Restitutor Orbis

This whole story reads like a Monty Python sketch. If you don't laugh and shake your head for an hour afterward, I don't know what's wrong with you:

Tea Partiers to Dem: Change offices so we can protest you

We’ve heard it all said a hundred times – that America is a Christian nation, that it was founded as a Christian nation, that the Founding Fathers were Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian men, that there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State.

The only problem is, none of it is true.

And the 18th century’s own Evangelicals signed off on the system of government those very secular-minded Founding Fathers established.

Back in the 18th century, you see, people were a lot closer to the events that shaped the new nation. They had close personal experience with the dangers of Church and State meddling in each other’s business. They knew what it was to be persecuted, not by a secular government but by a government under the control of another denomination.

They wanted protection. From each other.

And our new system of government, promised by the Declaration of Independence and come to fruition in the Constitution, gave them what they asked for.

Of course, none of these facts have stopped our own century’s Evangelicals from telling an entirely different story, one founded not in fact, not in history, but in wishful thinking, in history as it should have been – but wasn’t.

And they have big money backing them up. They have glossy websites, glossy publications, book clubs, brochures, even entire series’ of books, including the “Politically Incorrect Guide to…” series, which would be better named, “Factually Inaccurate Guide” or “Historically Inaccurate Guide.”

These books play to the base. Like any works of apologia – and that is what they are – they comfort believers, convincing them, reassuring them, that all is well, that the lies they’ve been told are safe to believe – and to go on believing.

But this mythical Christian America has no more solid a foundation than Creation Science – both are contradictions in terms.

It is true that most of the citizens of the new United States were Christians of one kind or another, many of them, especially following the successful conclusion of the War for Independence, refugees from oppressive religious environments in the Old World. They came here precisely because there WAS separation between church and state, precisely because here, they could be free of government-sponsored religion.
The problem for today’s Evangelicals is that the government itself was secular in nature, founded by men grounded in science and reason and disciples – and products – of the Age of European Enlightenment.

These men had the opportunity to form any sort of government they wished. ANY. They could have made a monarchy of our new nation – it was considered and the idea dismissed. They could have established a theocracy – but no one gave that idea any thought at all. It was never even a possibility. The motto of the new nation was, significantly, “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of Many, One. It was not, equally significantly, “In God We Trust.”

Instead, they gave us a nation founded on ancient principles of democracy, a product of ancient polytheistic Greece, and freedom of speech and thought – also products of the ancient polytheistic world – and human rights, a product of the European Enlightenment so heartily condemned by the Church. Nothing in the new nation was based on biblical principles. The Founding Fathers took more from the Iroquois Federation than they did Old Testament Israel.

There too, facts have not stopped today’s Evangelicals, who ardently insist that our nation was founded on Biblical principles. I would like to inquire where in ancient Israel there existed ideas of Democracy and Free Speech and thought. In ancient Israel, free thought and free speech got you stoned. Nor was there Democracy; there was monarchy and theocracy. There were no human rights. Exercising human rights would get you stoned. It was a society built on exclusion and enforced behavior. There was no liberty anywhere in sight.

So what we have today as the heart and soul of the Republican Base is a Mythical America, an American history of the imagination, one of wishful thinking but not of fact. Just as is much of the Bible, this Mythical America is pious history.

Look at some of the assertions made by the Mythicists:

• The American “revolutionaries” were actually conservatives


• The Puritans didn’t steal Indian lands


• The Bible promotes human freedom


• The enemies of the Bible are enemies of true reason and tolerance


• The Bible made modern science possible (which is why it started in the Middle Ages)


• The Middle Ages were the real “Age of Reason”


• The “Enlightenment” yielded tyranny and war.

It is no surprise that these “talking points” are aped on social networking sites, on FOX News and anywhere else conservatives gather. They’re said as if they’re true. The specious reasoning that goes behind them is repeated as if it even made sense (which it doesn’t).

• The revolutionaries were liberals. They founded our nation on the liberal principles of the European Enlightenment – not upon the conservative principles of the Old World.


