Religion in Government

Wow, Amerindians sailed to America and planted a cross - and you know the site? [sarcasm mode off]The Amerindians were here long before Amerigo Vespucci, Columbus, or the Puritans. And the first known Europeans of record in the Americas were the Vikings, so your point is moot, unless the God you were referring to was Wotan.As previously noted, the founding of the United States has to do with those who wrote the U.S. Constitution and related founding documents, and little if anything to do with the groups who came before. And you should recall from history (not the revisionist sort promulgated by the "Christian Nation" advocates such as Barton or Federer) that the Founders of the U.S. rebelled against a Christian Nation, and founded a secular one.Read Jefferson's writings if you want a good refutation of the claim that the law is based on the bible; he even traces common law back to the Anglo-Saxon pagans. T.J.'s writings are available online [photocopies and transcriptions] at American Memory from the Library of Congress - Page Not Found My apologies to colleagues from other countries - the focus on the history of the U.S. must get a little tedious. Perhaps we can discuss how New Zealand has fared with so many atheists at the helm, to get a broader perspective on the thread topic.

Given your admiration of charlatans such as Texas creationist Don Patton, I'm not too surprised that you consider historical revisionist David Barton of Texas to be a credible source - but be aware that Barton's hokum has been exposed repeatedly. Barton's organization, Wallbuilders, is based in Aledo, Texas, and peddles "Christian Nation" historical revisionism. An earlier book of Barton's had so many bogus quotes, that he decided to publish it under a new name - "Original Intent" - and leave out some of the more egregious of the bogus quotes. It's still got plenty of out-of-context quotes and similarly deceptive material, though. Indeed, Ben Franklin is a good example of a non-Christian. As is Thomas Jefferson. And you would do well to read their writings for yourself, instead of sound-bite out-of-context quotes through Barton's revisionist filter. I doubt that Barton has much if anything in the way of "original documents" in his personal collection (at least anything relevant to the founding of the United States - perhaps you were referring to a large collection of evangelical Chick Tracts?). If Barton had thoroughly studied the subject of the founding of the United States, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself thoroughly by publishing bogus quotes. One example of a bogus quote that seems to be popular with the "Christian Nation" historical revisionists as a result of Barton's shoddy scholarship is: Hangdawg, you really need to get a B.S. Detector and use it to check the claims of those Texas charlatans you admire. Your sources seem to be best known for bearing false witness.I'll leave you with an actual quote by some of the U.S. Founders:

The will of the majority of the people doesn't rule on Constitutional matters. The Constitution protects the minority and majority alike. If religious rights were subject to majority rule, the U.S. would likely be a Christian Nation. But they aren't, and it's not.It's not "God on the heart" of politicians that's the problem - it's oppressive laws and religious bigotry in government that is the problem. For example, Madelyn Murray O'Hair won a court case (O'Hair v. Hill) against Texas on its requirement that officeholders acknowledge a "Supreme Being", as that violates the U.S. Constitution. However, Texas has dragged its heels on eliminating the violation, and it may require another legal action to enforce the law. We've seen several examples of scofflaws such as ex-judge Moore of Alabama and politicians from the State of Texas who think the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to them. Therein lies the problem.Let's strive for "justice for all".This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 06-07-2004 10:19 AM

riVeRraT, thanks for the clarification.I should clarify a statement I made previously - while Constitutional rights in the U.S. aren't subject to the will of the majority of the people directly, per se, a sufficiently bigoted and malevolent majority can get together and amend the Constitution to deprive the minority of equal freedoms and rights.I used the Texas example because it points to a further problem - even when the courts correct violations of the Constitution, if the other branches of government are led by those who ignore the law when it suits them, the violation of rights continues.In partial response to Bob's question, Texas' constitution has been revised several times since Murray v. Hill for various reasons, including in response to lawsuits and obsolete portions. I suspect some of those dragging their heels would coyly claim that the requirement isn't strictly enforced anymore, so no harm, no foul. Many others probably would simply cloak themselves in their religion, rant about "activist judges", and portray disregard for the court decision as a virtue.But the requirement is in the Texas Constitution, so it's the law, and it violates the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in that section of the Texas Constitution (or any other section, IIRC) states that clause is null and void, so the violation remains.As for National v. State imposition of religion, many of the original colonies had established religions. The Constitution initially constrained the Federal government - and powers not in the purview of the Federal government fell to the states and/or citizens (10th Amendment), as you learned, but subsequent disestablishment of religion by state governments followed, and further amendment to the U.S. Constitution (14th) after the Civil War codified the extension of U.S. Constitutional rights to the citizens, particularly Section 1: