Our Non-Christian Constitution

For some different perspectives and opinions on the state of things and the challenges facing our nation, see http://www.lancehames.com.

Linda Young

Those Deist sure sound like Christians to me. Maybe a few more quotes will reveal the truth:

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Elias Boudinot: | Portrait of Elias Boudinot
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“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, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Take a look at the quotes from our Deist founding fathers:

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“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.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

John Adams and John Hancock:

We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"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." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!

Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams |
Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ 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.” [October 4, 1790]

Christianity is regarded as foundational to both the founding of this country and our way of life is because The Supreme Court said so. (see quote below) Perhaps less bellowing about the intolerant Religous Right and more research would benefit you and your readers.

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. [It is] impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." Supreme Court 1892

Mark Eaton wrote:

"I thank God for Antonin Scalia every day. He is the only defender of the real Christian faith on the Supreme Court."

Unfortunately, Scalia's job is to defend the constitution.

"I am sorry that our world view offends you. Most people think we are idiots. What you really want to ask us is "How can an intelligent, educated person believe in a fairy-tale religion and follow it so passionately as to be blinded to all reality and logical thought?". Am I right?"

If you are referring to yourself then no, I don't ask why an "intelligent, educated person..." believes all that stuff.

"Let me tell you why. It is the one word we should be talking about here, faith. Faith is not a religion but an acceptance as fact things that the physical senses cannot prove. Its accepting the "fairy-tale" as factual."

If we can parse this paragraph, you seem to be suggesting that the important thing is faith. Evidence is not relevant.

"Now, I am not saying that Christianity is a fairy-tale. Far from it. It facts are verifiable. Its places, things, sayings, can be proven by science. I know you will debate me here, but pray let me continue."

But wait! Evidence IS relevant.

"But what all of it rests on is faith. Your faith. If you do not have faith in Christ, you WILL not believe any of it. No matter how strongly we may shout scripture at you. No matter how many facts we can provide you with. You WILL not believe. Even as much as we pray for you (and we do) you may still not believe."

Evidence is relevant, but you have neglected to actually provide anything that looks like evidence.

"But, why do you fear us? What have us believers ever done to you? If you speak about politics or past history, please take that to a political site and speak there. I cannot change the attrocities that were committed hundreds and thousands of years ago. Just like I cannot change the fact that my ancestors may have been slave owners. We can only ask for forgiveness for that. We can only demonstrate true sorrow and humbleness about it. But ensure that it never happens again."

What have you believers ever done to us? You mean besides flying airplanes into buildings? Oh, that was the other guys, the bad guys, who may have faith, but their faith is the wrong faith. We know their faith is wrong because - well, because it isn't OUR faith.

And then there is the misery caused by uncontrolled procreation, as required by the Roman Catholic Church, which is opposed to birth control. The misery caused by lack of access to safe abortions. The potential for using embryonic stem cells to find cures for uncounted diseases and their concomitant death and misery. (see, for example, Fox, Michael J.)

But there is hardly time to even scratch the surface of the harm even now being perpetrated by people motivated by "faith."

"Most people of deep faith have a strong sense of patriotism. Perhaps its because we view our country as gift from God. Best country on the earth, no doubt. It is our liberty that has made us strong. But now, we seem so deeply divided that perhaps our greatest weekness may be our liberty."

Yes, you do need faith to believe the creator of the universe gave the United States - whose birth was accompanied by slavery, the denial of women's right to vote, and on and on - as a gift to (whomever) while denying the gift to those other, inferior humans.

"Folks that I know feel very isolated. There seems to be a lack of mutual respect between people, so ideas cannot be discussed. Everything is PC. Everyone gets offended. I am very glad for a forum like this where we can discuss our differences and beliefs."

But just above you wrote the stuff about "if you speak about politics or past history..." to go somewhere else. What happened? He loves us, he loves us not.

"USA has never been a Christian country and never will. But lets not "throw out the baby with the bath water". Do we have to be so intolerant that the mere sight of a manger makes you call your attorney to sue the pants off someone? Its OK by me if a Muslim wants to swear on the Quran. Does not hurt my beliefs at all. If you want to use the Constitution, please, by all means go ahead."

If you can find a single instance of someone suing someone's pants off at the mere sight of a manger (as opposed to the site of a manger on taxpayer property) you earn a lollipop.

"One question though. Does anyone know any athiest songs? If we did not sing Christmas songs, what would we sing at this time of the year? I am not a Dylan fan, so please do not nominate his songs."

Do you mean 'atheist' songs? Or non-Christian Christmas songs? How about 'Happy Xmas - War is Over' by John Lennon.

Or, this time of year, we could sing any song we want and pretend we're just human beings.

Dave,

So let me get this straight: because my experiences differ from yours, my opinion doesn't count as much as yours. Hmmmm. Well, I'll say this for it, it's a wonderful way for you to try and stack the argument in your favor.

Regardless, I stand by what I said before. The "discrimination" that you feel is perceived. Basically you don't feel like a real American because the government puts the word GOD on some pieces of paper. By that same token, I suppose you don't feel like a real American because of the imagery in the great seal, too?

I suppose many others would not feel like a real American because there are numerous laws restricting free expression of religion, correct?

Basically, when generalized, your protestation boils down to this: if the government has a policy that runs counters to my beliefs, religious or otherwise, and so makes me feel like I'm excluded (whether or not I'm actually excluded from anything), then it makes me feel like I am not a real American and is therefore discriminatory.

The problem is that the government infringes on people's rights all the time because it often has to try to balance between competing positions. As I hinted at before, much of the bruhaha over the religion issues is the result of that balancing act required by the 1st amendment.

Mark: "I would agree if I thought the discrimination was actually tangible, but in that particular case at least, the discrimination is only perceived."

Again, coming from the one who's not being discriminated against, that opinion rings a tad hollow. You may not think it's "real" discrimination, but I'm the one who has to explain to my children that we really are full citizens of this country even though we're not "under God," or members of the "we" in "in God we trust." My children's government is telling them they're not really Americans. Since I believe an American is (still) a pretty great thing to be, it's very real discrimination to be excluded from the "we" by the very government of which we are supposed to be both members and beneficiaries.

Oh - and Marcus: Bravissimo. Your post makes mine look like the scribblings of a petulant idiot (there's your freebie, believers - have at it).

Marcus, thank you for your post. Your experiences are so similar to mine, but I doubt my abilty to express them with the eloquence you have exhibited. I live in the Bible belt, and it gets lonely for a freethinker down here. This site is replete with the well-expressed thoughts of our non-believeing kinsmen, and I find that sustaining. Thanks again MA, for saying it, and for saying it so well!

Bravo Marcus Aurelius!

Dave,

I understand your concern. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I would agree if I thought the discrimination was actually tangible, but in that particular case at least, the discrimination is only perceived. In fact I don't even think one can call it discrimination at all, really. But I don't really want to get into a semantic argument.

I think ultimately there is a natural tension between the two clauses on religion in the first amendment. One one hand, the government can't "establish" a religion, on the other hand, it can't stop the free exercise of it either. Everyone will never be happy. I think, at the end of the day, they've done a pretty good job balancing the two. Afterall, you're free to believe as you choose, basically so long as you don't hurt anyone.

To Mark Eaton:

Good post. Provocative in the good way, you provoked me to think a little harder about why it takes effort for me to suppress my coarser impulses when responding to overtly religious stimuli of any sort. Because values mean nothing in a vacuum, only when they conflict do we sense our true credo, I suppress my impulse to be openly derisive because I value civil discourse more than venting my spleen. But sometimes it takes teeth-gritting effort. And you ask why?

Like most non-believers I know, I feel that I have "earned" my freedom from religiosity through pretty hard work and a good bit of sacrifice. A lot of reading, a lot of listening, noticing, and a whole lot of thinking. To declare my independence I had to hurt people who care about me, and whom I care about, because they could not bear the thought of my spending eternity in hell. I had to confront the fears of a childhood spent in weekly "education" about what would happen to non-believers after death. I had to give up any realistic hope of holding a public office, something I had seriously considered at one point. My fiancee was "counselled" by co-workers and church goers about tying herself to someone of such questionable character. This, despite the fact that I am well-educated, hold a senior leadership position in a medical organization that serves the most stigmatized and hopeless among us, the mentally ill, and really try to treat everyone I deal with with compassion and respect. It would have been easier to not challenge what i was taught, or to fake belief that i did not feel. I did that for awhile in my teens, but just could not live the lie. Have to pay the price then, and every day I am glad that I did, but that does not mean it was easy.

The thing that i valued more than this easier way, was a sense of confidence that my beliefs were grounded in something demonstrable and real. After giving it a lot of thought, i came to the conclusion that "faith" is largely a bad thing. Faith says to believe in something, and live accordingly, without maintaining any openness to being proved wrong. This is the operational definition of closed-mindedness, and we ususally think of that as a "bad" thing. So why give religion a pass? History is bursting at the seams with horrible things that have been done because a "faith-based" belief system dictated that they be done, without regard to contrary evidence. We all know some of these stories. This closed-mindedness stands in direct opposition to the mind-set that is responsible for humankind's greatest acheivements, yet "faith" still gets lauded as if it were a virtue. And this, despite the fact that, again and again, the objects and dictates of this "faith" have been exposed as erroneous to the point of silliness. Like the earth being the unmoving center of the universe, for example. To me, faith means obstinancy in mental error, and a commitment to the thoroughly discredited.

