Reading The Constitution In Context: A Critique of Rick Santorum

[Dennis Hardin]

To repeat: we can either take the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli at face value, or we can play pedantic ping-pong all day long.

Dennis,

Do you honestly believe that playing "pedantic ping-pong" is my motivation for looking at context?

Since when did ignoring context (even inconvenient context) ever mean taking something at face value conceptually?

Context is important to meaning. Including context in trying to correctly identify meaning is not an "it said X, but they really meant Y" game of semantics.

Michael

Michael,

I didn't mean to imply that the context was irrelevant. I fully agree that context is always relevant. I simply said that a denial of any Christian foundation for the U.S. government would have been unlikely to arise in a treaty with a nation that was largely Christian. You had said that the words "in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" could well have a common sense meaning in a treaty with France, but not Tripoli. Since the treaty is with Tripoli, in your view, they mean "Christian theocracy."

It is hard to imagine why there would have been a reason for any such reference in a treaty with France. Therefore, there is no reason to argue for an awkward, restricted translation of the words "in any sense, founded." The words simply mean what they say.

I thought this explanation by George was excellent:

Saying that the U.S. government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion does not mean the same as saying that the U.S. is not a theocracy. A theocracy is a nation ruled by a religious authority. A nation can have an established religion, as England and France did during the eighteenth century, without being a theocracy. Or a government can promote religion in some form, or show a preference for one religion over another, or impose religious tests for holding civil offices (as England did). or impose tithes for the support of religion, without being a theocracy.

Again, Barlow's statement refers specifically to the U.S. government, not to the nation (both terms had specific and well-understood meanings at the time); and in saying that the government was not founded, in any sense, on the Christian religion, it is clearly referring to the founding document of the government, i.e., the Constitution.

The relevant point is whether or not the U.S. Constitution contains any points that are specifically Christian. It does not.

In another post, George gives a brief summation of some of the actual founding theoretical sources of the Constitution, which was also excellent.

I read a comment by a Marxist once (I believe it was on a forum devoted to exposing high yield scams) who talked about Jehovah's Witnesses. I think his comment applies to discussions like the present one (and I refer to all sides).

He said you can talk all day and even win the argument, but you will not change the person's mind.

Michael

Exactly. And this is what I meant when I spoke of "pedantic ping-pong." At a certain point, you have to accept the fact that each side has fortified its position, and the discussion will go nowhere from here.

For me, the Treaty of Tripoli--and its full context--completely resolves the question of whether or not the United States is a "Christian Nation." With all due respect--and you know I have nothing but profound respect for you--I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty. (The fact that there is no record of any significant controversy regarding the treaty at the time further substantiates this.) The counter-arguments strike me as agenda-driven, and can best be characterized as "reaching."

Perhaps you feel the same way about my position.

I think that's true for a lot of issues on webforums like OL. The discussion continues, ad infinitum, long after the debate has been won. But, sadly, winning a debate and getting the other side to acknowledge that victory are two very different things.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty.

Dennis,

I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning.

Here is a quote by a slightly later President, John Quincy Adams, that Christians like to plant all over the place (from An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at their request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837.)

The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent Nation of Christians, recognizing the general principles of the European law of nations.

Granted, he was no longer the President when he said that, but he was a Congressman.

Adams' phrase is one of the meanings of "Christian nation" I believe he said it quite eloquently, which is why I quoted it. Another meaning is that the USA is a nation where Christianity is a governmental affair, with official merging of Christianity with government in some capacity.

(As an aside, I admit I mucked up the theocracy thing a bit and got duly corrected by George, but even so, Tripoli was a theocracy. So the USA was addressing a theocracy in that Treaty and I stand by my reasoning about the context.)

To complicate matters, this back-and-forth of which meaning should be used where gets muddled because of the way the states worked back then. Here is a passage from Wikipedia (I also quoted the footnotes, and I bolded parts) that shows some of the problem: State religion.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4]

([4] James H. Hutson (2000). Religion and the new republic: faith in the founding of America. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 22. ISBN 9780847694341.)

As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

([5] CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, malegislature.gov)

. . .

In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision (The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion.

You could literally say that the USA federal government was not founded on a Christian basis in the second sense of the term above (mixing Christianity with government), but it was made up of States, some of which were so founded.

You could also say that the mid-20th century, not the founding times, was the start of the Federal government prohibiting the establishment of official religions by the states. And this is still under dispute.

Just to throw some more confusion on this pile, get a load of the following quote from the same article:

The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[6][7]

([6] "State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists". www.godlessgeeks.com. Retrieved 2007-04-27.)

([7] "Religious laws and religious bigotry – Religious discrimination in U.S. state constitutions". www.religioustolerance.com. Retrieved 2007-04-27.)

However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

Those states most definitely were founded on some kind of religion, otherwise why prohibit atheists from holding office? Want to make a gentleman's bet that the religion in question was Christianity and not, say, Islam, Judaism, Deism or some Native American panentheism and ancestor worship?

I don't claim to be widely read in this field, but I have read some, and that includes a lot of stuff like the above. And the more I read, the more I come across. I also come across passages like the ones George points to.

So I am very suspicious of one-sided views on anything the Founders did or thought. And I flat out disagree with using a one-size-fits-all definition for a term like "Christian nation."

There's even another element I haven't discussed because I haven't read enough to talk about it intelligently. So I'll only mention my doubt. Common sense tells me that a man's beliefs change over the years. Yet when people in the Christian versus Deist battle discuss the Founding Fathers, I never hear them bring this up. They always treat the Founders (in the arguments I have read) as if they sprung into life as Christians or as Deists (or whatever) and stayed static that way until they died.

Maybe it's not on purpose, and maybe some of the Founders actually did, but that idea doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems more reasonable that fluctuations, both in beliefs and in the intensity of the respective beliefs, occurred with them. That is the way humans normally are. When I get around to the reading I have set for myself about those times (and believe it or not, George's stuff like his Cato essays are near the top--right after the Federalist Papers), I will be looking for signs of this nuance.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Technically, your comments are a type of guilt by association. They qualify as a "smear" in this sense.

George, Guilt for what? If we are going to play guess the guilt, I could say your comments qualify as a cover-up. Now it's your turn to ask, cover-up for what? I said I don't like her approach because it reminded me of the way they do at MSNBC. That is not a smear. I said that because that's what she does. And I've even seen her on MSNBC doing it. With Keith Olbermann. I don't like her approach and I don't trust people who use that form of presentation. It may be fine for you so knock yourself out. Michael

If all you meant to say was that you don't like Rodda's approach, then that is obviously not a smear. I misunderstood what you meant to say, but I still don't understand what MSNBC has to do with any of this. The particular network on which you watched Rodda is irrelevant. You could have seen her on the O'Reilly Factor, for all the difference it would make. I assumed you were somehow linking Rodda to characters like Keith Olbermann, which is why I mentioned "guilt by association."

Now that we have this settled....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

... I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty.

Dennis, I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning....

For the third time, the Treaty of Tripoli refers to the U.S. government -- i.e., the federal government -- not to the nation. These terms did not mean the same thing during the 18th century, and they still don't. "Nation" signified a government and its citizens, i.e., both government and society.

There is no "double-meaning" involved in the statement that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The is very precise and very accurate. It says nothing about the values and beliefs held by most Americans at that time, which were largely Christian. But a government administered by Christians is not the same thing as a Christian government.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning.

Here is a quote by a slightly later President, John Quincy Adams, that Christians like to plant all over the place (from An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at their request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837.)

The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent Nation of Christians, recognizing the general principles of the European law of nations.

Granted, he was no longer the President when he said that, but he was a Congressman.

Adams' phrase is one of the meanings of "Christian nation" I believe he said it quite eloquently, which is why I quoted it. Another meaning is that the USA is a nation where Christianity is a governmental affair, with official merging of Christianity with government in some capacity.

Here is another passage from the same pamphlet:

They had formed a subordinate portion of an European Christian nation, in the condition of Colonies. The laws of social intercourse between sovereign communities constitute the laws of nations, all derived from three sources: – the laws of nature, or in other words the dictates of justice; usages, sanctioned by custom; and treaties, or national covenants. Superadded to these, the Christian nations, between themselves, admit, with various latitudes of interpretation, and little consistency of practice, the laws of humanity and mutual benevolence taught in the gospel of Christ. The European Colonies in America had all been settled by Christian nations

(1) Adams makes the point that the U.S. is a Christian nation in the same sense that all European countries were Christian nations, i.e., their populations were made up primarily of Christians. True enough, and no historian, left or right, has ever denied this. This truism does nothing to further the causes of Barton and his Christian followers. America was indeed a Christian Nation in this sense, and so were Britain and France. But this didn't keep them from repeatedly fighting one another. Indeed, Britain and France were at war during much of the 18th century.

(2) Note how Adams describes the supposedly Christian feature of the "laws of social intercourse between sovereign communities." These were regarded as the same as the moral principles that would guide sovereign individuals in a "state of nature."

Superadded to these, the Christian nations, between themselves, admit, with various latitudes of interpretation, and little consistency of practice, the laws of humanity and mutual benevolence taught in the gospel of Christ.

So are we to believe that humanity and benevolence are specifically Christian values? And are these the same Christian values that constituted the moral foundation of slavery in America? (Adams, to his credit, was antislavery.)

3) JQA's address was essentially a stump speech for the Federalist Party and its nationalism, in contrast to the Jeffersonian Republicans and their defense of states rights. Look at his analysis of the Declaration early on, which is incorrect but which was the standard line of Federalists. (The Federalists later morphed into the American Whig Party, and then into the Republican Party.) In fairness to John Quincy, however, I should note that he was something of a maverick among the Federalists, as was his father, John.

4) JQA's Old Testament citations were window dressing intended for popular consumption. Even the rabidly anti-Christian Thomas Paine quoted liberally from the O.T. in Common Sense when it suited his political agenda. And Jefferson despised the O.T. He once called the O.T. god "a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." (Letter to William Short, 1820.)

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

... I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty.

Dennis, I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning....

For the third time, the Treaty of Tripoli refers to the U.S. government -- i.e., the federal government -- not to the nation. These terms did not mean the same thing during the 18th century, and they still don't. "Nation" signified a government and its citizens, i.e., both government and society.

There is no "double-meaning" involved in the statement that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The is very precise and very accurate. It says nothing about the values and beliefs held by most Americans at that time, which were largely Christian. But a government administered by Christians is not the same thing as a Christian government.

Ghs

This is the reason a "Church of the United States" was inconceivable. While the Church of England signified a break with the political authority of Rome, the U.S. Constitution signified a break with all religious political authority. Thus the evolution of one to another ended up as a political-philosophical revolution. You ultimately cannot mix up the protection by government of individual rights with the establishment of any religion.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see.

In other words, context matters, and is actually an extenuating factor when looking at JQA's words.

Got it.

Good standard.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I see.

In other words, context matters, and is actually an extenuating factor when looking at JQA's words.

Got it.

Good standard.

Michael

Context is everything when interpreting and understanding historical documents. This is precisely why Barton's egregious context-dropping makes him such a lowlife qua historian. And context is precisely what Rodda provides in those videos that you find so very, very dull. Providing historical context may not be entertaining for some people, but it is vital. That is what historians -- real historians, I mean-- do.

Anyone can read a document and mangle its meaning according to his whims. A primary job of the historian is to give a contextual interpretation of a document, i.e., to explain the document as it was understood by the person who wrote it.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I'm not so sure about Rodda's accuracy.

Whenever I see that much spin, my warning bells go off. In my experience, when people spin, they have inaccuracies, selective omissions, out of context interpretations, and so forth. I don't trust anything coming from her without doing my own checking.

I also take what Barton says with a grain of salt and have made it a point to double check anything by him before using it in my own work should I ever write seriously about history, but he is one hell of a communicator of history.

Rodda sucks at it big-time. And she spins like hell

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George,

I'm not so sure about Rodda's accuracy.

Whenever I see that much spin, my warning bells go off. In my experience, when people spin, they have inaccuracies, selective omissions, out of context interpretations, and so forth. I don't trust anything coming from her without doing my own checking.

I also take what Barton says with a grain of salt and have made it a point to double check anything by him before using it in my own work should I ever write seriously about history, but he is one hell of a communicator of history.

Rodda sucks at it big-time. And she spins like hell

Michael

There is no "spin" in those videos by Rodda that I posted. If you disagree, then cite a specific instance or two. I grow very tired of your arbitrary generalizations. You don't like Rodda, for whatever reason. BFD. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with her comptence as a historian.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You want me to go back through that Rodda crap?

Just because you're tired of generalizations that are not your own?

Like hell I will.

I want to forget that crap, not nitpick it

I spent too many hours on it already. And it was certainly not to appease the delicate feelings of anyone with a chip on his shoulder. I was looking for balance with Barton. I found what I was looking for and found some stuff I didn't like, too. I don't need anything else from that woman.

The videos are here for the readers. Let them look if they are interested.

Why don't you read PARC again if you like that kind of crap?

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George, You want me to go back through that Rodda crap? Just because you're tired of generalizations that are not your own? Like hell I will. I want to forget that crap, not nitpick it I spent too many hours on it already. And it was certainly not to appease the delicate feelings of anyone with a chip on his shoulder. I was looking for balance with Barton. I found what I was looking for and found some stuff I didn't like, too. I don't need anything else from that woman. The videos are here for the readers. Let them look if they are interested. Why don't you read PARC again if you like that kind of crap? Michael

You accused Rodda of "spin," and I asked for one or two examples. You have supposedly spent "hours on it already," but you cannot spare the time to write a few sentences of explanation. You could have done that in the time it took to write your post explaining why you won't explain.

I read PARC as part of a project with BB, one that was never completed. You know as much about that as you do about early American history, but in neither case were you hesitant to express opinions.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Will you two guys simply Cool It?

--Brant

don't piss me off! I've got real problems!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I went through that stuff months ago. In order to critique it correctly, I would have to see it again.

I don't respect what I saw enough to want to repeat the experience.

It was extremely irritating at the time. Especially the spin.

I don't need her to check Barton anymore, I realized back then he's got flaws, and I don't need her to learn about history.

Let's do it this way.

I'm an opinionated idiot who doesn't know a fact from a hole in the ground. And I'm so dumb I'm an apologist for Christian revisionism without even realizing it.

What a tool I am!

There.

Happy?

Like I said, you like Chris Rodda? Knock yourself out.

In fact, here's her book in PDF form for free: Liars for Jesus.

I have not read it, nor do I intend to barring some compelling situation, but it says "Volume I" and is only 532 pages.

Go for it.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George, I went through that stuff months ago. In order to critique it correctly, I would have to see it again. I don't respect what I saw enough to want to repeat the experience. It was extremely irritating at the time. Especially the spin. I don't need her to check Barton anymore, I realized back then he's got flaws, and I don't need her to learn about history. Let's do it this way. I'm an opinionated idiot who doesn't know a fact from a hole in the ground. And I'm so dumb I'm an apologist for Christian revisionism without even realizing it. What a tool I am! There. Happy? Like I said, you like Chris Rodda? Knock yourself out. In fact, here's her book in PDF form for free: Liars for Jesus. I have not read it, nor do I intend to barring some compelling situation, but it says "Volume I" and is only 532 pages. Go for it. Michael

Thanks for the link. I will definitely read Rodda's book.

It appears that your Lizard Brain (to use your expression) has taken over, so it is best that we stop here. I have no choice in any case. I still have a lot of work to do on my next Cato Essay, which is due at noon tomorrow, and I will be up all night working on it.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The rational brain vs the lizard brain?

Good nite, guys. You need each other for different reasons.

--Brant

[Selene]

The rational brain vs the lizard brain?

Good nite, guys. You need each other for different reasons.

--Brant

Brant is a wise man. Quite correct on this one also.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My lizard brain with Rodda?

Heh.

I'm stranded on a desert island. Hopeless situation. I might never get rescued and I've been here over three years.

My pet rat died last month and I didn't train a new one. I'm tired of training rats for pets, anyway, It's just I get so damn lonely I've got to have contact with some form of friendly life.

Wait...

