January 22, 2016::End of the day round-up (pg 2)

Pastors deliver petitions to lawmakers opposing LGBTQ rights

Pastor Ron Johnson of the Indiana Pastors Alliance says GOP Senate leader David Long is the “source of the problem.” Johnson joined about two-dozen supporters Wednesday to deliver the petitions with more than 5,500 signatures opposing two Senate bills.

One bill would extend discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in public accommodation, housing and employment. The other would do the same but exclude transgender people. Both measures contain several religious exemptions.

\Michael Newdow Has Filed Another Lawsuit to Remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. Currency

The federal lawsuit, which was filed in Akron, Ohio, may be unique for relying not on the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, but on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In essence, Newdow takes the same argument used by Hobby Lobby to get out of covering contraception for its employees and says that the U.S. Treasury can’t push God onto atheists without a “compelling governmental interest,” which he believes they don’t have.
,,,
Again, you can laugh at all this, but remember that there’s a case that’ll go in front of the Supreme Court very soon that revolves around Catholic nuns who say filling out a short form to get out of paying for contraception for their employees is a violation of their faith.

If you have a firmly held religious conviction, the courts don’t get to judge how silly it is. Newdow is using that logic to make a very different kind of argument on behalf of atheists.

John Eidsmoe: Planned Parenthood Deserves 'Some Of The Blame' For Shooting At Clinic

“But I would simply have to say there that if we’re talking about a culture of death, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have in fact contributed a great deal to that culture of death,” he said. “I mean, every abortion results in the death of an innocent human being and they are cheapening life by doing that. So I think some of the blame needs to be right there.”

Ted Cruz To Address Church Led By Extremist 'Prophet'

Joyner doesn’t think America has much time left, telling viewers of his television show “Prophetic Perspective on Current Events” that President Obama’s re-election “could be the end of our republic as we know it” and that a time will come when “our only hope is a military takeover; martial law.”

Joyner cited a prophetic vision he received to predict that the devastating 2011 earthquake in Japan would push America into Nazism, and he has warned that gay marriage will usher in national destruction, a second civil war, divine judgment, a ban on men and women marrying each other and the Mark of the Beast.

He has also boasted of advising several politicians, including one unnamed U.S. senator whom he told that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for homosexuality.

How Atheists (and Satanists) are Flipping Right-Wing Christian Bigotry on Its Head | Alternet

With a bit more strength in numbers, non-believers are more boldly challenging conservative Christianity’s encroachment on U.S. law. And organized religion has handed them a weapon: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, recently made infamous by Indiana and Arkansas. The acts are intended to protect Christians from serving gay couples and other potential nightmares, but conservative lawmakers may have overplayed their hand, passing laws that enshrine access to atheists, Satanists, Wiccans and others.
 
As one Wiccan leader recently said, “I think these bills are horrible, but if they are going to open up this can of worms, we are going to shove it right in their face.” Atheists (and Satanists and Wiccans) across the country are doing just that.

[,,,]

Newdow’s strategy depends on whether atheism is defined as a religion for the purposes of pluralism, or whether by opposing religion it sits beyond religion’s constitutionally enumerated protections. Whether atheism in fact counts as a religion is less than clear, and is being adjudicated on a case-by-case basis at the local level. Two recent conflicts—both, coincidentally, from the upper Midwest—have indicated a lean toward yes. 

[,,,]

The Satanic Temple’s theory that it could use Hobby Lobby decision to boot the government out of women’s healthcare decisions sounded half like trolling when it was first made last summer. But,,, 

Mary (a pseudonym) told her doctor upon her first visit that the waiting period violates her beliefs. “I regard a waiting period as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by instilling an unnecessary burden as part of the process to obtain this legal medical procedure,” Mary’s statement read, per an interview with the Riverfront Times. “The waiting period interferes with the inviolability of my body and thereby imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my sincerely held religious beliefs.” When the doctor denied the procedure, the Satanic Temple filed suit against the state.

How Atheists (and Satanists) are Flipping Right-Wing Christian Bigotry on Its Head | Alternet

A model for political self-government

When speaking of "In God We Trust" and the belief that the United States is a Christian nation, proponents like to refer back to documents (or events) they believe support their view while discounting others.  One is the "Mayflower Compact" signed in 1620:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.:

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith, and the honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another; covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

While the proponents of a "Christian Nation" focus on the opening lines of the second paragraph, "Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith,,," they ignore the remainder of the document and the history surrounding it. An excellent example of this can be seen in the video below at 32:22.  The sentiment being expressed is by Dr. Ron Baity of Return America.   In other words they revise history to suit their needs and advance their agenda.



