Palin And The Religious Right: A Trojan Horse In The GOP

Sarah Palin, the darling of the Tea Party and the face of Christian Conservative America, almost a heart-beat away from the Presidency of the United states in 2008 and a presidential hopeful for 2012, has once again shown us just how dangerous and destructive Fundamentalist Conservative Christian Evangelicals can be. Palin appeared on “The O’Rielly Factor” to discuss the Federal Court ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. In addition to endorsing the governments involvement in religion and promotion of a religious ritual, Palin expounded on her earlier claims that America is a Christian Nation by claiming that the Founders intended for our laws to be based on the bible and the ten commandments.

SARAH PALIN: “I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.”

The reality is that there are no references to Christianity or Jesus in the Declaration of independence or the Constitution. There are a few references to a ‘Nature’s God,’ but certainly not to any religious figures or deities of either the Christian or the Jewish persuasion. The principle misunderstanding of Mrs. Palin’s, is that her interpretation of “our rights to have freedom of religion” translates in her mind to ‘ the right of Christians to impose their beliefs and practices on American law, politics, society and education.’

There is at least as much well documented doubt and even disdain for Christianity among some of the framers as there is acceptance by others. This was not a strictly homogeneous group of men. They were as individual and different from each other as any such group of men would be today. They recognized their individuality and desired to preserve their freedom of expression. It was for this reason that they were so careful when ensuring the protection of those rights by establishing the separation of church and state.

The only reference to anything that may be misconstrued as a profession of Christianity might be the date. The “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of ‘our Lord’ one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” is the sentence in the last section of the fourth and final page of the Constitution and was the common way of marking the date according to the Gregorian calendar. ‘In the year of our Lord’ translated to Latin is ‘Anno Domini’ which is abbreviated as the familiar ‘A.D.’ and is still used by countries who have not adopted the BCE (Before Common Era)-CE (Common Era) method of recording the year. It is merely a tradition and holds no religious significance.

Another factor worth considering is that in order to justify their defiance of the King’s authority, the founding fathers, out of political expediency, had to invoke a higher authority that even the King could not dismiss, and make the case that they were endowed with that higher power’s blessing. This mention of a higher power was clearly not intended to imply a Christian power.

The laws of the United States are based on English common law, not the Bible. The principles of American law are traced through this provenance back to Roman law, not Hebrew. It was the non-Christian Romans who introduced civil law, trials by jury, and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. These principles are found nowhere in the Bible. The purpose of a written law was to protect people from the potentially abusive power of the state or a majority, not to define a god’s rules and religious prescriptions for his subjects. Where these principles are clearly evident in the Constitution and the development of American law, they are clearly absent and often contradicted in the Christian Bible and Decalogue.

Simply because some of the principles of American law seem similar to some of the principles one might find in the Christian bible, does not mean that those laws were based on the Christian bible. Such an assertion could be made with equal credibility by many other world religions. Similar incidental commonalities may be discovered in the Islamic Qur’an, the Jewish Talmud, and many other religious texts. Many of these principles in American law predate Hebrew text, going back as far as The Code of Hammurabi. To contend that the American Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and legal code, are all based on Judeo-Christian theology is simply, and blatantly, erroneous.

The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Clearly the founders did not intended for our laws to be based on the bible. Additionally, in 1797, in Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli, President John Adams proclaimed that “the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,”

It was not until the 1950′s, almost 200 years after the founding of the country, and during the frenetic ‘Red Scare’ days of McCarthyism, that Christian Fundamentalists were able to infuse their doctrine into the politics of a frightened and bewildered nation. It was during this time of fear-mongering about communist insurgents (like the fear-mongering about terrorists, socialists, communists etc. today), and of ideological purity tests (like the litmus tests we see among the Tea Party and conservatives today), that the people of the country were coerced into proving their anti-communist and pro-American fidelity by accepting these seemingly benign and ostensibly unifying proclamations.

Ronald Reagan’s 1988 Proclamation #5767, institutionalizing the 1952 McCarthy Era act of congress, was specific in its religious bias, including a quote from the book of Leviticus in the Christian Bible. This deliberately narrow focus within a pluralistic society reflects the exclusivity of the governments endorsement of a religious ritual to the exclusion of all other religions, belief systems and world views. Therefore, under the First Amendment, as ruled by Wisconsin Senior U.S. District Judge Crabb, the National Day of Prayer contravenes the Constitution.

