Anyone who has taken a Constitution class in high school knows that the First Amendment protects the right of all people to express almost any idea they want in the public square (with the exceptions of inciting riots, threats of violence, etc). Yet there is one group the various pundits insist need to be silenced for the sake of our nation and that is Christians.
Recently, Lou Dobbs lamented the influence religion has on politics. He said churches "are driving that political adventurism as those leaders conflate religion and politics." Apparently he suggests the government should do something about shutting up those damn Christians who keep expressing their points of view.
In a democratic republic such as this one, all people are supposed get an equal say in what they believe the state should be about. That includes atheists, agnostics, wiccans, Jews, Muslims and even those pesky Christians. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those groups expressing any of their views. A diverse and tolerant society requires nothing less.
The idea that the Bill of Rights, under the authority of the Separation of Church and state, is designed to restrict citizens from petitioning their government based on some perceived ideological characteristic is absurd. We'll skip past the fact that the First Amendment requires institutional separation, not state mandated atheism.
What Lou Dobbs, and others like him, are upset about is that they are on the losing side of issues. And what do they suggest to fix it? Convincing arguments? Helpful debates? No. They want to silence the opposition. This is un-American and the citing of "national values" to stifle free speech borders on absurd. If you can't handle a country where all people get their say, well, I do question your patriotism.
The bold assertion that the people in the pews are separated from the people behind the pulpit is novel and interesting, considering it is coming from someone who has little grasp on what people in the pews believe or want. Apparently Dobbs thinks that the people in the pews are at once automatons that follow whatever their pastor says but at the same time acutely aware that their pastors "are a class unto themself." Either they're stupid or they are not. With the amount of "church shopping" that goes on, it's pretty clear that if the people don't like the message, they go somewhere else.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Claude Gelinas
Good politics are usually "balanced".
By being mature enough to listen to everyone who has something meaningful to say about an issue, it's easier to decide, afterwards.
2 - BriMan
Well I wont offer any evidence for my opinion since the author chose not to use any for his but I dont see the tempest in a teapot here. I do not see Dobb's statement (a person I rarely agree with BTW) as a desire to silence Christians per se - he doesnt even mention Christians by name if the author's copy is accurate. Even if he had said that Christians are unduly influencing the political agenda in the USA, how could you argue with that? Look at the tax advantages "churches" get to amass vast wealth and then project that wealth upon money-hungry politicians with the expectation of something in return. The Pat Robertsons of the world do not have a religious agenda in my POV. His, in particular, is a political one because he always talks politics to his "flock". Maybe this is what Dobbs is on about.
The Separation clause exists to avoid theocracy. I believe that spiritual belief is no one's business and is a HIGHLY personal issue. Personal beliefs do not belong on the stump - period. It is highly possible to govern a country at all levels regardless of the moral basis of your personal ethic - philosophical or spiritual. Our politicians should be judged by their actions anyway - not the hot air they spew to get this or that group to vote for them.
What office did Jesus run for? Exactly.
3 - Arch Conservative
The Separation clause exists to avoid theocracy."
That's not all it exists for Sparky.
It also exists so that private citizens will not be forbidden from expressing their religion in public. Something the ACLU fails to understand.
4 - BriMan
So we need to expressly permit freedom of speech and a Separation of Church and State in order to publicly express our religious views?
Methinks thou art redundant and without context on the Separation doctrine...
5 - BriMan
....Sparky.
6 - BriMan
I almost let this go without comment but I hope you can name some examples where the ACLU sued to stop public expression of religious views that did not involve state-owned or state-run or state-funded activities or real property.
7 - Clavos
Hell, JB, what's wrong with you?
Silencing the opposition is a good tactic.
Look how well it's working for Hugo Chavez.
I say silence everyone who doesn't toe the line, then keep moving the line.
8 - Dr Dreadful
I was about to complement Mr Bambenek for having the restraint not to fling the ACLU into the mix, but then Arch had to weigh in with that oh-so-predictable misconception.
The ACLU is perfectly well aware of the constitutional prohibitions against both a state establishment of religion, and of the restriction of free religious expression. It has frequently taken up cases to do with both issues.
It's hardly surprising that it is usually to be found on the secular side, since most contemporary attempts to infringe or ignore the First Amendment come from fundamentalist Christians.
9 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Two points.
1) The sole evidence of the conspiracy against Christians in this article is an indirectly related comment made by Lou Dobbs.
A little victim playing perhaps...
2) Before the government does "something about shutting up those damn Christians who keep expressing their points of view" it first has to stop subsidizing it's view. Christians are using their tax-free status to subvert private businesses in areas unrelated to the free practice of religion. A recent series of articles in the NY Times covered such tax-exempt "religious" activities ranging from amusement parks, to private day care, to multimillion dollar retirement homes in "religious communities". None of these PRIVATE BUSINESSES have anything to do with the free practice of religion except perhaps having Christian in their names. Taxing these PRIVATE BUSINESSES cannot be construed as preventing the free exercise of religion. This MULTI-BILLION dollar subsidy of CHRISTIANITY in America must end. Once this happens (and when more than one man in all of Congress publicly admits his atheism) we can start talking about government oppression of religious views.
