the Bible here in America. His hope was that he would be able to gain congressional sanctioning for his bible, especially since American printing was basically in the toilet at this time and getting books from Britain was almost impossible. Well, Aitken continued to hound Congress with a countless number of petitions asking for approval and congressional sanctioning for his bible. He never got it. What he did get, however, was a congressional endorsement of his printing. Again, American printing sucked at this time and Congress needed to get it moving. Aitken's ability to mass produce a book as large as the Bible demonstrated that American industry and independence was becoming a reality. As a result, Congress was happy to promote Aitken's printing...but NOT his Bible. And again, Congress didn't print the book, Aitken did, using his own time, resources and money. Congress never gave him a thing...except perhaps a pat on the back for his ingenuity in printing.
So how does Barton come to his conclusions? Well, the first thing he does is mess up his dates. On a number of occasions (not present in the video above) Barton tries to argue that Congress began printing these bibles in 1782, immediately following the victory of Yorktown. The problem, however, is that Aitken had already begun printing as early as 1779, a full three years BEFORE victory at Yorktown. In addition, Barton's claims that Congress "recommended" the Bible is simply Aiken's overzealous and presumptuous move to give his Bible more credit than it deserved. Congress NEVER approved it. Now, Barton claims that there are "congressional records" which show that the Bible was approved, specifically to be "A neat addition to the Holy Scriptures for use in our schools." The only problem (and he conveniently omits this part) is that these "records" are Aitken's letters to Congress! In other words, Barton's research is so bad that he actually considers Aitken's petitions as "Congressional documents." This would be like you or I petitioning Congress for a new car by stating that it would be "a neat addition to my front driveway", having Congress refuse the petition, and then using that same letter we sent as proof that Congress was for it! Barton is king of this kind of research because he knows his audience will never bother to check his sources.
At 6:50 Beck mentions Benjamin Franklin's view on religion, which were DEIST in nature (conveniently ignored by Beck). Beck recites a famous Franklin quote (from a letter to Ezra Stiles) in which Franklin states that he "believes in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence." However, Beck "conveniently" leaves out the rest of the quote. When speaking of the divinity of Jesus, Franklin wrote:
I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity.
I suppose that's just more of the "history we never learn" right, Beck?
At 7:35 Barton and Beck mention Samuel Adams and his petitions for prayer. Well, we're still doing that today (a practice that I agree with) so they should be thrilled. We're still doing something the founders did! The problem is that Beck and Barton take this thread and run it into idiocracy. Batman and Robin mention that "9 out of the 13 colonies" had state religions at the time of the founding of America. Well, duh! American COLONIES each had their own religion (or at least most of them did). However, every single state REMOVED their state religions at or shortly after the Revolution. Just another tidbit left out of their "enlightening" discussion I suppose. And of course the religion analogy has NOTHING to do with healthcare as Beck suggests. Just another stupid remark.
**If you want to read more about state religions click here for a piece I did not long ago on the controversy religion caused Massachusetts at the time of the founding**
At 8:45 David Barton mentions Charles Carroll. In the video, Barton suggests that Carroll used his wealth to establish a church in Maryland because, "there wasn't enough wealth" in the state to create one. Uh, sorry David. More half-truths and outright lies. What happened was Charles Carroll (a very devout Catholic) put up money for the establishment of a Catholic church in the area because the religion was being forced out. Though established to be a haven for Catholics, Maryland Evangelical Christians (the same Christians that David Barton supports) grew sick of their presence and wanted them out. As a result, Catholics were severely chastened by early Americans. Carroll was simply trying to help out his own, not assist religion in a broad sense, and certainly not to create government-sanctioned religion
Of course Beck's final comment is priceless: "Why we are bringing this up America is because you have to have the correct history." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Speak for yourself, Glenn. The rest of us are doing just fine!
And here's part 2 of Batman and Robin's act:
Right out of the gate Barton brings up the book, The Godless Constitution. This book is exactly what it claims to be: an examination of the godless nature of American society. And no, it is NOT used that much as a textbook like Beck suggests. And though I agree with Beck and Barton that this book is every bit the nonsense (from the far left) as is Beck and Barton's crap (from the far right), I do wish Barton would point out where in the Constitution we can find even one reference to God. Guess what...it doesn't exist! But again, this is inconvenient to Barton and Beck's agenda so they don't mention the FACT that the founders intentionally drafted the Constitution to be a secular document in which references to God were intentionally left out. Yes, the book, The Godless Constitution takes this reality too far in its assumption that America is completely secular but it does at least fit this historical reality, whereas Beck and Barton are still unable to figure out what reality is.
