I find diaries like NYCEve's diary maddening. While simultaneously recognizing that Jews "escape the sting of [anti-Semitism] in the United States" and that "American Jews are blessed to live in a country that still treats us with relative decency" she writes in support of a country that does not afford to non-Jews the same protections our country affords to all peoples.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I think everyone involved in the "Israeli-Palistinian" debates would be well served by remembering why we don't have that problem here. To take a moment to realize the genuis of our founders, and what we, as Democrats, are striving to protect and ensure.
The original unamended U.S. Constitution was a radical document. The Constitution invoked the "blessings of Liberty" not the "blessings of God," and formed a country based on the authority of "We the People" not the will of God.
Moreover, the Constitution enacted a separation between Church and State. Remember, the First Amendment was not drafted when the Constitution was originally enacted and ratified, and would not be drafted until 1789 and not ratified until 1791. The separation of Church and State does NOT derive from the First Amendment. Instead, it was effectuated by the Founder's conscious decision to create a Constitution that was secular in its wording AND its key terms.
This is most evident in the "No Religious Tests Clause" of the Constitution in Art. VI, Cl. 3. This clause, in a radical departure from the past, provided that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." By this Clause, the Founders proclaimed that men of all religious beliefs, or none, would be treated equally and would be equally eligible for office.
The radical nature of this clause was not lost on the men who debated and voted on the Constitution. For example, in the North Carolina ratification debates much discussion occurred over this clause and the role of the Federal government in religion. The proponents of the constitution took the position that the Federal government had NO POWER to pass legislation bearing on religion. They recognized that the Constitution enacted a wall of separation long before Jefferson ever coined that phrase. This point was forcefully made by Richard Dobbs Spaight, a framer of the Constitution in the U.S. Constitutional Convention, during the North Carolina ratification debates.
Mr. SPAIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who formed this Constitution. ... As to the subject of religion, I thought what had been said would fully satisfy that gentleman and every other. No power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be a usurpation.
No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest.
The leading proponent for adoption of the Constitution in North Carolina was noted Federalist James Iredell, who would later serve on the Supreme Court after being appointed by Washington. Mr. Iredell made some of the most eloquent arguments in favor of the Constitution's adoption. It was Mr. Iredell's comments which Mr. Spaight referenced in the excerpt above during the debate over the "no religious test clause" of the Constitution. Mr. Iredell's comments are noteworthy, and I beg your forgiveness for including some context:
WEDNESDAY, July 30, 1788.
The last clause of the 6th article read.
Mr. HENRY ABBOT, after a short exordium, which was not distinctly heard, proceeded thus: Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution, They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties. ... The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. ...
Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. ... Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions, Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably -- that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society....
I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America.
...
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.
...
It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth.
...
I hope that I have in some degree satisfied the doubts of the gentleman. This article is calculated to secure universal religious liberty, by putting all sects on a level -- the only way to prevent persecution. I thought nobody would have objected to this clause, which deserves, in my opinion, the highest approbation. This country has already had the honor of setting an example of civil freedom, and I trust it will likewise have the honor of teaching the rest of the world the way to religious freedom also. God grant both may be perpetuated to the end of time!
While James Iredell was a Christian, he was tolerant of other religions and recognized the need for a secular government. These debates show how farsighted these men were. They foresaw that Jews would immigrate to the U.S., in fact recognized that this Constitution invited such immigration, yet they enacted it despite the bigoted objections of those who would place their religion above secular tolerance.
In many ways, this is the fundamental difference between the U.S. and Israel, and perhaps the real reason why the U.S. is not only a haven for Jews, but really for all peoples.
It is also worth noting the comments of an opponent of ratification. Those who opposed the Constitution knew full well what rights it would secure.
Mr. LANCASTER. ... As to a religious test, had the article which excludes it provided none but what had been in the states heretofore, I would not have objected to it. It would secure religion. Religious liberty ought to be provided for. I acquiesce with the gentleman, who spoke, on this point, my sentiments better than I could have done myself. For my part, in reviewing the qualifications necessary for a President, I did not suppose that the pope could occupy the President's chair. But let us remember that we form a government for millions not yet in existence. I have not the art of divination. In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it. There is a disqualification, I believe, in every state in the Union -- it ought to be so in this system.
John Kennedy proved the fears of the opponents to the Constitution right. A "Papist" took the chair. But those opponents were on the wrong side of the debate, and their fears were simply prejudices rejected by our enlightened Founders. Those who voted for the ratification of the Constitution did so believing that Congress had no power to interfere or promote religion. They recognized the existence of a wall of separation between Church and State. The subsequent enactment of the First Amendment only reinforced this principle.
America is a safe haven, and we need to work to keep it that way, not make plans to flee the country. What is notable about America is that situations like that in Delaware are embarassing aberrations, not the prevailing trend. As Democrats and liberals, we can put an end to those situations through legal and legislative action, because we have the Constitution on our side.
And we need to ensure that other countries adopt the U.S. model of religious tolerance, not support religious oppression. Christian nations, Jewish nations, Islamic nations, etc. are simply anachronisms that we must fight to erradicate. No real peace will exist in the world until the rights of conscience are secured for all everywhere.