[Mb-civic] Reply to Michael Weissman

[Michael Butler]

Jack,
Response is for sure OK. The question is, as you ask, when? I guess I would
respond to each part.
I guess you need to respond to him va Truthout unless you can Google a
direct email address.
Please be sure to send also to Civic.
Michael

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:44:57 +0100
From: "Jack Sullivan" <jack at visit.ie>
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] America's Religious Right - Saints or
    Subversives?    BySteve Weissman
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Message-ID: <046d01c53ba2$1341d770$0201a8c0 at jack>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Michael:

Is it ok for me to respond to Michael Weissman, or is it best to wait until
the five parts are published in Civic?

Jack




----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
To: "Civic" <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:12 AM
Subject: [Mb-civic] America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives?
BySteve Weissman


>     This is part 1 of a 5-part series.
>
>     America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives?
>     By Steve Weissman
>     t r u t h o u t | Investigation
>
>     Part I: The Lure of Christian Nationalism
>
>
>
>
>
>     Wednesday 06 April 2005
>
>     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
>     -- First Amendment to the United States Constitution
>
>     The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
>     -- George Washington
>
>     When Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin boasted that his God was
bigger
> than Islam's, many people demanded his scalp. But, as angry as his critics
> were, they dismissed what he said as little more than military machismo,
> political insensitivity, and bone-headed public relations. How could we
> possibly win Muslim hearts and minds when this highly decorated Crusader
so
> callously belittled Allah?
>
>     Few critics asked the tougher question: What did Gen. Boykin's remarks
> mean for the U.S. Constitution, which he had sworn to support and defend,
> and which - in the very first words of the First Amendment - forbids any
> "establishment of religion?"
>
>     Dressed in full military uniform with his spit-polished paratroop
boots,
> Boykin spoke to at least 23 evangelical groups around the country,
> proclaiming that America was "a Christian nation."
>
>     "We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been
> raised for such a time as this," he declared. "[Our] spiritual enemy will
> only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."
>
>     Defending Boykin, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld carefully cast
> the issue as one of free speech and religious freedom, both of which the
> First Amendment guarantees.
>
>     "There are a lot of things that are said by people that are their
> views," said Rumsfeld, "and that's the way we live. We are free people and
> that's the wonderful thing about our country, and I think for anyone to
run
> around and think that can be managed or controlled is probably wrong."
>
>     But, in expressing his beliefs, Gen. Boykin spoke as a high-ranking
> official. A former commander and 13-year veteran of the top-secret Delta
> Force, he had recently become deputy undersecretary of defense for
> intelligence, the Pentagon's top uniformed spook. In that post, he helped
> expand American torture at Abu Ghraib and currently oversees the
Pentagon's
> worldwide covert operations, including the widely reported "death squads."
>
>     Nor was Gen. Boykin simply passing comment on the religious and
cultural
> heritage of his fellows Americans. Instead, the evangelical general
directly
> challenged the plain language of the Constitution and over 200 years of
> Supreme Court decisions maintaining what Thomas Jefferson called "the
> separation of church and state."
>
>     A Christian Nation
>
>     With all their many sects and denominations, American evangelicals
> differ on all sorts of questions, from when Jesus Christ will return to
the
> proper way to run a church. But most Southern Baptists and Pentecostals
> share the belief, more political than religious, that America once was and
> should again become a Christian nation.
>
>     This is Christian nationalism, and no one has done more to popularize
it
> than an energetic young man named David Barton. A self-taught historian,
he
> has dredged up hundreds of fascinating historical quotes and anecdotes in
an
> effort to prove that the founding fathers were primarily "orthodox,
> evangelical Christians" who intended to create a God-fearing Christian
> government.
>
>     Barton's books, videos, and Wallbuilders website are wildly popular on
> the religious right, and his views have become gospel for Pat Robertson's
> Christian Coalition, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell's
> Liberty University, D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, Phyllis
> Schafly's Eagle Forum, and hundreds of Christian radio and TV stations.
>
>     In 2002, Barton appeared on Pat Robertson's 700 Club armed with a
stack
> of books and historical artifacts.
>
>     "This is the book that the founders said they used in writing the
> Declaration ... John Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government, from
1765,"
> he showed Robertson. "This quotes the Bible 1,700 times to show the proper
> operation of civil government. No wonder we have had a successful
government
> - 226 years we celebrate this year. There are 1700 Bible verses at the
base
> of what they did in writing the Declaration."
>
>     "So," said Barton, "this nonsense that these guys wanted a secular
> nation, that they didn't want any God in government, it doesn't hold up."
>
>     Robertson asked about a Revolutionary War motto.
>
>     "The motto ... was 'No king but King Jesus,'" said Barton. "It was
built
> actually on what Jefferson and Franklin had proposed as the national
motto,
> which is, 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.'"
>
>     To his credit, Barton highlights the religious side of the American
> Revolution that conventional historians often overlook. But to his
critics,
> Barton's hyperactive enthusiasm quickly outruns any historical expertise
he
> might have. He ignores mountains of evidence that contradict what he wants
> to believe. He relies on second- and third-hand sources, often with a
> religious agenda of their own. He fails to put much of anything in
context.
> He misquotes and distorts Supreme Court decisions. And, he confuses his
> present-day evangelical faith with the very different religious sentiments
> of earlier times.
>
>     Even more galling to his critics, Barton systematically fails to see
> that many, if not most, of the founders were men of the 17th and 18th
> Century Enlightenment, who consciously rejected any literal interpretation
> of the Bible. To the degree they had religious faith, and many did, they
> believed in a God who - like a cosmic watchmaker - created the world and
its
> natural laws, and then played no further part.
>
>     Deism, as they called their belief, runs unmistakably through the
> Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson wrote of the "the
> Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" rather than of the personal,
> miracle-working God of David Barton's Christianity.
>
>     To cite only one example:
>
>     I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
world,
> and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one
redeeming
> feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies. (Letter
to
> Dr. Woods)
>
>     Barton short-changes this Enlightenment philosophy. At one point, he
> even claimed that Jefferson wanted his wall of separation to work in only
> one direction. "Government will not run the church," Barton paraphrased
him,
> "but we will still use Christian principles with government." Jefferson
> never said anything of the kind, as Barton was later forced to admit.
>
>     Similarly, he quoted "the father of the Constitution," James Madison:
>
>     We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon
the
> capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten
> Commandments of God.
>
>     No one could find where Madison ever said anything close. In fact, in
> the debate over religious freedom in Virginia, he said the opposite,
> advocating "total separation of the church from the state." Again, Barton
> had to back down.
>
>     Rob Boston, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is

