News Intelligence Analysis
Go to Truthout
A Turn to the (Religious) Right
By Dr. Robert Abele
Yubanet
Monday 13 September 2004
If John Kerry has anything going for him that separates him from George W. Bush, it is the fact that he is not involved in the so-called "religious right" of America. This is the name given by the media to a well-organized band of fanatic biblical fundamentalists who are hell-bent on turning our democracy over to (their concept of) God. In the highest leadership circles of this movement, there is open talk of the goal of obtaining a theocracy in the U.S. Part of their method in achieving this goal is to attempt to convince Americans, as they have convinced Mr. Bush, that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. The frightening fact about this movement is not that it is being pushed by an extremist wing of "religious" America, but that they have in fact to a large degree taken over the Republican Party, making it and its policies extremist. When their candidates become our elected officials, as in fact the current situation stands today, they have halfway achieved their goal,. An equally frightening and perplexing fact about this movement is that they call themselves "Christian" but will stop at nothing to get their dogmatic ideology adopted as the universal law. The most bothersome thing about this movement it is that their theocratic end justifies any means necessary to its achievement, including lying and cheating, as we will see below.
This writing aims to make a first contribution to challenging this movement, first by rejecting the revisionist history advocated by this vocal minority to have their form of religious government accepted as the only one allegedly intended by the Founders of this great country. The focus of the first part of this article, then, will be the attempts of these Christian zealots to have people believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Second, the main figures of this movement who serve in Congress, their positions and their proposed legislative agendas will be highlighted.
The preference of ideology to the pursuit of truth of the people who would make theocratic claims concerning the founding of our constitutional democracy is demonstrated in the method that is their favored one: find "proof quotes" from the Founders to demonstrate their preconceived position. This method, however, demonstrates the logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest process of violently ripping quotations out of the context of their use. For example, let us take two quotations often used in this process. The first one is from George Washington, the second from Thomas Jefferson. The Washington quotation frequently used to demonstrate the "religious right" point is this: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." This quotation is frequently found on fundamentalist Christian web sites, without provision of citation. I searched forty-eight such sites before I found one that stated that the line allegedly uttered by Washington was from a speech he gave to the Dutch Reformed Synod in 1789. After extensive research, I was finally able to obtain a copy of this speech. I found three things in this research: first, it is not a speech; it is a letter Washington wrote. Second, it is an obscure letter, not easily found, and not certainly in the usual collections of his works. Third, it is only three paragraphs in length, and in it Washington never once utters such a line. In fact, there is nothing even close to this line in his speech, nor in any of the other speeches, letters, or writings of Washington I have read to date. This is not to argue, of course, that Washington never said such a thing. It is to argue that it is intellectually dishonest to throw such quotations around when one cannot site the source of it. Or worse, as in the Christian web site in which I found this speech, to forge the footnote!
The quotation from Jefferson is even more easily dispensed with when one puts it in its context. The quotation used by fundamentalist Christians is this: "I am a real Christian." While Jefferson certainly did pen those words, he was explicitly making reference in that very sentence to the ethics of Jesus, not the overtly religious overtones of the gospel. Just two sentences earlier in that same letter, he makes a direct reference to his own "version" of the New Testament, in which he cut the ethical sayings of Jesus out of a Bible and placed them on blank pages of a book. Jefferson saw Jesus as a great ethical philosopher, but certainly did not understand him as in any way divine or even claiming divinity. On most Christian accounts, this excludes him from the "chosen elect" of "true believers." Thus, Jefferson was claiming that he was "a real Christian," that is, one who follows the ethical teachings of Jesus, rather than those "false Christians" who used their profession of faith in the divinity of Jesus to gain, increase, and consolidate their religious and/or political power. It takes an incredible twisting and turning of Jefferson's words, as use of this quotation does, to argue for the alleged "Christianity" of this Founder of the country. At best, this method, then, is superficial; at worst, it is downright dishonest.
