Separation of Church and State

Earlier today, I read a story that I fear will be twisted against those who staunchly support separation of church and state. Following the complaints of parents and students, a Newark, Delaware high school principal apologized for allowing a Christian-themed assembly to be staged at the school. The principal claimed that he was unaware of the specific nature of the content to be presented to the students.

Bravo to the students and parents that saw this as an inappropriate presentation in a public school for complaining forcefully enough to illicit an apology from the school’s principal. The concept of separation of church and state is under attack on multiple fronts, from court cases on Intelligent Design to the Federal Government’s Faith Based Initiative program. Public Schools are no place for Evangelical Christianity, and please don’t tell me there’s no harm in allowing such programs. In the next few days, don’t be surprised if we hear some Christian leaders come out and wonder why they are so persecuted. Please! It’s simply a ploy to mobilize their base to portray Christians as a group which is being discriminated against. If schools were presenting similar programs from members of the Jewish or Muslim faiths who were telling students how to act and what to do to get more involved with their religions, the Christian community would be in an uproar.

These parents and students deserve our support and respect just the same as the parents in Dover, Pennsylvania deserve it for their fight against Intelligent Design in the science curriculum. Let’s hope that these courageous people are not vilified for standing up for the preservation of separation of church and state, and let’s hope that the ignorance of Intelligent Design isn’t allowed to be taught in public schools as scientific theory.

Where are the Real Conservatives?

Today, both the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal government are controlled by the Republican Party, which historically has been the party of Conservatism. But is that still true? Traditional Conservatism is characterized by commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Under the current watch, all four of these principles are under attack by the very party that holds them so dear. It makes you wonder, is George Bush a conservative?

Let me provide some examples to illustrate why I think the Bush administration, being the main culprit, and Congressional Republicans are violating their own principles.

· Individual Liberty: The Patriot Act has allowed law enforcement to compromise the civil liberties of American citizens. An example of this is National Security Letters. NSLs can act as warrants, yet they are issued by the FBI with no judicial oversight. The War on Terror is no excuse for this legislation.

· Limited Government: In the history of the United States, the Federal Government has never been as large as it is today. The Government employs over 12 million people today and many of these are contractors.

· Constitutional Restraint: This principle has morphed into Judicial Restraint and it seems to represent the most schizophrenic portion of the Republican Party. Christian Conservatives and their political puppets like to use the phrase “activist judges” for those judges they believe are setting new and unconstitutional precedents. What “activist judges” really means is “judges who don’t agree with us”. Upholding or overturning precedents don’t mean anything to the Christian Right when it comes to “activist judges”.

· Fiscal Responsibility: The budget surplus of the Clinton Administration has been wiped out and replaced by a massive national debt that will only grow with the war in Iraq and the clean-up of Katrina.

Of course, I come to the conclusion that Bush is not a true conservative and that the Republican Party has lost its way. One reason it has lost its way is the “marriage” of the GOP and the Christian Right. If there was ever a marriage of convenience, this one is it. Christian Conservatives vote with the Republican Party simply because that party is more closely aligned with them on social issues and they feel they have no choice but to vote that way. Their views on government are not necessarily aligned in the same manner, but “morally” (I hate that word now) they feel they have no choice.

The GOP tolerates the Christian Right because of the huge voter bloc that it brings to the table. However, the influence of Christian Conservatives has begun to permeate the Republican Party at its highest levels including the Presidency of the United States. Christianity and religion are increasingly becoming a part of public life in this country and that feels like a bad thing to me. The rise of the Bush Administration has presented an opportunity for the Christian Right to grab as much power as it can and impose its values on the country.

It is that lust for power that drives Republican politics in America today. Conservative principles have been abandoned for cronyism, big government spending and the coveting of wealth and power. The idea of separation of church and state could be completely redefined by the party that is supposed to believe in Constitutional Restraint. All of these items make me wonder where true Conservatism is in America.

Couple of links

I recommend reading the two opinion articles linked below from TomPaine.com for a much needed perspective on the current administration. By the way, TomPaine.com is one of the best sources on the web for opinion and news. Enjoy.

