A friend of mine, DeletedSoul, emailed me today, asking for my two cents on a facebook debate regarding the separation of church and state. She just joined the Americans United for Separation of church and State cause there and someone she knows went for her jugular over it. That made me think. I don’t remember ever blogging about the issue. I guess it seems so black and white and simple I’ve never really felt the need. I mean, what more can I do than state the obvious? Yet the comments from the person were so full of propaganda, I thought it can’t hurt to weigh in and say a few things.
DeletedSoul also wrote an article about this issue called There is No War Against christianity. I have to agree with most of what she says there. For instance, I live in the upper buckle of the bible belt. There are more churches than people in my sleepy little town (slight hyperbole, but you get the point) and I am surrounded by religious people everywhere I go. I am very much a minority as an atheist, so much so that I feel like I would suffer unpleasant consequences to stand up more than I already do and declare myself an atheist and a Freethinker.
If you look at the government and all the polls regarding religion over the years, you’ll find that 99.999% of politicians bow down to the christian god, whether just to garner votes or because they believe in the baby jesus, no one will ever know but them. The point is, the American public does not care for atheists, while wearing the label of christian carries with it some cache. It’s not earned or accurate, but still, most people consider christians more moral than atheists, and would vote for a muslim before voting for an atheist, according to the polls. So why christians cry wolf about there being a “war” on christianity is beyond hypocrisy and completely devoid of facts.
A few years ago at christmas eve dinner with my in-laws, one of the extended family attacked Butch when he agreed with his cousin on how America was founded on the rights and principles of the separation of church and state. He calmly told the christian that she was wrong and gave her a few quotes to back his position, but she was nasty and stormed off after some very heated lies spewed forth. What is so disturbing is she was a school teacher and she was happy to lie to her grandchildren that day, and any students she ever had, telling them we are a christian nation, founded by christians and based on christian principles. The good news is, we saw her true colors and her vicious nature then, and she has avoided talking to us ever since, even though we see them for nearly every major holiday.
What vocal and fundamentalist christians can’t seem to get through their heads is that the Separation of church and State benefits them just as much as us heathens. But that’s not good enough for them. They have to resort to distorting facts and claiming they know what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote his letters.
Here, let me explain it this way. Let’s say you’re a baptist. Let’s say the First Amendment is thrown away and now we are officially a christian nation. But the president is a catholic and now we all have to go to mass and confess our sins once a week at a state sanctioned church. We have to raise our kids catholic, and all the little things that are different between your baptist beliefs and government sanctioned catholicism get thrown out the window. You will go to jail for secretly practicing baptist heresy, so don’t even consider it.
Or what if the president gets elected then tells everyone he is a muslim, or decides it’s best if the country is muslim for political reasons! We all must convert to islam within 15 days and start praying 5 times a day and all the other nonsense. Women can no longer drive or hold high level jobs. They get married to men at the age of 9, ready to give up their virginity. At age 9, just like mohammed, who is now your prophet. And if you fail to pray 5 times a day or if you show any signs of going against islam or practicing any type of christianity, you get stoned to death. That’s theocracy.
The Separation of church and State means that religious people get to practice any religion they want. Or if someone doesn’t believe in gods, they don’t have to follow any religion. It’s for everyone’s benefit. It’s that simple. So please, if you’re a christian, stop moaning and whining about something you don’t seem to understand. This is for the benefit of all of us.
Here are some links for you:
Thomas Jefferson first wrote about the term Separation of church and State in 1802, where he clarified what the First Amendment was all about regarding religion and politics.
Here is the conversation between DeletedSoul and the christian, and my comment. She had to pull the thread from her facebook account because apparently it got kind of ugly. Unfortunately I didn’t get to read any more than this…
Deleted Soul joined the cause: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The christian:
…AU’s primary task is educating the American public about the importance of religious liberty through the separation of church and state and defending that crucial constitutional principle against attacks by extremist Religious Right groups such as the Christian Coalition….NO AGENDA HERE!
The christian:
“Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.”
..while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.” …offenses for which government could intrude included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
Nice smiley faces. How passive aggressive is that?
DeletedSoul:
“WallBuilders’ goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena. ” No Agenda Here! Of course, Wallbuilders is a corporation, so I think their ultimate goal is to make money, most likely.Of course every organization such as these have an agenda – there would be truly no point.
