Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts

Friday, January 24, 2020

Revisiting "A Christian Nation? The Founding Fathers Didn't Think So"

[Note: I wrote this post in 2011, but I decided to repost it along with an updated addendum because for me this is an important issue, especially important in these times when the US Constitution is under attack. The claim that this country is a "Christian nation" and the founding fathers were devout Christians is false. Below I include the history of the famous "establishment clause" of the first amendment, including transcripts from the discussions at the original constitutional convention, with quotes from James Madison and others involved in the discussions. Also included is the wording of the nation's first diplomatic treaty in 1797 which declares that the United States is not a Christian nation and is not founded on the Christian religion. In the addendum I include further quotes from the founding fathers, most especially from Thomas Jefferson, the man whose philosophy created the Constitution. It all very firmly establishes the idea of the "Christian nation" as a myth concocted by those who would return us to the very kind of autocracy this nation was created to oppose.]


There's a claim by the Christian Right and some members of the Tea Party movement that the United States was consciously and deliberately created as a Christian nation to spread the Gospel to the new world and create a beacon of light and salvation to the rest of the world. They haven't much evidence to back up this claim; just some scattered quotes from people like George Washington, made in their private capacity and not as spokespersons for the government or the nation.

Granted, we had plenty of people settle here in the early days in a quest to believe and practice those beliefs away from the oppression of the established churches of Europe, but they weren't the only people to leave Europe and settle here. There were plenty of people who were only nominal members of any church, or followers of the Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire who emphasized reason as the primary source of authority and knowledge. Or they were just farmers and trappers and whatnot who had no real use for religion in their life and were happy to go about their daily lives and work without need for religion. There was a lot of philosophical diversity in the early colonies which became the United States.

And in fact the the lawyers and merchants who formed the intellectual class from whom the founding fathers of this nation emerged were mostly followers of the Enlightenment, men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, the Adamses of Boston, and Benjamin Franklin, self-declared Deists who believed in a higher power but denied the legitimacy of any formal religion. Even that ultimate gentleman farmer cum soldier, George Washington, considered himself a Deist. And it was these people who wrote our founding documents and created a purely secular, not religious, government.

The U.S. Constitution is the rock-solid foundation of the government of the United States; it establishes and guides our whole form of governance, from the legislative to the judicial to the administrative. It is, to use a Judeo-Christian reference, the Ten Commandments of the nation. It was written by men dedicated to reason and the Age of Enlightenment (principally James Madison, who himself was a protegé of Thomas Jefferson, probably the prime advocate of Enlightenment thinking, along with Benjamin Franklin, among the founding fathers), and it never mentions God, Jesus Christ, the Church, or the Bible. Never. Not even once. It only actually mentions matters pertaining to religion once, in the First Amendment: "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." [2020 note: Actually, there is one reference to religion in the main text of the Constitution, in Article VI: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."]

The key phrase in that amendment is known in U.S. jurisprudence as the Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - which at the very beginning of our national existence says that the government cannot sponsor or enforce a religious belief and practice on the American people. There are people who argue that it does no such thing, that the amendment only says that the government can't favor one religion over the other. But the evidence, from the very records of the Constitutional Convention itself, along with the writings of the men who wrote the document, says otherwise.

The Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released an annotated Constitution, and the Columbia University Law School has put a hyperlinked version online, which you can find here. The annotations quote the debates and discussions entered into at the convention, as well as the documents which express the ideas of those attending. The annotation page for the First Amendment can be found here, but I want to include passages from the "overview" section along with the footnotes for that section (included in brackets after the passage) that speak directly to the matter.
Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed." [1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).]

The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." [The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word “national” might be inserted before the word “religion” as “point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729–31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, “[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800 at 271 (1950).]

In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . ." [This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.]

It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some[p.970]what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. [1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800, 271–72 (1950).]

Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear... [During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of “establishment” was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, “comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”’ 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132–33 (1904). Madison’s views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784–1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183–91; I. Brant, James Madison—The Nationalist 1780–1787, 343–55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson’s “Bill for Religious Liberty”. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274–280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.]
Obviously Madison and the others were intent on keeping the U.S. government out of the business of religion. Note especially this quote from Madison in the Annals of Congress:
During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789).
This is a clear declaration of a hands-off policy toward religion by the government, expressed by the architects of the document which is the foundation of that government.

There have been many acts by the government which have highlighted the thinking of these founding fathers, a philosophy that has come to be known as the "separation of Church and State", but perhaps one of the clearest actions on that philosophy came early in the history of the U.S. government with the 1797 treaty with Tripoli in the Barbary States of north Africa.

Joel Barlow was the consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; he was assigned by Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the U.S. David Humphries to broker a treaty with Tripoli in 1796. Most of the treaty concerns trade agreements, tariffs, rights-of-way for shipping, etc.; mundane stuff. But Article 11 of the treaty makes a bold statement regarding the attitude of the U.S. toward the religion of Tripoli and the other Barbary States:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
There it is, right out in the open in black and white on an official document of the U.S. government: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." In 1796, only seven years after the ratification of the Constitution. You can't get any clearer than that.

There's been an argument advanced that Article 11 says no such thing in the original Arabic document, and that it was a late insertion by the Dey of Algiers to allay the fears of the Pasha of Tripoli. But that's irrelevant, a straw man put up by opponents of church-state separation. No matter what the Arabic document says, Joel Barlow's English translation - including that eleventh article - is what was presented to President John Adams, who then presented it to the Senate, in printed copy and read aloud on the floor of the Senate. These were men who were in at the beginning of the nation, many of them former members of the Continental Congress, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and members of the Congress which wrote the Constitution. They ratified the treaty by unanimous vote on June 7, 1797, and President Adams signed it. They had all heard and read that phrase - "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - and no one objected; in fact no one said anything at all about it. Why? Because this is what they believed.

So those who would want to rewrite our history to conform to their particular, sectarian ideology, led most notably by David Barton (who interestingly has no degree in history but rather a bachelor's degree in religious education from Oral Roberts University) and his Wallbuilders organization, haven't a leg to stand on. By their own private writings and in the national documents they inspired and helped create, the "Founding Fathers" of the United States were not intent on creating a "Christian nation", but rather a fully secular government with a clear hands-off policy toward religion. There's really no question of that at all.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger. Images owned by the United States and are public domain.

2020 Addendum:

Of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson had the most to say about the separation of church and state, starting with inventing that very phrase in his famous letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association in 1802:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State (emphasis mine). Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
 Jan.1.1802.
This isn't the only incident when Jefferson addressed the issue. Here are some more of his thoughts on that "wall of separation":
“Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson

“But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
James Madison was Jefferson's protegé, and in a way he further distilled Jefferson's thinking:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803] ― James Madison

“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
[Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822 - Writings 9:100--103] ― James Madison: Writings

“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”
― James Madison
In many ways Thomas Paine was one of the inspirations of the American Revolution, publishing and distributing pamphlets that had him constantly under a warrant for sedition from the British colonial government. Paine was no friend of religion!
“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason 
George Mason was another Virginian with strong beliefs about church and state:
“It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”
~George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
Of course, the prime disciple of Voltaire and the French Enlightenment in the colonies was Benjamin Franklin, and he had a few things to say about the subject as well:
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
— Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [in England] and in New England.”
—Benjamin Franklin
John Adams, the curmudgeonly Founding Father from Boston, also commented on the subject:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
— John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
— John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
And finally, Declaration of Independence signer Elbridge Gerry, James Madison's vice-president, sums it all up:
“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731
The point of all this is that contrary to the claims of the evangelical culture warriors, the United States wasn't intended to be a "Christian nation" and the Founding Fathers were not devout believers but critical thinkers who valued reason over religion. And the principles of that Enlightenment thinking were hard-wired into the Constitution they wrote, intent on keeping government and religion as far apart as possible.

It's really not all that hard to understand. If your church opposes abortion, let it deal with it among its members. If your church opposes same-sex marriage and considers homosexuality to be a sin, let them enforce that within their own congregations. But to try and force that on people who are not members is a violation of the Constitution. To force any version of Christianity, or Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or even Scientology for that matter, on all Americans is a violation of the Constitution. It is, in effect, un-American.

© 2011 and 2020 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

Christmas 2019













Photos © 2009 & 2018 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Monday, December 31, 2018

Nature, with Appropriate Music

As anyone who has been following this blog for any length of time knows, Nature, both here on Earth and out into Universe, is my spiritual source, my "religion" if you will. But this religion has no gods or goddesses to worship and obey; I don't need a transcendent entity to feel wonder and awe at my surroundings. Nor do I need such to tell me the difference between good and evil, or to threaten me with punishment if I do evil; I believe that this is natural to human nature, that we know by instinct what is good and what is hurtful, and that we only do the hurtful out of personal, knowledgeable choice, or out of fear and pain.

