Tags for This Article:

Obama-Barack (1727)  Politics (1247)  Religion (1030) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ;
Add to My Group
November 22, 2007 at 10:07:03

Improvising Enemies

by Amy Fried     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

Comedian Jimmy "J. J." Walker once joked that religious conflict in Northern Ireland between Christians and Protestants, showed that in a country with no Blacks, Jews or Mexicans, people can improvise. The current field of Democratic presidential candidates, with all its historic "firsts" - first woman, first latino, first African American - provides plenty of opportunities for identity politics in Election 2008. We've already seen some of the effects of this: Barack Obama now requires Secret Service protection, due to the volume of racially motivated hate messages and threats against him. However, with all the ethnic differences that do exist among the candidates, apparently, some want to improvise.

Someone close to me recently received the latest version of a hate-filled attack on Obama, in her e-mail box. It contained the now-tired claims that he is a Muslim (long debunked), that he attended a Madrassa (also debunked ), and that he is somehow tied to Radical Islam. After educating the sender on the facts, she was happy to receive an apology - however, she was also assured that the motivation for sending the screed was not hate, but a need to defend the Christian foundation of our country against violent enemies. Sadly, the writer had traded one misconception for several others; a case of taking one step forward and two steps back.

Of course, the painting of all Muslims with the broadbrush of terrorism, is inaccurate, unfair, and hateful. But the "Christian Nation" misconception has equally destructive implications, ranging from individual discrimination, to turning ordinary conflicts into full blown crusades.

Unfortunately, this viewpoint is a common one. As USA Today reports, 55% of respondents in a First Amendment Center survey "believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation." Besides being false, this belief is extremely destructive in a diverse nation. The danger is much greater, however, given the military entanglements we find ourselves in today.

The falsehood of the belief is simple to discover: the Constitution makes no mention of Christianity, Jesus, or God. The only mentions of religion are those that limit its entanglement with the matters of government. The term "separation of church and state" which comes from a speech given by Thomas Jefferson, provides context for the First Amendment's establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The implications of the "Christian Nation" myth are perhaps more subtle. If this is a Christian nation, then non-Christians can only be seen as second-class citizens; guests merely tolerated by the majority. It means that non-Christian children attending public schools cannot feel at home there - they must accept exclusion or pretend to be someone they are not. And it means that all employers - not just tax-exempt houses of worship - can freely engage in job discrimination based on religion.

Beyond simple discrimination, the idea of a Christian nation ignores the fact that there are many sects of Christianity. Which version would be considered the "official" foundation of the nation? Which version of the Ten Commandments would be displayed in public schools? (Rabbi David Saperstein, of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, has often quipped that he'd be happy to post the Ten Commandments in public settings, as long as they're in the original Hebrew.) Which interpretations of scripture would be officially sanctioned?

Perhaps the most scary part of this view, however, is its implications for our current military involvements in the Muslim world. I wonder: Do subscribers to the Christian Nation Myth believe that the Iraq occupation is a struggle between Christianity and Islam? What about saber-rattling on Iran? Do they believe that such religious clashes are the business of American foreign policy?

Ironically, since 9/11, much pro-war rhetoric has emphasized the difference between the freedom enjoyed here, and the stranglehold that theocracies have on their citizens. Sadly, recent reports from Saudi Arabia, where a 19 year old girl suffered gang-rape, and is sentenced to 200 lashes and a prison sentence - all for violating a religion-based law - demonstrate the extremes of church-state union.

History is replete with the carnage of religious-based wars. This attack on Barack Obama has implications far beyond Election 2008.

 

neoconmind.blogspot.com

The author received her Ph.D. in the field of Organizational Behavior, which she now applies to her political writing. She's been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on the neoconservative mind, women's issues, media, veganism and the Religious Right.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 comments

The Skitter is a PhD in History with several published books - at least one (for now) a national best seller. I don't really care what religious, political or philosophical, moral or ethical preferences you espouse. What I do care, however, is that you know what you're talking about. An uneducated editorializer is the most regrettable and loathsome of scholars (or non-scholars). So, if your desire is to get on a pedestal, you better be sure that your pedestal is not made of smoke and mirrors...

to see more of bio, click on member name

SkitterThe Skitter is a PhD in History with several published books - at least one (for now) a national best seller. I don't really care what religious, political or philosophical, moral or ethical preferences you espouse. What I do care, however, is that you know what you're talking about. An uneducated editorializer is the most regrettable and loathsome of scholars (or non-scholars). So, if your desire is to get on a pedestal, you better be sure that your pedestal is not made of smoke and mirrors...

to see more of bio, click on member name

know your facts!