So, I do fear a president who might see armageddon's silver lining in the ultimate mushroom cloud, and i feel anger towards those who value hours-old embryos more than those living with disease, and i resent the encroachment of thinly veiled theology into a science classroom, and i shake my head in dismay at people who slaughter others over cartoons and blow up coffee shops to bring a "mahdi" out of a well. And, truth be told, I guess i see the seed crystals of these things in every crucifix, and hear them in every "allahu-akbar," and smell them in the soap and water of the well-scrubbed missionaries smiling at my front door.

Maybe the effort of earning my freedom from "faith" has made me a little grouchy about wading through a world awash in it. But, I will still try to smile behind my clenched teeth. I don't want to become what i worked to overcome.

So that little posting SNAFU was weird...

Rob: "It sounds to me that you really don't have a problem with Scalia per se, but rather his decision not to overturn the precedent he [cited]."

Let's say that it's not so much the undeniable fact that I have a problem with Scalia, so much as the fact that I don't like any Supreme Court justice saying, even in dicta, that it's OK to discriminate in favor of members of a class of religions that, while they aren't "established" by the state, are nonetheless more established than others (or none). To the extent to which other justices have said the same, I have a problem with them, too.

Rob: "I think the opinion (or at least this section of it) is a sterling example of a narrow opinion that can be used really only in the specific case."

You respond to my statement that, despite its superficial narrowness, the opinion says it's OK to discriminate against non-monotheists (and monotheists who don't believe in the Ten Commandments and - let's face it - monotheists who don't call their gods "God"), simply by describing in excruciating detail the superficial narrowness to which I refer. I really do get it. Having said it's OK to screw over a vast number of Americans, Scalia made a show of narrowness. Let's move on.

"He is plainly agreeing that the principle cited by the majority is a good one in at least two situations. By doing so, it is clear that he is NOT throwing out the principle completely."

No, he's carving out narrow exceptions in which, for the present, discrimination is at least putatively off-limits.

"he names one circumstance (and only one) where there is a limit to the principle."

Simply leaving the entire remaining universe of possible situations unaddressed. Hardly a ringing endorsement of freedom of/from religion in situations not at issue. Like I said: Superficial narrowness.

"Fact: The Supreme Court has allowed the government's public acknowledgment [of] God."

Fact: The Supreme Court has allowed separate-but-equal treatment of blacks. Doesn't mean it was the right decision, or remotely Constitutional.

Am I correct in assuming that you count yourself as a member of the group (monotheists) that Scalia is fighting for, here? If so, would you admit that that raises at least an inference of bias on your part?

Rob: "It sounds to me that you really don't have a problem with Scalia per se, but rather his decision not to overturn the precedent he [cited]."

Let's say it's not the undeniable fact that I have a problem with Scalia, so much as that I have a problem with a Supreme Court justice saying, even in dicta, that it's OK to discriminate against people who aren't members of a class of religions that, while they aren't "established" by the state, are nonetheless more established than others (or none). To the extent to which other justices have said the same, I have a problem with them, too.

I'll be brief sicne I have to go.

It sounds to me that you really don't have a problem with Scalia per se, but rather his decision not to overturn the precedent he sighted. In which case I invite you to turn your wrath also on the other Supremes who have also held that the governments public acknowledgment of God is OK.

As for narrow decisions, yes I prefer them greatly. As for precedent, it should be overturned where there is a compelling need to do so and frankly, the display of the 10 commandments does not come even close to rising to the level of the injustices involved in slavery.

As for my own personal beliefs, I believe in God, but my vision of God is much more expansive than is defined by popular religions. I think that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even Secular Humanism for that matter are ultimately flawed human attepts at presenting some fundamental truths and that God, whatever form it is, is the embodiment of these truths.

Rob

Rob: "I think the opinion (or at least this section of it) is a sterling example of a narrow opinion that can be used really only in the specific case."

You respond to my statement that, despite its superficial narrowness, the opinion says it's OK to discriminate against non-monotheists (and monotheists who don't believe in the Ten Commandments and - let's face it - monotheists who don't call their gods "God"), simply by describing in excruciating detail the superficial narrowness to which I refer. I really do get it. Having said it's OK to screw over a vast number of Americans, Scalia made a show of narrowness. Let's move on.

"He is plainly agreeing that the principle cited by the majority is a good one in at least two situations. By doing so, it is clear that he is NOT throwing out the principle completely."

No, he's carving out narrow exceptions in which, for the present, discrimination is at least putatively off-limits.

"he names one circumstance (and only one) where there is a limit to the principle."

Simply leaving the entire remaining universe of possible situations unaddressed. Hardly a ringing endorsement of freedom of/from religion in situations not at issue. Like I said: Superficial narrowness.

"Fact: The Supreme Court has allowed the government's public acknowledgment [of] God."

Fact: The Supreme Court has allowed separate-but-equal treatment of blacks. Doesn't mean it was the right decision, or remotely Constitutional.

Am I correct in assuming that you count yourself as a member of the group (monotheists) that Scalia is fighting for, here? If so, would you admit that that raises at least an inference of bias on your part?