On Thursday, April 15, 2010, Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled that the National Day of Prayer Proclamation is unconstitutional. Judge Crabb explained her decision by stating that “…[the National Day of Prayer's] goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgement’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context.” She continued, “In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”

The irrational knee-jerk reaction from Christian fundamentalist evangelicals reflects a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in specific, and further demonstrates the continued efforts of Christian fundamentalist evangelicals to reject and subvert principles of equality. This ruling does absolutely nothing to limit any persons religious freedoms. The ruling clearly echoes the First Amendment when it states that there is to be no government sponsorship or endorsement of this particular religious ritual. The Judges ruling does not ban prayer. The judges ruling does not say that Christians are not allowed to pray on that day, or any other. The Judges ruling does not say that every Christians in America cannot agree to pray in concert on that day. The ruling simply removes the unconstitutionally preferred status of one religion over others by official government proclamation in order to protect the equal freedoms and liberties of all.

There have been a total of 59 National Days of Prayer Proclaimed by a President since Truman instituted the practice in 1952, which Reagan institutionalized in 1988 by designating the first Thursday of every May. However, if you listen to the revisionist history from the Religious Right, and rhetoric from personalities such as Palin, Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly among others, people would be led to believe that we’ve had 234 of them dating all the way back to 1776.

What we are dealing with is propaganda originating from the previously large and coveted voting block of Christian Fundamentalists, endorsed and exploited out of political necessity by the Republican Party and the Tea Party. That America was founded as, and remains, a Christian nation based on Biblical principles is an assertion that is in no way supported by the facts.

With failing numbers, damaged credibility, waning political influence and the lack of any platform, conservatives have left a vacuum in their own party to be exploited. The voice of conservative Independents, Republicans and Libertarians has been stolen. Political ideology has been infused with fundamentalist religious theology with the hope of garnering additional votes. The result has been internal division, further loss of credibility, and the abdication of responsible political discourse. The productive and necessary views and desires of non-religious libertarians and conservatives have been silenced in favour of the media friendly, accidentally-comic hyperbole of the entertainingly ridiculous rhetoric of Palin, Beck, et al.

Political Parties pandering for votes is a reality of the political process, but to allow a platform to be usurped by delusional religious fundamentalists with a counter-constitutional agenda is a threat to freedom, the Constitution and the rights of all Americans.

The crusade of the religious right is a problem for all Americans but is currently a bigger problem for, and perhaps more readily dealt with by, American conservatives. Rather than allow this element to purge the Republican Party, causing further damage, the nonsectarian members of the G.O.P. need to re-establish a coherent and articulated platform, re-engage in a meaningful and productive political dialog representing all its constituents, and endeavor to earn votes based on merit rather than enter into dysfunctional marriages of convenience. Rather than trying to distance itself from the increasing number of embarrassing statements while simultaneously trying to capitalizing on ever-shrinking, pop-culture, fund-raising appeal and voter turn-out, perhaps the G.O.P. needs to conduct a purge of its own.

email
Share

65 Responses to Palin And The Religious Right: A Trojan Horse In The GOP

  1. -64 Vote -1 Vote +1Randall Thorpe
    May 9, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Gov. Sarah Palin is correct on every social, cultural, economic, & political issue she addresses. She is charming, charismatic, courageous, & consistent. This country craves her strong leadership.

    • +38 Vote -1 Vote +1well now
      May 9, 2010 at 11:05 am

      ahahahahaha is the only response. You are welcome to either take that as acknowledgment of your facetious joke, or laughter at your stupidity.

    • +13 Vote -1 Vote +1free thinker
      May 9, 2010 at 8:33 pm

      Look at Thorpe’s statements. What a non-thinking, non-questioning approach. He sounds like a personality cult worshipper ready for a Palin dictatorship. No, Thorpe, she isn’t right on everything– no one is. Wake up to at least one flaw she has, and then you might start noticing a few more, and some more after that. But critical thinking doesn’t seem to be part of your repertoire. You’ll be a perfect fascist when she needs you to be.

    • +16 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 9, 2010 at 10:31 pm

      “strong leadership”? Strong leaders don’t quit their jobs as Governor to chase the national $potlight.

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1MaryCan
      May 10, 2010 at 12:58 pm

      I have a feeling that it says a lot about any supporter if the first “qualities” listed are superficial like charming and charismatic. So are beauty contest winners and Hollywood starlets.

      But I doubt that any of the Founding Fathers were described that way.

      • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
        May 10, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        I think she actually was one of those pageant princesses and got a Miss Congeniality (or something similar) consolation prize. Seems she’s been fighting back at that loss ever since lol

    • -8 Vote -1 Vote +1Barbara
      May 11, 2010 at 7:00 am

      Sarah, “they” are sooooooo afraid of you ! Because your always right, and your a women ! God bless you ! Good read Randall !
      Dems are such unhappy miserable, reprobates !people,

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1rpfp12
      May 11, 2010 at 10:42 am

      Sarah Palin is a hairstyle, nothing else.

  2. +32 Vote -1 Vote +1Unitarian like our forefathers
    May 9, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Failin’ Palin the half-term Governor is the laughing stock of the majority of people in this country–including Republicans. Her arrogance, misinterpretation and continual attempts to rewrite history are the virtues of the ignorant–the same immoral minority that slithers out from under its rocks every few years only to be beaten back again.

  3. -36 Vote -1 Vote +1Todd Hurd
    May 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Gov. Sarah Palin is correct on every social, cultural, economic, & political issue she addresses. She is charming, charismatic, courageous, & consistent. This country craves her strong leadership.

    • +9 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 9, 2010 at 8:03 pm

      OMG.. you’re right. I see the light now. How could I have been so wrong. I’m so glad that Sarah is as kind as forgiving as she is. Do you think she’ll forgive me? I hope so. I hope that in my darkest hour, mother Sarah comes to me, speaking words of wisdom…. let it be, please, let it be. ; )

  4. -21 Vote -1 Vote +1Tom Jones
    May 9, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    That’s not entirely true Liam, though you are correct in your assessment that the founding fathers believed in separation of Church and State and neither the Constitution or Declaration mentions Christianity, that doesn’t change the fact that America was founded on Judeo Christian principles, though our founding fathers were diverse majority of them were Christians and many times during the writing of the Constitution the delegates were led in prayer before the start of the debates. Christian prayers that is. There is no evidence that those founding fathers who were not Christians ever objected to that ritual.

    • +18 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm

      That is a myth. It’s right up there with the George Washington and the Cherry tree tale. In fact, I think it was started by the same person, Washington’s biographer. As I said, the group of men were as disparate as any group of such men. They recognized and wanted to protect their individual freedoms. They wanted their religious beliefs to be private and irrelevant to the government. In order to do this, they realized the necessity of the First Amendment. The only way for each of them to protect their own freedom was to take a stand that would protect the freedoms of all. Thus, no religion in government, and no government in religion.

  5. +32 Vote -1 Vote +1Strummer
    May 9, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    The fact that Palin has such a following in the US is a sad commentary on the state of the country. As for the US being a Christian nation, that depends on who you ask. The majority of the country (about 75%) is Christian in the broadest sense of the term, but if we use the definition given by Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants then the percentage falls to about 35%. Some denominations don’t consider anyone outside of their church to be Christian, and if we use their definition the percentage falls to a fraction of 1%. This is all irrelevant though, because all you have to do is open your eyes to see that what passes for Christianity these days has little to do with Jesus. If the US population was truly Christian there would have been universal healthcare a long time ago and the response to 911 would have been prayer for the souls of the victims and the attackers, not military action. Jesus should sue for the illegal use of his name to promote BS.

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Spruce
      May 10, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      Best post I’ve seen on here. I can’t imagine Jesus preaching against universal health care, yet these self-proclaimed “Christians” only think of themselves and seem filled with hate (another thing JC would not be happy about). It’s the height of hypocrisy, and an embarrassment to Christianity in this country. They wrap themselves in the flag, hold out the cross, and say if you don’t agree with everything WE say, you’re a godless communist/fascist/whatever. How Christian of them…

  6. +12 Vote -1 Vote +1bjohnson
    May 9, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Tom Jones – If you could provide some of these Christian principles the Constitution and Declaration was founded on I would appreciate it. I have been looking for years but can’t find any.

  7. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Arthur G Broadhurst
    May 9, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Good article. Some of the founders were Christians (but not in any sense of the evangelicals) but most were Deist or not committed. There is a great deal of historical nonsense constantly repeated by those ignorant of our history or wishing it was different than it is. I have written on this issue along similar lines: http://thechristianhumanist.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-united-states-christian-nation-since.html We need to use every opportunity to explain our founders relationship to religion and their rationale for ensuring the separation between government and religious faith.

