America’s Atheocracy
July 4, 2011
James D. Conley
G. K. Chesterton said famously that America is “a nation with the soul of a church.” And he believed the Declaration of Independence formed the substance of our national soul.
But as we celebrate this Fourth of July, we need to recognize that some of the deepest problems in our public life can be traced to our collective neglect of America’s great founding document.
The Declaration establishes our common self-identity as Americans. It tells us that we are one nation under God, a people who believe that all men and women have God-given rights. It tells us that government exists for no other purpose than to defend and promote these rights. All this we find in the Declaration’s preamble, which still has the power to stir us.
America’s founders never intended to establish a religious government, let alone a theocracy. In fact, just the opposite. They specifically disallowed any state-sanctioned religion. Yet the government they did establish was founded on theistic, if not explicitly Christian, principles.
Many observers have identified a deep Christian influence in America’s founding documents—including such luminaries as Chesterton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jacques Maritain, John Courtney Murray, Martin Luther King Jr., and Blessed John Paul II.
Others see more the hand of the Enlightenment’s philosophical Deism at work.
Whatever its precise Christian pedigree, it cannot be denied that our government was founded upon a belief that human rights come from God, not governments, and that the world is in the hands of what the Declaration called “Nature’s God” and “the Supreme Judge of the World.”
It is true: the Constitution that America’s founders would later draft makes no mention of God. It is also true that this Constitution denies full rights to slaves and women.
But the Declaration’s belief in the divine origin of the human person is everywhere presumed. And throughout American history, this belief has served as a goad to the conscience, inspiring reforms and renewal in almost every generation. It has ensured that injustice, cowardice, and political expediency do not have to have the final word in our public affairs.
The Constitution and Declaration together form the “great wells of democracy” that express “the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage,” King wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail.
America’s founders also shared a belief that religion mattered—not only for the private welfare of individuals but also for the commonweal. Charles Carroll, the Declaration’s only Catholic signatory, put it succinctly in a letter to James McHenry, a signer of the Constitution:
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure . . . are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
Unfortunately, in our day, those “decrying the Christian religion” have seized the captain’s seat in America—in the academy, the media, the government and courts. The result is a kind of publicly enforced religious indifferentism, or what recent Popes have called “practical atheism.” The Constitution insists that no religious test shall ever be required for public office. But our society, in effect, now imposes an “irreligious test.” To take part in civic life, Americans must first agree to think and act as if they have no religious convictions or motivations.
America today is becoming what I call an atheocracy—a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers.
An atheocracy is a dangerous place, both morally and spiritually. Cut off from the religious moorings expressed in the Declaration, we risk becoming a nation without a soul, a people with no common purpose apart from material pursuits. Worse, as Chesterton well understood, without belief in a Creator, our democracy has no compelling reason for defending human rights:
The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal. . . . There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man. . . . Every other basis is a sort of sentimental confusion … always vain for the vital purpose of constraining the tyrant.
Our atheocracy has rejected what Chesterton called the dogmatic basis of American identity and liberties. An atheocracy has no ultimate truths to guide it and no inviolable ethical principles by which to direct political activity. Hence, it has no foundation upon which to establish justice, secure true freedom or to constrain tyrants.
We see the consequences of this atheocratic mindset everywhere. We see it most clearly in the case of legalized abortion. Denying the divine origins of the human person, our government has withdrawn the law’s protection from unborn children in the womb—the most absolutely innocent and defenseless members of our human family.
The legal extermination of the unborn is only the most egregious offense against God’s law. In fact, there is apparently no area of life over which our atheocratic government does not feel omni-competent—that government knows best.
This is dramatically clear in the movement to establish homosexual unions as an alternative kind of family. Under pressure from powerful special interests who manipulate the language of “rights” and “freedom” in ways that contradict “the laws of Nature’s God,” our atheocratic government now deems itself competent to rewrite the God-given definitions of marriage and the family.
These are sobering thoughts as our nation celebrates the anniversary of its independence on July 4, 1776. Yet there is a way forward.
We need to restore a government based on theism and natural law. We need to restore the original integral relationship between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Until recently in our history, this connection was taken for granted. If the Constitution was the letter of the law, the Declaration was regarded as the spirit.
In 1841, defending African men on trial for rebelling against slavetraders who had abducted them, John Quincy Adams said: “In the Declaration of Independence, the Laws of Nature are announced and appealed to as identical with the laws of Nature’s God—and as the foundation of all obligatory human laws.” The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, made famous by the Steven Spielberg film, Amistad, was an important milestone in the abolition of slavery.
America’s future depends today, as it always has, on the choices that faithful citizens will make. God—not government—is the only sure guarantee of human rights and the blessings of our liberty. We need to live as if we believe that. For only a people who believe these truths to be self-evident can build a society worthy of men and women created by God.
James D. Conley, S.T.L., is the Auxiliary Bishop of Denver.
Comments:
7.4.2011 | 10:04am
SMalone says:
This is a beautiful reflection on the meaning of our nation's origins. It needs to be said again and again. "American exceptionalism has been used to justify some unhappy things over the centuries, but it's nonetheless still true, as Bonhoeffer and so many others understood. Bravo to to the bishop.
7.4.2011 | 10:28am
Mike says:
As a high school history and government teacher, I can report directly from the front lines; and I’m afraid the report is not good. The only thing our children know less about than their own history and form of government is that we are a people and form of governance that can only survive if we are a moral nation tethered to our biblical foundations.
Most of the teachers in my discipline try hard, very hard, to get through to the kids. But apathy is a monstrous obstacle. It is apathy we fight every day. Many kids (and many parents) simply do not care. There is no interest in the past, no interest in the future; it is purely and simply about the now…about today. And that fact upholds Mr. Conley’s assertion that “we risk becoming a nation without a soul, a people with no common purpose apart from material pursuits” (though I would argue there is no “risk” factor anymore, as we are already there).
Though we have lost our moorings, I still take confidence from the fact it is always the boat that leaves the mooring, and not the other way around. As such, our boat (nation) can always go back to the ever-steady mooring (the principles of “Natures God”), which never leaves, and is always waiting for us when we understand it’s time to go back.
Most of the teachers in my discipline try hard, very hard, to get through to the kids. But apathy is a monstrous obstacle. It is apathy we fight every day. Many kids (and many parents) simply do not care. There is no interest in the past, no interest in the future; it is purely and simply about the now…about today. And that fact upholds Mr. Conley’s assertion that “we risk becoming a nation without a soul, a people with no common purpose apart from material pursuits” (though I would argue there is no “risk” factor anymore, as we are already there).
Though we have lost our moorings, I still take confidence from the fact it is always the boat that leaves the mooring, and not the other way around. As such, our boat (nation) can always go back to the ever-steady mooring (the principles of “Natures God”), which never leaves, and is always waiting for us when we understand it’s time to go back.
7.4.2011 | 10:35am
Ayodele says:
May God bless you for this article.
The bitter fruits of godlessness in society are evident everywhere, but for some reason, are not evident to those who tirelessly seek to root out any reference to God in public life. Unfortunately for them this means that they have to hold inconsistent and illogical positions in order to make their case. Every idol they turn to ends up having a double face. For instance they oppose restrictions on abortion inter alia because the fetus in not a "person", but then seek to punish those who harm to a pregnant woman and cause death or injury to the "non-person" fetus.
They support gay rights and gay marriage on the grounds that people cannot help living the way they were made. But when asked whether the same case should be made for pedophiles, rapists and serial killers, they have no answer for this.
Elizabeth Emens, Columbia law professor, writing in the New York Times about the future of marriage, argues that marriage laws allowing married women to take either their husband’s name, keep their own family name or join names together are unfair because they force a woman to choose. Apparently she completely overlooks the major argument made in support of abortion rights, i.e. that women ought to have a right to choose whether or not to have a baby. It appears therefore that for the irreligious, choice is both good and bad at the same time. Bad when it comes to benign issues such as marital names, but good when it concerns matters of life or death for babies.
On every major issue, the same lack of consistency can be identified, simply because once you shipwreck the moral imperatives upon which our collective existence is based there is nothing left to hold on to, other than a perennial struggle to clutch at straws, any straws in the vast ocean of godlessness.
The bitter fruits of godlessness in society are evident everywhere, but for some reason, are not evident to those who tirelessly seek to root out any reference to God in public life. Unfortunately for them this means that they have to hold inconsistent and illogical positions in order to make their case. Every idol they turn to ends up having a double face. For instance they oppose restrictions on abortion inter alia because the fetus in not a "person", but then seek to punish those who harm to a pregnant woman and cause death or injury to the "non-person" fetus.
They support gay rights and gay marriage on the grounds that people cannot help living the way they were made. But when asked whether the same case should be made for pedophiles, rapists and serial killers, they have no answer for this.
Elizabeth Emens, Columbia law professor, writing in the New York Times about the future of marriage, argues that marriage laws allowing married women to take either their husband’s name, keep their own family name or join names together are unfair because they force a woman to choose. Apparently she completely overlooks the major argument made in support of abortion rights, i.e. that women ought to have a right to choose whether or not to have a baby. It appears therefore that for the irreligious, choice is both good and bad at the same time. Bad when it comes to benign issues such as marital names, but good when it concerns matters of life or death for babies.
On every major issue, the same lack of consistency can be identified, simply because once you shipwreck the moral imperatives upon which our collective existence is based there is nothing left to hold on to, other than a perennial struggle to clutch at straws, any straws in the vast ocean of godlessness.
7.4.2011 | 12:28pm
David Nickol says:
American has turned away from the principles in the Declaration of Independence, and the result is the legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage. What a bold critique of American culture! No mention of
Consumerism
Growing income inequality
Poverty
War (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya)
Gun violence
Political polarization
Unemployment
Out-of-wedlock births
11.2 million illegal immigrants
Homelessness
Although one would not know it from reading the above post, there is far more to Catholic Social Teaching than concern over "pelvic issues":
• Life and Dignity of the Human Person
• Call to Family, Community, and Participation
• Rights and Responsibilities
• Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
• The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
• Solidarity
• Care for God’s Creation
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml
Consumerism
Growing income inequality
Poverty
War (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya)
Gun violence
Political polarization
Unemployment
Out-of-wedlock births
11.2 million illegal immigrants
Homelessness
Although one would not know it from reading the above post, there is far more to Catholic Social Teaching than concern over "pelvic issues":
• Life and Dignity of the Human Person
• Call to Family, Community, and Participation
• Rights and Responsibilities
• Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
• The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
• Solidarity
• Care for God’s Creation
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml
7.4.2011 | 1:19pm
A.M. says:
Good to be reminded how times like this need the faith of the centurion - to call on Him, on behalf of all those who do not /cannot want Him to enter their house !
Every step one takes , can be consecrated , to be a step , in union with The Woman , to be a step , to destroy the works of the enemy , in His Mighty Name !
After all, The Patroness of The Americas is The Woman who crushes the enemy !
Thus , calling on her powerful intercession , we get to make up for all that is lacking , in what the constitution could have spelled out , which in turn, could have prevented much , world over !
It is His Mercy that the Capital has The Basilica bulit in honor of The Woman, who, in His mercy , was spared the enemy claim , and thus , to bring forth much good !
May those of us who have been thus blessed with trust in Him , be there to help others , to taste what Godly freedom is - of holiness, purity of love , free from the cheap and seductive lies so pervasive in the media , to harden hearts and fill them with scorn for truth and fear of what is lasting good !
Every step one takes , can be consecrated , to be a step , in union with The Woman , to be a step , to destroy the works of the enemy , in His Mighty Name !
After all, The Patroness of The Americas is The Woman who crushes the enemy !
Thus , calling on her powerful intercession , we get to make up for all that is lacking , in what the constitution could have spelled out , which in turn, could have prevented much , world over !
It is His Mercy that the Capital has The Basilica bulit in honor of The Woman, who, in His mercy , was spared the enemy claim , and thus , to bring forth much good !
May those of us who have been thus blessed with trust in Him , be there to help others , to taste what Godly freedom is - of holiness, purity of love , free from the cheap and seductive lies so pervasive in the media , to harden hearts and fill them with scorn for truth and fear of what is lasting good !
7.4.2011 | 1:29pm
Steve S says:
Good article, and I appreciated Ayodele's comment. I have been thinking more and more lately about the myth of secularism. By this I mean that all laws passed by our government are based or founded upon some fundamental belief. An easy example: burglary is against the law because private property and the security of one's home is worth societal and legal protection. We take it for granted with simple examples such as this because the great majority of people hold these same fundamental beliefs.
With other situations (like abortion or same-sex marriage), people have wide-ranging beliefs. A secularist would say that government operates outside of personal beliefs and that a pluralistic society cannot favor one "belief" over another. But that is naive at best or dishonest at worst. For example, the citizens of NY now have the state telling them what marriage means. This is not a neutral ("secular") position; this is founded no less upon a belief. In this case, the belief is that "marriage" is based on the will and mutual consent of two adults. That is no less a belief than the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. How is the latter a religious argument and the former "neutral" or free of private religious beliefs?
I'm just really tired of secular humanists, atheists, and their ilk claiming to be independent of "religious" belief. The policies they promote are based just as much on an "unprovable" belief or first principle.
With other situations (like abortion or same-sex marriage), people have wide-ranging beliefs. A secularist would say that government operates outside of personal beliefs and that a pluralistic society cannot favor one "belief" over another. But that is naive at best or dishonest at worst. For example, the citizens of NY now have the state telling them what marriage means. This is not a neutral ("secular") position; this is founded no less upon a belief. In this case, the belief is that "marriage" is based on the will and mutual consent of two adults. That is no less a belief than the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. How is the latter a religious argument and the former "neutral" or free of private religious beliefs?
I'm just really tired of secular humanists, atheists, and their ilk claiming to be independent of "religious" belief. The policies they promote are based just as much on an "unprovable" belief or first principle.
7.4.2011 | 1:40pm
patricksarsfield says:
While I agree with Bishop Conley that many aspects of government and society are actively hostile to religious faith and believers today, I disagree with his--probably tactical--decision essentially to accept the atheist view of American History when he writes:
"America’s founders never intended to establish a religious government, let alone a theocracy. In fact, just the opposite. They specifically disallowed any state-sanctioned religion....It is true: the Constitution that America’s founders would later draft makes no mention of God. "
It is wrong to say that either the Declaration or the Constitution disallowed any "state-sanctioned" religion. In fact, the Constitution specifically reserved to the states the issue of religious establishments and only disallowed a Congressionally-mandated establishment of religion. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution should be read any more widely (as the atheists do) because a broader reading ignores the actual history of the US in 1776-87.
In fact, in 1776, America's founders were not founding a government but declaring the independence of the pre-existing colonial governments of thirteen confederated colonies from the pre-existent colonial overlord, the King of England:
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States....and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to....do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do...."
Many of those colonies already had their own establishments of religion, all Protestant, some Congregationalist and others Episcopal in polity. Nothing in the Declaration undid those establishments.
Likewise, in 1787, when they drafted a replacement constitution for the united "states" (as the former colonies now called themselves") many of those thirteen states still had their established religions (although Virginia, which had been burdened with an unpopular Anglican Establishment by the former overlord had passed a 1786 act disestablishing the Church of England).
The words of the First Amendment are clear, it prohibits "Congress" not the states from passing laws regarding an establishment of religion. That is all the founders were attempting to do; they did NOTHING to undo, for example, the Congregationalist Establishment of Religion that held sway in Massachusetts until the 1830s.
Bishop Conley is also wrong in saying that the Constitution makes no mention of God. Although it is not surprising that that very workaday document (which deals with the same kinds of issues corporate "articles of incorporation" contain) would not engage in extended discussion of first principles as the Declaration of Independence did, the fact remains that the Constitution's signers expressly referenced Jesus Christ as 'our Lord" in the final paragaraph of the Constitution: "in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred eighty seven and of the independence of the United States...." An atheist might try to dismiss that explicit reference to "our Lord" as "a mere convention" perhaps, but we theists need to end the myth that the Constitution does not even "mention" God. Not just Nature's God, but the God incarnated 1787 years before the Constitution.
"America’s founders never intended to establish a religious government, let alone a theocracy. In fact, just the opposite. They specifically disallowed any state-sanctioned religion....It is true: the Constitution that America’s founders would later draft makes no mention of God. "
It is wrong to say that either the Declaration or the Constitution disallowed any "state-sanctioned" religion. In fact, the Constitution specifically reserved to the states the issue of religious establishments and only disallowed a Congressionally-mandated establishment of religion. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution should be read any more widely (as the atheists do) because a broader reading ignores the actual history of the US in 1776-87.
In fact, in 1776, America's founders were not founding a government but declaring the independence of the pre-existing colonial governments of thirteen confederated colonies from the pre-existent colonial overlord, the King of England:
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States....and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to....do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do...."
Many of those colonies already had their own establishments of religion, all Protestant, some Congregationalist and others Episcopal in polity. Nothing in the Declaration undid those establishments.
Likewise, in 1787, when they drafted a replacement constitution for the united "states" (as the former colonies now called themselves") many of those thirteen states still had their established religions (although Virginia, which had been burdened with an unpopular Anglican Establishment by the former overlord had passed a 1786 act disestablishing the Church of England).
The words of the First Amendment are clear, it prohibits "Congress" not the states from passing laws regarding an establishment of religion. That is all the founders were attempting to do; they did NOTHING to undo, for example, the Congregationalist Establishment of Religion that held sway in Massachusetts until the 1830s.
Bishop Conley is also wrong in saying that the Constitution makes no mention of God. Although it is not surprising that that very workaday document (which deals with the same kinds of issues corporate "articles of incorporation" contain) would not engage in extended discussion of first principles as the Declaration of Independence did, the fact remains that the Constitution's signers expressly referenced Jesus Christ as 'our Lord" in the final paragaraph of the Constitution: "in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred eighty seven and of the independence of the United States...." An atheist might try to dismiss that explicit reference to "our Lord" as "a mere convention" perhaps, but we theists need to end the myth that the Constitution does not even "mention" God. Not just Nature's God, but the God incarnated 1787 years before the Constitution.
7.4.2011 | 5:18pm
David says:
Your Excellency, please do not concede that the United States Constitution makes no mention of God. As Patrick noted, that document ends:
"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN and of the Independance [sic] of the United States of America the Twelfth..."
Note the part capitalized for emphasis. If the Framers were Deists or atheists--or anything other than disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ--they would not have used this term; they could have used the term "common era" or even a bare date line like the one on the Declaration of Independence (which document specifically references the Creator), but chose not to do so. Or, like the French revolutionaries, they would have simply concocted a new calendar based on the independence of the country, which date is also noted in the document. Thus, there was no need to include the reference to Jesus Christ or even to use the Anno Domini system at all, since the document was already dated to the Revolution. But nevertheless, Jesus Christ was deliberately referenced because He is Lord and God and thus is the source of the rights of man as explained in the Declaration.
Blessed Fourth of July!
"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN and of the Independance [sic] of the United States of America the Twelfth..."
Note the part capitalized for emphasis. If the Framers were Deists or atheists--or anything other than disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ--they would not have used this term; they could have used the term "common era" or even a bare date line like the one on the Declaration of Independence (which document specifically references the Creator), but chose not to do so. Or, like the French revolutionaries, they would have simply concocted a new calendar based on the independence of the country, which date is also noted in the document. Thus, there was no need to include the reference to Jesus Christ or even to use the Anno Domini system at all, since the document was already dated to the Revolution. But nevertheless, Jesus Christ was deliberately referenced because He is Lord and God and thus is the source of the rights of man as explained in the Declaration.
Blessed Fourth of July!
7.4.2011 | 6:33pm
Alessandra says:
This is not a neutral ("secular") position; this is founded no less upon a belief. In this case, the belief is that "marriage" is based on the will and mutual consent of two adults. That is no less a belief than the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. How is the latter a religious argument and the former "neutral" or free of private religious beliefs?
I'm just really tired of secular humanists, atheists, and their ilk claiming to be independent of "religious" belief. The policies they promote are based just as much on an "unprovable" belief or first principle.
=================
Me too!
Not to mention that many of these atheist beliefs are much more harmful and destructive than traditional religious ones.
I've been saying the same thing for years now. It's so nice to see someone on the same page! What a rare event :-) Very appropriate that it coincidentally should fall on July 4th.
If you say this to a liberal, they will idiotically and hypocritically retort that the country was founded on a "separation of church and state," and, immediately, there is intense denial that liberalism functions just like a religion. This most simple and basic fact just does not get through the ideological filters.
Not only that, government imposed liberalism forces citizens to adhere in some respects to this liberal religion, even when it's against their will.
That is NOT what the founders had intended.
I'm just really tired of secular humanists, atheists, and their ilk claiming to be independent of "religious" belief. The policies they promote are based just as much on an "unprovable" belief or first principle.
=================
Me too!
Not to mention that many of these atheist beliefs are much more harmful and destructive than traditional religious ones.
I've been saying the same thing for years now. It's so nice to see someone on the same page! What a rare event :-) Very appropriate that it coincidentally should fall on July 4th.
If you say this to a liberal, they will idiotically and hypocritically retort that the country was founded on a "separation of church and state," and, immediately, there is intense denial that liberalism functions just like a religion. This most simple and basic fact just does not get through the ideological filters.
Not only that, government imposed liberalism forces citizens to adhere in some respects to this liberal religion, even when it's against their will.
That is NOT what the founders had intended.
7.4.2011 | 6:46pm
Ray Hunkins says:
Wonderful reminder of the origins of the grand experiment know as the United States. As patrick notes, it was Congress that was prohibited from making any laws establishing religion or (as some are quick to forget), from prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I don't read Bishop Conley's piece as being antithetical to that interpretation. Some states did endorse denominations. My state of Wyoming, when it was a territory, adopted women's suffrage and full, equal political rights for women 50 years before the adoption of the 19th amendment. This regime was also adopted in the State Constitution and Wyoming was admitted to the Union with that novel provision in place. The point is, that the Founders left maximum flexibility to the states of the nation to craft principles of governance that suited them, so long as they did not transgress the Constitution. This was the idea behind the 10th amendment - an amendment that has virtually been ignored since its adoption because it traduces the idea of an all powerful and supreme federal government. Whether religion, suffrage, or any other social issue of importance, the Founders designed a Constitution which provided for delegated powers to the United States government and the vast reservoir of power was left with the states and the people. As I read his excellent column, Bishop Conley does not argue to the contrary.
7.4.2011 | 7:50pm
SMalone says:
It's worth following Mr. Nickol's comments here and elsewhere. I was wondering how long it would take him to say something critical. Thanks for not disappointing.
7.4.2011 | 8:19pm
Randy says:
It's American-style freedom that allows us to have what could be called "imperfect" enthusiasm for law--obeying only the letter of the law and no more. Step outside that rare feature in history, and you'll need "perfect" enthusiasm for the law. In most systems, you not only obey the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law as well. And "spirit" is purposely vague. Vague enough to mean whatever is not specifically allowed is prohibited. That's how most of history treated the law. Whatever the king felt was a violation was a violation. "Next case..." Our model, of free-will and benefit of the doubt, is straight out of Scripture--no other place.
7.4.2011 | 8:30pm
Anthony S. Layne says:
"Although one would not know it from reading the above post, there is far more to Catholic Social Teaching than concern over 'pelvic issues' ...."
You're quite right, Mr. Nickol. Which doesn't make your so-called "pelvic issues" any less critical or any less contentious. Or was that just another way of telling Bp. Conley that the Church should just shut up and lose gracefully?
Sorry, climbing out of the rabbit hole now.
You're quite right, Mr. Nickol. Which doesn't make your so-called "pelvic issues" any less critical or any less contentious. Or was that just another way of telling Bp. Conley that the Church should just shut up and lose gracefully?
Sorry, climbing out of the rabbit hole now.
7.4.2011 | 9:07pm
Noahdiah says:
Thank you for an excellent and timely article, worthy of sharing with many -- especially mothers, fathers, and grandparents of school-aged children. One point, please, small though important: we do not celebrate the 25th of December, but Christmas, the birth of Christ (though secular names now abound); we do not celebrate the 4th of July (though it has become the popular secular name, and it is easier to place in advertisements!), we celebrate Independence Day.
7.4.2011 | 9:36pm
Charles Cassil says:
Two questions for Alessandra: 1) Are you saying that religious belief is unprovable? 2) Are you saying that traditional religious beliefs are harmful and destructive, but much less so than atheist beliefs?
Two questions for Bishop Conley, re the sixth paragraph from the end of your article: 1) Are you sure you meant to say "extermination?" 2) Didn't Roe decrease the government's power, not increase it?
Two questions for Bishop Conley, re the sixth paragraph from the end of your article: 1) Are you sure you meant to say "extermination?" 2) Didn't Roe decrease the government's power, not increase it?
7.5.2011 | 12:20am
Mark says:
Gotta love David Nickol! He writes above that there is more to Catholic teaching than "pelvic issues". As an example, he mentions out-of-wedlock births. Now, I know that David can be obtuse, but there was a time when I assumed that he's smart enough to know how babies are born.
7.5.2011 | 7:49am
David Nickol says:
Anthony S. Layne,
You say: "Or was that just another way of telling Bp. Conley that the Church should just shut up and lose gracefully?"
I (magnanimously) grant the Church and its spokespeople the right to emphasize the Catholic issues that *they* care most about, but I do wish they would spend at least some time on the Catholic issues *I* care most about and which are, after all, authentic parts of Catholic Social Teaching.
Archbishop Dolan, for example, said in his 4th of July blog entry: "Oh, it's not that we do not believe in God; it's just that we consider ourselves to be gods: we claim dominion over life itself, as we accept abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryonic stem cells, capital punishment and destructive poverty that causes starvation and plagues in the world."
I am wondering if I am really the only First Things reader who wishes Bishop Conley had not limited his criticism of the United States to abortion and same-sex marriage.
You say: "Or was that just another way of telling Bp. Conley that the Church should just shut up and lose gracefully?"
I (magnanimously) grant the Church and its spokespeople the right to emphasize the Catholic issues that *they* care most about, but I do wish they would spend at least some time on the Catholic issues *I* care most about and which are, after all, authentic parts of Catholic Social Teaching.
Archbishop Dolan, for example, said in his 4th of July blog entry: "Oh, it's not that we do not believe in God; it's just that we consider ourselves to be gods: we claim dominion over life itself, as we accept abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryonic stem cells, capital punishment and destructive poverty that causes starvation and plagues in the world."
I am wondering if I am really the only First Things reader who wishes Bishop Conley had not limited his criticism of the United States to abortion and same-sex marriage.
7.5.2011 | 8:03am
David Nickol says:
"Gotta love David Nickol!"
Thank you, Mark!
While I have to admit that I am just the slightest bit sorry for using the term "pelvic issues," I would have to say they are pretty much limited to the "big four," abortion, homosexuality/gay marriage, condom use for HIV/AIDS prevention, and contraception. Of course, if the teachings of the Church were followed by everyone all the time, there would be no out-of-wedlock births. But I really don't see the Church behind any major campaigns against extramarital sex and out-of-wedlock births in anything approaching the campaigns against abortion and same-sex marriage. Interestingly, I also don't really see any significant campaign against contraception, but I would still classify it as a "pelvic issue," and it is no doubt part of the reason for opposition to condom use in HIV/AIDS prevention.
Thank you, Mark!
While I have to admit that I am just the slightest bit sorry for using the term "pelvic issues," I would have to say they are pretty much limited to the "big four," abortion, homosexuality/gay marriage, condom use for HIV/AIDS prevention, and contraception. Of course, if the teachings of the Church were followed by everyone all the time, there would be no out-of-wedlock births. But I really don't see the Church behind any major campaigns against extramarital sex and out-of-wedlock births in anything approaching the campaigns against abortion and same-sex marriage. Interestingly, I also don't really see any significant campaign against contraception, but I would still classify it as a "pelvic issue," and it is no doubt part of the reason for opposition to condom use in HIV/AIDS prevention.
7.5.2011 | 11:45am
patricvksarsfield says:
David Nichol writes:
"But I really don't see the Church behind any major campaigns against extramarital sex and out-of-wedlock births in anything approaching the campaigns against abortion and same-sex marriage."
For good prudential reasons. The Catholic Church's positions against extramarital sex and out-of-wedlock births are well-known but do not have any likelihood of passage into law since they can somewhat more credibly be said to affect no one but the participants (although the strain on our welfare system caused by out-of-wedlock births can be argued to have much effect on the costs of the social safety net).
The long-standing legal prohibitions on abortion and gay-marriage, by contrast, are clearly adoptable as law. They were the law for many years and still would be the law in most states but for activist judges. The Roe v Wade decision is an infamy on this country as the land of the free. If freedom is defined down to abortion and gay-marriage--oh and yes, the recently proclaimed right of the Westboro Baptist Church to call soldiers' deaths God's retribution--then is such "freedom" worth very much?
Yet, the fact remains that activist judges found there to be a right to abortion in the US Constitution despite any mention of the term. How ironic: liberals argue that the purported lack of any reference to God in the Constitution (shown in my post above to be false) means that religion has no place in the public square (even though the free exercise of religion is purportedly guaranteed in the Constitution), yet the absence of the word "abortion" did not stand in the way of the Roe Court's finding of such a right in the penumbra of the Constitution's actual rights.
Likewise, despite the absence of any reference to homosexuality or sexual orientation in the federal or state Constitutions, activist courts (and the NY and CA Legislatures) are beginning to shove gay marriage down the electorate's throat despite the clear rejection of gay marraige every time it has been put to the vote in 31 states that have held referenda. Clearly, gay marriage is not inevitable and could be stopped throughout most of the land if the will of the people were heeded rather than the importunings of the politially powerful.
Clearly, the Catholic Church's priorities make a lot more sense than David Nickol's suggestion to scattershot oppose all immorality.
"But I really don't see the Church behind any major campaigns against extramarital sex and out-of-wedlock births in anything approaching the campaigns against abortion and same-sex marriage."
For good prudential reasons. The Catholic Church's positions against extramarital sex and out-of-wedlock births are well-known but do not have any likelihood of passage into law since they can somewhat more credibly be said to affect no one but the participants (although the strain on our welfare system caused by out-of-wedlock births can be argued to have much effect on the costs of the social safety net).
The long-standing legal prohibitions on abortion and gay-marriage, by contrast, are clearly adoptable as law. They were the law for many years and still would be the law in most states but for activist judges. The Roe v Wade decision is an infamy on this country as the land of the free. If freedom is defined down to abortion and gay-marriage--oh and yes, the recently proclaimed right of the Westboro Baptist Church to call soldiers' deaths God's retribution--then is such "freedom" worth very much?
Yet, the fact remains that activist judges found there to be a right to abortion in the US Constitution despite any mention of the term. How ironic: liberals argue that the purported lack of any reference to God in the Constitution (shown in my post above to be false) means that religion has no place in the public square (even though the free exercise of religion is purportedly guaranteed in the Constitution), yet the absence of the word "abortion" did not stand in the way of the Roe Court's finding of such a right in the penumbra of the Constitution's actual rights.
Likewise, despite the absence of any reference to homosexuality or sexual orientation in the federal or state Constitutions, activist courts (and the NY and CA Legislatures) are beginning to shove gay marriage down the electorate's throat despite the clear rejection of gay marraige every time it has been put to the vote in 31 states that have held referenda. Clearly, gay marriage is not inevitable and could be stopped throughout most of the land if the will of the people were heeded rather than the importunings of the politially powerful.
Clearly, the Catholic Church's priorities make a lot more sense than David Nickol's suggestion to scattershot oppose all immorality.
7.5.2011 | 11:49am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
"We are becoming a nation with no purpose other than material pursuits." I locate the roots of this in the theme question of Reagan's election campaign in 1980: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" And everyone knew he was talking about the economy, stupid (which became Clinton's mantra in 1992). The reduction of all important questions to material prosperity has been a constant thread for the last thirty years.
7.5.2011 | 12:17pm
David Nickol says:
patricvksarsfield,
You say, "Clearly, the Catholic Church's priorities make a lot more sense than David Nickol's suggestion to scattershot oppose all immorality."
Do you really think Archbishop Dolan spread himself too thin in *his* Independence Day message? http://tinyurl.com/44e3on9
***********
Oh, it's not that we do not believe in God; it's just that we consider ourselves to be gods: we claim dominion over life itself, as we accept abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryonic stem cells, capital punishment and destructive poverty that causes starvation and plagues in the world.
We presume to tamper with the basic institution of a civil society, marriage and family, re-defining it to suit the spirit of the age.
We revel in violence on TV, in movies, in the rap lyrics our young people sing, independent of the decency and respect God has instilled in us.
Creatures resort to war, and terrorism, feeling themselves above the moral limits of conflict that a civilized society has always tried to heed.
We defend freedom as the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, however we want, with whomever we want, instead of believing that freedom is really the liberty to do what we ought.
The Ten Commandments become a list of suggestions, the Eight Beatitudes a set of nice ideas, the Bible mere literature, the Church unnecessary, religion a crutch for the unenlightened, objective truth an outmoded oppression.
Because, you see, we are independent. We are self-made, and we worship our creator—ourselves!
************
You say, "Clearly, the Catholic Church's priorities make a lot more sense than David Nickol's suggestion to scattershot oppose all immorality."
Do you really think Archbishop Dolan spread himself too thin in *his* Independence Day message? http://tinyurl.com/44e3on9
***********
Oh, it's not that we do not believe in God; it's just that we consider ourselves to be gods: we claim dominion over life itself, as we accept abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryonic stem cells, capital punishment and destructive poverty that causes starvation and plagues in the world.
We presume to tamper with the basic institution of a civil society, marriage and family, re-defining it to suit the spirit of the age.
We revel in violence on TV, in movies, in the rap lyrics our young people sing, independent of the decency and respect God has instilled in us.
Creatures resort to war, and terrorism, feeling themselves above the moral limits of conflict that a civilized society has always tried to heed.
We defend freedom as the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, however we want, with whomever we want, instead of believing that freedom is really the liberty to do what we ought.
The Ten Commandments become a list of suggestions, the Eight Beatitudes a set of nice ideas, the Bible mere literature, the Church unnecessary, religion a crutch for the unenlightened, objective truth an outmoded oppression.
Because, you see, we are independent. We are self-made, and we worship our creator—ourselves!
************
7.5.2011 | 12:27pm
I want to thank 'patricksarsfield' for clarifying the scope of the 'establishment clause'. Be content that a better future awaits...when the Governor, Legislature, and People of State of Colorado, for example, formally subordinate themselves to their Primate.
7.5.2011 | 1:23pm
skeptic says:
Don’t worry my little flock. When Sarah P. becomes her royal holy empress, we plan to rejuvenate the Inquisition for Holy Truth. Those who don’t comply with the august teaching of the New Church will be banished from our fair shores. Those remaining shall be encouraged (forced) to return to those pure virtues of the American past when men and women lived in sober marital fidelity, and those ‘perverts’ who dared to question the status quo were punished accordingly. Better an intellectual and moral prison than an atheocracy!
7.5.2011 | 3:05pm
harry says:
Hello skeptic,
I am not sure just what it is you are afraid of, but whatever might happen if the reigns of power are removed from the hands of the atheocrats, it won't be as bad as the brutal, inhumane, savage dismemberment of millions of innocent babies that has been sanctioned by the atheocracy. The fundamental rights of every human being will be much more secure when it is understood that those rights come from God and are not bestowed upon us and withdrawn from us by black-robed barbarians imagining they have divine authority and wisdom.
I am not sure just what it is you are afraid of, but whatever might happen if the reigns of power are removed from the hands of the atheocrats, it won't be as bad as the brutal, inhumane, savage dismemberment of millions of innocent babies that has been sanctioned by the atheocracy. The fundamental rights of every human being will be much more secure when it is understood that those rights come from God and are not bestowed upon us and withdrawn from us by black-robed barbarians imagining they have divine authority and wisdom.
7.5.2011 | 3:39pm
Don Roberto says:
Thank you, your Excellency. This is right on target. "Self-evident truths" mean nothing (insofar as human rights are concerned) in an atheist society. Without firm, commonly held beliefs, only *might* makes right. I personally don't think there are a lot of true atheists, but the same holds in a society like our has become, where false gods ("American Idols") are worshipped (if mostly sub- or un-consciously).
†
†
7.5.2011 | 4:34pm
TooManyJens says:
To this atheist, this post sounds like when white people complain that whites are the most discriminated-against race. 52% of the people in this country say they wouldn't even vote for a well-qualified atheist from their own political party, but we run the place? School districts all over America refuse to teach evolution because Christian parents are offended by it, but atheists are in charge? Damon Fowler was run out of his town and his own home because he asked his school district to follow the law re: separation of church and state, but American society is actively hostile toward *believers*? Every member of the Supreme Court is a believer, and six are Catholics, yet those "decrying the Christian religion" have seized the courts?
Not running the government according to (your interpretation of) Christian principles does not amount to "atheocracy", nor does it amount to hostility toward or oppression of Christians.
Also, you do know that Deism is in no way Christian, right?
"Cut off from the religious moorings expressed in the Declaration, we risk becoming a nation without a soul, a people with no common purpose apart from material pursuits."
I'm a lot more worried about the way that we can't even agree on what the facts are. People can just make things up to suit their ideology, and consider that to be as good as the truth. That's far more destructive to our society than the lack of a common religion.
I could go on, but honestly -- why?
Not running the government according to (your interpretation of) Christian principles does not amount to "atheocracy", nor does it amount to hostility toward or oppression of Christians.
Also, you do know that Deism is in no way Christian, right?
"Cut off from the religious moorings expressed in the Declaration, we risk becoming a nation without a soul, a people with no common purpose apart from material pursuits."
I'm a lot more worried about the way that we can't even agree on what the facts are. People can just make things up to suit their ideology, and consider that to be as good as the truth. That's far more destructive to our society than the lack of a common religion.
I could go on, but honestly -- why?
7.5.2011 | 5:52pm
harry says:
Hello, TooManyJens,
So, you just can't imagine what in the world the objection to atheocracy is based upon? Let me help you out. Read Angelo Codevilla's America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution. It can be found here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
What Codevilla calls the "ruling class" is the atheistic oligarchy that rules this nation. Many aspects of the atheocracy it has imposed on the rest of us are very well described by Codevilla. Although he does not use the term atheocracy the reader will see clearly that the term can be fairly used to succinctly describe the system we are living under.
So, you just can't imagine what in the world the objection to atheocracy is based upon? Let me help you out. Read Angelo Codevilla's America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution. It can be found here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
What Codevilla calls the "ruling class" is the atheistic oligarchy that rules this nation. Many aspects of the atheocracy it has imposed on the rest of us are very well described by Codevilla. Although he does not use the term atheocracy the reader will see clearly that the term can be fairly used to succinctly describe the system we are living under.
7.5.2011 | 5:59pm
Jon Rowe says:
In the Year of Our Lord WAS the customary way of stating the date and you don't need to be an atheist or leftist to appreciate this.
"Not just Nature's God, but the God incarnated 1787 years before the Constitution."
John Adams on the Incarnation:
"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity."
John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
"Not just Nature's God, but the God incarnated 1787 years before the Constitution."
John Adams on the Incarnation:
"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity."
John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
7.5.2011 | 6:18pm
skeptic says:
Hello Harry,
Thanks for the reply. As a true American, no fear here. Agree, abortion is an abomination, but perhaps we ought to examine some of the profitable foreplay which leads to this daily slaughter. These precious fetuses are mostly conceived in ignorance, largely fueled by our 24/7 entertainment industry which preaches, ‘if it feels good, do it.’
The more important question though is who profits from this daily drek? For a partial answer, we might try looking in the nearest mirror. We good Americans have created a society which derives maximum profit from God-given appetites. Buying and selling is the engine which fuels our modern Moloch. And where is the voice of the church in this capitalist-consumerist-madness? Deafening silence beneath the roar of engines in the church parking lot!
Believe me, the line between civilization and barbarity isn’t out there, but within. Individual Christians need to understand that morality begins with themselves, at home (i.e. turn off the TV). No church or government, however powerful, will be able to stop the slaughter of innocents. Abortion is merely a symptom of a much larger problem; part of the cost of doing business in keeping the American Dream alive.
Thanks for the reply. As a true American, no fear here. Agree, abortion is an abomination, but perhaps we ought to examine some of the profitable foreplay which leads to this daily slaughter. These precious fetuses are mostly conceived in ignorance, largely fueled by our 24/7 entertainment industry which preaches, ‘if it feels good, do it.’
The more important question though is who profits from this daily drek? For a partial answer, we might try looking in the nearest mirror. We good Americans have created a society which derives maximum profit from God-given appetites. Buying and selling is the engine which fuels our modern Moloch. And where is the voice of the church in this capitalist-consumerist-madness? Deafening silence beneath the roar of engines in the church parking lot!
Believe me, the line between civilization and barbarity isn’t out there, but within. Individual Christians need to understand that morality begins with themselves, at home (i.e. turn off the TV). No church or government, however powerful, will be able to stop the slaughter of innocents. Abortion is merely a symptom of a much larger problem; part of the cost of doing business in keeping the American Dream alive.
7.5.2011 | 8:37pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickol, who had just been complaining that the Church should not restrict its public campaigns so much to abortion and gay marriage, responded to my point that the Church can only push a limited number of messages with the following:
"Do you really think Archbishop Dolan spread himself too thin in *his* Independence Day message? http://tinyurl.com/44e3on9 [The quote apparently from the Archbishop's blog: then goes on to note a flock of concerns]"
Of course, I don't think the Archbishop spread himself too thin. The blog is a means of catechesis and preaching. The Church preaches on a large number of issues. I think that perfectly appropriate ("and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded...." (Matt. 28:20)). In picking its public campaigns, though, the Church needs to be more selective. Unfortunately, it's the sound bite milieu of today's public discourse that makes selectivity so necessary.
"Do you really think Archbishop Dolan spread himself too thin in *his* Independence Day message? http://tinyurl.com/44e3on9 [The quote apparently from the Archbishop's blog: then goes on to note a flock of concerns]"
Of course, I don't think the Archbishop spread himself too thin. The blog is a means of catechesis and preaching. The Church preaches on a large number of issues. I think that perfectly appropriate ("and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded...." (Matt. 28:20)). In picking its public campaigns, though, the Church needs to be more selective. Unfortunately, it's the sound bite milieu of today's public discourse that makes selectivity so necessary.
7.5.2011 | 8:54pm
patricksarsfield says:
Jon Rowe argues that teh reference to our Lord in the Constittion signifies nothing, as follows:
"'In the Year of Our Lord' WAS the customary way of stating the date and you don't need to be an atheist or leftist to appreciate this."
Actually, the Declaration of Independence was dated without use of that phrase and the Constitution's Article 1, Section 9 stated the date of 1808 without reference to "the Year of our Lord." So, the custom could have been skirted had the Constitution's Framers been as phobic about any reference to God as atheists and leftists posit.
"'In the Year of Our Lord' WAS the customary way of stating the date and you don't need to be an atheist or leftist to appreciate this."
Actually, the Declaration of Independence was dated without use of that phrase and the Constitution's Article 1, Section 9 stated the date of 1808 without reference to "the Year of our Lord." So, the custom could have been skirted had the Constitution's Framers been as phobic about any reference to God as atheists and leftists posit.
7.5.2011 | 10:19pm
harry says:
Hello, skeptic,
Well said.
Yes. Most certainly. Every one of us shares in the guilt.
Yes, "Abortion is merely a symptom of a much larger problem; part of the cost of doing business in keeping the American Dream alive."
Slavery was once part of the cost of doing business in keeping the Southern "American Dream" alive. (And everybody, North and South, shared in the guilt for it.) Yet slavery went from being the status quo to being unthinkable in a few short years. My prayer is that we can find a less painful way to make the transition from the rampant killing of the child in the womb being the status quo to being unthinkable.
Never doubt that that transition will be made. It will. This is because one can never complete the job of convincing the people that killing babies is legitimate. One can never permanently fasten that idea into place. Human beings will continue to be made of the same stuff they were always made of. They have an instinctive desire to protect and defend the young of their own kind and find killing them abhorrent. This initial reaction to the gruesome reality of child killing will always be a problem for those who take it upon themselves to legitimize it. Every generation will instinctively oppose them. They must maintain massive control over our cultural institutions to keep their fraud going. That control just can't withstand the never-ending army of basically good, not-yet-brainwashed human beings that will always be advancing against them.
Well said.
Yes. Most certainly. Every one of us shares in the guilt.
Yes, "Abortion is merely a symptom of a much larger problem; part of the cost of doing business in keeping the American Dream alive."
Slavery was once part of the cost of doing business in keeping the Southern "American Dream" alive. (And everybody, North and South, shared in the guilt for it.) Yet slavery went from being the status quo to being unthinkable in a few short years. My prayer is that we can find a less painful way to make the transition from the rampant killing of the child in the womb being the status quo to being unthinkable.
Never doubt that that transition will be made. It will. This is because one can never complete the job of convincing the people that killing babies is legitimate. One can never permanently fasten that idea into place. Human beings will continue to be made of the same stuff they were always made of. They have an instinctive desire to protect and defend the young of their own kind and find killing them abhorrent. This initial reaction to the gruesome reality of child killing will always be a problem for those who take it upon themselves to legitimize it. Every generation will instinctively oppose them. They must maintain massive control over our cultural institutions to keep their fraud going. That control just can't withstand the never-ending army of basically good, not-yet-brainwashed human beings that will always be advancing against them.
7.5.2011 | 11:18pm
edmond says:
I am always amazed at the wisdom and the brilliant posts in FT articles, it is too bad that the views expressed here seem to be a minority as reflected by the reality of secularist dominance in the country. I think the problem doesn't really lie with the atheists, I think the problem is with believers who have no backbone.
7.6.2011 | 7:59am
Jon Rowe says:
"So, the custom could have been skirted had the Constitution's Framers been as phobic about any reference to God as atheists and leftists posit."
I'm not an atheist or a leftist and I never argued the Constitution's Framers were God phobic. However, the Constitution is a secular, God-nominal document. It's more a product of the moderate Scotch-Anglo Enlightenment, than the French Enlightenment.
Having to look at, let us say "a" instead of "the," customary way of stating the date to find the explicitly Christian content in the Constitution, I think, proves the nominally religious nature of it. If they intended an explicitly Christian document, indeed especially one that recognized orthodox doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation (in which many of the "key" Founders didn't believe) they would have done what the old colonial orders did: made a covenant with the Triune God.
I'm not an atheist or a leftist and I never argued the Constitution's Framers were God phobic. However, the Constitution is a secular, God-nominal document. It's more a product of the moderate Scotch-Anglo Enlightenment, than the French Enlightenment.
Having to look at, let us say "a" instead of "the," customary way of stating the date to find the explicitly Christian content in the Constitution, I think, proves the nominally religious nature of it. If they intended an explicitly Christian document, indeed especially one that recognized orthodox doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation (in which many of the "key" Founders didn't believe) they would have done what the old colonial orders did: made a covenant with the Triune God.
7.6.2011 | 10:27am
skeptic says:
Harry, I hope you are right, but I have doubts. You have a much more positive view of man. I used to believe that greater education/awareness would make men better; I have since been disabused of this fallacy. The devil is very smart, and it is a modern conceit to believe that more info will translate into better morals.
To carry and raise a child is the ultimate form of sacrifice, and in a society which glorifies selfishness, such an elaborate expense is considered absurd. We have already changed the language (pill, birth control) to remove the horror from the process.
Slavery? Yes, the formal institution has been condemned, but what about those 16-hour-a-day Chinese workers making all that crap to fill the store shelves for the obese American? What do we call this? Improving our GDP or the living the American Dream? Agree with you that the fight must still be fought; but I’m concerned that we identify the true enemy.
To carry and raise a child is the ultimate form of sacrifice, and in a society which glorifies selfishness, such an elaborate expense is considered absurd. We have already changed the language (pill, birth control) to remove the horror from the process.
Slavery? Yes, the formal institution has been condemned, but what about those 16-hour-a-day Chinese workers making all that crap to fill the store shelves for the obese American? What do we call this? Improving our GDP or the living the American Dream? Agree with you that the fight must still be fought; but I’m concerned that we identify the true enemy.
7.6.2011 | 11:50am
David says:
Great article, and I love the term. On my blog I've posted a few of my thoughts on the issue:
http://bibleimmersion.blogspot.com/2011/07/americas-atheocracy.html
http://bibleimmersion.blogspot.com/2011/07/americas-atheocracy.html
7.6.2011 | 6:32pm
Alessandra says:
Charles Cassil says:
Two questions for Alessandra: 1) Are you saying that religious belief is unprovable? 2) Are you saying that traditional religious beliefs are harmful and destructive, but much less so than atheist beliefs?
=================
I don't understand your first question, so I can't answer it.
As for the second one, I am saying that there are plenty of religious teachings which are wholesome, productive, and constructive, and plenty of atheist beliefs which are destructive, harmful, and dysfunctional.
However, public schools and universities, for example, are forbidden to present any and all religious teachings and, yet, to different extents, directly and indirectly, they are allowed to cultivate and instill harmful atheist beliefs.
This is irrational and hypocritical. As a society, we should be able to present whatever beliefs we find right, and, if one wants to argue for diversity, you can always impose a requirement that a variety of views be presented. You could require that both religious and atheists beliefs and teachings be presented.
Either no one imposes their beliefs on no one else (an impossible situation for a society) or we should all be free to at least present our beliefs.
Also from a taxing situation this is a complete travesty. Obliging people who are not liberal atheists to pay taxes that are going to be used to 1) discriminate and censor good religious beliefs, 2) to promote harmful atheist beliefs, which function just like a religion, is glaringly absurd. This is absolute religious discrimination disguised away in a sham of a rhetoric. And, obviously, the last thing we have is equality before the law.
What conservatives need to fight for is Equality Now.
Two questions for Alessandra: 1) Are you saying that religious belief is unprovable? 2) Are you saying that traditional religious beliefs are harmful and destructive, but much less so than atheist beliefs?
=================
I don't understand your first question, so I can't answer it.
As for the second one, I am saying that there are plenty of religious teachings which are wholesome, productive, and constructive, and plenty of atheist beliefs which are destructive, harmful, and dysfunctional.
However, public schools and universities, for example, are forbidden to present any and all religious teachings and, yet, to different extents, directly and indirectly, they are allowed to cultivate and instill harmful atheist beliefs.
This is irrational and hypocritical. As a society, we should be able to present whatever beliefs we find right, and, if one wants to argue for diversity, you can always impose a requirement that a variety of views be presented. You could require that both religious and atheists beliefs and teachings be presented.
Either no one imposes their beliefs on no one else (an impossible situation for a society) or we should all be free to at least present our beliefs.
Also from a taxing situation this is a complete travesty. Obliging people who are not liberal atheists to pay taxes that are going to be used to 1) discriminate and censor good religious beliefs, 2) to promote harmful atheist beliefs, which function just like a religion, is glaringly absurd. This is absolute religious discrimination disguised away in a sham of a rhetoric. And, obviously, the last thing we have is equality before the law.
What conservatives need to fight for is Equality Now.
7.6.2011 | 11:06pm
patricksarsfield says:
Jon Rowe writes:
"I'm not an atheist or a leftist and I never argued the Constitution's Framers were God phobic. However, the Constitution is a secular, God-nominal document."
I agree with this. The Constitution deals with articles of incorporation (and/or Roberts Rules of Order) type issues: who has power over what and what are the limits of tht power. It is not a statement of first principles as the Declaration of Independence is. The Declaration certainly makes a more extended reference to God than the Constitution does (or should).
As I noted in my first post on this article, though, the oft-repeated "rap" of the secularists that the Constitution makes NO mention of God is simply wrong. The Constitution refers to Jesus Christ as Our Lord in its penultimate paragraph. As I showed above, the framers could have stated the date of adoption of the Constitution in a way that did not reference Our Lord, but they instead expressly referenced Him. That fact requires statement to correct the inaccurate secularist rap.
"I'm not an atheist or a leftist and I never argued the Constitution's Framers were God phobic. However, the Constitution is a secular, God-nominal document."
I agree with this. The Constitution deals with articles of incorporation (and/or Roberts Rules of Order) type issues: who has power over what and what are the limits of tht power. It is not a statement of first principles as the Declaration of Independence is. The Declaration certainly makes a more extended reference to God than the Constitution does (or should).
As I noted in my first post on this article, though, the oft-repeated "rap" of the secularists that the Constitution makes NO mention of God is simply wrong. The Constitution refers to Jesus Christ as Our Lord in its penultimate paragraph. As I showed above, the framers could have stated the date of adoption of the Constitution in a way that did not reference Our Lord, but they instead expressly referenced Him. That fact requires statement to correct the inaccurate secularist rap.
7.7.2011 | 4:16am
Michael PS says:
Even the French Revolutionaries made the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen "en présence et sous les auspices de l'Etre Suprême." [in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being]
It is incorporated by reference in the present French constitution.
It is incorporated by reference in the present French constitution.
8.1.2011 | 5:35pm
Neoma Totzke says:
Even the French Revolutionaries made the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen "en prsence et sous les auspices de l'Etre Suprme." [in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being] Oh, it's not that we do not believe in God; it's just that we consider ourselves to be gods: we claim dominion over life itself, as we accept abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryonic stem cells, capital punishment and destructive poverty that causes starvation and plagues in the world.
8.6.2011 | 7:50pm
Rev says:
Unfortunately, Charles Carroll was speaking about many of our nation's Founding Fathers when he complained of those "decrying the Christian religion." We can disagree with them and their religious views, or complete lack thereof. We can disagree with the statements like that in the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) which states that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." But we cannot stoop to the level Lysenko and degrade our intellectual honesty by proclaiming something to be true simply because we wish it were so.
There are three kinds of people who make the claim that the Framers intended the Republic to be guided by Christian beliefs: the ignorant, the deceived, and the deceiver. A common subtype of the later is the pious fraud, who tells himself that he is doing the the "Lord's Work" while, in reality, engaging in the worship of his idol, Mammon.
In the sad attempt to forge a connection between the use of "Year of our Lord" and an intended Christian direction by the Founders we defile ourselves, our nation's history, and most importantly our Faith.
There are three kinds of people who make the claim that the Framers intended the Republic to be guided by Christian beliefs: the ignorant, the deceived, and the deceiver. A common subtype of the later is the pious fraud, who tells himself that he is doing the the "Lord's Work" while, in reality, engaging in the worship of his idol, Mammon.
In the sad attempt to forge a connection between the use of "Year of our Lord" and an intended Christian direction by the Founders we defile ourselves, our nation's history, and most importantly our Faith.
9.4.2011 | 10:43pm
Nancy says:
I was in college shortly after Roe vs. Wade was passed (Roe vs. Wade later revealed was based on a lie) I saw firsthand the horror of this law. My roommate and I were both Catholic. We tried to counsel a girl on our floor who had called to set up an abortion. She revealed to us that this was not her first abortion and it was no big deal..We were horrified. Later I became a pro-lifer marching in Washington in the bitter cold of January along with many others. All my children have children now, although some have been a "surprise pregnancy" and caused some stress about the responsibility bringing another mouth to feed and care for, they never actually considered terminating the pregnancy. I have heard other stories about women who have chosen to abort, and later almost every one of them is filled with sorrow about that decision and guilt. My oldest son was born in 1976. The bicentennial year. He is a great son, a teacher of grade school children and has 3 children of his own now. I think he will continue to grow with the grace of God to do wonderful things and I am hopeful his children will too. I have another son and a daughter. In all I have 11 grandchildren. I am truly blessed and continue to be blessed by all of them. God save the USA.
We will need it in the coming years ahead.....
We will need it in the coming years ahead.....
3.12.2013 | 5:53pm
DeistReality says:
"Atheocracy"
Great word,and so true. I've been studying today's "active" Atheists as they group more and more together and thinking that we're turning into a Atheocracy. I wondered if the word existed so I google it and found your fine column here!
Go to youtube and google DeistReality to see my latest video on this new faith,or religion called Atheism. Mark
Great word,and so true. I've been studying today's "active" Atheists as they group more and more together and thinking that we're turning into a Atheocracy. I wondered if the word existed so I google it and found your fine column here!
Go to youtube and google DeistReality to see my latest video on this new faith,or religion called Atheism. Mark