What's that in the horizon? It looks like a ship.

I'll be damned, It is! It is! It is!

I watch in growing anticipation and frantically start waving my arms. I'm yelling as it approaches.

Finally I see them lower a small boat with some men on it. They have seen me and they are coming for me!

Hurrah!

The tears stream down my face. They take me on the boat and we go to the ship. I am overwhelmed with gratitude.

I talk a little to the captain. He gives me a funny look and suddenly his men lead me to a small room that serves as quarters. They say they will take me back to civilization, but I must do a task first and a person will be down to see me shortly. They leave abruptly, smiling oddly.

I'm starting to feel uneasy. Something isn't right. Why the mystery?

I hear a knock. In walks a man with a laptop computer. He asks if I have ever heard of David Barton.

I say I think he's a religious historian or something. The man tells me i must watch a video. He puts the laptop on the table and turns it on. The video is of a woman named Chris Rodda. The man tells me I must watch the whole thing.

It is awful. The lady is a duckbill platypus on a sacred mission. Then the man says there is another to see. It is awful, too. He asks again what I think of David Barton. I say the woman doesn't like him much and he says that isn't good enough. There are another forty videos by her I have to see and they will explain the true David Barton to me.

I don't know what this has to do with rescuing me, but when I say I don't want to watch any more sucky videos, the man gets really angry. He says I am an ungrateful swine. He says I really don't understand anything about David Barton and I need to let Chris Rodda tell me all about that liar.

So I watch another ten videos. It is torture and I am turning into a nervous wreck. This is worse than that hurricane that hit the island last year.

The man asks again what I think about David Barton. I ask David who? And why does that Rodda woman sound like a sniggering buzzsaw? That does not please him and he says after those forty videos, he has a fresh batch coming. And I have to watch all of them until I can tell him for sure who David Barton is.

I give a lunatic cry, knock the man over and fly out the door. I run up the stairs to the deck and, without hesitation, jump overboard. I'm crying like a madman. Anything but another video of that Rodda woman!

I swim back to the island. As I come ashore, exhausted, I see a small young rat scurrying up in front of me. Hello, young friend, I think. I'm going to call you... hmmmmm...

George...

I like it.

I know he will be my best pet of all the others.

Life on this island is not so bad, after all.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Barton and his Evangelical buddies then tighten the screws and start using "America is a Christian Nation" to argue that "America should be governed according to the principles of Evangelical fundamentalist Christianity." Which means they would not acknowledge either Catholics or Unitarians as "real" Christians, and they would reject a secular state.

Andrew,

I don't agree with Barton on many things, but this mischaracterizes his position, at least according to what I have read and seen.

His argument is not about imposing Christianity on anyone. It is for allowing government officials to include their expressions of faith in discharging their duties. He is standing up to the removal of monuments from government buildings that, say, include the Ten Commandments, against prohibiting prayer for opening a meeting and things like that.

Since when are public officials forbidden from expressing their faith?

Barack Obama has invoked his religion more than George W. Bush, during his speeches.

Every single Republican candidate is tripping over themselves to demonstrate and reassure votes of their faith. Even Ron Paul.

Jimmy Carter referenced his religion often.

There is nothing in "Separation of Church and State" which prevents religionists from mentioning their faith. It isn't about "silencing" the faithful no matter how many Evangelicals stamp their feet and insist they're somehow persecuted.

That said, you're package-dealing government officials "expressing" their faith with ritualized prayer in government institutions and Christian monuments in government buildings. The latter is a pretty clear violation of the Establishment Clause; public monuments are paid for with public money and not all taxpayers are Christians. As for ritualized prayer in government institutions, that's a religious ritual. Whilst government officials can pray if they so wish, situations where prayer is MANDATED on a regular basis should be verboten.

Banning mandatory prayers in public institutions and not allowing Christian monuments to be paid for by public money is in no respects a violation of the freedom of public officials to practice or express their faith, unless you mistreat the freedom of religion as a positive liberty (when it is in fact a negative liberty).