Bush's Fantasy Foreign Policy

A Snake Oil President

Book Review - Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism

It’s been some time since I read Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby, but I still consider it to be one of the most important books that I have ever read. In fact, reading the book gave me a new found appreciation for the role of secularism in the formation and history of the United States of America.

Today, the separation of church and state is a polarizing issue in America. What did the Founding Fathers truly mean by separation of church and state? If you listen to today’s Conservative Christian leaders, you might think they never meant it at all. They’ll tell you that our founders were extremely pious people who would be aghast at how today’s “liberals” have twisted their words to do such things as eliminate school prayer and remove religious icons from public buildings. "Freethinkers" provides the reader with another perspective on our Founding Fathers and their intent when they left any mention of a higher power out of the Constitution; a perspective that is backed with facts and research rather than a revisionist and convenient history that plays well to a current day audience.

As I progressed through the book, I was surprised to learn how accepted secularism, agnosticism and atheism were in 19th century society. Leaders in these movements were well-respected, public individuals. The most well known of these figures, at the time, was probably Robert Ingersoll, a.k.a. the “Great Agnostic”. These movements were so well accepted in American society that some believed religion would cease to be a force in American life in the coming 20th century. American religious leaders saw this danger on the horizon and took effective steps to ensure the role of religion in American life. By 1920, the concepts of secularism, agnosticism and atheism were marginalized and demonized in the minds of most Americans.

The fervor of religion in American society and politics has grown increasingly throughout the 20th century to the point where separation of church and state is being re-examined in a whole new light. Jacoby addresses the rise of evangelical Christianity in the latter half of the 20th century and demonstrates its increasing political clout in the current Bush administration, using faith-based initiatives as an example.

I encourage you to read some of the reviews on Amazon.com for this book. I have provided a link above to see these. One reviewer of note is Christopher Hitchens, who is a well-respected conservative author. I think his thoughts on the book highlight the book's importance.

If you take the time to read this book, I’m sure you will find it as enlightening and thought provoking as I did, especially in light of the issues in this space today.

Sundays with George

In the wake of recent reports that President Bush was told by God to invade Iraq, CPLA has obtained a transcript of a conversation that never happened between the President and God.

White House Operator: Mr. President, God is on line 2.

Bush: Thanks Harriet …hey God, how ya doin buddy?

God: Hello George, we need to talk. What’s all this that you told the Palestinians about our conversations?

Bush: Well God, I gotta tell ya, these Palestinian fellas just weren’t buyin’ our usual explanations, so I thought I would reassure 'em by lettin’ 'em know that you and I were talkin', and you were on our side on this thing.

God: Now George, did you really tell them I told you to invade Iraq? We both know that was Cheney’s idea and I don’t want you mixing the two of us up again.

Bush: Yeah God, I did tell ‘em you gave me the green light on that one. Those Palestinian boys seemed like God-fearing folk, and would appreciate an authorization from The Almighty. I didn’t mean any harm by it.

God: Well George, you’ve really got me in a pickle on that one. You know I haven’t authorized anything like that since the Old Testament. I’ve been working on my image for centuries and you go and foul it up in one stupid statement. I’m supposed to be the God of peace and love, and now you have me authorizing invasions and killing people. It's tough enough with the terrorists killing everyone in my name.

Bush: Well God, I am sorry about that, but I’m not too happy with you either. What’s with all these storms you been throwin’ my way? You’ve got me in an awful mess with those folks in the South. My poll numbers are way down and I had to get rid of Brownie.

God: Brownie was a fool, and quite frankly, just not pious enough for this administration. I figured this kind of storm would be just the thing to show how incompetent he was. It worked pretty well, don’t you think?

Bush: It sure did buddy, but now I got my work cut out down there. I could use a little help if you know what I mean. Speaking of help, Cheney wants to know when we can get that authorization on Iran?

End transcript.


If your neighbor told you that he or she spoke with God, you probably would think the person is not sane and needs some psychiatric counseling. Yet, if your President tells foreign diplomats that God talks to him, what should you think? Is that OK? Has he been granted an audience with the Almighty because he is the President of the United States? Does anyone really believe that God told him to invade Iraq?