At 1:20 Barton brings up Benjamin Rush. Now, Barton is right when he states that most Americans don't have a clue who this guy is. From what the video shows (it goes black for some reason), Barton's depiction of Rush is sound. He was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society and was a passionate Christian. BUT we should keep in mind that Rush's desire for Christianity to be preached in schools was rejected, so I'm not sure what Barton stands to gain by mentioning him.
At 2:08 Barton briefly mentions Stephen Hopkins. He states that Hopkins was a "devout orthodox Quaker" which isn't true. He was actually Episcopalian. And no, he did NOT use the scriptures to illustrate why America should break from Britain. Hopkins' most famous pamphlet, The Rights of the Colonies Examined was a rebuking of British taxation and had NOTHING to do with religion The Bible is only mentioned as a historical reference and is used in conjunction with Greek and Roman history (which, of course were pagan). Barton simply assumes that any reference to the Bible is conclusive proof of a person's belief in Christianity. Well, why isn't the same standard used when Hopkins references the Greeks (who are mentioned twice as much as the Bible)? Silly little tidbit of history that FOX viewers don't need I suppose.
At 2:25 Batman and Robin bring up Robert Treat Paine. Now, Barton is right in pointing out that Paine was a Chaplin...at least for a while. However, Paine eventually left the Congregationalist Church and became a devout Unitarian...you know...that "heathen" religion that rejects many of the Evangelical Christian teachings that Barton claims the founders loved.
At 4:20 Batman and Robin make the INSANE claim that the Book of Deuteronomy was the most quoted source of the founding, supposedly more so that even John Locke. HAHAHA! This one is laughable. What Barton is doing is relying on a ridiculous and bogus study done by one Donald S. Lutz, who made the incorrect assertion that the Bible (and Deuteronomy in particular) were the most quoted sources of the founding. Not so. Instead of listing all the ways that this study is utter B.S. I will simply refer you to this source, which does a more thorough job than I could ever do. Bottom line: Barton is, ONCE AGAIN, completely wrong on this matter...and Batman eats it up! Besides, it should be hysterical to one and all when they hear Batman and Robin talk about the Law of Moses being a foundation for American republicanism. I mean, who out there would want to return to the Law of Moses? And, of course, Barton's stupid comment that it was easier to find tablets of the 10 Commandments in a government building than in a church is absurd for the very same reasons, not to mention that several of these 10 Commandments (which Batman and Robin claim are the foundation of our nation) are actually unconstitutional. Who is stupid enough to think that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," "Remember the Sabbath day and to keep it holy," "Don't have engraven images," and "Don't commit adultery" are constitutional? Moral sure, but constitutional? Not a chance.
At 5:50 Barton completely screws up Francis Hopkinson, whom he claims was the designer of the original American flag. Not so. Though Hopkinson tried to profit from such a claim, Congress basically told him to go pound sand, due to the fact that he had zero claim to such a distinction. Barton also mentions that Hopkinson wrote a "hymn book" based on Psalms. Well, he also did one entitled, "Temple of Minerva" which is, of course, a pagan holy place.
Part 3 of the Batman and Robin fiasco:
At the beginning, Glenn Beck makes the INCREDIBLY STUPID remark that we should "fall on our knees and thank God for Fox News." Uh...I think I speak for most when I say "to HELL with FOX News." But anyway, I digress...
Ok, so Barton and Beck go off on this Thomas Jefferson/John Adams friendship. Now, it's true that Rush claimed to have had a dream in which he saw Jefferson and Adams become friends again after their long political feud (a beautiful story) but...
Barton is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY misrepresenting the John Adams letter. Again I will defer to Chris Rodda who does a much better debunking of this crap than I could. Click here to see it. Rodda reveals just how big of a liar Barton is.
At 3:30 we get to see Beck's overly-inflated sense of self when he compares himself and his role to that of the founders. SPARE US, Batman! And then Robin chimes in by saying that 17 founders lost everything they owned, 4 lost wives 5 prisoner of war, etc., etc. etc. Well, all he needed to do was go to Snopes to see that most of those claims are the stuff of legend. Click here to see for yourself.
