Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I hew to the traditional American principle that politicians should refrain from promoting one particular set of religious beliefs. James Madison, father of the Constitution, famously endorsed a “total separation of the church from the state,” and that’s good enough for me.
But Rick Perry didn’t get the memo. Officially, he’s just the governor of Texas (having succeeded George W. Bush and inherited Bush’s swagger), but apparently he also aspires to be the preacher-in-chief. Hence his ambitious plans for “a day of prayer and fasting on behalf of our troubled nation,” a national event Aug. 6 that will be dominated — with his official blessing — by fundamentalist Christian leaders who are notorious for their rhetorical attacks on gays, Catholics and other designated nonbelievers.
It’s bad enough that Perry, on the eve of his event (officially called “The Response”), has urged that “as a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus,” given the fact that he was elected to be the governor of all Texans, many of whom are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, agnostics, and atheists. It’s bad enough that the event is billed as “Christians only,” with the proviso that heathens can attend only if they wish to convert. Indeed, the mainstream, non-proselytizing Houston Clergy Council has duly told Perry, in a protest letter, that government “should represent all citizens equally and without preference for religious or philosophical tradition.”
But it’s even worse that Perry is essentially promoting the intolerant Christian ethos of his co-sponsor, the American Family Association, which uses its radio and online outlets to spread the word that, among other things, “homosexuals should be disqualified from public office,” that gays are “in the clasp of Satan,” that all Muslims should be kicked out of the military and the rest deported, and that Christian devotees of yoga should quit because the workouts are inspired by “evil” Buddhism.
This attitude seems a tad more exclusionary than what the Founding Fathers intended. In the Bill of Rights, they wrote that the state shall not establish an official religion at the expense of others — yet Rick Perry is staging an event that, according to its website, will be “praying to the one true God.” Moreover, the website declares, “it would be idolatry of the worst sort” for prayer attendees to acknowledge the “false gods” of other faiths.
Any chance that Perry might catch the spirit of the Founders? Not with friends like his. One key player on the event’s leadership team is Jim Garlow, a megachurch pastor who has compared gays to practitioners of bestiality (gay marriage is no different than “if someone wanted to marry their dog or their horse”), and insisted that anyone supporting gay rights is in cahoots with the “Antichrist.” Another teammate is Lou Engle, who has prayed for Ellen DeGeneres to be converted to heterosexuality, and prayed that all Israeli Jews be converted to Christianity.
But Perry’s star event organizer is surely Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee. This guy is so out there that when he endorsed John McCain for president in 2008, McCain found it politically necessary to throw him under the bus. Hagee has assailed the Catholic Church as “the Great [filtered word].” He has decreed that God sent Adolf Hitler to be a “hunter” of Jews, that God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans to prevent a scheduled “homosexual rally,” and that God loves submissive wives (the “husband has a God-given role as leader of your home”).
Perry is probably sincere when he insists that he is walking the moral high road (“this event is about bringing Americans together in prayer”), and in all likelihood he is sincerely clueless about the constitutional wall he is flagrantly breaching. But there’s one other factor to consider: “The Response” is good politics.
Perry is weighing a Republican presidential bid in 2012. Conservative Christian leaders, including Hagee, are known to be wildly unenthusiastic about the current crop of candidates. Perry has been working them hard, and “The Response” was scheduled to take place one week before the Iowa straw poll, an early test of candidate strength in a party event dominated by Christian conservative voters. What better way to woo those voters than to use your public office to promote an intolerant strain of Christian fundamentalism, at the expense of other denominations and faiths?
Fortunately, our constitutional principles are more timeless than the transient politicians who occasionally prove meddlesome. When I visit the National Constitution Center this summer, I plan to pat James Madison’s bronzed shoulder and say: “Don’t you worry about Rick Perry’s un-American spectacle. This too shall pass.”
• Polman is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Comments (43)
Add commentNeed it be said?
Religion poisons everything.
Mike
Ah, yes, there it is....
That "Christian Tolerance" we hear so much about.
So much for freedom of religion. Or Yoga.
Christianity?
I don't think that the extreme forms of Christianity that we see today are truly in the tradition of its Founder whose message was love, acceptance, caring for the less fortunate and justice for all. That is what seems to have won over many over the centuries. That's my opinion.
