On the separation of Church and State (in the U.S.)

Katherine Harris is running for Senate in Florida, and was interviewed by the Florida Baptist Witness. Who's Katherine Harris? She was President Bush's campaign manager for Florida, while at the same time was the Secretary of State for Florida. The Secretary of State oversees elections, and of course isn't it an interesting conflict of interest that the person overseeing the election is also the campaign manager for one of the major election contestants? And isn't it interesting that not only did this pattern happen in Florida in 2000, it also happened in Ohio in 2004.

But, I digress.

The important part of this interview is:

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. So it’s really important that members of the church know people’s stands. It’s really important that they get involved in campaigns. I said I’m going to run a campaign of integrity. I’m not going to run it like all of the campaigns that I’ve seen before…. And you know, it’s hard to find people that are gonna behave that way in a campaign and be honorable that way in a campaign. But that’s why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It’s time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And that’s why I’ve gone to churches and I’ve spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because it’s so important that they know. And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?

So, um, it's clear from the article and her background that she is one of these Conservative Republicans who loudly proclaim their Christianity so that everybody knows that's their faith.

The question I have for her is, since when did anybody say that people who practice a Religion were disallowed from participating in politics?

That has never happened. Never was it disallowed for the Religious to also practice Politics. Never. So why does she claim this happened? Oh, wait, her association with G.W. Bush probably makes it easier for her to be a liar.

The principle of the Separation of Church and State is not that Religion is disallowed from Politics. It's that the State cannot establish a State Religion, and that the State cannot favor one religion over another.

Maybe in Florida "everybody" goes to church on sunday, and "everybody" is Christian ... actually, I highly doubt this ... but that pattern isn't true everywhere in the U.S. In California the white folk are a minority, and there are many non-Christian religions that are widely practiced in California. And, I'm not talking about New Age weirdos here (of which I am one) but Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, etc. All those are ancient religions with long histories to them, sometimes longer history than Christianity.

Given that, why should there be favor of one religion over another? Why should the State give a rats ass about which religion someone practices or which religion is better than the other? Obviously it's a matter of personal preference which religion is better, or which religion suits one person better than it does another. And just as obviously the State should butt out of such distinctions.

But, to read Katherine Harris and her ilk, they want to establish Christianity as the dominant religion and have the State embody Christianity as the dominant religion.

Um, this is the United States. A country founded on a group who was escaping religious persecution. Why would our founding fathers have wanted the United States to engage in religious persecution? That's what it would be if the State were to begin giving preference for one religion over another, it would be a form of religious persecution.

The United States I grew up with does not practice religious persecution, but instead gives space for all religions to be worshipped on an equal footing.

Will Jews be blamed for stealing Christmas?

A couple days ago I posted a piece on the "battle" for Christmas. What's happening is the politically active Conservative Christian crew has decided to gang up on the supposed sidelining of Christmas celebrations. Which I find odd, because it's hardly sidelined at all.

Will Jews be blamed for stealing Christmas? (By MATTHEW E. BERGER, Jerusalem Post, December 18, 2005): This article is proof of one of the theories I put forward. The writer is wondering whether the Jews will be blamed for this supposed marginalization of Christmas. In the U.S. we have a lot of religions, not just Christianity. In the constitution we gaurantee freedom of religion. So, he asks, will the fundammentalists blame the Jews?

The battle for christmas

It's Christmas season. In todays newspaper is an article detailing efforts by so-called "conservatives" to have the official celebrations actually say what's being celebrated. In the past (oh, 50 yrs ago) in the U.S. the Christmas celebrations were clearly said to be about Christmas. The city/county/state would decorate a Christmas tree, the schools would be out for Christmas vacation, there would be Nativity dioramas on the courthouse lawn, etc.

But in the intervening years there's been a slide towards calling it "winter break" rather than Christmas vacation, and rather than decorating a christmas tree it would be a holiday tree, etc. Now, there's a clear legal reason for this. The U.S. Constitution clearly says there will be a separation between Church and State, and it's a reasonable legal interpretation to say that the State cannot be preferential to one religion over another.

And over the last few years the so-called "conservatives" have been working at all sorts of levels to promote Christianity (usually in a fundamental form) and Christian viewpoints all through the U.S. The recent push to get "Intelligent Design" accepted as teaching curriculum is obviously a subterfuge to get more influence of Christianity in America.

But, let's think about Christmas for a moment. One thing that strikes me is how, in truth, this is a very un-Christian celebration. It's fairly well known that many of the things about the Christmas celebration were elements of a "Pagan" holiday which the early Catholic Church wanted to replace with a Christian celebration. Hence they moved the date of Christs birth to fall upon the Saturnalia celebration, overlaying Christian themes on top of the pagan elements.

What about Christs birth has anything to do with a tree? Nothing. The tree is taken from the "pagan" holiday. As is the Mistletoe.

What about "Santa Claus"? The origins of that chubby guy are murky, but one thing I know is he has nothing to do with Christ. And Reindeer? And Elves? And Frosty the Snowman? What do any of these things have to do with Christ?

And what about the gross commercialism? Spending yourself silly buying gifts? Is that anything to do with Christ?

The article refers to The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought and I think "what 'sacred' holiday is he talking about???".

What is sacred about shop til you drop? Or what is sacred about stuffing yourself on a huge meal? Or what is sacred about murdering an innocent pine tree so you can watch it starve to death while it's hung with baubles and doodads?

I would be very happy if these people were to support celebration of a sacred holiday. You know, honor Jesus the Teacher who came to us. Honor his teachings. Consider again the teachings of love and forgiveness, or accepting and loving your neighbor as if they are yourself, and so on. But that's not what they're doing.

Instead what they're doing is telling people a big lie. That the people in America should feel persecuted, that their religion is being taken away from them. Huh? It is? Since when?

Clearly the founding fathers felt there was a grave danger if the Church and State were joined in one entity. In modern times we have examples of several fundamental Islamic countries to warn us away from joining a fundamentalist style of Church with the government. To the founding fathers their example was the fundamentalism rampant in England shortly before America gained its independence. The fundamentalists in England had a tight rein over the government, and ruled with a bloody iron fist killing anybody who got in their way.

Christianity is just one form of spiritual worship. This country clearly is a melting pot of every culture that's walked the face of this planet. Maybe it's that I live in California and it's a bit more obvious here. How can the Christians rightfully claim their religion should take pre-eminence in America over the other religions that are practiced here?? I'm not saying the Christians should be shoved aside or persecuted. But what's at stake here is the freedom of all Americans, not just the slice of Americana that celebrates Christianity.