The "prophets" of this "religion" are my heroes - Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Rachel Carson, Carl Sagan, Annie Dillard, Stephen Hawking, and others like them. And the "scriptures" of my "religion" are the writings of these people and others like them. The Universe is full of wonder, and these people reflect that wonder as well, whether through poetry or through science, and describe it better than I can, providing further inspiration to the panoply of ongoing creation around us. My photography also reflects this wonder in me at what I see and experience.






Recently I discovered a musician who also reflects this wonder at the Universe around us, from both a poetic and scientific perspective. His name is Peter Mayer. He's Jimmy Buffet's guitarist, plus he has his own solo career. I ran across his song My Soul from his Midwinter album while looking for music for the Winter Solstice, and then featured more music from that album on my Facebook timeline. Plus today I featured his One More Circle on my New Year's Eve session on Facebook. I'd like to introduce you to some of his music that addresses the same things I talk about above. I do believe I've run across a kindred spirit!





Photos © 2008 - 2017 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Saturday, July 08, 2017

A Lively Experiment (Re-post)


[Note: On this day in 1663 the British King Charles II granted a royal charter to the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. A unique issue presented in this charter was the granting of full freedom of religion in the colony, a principle that paved the way for Rhode Island's insistence on the implementation of additional amendments specifying the basic rights of citizens, especially the first amendment, to the US Constitution before it would ratify that document in 1789.   
This article was first published in 2008 and published again in December of 2009. I no longer live in Rhode Island, but to me it represents the true spirit of freedom of religion and should be relevant wherever we live in the US. The article got much positive response on this blog, but when originally published on the old Gather.com it stirred up a bit of controversy. It seems that many in the fundamentalist and evangelical camp see religious toleration as spiritual slackness and sin, and consider it a slap in their faces for some reason. In the face of such opposition to such a basic principle, I find it apropos to post this again on the anniversary of the granting of the original charter.]

Rhode Island has a history of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. It was originally a sanctuary for those fleeing the despotism of the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; Roger Williams, founding father of the American Baptist movement, settled on the mainland at the head of Narragansett Bay, while Anne Hutchinson and her followers settled on Aquidneck Island (officially known as Rhode Island). In 1663 the two entities united as a single colony and were granted a charter by Charles II, the charter itself being written by Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

The key phrase in that charter declared: "... that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained... with a full liberty in religious concerns." The charter further declared: "... that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concerns..."

The freedom of conscience guaranteed in the charter created in Rhode Island, and especially in Newport, a truly amazing religious diversity that added to the cultural wealth of its society. The Society of Friends (Quakers) became a major presence in Newport (which was the capital city of the colony, and later the state, until well into the 19th Century), and their Great Meeting House (built in 1699) eventually became the host of the New England Yearly Meeting of the Society (the New England Yearly Meeting was one of the sources of the Abolition movement).

In 1658 fifteen Jewish families moved to Newport after hearing of the colony's "lively experiment" and founded the Congregation Jeshuat Israel. In 1759 the congregation purchased land and hired famed colonial architect Peter Harrison to design Touro Synagogue (named after Isaac Touro, the congregation's first spiritual leader). The synagogue was finished and dedicated in 1763, and is still standing today. Touro Synagogue also played a major role in establishing religious freedom in the newly established United States when a member of the congregation wrote to George Washington, who replied with his famous "To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport" , which stated that the government of the United States "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance..."

The Quaker and Jewish presences in Newport aren't the only result of that colonial charter, just the most famous. Newport is dotted with old buildings that, at the start of their history, served as houses of worship for small gatherings of believers: the Union Congregational Church on Division St., the first free African-American church in America; the Sabbatarian Meeting House on Touro St., now the home of the Newport Historical Society; The John Clarke Memorial Church on Spring St., one of the first churches of the American Baptist movement (and now pastored by a good friend of mine, Paul Hanson, a very genial, easy-going guy with a dry, wicked sense of humor); St. Paul's Methodist on Marlborough St., the first Methodist church to sport a steeple; and a score of other former churches which, like the Union Congregational church, have since been converted to residences.

Because of the vision of the founders of the colony, and because of the guarantee of freedom of conscience written into their colonial charter at their request, Newport has a rich spiritual heritage and holds a major place in the development of the concept of religious freedom in the history of the United States. It's something we take pride in here, and something we celebrate.