10 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Oh and one other philosophical correction. Your inclusion of agnosticism with other religions is redundant. Agnosticism an epistemological term indicating a lack of absolute knowledge about god's existence. An agnostic may be atheist, islamic, jewish or christian. In fact, some of the most famous religius philosophers in history were agnostic (Kierkegaard, etc.) as are many radical religious groups today (the faith ALONE types).
For practical purposes, most people that say they are agnostic are also atheist, whether they think they are or not.
Most people think atheism means you know god does not exist. This is a fallacy. In fact, atheism etymologically has nothing to do with the existence of god. It just means you don't practice a religion. There is actually no term for people who claim to know god does not exist (probably because so few people are that arrogant/stupid) but the term that has been invented to describe such people is "strong atheism."
11 - Clavos
@#s 9,10:
Good points, all, PETI.
Just one small addendum:
ALL religions receive the tax exemptions, not just the christian ones; and most have moneymaking enterprises, particularly nursing/retirement homes and other social services.
12 - Lee Richards
As usual, your writing is completely over-the-top, with as much factual basis as your belief system.
It's the religious fundamentalists who most often try political manipulation and machinations to achieve a favored political result, such as prayer in school, display of commandments, etc. (And it's Christians who have decided that everyone outside their point of view is going to burn in hell;now THAT'S un-American!)
And as "pleaseexcuse..." has accurately pointed out, these great Christian exemplars use tax-exempt money and property to lobby(and line their pockets)with.
I challenge you to really name one "pundit" who has "insisted Christians need to be silenced for the sake of our nation", as you claim in your lead paragraph.
You, and others who really believe an American Christian theocracy would be superior to a secular government but don't have the fortitude to out and out say so, are trying to re-write the New Testament and the Constitution, so that Caesar HAS to render under God.
13 - Dr Dreadful
I challenge you to really name one "pundit" who has "insisted Christians need to be silenced for the sake of our nation"
Well, he did mention Lou Dobbs, but he's putting words in his mouth. He's taking what Dobbs did say - that he's concerned about inappropriate ecclesiastical influence on the running of the government - and twisting it so that his remarks look like the vanguard of a conspiracy to silence Christians.
Read the piece that this article links to, then go back and read Mr B's own second paragraph. It's clear as crystal that Dobbs is in no way suggesting that Christians should be silenced.
14 - zingzing
archie: "It also exists so that private citizens will not be forbidden from expressing their religion in public. Something the ACLU fails to understand."
how many times are we going to have to point out all of the times that the aclu has protected freedom of religious expression before you give it up? how many times? you've been pointed towards the link, we've even listed off several examples but you still think the aclu is against religion... are you really that thick?
as for the rest of this drivel... if the "opposition" is "silenced," how come the religious right and christians in general are one of the most powerful political forces in america? all you're saying is that we can't disagree with your politics if our disagreement stems from your religion, which means you are silencing us, not the other way around.
15 - alessandro Nicolo
Amen.
While I'm not particularly religious (don't tell my grandmother) I don't generally look at religion with extreme cynicism. It's an imperfect institution created by man. I think that the suspicion - if not outright hostility - people have is with fundamentalism.
However, we should be careful here. There are many responsible and thoughtful Christian phliosophers that can offer interesting insights into contemporary issues. One need only to read 'First Things' to see how impressive - and relevant - it can be. So when one posits the position presented here I think of this and not necessarily only the skewed side of Christian thought.
There is room for all thoughts and ideas.
16 - Leslie Bohn
It is crystal clear that Mr. Arch has no idea what the ACLU is or does and is unwilling to learn. He has now made this assertion about a half-dozen times on various topics. Someone points out that the opposite is true, and then he stops posting.
So here we go again: Go to aclu.org and read about the cases they have been involved in, please, Mr. Conservative. You will see that they fight for the side YOU ARE ON in EVERY SINGLE case regarding religious free speech issues.
17 - Arch Conservative
Zing are you really that thick?
How many fucking times does it have to be explained to you that the few cherry picked cases you cite where the ACLU actually sided with a Christian are just window dressing aimed at creating the appearance of fairness and objectivty that hides a true agenda that would make Castro himself say "lighten up and have a cigar man."
I don't need some dumbass like you telling me they sky is green when I can clearly see it is blue zing.
18 - zingzing
depending on where you are at, the sky might be green. just depends.
as for the aclu and christianity, if the aclu is just trying to project fairness and objectivity, who are they trying to project it to? you? christians? y'all still don't get it, so why would they bother... unless they really are trying to be fair and objective... or unless they really just trying to protect the freedom of expression, christian or not?