The Mayflower Compact is often cited as one of the foundations of the Constitution. The story of its creation begins with the Separatists Pilgrims in England (also called Saints); Protestants who did not recognize the authority of the Anglican Church and formed their own Puritan church. To escape persecution and possible imprisonment, they fled England for Holland eventually deciding to create their own colony in the New World.  What many are not aware of (myself included), the Mayflower passengers were not all Separatists.  Of the 102 passengers, 61 were common people (merchants, craftsmen, skilled workers,  indentured servants and several young orphans); as the Pilgrim called them "strangers."

Arriving in the New World, the Mayflower didn't quite make it to Virginia and ended up off the shores of Cape Cod, an area outside the jurisdiction of the Virginia Company (the "landowners" the Pilgrims  were beholden to); therefore, its rules and regulations no longer applied. Dissent arose between the Pilgrims and the other settlers and out of that dissent came the Mayflower Compact, a social contract whereby the forty-one men who signed it agreed to abide by the new government's laws in exchange for shared protection.  William Bradford describes the growing discontent in Mourt's Relation:   A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth (1622) as follows:

This day before we came to harbor, observing some not well affected to unity and concord, but gave some appearance of faction, it was thought good there should be an association and agreement that we should combine together in one body, and to submit to such government and governors as we should by common consent agree to make and choose, and set our hands to this that follows word for word

The Compact by design, and by inspiration of pastor John Robinson head of the church in Leiden, created a separation of Church from state and equality.  What is interesting to note, these concepts where penned by Robinson in 1620, prior to the departure of the Pilgrims.  On August 5 of that year, John Carver read these word: 

Lastly, whereas you are become a body politic, using amongst yourselves civil government, and are not furnished with any persons of special eminency above the rest, to be chosen by you into office of government; let your wisdom and godliness appear, not only in choosing such persons as do entirely love and will promote the common good, but also in yielding unto them all due honor and obedience in their lawful administrations, not beholding in them the ordinariness of their persons, but God's ordinance for your good; not being like the foolish multitude who more honor the gay coat than either the virtuous mind of the man, or glorious ordinance of the Lord. But you know better things, and that the image of the Lord's power and authority which the magistrate beareth, is honorable, in how means persons soever. And this duty you both may the more willingly and ought the more conscionably to perform, because you are at least for the present to have only them for your ordinary governors, which yourselves shall make choice of for that work.

Every adult male, Pilgrim and "stranger" had to sign the agreement before stepping foot on land.  The Mayflower Compact was an attempt to establish a temporary, legally-binding form of self-government and remained in effect until the 1621 Peirce Patent; Plymouth was eventually incorporated then absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.

It is my opinion, that Christian Nation proponents fail to recognize when citing the Mayflower Compact, the men of the Mayflower were undereducated in the sense that they were not lawyers, politicians or trained clergy; these were lay people, simple folk with a common goal.  William Brewster, oft cited as the only passenger with advanced education, is believed to be the primary writer of the document along with William Bradford.  The dire straights forced these men to use their wits to prevent an all out mutiny, all they had as a model were the written agreements used by the Pilgrims to establish their Separatist churches in England and Holland.

The pattern of church self-government served as a model for political self-government in the Mayflower Compact; it is an adaptation of a Puritan church covenant to a civil situation .  Instead of focusing on the inactive clauses of the document, all one needs to do is look at the active part of the agreement:

,,,covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

Think of a modern day business letter. Your first paragraph introduces who you are and why you're writing, the body of letter is the meat of the matter.  It tells us what is important, a covenant whereby the settlers would subordinate their rights to follow laws passed by the government to ensure protection and survival is what made it a unique document.  Not, "[h]aving undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith,,,a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia."

To deny the importance of the Mayflower Compact would be foolhardy, it was the foundational document for the Plymouth Colony. The compact, with its fundamental principles of self-government and common consent, has been interpreted as an important step in the evolution of democratic government in America.  But it ends there!  It was not the establishment of a Christian nation, it was not the establishment of a theocratic government.  It was the recognition that people of different religious beliefs could live in tolerance side by side while working for the good of the whole. It was recognition of the concept of a government of the people and by the people with the individuals within the group being treated as equals.

Religion has nothing to do with it - Uhm,,, yes it does

People see “In God We Trust” on currency, so why not display the words in Pennsylvania schools?

