Many American Presidents have had a strong Christian faith and Christian presence, have in fact called for specifically Christian observances by the nation from the declaration of the religious day of Thanksgiving for instance to calls to fasting and prayer in times of national crisis.
I am certainly not claiming that Presidents have not been religious, did not use faith in some manner or another to support themselves, or did not mention or support some religious "moments" in public ceremony. I guess I am a bit confused by calling Thanksgiving a religious day, but maybe you can show this is true.
There have been periods in the past where religion has been a greater or lesser part of the US gov't. The late forties to early fifties was a major turning point in the forcing of religious iconography into gov't, in order to separate us from "atheist" Russia.
However, what is new is a presence of overt proselytization within the executive branch and what's worse an expectation of its support of a specific style of faith. That is very new and even the religious leaders have pointed this out so I am a bit confused why you would suggest otherwise.
Well to be truthful, many of the fundie leaders claim the early presidents and founding fathers were overtly religious in their leadership (which is not substantiated by factual evidence outside of careful quotemining) and after a brief loss of religion in gov't, has finally come back to the political stage.
Their point (and it was their doc so I tend to assume this is their position) was that Jimmy Carter was the first openly Xian president, and they had high hopes for him. Later they were disappointed by his refusal to push his faith through legislation, and so went on to back Reagan, then Bush (with varying degrees of happiness and disappointment)... fought Clinton, and then are back with Bush.
The end result was a change for overt religious nature of the presidency. Even Clinton, who was opposed by the fundies, ended up having to continually express religious convictions. It is now almost a mandatory exercise for presidential candidates.
The secular trend is what is new. What some think is a greater presence of religion in national life is really the reaction of religion against the more aggressive secularization and explicit anti-religion of the last few decades
I am calling you on this assertion. The founding fathers were pretty specific in teh secular nature of our gov't. What are the recent trends which you consider "secular" on the gov't?
I will agree that there have been actions (or even an overreaction) by secularists, and anti religious people (who are not the same as secularists), that are aggressive and even offensive to religion (that means fighting its existence). As a secularist I do not like these actions. But they are the reaction, not the initial action.
You need to research the "culture war", its foundations and history. It was begun unilaterally by fundamentalist Xians and waged against a generally surprised secular nation. The reaction has been to pick up arms and fight the fundies as they have suggested. To believe that secularism forced a reaction by Xians is to buy into propaganda.
I defy the culture war, and want both sides to put down arms. I am a secularist.
the judicial branch usurping the functions of the legislative branch.
I find this new twist amusing since it without an overt usurping of the legislative by the judicial, Bush never would have been in office in 2000.
But lets get this straight, the judicial is the check on the legislative. They do not usurp, they check. To say that a law is not adequate, which forces a legislature to rewrite is not the same thing as drafting a piece of legislation. Even when they return a law as inadequate and suggest the only way it will fill Constitutionality, is not a form of legislation.
The Court cannot create laws and they haven't as of yet (with the possible exception of the Bush decision, which practically amended the constitution).
Perhaps it is the legislature which continually tries to create laws which are unconstitutional which is the problem. As such they keep finding the courts a hindrance, and so are now trying to usurp the role of the courts and allow themselves to judge constitutionality by whether they happen to vote for it.
That is a dangerous precedent. We are served by checks and balances.
I might add that your statement does not refute my original position. If anything it supports it. You have identified the executive office as the religious supporter, and the judicial branch as secular or anti-religious in nature. My statement regarded the nature of the executive.
I hope to impress upon you that secular does not mean anti-religious. The idea that if one is not prosyletizing, or fighting that action by gov't, one is anti-religious is a fallacy. Secularism is a movement to deal with nonreligious issues, without appeals to religious mechanisms. One can actually be religious and support secularism.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2