You see Evangelicals do this too; when talking about their own religious freedom, they treat it as a positive liberty; "the state must enable us to be good Christians by outlawing pornography, drugs, rock music and buttsex (at least between men)," but the minute another religious group starts complaining that THEIR values aren't being turned into legislation, the Evangelicals say "you're not being forced to stop practicing your religion so quit your bitching."

He openly supports Glenn Beck's "We're all Catholics now" movement against government encroachment, so where do you get that anti-Catholic stuff?

Evangelical and Fundy Protestants typically believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. I'm not making this up; Evangelicals typically loathe Catholics. The religious right might happily reach across the aisle to get political support (remember, they are fundamentally a political coalition), correct, but in their heads they believe the Catholics are going to hell for worshipping false gods. Look at how Mitt Romney's Mormonism made him a tough sell to the religionists. Same principle.

To be completely frank, Michael, I believe you are being excessively charitable when reading Barton. Charitable readings are good things, and one should always try to be fair (and Objectivists in general have a bad habit with avoiding being charitable when reading opposing arguments). So I am not attacking you for being charitable; I simply believe that in this context, Barton is not someone to be read charitably. You claim that Barton doesn't want to impose Christianity on everyone; so why do Barton and his Evangelical buddies all have a surprising tendency to want...

1) Government 'encouraged' prayer in public schools? (Note, I am against the government banning voluntary prayer in public schools, but I am equally against public money being used to 'encourage' prayer... to do this can only be described as "improving religious freedom" if you are talking about religious freedom as a positive liberty).

2) Sodomy laws, which are typically used against homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy (which, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor correctly noted in her Concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas, is a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause)

3) Taxpayer money being used to finance Christian pet projects (what was it that Jefferson said about compelling people to finance viewpoints they disagree with? Oh, and there's the whole Establishment Clause issue)

Barton's arguments are invariably used to justify the above three things (and worse). They aren't used to say "Presidents can express their faith." No one has ever claimed Presidents cannot discuss their faith! Barton's arguments may be, when read charitably, quite modest in some respects. However, they are always used as means to support theocratic ends.

Has Barton ever condemned this use of his arguments? Has Barton ever came out against enforced Christian morality? Has Barton ever opposed the blatantly theocratic agenda of his fellow Evangelicals?

Perhaps Barton simply doing his job, as a good little Jesus Fascist, at manufacturing excuses for his fellow religionist's preferred public policies?

[Dennis Hardin]

... I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty.

Dennis,

I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning.

Michael,

It's certainly true that the term "Christian Nation" could have multiple meanings, but my concern is with the conservatives' claim that America was founded as a "Christian Nation." To say that America is a "nation of Christians" is noncontroversial. That's just a matter of statistics, and I would have to add: So what? From a philosophical perspective, the critical issue is: Was the United States of America founded upon the Christian religion?

The essential founding document of the United States and its government is the Constitution. To say that the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion is to say that the founders based the Constitution on the Christian religion. The Treaty of Tripoli makes clear that they did not.

The United States was founded on the ideas of The Enlightenment and, to some extent, Aristotle. That was the philosophy embodied in the Constitution--and the founders knew it. Otherwise, those words would not have been in that treaty.

Unfortunately, today's religious conservatives do not know it and refuse to accept it. That's the problem--and the Treaty of Tripoli is my evidence that they are clearly and unequivocally wrong.

[studiodekadent]

... I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty.

Dennis,

I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning.

Michael,

It's certainly true that the term "Christian Nation" could have multiple meanings, but my concern is with the conservatives' claim that America was founded as a "Christian Nation." To say that America is a "nation of Christians" is noncontroversial. That's just a matter of statistics, and I would have to add: So what? From a philosophical perspective, the critical issue is: Was the United States of America founded upon the Christian religion?

Dennis,

I agree with you, and even that issue can be nuanced, complicated and thorny.

1) What "Christian" religion, specifically? There are multiple denominations of Christianity, most of which are incompatible with the other denominations and accuse the other denominations of being false Christians that will burn in hell forever. Even within the same denomination you can find multiple different philosophical substrains (Catholicism for instance). And certainly, from an historical perspective, all those evangelicals who say "America was founded on Christianity" seem to conveniently forget that the specific kind of Christianity they advocate and believe in didn't even exist at the time of the founding.