Second, this fundamentalist dogma that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" fails to delineate clearly two important issues: the activity or goal of founding a democratic form of government, and the fact that many of the Founders were believers in a deity. The textual evidence nowhere indicates that the purpose of their founding such a government was exclusively or even predominantly religious in nature. Nowhere is the division between these categories more clear than in Thomas Jefferson's intellectual hero, John Locke. Locke explicitly states in his Two Treatises of Government - and it is clearly echoed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence - that the founding of a democratic commonwealth was for the purpose of ensuring our "lives, liberties, and properties." Nowhere does Locke say that the purpose of a democratic form of government was religious in nature. In fact, Locke states quite precisely in his "Letter Concerning Toleration [of religion]" that "the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to...civil concernments," and that the state "neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls." Moreover, the fact that Jefferson and other Founders appealed to God in their writings does not mean that we are a theocracy! All one need do is read Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution to make this point abundantly clear. This Article reads in part as follows: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." When fundamentalists attempt to make the Founders out to be Christian and therefore founders of either a religious or a Christian democracy, they do terrible damage to the fundamental aim of democracies of the eighteenth century: freedom of the individual. Even if this happened to be informed by their faith, it is only that: to be informed is not to be determined by or subservient to their faith. Their primary concern was with the "natural law" of human reason and individual liberties. Divine revelation had nothing to do with their political aims. On the contrary, to a man they clearly believed that rationality was to be the guiding light of democracy, not appeals to the divine. Let us examine a statement from Thomas Jefferson in this regard: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage to reason, than that of blindfolded fear..." (Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr)
Third, and more to the point, although some of the Founders were Christian, many more were Deists. There is a fundamental difference between what Deists believe and the doctrines of mainstream Christianity. Deists maintain that a Divine Creator of the universe exists, but deny that he is personally interested in human history. Accepting no revelations, no persons as "God incarnate," the Deists reject the divinity of Jesus as well. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were indubitably Deists; they admitted to such many times in their writings. For just one of many examples, I will quote the "real" Thomas Jefferson, far more accurately referred to as a Deist than a Christian. This should demonstrate the misleading nature of any attribution of Christianity to him: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding..." There are numerous such passages in the writings of Jefferson, if fundamentalist Christians would but just look before attempting to write their revisionist histories.
Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the former the author of the Declaration of Independence, the latter the author of the Constitution and the First Amendment to our Constitution protecting religious freedom, were both very alarmed at the possibility that some parties would attempt to foist their single-minded Christian religious beliefs on the majority. Both of them wrote and lobbied extensively for laws prohibiting this kind of interference from Christians in politics. For instance, Jefferson wrote in his "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." Madison, for his part, maintains in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," his opposition to a Virginia bill to tax people to pay those who taught the doctrines of Christianity, that "the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world; the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." Even more to the point, says Madison, "A just Government needs [religious clergy] not."
Fifth, the position as stated by those who subscribe to the "Christian nation" dogma fails to make another critical distinction: that between religious belief and Christianity. There is no doubt that the Founders partook in the former practice; there is considerable doubt that this is the same practice as the latter. One will read precious few references to Jesus or Christ in most of the writings of the "big name" Founders. Even where one does find these references, it is not at all in reference to the forming of the new democratic government. This indicates clearly that the Founders had something else in mind than creating a government based on or imbued with, religion, least of all the Christian version. Furthermore, assuming that the alleged Christianity of the Founders could be established with certitude, it does nothing at all to "prove" that they therefore wanted to establish a Christian nation. To reach this conclusion would require a quantum leap in logic.
When all of these issues are considered, one is only left to conclude that the fundamentalist position on this issue is not fundamentally rooted in reason or in history, but rather in a vain desire to proselytize for a distinctively Christian revisionist history. When any group uses the banner of a political party in order to engage in dogmatic ideological assertions of an allegedly religious nature, that group in effect hijacks the political process only for the purpose of achieving their own narrow ends. When that happens, it must be challenged by the majority of citizens. In this case, it is important to challenge the people who espouse such positions, in the name of intellectual honesty, to do more reading and thinking, beyond what their Bible allegedly tells them.