  8. +12 Vote -1 Vote +1story
    May 9, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    sarah the half-baked gov. torch bearer for the desperatly,intentionally misinformed. wants the public to Believe she has christian values, and she Associates with the likes of Witchdoctors! WHAT A SHAM!!!!!!!!!!!! she’s an imposter……a CHARLATAN! open your Eyes, sheeples.

    • -11 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 9, 2010 at 11:04 pm

      Witchdoctors? When you mock another American’s religious beliefs and practices, you’re lowering yourself to the same level as those who attack Muslims (the peaceful ones, not the radical extremists), Jews, etc. for their beliefs. Jesus would be disappointed.

      • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
        May 10, 2010 at 1:15 am

        “Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. True irreverence is disrespect for another man’s god.” – Samuel Langhorne Clemens

        • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
          May 10, 2010 at 5:55 am

          “Irreverence is another person’s disrespect to your god; there isn’t any word that tells what your disrespect to his god is.” Samuel Langhorne Clemens

          • Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
            May 10, 2010 at 8:48 am

            I posted a Mark Twain(Samuel Clemmens) quote. Where did U find those words that you’re attributing to him?

            • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
              May 10, 2010 at 9:00 am

              I know SLC is Mark Twain. This quote was taken from “The Mysterious Stranger.” It’s one of the most well-known quotes from that work. Where did you find your words that you’re attributing to him? :-)

              • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1dick
                May 11, 2010 at 10:16 am

                Most quotes should be viewed in the context from which they were taken. FLindie ‘s is taken verbatim. Liam Fox’s is apparently a mashup. Here are four Clemens quotes on irreverence with respective source:

                True irreverence is disrespect for another man’s god.
                - Following the Equator, Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar

                Irreverence is another person’s disrespect to your god; there isn’t any word that tells what your disrespect to his god is.
                - No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger

                When a thing is sacred to me it is impossible for me to be irreverent toward it. I cannot call to mind a single instance where I have ever been irreverent, except toward the things which were sacred to other people.
                - “Is Shakespeare Dead?”

                Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense.
                - Notebook, 1888

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      Just to clarify, excluding the comment on Palin’s religious beliefs/practices (regardless of how cringe-inducing they may be), I’m in complete agreement with your sentiments. My point was that when you sink to the level of attacking someone based on their religious practices, you’re sinking to the level of Palinistas.

      • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1MaryCan
        May 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        Drat — I read this too fast, and misread the last word as Philistines!

  9. -24 Vote -1 Vote +1ajc
    May 9, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    Strummer, next time try posting something that wasn’t written for you by Obama. As to the author of this load of horsedung, I won’t even read it. FAIL x10.

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 9, 2010 at 10:48 pm

      Obama didn’t have time to write that for Strummer, he was too busy issuing his proclamation for our country’s National Day of Prayer. And if you won’t even read an article, why are you commenting on it? Kudos to Palin for cashing in on the rampant cretinism and fear of the religious right.

    • +11 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 10, 2010 at 1:22 am

      What does it say when a person would completely skip an article yet feel validated about leaving a comment. It’s like the Teabaggers protesting taxes when they haven’t even checked the facts to find out that their taxes went down. This unfortunately common uber-closed-mind continues to fascinate and frustrate.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1MaryCan
      May 10, 2010 at 1:30 pm

      As a Georgian already embarrassed far too much by my fellow Georgians, I’d like to point out that AJC does not stand for Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The AJC newspaper has standards much higher than this.

  10. -21 Vote -1 Vote +1ghj
    May 9, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Last month, after she addressed 16,000 Christian-evangelical women in Louisville, KY, Mrs. Palin’s critics once again bashed her for suggesting that America is a “Christian nation.”

    She did not mean that America should become a theocracy. She simply meant that most Americans are Christians and that, to a large extent, the culture in this country reflects the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    To prove this point, in the same sentence, she also castigated Mr. Obama for “poking an ally like Israel in the eye.”

    It was no accident that the remark about the Obama administration’s mistreatment of Israel was omitted from mainstream accounts of her talk.

    The Israel remark is there because, to Sarah Palin, the well being of Israel and the Jewish people is an integral part of her worldview. Israel is not just another cold run-of-the-mill foreign policy matter. What happens to Israel matters to her as a Christian. Threats to America’s moral fiber and threats to Israel’s national security are all part of the same challenge that she wants Americans to address.

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 10, 2010 at 1:26 am

      I could not disagree with you more, and here is why – http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/28/foreign-policy-is-not-a-faith-based-program/

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1ChrisC
      May 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      This “poking in the eye” meme comes from one of Pat Robertson’s broadcasts wherein he cautions that going against Israel in any way, “God’s chosen people”, would be tantamount to “poking God in the eye”.