At 6:15 you hear Batman thank Robin for being on the Texas school board. Well, we can thank Barton for getting Thomas Jefferson removed from the curriculum. INCREDIBLY stupid thing to do.
At 7:00 Barton tries to say that George Washington was a Christian. Conveniently, Barton forgets to mention the fact that Washington never took communion, refused to pray on his knees, and never made any formal claims to any one religion. Speaking personally, the religion of Washington (and Jefferson) are of particular interest. If you really want to have a breakdown of what Washington believed click here. And for Jefferson click here. Don't accept that "progressives" (Beck's favorite scary word) were somehow involved in a conspiracy to re-write American history. If you believe that, chances are you believe in Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and the alien spaceship at Roswell.
Part 4 of the stupid fest:
Ok, this one REALLY pisses me off because Jefferson is my favorite founder. Jefferson DID NOT sign any document with, "In the Year of our Lord, Christ, nor did he create a church or have the Marine band play Christian hymns. Again, here is Chris Rodda to expose Barton's crap (Click here).
Getting back to the Batman and Robin video, at 2:15 Robin mentions that Benjamin Franklin called for a prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Well, that's true, but Barton "CONVENIENTLY" forgets to mention that the prayer suggestion was unanimously rejected by the Congress. In fact, legend has it that Alexander Hamilton told Franklin that "The delegates have no need of foreign aid." And no, they DID NOT go to church! That's a total lie! Another tidbit ignored by the Dynamic Duo!
**For a breakdown of Franklin's real religious beliefs click here.**
AAAHHHH...these IDIOTS! At 4:40 they mention Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. This was essentially Jefferson's personal Bible. Jefferson (and Batman forgets to mention this) actually removed EVERY SINGLE miracle that Jesus ever performed. Why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM! Jefferson saw Jesus as a Aristotle type...not the Son of God. Barton and Beck are so stupid that they cannot pick this up...that or they don't want to tell the truth. And no, Congress didn't print this! Another lie!
In conclusion, the lies, half truths and ignorance of Glenn Beck and David Barton (Batman and Robin) gets attention for one single reason: the stupidity of the masses. If people actually took the time to see how bogus this version of history really is, they would quit giving these clowns the time of day. Perhaps Martin Luther King said it best when he declared:
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Perhaps Batman and Robin should return to the 2nd Grade???
This past week, Sarah Palin has been getting hammered in the media (and rightfully so) for declaring to one and all that America is indeed a "Christian Nation" and that the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a government based on the Bible and the 10 Commandments (yes, she really said all this out loud). Here is the quote:
You can just go to our Founding Fathers' early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives...I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments.
Ok, in fairness, this isn't the first time Sarah Palin has made a complete idiot out of herself. Her "greatest hits" are full of bizarre rants on dinosaurs living with man, seeing Russia from her house, not being able to name a single Founding Father, her inability to point out where Africa is on a map, etc., etc., etc. Well, these latest comments not only reveal Palin's total lack of historical literacy but they reveal just how dangerous the fringe elements of Christian conservatism can be. Without coming out and saying it directly, Sarah Palin is clearly insinuating that God (and the founders) want(ed) America to be more of a Christian theocracy than it is today:
Nice story, Sarah, but there's only one problem. You know those founders you claim to know so much about? Well, they completely and totally disagree with you. See for yourself:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of common law." ~Thomas Jefferson
"The Government of the United States is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded upon the Christian religion." ~John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." ~Thomas Jefferson
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has 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." ~James Madison
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." ~Benjamin Franklin
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." ~Thomas Paine
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." ~George Washington
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." ~Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" ~John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." ~James Madison
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." ~John Adams
And this list could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on...
Sorry, brainless wonder...er...Mrs. Palin but you need to go back to the 2nd grade!
In yesterday's British national election, the British people clearly voted for change. The growing unpopularity of Gordon Brown, the current Prime Minister of Britain, was made manifest at the voting booth as the Labour Party was given a severe rebuking by the people. But this public rebuking was not free from controversy. Despite the obvious shift in public opinion, no political party received a majority vote. As a result, Britain has been left with a hung Parliament...the first hung Parliament since 1974.