I thought we invaded Iraq because of the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Oh, that’s right, it turned out there weren’t any WMD, so we’re really there to spread freedom and democracy to the Middle East. Is Bush dropping that explanation in favor of playing the God card? Perhaps he is. So now we have a group of terrorists saying that God tells them to kill the infidels, and we have Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq, and subsequently kill thousands. Isn’t it transparent that both sides are using religion to justify their violent actions and manipulate the hearts and minds of millions? The sad thing is that it works and always has.

Christopher Hitchens and the Anti-War Movement

In a recently televised debate with British MP, George Galloway, Christopher Hitchens stated that if the anti-war movement had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would be the ruler of Kuwait. This struck me as an unfair (but not entirely unexpected) statement regarding the segment of the population that is against the current involvement in Iraq.

The above statement assumes that everyone who is against this war in Iraq was also against the Gulf War in 1991. That assumption couldn’t be further from the truth, and the difference in attitude toward the 2 wars lies in the justification for each. The Gulf War was a response to a direct provocation by Iraq. It was a response that was broadly supported throughout the international community, including Arab states.

In contrast, there was no direct provocation for the most recent conflict, and in fact the original justification of imminent threat has been totally discredited. Based on that, it is reasonable to oppose the current conflict, yet have been a supporter of the Gulf War.

Mr. Hitchens considers the case for war in Iraq today to be unimpeachable. If that’s the case and we are to apply the same criteria for invasion to other countries in the region, then who’s next? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Does Mr. Hitchens’ contention take into account the fact that Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq on September 12, 2001?

This “new” criteria for starting military conflict is disturbing. Historically, America has been a reluctant participant in wars, choosing to deploy troops only when attacked or in response to the overt malignant actions of others. This was certainly true with WWI and WWII. But now the bar has been lowered to a point where the reasons for armed conflict are nebulous and could be as trivial as a whim. Although Saudi Arabia is probably the largest exporter of terror in the world and its government one of the main reasons for it, we’ll never see this administration handle that situation in the same way that Iraq has been handled. That demonstrates that today’s justification is one of convenience and not one that can be applied across the board.

Response to Jeff Jacoby's "The timeless truth of creation".

In today's Boston Globe, Op-Ed columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote a piece entitled "The timeless truth of creation". The column asserts that Intelligent Design is science and attempts to further the cause of promoting ignorance in American schools. What appears below is my response to Mr. Jacoby's column.


Dear Jeff,

After reading your column (“The timeless truth of creation”) on one of today’s hot topics, I felt compelled to write to you. It seems to me that the portion of “Intelligent Design” that is deemed offensive by its opponents is the leap from lack of understanding to coherent design by a higher power, and then calling that “science”.

Science constitutes the process of theorizing and proving based on empirical evidence. Is the evolution of man a thoroughly proved theory or concept? No it isn’t, but it does have a strong cache of evidence that leads many to believe that it’s the right path to explore.

What is not science is stating that since we don’t fully understand a concept, it must be due to a higher power. In other words, the lack of understanding equals evidence for Intelligent Design. I find that notion to be farcical and just plain un-scientific. Throughout our history, there have been many things that weren’t understood and were thus explained away as the responsibility of a higher power. Some examples are fire, the weather, the stars, the movement of the earth and sun, etc. With further understanding, we have learned that a higher power has nothing to do with these things. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth; God doesn’t send lightning down because he is angry. Just because we don’t fully understand the evolution of man today, that doesn’t mean we won’t understand it completely at some time in the future. Intelligent Design isn’t science because there isn’t any evidence for it. Evolution's perceived shortcomings don’t prove Intelligent Design.

A couple of other points that I wanted to raise: your statement that Intelligent Design isn’t a religiously based notion rings hollow to an atheist. The suggestion of a higher power is religious in nature and you can’t get around that. To say that it isn’t presupposes that everyone believes in some form of higher power, and that is not the case. Also, Intelligent Design is primarily backed by conservative Christian groups that have been trying to get Evolution out of schools for decades. They have masterfully crafted “Intelligent Design” as their new weapon to get their anti-evolution message into our schools. If it isn’t religious, then why are several religious leaders who are members of groups for the separation of church and state against Intelligent Design? I think it is because they see through the façade and recognize Intelligent Design for what it is – Creationism.