> perhaps Barton's most persistent critic, and accuses him of "factual
errors,
> half truths and distortions." Boston has published a list of 12 bogus
> quotations that Barton has admitted getting wrong.
>
>     But Barton suffers a bigger glitch. His "history" undermines his
> conclusion. The more he can show the founders as Christian in their
personal
> convictions, the less he can answer the obvious: Why, then, did they leave
> out of the Constitution any mention of God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity?
> And why did they explicitly reject any religious test for public office,
> which many of the colonies had enforced?
>
>     The explanation is simple. Whatever their religious beliefs, their
> political philosophy led the founders to move in a different,
revolutionary
> direction. Because they had seen religious conflict and repression first
> hand, and knew of the bloody religious wars in Europe, the authors of the
> Constitution set out purposely NOT to create a Christian nation. And they
> did it by prohibiting both the establishment of a national church and the
> mixing of God and government.
>
>     Succeeding generations have maintained the wall only imperfectly, as
> when Congress put the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance during
> the Cold War hysteria of the 1950s. But, until recently, the vast majority
> of Americans paid at least lip service to the separation of church and
> state, and no one more fervently than Southern Baptists and Pentecostals,
> who feared that Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Catholics, and others
> might use the power of the state against them.
>
>     Now growing rapidly while the more established denominations decline,
> the evangelicals suddenly see a chance to bend government to their will.
> This likely explains why they have reversed their belief in separation and
> adopted a radically new understanding of American history.
>
>     As for David Barton, he became vice-chairman of the Texas Republican
> Party, which has committed itself officially to declare the United States
"a
> Christian nation" and "dispel the myth of separation of church and state."
> He also took a job in 2004 with the Bush-Cheney campaign, which hired him
to
> tour the country spreading his Christian nationalism to evangelical
groups,
> the very people who cheered General Jerry Boykin as their "Onward,
Christian
> Soldier."
>
>     A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left
monthly
> Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
> magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
> where he writes for t r u t h o u t.
>
>
>