Dave in NM:

I'll agree to disagree. I think the opinion (or at least this section of it) is a sterling example of a narrow opinion that can be used really only in the specific case. Consider these statements that define the scope of the opinion:

First:
"the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another ... is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned ... or where the free exercise of religion is at issue"

He is plainly agreeing that the principle cited by the majority is a good one in at least two situations. By doing so, it is clear that he is NOT throwing out the principle completely.

Next:
"but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator."

Here he names one circumstance (and only one) where there is a limit to the principle. That is, this opinion applies only to the public acknowledgement of the Creator. It is not intended to apply to other circumstances.

Next:
"Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God."

Here he names the specific act that he finds permissible: publicly honoring the Ten Commandments. (In between, he relies on constitutional precedent and historic practice to show that publicly honoring God is already acceptable.) Note: he does NOT say that any other Biblical or religious text would necessarily be permissible. He is being quite explicit that the he is only issuing an opinion on the issue before the Court.

Last (from the footnote):
"This is not to say that a display of the Ten Commandments could never constitute an impermissible endorsement of a particular religious view."

Here, even after carving out an exception to the original principle, he is qualifying it. Even if he find this particular display of the Ten Commandments constitutionally fine, he grants that other displays might not.

This section of the opinion, in any fair and thorough reading, is narrow.

The quote which offends Jacoby so much (and apparently you, as well) is not even part of the actual opinion presented. It is just part of the supporting argument. In the quote, he is summarizing fact.

Fact: The Supreme Court has allowed the government's public acknowledgment God.

Fact: Historically, government practices have included the public acknowledgement of God (in an earlier or perhaps later section he also mentions the contemporary vote in the Congress supporting the inclusion of "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.)

In the quote he calls these two facts what they are without sugar coating it: the permitted disregard of atheists and polytheists and beleivers in an unconcerned God.

Rob: "Out of context, the quote could be [interpreted] to say that the constitution permits discrimination against people solely due to their non-mainstream religious beliefs (including lack of religious belief). Of course this is precisely why the author chose to use the quote. She wants to inflame."

Even in context, despite the superficial "narrowness" of his argument, Scalia nonetheless seems to be saying exactly that. I don't think Ms. Jacoby's decision to refer to the quote was merely a disingenuous attempt to "inflame" at the expense of accuracy. I think it was a clear-headed and accurate assessment of the reason so many non-conservatives, both Christians and otherwise, are terrified at the power the religious right is exercising in an effort to undermine freedom of, and from, religion in the U.S. Context, rather than mitigating, only serves to flesh out, the repulsiveness of Scalia's "reasoning."

Tonio,

In quoting the Scalia opinion, my intent was not to say whether Scalia is right or wrong, but merely to provide context to the quote.

Out of context, the quote could be interpretted to say that the constitution permits discrimination against people solely due to their non-mainstream religious beliefs (including lack of religious belief). Of course this is precisely why the author chose to use the quote. She wants to inflame.

In context, the statement is part of a much narrower argument, and, whether you or I agree with it or not, a factual argument. Since the birth of our nation it has been acceptable, both in practice and constitutionally, to have the state reference God (yes, the Abrahamic God, though most times ambiguously) in some instances.

The question boils down to what does the establishment clause actually mean. The founding fathers, even the ones who seemingly had privately held views on God contrary to their public statements, clearly had no problems with the state's mere acknowledgement of God.

I thank God for Antonin Scalia every day. He is the only defender of the real Christian faith on the Supreme Court.

****The “real Christian faith”? Who appointed either Scalia or you the determiner of the “real” Christian faith? This assertion is of itself a frightening thing.

I am sorry that our world view offends you. Most people think we are idiots. What you really want to ask us is "How can an intelligent, educated person believe in a fairy-tale religion and follow it so passionately as to be blinded to all reality and logical thought?". Am I right?
Let me tell you why. It is the one word we should be talking about here, faith. Faith is not a religion but an acceptance as fact things that the physical senses cannot prove. Its accepting the "fairy-tale" as factual.

****Faith is fortunately a much deeper and more significant and complicated idea/concept/proposition/process than accepting a “"fairy-tale" as factual””. I can’t help hearing such a description as childish. I can assure you that this definition in no way describes my personal Christian faith journey.

Now, I am not saying that Christianity is a fairy-tale. Far from it. It facts are verifiable. Its places, things, sayings, can be proven by science. I know you will debate me here, but pray let me continue.
But what all of it rests on is faith. Your faith. If you do not have faith in Christ, you WILL not believe any of it. No matter how strongly we may shout scripture at you. No matter how many facts we can provide you with. You WILL not believe. Even as much as we pray for you (and we do) you may still not believe.
But, why do you fear us? What have us believers ever done to you? If you speak about politics or past history, please take that to a political site and speak there. I cannot change the atrocities that were committed hundreds and thousands of years ago. Just like I cannot change the fact that my ancestors may have been slave owners. We can only ask for forgiveness for that. We can only demonstrate true sorrow and humbleness about it. But ensure that it never happens again.
Most people of deep faith have a strong sense of patriotism. Perhaps its because we view our country as gift from God. Best country on the earth, no doubt. It is our liberty that has made us strong. But now, we seem so deeply divided that perhaps our greatest weakness may be our liberty.