      So even here, Sarah gets a big fat fail for not getting the line properly delivered.

      Any defender of the apartheid state that Israel has become– a state, by the way, that the majority of its actual Israeli inhabitants do not like– is no better than the segregationists in the southern US or Apartheid South Africa. To use religion as an excuse for your ill-formed p.o.v. demonstrates both ignorance and cowardice.

      Zionistic Christians are deluded by right-wing propaganda into thinking that they have to return a Jewish state to the geographical land of Israel in order to bring about the “end times”. So you’re tired of trashing this planet and want a new one. I get it. But what you forget is your own savior’s message about being a good steward with what you have, a lesson for which you and Sarah have earned another “F”.

  11. -23 Vote -1 Vote +1noislammocommie
    May 9, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    I have read about this issue extensively being interested in history and also fully realizing the grip liberals have had over our entire educational system for decades. Sara is absolutely right. The Magna Carta can’t make it any more clear that this nation was founded by Christians and is the reason for the incredible tolerence in this country compared to others. The communists have been very eager to erode this notion so that their dreams of totalitarian control will come to fruition.
    Europe abandoned its adherence to a Christian legacy and just watch how the ruling elite filled the void.Islamic immigration has turned Europe into a dhimmi nation. Take your pick….support Christian nation or evolve into an Islamic vassal state.
    GO CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 9, 2010 at 10:26 pm

      It’s Sarah with an H moron…

    • +11 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 10, 2010 at 1:30 am

      The Magna Carta was signed in the year 1215 by King John. You obviously have no clue about that which you write. Please take your medication and go lay down for a nap before you hurt yourself.

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1barbara
      May 10, 2010 at 10:29 am

      or support the separation of church and state as the founders intended. it isn’t a choice between two lousy fundamentalist religions.

  12. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1bjohnson
    May 9, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    noislammocommie – I just read the Magna Carta and could not find any reference to the United States being a Christian nation. Could you point out the part that makes it clear we are a Christian nation.

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 9, 2010 at 10:41 pm

      noislammocommie would have to read it first…

  13. -20 Vote -1 Vote +1darin
    May 9, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    sarah is right on target on the issue– the holy bible has always been in our US court systems- the next time you are in a court of law as a witness to something – you wll be sworn in on the bible.. in god we trust is on our money.. presidents are sworn in on the bible– we are a christian nation

    • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
      May 9, 2010 at 11:40 pm

      What this boils down to is a matter of semantics. We are a nation that is predominantly Christian, with an obvious Christian tradition. You’re correct re: the use of the Bible in our courts and ceremonies, but who is trying to change that? What are we going to use to swear in a POTUS, a NYC phone book? A signed copy of Going Rogue?? And when we say we are a “Christian Nation,” we’re exercising our right to freedom of speech, but in a way that’s creating manufactured, pointless conflict. I don’t personally know any fellow Christians who feel our religious rights or history or heritage are being infringed on, and I live in the Bible belt.

    • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1bjohnson
      May 10, 2010 at 2:59 am

      I have been on at least three juries, and have sat at both the defense’s and plaintiff’s table in court and have yet to see a bible. US House and Senate members take their oath with no book present. Most do a photo opt afterwards for the people back home using a Bible or the Koran. According to the Smithsonian one of our presidents took the oath with out the use of any book. I have read that courts that do think you should use a book have multi versions of religious books to choose from. I am sure you would not want to use a version of the Bible that was incorrectly intrepided by man.

      • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
        May 10, 2010 at 9:47 am

        Excellent points. I’ve only been in court once, as a witness, and I was given a big black Bible (but again I’m in the south so perhaps geography has something to do with it). But as a Christian I like the point you make about not using a religious book at all; the Bible would not mean much, if anything, to a Buddhist, a Hindu, an atheist or “other.” I like the idea of taking an oath as an American without the religious component.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1barbara
      May 10, 2010 at 10:26 am

      it’s not in jesus we trust though is it

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
      May 10, 2010 at 10:54 am

      Epic fail on all points. Darin has been watching to many old black and white TV shows.When you are in a court of law you are NOT sworn in on a Bible. In addition, In God We Trust was added to the money in two phases, the last being in the 50s during the Red Scare, and Presidents use Lincoln’s Bible as a historical reference, nothing more. None of that adds up to this being a ‘Christian Nation’. So, Darin, I suggest you actually read the Constitution and take at least ONE civics class before posting on a forum where people have already done so.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1MaryCan
      May 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm

      Darin, I am so confused by this, dating way back to when I was still a Southern Baptist… how does a nation become Christian? Was there an altar call, and did the nation confess its sins, affirm that it accepted Christ as Savior?