I do support a strict separation of church and state for various reasons. I had written a couple lengthy comments here, but after 2 1/2 I decided to stop because I would end up sitting here all morning.
I have more about this subject on my blog. – feel free to read and comment there! It doesn’t truncate comments, so it’s a lot easier to have a discussion.
The christian:
Wallbuilders is a corporation, so I think their ultimate goal is to make money, most likely.
Making money is a great thing though, don’t you think? I think everyone should make as much as they can possibly can. Except the government, of course, which doesn’t produce anything yet steals money from its MOST industrious citizens who do work hard to earn every dime. But, I digress… I have the option of ignoring stuff that comes across my feed or address issues that yank my chain. I’ve decided, in this day when history is being spun for political expediency and shameless power grabbing, to express my opinion or offer counter-information. I guess you believe that the government should protect you from the very spooky extremist Religious Right like the Christian Coalition (www.cc.org) (and,me, I guess). I’m harmless, really. Not as spooky as you think.
The end of this paragraph set my teeth on edge. And count the logical fallacies, people!
DeletedSoul:
Christian Coalition is pretty far up there on my list of “Who Not to Support”; most of their agendas are directly opposite of my own views. I see more negative aspects than positive ones in the organization, with a few exceptions, especially their support of Net Neutrality, which is certainly an important issue. However, I would not expect the government to “protect” me from any “scary” organizations, but I would not want my tax dollars supporting such an organization in any way.
When I left my comment below, DS was leaving this comment, so I didn’t see it yet.
Me:
You can pretend to know what someone was thinking hundreds of years ago if you like. But Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that this country was founded on freedom of religion and FROM religion.
Quoting propaganda and half truths from obviously biased organizations proves nothing, except that you wish to propagate bigotry and lies in the name of your god.
Indoctrination of children into a belief system is not the same as raising healthy kids to think for themselves. Might as well get a puppy to follow you like a shadow and do exactly what you want. Or a puppet to parrot your views word for word.
As you can see, I was rather “direct”. DS messaged me and said thanks, then the next morning she deleted the whole thread. Sorry for getting a bit heated there. I’m just a human being after all. 
(that’s from an X-Files episode)
Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Religion. Why is it so many people think Freedom of Religion means “Freedom for MY Religion–and screw everyone else!”.
If there’s not freedom for every religion, and freedom from religion (which is critical–for how can one even have freedom for their religion if they’re not free from other religions being forced on them?) there is no freedom. Period.
But just try explaining that to a theocrat who thinks his theocracy will be better than the other theocracies.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Exactly, Buffy. Exactly.
Reply to This Comment
To put it mildly, the Christian was personally offended and lashed out pretty harshly between the time I last posted and when I took the thread down. In hindsight I wish I had copied the last two posts before taking them down, for entertainment value if nothing else.
Either way, I appreciate the post here and Neece’s input on the thread.
As I explained to Neece previously, I post anti-religion and pro-atheist updates on my feed regularly, at least several times a week. Joining the AU Cause was, IMO, the least of my “offenses”.
Buffy – I loved the last line of your comment: “But just try explaining that to a theocrat who thinks his theocracy will be better than the other theocracies.”
That is very true, and any suggestion to the contrary generally results in either a spontaneous combustion of anger as I experienced on Facebook this week, or a simple “lalala I can’t hear you”.
I get discouraged at times, living in the bible belt and being surrounded by fundies every single day. However, I do have hope! If you haven’t heard, James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) has let everyone know that prayer is the only thing left to do, because the “left” is too strong. He has essentially given up in frustration:
“I want to tell you up front that we’re not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.
There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can’t stop them.
We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn’t pay any attention to it because they don’t have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation… As I see it, there is no other answer. There’s no other answer, short term…”
w00t!
Reply to This Comment
Personal Failure Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 7:20 am
i like to point out to these people that countries that have official christian state religions also have by far the highest rates of atheism. then i thank them for working towards my goals.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Excellent point, PF. That’s true, I hadn’t thought of that!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Hey DeletedSoul, thanks for commenting and letting us know a bit more about the facebook situation. I wish you had saved the conversation too. But yeah, it would have been for entertainment value more than anything else.
How weak to give up like that. FAIL! LOL
I get discouraged too, living in the upper buckle of the bible belt. It sucks being surrounded by mindless christian sheeple.