2) Being founded upon "Christian principles" does not necessitate that the principles themselves are uniquely Christian. For example, the Law of Identity is a principle one can find in Objectivism but is also found in other philosophies. One can correctly say that the Law of Identity is an Objectivist principle, but not an exclusively Objectivist principle.

3) Additionally, a principle being compatible with (any specific understanding of) Christianity does not necessarily mean the principle is "Christian."

The essential founding document of the United States and its government is the Constitution.

This is where I would register a slight disagreement, since I do think the Declaration of Independence is just as essential. This is where Santorum actually was correct; the Constitution must be read in the context of the Declaration (which in turn must be understood within the context of its historical and intellectual background etc.).

To say that the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion is to say that the founders based the Constitution on the Christian religion. The Treaty of Tripoli makes clear that they did not.

I agree.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since when are public officials forbidden from expressing their faith?

Andrew,

It happens. Usually at lower levels. Google it.

But I'll help you start. Here is some interesting reading where you will find some cases: ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression.

The ACLU takes on all abuses, irrespective of religion. It infuriates atheists and Christians alike. You will find mostly non-governmental employees, but you will also find people in the government listed.

As to more prominent cases, I didn't pay all that much attention to them as they crossed the news. This topic is not high on my priority and in the information glut in which I live, I notice it when it arises, but it doesn't stick in my memory. I don't believe the higher elective government officials use the ACLU much, so I would need to do some digging to show you instances.

But do your own homework. The information is out there to be had. Just because Obama says "God bless America," this doesn't mean there isn't a push to prohibit officials from expressing their religion.

Banning mandatory prayers in public institutions...

The problem isn't mandatory prayers. The problem happens when voluntary prayer is prohibited. Like I said, Google it. Google is your friend.

To be completely frank, Michael, I believe you are being excessively charitable when reading Barton.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The United States was founded on the ideas of The Enlightenment and, to some extent, Aristotle. That was the philosophy embodied in the Constitution--and the founders knew it. Otherwise, those words would not have been in that treaty.

Unfortunately, today's religious conservatives do not know it and refuse to accept it. That's the problem--and the Treaty of Tripoli is my evidence that they are clearly and unequivocally wrong.

Dennis,

As I showed, some of the states that make up the United States actually were founded on the Christian religion. But I know of no reference to Aristotle in any founding documents.

Fact: In the founding of the United States, the whole (the federal government) is not Christian but some the parts are (state governments).

Does that lead to this conclusion? That means that Christianity did not exist as a philosophical influence in the founding of the United States.

One does not follow from the other in my understanding.

But here's an idea for you. I agree with George on making a clear distinction between the government and the nation. The USA federal government was not founded on Christianity. Some state governments were, And the nation mostly was.

The influence of the Enlightenment was also present in the government and in the nation.

In other words, it's not an either-or proposition. Philosophically, both influences were present.

I know that idea does not satisfy fundamentalist Christians, but does it satisfy the enemies of fundamentalist Christians?

Incidentally, just because the founding of the country occurred one way, that does not mean it has to continue that way. Slavery is a good case in point.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

Sorry about getting so testy yesterday. My mind was alternating between racing and stalling as I attempted to figure out how to deal with certain parts of my next Cato essay, which will appear tomorrow. This process always generates a lot of tension in me. And as I jump back and forth between ""real writing" and writing posts, I can easily transfer the aggravation caused by the former to the latter.

I finally decided to get some sleep, get up at 4 a.m., and try again. After working for another 8 hours, I emailed the final draft shortly before the noon deadline.

Ghs

[PDS]

Michael,

Sorry about getting so testy yesterday. My mind was alternating between racing and stalling as I attempted to figure out how to deal with certain parts of my next Cato essay, which will appear tomorrow. This process always generates a lot of tension in me. And as I jump back and forth between ""real writing" and writing posts, I can easily transfer the aggravation caused by the former to the latter.

I finally decided to get some sleep, get up at 4 a.m., and try again. After working for another 8 hours, I emailed the final draft shortly before the noon deadline.

Ghs

The conciliatory gesture always has power well beyond its mere words. Good for you, George Smith.