      And just where and when does it tithe?

      I’m no longer Southern Baptist, but I still don’t understand how this can be.

      • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1FLindie
        May 10, 2010 at 2:06 pm

        Calling the US a “Christian Nation” is a semantics ploy, no different from referring to Tea Party members as “Tea Party Patriots” (inferring that dems, repubs, and independents are not patriots), or Palin showing up at a red state speaking engagement and saying she’s glad to be where “real Americans” live, implying that some of us aren’t real Americans. Every time she does this she is throwing a cow carcass into the piranha tank that is her base. But that tank is so filled with hate/anger that when she eventually slips and falls in, they’ll probably devour her as well.

  14. -24 Vote -1 Vote +1right
    May 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    Hmm. Could the author of this be agnostic or atheist?
    Too much arrogance.

    If the ACLU and FFRF weren’t so hell bent in telling christians to shut up and stay out of the public, you wouldn’t see them fighting for their rights.

    It’s okay for any other religion to speak freely, but if the Christians do it, it must be illegal! It’s a double standard.

    • +15 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 10, 2010 at 1:37 am

      I am a Secular Humanist. Christians are not having their rights infringed on, they are only being told not to infringe on the rights of others. It’s simple. You have complete religious freedom, you just don’t have the right to make others live by your doctrine or be subjected to your rituals. There is no malice, just fairness and equality.

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1ChrisC
      May 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      Would you like some cheese with your whine?

      Why is it that Christians, whenever a non-believer speaks historical fact not in the Christian favor, suddenly starts calling the non-believer “arrogant”? Are you trying to defame our character so that you appear to be superior in dialog? Do you not realize that in so doing you are failing utterly?

      If you wish to participate in dialog, educate yourself on the topic at hand, have facts and figures that are relevant to your case, and join us in conversation. Ad hominem attacks only make your position weak, and make you laughable to a group of people who DO think, read, research, and, in fact, know your holy book better than you do. In case you were not aware, as most Christians are not, less than 30% of you actually read your bible. Most atheists and agnostics have read the bible once through, and some of us several times through.

      Some of us went to seminary (like myself), and de-converted in part because of that experience.

      So try to be a little less of a victim, and become the owner of your life path. We don’t want or need adversaries, but informed members of the larger discourse. You don’t have to agree, and you can be as ignorant as you choose. But don’t expect us to give you a break when you have nothing intelligent to say.

  15. -16 Vote -1 Vote +1Robbins Mitchell
    May 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    The only thing this article demonstrates is the danger of closed minded bigoted Christophobes to the ongoing political dialogue…especially people like Liam who worship at the Church of Karl Marx’s Dick

    • +10 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 10, 2010 at 1:40 am

      lol… normally we might just delete something as stupid as this, but I think it would be a just consequence to simply leave it up for all to laugh at. ‘Christophobes’ lmao

      • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Beachbum
        May 10, 2010 at 11:28 am

        Liam – I could not agree more! The above comment almost proves string theory all by itself, it’s wrong in about eleven different dimensions.

  16. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1goddamnathiest
    May 10, 2010 at 1:18 am

    This women gives prostitution a bad name.
    She bailed on the people of Alaska for a dollar.
    If she has feet of clay on this level, what makes these fools think she’ll be good for America?

    • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      May 10, 2010 at 1:41 am

      They elected Bush… who knows why asshats do what they do.

  17. -9 Vote -1 Vote +1King
    May 10, 2010 at 2:17 am

     President George Washington said in his farewell address, “Reason and experience both forbid us that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” John Adams, America’s second president, said, “The United States Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” http://www.raptureready.com/rr-america.html

  18. -8 Vote -1 Vote +1John Lofton
    May 10, 2010 at 9:21 am

    The realization that our country was indeed founded as a Christian nation must begin with the understanding that our founding began 150 or so years before the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. And a superb, well-documented argument for our Christian origins is a little book by a former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, David J. Brewer, titled “the United States As A Christian Nation” (John C. Winston Co.,, 1905). As Brewer notes:

    The first colonial grant, made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 authorized him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that “they not be against the true Christian faith now professed by in the Church of England.” The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, commenced this grant invoked “the providence of Almighty God…in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.” The Mayflower Compact of 1620 says that they the Pilgrims did what they did “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” And the charter of New England, granted by James I in 1620, expressed the “hope thereby to advance the enlargement of Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty.”

