John McCain Will be Thrilled

John McCain -- who last year declared that America was founded as a Christian nation, and refused to retract his claim even after being called on it by the Anti-Defamation League -- will no doubt be thrilled to hear the news that the Alabama House of Representatives agrees with him.  

Rob Boston, writing at the Wall of Separation blog, reports: "It’s Official!: Alabama House Declares America A ‘Christian Nation’".

The ocasion was that the Alabama House passed a resolution declaring Easter Week to be "Christian Heritage Week."

HJR 415 cites the Mayflower Compact, a favorite Religious Right trick. No one disputes the theocratic nature of that document. Its influence on our Constitution, of course, was nil.

The resolution goes on to quote language from early governing documents from the American colonies, places everyone admits were sometimes harsh theocracies. One of them is Massachusetts, where the Puritans were so intolerant they actually hanged four Quakers between 1658-61. Is this really a heritage worth celebrating?

From there the resolution quotes an early charter from Harvard outlining that school’s ties to Christianity. This is not surprising, given its religious origins. Again, what does this have to do with the U.S. Constitution and the form of government we were given?

Poor George Washington is maligned next. He is proclaimed a great Christian leader, but, oddly, this is followed by a wholly deistic quote. No surprise there. Washington frequently spoke of God in deistic terms. (His quasi-Masonic reference to the "Great Architect of the Universe" is my favorite.) Washington attended an Episcopal church but routinely departed before communion.

The resolution concludes with pro-Christian quotes from an Illinois Supreme Court decision from 1883 and a House Judiciary Committee report from 1853. Why these documents, produced long after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are relevant is not explained.

The Alabama State Senate is expected to take up the measure, but Boston observes that while the resolution cites a number of historic documents there are a few things that the resolution does not mention: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Article VI.

It’s too late for the House, but perhaps members of the Alabama Senate should read them before they vote on this resolution.

Perhaps John McCain should read the founding documents as well, since here is what he said:

"the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

The narrative of McCain as a maverick who has stood up to the religious right, once calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," doesn't square with his recent years of bridge building back to the religious right he needs to win the presidency. If he does win, it will be in large part because he is ready to be the Panderer in Chief to the Religious Right.

Here are the opening few paragraphs of an article I wrote last last year, at about the time of McCain's Christian nationalist coming out interview:

The notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is a central animating element of the ideology of the Christian Right. It touches every aspect of life and culture in this, one of the most successful and powerful political movements in American history. The idea that America's supposed Christian identity has somehow been wrongly taken, and must somehow be restored, permeates the psychology and vision of the entire movement. No understanding of the Christian Right is remotely adequate without this foundational concept.

But the Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism becomes a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway.

History is powerful. That's why it is important for the rest of society not only to recognize the role of creeping Christian historical revisionism, but our need to craft a compelling and shared story of American history, particularly as it relates to the role of religion and society. We need it in order to know not how the religious Right is wrong, but to know where we ourselves stand in the light of history, in relation to each other, and how we can better envision a future together free of religious prejudice, and ultimately, religious warfare.

•  Puttin' lipstick on a pig. nt

  by jvantin1 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM PDT

  •  But, is McCain the lipstick or the pig ?

    ;)

    by Troutfishing on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM PDT

    •  "Christian Heritage Week" is the lipstick. nt

      by jvantin1 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM PDT

  •  McPig

    

    by Panda on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM PDT

•  McCain should start

  by reading the US Constitution.  

  Amendment I
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM PDT

  •  Applicable to states through 14th.

    Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    wikipedia

    Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1] was the seminal United States Supreme Court case in Establishment Clause law in the United States. In addition to incorporating the Establishment Clause (applying it to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), Everson was the beginning of a powerful separationist drive by the Court, during which many programs and practices given government sanction were found to have religious purposes or effects and thus invalidated.

    wikipedia

    by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM PDT

    •  As a friend of McCain's father tells me...

      John McCain's father would be rolling over in his grave from his son's pandering to the Christian right.

      by Troutfishing on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

      •  Interesting.

        Our only hope is McCain may not believe what he says.  Our only hope besdies a Democrat winning, that is.  I'll take McCain losing!

        by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM PDT

•  I know, I know

  I am reating myself here. But amidst all the side shows and carney barkers of the campaign season, John McCain told a Big Lie of considerable poliical, philoosophical and Constitutional import. But that is his story, and he is sticking to it.