But look back at that original charter, that guarantee that within the colony no one would be pressured, harassed, punished, or otherwise disturbed because they enjoyed freedom of religious belief. How refreshing that is! And how far from the current state of affairs in the contemporary US, where we have a major effort being launched by religious despots, direct descendants of the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, to impose their beliefs and their methods of governance on the people and the government of the United States. People who consider freedom of conscience to be "slack", "lax", "lazy", and most important of all, a sin. People who think that those who believe differently than they must either be converted or punished and removed from "their" society. People who would re-write our history to accommodate their own vision of what that history should have been. People who view any kind of diversity as evil.

The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations gained great benefit from their practice of freedom of conscience. Given the present situation, I think it's time that our entire country revived that "lively experiment." What say you?


Photos & text © 2008 & 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Merry Christmas 2016


Merry Christmas to all my family and friends!

In this time of trouble, division, and strife, keep in mind the person whose birth is being celebrated today came to be known as the Prince of Peace. And peace is certainly the theme of this post today. As I usually do, I'll pay tribute to the Christmas Truce of 1914, when soldiers on all sides of WWI pur aside their weapons and came together in No Man's Land to celebrate Christmas together, by posting John McCutcheon's classic "Christmas in the Trenches". And this year I'll add "Let There Be Peace on Earth". Keep peace!




© 2016 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Saturday, December 24, 2016

The Feast of Lights


Kindle the taper like the steadfast star
Ablaze on evening's forehead o'er the earth,
And add each night a lustre till afar
An eightfold splendor shine above thy hearth.
Clash, Israel, the cymbals, touch the lyre,
Blow the brass trumpet and the harsh-tongued horn;
Chant psalms of victory till the heart takes fire,
The Maccabean spirit leap new born.
– Emma Lazarus, The Feast of Lights 

Chanukah starts this evening at sunset, and to all my Jewish friends (and new additions to the family) I send a hearty chad sameach! Here's some music to celebrate with - Peter Yarrow's "Light One Candle"; the late, great Theo Bikel singing "Chanukah, Oh Chanukah", and a much beloved classic by the poet Bialik, "Lich'vod Hachanukkah". Enjoy!








Prose text © 2016 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

A Christian Nation? The Founding Fathers Didn't Think So! (Re-post)

[This is part 2 of my reposts on the issue of religion in the US. This is from 2011 and answers the argument by a large religious bloc on the right that we were founded as a Christian nation on Christian principles, and that the Bible is the real foundation of our government. As this article will show, the facts prove otherwise.]


There's a claim by the Christian Right and some members of the Tea Party movement that the United States was consciously and deliberately created as a Christian nation to spread the Gospel to the new world and create a beacon of light and salvation to the rest of the world. They haven't much evidence to back up this claim; just some scattered quotes from people like George Washington, made in their private capacity and not as spokespersons for the government or the nation.

Granted, we had plenty of people settle here in the early days in a quest to believe and practice those beliefs away from the oppression of the established churches of Europe, but they weren't the only people to leave Europe and settle here. There were plenty of people who were only nominal members of any church, or followers of the Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire who emphasized reason as the primary source of authority and knowledge. Or they were just farmers and trappers and whatnot who had no real use for religion in their life and were happy to go about their daily lives and work without need for religion. There was a lot of philosophical diversity in the early colonies which became the United States.

And in fact the the lawyers and merchants who formed the intellectual class from whom the founding fathers of this nation emerged were mostly followers of the Enlightenment, men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, the Adamses of Boston, and Benjamin Franklin, self-declared Deists who believed in a higher power but denied the legitimacy of any formal religion. Even that ultimate gentleman farmer cum soldier, George Washington, considered himself a Deist. And it was these people who wrote our founding documents and created a purely secular, not religious, government.

The U.S. Constitution is the rock-solid foundation of the government of the United States; it establishes and guides our whole form of governance, from the legislative to the judicial to the administrative. It is, to use a Judeo-Christian reference, the Ten Commandments of the nation. It was written by men dedicated to reason and the Age of Enlightenment (principally James Madison, who himself was a protegé of Thomas Jefferson, probably the prime advocate of Enlightenment thinking, along with Benjamin Franklin, among the founding fathers), and it never mentions God, Jesus Christ, the Church, or the Bible. Never. Not even once. It only actually mentions matters pertaining to religion once, in the First Amendment: "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."

The key phrase in that amendment is known in U.S. jurisprudence as the Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - which at the very beginning of our national existence says that the government cannot sponsor or enforce a religious belief and practice on the American people. There are people who argue that it does no such thing, that the amendment only says that the government can't favor one religion over the other. But the evidence, from the very records of the Constitutional Convention itself, along with the writings of the men who wrote the document, says otherwise.

The Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released an annotated Constitution, and the Columbia University Law School has put a hyperlinked version online, which you can find here. The annotations quote the debates and discussions entered into at the convention, as well as the documents which express the ideas of those attending. The annotation page for the First Amendment can be found here, but I want to include passages from the "overview" section along with the footnotes for that section (included in brackets after the passage) that speak directly to the matter.
Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed." [1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).]

The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." [The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word “national” might be inserted before the word “religion” as “point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729–31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, “[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800 at 271 (1950).]

In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . ." [This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.]

It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some[p.970]what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. [1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800, 271–72 (1950).]

Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear... [During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of “establishment” was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, “comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”’ 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132–33 (1904). Madison’s views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784–1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183–91; I. Brant, James Madison—The Nationalist 1780–1787, 343–55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson’s “Bill for Religious Liberty”. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274–280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.]
Obviously Madison and the others were intent on keeping the U.S. government out of the business of religion. Note especially this quote from Madison in the Annals of Congress:
During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789).
This is a clear declaration of a hands-off policy toward religion by the government, expressed by the architects of the document which is the foundation of that government.

There have been many acts by the government which have highlighted the thinking of these founding fathers, a philosophy that has come to be known as the "separation of Church and State", but perhaps one of the clearest actions on that philosophy came early in the history of the U.S. government with the 1797 treaty with Tripoli in the Barbary States of north Africa.

Joel Barlow was the consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; he was assigned by Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the U.S. David Humphries to broker a treaty with Tripoli in 1796. Most of the treaty concerns trade agreements, tariffs, rights-of-way for shipping, etc.; mundane stuff. But Article 11 of the treaty makes a bold statement regarding the attitude of the U.S. toward the religion of Tripoli and the other Barbary States:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
There it is, right out in the open in black and white on an official document of the U.S. government: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." In 1796, only seven years after the ratification of the Constitution. You can't get any clearer than that.

There's been an argument advanced that Article 11 says no such thing in the original Arabic document, and that it was a late insertion by the Dey of Algiers to allay the fears of the Pasha of Tripoli. But that's irrelevant, a straw man put up by opponents of church-state separation. No matter what the Arabic document says, Joel Barlow's English translation - including that eleventh article - is what was presented to President John Adams, who then presented it to the Senate, in printed copy and read aloud on the floor of the Senate. These were men who were in at the beginning of the nation, many of them former members of the Continental Congress, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and members of the Congress which wrote the Constitution. They ratified the treaty by unanimous vote on June 7, 1797, and President Adams signed it. They had all heard and read that phrase - "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - and no one objected; in fact no one said anything at all about it. Why? Because this is what they believed.

So those who would want to rewrite our history to conform to their particular, sectarian ideology, led most notably by David Barton (who interestingly has no degree in history but rather a bachelor's degree in religious education from Oral Roberts University) and his Wallbuilders organization, haven't a leg to stand on. By their own private writings and in the national documents they inspired and helped create, the "Founding Fathers" of the United States were not intent on creating a "Christian nation", but rather a fully secular government with a clear hands-off policy toward religion. There's really no question of that at all.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger. Images owned by the United States and are public domain.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

A Lively Experiment (Re-post)

[Note: Lately I've been thinking about the recent moves by the religious right to try to assert dominance over the national scene, so I've decided to re-post two previous blog posts dealing with the issue of religion in American history. The first is a response to the move by the Indiana legislature and others to redefine "religious freedom" as the freedom to discriminate against those who aren't of their own particular belief. This was first published in 2008 and published again in December of 2009. I no longer live in Rhode Island, but to me this article represents the true spirit of freedom of religion and should be relevant wherever we live in the US. In a couple of days I'll re-publish another article on the uninformed idea that the US was created as a "Christian nation". Both of these articles got much positive response on this blog, but when published on the old Gather.com they stirred up a bit of controversy.]

Rhode Island has a history of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. It was originally a sanctuary for those fleeing the despotism of the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; Roger Williams, founding father of the American Baptist movement, settled on the mainland at the head of Narragansett Bay, while Anne Hutchinson and her followers settled on Aquidneck Island (officially known as Rhode Island). In 1663 the two entities united as a single colony and were granted a charter by Charles II, the charter itself being written by Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

The key phrase in that charter declared: "... that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained... with a full liberty in religious concerns." The charter further declared: "... that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concerns..."