Ok, let's first back up for a moment here. I realize that most Americans are probably unfamiliar with how British politics are conducted, so let's first explain some of the basics. Here, in a nutshell, is how British elections/politics are conducted:
First off, it's important to know something of the political parties in Britain. Unlike the United States, Britain has several political parties that span across the political spectrum. The three "big gun" parties are the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. The best way to understand these parties is to think of the Conservatives as being the equivalent of America's Republican Party (though not as far right as many republicans. They are more along the lines of Scott Brown, Mitt Romney, etc. than Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann). The Labour Party represents the centrist viewpoint (moderates), while the Liberal Democrats are roughly the equivalent of the American Democratic party.
In a general election, the British people elect local MP's (Members of Parliament) who become members of the House of Commons. Much in the same way that Americans elect candidates to the House of Representatives (heck, the Founding Fathers based our current system on Britain's), the British people elect candidates to represent their districts in Parliament. Currently there are 650 seats in the House of Commons. So, before any political party can rise to power they must have 326 seats (51%) in order to have a majority in Parliament. Once a party has gained a majority in Parliament, the head of that party is (usually) nominated to become the Prime Minister of Britain. In essence, the Prime Minister is considered to be the "highest amongst equals" since he/she is originally a member of Parliament.
In last night's election the British people expressed their disdain for the current Prime Minister (and the Labour Party in general) by voting primarily for the Conservatives. As a result, the Labour Party lost its majority in Parliament. But the election was not as cut-and-dry as you might think. Though the Conservatives received the most seats in Parliament, they fell short of gaining a majority. As a result, the question of who has the right to rule in Parliament comes into question.
Now, you may think that the Conservatives clearly have that right, since it was they who hold the most seats (albeit not a majority) in Parliament. And, in part, you are right...at least some British leaders would agree. The only problem is that the British Constitution clearly states that the governing party MUST have a majority in Parliament to form a government. And since they don't they cannot rule as a majority party.
So what is the solution? Well, it's complicated. One possibility is that the Conservatives or the Labour Party could form what is called a "Governing Coalition" with another party, presumably the Liberal Democrats. And since the Lib. Dems have more in common with the Labour Party, it seems more likely that a coalition would form between them. The problem with such a coalition (and the Lib. Dems know it) is that the election was a clear rebuking of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party in general. Any alliance with them would have to include the removal of Brown as Prime Minister.
So who are the likely candidates to replace Gordon Brown? Right now there are two leading contenders. David Cameron, who is the head of the Conservative Party, seems to be the front runner right now. His party has the most seats in Parliament and has the political "momentum" at the moment. If, however, the Lib. Dems are able to form a legitimate coalition with the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, the head of the Lib. Dem Party, could be the man. Right now it all depends on who, if anyone, is able to form a coalition that gives them a majority in Parliament. But no matter who gains control, it is extremely likely the Gordon Brown is on his way out.
But there is a small caveat here. Technically, the Royal Crown (in this case Queen Elizabeth II) does have a say in who becomes Prime Minister. She can "veto" whoever is chosen, since she is still the Head of State in Britain. Bottom line: the next few weeks should be a lot of fun to watch!
If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are many (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.
And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.
Which bring us to May 6, 2010. Today is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:
First off, let's travel back a ways to the era of our Founders. Yes, many of them were "Theistic Rationalists," "Unitarians," "Deists," "atheists" or any other "ist" you can think of. However, these same heathens LOVED to pray (it's true). Take, for example, the First Continental Congress. You all know the story. It was suggested that the first official act of business should be to begin with a prayer but when deadlocked over who should give that prayer, Samuel Adams (a pious man to say the least) arose and stated that he was "no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." Shortly thereafter, Jacob Duché, an Anglican minister, was selected to lead the group in prayer.
Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:
The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.
And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.
And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:
The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."
Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.
~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.
And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."
Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:
When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.
In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.
In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.
After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?
The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."
Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.
And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done at my other blog (American Creation) entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:
Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.
And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.
And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:
"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6
A Brief History of Cinco de Mayo and its Important Role in American History
Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone!
With the recent controversy over immigration, this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations have been obscured by political, social and racial tensions, all which have created a climate of animosity between two nations that actually share more in common than they realize. Now, it's not my intent today to weigh in on the current immigration issue. I know that both sides of this issue feel passionate about their views and believe they are justified in their respective protests. With that said, I ask that you check your politics at the door. This post isn't political in nature but instead focuses on the forgotten history of this day...a day that even Americans should be thankful for.
For whatever reason, most people think Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independence day. Not so. Mexican independence day is actually celebrated on September 16th (this year will be the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence). Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of an important battle that impacted both Mexico and the United States.