  I think this is important, and so you'll have to forgive me if I come around to this theme from time to time.

  by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:39:00 AM PDT

  •  Someone should ask McCain

    If he thinks the founders were somehow speaking in code on the issue - given they put nothing on that in the Constitution.

    by Troutfishing on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

  •  I Hope You Do

    ...you'll have to forgive me if I come around to this theme from time to time.

    You're forgiven in advance.  Please stay on this story.

    by DHinMI on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM PDT

    •  I'll do my best

      It doesn't seem to get much traction, but mebbe I'll figure something out.

      by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:44:03 PM PDT

•  all politicians

  have ties to the less-than-savory characters that reside on their side of the political divide.

  by headhunt23 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM PDT

  •  but not all espouse their most outrageous views

    All pols necessarily have to deal with supporters who are less than savory. But we do not hear Barack Obama mouthing the rants of Farrakhan and insisting that they are true when challenged. Nor do we see Hillary Clinton publicly comparing committed Christianity declaring that Jesus followers must have a covenant relationship as tight as the followers of Hitler, Mao and Bin Laden, although Doug Coe, a man she has publicaly admired and whose organization she is affiliated with, says such things.

    I think John McCain believes what he is saying, and he should be questioned about it.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM PDT

    •  Feel free to question him

      afterall, the right will attempt to tie Obama to Wright and Ayers, so it is only fair play to do the same with the crosses McCain has to bear (pun intended).

      Just don't make the mistake of believing what you are saying 100%.  McCain has never struck me as a very pious man.

      by headhunt23 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM PDT

      •  piety is not the point

        it is ideology. He also refuses to talk about his beliefs in any detail; old fashioned perhaps, but sometimes such shadings do not hide a lack of piety, but truly strange views.

        by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:57:51 AM PDT

        •  I am guessing that

          McCain is probably a practicing agnostic.  He does the hat tips to the religious right that he needs to, but I (and they) don't sense he is a true believer.

          by headhunt23 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:56:01 PM PDT

      •  This is about what McCain SAYS

        That's a simple factual point.

        This is about what McCain SAYS.

        Not about who his supporters are.

        by Troutfishing on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:05:14 AM PDT

•  We were founded as a Christian nation

  Though its not specifically worded in the constitution.  When founded the vast majority of the US was Christian, and the ideals of Christianity were woven into the constitution, and a lot of the ideals of Christianity were used as justifications for the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution and bill of rights.

  The founding fathers were very careful though not to make any mention of God or religion, except to say that church and state should be separate.  So I would say that when founded we were a Christian nation, however the constitution was written to transcend religion and still make sense and apply even if the nation is no longer all of the same faith.

  by Knat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:46:29 AM PDT

  •  your argument

    makes the case that America was not founded as a Christian nation. If the framers thought so, they would have said so, but they didn't. That is why there is no mention of god or Christianity in the Constitution. We were founded as a nation based on religious equality. Read article 6 which says there shall be no religious test for public office.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM PDT

  •  REALLY ? That's new to the Founders !

    Don't you think the founders would have mentioned such an intent - to create a "Christian nation" ?

    They did not.

    Nothing in the Constitution on that whatsoever.

    Case closed.

    by Troutfishing on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM PDT

    •  Semantics

      You are mixing up the definition of state and nation.  All I am saying is that our nation was founded by Christians, and that many of the ideals in Christianity are strongly reflected(indirectly) in the constitution, our laws, our history and our culture.  Generally when describing a situation where the laws and constitution of a government directly include religion, it is referred to as a religious state, not a religious nation.  

      So in short the US was formed as a secular state, but at its founding would have been viewed as a Christian nation.  There is an implied separation of church and state in the constitution, not church and nation.

      Google the word nation and the word state to read up on the differences.

      by Knat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:07:32 PM PDT

      •  the semantic argument

        is yours, and your glib clinging to the idea that American was founded as a Christian nation, because most of the founders were Christians, really misses the point -- of the diary; the signficance of the ideology of the religious right; Troutfishing and my comments; and indeed, the ideas of the founders themselves, who would be appalled by your trite, shallow argument.

        by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM PDT

        •  I'm not trying to argue

          I'm just pointing out that the founding fathers in their attempts to create a secular state, had no intention of creating a secular nation.  I'm not going to argue against your points on the religious right because I agree with them.  Generally the religious right is my primary reason for voting against members of the GOP.

          I also don't believe that the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation, or that it continues to be a Christian nation harms the agenda of a secular progressive.  Its simply something to take into consideration.  Pretending that the United States is more religiously neutral then it actually is doesn't help anyone.