The freedom of conscience guaranteed in the charter created in Rhode Island, and especially in Newport, a truly amazing religious diversity that added to the cultural wealth of its society. The Society of Friends (Quakers) became a major presence in Newport (which was the capital city of the colony, and later the state, until well into the 19th Century), and their Great Meeting House (built in 1699) eventually became the host of the New England Yearly Meeting of the Society (the New England Yearly Meeting was one of the sources of the Abolition movement).

In 1658 fifteen Jewish families moved to Newport after hearing of the colony's "lively experiment" and founded the Congregation Jeshuat Israel. In 1759 the congregation purchased land and hired famed colonial architect Peter Harrison to design Touro Synagogue (named after Isaac Touro, the congregation's first spiritual leader). The synagogue was finished and dedicated in 1763, and is still standing today. Touro Synagogue also played a major role in establishing religious freedom in the newly established United States when a member of the congregation wrote to George Washington, who replied with his famous "To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport" , which stated that the government of the United States "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance..."

The Quaker and Jewish presences in Newport aren't the only result of that colonial charter, just the most famous. Newport is dotted with old buildings that, at the start of their history, served as houses of worship for small gatherings of believers: the Union Congregational Church on Division St., the first free African-American church in America; the Sabbatarian Meeting House on Touro St., now the home of the Newport Historical Society; The John Clarke Memorial Church on Spring St., one of the first churches of the American Baptist movement (and now pastored by a good friend of mine, Paul Hanson, a very genial, easy-going guy with a dry, wicked sense of humor); St. Paul's Methodist on Marlborough St., the first Methodist church to sport a steeple; and a score of other former churches which, like the Union Congregational church, have since been converted to residences.

Because of the vision of the founders of the colony, and because of the guarantee of freedom of conscience written into their colonial charter at their request, Newport has a rich spiritual heritage and holds a major place in the development of the concept of religious freedom in the history of the United States. It's something we take pride in here, and something we celebrate.

But look back at that original charter, that guarantee that within the colony no one would be pressured, harassed, punished, or otherwise disturbed because they enjoyed freedom of religious belief. How refreshing that is! And how far from the current state of affairs in the contemporary US, where we have a major effort being launched by religious despots, direct descendants of the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, to impose their beliefs and their methods of governance on the people and the government of the United States. People who consider freedom of conscience to be "slack", "lax", "lazy", and most important of all, a sin. People who think that those who believe differently than they must either be converted or punished and removed from "their" society. People who would re-write our history to accommodate their own vision of what that history should have been. People who view any kind of diversity as evil.

The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations gained great benefit from their practice of freedom of conscience. Given the present situation, I think it's time that our entire country revived that "lively experiment." What say you?


Photos & text © 2008 & 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Merry Christmas!


Merry Christmas to all my family and friends!




© 2014 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Sunday Go to Meetin'

So today I set out with the express intention of photographing an Amish Sunday meeting with all the horses and buggies parked outside. The last Sunday I was off I went looking for one where I thought one should be and was wrong. On that occasion blogger Haney left a comment giving directions to one up on Duncan Rd. And a friend at work told me about one on Clearfield Rd., in the opposite direction. Today I chose the Duncan Rd. meeting because I could make a loop and come back home on the Rail Trail. The next time I'll go down to the one on Clearfield Rd.

As I've explained before, the Amish don't like their pictures taken because they feel it creates "graven images", thus a violation of the second commandment. I've chosen to respect that, but I'll still take pictures of their buildings and their buggies. Here are the horses and buggies of the Duncan Rd. meeting.




© 2012 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Friday, February 03, 2012

Just a Reminder

For Tim Tebow, and his followers who practice "tebowing", for Harrisburg, PA mayor Linda Thompson, for all those people who insist on starting government meetings with prayer, and for anyone else who insists on acts of public piety in order to push an agenda...
Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:1 - 6)
Just sayin'...

Photo © 2012 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Glad Yule!




It's that time of year again, when the days are short and the nights are long, when the snow falls and the winds blow cold and hard. And in the dark and cold we light candles and gather around the fire to drink hot drinks and sing carols with melodious voices to lure the Sun back north again. It's my favorite time of year; I love the snow and tramping in the snow, coming home to warmth. A blessed Yule to all!

It snowed enough here in Central PA last Winter to get some good snow pictures for this year's traditional (well, it's my tradition, anyhow) slide show. The music is by the late Johnny Cunningham - "King Holly, King Oak", from the Windham Hill sampler Celtic Christmas. It's set up like one of my Winter hikes - tramping around in the snow and at last coming home to a fire in the stove (although I've moved into my own apartment now and there isn't a fire any more. Oh well...). Enjoy!