However, we cannot stop our analysis of the "religious right" here, because we must come back to today and examine their current activities. The "Christian nation" movement that is gaining a very strong foothold in American politics today is not simply the run of the mill version of biblical fundamentalism. Rather, it is a movement designed specifically to attack the Constitution and the broad view of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (see the writings of religious right writers such as Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary DeMar, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and others for first-hand statements to this effect). Their goal, at its most extreme, is a biblical theocracy. Theocracy in their case means that the principles of one single religion, in this case, Christianity and its notion of divinely ordained rule, are to be the governmentally recognized and supported interpretation of jurisprudential decisions and legislative proposals. The movement that is gaining strength in the right-wing of the Republican Party and thus in the U.S. Senate and House or Representatives, is every bit as ideologically entrenched, and every bit as dangerous to democracy, as fundamentalist Muslims who argue for a Mid-East Islamic theocracy. Consider the main players who belong to this movement, and who have the ear, as well as the support and confidence of, President Bush: Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Bob Bennet, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyle, George Allen, Antonin Scalia, and others, mentioned below. These politicians, and one Supreme Court Justice, are all supported by the movement for theocracy, if not financially, at least ideologically. The connection of all of these people to the radical Christian right has been documented by investigative journalists such as Rob Boston, Kimberly Blaker, and Frederick Clarkson, among others. Consider further that the Texas Republican Party Platform now reads: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation." The movement is generally referred to in the media as "the religious right," but their main movers and organizers specifically include Pat Robertson's "700 Club," the Rutherford Institute, and The National Reform Association, among others. These headliner organizations state their missions forthrightly: "Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government." Or, as John Ashcroft has stated it on his swearing in as Attorney General: "We have no king but Jesus." The main movers behind this movement include Paul Weyrich, Gary North, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others.
More specifically, this group of radical right Christians, through their well-funded representatives and senators, has sponsored "The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004." It was introduced into both Houses of Congress this past February, and includes "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office." The sponsors of the bill: Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby (Alabama), Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) is in the process of garnering support for a bill he hopes to sponsor next year, entitled "The Ten Commandments Defense Act." He states that the intent of the bill is to acknowledge that "The Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution." Rather, the Bible is to be viewed as the last line of interpretation of the Constitution.
Judge Scalia, in an address to the Chicago Divinity School in 2002, said "government...derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to 'avenge' to 'execute wrath' including even wrath by the sword." In an article in the magazine First Things, Scalia wrote: "Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral."
These developments are alarming for many and obvious reasons, but I will limit myself to two of them here. First of all, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence indicates quite clearly that these ideas are not included in the structure of the government the Founders established. Second, whenever one party attempts to have their rigid ideology adopted as the exclusive position of a nation, the freedom of citizens so central to democracy dies.
It is important to conclude with a key qualifier here. Not all people who consider themselves fundamentalist or evangelical Christians are consciously or by necessity supporting the movement toward theocracy. I am acquainted with many well-meaning fundamentalist Christians who would not have any part of this movement. However, they need to know what cause they are supporting when they vote for candidates who espouse "religious right" causes such as those we have seen above.
There are many perils to our democracy today, many of them coming from within it: paperless voting machines, invasion of countries without pretext, and single-minded ideologies posing as monolithic truth, with the supporters galvanized around the notion that no truth exists apart from theirs, and who will go to any length to force that putative truth through the political process. Eternal vigilance against their eternal hostility is the responsibility of all who truly respect the democratic process. Such is the case with the "Christian nation" hypothesis: it does not stand against the weight of history or reason, and must be rejected by all who can think critically.
(For more information on this subject, including the specifics concerning legislative actions mentioned above, there are two journalists who write extensively on it: Frederick Clarkson and Rob Boston. They each have a number of books and articles tracking the "religious right." For more, see the following sources: Frederick Clarkson, Eternal Hostility; Clarkson, What is Christian Reconstructionism?; Kimberly Blaker, ed., The Fundamentals of Extremism; Katherine Yurica, The Yurica Report; Tom Paine.com; Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution; Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom; Rob Boston, Pat Robertson, the Most Dangerous Man in America?; and the web sites for "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" and "People for the American Way.")
(For information written by the main organizers of the religious right today, see: Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn; Christian Gallery.com; Chuck Baldwin, Renew America; R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law; Gary North, Christianity and Civilization; and James Kennedy, Character and Destiny: A Nation in Search of its Soul.)
Dr. Robert Abele is a professor of philosophy at Illinois Valley Community College, located near Chicago. He has written articles on political philosophy and also on ethics and warfare, and is now in the process of completing a book on ethics and the invasion of Iraq. He also has a new book entitled A User's Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act, published by University Press of America, due out in November. He can be reached by email.
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page