I would take what Polman says
I would take what Polman says with a giant grain of salt. He's a far left ideologue that likes to re-write history to shape his narrative. If even half of what he writes about this event is correct, I'd be surprised.
Already by the second paragraph he was getting the jabs in -
"just the governor of Texas (having succeeded George W. Bush and inherited Bush’s swagger)".
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/04/29/dick-polmans-...
Calypso
I don't think Polman has re-written history.
I think that if you read the written records of the founding fathers, that you will find that they last thing they wanted to create was another theocracy whether, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or Shinto. They had seen enough of that in their European heritage. They didn't even want a monarchy!!
They wanted a democracy with freedom to practice one's religion, but not for some to have a right to impose their beliefs on others.
Your wrong Calypso
Everything he wrote is true, and not hard to find out:
http://theresponseusa.com/faq.php
1.We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
2.We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3.We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles,
in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the
right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
4.We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
5.We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
6.We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they
that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
7.We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Calypso is an ideologue.
Calypso is an ideologue. He/she/it isn't interested in building an accurate worldview. He/she/it is interested in maintaining an inaccurate one.
When the Constitution says
When the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," all this means is that Congress has no legal authority to establish a state church, like the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. It was designed to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government.
Gov. Perry is perfectly within his right to have a day of prayer. If a person doesn't like it, they shouldn't participate.
p,
"He/she/it" cute! Is that also you that's flagging all my posts as offensive? Grow up, it's reminiscant of the old site.
Tolerance is an irksome word
It's not uncommon to hear "tolerance" of races, gays, women's rights, atheists, etc., among the religious. Though that's impossible for many groups, I object to the usage of the word tolerance in the first place.
It's as if there is something wrong with being a woman who wants reproductive choice or gays, or people of no faith that, well, they must be tolerated.
This religious group, no matter how fringe other religious want to call it, shares the most important characteristic with all religions: faith. Belief with no evidence.
When zero evidence is at the heart of one's philosophical system literally anything is possible and acceptable from genital mutilation of children to suicide bombings.
Moderate peaceful religious people construct the faith tent for lunatics to congregate under. It is for that reason that it can be said that religion, if based on faith, poisons everything.
Mike
@Calypso: first off, if your
@Calypso: first off, if your posts were flagged, they wouldn't still be up. Is it you who's been flagging MY posts? Hmm?
Second, the 1st amendment was meant to keep government out of religion AND religion out of government. Learn your history if you're going to invoke the founding fathers. And don't bother coming back with that oft-repeated "this country was founded on Christian principles!" line of BS, as it is historically wrong (and not even particularly relevant, because this country was also founded on principles we'd find abhorrent today).
Junkara
You provide a nice listing of your beliefs and even some practices. You have every right to believe and practice your religion. Yet there are others who have their own "Sacred Texts," that they consider infallible, the Word of God, some other religions also believe in the miraculous births of their founders. However, there are some who call themselves Christian, who do not believe in the Trinity, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
We can impose certain laws, regulations and practices on others, all of us, as long as they are for the common good, and based on empirical facts and evidence. I don't agree with anyone who tries to impose their "beliefs" on me.
I think that is what Mike Dziuba and others are saying - there are those who hold no religious beliefs, and a wide variety of religious beliefs. But we elect people to represent us for the common, secular good, not to promote their religious beliefs.
If it appears that candidates for elected position will use their position to impose their personal beliefs on the public, we need to be very careful for whom we vote.
I assume, then, Calypso,
that as the separation of Church and State is not intended to keep "religion out of government" that you would have no problems whatsoever if Parnell suddenly converted to Islam and held a day of fasting and prayer to beseech Allah to convert the heathen Christians, Jews, Hindus and everyone else to Islam, and if he openly stated that in order for the United States to be a powerful and healthy nation, it is necessary for all of us to heed the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and accept the mercies and judgments of Allah.
I think, however, you would be the first to scream so loudly they would hear you in Mecca.
If Parnell attends
Gov. Perry's prayer event, it is my sincere hope that he not use State of Alaska funds to pay for his travel and lodging. Gov. Perry and Gov. Parnell have every right to worship as they please, but they should do so on their own dime.
wally says, "But we elect
wally says, "But we elect people to represent us for the common, secular good, not to promote their religious beliefs."
