stevendedalus stevendedalus

A Nation Ordained

A Nation Ordained

The greatest danger facing the nation today is not terrorism but the wave of followers of messianic leadership. True, as in Osama bin Laden, this leads to terrorism, or in the case of the likes of Saddam to brutal totalitarianism, but in more ostensibly sophisticated nations or groups of people, brutality is clothed in the subtlety of misshapen values.

In this country the early settlers were apostates of European religion and had suffered persecution; so naturally they founded their colonies on religious freedom and suspicion of secular government. The founding fathers were aware of the religious spirit of the people and therefore established that no law would prohibit freedom of worship. A wall was erected between the body politic and the right of religion.

But for minimal chipping away, the wall was secure for developing the management of law through which one pursued daily affairs in making a living , after which the Sabbath was set aside for religious matters. However, those with strong spiritual beliefs were unable to separate the two and increasingly interfered with secular law, claiming it was artificially separating sectarian beliefs from temporal behavior which omitted the essential guidance of divinity.

The shady inference that nature’s laws were always in truth God’s laws without stating such became intolerable to believers. No longer was faith a private thing or a unique matter for the Sabbath; inner conscience became public pronouncement. Taking an oath with a hand on the Bible and opening congressional sessions with prayer were ammunition for the self-styled spiritualists to make further demands for a more open religious entry into daily life. A woman no longer could make a private decision to abort a fetus in the cornfield. Since communism was deemed godless, the “under God” was inserted in the pledge when ‘under democratic principles” would have sufficed. In spite of all this, the nation managed to uphold to a reasonable degree the separation of church and state — that is, until the messianic prophets of the religious right grew in power.

Now, with the messianic epitome of George W. Bush who preaches and lectures his constituents that the law of the land is God given and therefore he has license to interpret from the mount what the Almighty judges: homosexuals, if not diseased, are hedonists; the poor weak and shiftless; the sick irresponsible; unions unpatriotic; single mothers sinners; a woman’s body subject to law; the military as cross-bearing crusaders; corporations as benevolent manna givers; and liberalism as effeminate atheism led by an apostatizing altar boy. Last but not least, Bush is an ordained wartime president because “God is on our side.”

     

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 30, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

10,712 views 31 replies
Reply #26 Top
Helix the II Posted: Monday, November 01, 2004
Can you prove your belief that Bush has done more damage to church and state seperation than any other president in our history? One single shred of evidence other than your belief and the belief of others? Seriously, some sort of proof? You can feel one way, I can feel the other way, but in the end neither of our "beliefs" hold any weight..except that the evidence to support my claim is the lack of your own evidence to support yours...(Wow, that's kinda goofy). Please enlighten me, ye ol Wise one in the knowledge of politics.

Steven has nicely already provided some evidence and I will provide some as well. I will post it shortly.
Reply #27 Top
Helix the II: "Please enlighten me, ye ol Wise one in the knowledge of politics." I never claimed to be wise and your derisive commentary to the contrary shows that you would prefer to attack the messenger in lieu of debating the issues. This usually happens when a person cannot debate the issues so they resort to personal attacks. Just a thought...
Reply #28 Top
Madine: "Anyway, in the mock pro-slavery argument you gave, the lynchpin is the assertion that Africans are not humans. Last time I checked, the Bible doesn't support that assertion."

That is precisely my point...yet the Church used their strict interpretation of certain biblical passages to support the notion that non-whites were not actual human beings! It was a DISTORTION caused by highly questionable selectivity and strict interpretation of certain biblical passages. They took them completely out of context! You have to keep in mind, that no matter how much you love your religion, faith, church, these doctrines are interpreted and espoused by flawed institutions and imperfect human beings. These institutions and a lot of the humans who run them, are also very POLITICAL in nature. They are centers of POWER and not just faith and religion.

"Aren't literalist Christians always out of the mainstream? Was Lincoln out of the mainstream?"

Literalist Christians have become the mainstream...that is the problem. Secondly, Lincoln relied on his religious beliefs for inspiration but he did not allow his faith to dictate his political positions. Big difference. In fact, Lincoln said (I'm paraphrasing) that he would have rather kept slavery in place if would preserve the Union, than to abolish it and have the Union split in two. Hardly the words of a man allowing his religioius beliefs to dictate government policy.

"So, would it have been better for Lincoln to take a "live at let live" attitude towards slavery? Would it have been better for the founding fathers to say, "I'm not so sure about this inalienable rights thing"? No one has all the answers, but surely claiming to have some wisdom is not foolish?"

No. That is not what I am arguing at all. But the Founding Fathers did not establish a theocracy, they established a democratic republic which allows religious freedom but also established solid boundaries between church and state. The notion of inalienable rights were espoused by the Founders' (in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere) understanding of philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu. These philosophers were influenced by many things, including religion, but their beliefs in the existence of inalienable rights were rooted in reason, logic, and "natural law." Look at some of their writings such as "the Glorious Revolution," which states that certain rights self-evidently pertain to individuals as human beings because these rights existed in the state of nature before humanbeings entered into civil society. Their notions of government and inaleinable rights are grounded squarely in the "social compact" theory (i.e. that upon entering civil society at birth both you and the government are contractually bound) and that humans surrender to the state only the right of the government to ENFORCE these natural rights. The government does not BESTOW those rights upon you. The state's failure to secure your "natural rights" is a breach of the compact and provides justification for popular revolution. Hence, the wording of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It is these same philosphical teachings that laid the foundation for Human Rights Law, Humanitarian Laws (i.e. genocide, ethnic cleansing, (etc...)). While it is conceded that "religious" teachings played a role in influencing these philosophers, it was logic, reason, and natural law that were the predominent forces that guided them.

Reply #29 Top
Madine, "What theocratic laws has Bush passed?"

I believe Steven adequately addressed this issue. It isn't so much laws he passed, (since the President does not pass laws, the legislature does), it is the way he uses his faith as the sole driving force to justify his policies and in the way he governs. I will refer you to an article in my blog that addresses this administration's governing style: "Is Karl Rove America’s Self-imposed Mullah? A look at Ironfisted Theocracy Posing as Democratic Governing…" and I recommend that you take a look at an article entitled "Dangerous Religion; George W. Bush's theology of empire." written by Jim Wallis in SOJOURNERS magazine, September-October 2003 issue. You can read the article at:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910

As a final thought:

"Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering."

—Eugene Peterson (from the introduction to the book of Amos in the Bible paraphrase The Message)
Reply #30 Top

these doctrines are interpreted and espoused by flawed institutions and imperfect human beings. These institutions and a lot of the humans who run them, are also very POLITICAL in nature. They are centers of POWER and not just faith and religion.
Great statement!

Whip, fair criticism, but the population explosion, 40% of the electorate are evangelicals.