OK - first things first.

 

"...the Constitution makes no mention of Christianity, Jesus, or God." Incorrect. The very last line of the Constitution states, immediately before the signatures, "...in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." The oddity here, and in your premise, is that if, say, a student, in their valedictory speech, were to say, "in the year of our Lord 2007," they would be entirely Constitutional, albeit probably viewed as politically incorrect, and may risk getting thrown in jail!

 

You also write, "The term 'separation of church and state' which comes from a speech given by Thomas Jefferson." Once again, incorrect. Thomas Jefferson used these words in a private 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he allayed their fears by essentially reaffirming to them, that the government would not in any way interfere with their free expression and practice of their faith. Ironically, two days after he wrote that letter he personally worshipped at the Sunday worship services held weekly in the US Supreme Court Chambers in Washington - a function he himself endorsed.

 

There is a general lack of knowledge and understanding of our nation's history, historic documents and founders, who set the wheels in motion, leading us to continue being the oldest democratic republic in the world. I just finished reading Dr. Peter Lillback's latest book "Wall of Misconception," which is one of the most accurate and genuine background documents on the First Amendment I have ever read. Anyone who wants to be a professional or lay First Amendment scholar should thoroughly acquaint themselves with this remarkable tome.

by Skitter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 3:43:24 PM
 


The author received her Ph.D. in the field of Organizational Behavior, which she now applies to her political writing. She's been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on the neoconservative mind, women's issues, media, veganism and the Religious Right.
Amy FriedThe author received her Ph.D. in the field of Organizational Behavior, which she now applies to her political writing. She's been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on the neoconservative mind, women's issues, media, veganism and the Religious Right.

Sorry, but I don't trust your source

Sorry, but I don't trust your source. I do trust the sources I cited at Americans United for Separation of Church & State. The letter & the speech I refer to are one and the same. I thought he read the letter out loud. If I am mistaken about that, it doesn't have any material relevance. The point is that it provides context for the meaning of the First Amendment.

You seem to be arguing for free exercise absent the establishment cause. But one becomes meaningless without the other. 

I think using the date as a mention of religion in the Constitution is just silly.

by Amy Fried (39 articles, 78 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 176 comments) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 5:05:41 PM
 


DOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.
rhalfhillDOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.

TREATY WITH TRIPOLI SAYS U.S. NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY

   Regardless of the fact that the framerrs of the Constitution used the Christian dating systeme by numbering the years by starting with what they thought was the year of Christ's birth, the Constitution still said that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and, in another place, said that there shall be no religious test for public office.  Since the framers included these provisions in the Constitution, they clearly meant that the government would make no laws about religion in spite of the fact that they numbered years from the alleged date of Christ's birth.  (The date was calculated by an English monk known as the Venerable Bede.)

   The Constitution also says that treaties ratified by the United States are part of the supreme law of the land.  In the Treaty with Tripoli, ratified in 1797, the explicit statement is made that the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, November 23, 2007 at 10:15:35 PM
 

 

4 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Sarah Palin, A Wolf in Moose Clothing by Anthony Wade

Democrats, Conservatives, AND Sarah Palin Being Played by Karl Rove by Greg Purcell "Wordmeister at Large"

FBI/police ordered to curtail protests: Explains Amy Goodman's arrest? by Kathryn Smith

Sarah Palin: Small Mind In A Big Little Town by Judy Swindler

Video: Is Bristol Palin Baby Trig's Mother? Evidence & Pictures by theWeb

Republicans Are Mean by Mary Lyon

BREAKING NEWS: Palin took millions in earmarks as mayor and governor. by Ed Tubbs

Limbaugh Watch: Palin Pregnancy Talking Points by Dean Powers

GOP Convention Day One – Let the Deception Begin for Team McBush by Anthony Wade

Barack Obama - America's 6th Black President? by J. Nayer Hardin

Popularity Navigation
Control Panel:

Select Time
6 hrs 12 hrs
1 Day 2 Days
3 Days 1 Week
2 Weeks 1 Month
2 Months 3 Months
6 Months Last Year
Select Content
Articles Diaries
Polls Events
All Op-Eds
News Life/Arts/Science
Select Popularity
Page Views
# of Comments
Recommend Emails
  

Go To Top 50 Most Popular