And speaking of traditions, I think I started a new one a couple of years ago. I'm making the posting of the video of Jethro Tull's "Ring Out, Solstice Bells" part of the annual Solstice post. Enjoy!


Photos & text © 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Thursday, December 15, 2011

An Open Letter to Lowe's

[Note: I work for Lowe's. And I'm not a Muslim. And no, I don't plan to quit my job. But I am very, very disappointed in the people who run the company I work for, and felt I should register my objections.]

I work for Lowe's, in the garden center at the Shippensburg, PA store. I enjoy my job, and I'm grateful to Lowe's for hiring me. I was unemployed for over three years, my applications turned down time after time; I can't prove it but it was obvious that my age was a major factor in those rejections.

I had to leave my home of 36 years in Newport, RI to go live with my family here in Central PA, and after about 5 months here I was hired by Lowe's. Apparently they respect the the knowledge and life experience of a 58-year-old; there are a lot of us over-50 types at the store. I like my job with Lowe's; I enjoy working in the garden center, I like the people I work with, and the managerial staff is way less dysfunctional than many I've worked under. In many ways it's felt like home.

Until now. I'm distressed and disappointed by Lowe's decision to withdraw its ads on TLC's All-American Muslim show. There really is no logical, rational reason to do this, especially in light of the fact that Lowe's advertises its social responsibility programs, including its workplace diversity and inclusion policies (all of this is documented on their website, here and here). As it says on the website:
Lowe's dedication to diversity and inclusion grows from the steadfast values of our employees and extends to every corner of our company. We draw upon the strength of collaboration, bringing together many unique individuals in the workplace and the community to better meet the needs of our employees and our customers. Recruiting, developing and retaining a diverse work force ensures a welcoming customer experience, enhances partnerships and strengthens community involvement.
In light of this, the decision to withdraw ads from a show about American Muslims makes no sense; it's directly counter to its stated diversity and inclusion policy.

Equally disappointing, it seems the decision to withdraw was made after an avalanche of emails launched by the Florida Family Association, a fringe far right evangelical Christian group who objects to the show's depiction of Muslims as average Americans and not fanatical bomb-throwers, and who threatened boycott if Lowe's continued to advertise on the show.

If the suits in Mooresville, NC (Lowe's corporate headquarters) are worried about that boycott, I can reassure them on that count. If the membership of the FFA exceeds 1,000 I'll be surprised. As an influence on the American body politic they're a microdot. That wouldn't amount to much of a boycott. In fact, I'll bet there are more American Muslims who shop at Lowe's (or at least did before this) than members of the FFA.

The FFA sources its arguments against All-American Muslim to anti-Islam activists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, evangelicals who see Islam as a threat and/or rejection of their own narrow Christian evangelism. It is, in fact, sectarian fear and jealousy, something that should have no place in the business world. Their arguments are made up of misrepresentation, outright lies, and gross (and deliberate) exaggerations. It's a tissue of falsehood from start to finish.

How do I know this? Because I've been involved in interfaith activities and organizations for well over 30 years. I've spent my entire adult life in dialog with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al. I've known many Muslims, both American-born and immigrants, for decades. I have a copy of the Qur'an in my library and an electronic copy of the hadith (traditions attributed to Muhammad) on my hard drive. These people are just people, just like you or me, and their spiritual beliefs are really no different or more intense than any other believers.

None of the propaganda spread by the FFA, Spencer and Geller and their ilk, matches the Muslims I've known or their religious scriptures. In fact, their propaganda is the 21st Century American equivalent of Nazi propaganda against the Jews in the '20s, '30s, and '40s. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

So I'm disappointed in Lowe's. I find it distressing that a company that prides itself on diversity and inclusion has allowed itself to be influenced by a group steeped in bigotry and hate. Lowe's values and mine no longer seem to be in sync.

There's a phrase posted throughout the store and on our computers: "I am Lowe's!" I'm not so sure that's true any more.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Dominionism = Blasphemy? Treason?

There's been a lot in the news lately about Dominionism (also known as Dominion Theology, with subsets known as Christian Reconstructionism, Seven Mountains theology, and Christian Nationalism). Basically what it is is a belief that Christians (and in this case very conservative - and often Calvinist - members associated with the Christian Right) need to gain control of communications, the arts, finance, the marketplace, and most importantly government, in order to run the world, or at least the United States, according to what they see as God's law as opposed to the existing secular law.

