“Wall of Separation” looks like an American history con job

It's a plain and evident fact that the United States' founding fathers were deeply concerned about this country becoming a religious theocracy. That's why we have a godless constitution—the title of a book I'm reading.

So given what I know about how strongly George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other leaders of their era felt about keeping religion out of government, my ears perked up when I heard mention of a PBS pseudo-documentary, "Wall of Separation," that suggests the wall may really have been an open door.

The PBS web site says:

But is this conventional wisdom of "secularized" government exactly what our Founding Fathers intended when they established our nation and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Some scholars think so. Other scholars claim that a contextualization of Colonial American culture and politics reveals a radically different definition of religious establishment and church/state relations than we have today. Some even claim it is the exact opposite of what the Founders intended. This is an ongoing debate that has continued to polarize Americans to this day.

This is the same sort of B.S. attitude that allows for the claim that "some say" evolution is true while "others say" intelligent design is how the world came to be, conveniently ignoring the fact that "some" includes the consensus of the scientific community, while "others" is limited to a few religious true believers.

Similarly, I strongly suspect that "Wall of Separation" isn't going to accurately reflect the views of most historians. As Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State points out, the program has its roots in the religious right.

And likely is tied into Christian Reconstructionism. This is a thoroughly creepy attempt to have American society dominated by Christian beliefs, legally and otherwise. I'm not sure why "reconstruct" is in their name. Probably they're trying to reconstruct the Middle Ages in the United States, when the Church controlled almost every aspect of life.

If he were alive today, Thomas Jefferson would be urging us to resist this theocratic movement with every bit of our secular muscle. Here's some Jefferson quotes from "The Godless Constitution."

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity," Jefferson wrote, "have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned." What, he asked, has been the effect of this slaughter? "To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites," he answered, "to support roguery and error all over the earth."

…"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

…All priests, Jefferson claimed, "dread the advancement of science as witches do the approach of daylight." They preach "bigotry and fanaticism" at the expense of human reason. "The mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus" spread "impenetrable darkness…and there they will skulk." A "band of dupes and impostors," they sponsor "ignorance, absurdity, untruth, charlatanism and falsifications."

Comments

[Tucson Bob]

I don't know much about all this, but it seems to be often overlooked that most of the founding fathers were Christian and there was an assumption of Christian values, or at least a belief in God, being accepted in daily life. Hence, religious inscriptions on money, government buildings, etc.

I have no problem with this as it is part of our history, and Judeo-Christian values are at the basis of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, ("certain God-given rights") and many of our laws. This radical movement to remove all traces of religious faith from the landscape seems fanatical and petty to me. So what if it says "In God We Trust" on some currency or the Pledge of Allegiance says "one nation under God", or a crucifix, long standing, is located in a park. This doesn't compel you to believe in God or Christ. They're just there. To many, these are just sayings or objects. WTF. Get a life.

I grew up with religious symbols all over the place and I said the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school. But I never felt forced by this to believe a certain way. Some of the kids probably felt the religious aspect of it more deeply than others, but most of us didn't care one way or the other and I think it was the same way with the faculty and parents. I remember wondering where God came from, and I'm sure others did too, but all this was just tradition and people accepted it. No big deal.

So, as long as government doesn't actively promote a certain religious doctrine, I have no problem with religious symbols, quotes, or references appearing occasionally, especially as they relate to our history and founding values because that's the way it is.

It's a good thing the founding fathers weren't Cha'an Bhuddists and it said on the money, "In the Non-existence of Existence we Trust". Let's see the parents and teachers try to explain that to second graders!

[Dennis]

I agree with everything you said Tucson Bob except for the giant crucifixes in the parks! I believe THEY ARE actively promoting Christianity. Do we really need them? No, there are more than enough crosses on the fronts and roofs of Churches to remind us CONSTANTLY we live in a predominatly Christian country. I say let's rip all the crucifixes in the parks down!!

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian, Tucson Bob, et al.,

The phrase "under God" was not a part of the American "Pledge of Allegiance" until 1954, when - under the Eisenhower administration - it was added/inserted into a "Pledge" which previously had lacked the phrase. I personally omit the phrase when I participate in reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance." (Sometimes I also remember to change "with" to "seeking" - as per "liberty and justice for all." But I'm sorry to say that I feel less assurance of that from my experience of the last couple of decades.)

Robert Paul Howard