From the Halls of Philadelphia to the Shores of Tripoli

Any wishful thinking that the Tea Party might push the religious right off the Republican stage for the moment was ill-founded and we should have known better. As soon as Republicans picked up seats in Congress but naturally couldn't fix the economy or unemployment, they immediately returned to pushing irrelevant wedge issues designed to rile up their base. Frankly, this was as predictable as the night following the day. As more nonsense is sure to come, let me address the periodically recurring and patently false claim that we have always been a specifically Christian nation, but secular socialists are trying to undo this long tradition.

Our government, unlike all that preceded it, was built on the enlightened principles of reason and popular sovereignty. Our founders believed that the just power to govern was derived from the consent of the governed, while other societies held the more primitive and superstitious belief that governing authority reflected divine providence. The U.S. Constitution's Preamble, which sets the tone for the rest of that document, begins, "We the people", and by that authority alone we "ordain and establish" the world's first such constitution. That entire document lacks a single reference to God, let alone Jesus Christ, and the only references to religion are to disentangle it from the legitimate authority of our government. Article VI prohibits any religious test for holding public office, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise thereof. This was wisely done to protect the institutions of both church and state from one another.

As I turn on the news and see unrest in Libya followed by reporting on an anti-Islamic witch hunt in Congress, I'm reminded of The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and Tripoli, which was drafted in late 1796 during the Washington administration and ratified in 1797 in the early days of the Adams administration. On May 26, 1797, the treaty was read aloud to the Senate and was unanimously approved. This was only the third instance of such unanimity among the hundreds of times that a recorded vote was required in the Senate. Article 11 of that treaty reads as follows:

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 of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Can you imagine Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) voting to approve a treaty proclaiming that we're "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"? Can you picture Glenn Beck's hysterical reaction if such language were drafted today? Both men would be outraged that we would betray our founders in that way, which should provoke laughter from anyone who knows that these words are in fact our founders'. We can listen to what Glenn Beck says the Founding Fathers say or we can listen to what the Founding Fathers say the Founding Fathers say. The choice is ours; we can either open our minds or we can wallow in a pit of fear and ignorance.

None if this is to deny that many of our founders espoused some form of Christianity, however, that's really neither here nor there. The ideas and principles that set the United States apart from the rest of the world came from Christians, Deists and Unitarians who were students of The Enlightenment. These men valued reason over church dogma and were often fiercely critical of organized religion. Christianity was popular in the Colonies but we need to be careful with our assumptions. We shouldn't claim a Christian foundation for a society that was built on universal truths and natural rights rather than anything mystical any more than we should conclude that the faith of "turn the other cheek" provides the theological underpinning for the musical genre of "I'ma bust a cap in yo' ass" just because some rapper wears a gold cross and thanks Jesus when he wins an award. While our society was and is imperfect, it became the envy of the world and the model for others to copy. It would be an unconscionable rejection of our national birthright to take a giant leap backward towards a medieval theocracy.

Bishop Tobin's Fatwa Against Patrick Kennedy

Yesterday marked the 46th anniversary of the tragic assassination of John F. Kennedy, the first and so far only Roman Catholic president of the United States. Today President Kennedy's nephew, Congressman Patrick Kennedy (son of the late Senator Edward Kennedy) is embroiled in an ugly battle with the Bishop of Providence who has pronounced Rep. Kennedy ineligible to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion because of his politics. There are a number of ironic elements to this story that I'll discuss in no particular order. First, this is happening as we remember President Kennedy and how he made the American public abandon the fear that a Catholic president would be loyal to the Catholic hierarchy instead of the Constitution. Secondly, the controversy involves JFK's blood relative, and finally, this is happening in Rhode Island, which was founded by Roger Williams as a haven for religious tolerance. Roger Williams is, if you will, the patron saint of church state separation. He was a preacher who only settled what is now Rhode Island because he was forced to flee Massachusetts for daring to differ with the Puritans. He was among the first to call for a wall of separation between church and state.

I was raised and educated in the Catholic faith and I am well versed in its teachings and terminology. I know, for instance, that the Immaculate Conception does not refer to a virgin bearing a child, but rather to Mary being born without original sin. The former is a widely held erroneous belief that I call the immaculate misconception. I also know that Transubstantiation is the process through which bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. I would like to make my own contribution to the Catholic lexicon by coining "Translineation", which means to cross the line. This is the process by which bishops transform the already consecrated Body and Blood of our Lord into a weapon with which to bully Catholic politicians who choose not to impose their personal beliefs on a pluralistic society.

While I no longer practice Catholicism, I'm saddened to see this happening. I once heard the writer Anna Quindlen say that being Catholic is the reason she's liberal. Some may find that surprising or even contradictory, but I instantly knew exactly what she meant. My childhood coincided with things like urban rioting, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. I marched for peace and justice from the time I was in kindergarten at Our Lady of Mercy, and I participated in urban renewal from the time I was old enough to wield a paintbrush. In every instance, my participation began on a bus leaving the church parking lot, full of clergy and laity alike singing "We Shall Overcome" and believing that being Catholic meant to be like Jesus and make the world a better place through love and service to one another. The Church had its problems as any large institution will, but it emphasized the charity and compassion of Jesus rather than the sanctimonious self-righteousness of the Pharisees whose holier that thou ways Jesus despised. I wonder what Jesus would think of the Church now.

One Nation Indivisible

A recent Facebook poll asked if the words "under God" should be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance. While I really wish they were never put there in the first place, since we've had the Pledge in its current form for more than 50 years, it's probably too late to excise those words now. The firestorm and widespread lunacy that would follow this comparatively trivial action would make the cost of doing so prohibitive. If you think the right wing is in high dudgeon now, you ain't seen nothing yet!

The original Pledge, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist and Baptist pastor read as follows: "I Pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all." In the 1920s, over Bellamy's objections, the Pledge was changed to include the words United States of America. Finally, after a six-year campaign coinciding with the Korean War and the constant fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the phrase "under God" was inserted in 1954. Lobbyists argued convincingly that patriotic speeches made by godless communists sounded too much like our Pledge as it then stood.

First of all, I'm still not sure exactly what "under God" means. Yes, I get that it's a vague reference somehow tying our country to God, unlike them godless commies, but what does the phrase really mean? Under God's command and control? God's law? God's watchful eye? Does it mean under God physically, because as we all know God sits on a throne, which in turn sits on a cloud? Since we never aspired to be a theocracy and I doubt we want a monument to the stunning lack of imagination that compels us to believe God has furniture, I'm not sure what legitimate purpose is served by adding the phrase.

More importantly, this alteration of the Pledge troubles me for a few reasons. First, the colossal irony of quite literally splitting up "one Nation indivisible" in order to inject something as divisive as religion would be hilarious if it weren't disturbing. We had already seen Supreme Court cases in which forcing children to recite the Pledge and/or salute the flag ran afoul of some devout American Christians' religious beliefs. That alone, if common sense and casual observation weren't enough, should have taught us that pushing one religious tradition on a pluralistic society is antithetical to the cause of indivisibility. Secondly, I don't like this change to the Pledge against the backdrop of the Cold War. The looming specter of war being married to the belief that God is on my side against the infidel chills me to the bone. I don't like the "Jesus loves me but He can't stand you" crowd viewing their weapons of mass destruction as the right arm of the Lord for the same reason that I don't like suicide bombers.