• The Puritans did steal Indian lands. Shamelessly.


• The Bible nowhere promotes human freedom. Evangelicals can repeat the myth of Christian egalitarianism and slavery all they want but the truth is, Christianity did not promote egalitarianism and it did not free the slaves.
  
• The statement that enemies of the Bible are enemies of reason and tolerance proves itself wrong.


• Science did not start in the Middle Ages. It started in the ancient polytheistic world – and, significantly, not in Biblical Israel but in Greece, which promoted freedom of thought and speech. When science saw the light of day again, it was not because of Christianity, but despite it, as the historical record clearly demonstrates.


• The Middle Ages were not the Age of Reason. One has only to look at the rampant superstition, the crusades, the wars against heretics, the inquisition, the witch-burnings, the anti-Jewish pogroms, the forced conversion of Pagan peoples in Northern and Eastern Europe…no, not much Reason but a whole lot of slaughter in God’s name.


• The Enlightenment did not stop war, but it did not yield war as a consequence. It did, however, put a stop to crusades, wars against heretics, the inquisition, witch-burnings, and rampant anti-Jewish pogroms. It was not quite able to stop forced conversion of Pagan peoples but at least we stopped slaughtering them in “God’s” name.

Our society is diverse and free to a degree that has never been possible before in history. Diversity and plurality are a blessing. But to the Evangelicals, it is a threat. It threatens the status quo. It threatens them with loss of power and loss of influence. The more diverse our society becomes, the more resistant they become. The more reactionary they become. They become more intolerant, more hateful, and more inclined to use fear as a weapon to browbeat others into servitude to “their” Bible.

And the more inclined they are to embrace an imaginary, Mythical America. As a result, we are introduced to ideas that have no basis in historical fact, like the points discussed briefly above. We have conservative Christians making blind, unsupported assertions about this Mythical America as though it really existed, without a thought being given to the facts.

And why bother with the facts when talking points are so handy - when apologetic works abound, demonstrating these myths to be fact and denouncing fact as myth? It’s all very comforting to them, and all very damaging, not only for them, but for all of us. They want to impose on the United States a return to the 13th century, to that imaginary “Age of Reason” they talk about, when they – and they alone – were free to do what they wanted – to everyone else. And let not a word be raised in protest.

Because as you all by now know, they can damn and condemn and it’s their God-given right, but should anyone raise a word in protest, it’s a “war against Christianity” or “hate” or “intolerance.” Because it isn’t freedom they really want. It’s the privileging of their myth, of their own beliefs, at the expense of everyone else. It’s the freedom to persecute, without apology or thought, everyone different from them, and like their 13th century brethren, justify it in their god’s name.

But America didn’t exist in the 13th century. It could not have existed in the 13th century. It took a genuine Age of Reason to make America possible, and going back to the 13th century would skip right over it. It’s pretty obvious to anyone living in an evidence-based world, but as the Politically Incorrect guide series of books make clear, their interest isn’t in evidence – it’s in wishful thinking.

(Author's Note: I have granted permission for this essay to be cross-posted on God's Own Party http://godsownparty.com/blog/ and thanks go to Leah for reviewing it before publication)

I've been very clear about how I feel about this particular trap. It's my biggest and most enduring gripe about the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, it won't be getting any better and the situation will likely keep Obama's grade (to the right) below an A for the foreseeable future.

A recent release by Americans United for Separation of Church and State has focused my attention on these unhealthy policies again:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today expressed disappointment at the Obama administration’s decision to ask former football coach Tony Dungy to serve on the president’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“God & Country,” the religion blog of U.S. News & World Report, said today that Dungy has been asked to serve on the council, but he has not yet decided whether to do so.

Dungy, former coach of the Indianapolis Colts football team, has well-known ties with intolerant Religious Right groups. In 2007, for example, he spoke at a fund-raising dinner for the Indiana Family Institute, a James Dobson-affiliated group that opposes gay rights, reproductive rights and separation of church and state.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United’s executive director, “I am surprised and disappointed that Dungy has been asked to serve on the council. His view that civil-marriage law should reflect religious doctrine is not in keeping with the Constitution.”

While I respect Tony Dungy as an NFL Coach, and while he comes across as a very positive, kind and compassionate man, associations with such groups as Dobson's should raise alarms. These are hate groups. We do not need government support (tacit or otherwise) for hate groups.

I share AU.org's disappointment with this decision. Any attempt that was serious about uniting Americans of all religious persuasions would have chosen a non-Christian instead, as plenty of Christians of all types have already been appointed to this council, but few if any religious minorities.

I cannot denounce this move strongly enough.

For the full press release, go here.

Four weeks into the Obama presidency and the new president still has the support of the American people. His approval ratings are still high, demonstrating that Republican propaganda and media disinformation is not taking hold among the people. I suspect in this day and age, with so many "unofficial" media outlets available - the internet for one, including blogs - people are better able to keep track of events and less likely to believe what they're told. For example, Newsweek's big front page announcing "We're all Socialists Now!" Saying it doesn't make it so. They always neglect to point out things that have already taken place, under other administrations, that could equally well have earned that charge. The media is as much the enemy as the GOP in this. Just as guilty. Just as beholden to Joseph Göbbels. How proud he would be!

My grade for Obama must stand at a "B". Recently, it has been announced that with regards to the Faith-Based program, Obama neglected to put an end to Bush-era discrimination in hiring practices by groups received OUR tax dollars. Meaning, as under Bush, WE pay these clowns so they can discriminate against US who are not the right kind of Christian or who are not Christian at all. I would mark him down further but after the last release on this subject, this new bit of news is really not news at all. Obama lied on the campaign trail:

Speaking last July in Ohio, Mr. Obama set forth his “basic principles” for assuring constitutional balance. “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use the grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of religion,” he said. “Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

And he deserves to be downgraded for so doing, but I'd already downgraded him, expecting that this would be the result - the drop from an A to a B. As the Times concludes that, "it is hardly the clear commitment to proper employment practices Mr. Obama voiced as a candidate, and the Constitution requires."

A better scoring method would probably be to grade him on different areas - Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy, or to break it down even further. It is something I will have to consider. If I included Church-State as a separate category, he'd have at most a "C" right now, and possibly a "D".

That's a thought for another day, however. I wanted to share a bit of unrelated news, the view held of President George W. Bush by historians. CNN reports the following:

Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants. The survey was released over Presidents Day weekend.

The news wasn't quite as good for the latest addition to the nation's most exclusive fraternity: George W. Bush finished 36th in the survey, narrowly edging out the likes of historical also-rans Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce.

James Buchanan -- the man who watched helplessly as the nation lurched toward civil war in the 1850s -- finished last.

"As much as is possible, we created a poll that was non-partisan, judicious and fair-minded," said Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley, who helped organize the survey of 65 historians for cable television network C-SPAN.

The survey -- which asked participants to rank each president on 10 qualities of leadership ranging from public persuasion and economic management to international relations and moral authority -- was the network's second since 2000.

It's Lincoln's 200th birthday. Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback, has written a letter to President Obama.

Dear President Obama: As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I'm in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective. (As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)

The lack of cooperation you're getting from the Republican Party will continue. You were ri More..ght to indulge in a little bit of tokenism when you had to Pastor Rick Warren pray at your inauguration. But if you think that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are going to do more than their utmost to obstruct everything you are and what you stand for you're dreaming.

This is, of course, everything I have been saying for the past week. It comes as no surprise, yet it is chilling to read from somebody in the know, somebody who was once one of these people. It's truly terrifying to see first hand the extent of Republican treason - and treason it is. There is no other word for it.

There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can declare you a traitor.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. This is certainly true. Whatever moderate position once existed within Republican ranks has been utterly eradicated by eight years of the Bush maladministration. But Schaeffer is optimistic nonetheless:

The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.

The Democratic Party won for a reason: the Republicans failed and have taken us all down with them! You're doing your presidency and America no favor by extending an open hand to the perpetually knotted fist of what has become the embittered lunatic fringe of our country. They would rather go down in flames than "compromise" their ideology.

As you showed us again at your press conference of Feb 9, you are a brilliant, articulate and decent man. Your Republican opponents are not decent people but ideologues bent on destroying you. To quote the biblical adage sir, don't cast your pearls before swine.

Update 8:09PM: This just in from FOX news, a bit of good news to offset the less happy vents of the day:

The chairman of the Senate banking committee claimed Thursday that he would "look at every possible legal means" to recover billions in bonuses to Wall Street executives, after President Obama called the bonuses plain "outrageous."

The president reacted harshly Thursday to reports that corporate employees got paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year.

"That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful," he said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., released a statement saying: "I'm demanding that the Treasury Department figure out some way to get this money back."

Finally some bad news coming out of the Obama Administration. Funding was included in the House's version of the stimulus package for Bush's unconstitutional "Faith Based Initiative." I earlier sent a letter to my senator to urge the Senate to remove this part of the bill. But this is not the end of the story. I just received the following from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

Media outlets reported today that President Barack Obama will name Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal minister who did religious outreach during the campaign, to head a revamped White House office of “faith-based” initiatives.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called on Obama to act quickly to overturn executive orders and other policies from the Bush administration that undercut civil rights and civil liberties.

“I urge President Obama and his staff to work expeditiously to fix several glaring problems with the ‘faith-based’ initiative,” Lynn said. “Time is of the essence. Every day the initiative operates under Bush-era rules is another day rights are violated and tax money is squandered.”

Lynn said the Obama administration should work to implement a series of recommendations the new president made in July. During a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama vowed to end taxpayer-funded job bias in faith-based programs, forbid proselytizing in these programs and subject them to oversight to make sure they are effective.

Clearly, this is a mistake of epic proportions. If Church and State are separate, how can the State appoint anyone to oversee anything that is not, according to the Constitution, in any way within the purview of the federal government?

According to the UPI, "The White House declined to comment."

I hope the news is not true. It will be a huge disappointment if Obama does indeed appoint a "religious czar." We have enough czars already, and frankly, I'd like to see the term done away with, given its unhappy connotations.

On another front, as I reported last night, the stimulus package was approved by the House and must now face the Senate. The New York Times observes that while

While the House and Senate measures are similar, they are most likely to differ in ways that could snarl negotiations between Democrats from the two chambers, and delay getting a measure to the president. In particular, House and Senate Democrats are split over how to divide $87 billion in relief to the states for Medicaid, with senators favoring a formula more beneficial to less-populous states.

Democrats’ own differences aside, they also are under pressure from the White House to be open to proposals from Senate Republicans who might support the final legislation if their interests are accommodated, and which might draw a few Republican supporters on a final vote next month in the House.

The New York Times this morning had a piece about Obama's style, including his overturning Bush's dress code - the President and his staff have been photographed working in the Oval Office sans jacket. Scandalous! The article also discussed his work habits:

Although his presidency is barely a week old, some of Mr. Obama’s work habits are already becoming clear. He shows up at the Oval Office shortly before 9 in the morning, roughly two hours later than his early-to-bed, early-to-rise predecessor. Mr. Obama likes to have his workout — weights andcardio — first thing in the morning, at 6:45. (Mr. Bush slipped away to exercise midday.)

He reads several papers, eats breakfast with his family and helps pack his daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, off to school before making the 30-second commute downstairs — a definite perk for a man trying to balance work and family life. He eats dinner with his family, then often returns to work; aides have seen him in the Oval Office as late as 10 p.m., reading briefing papers for the next day.

Finally, on the diplomacy front, Reuters reports that

Officials in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration are drafting a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing relations and opening the way for direct talks, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday.

The U.S. State Department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected last November, the report said. It was a response to a letter of congratulations sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after Obama's poll victory.

The letter gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Iranian administration, but instead seeks changes in its behavior, the paper said. It would be addressed to the Iranian people and sent directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or released as an open letter.