A Republican lawmaker's proposal to do just that is likely to touch off fierce debates within communities and courtrooms.

Education officials and others question the need for the bill authored by Rep. Rick Saccone of Elizabeth Township that would require school districts to post the phrase — America's national motto — within 60 days of passage.

Ignoring the religious overtones for the moment, I think Mr Saccone needs to rethink his priorities in regards to what is important.  People are homeless, schools are woefully understaffed/under funded and hunger is rampant among the children at these schools but yet, “,,,[t]his is what he's spending his day doing? He needs to find more useful legislation. I would hope he's finding ways to solve funding problems facing public schools. That's what the people elected him to do.” 

Now there's a concept, "what the people elected him to do."  Something that has escaped Mr Saccone since early 2012 when he began trying to legislate "his" religious belief for all of us:

• January 2012, sponsored House Resolution 535 to proclaim it the “Year of the Bible.”
• May 2012, supported House Resolution 609 recognizing May 3 as the “National Day of Prayer.”
• April 2013, sponsored House Resolution 17 recognizing April 30, 2013 as “National Fast Day.” A that stated we owed our dependence “upon the overruling power of God” and that the only nations that are blessed were the ones “whose God is the Lord.”
• Oct 2013, set to propose National Motto Display Act

As with all of Saccone's previous legislative efforts, there are problems with this one as well, as Justin Vacula of NEPA Freethought Society Podcast points out [1]:

Public schools which ought to be secular — neutral in regards to religion — will be forced to prominently display religious messages if Saccone’s proposal is passed. Students will undoubtedly receive the message that belief in God — particularly the Christian god — is patriotic and the false message that the United States is a ‘Christian nation.’

[,,,]
but what about those who do not ‘trust [the Christian] God’ whether they are atheists, agnostics, Unitarian Universalists, pagans, secular Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or people of other religious traditions? Rick Saccone has a response in his video:

“No matter what god you serve or if you serve no god at all, “In God We Trust” is still our national motto.”

In other words, the faith of a particular subset of Americans should be memorialized on coinage and public schools ought to take part in the fusion of patriotism and Christianity.

[,,,]
I wonder if Saccone would want public schools to talk about the secular history of the United States including founding fathers who believed in a deistic god – a ‘god of nature’ who designed the universe but was not active in human affairs. Saccone’s “traditional values” — whatever they might be — and conflation of patriotism with Christianity ignores the contributions of secular Americans who “made our country a nation like no other.”  [Emphasis mine]

Holding that thought for a moment, let's take a look at these two statements from the article:

"Religion has nothing to do with it, Saccone said. He wants to honor the 150th anniversary of having “In God We Trust” stamped on coins."

VS

“I think it's a great idea. Back in the 1800s, Congress approved it to put on money. We need to be reminded to put our trust in God in good times and not just in bad times,” said Tracy Johnston Caruso, 44, of Elizabeth Township, the president of Central Elementary School PTO. [Emphasis mine]

Actually Mr Saccone, to some individuals, it has everything to do with religion and I am concerned as to what "history" you want taught.  Your lack of forethought concerning the legal ramifications and cost to taxpayers in this matter is very Bartonesque (maybe Chris Rodda, author of Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, Vol. 1could confirm or deny this point for me.)

"In God We Trust" is so woven into the American fabric that it is impossible to hear the phrase without stirring feelings of pride and allegiance to our country," Saccone said in a statement earlier this month. "Our youth need to hear the story of our heritage and learn from positive role models in a time of decaying values. The story of our national motto is a positive story and one that is uniquely Pennsylvanian.[Emphasis mine]

While I do agree there is a unique Pennsylvania twist, what Saccone "fails" to mention, the strict religious impetus behind the inclusion and adoption of "In God We Trust."  It reeks of an extreme Christian patriotism that is still prevalent today; a point that Vacula strongly suggests as well. As with Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va., 2011), who incorrectly opined,

[t]o understand the significance of undermining the motto, it is important to first understand our nation's rich spiritual history. The Founders acknowledged our nation's trust in God in our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence,,, [Emphasis mine]

Saccone seems to think that there is yet a crisis of national identity, confusion among Americans about their nation’s motto.  I will wager that the ideology (Christian Revisionist history put forth by David Barton) that forced Forbes into his erroneous statement also rules the mind of Saccone.  I will also wager that neither Forbes nor Saccone "know," or understand, the history behind the phrase beyond what fits into their personal or political agendas.

It is commonly held, that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a “foundational document” of the United States; it has no legal authority.  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation; it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or us.  The sole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to dissolve the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.   End of story!!