I don't totally agree with that statement. Any person with religious beliefs uses those beliefs to make day to day decisions. Many politicians ARE elected exactly for their beliefs - like being pro-life and against gay marriage. Those of us that have a religion lead our lives through the courage of our convictions.
Those of us on the right, half jokingly, see climate change and environmental issues as the left's religion. I will venture to guess that when those voters go to the polls they are voting their beliefs.
p,
"The term “wall of separation” originated in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists who were concerned about a rumor the new government was going to officially recognize the Congregational Church as the official national denomination. Jefferson’s letter assuaged their fears by assuring the Constitution would not allow governmental interference with any church by such a sanction."
Here's the article with that quote -
http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/News_1/Wall_of_Separa...
1962 Supreme Court decision Engel v. Vitale that took prayer out of the schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale
Actually, dust, I wouldn't
Actually, dust, I wouldn't like it if the gov converted and started forcing his beliefs on the rest of us. However, we have a Constitution that would hopefully take care of his actions, if they went over the line.
Also, elections have consequences and I would not vote for him next time.
But, explain this to me. Why is it okay for Obama to celebrate Ramadan with celebrity guests at OUR house, the White House?
Calypso
Again you impale yourself on your spear, saying that many elected officials are elected for their religious beliefs. That's the problem.
There is scientific evidence, not just belief, that the environment is changing, and over a long period of time our climate is changing. The causes are debatable. The facts are not a "leftist" religion.
It may shock you, but there are good, qualified,experienced scientists who are active in a religious community. They believe and practice their religion, but because they are good scientists, their beliefs do not affect the data and evidence they present and they try to give the best objective explanation they can.
Of course, there are dishonest, incompetent and unqualified scientists just as there are "believers," who are inconsistent in their practices..... if you would you like a long, list of crimes committed by religious leaders and "believers," I think you can find a sufficient supply in the media.
Why on earth is it NOT okay, Calypso?
You yourself just said that there is nothing that forbids religion in government.
Now, truth be told, I have no idea of the event you are referencing; can you reference it somehow? I highly doubt that Obama was celebrating Ramadan, as he is not Muslim. But even if he were and was, is that any different than celebrating Christmas at the White House and inviting the Pope over?
But to a certain extent, I do agree with you - anyone professing a religious viewpoint who does NOT use it as a fundamental compass is just playing some plastic self-image game. (Of course, most everyone is doing that anyway, regardless...) I like mystics. But the problems are multiple - we DO seek to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the country REGARDLESS of religious viewpoint. Where you might agree with the rally and such mentioned in the article above, you would definitely object to the same conduct under a religious structure with which you did NOT agree, but the fundamental principle allowing both is the same. You CANNOT say "This is okay simply because I happen to agree with the viewpoint", but criticize the identical conduct under a different framework with which you do not.
Thus- how do we provide the greatest good INDEPENDENT of specific religion but (for those who hold a religious viewpoint) remain guided by a religious principle? I don't know if it's possible. Maybe.
Pretty much spot on, Prof. Olson,
I really have little interest in the thoughts of my fellow citizens. This is not North Korea. I support the rights of people to think or believe whatever they like.
However, thoughts, particularly religious thoughts, have a history of morphing into inappropriate actions that violate our world admired, and wholly secular constitution. When that happens, I am keenly interested in "building up that wall."
Mike
The environment and climate
The environment and climate change IS the left's religion and lots of other people are saying it too.
The climate is changing - I don't think you could find one person that would dispute that statement. I hope it's changing, otherwise, it would be real bad if it was stagnant.
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/04/26/climate-change-as-religion-...
How honest are the scientists we have working on the government dole nowdays? There's almost always an agenda, sadly. Makes us lesser individuals skeptical.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/17/the-lefts-war-on-science-continues/
Mike Dziuba, I agree
Yes, what is that old poem that in part reads, "good fences make good neighbors" ? We should elect our representatives not based on their personal religious beliefs and practices, but on their knowledge, honesty, competence, ability to represent their constituents.
I also agree that over centuries, religions can morph and change into inappropriate actions. We need look no further than the Inquisition, the "Crusades," the burning of "witches",and current practices under the banner of religion.
While living in Japan, I came across an interesting Christian group called "Mukiyokai" "Non-Church Christians". They simply believe, try to live what they consider a good Christian life. They have no clergy, no hierarchy and no buildings. I was surprised to find that some presidents of the most prestigious university in Japan, Tokyo University were members of this group.