          Also I would like to say that I am not currently affiliated with any denomination of Christianity.

          by Knat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM PDT

          •  right

            you are confused by semantics over substance. To say that the framers did not intend to eliminate religion from public life, or anyone's life, is spot on. Secularity is a condition of government, which the Supreme Court has wisely interpreted to mean "neutrality" in public policy and administratkon with regard to religion.  That, along with public policies and programs having non-religious purposes, out of respect for the vast differnces of religous identity and consciousness among Americans, and for that matter, government employees and elected officials.

            There are a few silly ideologues who argue for a "secular nation" -- meaning religion free -- but that is as nonsensical as the idea of a "Christian nation."

            You need to be aware Knat, that when you use the phrase Christian nation, you are saying something different than the idea that the nation has a lot of Christians in it. It is a specific ideological idea of vast resonance; not a handy phrase of demography.

            by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:42:58 PM PDT

            •  Clarification

              When I say Christian nation I mean more then a nation with a lot of Christians.  I also view the constitution, bill of rights, many of our laws, and a lot of our culture as being derived from Judeo-Christian values.  Also its worth pointing out that an overwhelming majority of our leaders are Christian and heavily publicize their devotion to their faith.  I think all of this represents an ideology of vast resonance.

              McCain had it wrong when he said "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."  I would say it is much more accurate to say that a Christian nation established the constitution.  If you read his clarification of his statements he says just that(in a slightly rambling fashion).

              As a somewhat secular individual I have no problem living in a Christian nation.  I have bounced around and had many different religious ideas and never felt ostracized because of them(except for Atheism which a few people just couldn't accept).  I would probably leave the country if this was a Christian state.

              by Knat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM PDT

              •  again

                your insistence on using the term persistently obscures your point, which is also, I am sorry to say half baked.

                To argue that the Constitution was founded on judeo christian ideas and or values, ignores that it also drew on many other sources, including those of non-Christian ancient Greece and Rome. So your claim, while half true, is in fact a religous right red herring you are serving up and claiming it is fish.

                You really need to decouple your information from classic religious right frames.

                by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:29:46 PM PDT

                •  Last Reply

                  After doing some research on the subject, I'm finding that there has been an ongoing debate on this terminology for years.  This seems to be business as usual from the polarizers of the country.  I'm sure that if I posted on a civil war re-enactors forum that the civil war was fought over slavery I would receive the same sort of backlash.  I am willing to concede the point that the term "The US was founded as a Christian Nation" is poorly worded.  The intended meaning was that at its founding the US was a Christian Nation and that is where this debate has traversed.

                  Now I could put together a list of examples of how the founding fathers used their religious beliefs as justifications for the declaration of independence, the rights afforded to us by the constitution, and so on.  You could put together a list of examples of arguments by the founding fathers for secularism.  And we could argue this out until we are both blue in the face and come away from it unchanged with our same points of view.  I don't have the motivation or drive to do that because the issue just isn't that important to me.

                  I don't really care how you or any other people decide to define or identify the United States, however, as a somewhat non religious individual, I would like to be able to make the statement that we live in a religious nation, and not have it be twisted to say that I am arguing for a religious state.  I would also like to say that I had never used the term Christian nation to describe the United States up until this discussion.  I do however feel that the term is accurate and that McCain is being unfairly treated over his use of it.  I can see that the term hits a nerve with you, but I do not find it inherently inflammatory when used to describe America.

                  I think I've said all I want, feel free to reply(I will read it) but this will be my last post on the subject.

                  Finally, a red herring is a fish(smoked and cured kipper), why would I claim it to be anything else ;-)

                  by Knat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM PDT

•  Better not tell McCain about the Founding Fathers

  Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and others were Deists who believe in a God but not necessarily one of the Abrahamic tradition. Better also not tell McCain that Christians, Jews and Muslims are three different streams from that same Abrahamic tradition.

  by emacd on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:27:18 AM PDT

•  I think the founders said that

  politics has no place in religion and religion has no place in politics. They were very careful to point that out.
  All you can read is what is there. You can't read between the lines and add a god or that America was founded as a Christian nation.

  by jimreyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

  •  actually

    they were fine with religion and politics. Their religoius views informed their politics and they were pols who absolutely catered to religious constituencies.

    What they beleived to be important was that government should not be unduly influenced by powerful religious insitutions and visa versa. The main thing they were concerned about, was the right of individual conscience to be free from tyrannical tendencies of both church and state. They saw what that got people for millenia in Europe and for 150 years in the New World. They did not want to repeat the mistake.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:38:39 AM PDT