****Patriotism is not a Christian virtue. I have a deep and abiding reverence for our country, its history and traditions, but I for one would resist any mention of my Christian faith in the same sentence as patriotism. It is not the job of Christians to defend the political leadership of the countries in which they reside. The call of Christians is to be Christ-like: loving, kind, non-judgmental, forgiving, compassionate etc…

****You say “our greatest weakness may be our liberty”. I would suggest that in this one statement you have answered you own question: “But, why do you fear us?

Folks that I know feel very isolated. There seems to be a lack of mutual respect between people, so ideas cannot be discussed. Everything is PC. Everyone gets offended. I am very glad for a forum like this where we can discuss our differences and beliefs.

****I hear a lot said about “PC”. And I’m always left wondering what the issue is about. If those who so ardently object to “PC” did not already have in their minds their own definition of what is politically correct, they would not find PC to be an issue at all.

USA has never been a Christian country and never will. But lets not "throw out the baby with the bath water". Do we have to be so intolerant that the mere sight of a manger makes you call your attorney to sue the pants off someone? Its OK by me if a Muslim wants to swear on the Quran. Does not hurt my beliefs at all. If you want to use the Constitution, please, by all means go ahead.

****I can agree with you here. Mutual respect and tolerance needs to be the order of the day.

One question though. Does anyone know any atheist songs? If we did not sing Christmas songs, what would we sing at this time of the year? I am not a Dylan fan, so please do not nominate his songs.

****Not sure where you are going here. What’s the point? This last paragraph sort of undermines the tolerance shown in the paragraph above. ---Of course I’m a Dylan fan!

MARK EATON:
"I am waiting for your evidence contradicting the Bible. Please provide it in your next post. Please bear in mind that I will provide my evidence following that."

Ugh, do we have to do this?

Ok, that the world/universe is only 6,600 yrs old...
we'll start with that.

How about you give some scientific facts in the Bible...(and quotes from the Bible, or "The Bible" don't count as proof!)

"What he is saying is that it has been historically acceptable and constitutionally permissible for the government to acknowledge a single God, even though some people in the country (polytheists, atheists, etc.) do not believe in that concept, i.e. it is constitutionally permissible to disregard these people in certain circumstances."

Rob, I read the full text shortly after the decision first came out. I believed then, and believe now, that Scalia is wrong. Just because it has been historically acceptable does not make it right, especially since our country is becoming more religiously pluralistic every year. When government acknowledges a single God, it amounts to an endorsement of monotheistic doctrine. (That's not the same thing as, say, GWB acknowledging his own belief in God.) And as a practical matter, most people would reasonable see "God" as referring to the Abrahamic God. It should not be constitutionally permissible to disregard any American in any circumstance regardless of religious belief. Using Scalia's language, people would reasonably conclude that polytheists and atheists are less worthy of constitutional protection than monotheists.

Mike Dishnow wrote:

"The majority of our founding fathers were Deists philosophically, Agnostics or Atheists in practice."

I find this interesting and want to learn more. I've seen this statement or a variant thereof repeated a lot in these discussions.

When I look on the internet for reasons why this might be true, I get some quotes from 5 or so (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and a couple more)of the 100+ founding fathers that are often contradicted by other quotes from those same 5 or so people. Even so, I'm willing to accept that those 5 were likely deists. But my question is what of the rest?

Mark Eaton: "Why do you hate us conservatives for influencing policy?"

First, I never said I "hate" anyone. If you ask why I fear the political influence exerted by conservative Christians, it's because the point is largely to remake this country as a "Christian nation," which, as Ms. Jacoby ably illustrates, it's anything but.

You've expressed the position that it's irrational and ineffective to force anyone where belief is concerned, but that's exactly what the religious right is attempting to do. Rather than simply living Christ-like lives and spreading "the Word" where it's welcome, they're exerting influence on social issues like gay marriage and the teaching of evolution. Whenever power is exercised to reduce the rights of others, I'm skeptical of any ostensibly high-minded motives that may be behind the exercise of power.

The point of this country is that we're all free to live according to our own beliefs as long as no one is hurt. "Live and let live." The Christian church in which I was raised more-or-less followed those tenets. Modern religious conservatives have abandoned those principles. Rather than acknowledging the rights of others to live lives at variance from their own, they're attempting to force their views on others. This includes a plethora of social issues, including those identified above, abortion, Harry Potter, and economic issues completely unrelated to (and/or in direct conflict with) Christian teaching (e.g. gun deregulation, loosened environmental control, tax breaks for the wealthy, refusal to fund AIDS intervention such as condoms and sex education in the developing world).