Probably the most succinct expression of the Dominionist agenda is this from the Coral Ridge Ministries' executive director George Grant, who wrote in his 1987 book Changing of the Guard:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.

This philosophy is the driving force behind much of the Christian Right's political activism, including its virtual takeover of the Republican Party. Many of the Christian Right leaders these days are Dominionists: Pat Robertson; everybody associated with American Family Association (the Wildmon family empire, which includes the World News Daily news media organization) , especially their public spokesman, Bryan Fischer; the Dobson family's Focus on the Family empire; the whole Liberty Baptist Church organization, including Liberty University, its Law department, the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, and Liberty Counsel, the organization's legal arm; and Christian Nationalist revisionist "historian" David Barton. Several of the current crowd of GOP presidential candidates are also associated with Dominionism: Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and will-she-or-won't-she Sarah Palin.

The interesting thing is that now that the news media has called attention to Dominionism, most of its staunchest proponents are denying that the movement exists. In August Pat Robertson made a big fuss about it on his 700 Club broadcast and claimed he'd never heard of such a thing. And yet he's stated the prime Dominionist objectives over and over again, including this speech in Dallas in 1984 as reported in Al Dager's book Vengeance Is Ours: The Church In Dominion (Sword, 1990):
Now what do you do? What do all of us do? We get ready to take dominion! We get ready to take dominion! It is all going to be ours--I'm talking about all of it. Everything that you would say is a good part of the secular world. Every means of communication, the news, the television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance--it's going to be ours! God's going to give it to His people. We should prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ. (Dager, p. 95)
Matt Barber, an associate dean of Liberty University's law school and Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, recently tweeted this in reaction to media coverage of Dominionism: "Can someone tell me what a 'dominionist' is? Best I can tell it's some scary monster that lives under liberals' beds." Yet just last year, at a Liberty University sponsored American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference entitled "2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference - Biblical Blueprints for Victory!", Barber addressed the conference with these words:
The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.
And John Aman, the current Director of Communications at Truth in Action Ministries, the successor to Coral Ridge Ministries, said "dominionism is a sham charge - one reserved for Christians on the right" that was dreamed up by the Left as "a handy way to smear evangelicals like Bachmann and Perry who bring biblically informed moral convictions into public debate." Obviously he hasn't read his predecessor's book, as quoted above.

Normally such stuff could be ignored or laughed off as a fringe movement with no real power or influence, but this is an ideology espoused by the movement that has gained major influence in one of the two major political parties, and an ideology espoused by a majority of that party's group of politicians vying for nomination as its presidential candidate. These are people determined to seek power and gain control of the country. Laugh if you want, but this is serious stuff and these are serious people.

But it also has serious flaws which have raised opposition both on the religious and secular fronts. Many Christians, and even many evangelicals, object to it as foreign to Christian belief. After all, didn't Jesus say, in response to Pilate's question "Are you King of the Jews?" that "my kingdom is not of this world"? Of course, the usual answer to that by the Dominionists is the Great Commission referred to by Matt Barber above - Matthew 28:18-20. Now he claims that verse commands Christians to teach the world to obey all that Jesus commanded, and leaves the impression that this includes some kind of Christian governance. But what does the passage really say?
And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
But what did Jesus command them to do? Feed the hungry, care for the sick, house and clothe the poor, love all humanity; there's nothing there about governing and imposing laws on the people.
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
- Luke 6:20 - 31

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.
- Matthew 25: 35 - 40

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.
- Luke 6: 37 & 38

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.
- John 8: 3 - 11

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, Which commandment is the most important of all? Jesus answered, The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
- Mark 12: 28 - 31

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
- John 13: 34 & 35
Nothing about governing there, is there? Only advice on how people can live together in harmony, with compassion and respect. In many ways Dominionist theology is, in fact, blasphemy.

Of course, it's also treason. These people are advocating taking over the government and imposing "God's Law" as given in the Bible (mostly drawn from Mosaic Law in the Torah of the Hebrew Scriptures, as Jesus didn't seem to be very big on the laws thing), in effect revoking our Constitution, which says in the First Amendment's establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (A more detailed exposition of this subject can be found here.)In other words, the government can't impose a religion on the population. But that's what these people are proposing to do. Sounds like treason to me.

Our Constitution guarantees a secular government, and we need to protect that legacy. The best protection is awareness. I hope I've contributed to that awareness.


© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger