"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
Separation of church and state
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News
July 27, 2004
More and more often, we're reading and hearing arguments that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, or that it's just “a common misinterpretation” of the Constitution. On talk radio, in letters to the editor
The founding fathers' intent to separate church and state is staggeringly obvious from any intelligent reading of the First Amendment — "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Stop and think about why that's a good idea.
and emails in our own in-box, it's no longer unusual or even startling to be told that religion and government should be mingled.
Such arguments aren't just ignorant. As they gain popular acceptance, they're terrifying.
The exact phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. Neither is "the freedom to say what you want." But the concept is there, and it's what makes America America. It's a huge reason why America has survived and thrived.
The founding fathers' intent to separate church and state is staggeringly obvious from any intelligent reading of the First Amendment — "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Stop and think about why that's a good idea.
Religion can do good things in a person's heart, but there's no denying that all through history, religion has motivated acts of violence. When people get fanatical about their religion, you get the Inquisition or 9/11/2001 or a holocaust in Germany. When people force their religious beliefs on others, two things tend to happen: People die, and more people die.
Governments, so we’re told, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. But it’s awfully easy and frightfully common to see citizens whipped into an angry frenzy, riled up and ready for war, or ready to encourage and embrace astounding atrocities inflicted on fellow citizens. When governments have unchecked power, two things tend to happen: People die, and more people die.
The idea is, it shouldn't be the sheriff’s job to decide whether you’ll be arrested for eating pork or drinking coffee or premarital sex. Such matters are between you and your god.
You can argue, quite correctly, that both religion and government have accomplished a great deal of good in the world. But nobody can sanely argue that religion and government haven’t each killed many, many millions. These are two enormous, enduring motivations, church and state — religious fervor and patriotism — which have always, routinely been abused by tyrannical leaders. It makes sense to keep them separate.
The idea is, it shouldn't be the sheriff’s job to decide whether you’ll be arrested for eating pork or drinking coffee or premarital sex. Such matters are between you and your god.
And you know what? That’s always been enough, for any god. No omnipotent being has ever appeared before Congress, Parliament, or any other governing body, demanding that human legislators act as holy stenographers, rewriting selected scripture as the law of the land.
By definition, a god wouldn’t need man-made laws, troops, and guns to get his-her-its way. A god is supposed to be omnipotent — all-powerful. It’s a song we sang in Sunday School: “God can do anything, anything, anything, God can do anything but fail.”
Only a puny poser phony god would need an act of Congress to accomplish something. A real god wouldn’t need the force of law, and wouldn't need a particular candidate to win a particular office and push a particular bill. No "god" needs a
By definition, a god wouldn’t need man-made laws, troops, and guns to get his-her-its way. A god is supposed to be omnipotent — all-powerful. It’s a song we sang in Sunday School: “God can do anything, anything, anything, God can do anything but fail.”
Only a puny poser phony god would need an act of Congress to accomplish something. A real god wouldn’t need the force of law, and wouldn't need a particular candidate to win a particular office and push a particular bill. No "god" needs a nutball judge to install a two-ton Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse. If a god wanted such things, or wanted anything else, a god would simply do it.
The only god who makes political endorsements, is the god of human ego and human egomaniacs. Any candidate for government office who wants voters to believe he or she has God’s endorsement is a charlatan, a liar, or a lunatic.
The only god who needs politicians’ help is a god made in a charlatan's image, leading the ignorant and the stupid toward the next round of theocracy.
nutball judge to install a two-ton Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse. If a god wanted such things, or wanted anything else, a god would simply do it.
The only god who makes political endorsements, is the god of human ego and human egomaniacs. Any candidate for government office who wants voters to believe he or she has God’s endorsement is a charlatan, a liar, or a lunatic.
The only god who needs politicians’ help is a god made in a charlatan's image, leading the ignorant and the stupid toward the next round of theocracy. People who follow such false gods will sooner or later find themselves part of the shameful, murderous history that reoccurs every time religion commingles with government.
* * *
Americans may vaguely remember history lessons about the Pilgrims — English subjects who fled to America in 1620, to escape the one official church of England, called, ominously, the Church of England.
They wanted freedom to worship as they wished, not as other people ordered them to worship. They wanted their freedom of religion.
And you want your freedom of religion, too. And you should have it.
Well, your next-door neighbor wants his freedom of religion, too. And he should have it, and your neighbor across the street should have it, and everyone you know and everyone you'll never meet should have freedom of religion ... but none of us can have it when any one religion becomes the law.
Yet America’s redneck religious right argues for “Christian law,” as enthusiastically as misguided Muslims demand “Islamic law.”
As a trivial example, many American municipalities ban Sunday sales of beer, because Sunday is “The Lord’s Day.” Of course, America has millions of Jews and Buddhists and atheists and other people for whom Sunday is not any lord’s day, but most Americans call themselves Christians, and they just love having their faith written into law.
Less trivially and more emphatically, some of America's Christian fanatics argue against equal rights for women, because obscure scripture tells them women are less than equal.
When a nation is governed by religious law, it’s called theocracy, and it’s an incredibly ugly form of government. People get their hands chopped off for petty theft, their tongues or their heads chopped off for blasphemy. Women are stoned to death for infidelity — all because it is written in the Koran, or the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever religious faith is augmented by the power to imprison people, by the weapons of war, and by other authorities we commonly call 'government'.
They argue against equal rights for homosexuals, because a favored Old Testament verse says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."
Other obscure Biblical passages ban eating pork or shellfish, or command death for disobedient children, but few Christians argue for those scriptures to be enacted as law.
Freedom of religion means, you get to choose which of these silly edicts to believe and follow, or disbelieve and ignore. And freedom of religion is exactly what these Christian fanatics oppose.
Using the power of government to force their beliefs on others is the old “Church of England” position. It gives just one religion the power of law, and punishes non-believers for non-believing.
If that’s your argument — if your religious faith decides your political views — please have the decency to honestly acknowledge that you’re opposed to freedom of religion. You’re siding with the Church of England, and against the Pilgrims.
The only escape from your religious dogma is the way the Pilgrims escaped: by fleeing tyranny.
We try to politely argue the other point of view. We’re for the freedom of religion fanatics always oppose.
We don't believe anyone should have the right to punish other people simply for having different religious beliefs. Not even you, and not even your religious leaders should have such power.
Two of the most obvious and often-taught lessons of human history are:
1.) People sometimes take their belief in a god (any god) to fanatical levels — and when those people are in charge, other people are in grave danger.
2.) People often take their love of country (any country) to fanatical levels, and when those people are in charge, other people are in grave danger.
When a nation is governed by religious law, it’s called theocracy, and it’s an incredibly ugly form of government. People get their hands chopped off for petty theft, their tongues or their heads chopped off for blasphemy. Women are stoned to death for infidelity — all because it is written in the Koran, or the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever religious faith is augmented by the power to imprison people, by the weapons of war, and by other authorities we commonly call 'government'.
* * *
For ordering the deaths of half a dozen people, Charles Manson is considered a mass murderer. George W. Bush’s orders have killed more than 50,000, and Bush, of course, is a minor leaguer when it comes to killing. How many men, women, and children were sent to their deaths by Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler? Historians can’t even agree on an approximation, rounded to the nearest few million. Wars and massacres ordered by governments aren't at all unusual. Several are happening right now.
And how many examples of religious intolerance do you need? Salem witch trials. The Sudanese civil war (it’s largely Muslims vs. Christians). Sri Lanka (Hindus killing Buddhists). The Crusades (Christians killing infidels). Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In today’s Middle East, Arabs kill Jews, and Jews kill Arabs. All through the centuries of recorded time, Christians have killed the heathens, or owned them. And so on through every age of the past, into the here and now, and most assuredly into the future.
That’s why America has separation of religion and government (church and state). Fireworks are explosive, and so is gasoline, and that’s why you rarely see 4th of July firecracker shops operating out of Exxon stations. It’s a really bad idea to commingle large stockpiles of fireworks and gasoline, and it’s no less stupid to mix religion and government.
Two of the most obvious and often-taught lessons of human history are:
1.) People sometimes take their belief in a god (any god) to fanatical levels — and when those people are in charge, other people are in grave danger.
2.) People often take their love of country (any country) to fanatical levels, and when those people are in charge, other people are in grave danger.
For god’s sake — for the sake of any true god — anyone even semi-cognizant of human history should support the separation, not the commingling, of these two enormous powers — church and state.
Like the URL says, this website is about unknown news.
Our news comes only from mainstream, professional journalists or (rarely) other sources we trust entirely, with no nuttiness and no interest in the same news you see everywhere else.
What we believe
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions?
We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think.
A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
We assume our readers are well-informed before they click here, so we focus on news that's generally unknown or under-reported. We're generally disinterested in such non-news as reports on what politicians might do, may do, or should do, and we don't usually mention the murders, kidnappings, house fires, auto wrecks, celebrity crap, wacky fluff, and other nonsense that's pushed real news right out of the newscasts.
Disclaimer for dummies: Our front page is free from nudity, but we make no promise on profanity. If your surfing is monitored this site might not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
We always welcome comments from readers, and we're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives, so please don't be shy. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly, so consider yourself invited to speak your mind. Our email address and other info is on our contact page.
Please don't email us unless you're sending an original communication that you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. If you add us to your mailing list or chat group without asking us first, or if you send "Dear friend" newsletters, or "link exchange" form letters, or if you send a press release every time you add a post to your blog, you're a spammer and we'll soon block your emails. Also, as a matter of security, we don't open emails from strangers which include attachments or have any kind of programming imbedded, and we recommend a similar policy for others. If you're sending us an email, please send it in plain text only.
Our RSS feed of Unknown News headlines is updated whenever we update the site. Click the orange button for more information, or just get the feed at http://unknownnews.org/ RSSfeeds/dailyRSS.xml.
(Enormous and eternal thanksto Doug at mistersquirrel.net, for setting up our RSS feed.)
Our privacy policy has a page of its own, but the short and sweet version is: We're in favor of privacy. We make no effort to track or identify anything about visitors to our website. We never share, trade, or sell email addresses. We never send spam. We never send email, except in response to readers' queries. We never send (or open) attachments of any kind, and we delete un-opened any emails received with attachments.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. When we publish incoming emails, we edit out the sender's last name and email address — if we slip up (or if you want your full name and email address published) please let us know. Of course, if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish it with all the details and leave it on-line forever.