Oh, that cracks me up about dobson! LOL
Reply to This Comment
Uhhhh? I hate to the bearer of bad news but George Washington didn’t say, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington#Misattributed
–S.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Thanks for sharing that and for the link, Sconnor. I got that picture off the web ages ago and never thought anything about it. See? it’s a great lesson in taking information for granted.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the quote:
* The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
o This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington’s presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:
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 or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.
* Joel Barlow, who had served as Washington’s chaplain, and was also a good friend of Paine and Jefferson was the representative in charge of the translation.
Reply to This Comment
One of my greatest ideas (maybe misconceptions) when I got to this ocuntry was that it was the most advanced country on Earth, regarding especially technology and social issues. That would be a great difference from my country, in which it’s normal to see the president kissing the cardinal’s hand. However, seems it wasn’t that different, as you put it here. Of course, the US is still a great country that I love, respect and regard as my new home. But while in theory there is a separation of church and state, christianity is still the “de facto” religion, even pushing some to claim that the US were founded as a christian nation in order to see their beloved superstitions in the oval office. Even if it had been founded like that, common sense would tell us that a government that sees all beliefs in the same way would be the fairest way to conduct it. But as it was said before, try explaing that to a theocrat who thinks his theocracy would be better than any other theocracy. It’s this kind of stuff that makes me want to agree with Dawkins when he says “If you believe Jesus turned water into wine, I think you’ve got to be fairly unintelligent.”
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Don’t feel bad, Diego. Americans are raised to believe America is the greatest and most advanced country on earth, that “we’re number 1″. Maybe after WWII we were, but sadly, we’re still sitting on our laurels from back then, smug and fat.
Yes, christianity is definitely the de facto religion here and the Separation of church and State is more of a nice idea rather than something that is upheld and enforced.
I totally agree that COMMON SENSE (which not many seem to have these days) would tell us that a democracy free of religion is the best way to go. Alas, dogma and power hungry politicians make that a far away dream.
While I find Dawkins to be rather .. well, not very nice… I think I have to agree with that. If you believe in a talking snake, Jesus turning water into wine and raising the dead and flying to heaven… well, yeah, you definitely don’t think for yourself or think critically, do you?
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
For a quick fact check, America is not a democracy, nor is democracy a good government form. America is a republic, much to the irritation of the religious. Democracy is nothing more than majority rules, and that’s what they want, a mob. Nay, we are a republic, it’s supposed to help protect the minority from the majority, but the corruption caused by the majority, ie religious, have started to restrict the rights of the minority, ie homosexuals and alike… Democracy? Bad. Republic? Better. Our founding fathers as it were, knew that democracy was bad, and that’s why democracy isn’t said in the constitution even once. That is why, we are the Republic of the United States of America.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Thanks GMN. I didn’t know that. I do know that we do not have direct elections for the presidency, which would suggest that you speak the truth here yet again. I love learning new stuff.
Reply to This Comment
hannah Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive (hence the common term ‘democratic republic’).
Democracy:
1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege
Republic:
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
Therefore, according to these definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, the U.S.A. is both a republic, that is a state not ruled by a monarch, and a democracy, that is a state ruled by the people, in this case through their elected representatives.
The word “democracy” taken to its very basest meaning could have the connotation of a state where everything would be decided by the people, through referendums etc., but that is not at all what the word “democracy” generally means in modern political systems as such a system would, as you point out, mean mob rule. One can debate about the veracity of the idea that the U.S. is a “social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege”, but in terms of what is set down in its Constitution and subsequent amendments, it is, most certainly, a democracy.
Reply to This Comment
Johnny Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Republic vs Democracy
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
They ARE mutually exclusive.
Why? Sovereign power does NOT reside in the people as a whole under a republic. Nor are rights actually equal under democracy.
First and foremost, individual rights ARE NOT subject to public vote. Of course, due to a high pull of religious BS, Proposition 8 in California undermined the whole basis of our government system. The majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. Have no doubt, the religious WANT a democracy, so that they can remove all the rights of the minorities. They want their rule, and their rule alone.
Individual rights are no subject to public vote.
The people do not elect all officials.
The people do not have practically any direct influence over the system.
The people are not treated equal in all cases.
The people don’t really get true representatives.
The people, are not in control.
Not everybody can become a representative.
Elected officials have a mind of their own.
Elected officials must take into consideration of the minority.
We have a military that controls itself, we have little control over it.
We have a constitution.
We are not a democracy.
“in terms of what is set down in its Constitution and subsequent amendments, it is, most certainly, a democracy.”
… this is perhaps the most ignorant of everything you said. Did you not read what I said? It is, quite certainly and clearly by the Constitution and amendments, a REPUBLIC. Just to reiterate from earlier, IT DOES NOT SAY DEMOCRACY.
By the way, simply one sentence definitions won’t help you here. This is a text book discussion, government forms are too complex to be defined by a little sentence. They are good for a simply definition that can easily be referred to… and that’s about it.
Reply to This Comment
One comment that Christian mentioned that makes me really mad is the bit about government not producing anything. What? What about the infrastructure that all of us take for granted? Oh, hellsya it’s not perfect (and it’s been neglected for too long) but we have roads and safety signs, speed limits, national parks, bridges (that are mostly safe), sewer systems, electrical supply lines and a bevy of other important safeguards, rules and regs that generally keep the peace and citizens mobile, safe and free.
I’m actually surprised that that Facebook Christian took so long to devolve into personal attack. Internet Christians seem to have the thinest skins when it comes to someone disagreeing with them, probably because they’re so sure they are in the right.
Here’s an example, I think, of a question that gets them huffy:
“So please, tell me the secular reasons our government should prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Tell me the secular reasons we can’t use embryonic stem-cells for medical research. Tell me the secular reasons not to teach our children about contraceptives.”
-Jesse Galef, asking the religious right why they aren’t making better arguments against the things they don’t like.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Yes, I agree Steve. While we all bemoan the failures and excesses of government, we do have roads to drive on, police to keep us relatively safe in our homes, and all the other good things you mentioned. Sure, they aren’t perfect by any means, but we have them. We are not in anarchistic chaos like Road Warrior.
Internet christians can be quite vicious. Don’t they know their god sees their nastiness?
HA.. sorry, couldn’t help myself.
Anyway, they don’t have secular reasons for why they’re so angry about everything. They just get mad at what their pastors and priests tell them to get mad about, then spew forth hate wherever they happen to go. (Granted that’s putting all christians into one category for simplicity. I know there are nice internet christians too. I’m not talking about you so don’t get all huffy!) (I’m going to get christian hate mail now, aren’t I?)
Reply to This Comment
Oh, and thanks for sharing Deleted Souls blog!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
My pleasure, Steve.
Reply to This Comment
Well, it looks like the christian has removed me and I believe my husband from their FB friends. I am pretty sure we have been pretty much cut off from this particular person. What floors me is that the person chose to come to my page, and comment on my status in an inflammatory way and I suppose did not expect the response they got.
Just….wow.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 am
Sigh, I’m not surprised. I think when you clash blind faith with logic and reason, it gets ugly and those who only have their religion to back up get very angry. I see what you mean, though. That person came to you and basically picked the fight. Maybe she expected you to just roll over on your belly and give yourself to jesus right then and there. Certainly that would have involved just as much faith and common sense for her to suppose, I guess.
It’s just sad that people can’t come together and celebrate what we have in common instead of getting so angry over what is different. Then again science vs. faith is so completely opposite, I guess if you have one, the other is just “evil” or something.
Reply to This Comment
Spanish Inquisitor Reply:
June 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Oh, those tolerant Christians!
Tolerant
adj.
1. Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing. See synonyms at broad-minded.
2. Able to withstand or endure an adverse environmental condition: plants tolerant of extreme heat.
3. Unable to force one’s religious viewpoint on those with opposing viewpoints: As a result of their religious beliefs, Christians are remarkably tolerant of atheists.
Reply to This Comment
The First Amendment was carefully worded so as not to require the disestablishment of the few State churches that existed in 1789, hence that odd construction “…respecting an establishment of religion…” But _before_ the First Amendment, Article 6 says “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Go to a college bookstore and you will find, among the quick-reference charts, the Constitution of the United States, in a laminated chart. It’s smaller than the physics quick reference. Most members of Congress would do well to study how their ancestors managed to say so much with so few words. It might serve to mitigate the tendency to churn out staff-assembled bills that nobody has time to read, not even their “authors.”
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Thanks, Steve.
Good points.
Reply to This Comment