Daulton Dickey in his write up, "Does the Declaration of Independence Establish America as a Christian Nation?" explains it quite well:

When considering the “Founding Fathers” or the Declaration of Independence, you should keep in mind that this is a political paper—not a legal document. The differences are not minor: one is a logically structured instrument, sometimes used to appeal to the emotions of the masses, to the so-called ‘herd instinct,’ or to political opponents, while assuming the form of a logical argument; the other is a logical argument composed entirely of neutral language, ratified and codified only if it doesn’t conflict with existing laws.

The Declaration of Independence doesn’t possess the force of law. To note an example, the phrase, “all men are created equal” is a powerful statement, but in the United States it cannot be cited as legal precedence. Judges can’t cite this phrase by itself to support a ruling. Politicians can’t pass laws by employing a legal argument supported solely by this passage.

That’s not to suggest that lawyers or legislators, public orators or politicians don’t cite this passage—many do; but when they cite it, they’re doing it for demagogic reasons: they’re appealing to the emotions when citing that, or similar passages, from the Declaration of Independence.

But by law, it can’t be cited as legal precedent. Judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, can and do cite these passages when attempting to discern the ‘intentions’ of the ‘framers of the constitution,’ but they can’t cite these passages as themselves establishing rights. In some cases, legal problems may be so obscure or outside what has been anticipated that Judges sometimes consult a wide range of evidence meant to establish the intentions of those who wrote laws. From this pool of evidence, they attempt to infer a conclusion to the argument they’re obligated to form. [Emphasis mine]

A second point that Dickey points out, neither "religion" nor Christianity, or what passes for Christianity today, is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The men who signed the Declaration adhered to different sects, understanding Christianity—and Christian doctrines—in profoundly different ways. Among those who scribbled their names, exegetical opinions varied; that they agreed on broad themes of Christianity probably wouldn’t have tempered heated arguments had they attempted to base a political system on explicitly Christian values.

That being the case, it is difficult to argue that any religious principles guided, or should guide our government. Our rights do not come from the Christian "God" they come from the Constitution.  Furthermore, the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”  none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution. 

“Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.”   No where in the Declaration of Independence is '"the" Christian "God" of today's fundamental evangelicals mentioned.  Despite the claims of Barton, and his merry band of followers, to the contrary, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, influenced by Enlightenment thinking and opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural. 

Again referring to Dickey:

If we turn our attention to the religious language used in the Declaration, we can discern an interesting pattern. Of the approximately 1400-words in the document, only a handful were dedicated to religious ideas,,,

This broad language designed to appeal to people of all denominations and religious affiliations, included in the document for rhetorical purposes—to establish moral sanctions for independence and appeal to the emotions of the people, some of whom professed allegiance to non-Christian theologies such as Judaism.

But here is what I find interesting about Dickey's analysis, a point I never considered before,

It’s worth noting that although the arguments employed in the Declaration draw on religious language, the list of grievances designed to criticize King George III’s political policies toward the colonies do not mention religion.

The absence of politico-religious grievances in the document invites several conclusions, of which we’ll focus on two,,,(2), the absence of politico-religious grievances articulated a reasoned approach to politics and religion,,,

In short, a distinction between what we’d call church and state is implicitly drawn by relegating religious language entirely to emotional appeals. This distinction, it seems, is largely overlooked in discourse on the religiosity of the Declaration of Independence. [Emphasis mine]

And so ends the idea that "Founders acknowledged our nation's trust in God in our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence,,, "  (Dickey, in his article goes into more detail discussing Article IV and its role in establishing the Constitution and satellite documents and agreements, as “the supreme Law of the Land.")

Now you may be wondering why this mini history lesson.  What does The Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution)  have to do with "In God We Trust" and Saccone's push to display the motto in schools?  Remember, "Religion has nothing to do with it, Saccone said. He wants to honor the 150th anniversary of having “In God We Trust” stamped on coins." 

Well it's not quite that simple.  It was not the Founding Fathers who established “In God We Trust” as a motto of the United States. The phrase can be traced to the minting of the two-cent coin in 1864 in large part thanks to the joint efforts of a Pennsylvania minister, a “Christian nation” advocate, and a wishy-washy U.S. treasury secretary. 

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania,,,

We will deal with that in our next post though,,,

"As a matter of observation, accepting Barton's conclusions about church and state refutes just about every secular and religious universities' conclusions about American history. It is as if everyone else got it wrong, but Barton alone discovered the real truth of American's Christian heritage."