On the morning of May 5, 1862, while the United States was embroiled in its greatest crisis (the Civil War) Mexican forces under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín soundly defeated a French invasion in what became known as the Battle of Puebla. This unlikely victory not only shocked the invading French, but it also sent sound waves to the North. American leaders (better put Union leaders) were overjoyed at the news that the Mexican Army had defeated the French. After all, the French had been unofficially favoring the Confederacy, hoping that a Southern victory would help to cripple the United States. In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was so concerned with the impending French invasion of Mexico that he granted permission to several hundred Union soldiers to join up with the Mexican military. Many Union leaders sincerely believed that America's future depended on a Mexican victory. It was no mystery that French Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, hoped that the invasion, occupation and eventual domination of Mexico might serve to better supply the Confederacy and once again give France a legitimate presence in the Western Hemisphere.
It seems that Mexico, however, did not get that memo. The French invasion was forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, humiliated and soundly beaten by the "inferior" Mexicans. Their quest for conquest died a sudden death as did their desire to provide aid to the Southern Confederacy. This shift in momentum came at a perfect time for the Struggling United States. It is no mystery that the early part of 1862 was not a high mark for the Union. Robert E. Lee was on a roll, the South was still strong and the Union was in desperate need of a turn of fortune. Cinco de Mayo (or perhaps better put, the Battle of Puebla) gave them at least a small turn of that fortune. This shift in momentum was later coupled with the Union victory at Gettysburg (just 2 months after 5 de Mayo). Without the coveted French aid, Confederate forces eventually succumbed to the obvious superiority of the Union's resources and manpower.
Now, I'm not suggesting that those brave 4,000 Mexican soldiers (and the few hundred Americans who accompanied them at the Battle of Puebla) saved the United States. Nobody knows what would have happened had the French won on that day. Perhaps they would have been able to strengthen the Confederacy enough to give the Union a longer fight. Perhaps not. Nobody knows. But those points miss the main point: Cinco de Mayo matters to the United States. If Americans are able to embrace and accept the Irish St. Patrick's Day holiday, surely we have enough room to accept and embrace Cinco de Mayo. After all, it had a legitimate impact on our history. At a time when our nation was saturated with nothing but crisis, our southern neighbors gave us a hand. I think that calls for a day of celebration!
Everyone raise your Coronas and Tamales! Viva Mexico y Los Estados Unidos! Feliz Cinco de Mayo a Todos!
Hello everyone. My name is Brad. Nice to meet you. I am learning Chinese.
That's right, I have decided to take on the crazy, suicidal, insane, foolish, and downright STUPID challenge of learning another language...and I chose MANDARIN CHINESE of all the languages out there (what was I thinking?).
Ever since I finished my mission in Chile (where I learned to speak, read and write in Spanish fluently) I have always wanted to learn a 3rd language. Well, 11 years later here I am staring Mandarin in the eye, locked in a showdown to see who will flinch first.
So why Mandarin? Well, to be honest, I think part of it simply boils down to the fact that so many people say it's impossible to learn. That challenge alone makes me want to do it. In addition, it's no mystery that China is an emerging giant on the global scale. More than 1.5 billion people speak Mandarin as their native language, more than any other language on earth. Also, the historian in me has always been fascinated with "The Middle Kingdom"; a history that is full of rich culture and heritage. All of these factors made it a no-brainer for me. Mandarin is the PERFECT 3rd language!
Anyway, it is likely that my attempts to learn Mandarin will make a semi-regular appearance here on this blog. If any of you out there happen to have experience in Mandarin, please feel free to chime in and point out where I get things wrong. Heaven knows I need the help.
A couple of weeks ago, our family decided to check out the local Colorado Ghost Town Museum here in Co. Springs. Being that we have lived here now for over 2 years, we have always wanted to check this place out but never actually found the time. Well, I wish we hadn't. To be honest, the place is a complete and total waste of time. With that said, we were still able to have a little fun. Here are some pics:
Proof that you can still have fun at a really boring attraction!
Of all the source material quoted by our Founding Fathers, Charles baron de Montesquieu was at or near the top. As one of France's top minds on political science during the Enlightenment (particularly his ideas on separation of powers), Montesquieu's pearls of wisdom were sure to filter down to America's founders, who were more than anxious to learn all they could about the ins and outs of republican government. And Montesquieu had plenty to say on the matter.