    The Massachusetts Bay charter, granted in 1629 by Charles I, vows to “win and incite the natives of the country to their knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind, the Christian faith…[which] is the principle end of this plantation.” This declaration was substantially repeated in the 1691 Massachusetts Bay charter granted by William and Mary. The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under a provisional government instituted in 1638, stated that its purpose was “to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, also the discipline of the churches, which, according to the truth of the said gospel, is now practiced amongst us.” And the preamble of the Constitution of 1776 specifically says that among the things due to every man in his place and proportion are “civility and Christianity.”

    In 1638 the first Rhode Island settlers organized a local government and agreed to “submit our persons, lives and estates to our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24:3,4; II Chron. 11:3; II Kings 11:17.” The 1663 Rhode Island charter speaks of its petitioners as “godly edifying themselves and one another in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded.” The charter of Carolina granted this same year by Charles II says its petitioners are “excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith.” In the preface of the frame of government prepared by William Penn in 1682 “the Lord from heaven” is mentioned as the “highest attainment” at which men on earth may arrive. And the laws prepared to go with this frame of government called for the keeping of the Sabbath Day as did “the primitive Christians…to worship God according to their understandings.”
    In the charter of privileges granted in 1701 by Penn to the province of Pennsylvania and its territories (later including Delaware) “Almighty God” is said to be “the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith and worship, who doth enlighten the minds and persuade and convince the understandings of the people.” Vermont’s 1777 Constitution also called for observance of the Sabbath and for “some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.” The 1788 Constitution of South Carolina declared that “the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed and is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this state: and “that the Christian religion is the only true religion; that the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.”

    Within 100 years of the landing at Jamestown Christians established three colleges: Harvard, William and Mary and Yale. The first seal used by Harvard read “In Christi Gloriam,” its charter saying that among its purposes was “through the good hand of God” to educate the English and Indian youth “in Knowledge and godliness.”

    Commenting on all of this, Associate Justice Brewer says: “You will have noticed I have presented no doubtful facts. Nothing has been stated which is debatable. The quotations from charters are in the archives of the several States; the laws are on the statute books; judicial opinions are taken from the official reports; statistics from the census publications…I have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today (as of 1905 – J.L.) exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic.

    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    JLof@aol.com

    • +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
      May 10, 2010 at 11:07 am

      This strung-together mass of quotes is a total and complete deception which prove once and for all that Christians LIE. L.I.E. You lie for your religion because you know it’s false but desperately want it to be true anyway.

      This country was not founded 150 years before the Constitution was drafted and signed. There were a group of individual and independent states that were not called the US. They had virtually nothing to do with each other except TRADE, and were not beholden to a central governmental authority that was Christian in origin or nature – nor are they now.

      And you obviously NEVER read a single page of the Federalist Papers, which carefully lays out why the several states needed to withdraw from England, get rid of their different religious tests for citizenship, and create a NEW and different country based on MAN MADE laws, not any god’s laws or king’s laws. Indeed, what does the VERY FIRST line of the Constitution say: We the PEOPLE. Find any reference to god, jesus, christianity, etc in that doucument. You will not. You will find a group of MEN drafting a government that had absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s religion. READ IT. Clearly, you haven’t read it. Or, perhaps you have and are disgusted with it.

    • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Beachbum
      May 10, 2010 at 2:07 pm

      Lofton, I’m sorry that you are so misguided, so let me try to help.

      First of all, I’m sure you know as well as I, the original colonies were an extension of the British Empire which has a state religion. This is why the afore mentioned documents are rife with religious rhetoric which did not represent the views of their authors. As an example, Sir Walter Raleigh, your first appeal to authority, is also famous for starting the first rationalist organization in British history along with Christopher Marlowe an accused atheist. Palin, of all people, would not want the oppressively religious atmosphere of those colonies. For all they were capable of doing was to be remembered for killing innocent women for being witches or, disappearing all together as in the case of Jamestown.