The marriage of religion and politics is a bad idea per se - more so where it's so thoroughly geared to advance the interests of those in power at the expense of ordinary people, both in America and abroad (including those legions of poor dupes who vote Republican when it's patently against their best interest to do so).

Why do I hate you? I don't. Why do I fear you? Because you're destroying my country, and would destroy the world given the chance.

Context is very important and I think Ms. Jacoby and others who use that particular quotation without providing the context do a disservice to the reader. Here's a little bit more from that same opinion (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693 ):

"...today's [majority] opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another. See ante, at 19; see also Van Orden, ante, at 11-13 (Stevens, J., dissenting). That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned, see Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 652 (2002), or where the free exercise of religion is at issue, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 532-533 (1993); id., at 557-558 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator. If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. The Thanksgiving Proclamation issued by George Washington at the instance of the First Congress was scrupulously nondenominational--but it was monotheistic. 3 In Marsh v. Chambers, supra, we said that the fact the particular prayers offered in the Nebraska Legislature were "in the Judeo-Christian tradition," id., at 793, posed no additional problem, because "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief," id., at 794-795.

Historical practices thus demonstrate that there is a distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion. The former is, as Marsh v. Chambers put it, "a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." ..."

What he is saying is that it has been historically acceptable and constitutionally permissible for the government to acknowledge a single God, even though some people in the country (polytheists, atheists, etc.) do not bleive in that concept, ie. it is constitutionally permissible to disregard these people in certain circumstances.

He goes on to equate the displaying of the ten commandments as an act that is legally indistiguishable from the act of acknowledging God:

"The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--which combined account for 97.7% of all believers--are monotheistic. See U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005, p. 55 (124th ed. 2004) (Table No. 67). All of them, moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life. See 13 Encyclopedia of Religion 9074 (2d ed. 2005); The Qur'an 104 (M. Haleem trans. 2004). Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population--from Christians to Muslims--that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint."

With the following footnote:

"This is not to say that a display of the Ten Commandments could never constitute an impermissible endorsement of a particular religious view. The Establishment Clause would prohibit, for example, governmental endorsement of a particular version of the Decalogue as authoritative. Here the display of the Ten Commandments alongside eight secular documents, and the plaque's explanation for their inclusion, make clear that they were not posted to take sides in a theological dispute."

Susan Jacoby cuts to the chase! A nice, concise mini-essay that avoids weighing one religion against another, or faith against non-faith, while at the same time pointing out (with her humorous observation about Christmas pop music) how debased some religious concepts and customs (or, if you will, "historical practices") have in fact become.

It is ironic that Mr. Antonin "Original intent" Scalia is so adamant about letting custom override the plain meaning of the Amendment's text - when it suits him, that is. Slavery was an accepted "historical practice;" can he defend it on the same grounds? Would he argue that because the framers did not explicitly specify votes for women and people of color that those rights should be denied on the basis of "historical practice"?

And this practicing Christian believer loves Ms. Jacoby's sensible suggestion about swearing or affirming the oath of office on the Constitution, which is, and and of right ought to be, THE "sacred text" of our land. That gesture above all others will illustrate better than any what is the proper allegiance for all lawgivers and all lawmakers.

Mark Eaton,

"He is the only defender of the real Christian faith on the Supreme Court."

A Supreme Court Justice isn't supposed to be a defender of any faith, Christian or otherwise. A Justice isn't supposed to favor any faith at the expense of others in the course of his or her duties.

"Most people think we are idiots."

I would never call someone's faith idiotic, although I may have inadvertently done so. I point out that for every non-believer who calls believers idiotic, there is a believer who calls non-believers evil and worthless. Both are reprehensible and inexcusable. But I argue that the latter hurts more.

"But, why do you fear us? What have us believers ever done to you?"

This isn't about Christianity, it's about any evangelistic belief system. I cannot ignore the evils that have been committed by people intent on spreading their religions. One of the great things about America is that those people rarely turn to violence. Still, our history does have some sad examples of those evils, such as the theocracies in colonial Massachusetts and territorial Utah. In the 20th century, many Northern cities had what amounted to anti-Semitic versions of Jim Crow. I have heard countless stories of American Jews being told to their faces that they killed Christ.

Dear GA_Atheist:

I am waiting for your evidence contradicting the Bible. Please provide it in your next post. Please bear in mind that I will provide my evidence following that.

Dave in NM:

While my belief in Anonin Scalia may be frightening to you, anyone who supports Justice Ginsberg is frightening to me. We have under the banner of "choice", murdered 40 million babies since the inception of Rowe vs Wade. That is truly frightening. It was our Generation Pre-Next that we murdered.