"It's not uncommon to hear
"It's not uncommon to hear "tolerance" of races, gays, women's rights, atheists, etc., among the religious. Though that's impossible for many groups, I object to the usage of the word tolerance in the first place."
And, mike, as you continue your ranting post, it's very evident that you are extremely intolerant.
Calypso - intolerance
Calypso as you wrote "I object to the usage of the word tolerance in the first place. "
That to me, to some extent explains your thoughts on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and your comments. To be consistent, you should not be "tolerated," if that is unacceptable to others. Apparently from your point of view, we can only "tolerate" those who have the same beliefs and views. What's the current saying "My way or no way," "My way or the highway"??
Again, you seem to impale yourself on your own spear.
Ok, that was more of a statement than a question.
But sure, I would agree that I am intolerant of a lot of things. I am intolerant of public policy being guided by faith rather than reason and evidence such as this article talks about.
I am intolerant of creationism being taught in public school science classes such as in Louisiana.
I am intolerant of children forcibly having their genitals mutilated against their will (boys and girls) only because it is deemed ok under a religious mullah.
Really, the list is probably quite long. Do you have a specific question or just a statement?
Mike
fromdust....glad you are back!
well said, as usual.
Calypso, do you really have no idea as to how thoroughly you contradict yourself? I'm not sure that someone striving to be intentionally unintelligible could do better.
You have the same problem many religious zealots have - a myopic CLAIM of "freedom of religion", just so long as it is YOUR religion. You have no problem with elected officials having religious viewpoints or seeking to write laws based on those views, provided they are the same as yours. But if, in the example given, our governor selected a different faith - your reaction is intolerant at best:
"Actually, dust, I wouldn't like it if the gov converted and started forcing his beliefs on the rest of us.
But, explain this to me. Why is it okay for Obama to celebrate Ramadan with celebrity guests at OUR house, the White House?"
You mean YOUR White House? Your "Christian's only" White House?
Read slowly, Calypso. OUR White House. Yes, it is OUR White House, - and the OUR includes Jewish Americans, Buddhist Americans, Hindu Americans, Seihk Ameriacans, those who celebrate Kwanzaa, and yes, Muslim Americans.
OUR White House recognizes and celebrates as many of OUR diverse cultures and celebrations as possible, including Christmas.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/04/statement-presiden...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/26/statement-presiden...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/16/spirit-alone
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/14/president-obama-celebrates-ram...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/Christmas
And Mike? - was merely pointing out that the word 'tolerance' implies that there is some reason the people in question should not be treated as equals, but instead a special effort must be made to accept or "tolerate" them. And in that respect I fully agree with Mike.
But I might make a special exception in your case.
Way to spin my words swim.
Way to spin my words swim. You and your fellow atheists are the ones that get all twisted up over the separation of church and state.
Chill out a bit, you seem so angry.
Look at some of the words you progressives use - zealots, impale, poison. Where's the tolerance and civility that we're all supposed to be abiding by?
It's always good to be called a liar too - just keep posting that p. It makes you look so brilliant.
My experience in life
Mike Dziuba, "Colypso" and other commentators.
I disagree Mike that all religion is somehow wrong. I disagree with Colypso regarding "tolerance." In the past, when I was a teacher, I often used "stories" and personal experiences to teach. So here is a story, from my life.
When I first went to Japan, twenty some years ago, and lived on the northern island of Hokkaido, many Japanese in the city of Hakodate (Buddhists, not Christians) insisted that I visit the Catholic, Trappist monastery nearby. The seemed very proud of this place, of the monks there and what they did. With a graduate degree in Medieval history, and having spent my first two years of college at a Benedictine monastery in Minnesota (St. John's University) I knew that the Trappists were Benedictine monks of the "Strict observance." They supported themselves by manual labor and prayer.
Traveling in Hokkaido, it many places the farms looked like dairy farms in the Midwest of the US. When I visited the monastery and its small museum, I understood what I saw, and what the Japanese respected. Then I studied the history of Hokkaido and here is what I learned.
In the 18th century, an abbot (the leader) and a few monks came to Japan to start farming. The abbot was from the Neatherlands. He saw that this might be a good place for dairy farming, though the Japanese had no history of dairy farming. He brought cattle to Japan. And soon gave local people a cow and bull. After several years, they had to return a cow and bull, but could keep all the offspring as their own.
The monks never went out to try and "convert" people.But if Japanese men liked the way of life of the monks, they were accepted as new members.
Over time the monastery membership grew, and kept the same Christian beliefs and practices. The abbot became a Japanese citizen, and to this day is revered as a pioneer in Hokkaido. The monks continue to support themselves by farming, making and selling cookies and whatever they can to be self sufficient. They have never engaged in politics, nor sought special help from the government.
Hokkaido is now famous for its dairy products. It is a basic part of their economy - all due to an old abbot and a few monks with a personal conviction and belief.
And so, I don't see all religious practices as somehow contrary to modern life or a democracy. At the same time, the monks attract new members simply by living a quiet, productive, prayerful way of life.
Japan has a long tradition of a theocracy - of the divine origin of the nation, an emperor, a history of religious warfare, a long and involved political history. Today they have a representative democracy, with many of the same disputes we have in the United States.Yet the trappist monks have remained apart from all of that.
I now understand why the Japanese wanted me to know about the Trappists. Its because for them their presence symbolizes, freedom of religion, tolerance, separation of religion and government, and all the good things of Christianity like working hard, helping others, mutual tolerance.
That's been part of my life experience that does influence my opinion.
I can't think of a single atheist
who was screaming and foaming at the mouth that Obama was a Muslim. On top of being a lie, it simply doesn't matter - it is the duty of the President to address his or her duties for ALL citizens of the United States, regardless of religion. But to right-wing fundamentalist Christians it sure does! They are morally offended that someone might hold office who disagrees with them, because they themselves CAN'T behave maturely and serve for the good of all, only their own good. Swimmer is (as usual) correct: it appears that you approve of State-sponsored religion provided it is YOUR religion. In the end, it means there is little difference between the people in this article, the Taliban, the Buddhists in Sri Lanka (I think it was - I might very well be wrong) who passed a law about certain religious observances "offending Buddhism" (a sentiment at which Gautama would have thoroughly barfed), and someone like Stalin.
I had an enormous amount of respect for the New York senator who stood up and said that although he was Catholic and believed that marriage was properly between a man and a woman, he recognized that was a religious conviction and from a legal perspective, could see no legal reason to deny gay people the right to marry, and he voted to approve the New York bill. That is integrity.
Calypso
Your response to Swimmer reveals much about you. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you, does not see things from your perspective is some kind of liberal, atheistic, unAmerican, evil, stupid or uninformed.
I question your omniscience and wisdom.
I have lived in a world that perhaps you have never experienced, where one goes out, does field research, or spend hours searching historical documents and then publishes the findings and explanations and then faces approval, condemnation, attacks by others and when its all over, has to accept criticism, critique and approval. Many times I have had to tell a student or colleague, "You are right. I was wrong." My world didn't end. I grew up slowly.
And so, as one commentator, whenever I see a comment by you, I will just be like you, toss it out, deny it, attack it, or perhaps simply click down to find something really intelligent.
The real world isn't kindergarten children learning to live with others believing that they are always right. Its all about growing up.
Identification
I respect the right of right of commentators to remain anonymous, or use a code name, or some phrase to describe themselves. I however, come from a different "point of view." I use my name, many others know exactly who I am, where I live, my name and telephone number are in the phone book. And so what I say or comment and who I am, is public information. In fact, if anyone wants to read something dull, I will gladly send them my resume. Its only about twelve pages long.
I will not comment or give my opinion under some code name, not disclosing who I am. I really have no religious convictions, but do respect a historical figure, Martin Luther, who supposedly said something to the effect that "Here I stand."
wally, with all due respect,
wally, with all due respect, swimmer wasn't just disagreeing, she was outright attacking and calling me and what I had to say stupid. And just because you agree with her, you feel entitled to take a jab or two also at my intelligence. Is that how you treated your students? And then you have the gall to tell me to grow up. Since when is it okay to attack the person?
No one is ever right all the time, however, a person always has the right to voice their opinion without getting attacked.
So, dust, was Obama hoping to represent all Americans when he said during the campaign, "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them"? I'm thinking he doesn't much care for those religious "zealots" (as swimmer likes to call Christians).
And no, I do not approve of State sponsored religion, as you incorrectly stated.