19 - Dr Dreadful
I don't need some dumbass like you telling me they sky is green when I can clearly see it is blue zing.
Arch, you're back! Good evening to yez.
Actually, the sky can be green and indeed a number of other colors, given certain atmospheric and/or electromagnetic and/or observing conditions.
But seriously: I refer you to my comment #8. The fact that most cases the ACLU undertakes are against Christian incursions on the secular state is not an indication that they are frothing liberal hyenas: just as the fact that most of those killed by the US military in Iraq are brown-skinned Muslims does not indicate that the US armed forces are a bunch of homicidal religious extremists.
20 - Clavos
...just as the fact that most of those killed by the US military in Iraq are brown-skinned Muslims does not indicate that the US armed forces are a bunch of homicidal religious extremists.
Are you sure?
21 - Dr Dreadful
Clavos, re Dr D: "...just as the fact that most of those killed by the US military in Iraq are brown-skinned Muslims does not indicate that the US armed forces are a bunch of homicidal religious extremists.
Are you sure?"
Pretty sure. I'll get back to you right after I've found out what this big green Humvee is doing in my driveway... And is it me, or is that lieutenant wearing a white hood?...
22 - Zedd
John
I don't know if you are a Christian. I am. I can happily say that no one is silencing me or has ever attempted to.
Reading your regular contribution of articles, it seems as though no one is silencing you either.
What Christianity is, is a personal relationship based on the grace that was granted by Jesus Christ by dying on the cross for me. A forgiveness for ME by Him for MY transgressions. It is a love for ME by Him.
What that has to do with any political situation in the United States of America in 2007 is weird. In the most repressive place on the planet, still no one could stop me from accepting the message of Christ. It is internal and very personal. Its emotional and psychological (spiritual).
If you are saying that people don't want to let people who are Christians tell them what to do with their lives simply BECAUSE they are Christians, i would have to say, I don't either. You have no authority biblically or otherwise. Thinking you do is just weird and thinking so demonstrate a spiritual immaturity.
The truth is that Christians have lost their way and have lost their focus. Wagging fingers at society is not what we are commissioned to do.
Simply using the title Christian does not make your engagement a Christian one. The group that you are writing about is are not a Christian group John, they are a political organization. They are control freaks who happen to be Christian individuals and will do whatever it takes to get their way including using their personal faith to force their way on people.
None of that is Christ like.
Politicians used Christians on the right and convinced them that they were part of a great movement to win America for God. It was a ploy John; one that was thought out and planned during Regan's time. The paranoia was planted by spin doctors, just like all of the other fears that the Republican fearful have. They are just planted just to get your vote.
There is not attack on Christians. There is simply fatigue of people who use their faith to try and control others.
23 - Clavos
Dr. D,
And is it me, or is that lieutenant wearing a white hood?...
I dunno, do you wear one often?
24 - alessandro Nicolo
Zedd, hypocrisy is present in all forms of religious faith. And you're right, the extreme form of it is really political - and profiteering. But and however....
I think what the good man is alluding to is that Christian thought in general (as practiced and professed by moderates) and not only the fundamentalists' point of view.
The question is simple (and we had a similar debate on a talk radio show here in Canada): Does religion have a place in public secular discourse regarding the issues of today?
The answer should be yes. Not all Christians (Jews, Muslims etc.) have lost their way and many have some very intelligent and important things to say. If listening to a couple of crackpots is a small price to pay to get to hear the good people then I am willing to pay for it. Remember, if we silence the political religious fanatics then we also silence the ones who truly mean well.
In fact, some evangelicals (who are not to be confused with fundamentalists) have very sound notions of foreign policy that aligns itself with what we term liberalism.
25 - Zedd
Alessandro
I don't know "WHO" religion is. People have a place in secular discourse about current events.
You see the problem is with theology for Christians. For us, Christianity is personal. A shaping of your own life. A constant deep search of your intent and a pursuit of your purpose.
I cant envision how that would spill over into public discourse about current events.
I understand thinking that because of my spiritual journey I have come to certain conclusions about the world and those conclusions influence my political views as do things like my up bringing. I as an individual think that things should be done this way.... and I will vote accordingly.
But saying that what informs my spiritual journey (religion) should be taken into consideration when YOU make decisions about your life, is crazy at best.
Theologically, there are not favored sin to be dammed more. There is also no good people, we are all flawed.
Having a political group that bases its platform on christian principles is odd. That means no jealousy, envy, over eating, etc. Their platform were it biblical (Christian), would be insane. Fornication is just as bad as over eating. Falwell was fat as can be. He was guilty of a sin. Should he have been vocal about legislating against specific sins and ignoring the ones that he was weak in?
Infusing religion into political discourse is problematic at best and can only confuse matters.
The only way that i can see it useful is when you are quoting the bible as a you would Plato. However holding up your theology as a measure for society, expecting a response by society to it, is dangerous.