How can we avoid politics? It may be impossible within Ms. Jacoby's area. Her faith or lack of faith (is that a faith in itself?) makes talking about my faith impossible. Since we cannot talk about faith, politics is always the next thing. Ms Jacoby dives into politics almost immediately in her statment. Why do they even call this site On Faith when all everyone talks about is politics. I would rather talk about faith, but since you must talk to me about politics, here goes.

Why do you hate us conservatives for influencing policy? Is it not our American duty to be political? If I remember correctly, us on the right had to suffer through the 90's while Hollywood and the Clintons danced the jig. I don't remember anyone from your side complaining then.

Perhaps the war in Iraq is an attrocity. But while you seem to blame only Christians for the war, are you not an American and are not all Americans responsible for the war? Isn't it "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? If you are a "people" you are responsible.

And oh, by the way, how has Antonin Scalia disenfranchised you personally? Or are you now speaking for entire country?

Mark Eaton: "But, why do you fear us? What have us believers ever done to you?"

This, in a post praising Antonin Scalia and his endorsement of our disenfranchisement. Individually, you "believers" may be an innocuous lot. Congregate under a political banner, though, and start influencing public policy, and you're downright frightening (not to mention, as is the purpose of this thread, un-American). I acknowledge your attempt to head off this argument by saying, "oh, that is except for politics," but that's rather like asking Iraqis "what have we ever done to you, aside from blowing up your homes and families and raping your women?"

MARK EATON:
"But what all of it rests on is faith. Your faith. If you do not have faith in Christ, you WILL not believe any of it. No matter how strongly we may shout scripture at you. No matter how many facts we can provide you with. You WILL not believe"

Hmmm...This oddly similar to what non-believers say of religious people when confronted with (Scientific) evidence contradictory to the bible, etc...

Case in point, our good pal Canyon Shearer and evolution. No matter what people present (evidence) he dismisses it regardless of the numerous scientists that support it.

"One question though. Does anyone know any athiest songs? If we did not sing Christmas songs, what would we sing at this time of the year?"

How about "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer," and "Frosty the Snowman?"

I bet most people know the words to (and sing) those songs than the "relgious" Christman songs

I thank God for Antonin Scalia every day. He is the only defender of the real Christian faith on the Supreme Court.

I am sorry that our world view offends you. Most people think we are idiots. What you really want to ask us is "How can an intelligent, educated person believe in a fairy-tale religion and follow it so passionately as to be blinded to all reality and logical thought?". Am I right?

Let me tell you why. It is the one word we should be talking about here, faith. Faith is not a religion but an acceptance as fact things that the physical senses cannot prove. Its accepting the "fairy-tale" as factual.

Now, I am not saying that Christianity is a fairy-tale. Far from it. It facts are verifiable. Its places, things, sayings, can be proven by science. I know you will debate me here, but pray let me continue.

But what all of it rests on is faith. Your faith. If you do not have faith in Christ, you WILL not believe any of it. No matter how strongly we may shout scripture at you. No matter how many facts we can provide you with. You WILL not believe. Even as much as we pray for you (and we do) you may still not believe.

But, why do you fear us? What have us believers ever done to you? If you speak about politics or past history, please take that to a political site and speak there. I cannot change the attrocities that were committed hundreds and thousands of years ago. Just like I cannot change the fact that my ancestors may have been slave owners. We can only ask for forgiveness for that. We can only demonstrate true sorrow and humbleness about it. But ensure that it never happens again.

Most people of deep faith have a strong sense of patriotism. Perhaps its because we view our country as gift from God. Best country on the earth, no doubt. It is our liberty that has made us strong. But now, we seem so deeply divided that perhaps our greatest weekness may be our liberty.

Folks that I know feel very isolated. There seems to be a lack of mutual respect between people, so ideas cannot be discussed. Everything is PC. Everyone gets offended. I am very glad for a forum like this where we can discuss our differences and beliefs.

USA has never been a Christian country and never will. But lets not "throw out the baby with the bath water". Do we have to be so intolerant that the mere sight of a manger makes you call your attorney to sue the pants off someone? Its OK by me if a Muslim wants to swear on the Quran. Does not hurt my beliefs at all. If you want to use the Constitution, please, by all means go ahead.

One question though. Does anyone know any athiest songs? If we did not sing Christmas songs, what would we sing at this time of the year? I am not a Dylan fan, so please do not nominate his songs.

that reminds me of something my mom used to say-- me thinks thou doth protest too much...
i often think when getting hit over the head with the bible- who are you trying to convince, me? or yourself?

im gong to paste a response i made earlier today in another post because its apropos...

rats and bats im too incompetent to paste it-
well its on common ground o well peace

Justice (misnomer) Scalia says that the Constitution permits "the disregard of polytheists.")I can't wait for the day the Supreme Court has a majority of Muslims. Muslim terrorists regard Christians as polytheists because of their belief in the Trinity. When the Muslims achieve that court majority they'll quote Scalia to outlaw Christianity. Poetic justice, is it not?

I've come to an opinion - and it is that, an opinion - that the truly faithful, those with no doubts in their hearts, are not the ones we nonbelievers need to fear most when it comes to the church [whichever] taking over the state. It is the person whose internal faith is weaker, who feels the need for external validation - it is this person who exerts the most pressure on the state to "be" religious, to back their religion, to find in our common history only those events which back their religious needs. There is a core internal state which remains unconvinced, despite their unwillingness to see it for what it is.
I don't know, it seems like this may be so. I wonder.

Canyon, there are three places to guard the gates of heaven.

1. The gates of heaven were first guarded form earth. Those who did not conform had forever wounds inflicted on their bodies.

2. The gates of heaven were next guarded on the nebol bridge that joins the land of the living, earth to the land of the dead. People were dying without the forever wound being inflicted so the authorities set up a roadblock on the nebol bridge.

Then there's still another complication.

2.1 In the beginning the forever wound was inflicted on the new bodies of the dead.

2.2 But then the philosopher said that the forever wound did not work so the dead non conformists were held in the gap between this life and the next in a jail now known as hell.

That too had problems that have been fixed.

2.2.1 Not all were given life sentences, venial sinners. They were punished and let go on to heaven.

2.2.2 The punishment for non conformity had to be made as sever as possible. Hell was set on fire with, "the fire that burns but does not consume." (ring any evangelical bells?)

3. The gates of heaven can be guarded in heaven itself. The most ridiculous claim of all is that once one makes it past the guard on the nebol bridge that's it. Not so. They throw non conformists out of heaven too. How do they do that?

Heaven is just another earth so the whole thing begins anew. http://www.hoax-buster.org

The one who holds the roadblock on the nebol bridge shall determine the future at all three places, here, the nebol bridge and heaven.

Frankly, it puzzles me when conservative Christians read Christianity into the Constitution. I've always thought that American conservatives had a strict, more literalistic interpretation of the Constitution. It seems to me that Scalia's loose interpretation--his judicial inscribing of Christianity into the Constitution--is ultimately about preserving Christian power in the U.S., and has little to do with defending the founding principles of this nation.

Mr. Shearer-

"I always thought the most difficult part to swallow about George Orwell's 1984 was their ability to change the history of the past. I thought, "This is ridiculous, no one could change the past that effectively."

I must admit, Susan Jacoby, amongst others, is giving it an admirable attempt!"

Sir, I am confused. What part of history is Ms. Jacoby trying to rewrite?

I always thought the most difficult part to swallow about George Orwell's 1984 was their ability to change the history of the past. I thought, "This is ridiculous, no one could change the past that effectively."

I must admit, Susan Jacoby, amongst others, is giving it an admirable attempt!

Who controls the present, controls the past.
Who controls the past, controls the future.

I, too, am outraged and not a little frightened to know that individuals with Judge Scalia's worldview and mindset are in positions of power in our nation.

These individuals should familiarize themselves with the writings (primary sources) of our founding fathers and study the lives they led. Products of the enlightenment they were not swayed by "faith over reason", quite the opposite.

I believe it was Henry David Thoreau who said, "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right." But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."

I suggest a look at the church attendance patterns of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their burial choices as regards religious observance. The majority of our founding fathers were Deists philosophically, Agnostics or Atheists in practice.

Thanks to Jacoby for including the Scalia quote. I had read it soon after the Ten Commandments decision and I was outraged. According to Scalia's thinking, government is entitled to decide which religious beliefs and doctrines are valid and which are not. No government anywhere in the world should have that power.

I think Jefferson's phrase "separation of church and state" might be effectively updated as "separation of church and government." The issue is really about government neutrality among competing religions, about government not endorsing or preferring some doctrines and beliefs over others.

The more basic reason why America is not a "Christian" nation is because there is no such person on earth as a "Christian." The original sect consisted of a group of Hebrews challenging orthodox Judaism and the wealthy Hebrews and priests of the Jerusalem Temple. In order to be a member of the sect, according to the New Testament, it was necessary to dispose of all excess possessions and share what was left with the community. The sect was communalistic and socialistic, with strong elements of what was to become known as the democratic form of communism at the base of their philosophy. There is not a person on this earth today who follows the majority of the basic precepts attributed to "Jesus" (Joshua). If there were, that person would be labeled a "communist," not a "Christian."
America today is a nation based politically and economically on capitalism modified under a variety of programs (e.g., Social Security) that are right out of the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, who were far more "Christian" than anyone alive today. But socially America is an oligarchy dominated by an aristrocracy of wealth, with all "Christian" churches supporting that state of affairs. You can read the vitriolic attacks of the authors of the New Testament scriptures on the rich and imagine what they would say if they could come back to life and see what the "Christians" of today preach and support.