      It is the interjection of religious dogma and desert goat herder bigotry into colonial legislation that inspired men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, John Hancock, John Adams et al., to make religion an individual matter. A majority of the Founding Fathers enacted a decisive break from that very theocratic and intellectual oppression of liberty, which is why these united states, The United States, was and is considered the Crown Jewel of the Age of the Enlightenment – an oasis in a desert of religious oppression. And as a matter of fact, thanks to some impressive scientific advancements, which forced a frenzy of theocratic reassessment and regression, the majority of our Founding Fathers were Deists which is far from a Bible believing Christian. Read Thomas Paine’s, “Rights of Man” or “Age of Reason.” James Madison, the main author to the U.S. Constitution, used Baron de Montesquieu’s opus, “The Spirit of Laws” (1731), which promoted a republican democracy, the separation of powers, specifying “three estates”–legislative, executive and judiciary, and called for the abolition of slavery and of religious persecution. The book, a major inspiration not only to James Madison but the other American founders, who adopted a Constitution closely patterned after Monesquieu’s political philosophy. The most radical notion in his work was the omission of a role for clergy in government. And because of this very omission, the book was put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Pope at the time of Publication in 1731.

      There is so much evidence contradicting the remarks of the likes of Sarah Palin, John Lofton, David Brewer, David Barton and others I have heard espousing this revisionist history bullcrap. One would think that they would be embarrassed by the shear amount of documentation available to rebut their position.

  19. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1ereador
    May 10, 2010 at 10:09 am

    John Lofton, none of that has anything to do with what the law of the land, the constitution, says. Do you, in your speciousness, imagine the founders were not smart enough to write down what they meant? Your little exercise is irrelevant. Why don’t you read the damn document. ID10t error.

  20. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1barbara
    May 10, 2010 at 10:25 am

    you mention ” a quote from the book of Leviticus in the Christian Bible.” i wish you’d supplied the quote, as Leviticus is a book from the Hebrew bible. was it changed in the christian version?

  21. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Ambidexter
    May 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    The founding fathers were familiar with history and knew the Catholic Church had become bloated, corrupt, and more interested in power than serving god. The Protestant Reformation hadn’t really improved things, since the Church of England and other national protestant churches had also become bloated, corrupt, and more interested in power than god. They saw how divisive religion was, causing decades of war with the horror of the Thirty Years Was as a grand finale.

    The founding fathers agreed that combining religion and government worked to the degradation of both. The founding fathers considered religion to be a matter of individual conscience and government had no business involving itself in religion. They also did not want religion to be involved in government. The Wall of Separation was not a purely Jeffersonian idea.

    There’s the further point that many of the founding fathers were deists. They were culturally Christians but not even nominally Christians. They didn’t belong to any organized religion and went to church solely for weddings and funerals.

    The idea that the founding fathers wanted the US to be a Christian country is based on wishful thinking by a small but vocal group of fundamentalist Christians. It’s just one step in turning the country into a theocracy.

    • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1ChrisC
      May 10, 2010 at 4:14 pm

      A much more concrete and immediate reason for their efforts to separate church and government were evident in the early colonies themselves. The Puritans (Calvinists), when holding governmental power, had a nasty habit of executing people of other religions, including Catholics and Anglicans. You have to dig a bit in history to find this, thanks to historical whitewash giving the Puritans their shiny plastic varnish as “oppressed colonialists”. They were oppressed for a reason– they were extremists that nobody really wanted around. When they set up their own townships they killed the people they didn’t like.

      The human tendency to fundamentalism needs to be weeded from the gene pool. Seriously.

  22. Vote -1 Vote +1Homer
    May 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Too bad that’s not the Code of Hammurabi in the picture…

  23. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Elaine
    May 12, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Really? We’re a Christian nation? As a Christian, that statement causes me to cringe.

    So, when Jesus came why didn’t he overthrow the Romans if his intent was to create a Christian nation? I think he didn’t want us to become a government…

    AND if we were a Christian nation – wouldn’t we do as an earlier post stated – love our neighbors – return good for evil – embrace that God gave us free will to chose to follow him or not? We have done much to be ashamed of – torture, invading other countries, and more…

    As far as the founding of this country, I was taught in school that the many people came to this country for “freedom of religion” – to practice religion how they wanted OR not and to escape a government dictated religion. Has some changed history? (I guess it always depends on who is writing the history books – oh – that would be Texas)

    Palin is an attractive person – and apparently has political skills that got her elected mayor of a tiny town and then governor of a sparsely populated state and then nominee for VP of our country – she has not yet modeled for me that she capable and knowledgeable about the history or government of this country or capable of making wise decisions for the good of the whole (resigning as governor) or maybe that was a good decision for Alaska?

    As much as I would love to have a woman hold the office of President of the USA – Palin lacks the skill set.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login