Bonesyard Archive
Care to respond?
Back to Snake Jacobs

In a recent survey, a full 57 percent of the population said they believed or were leaning toward the theory(?) of creationism.  That is, a solid majority of our citizens believe that a supernatural being created the earth in 6 days, and further that they (or someone they know) are in communication with this being.

I mention this because I continually hear that roughly 25-30 percent of Americans call themselves ’christian’.   But then, what are the other 27-32 percent who happen to believe this mystical tenant of christian theology?  It is one thing to say that one supports a ‘christian’ morality; it is another to affirm the existence of the christian God and assert that He created the earth.  Whatever these people want to believe of themselves, I think it is clear that the conservative who does not believe in the christian God is the rare exception, not the rule.  This is interesting enough for a movement which presents to the public primarily these rare exceptions as their true face.  So I think it is time we ignored these front men and began to address the views of the true leaders of the conservatives: the American christians.

Let’s be honest: most liberals I know think that christian political arguments are extraordinarily weak and discredited, and so have generally ignored the rising tide of christians (or conservatives aping christian arguments) reaching to the mainstream of American culture.  Listening to a conservative talk-show for 5 minutes nets so many logical fallacies that my colleagues on the left generally considered it a waste of time to respond.  This, I think, was a mistake, for the power of an argument lies not with its truth or cogency, but with the multitude which believes it.

And while I’m lecturing liberals, I’ll add that I think it is impossible to overstate the significance of our society’s decline in values, in particular those of critical thinking, empathy and fairness.  Broad horizons and clear thinking are not prized in this society; among the least paid graduates come from literature, philosophy, history, etc.  Universities are fast becoming trade certification factories, not places of learning.  All of the ‘professional’ degrees, from economics to medicine to physics to engineering, can be had without any real literature, philosophy or social science classes, and minimal history.  I believe this is not an accident, but the results of intensive efforts by christians to protect their followers from the deleterious effects of critical reasoning skills.  The major exception is law, which requires reasoning skills for the profession itself, and thus is much more difficult for true believers to infiltrate.  I think it is largely because of this that the profession as a whole is under such serious attack by conservatives.

But whatever the effects of this division and ranking of academia between the admired ‘professional’  and the hated ‘intelligencia’, it should be clear that we’ve been directly challenged on the basis of arguments long discredited, yet largely believed.  These are the arguments of the American christian, and I think we’d better answer them now.  I’ll begin by addressing 4 core beliefs held currently by most mainstream christians in relation to our government.

1).  Christians believe that we are - or were - a christian nation.  The argument for this is simple: it was founded by christians.  The ramifications of this simple argument are far-reaching, for they believe that they, as christians, have a more profound insight into the intentions of our Founders.  Think of this like the Harley Davidson rider’s creed: if you aren’t one, you wouldn’t understand.  And in the mind of any christian with this belief, it is simply impossible that our christian Founders could have intended a society or government which did not follow christian principles.  This is, by the way, how those who believe in ‘God first’ can reconcile with the patriotism of ‘Country first’…they now (again) proclaim that patriotism is reserved for christians, since American democracy is God’s own system of government, acting through our christian Founders.

2).  With this insight into the motivations of our Founders, christians argue that the foundation and intent of our constitution was to establish christian principles as the governing law of the land.  Perhaps still smarting a bit from the vast numbers of christians who supported slavery, christians often say that ‘all men are equal before God’ - the added words to underscore their conviction that equality was actually a christian idea, and in fact could not exist in the absence of a god before whom we are equal.  In accord with their special insight, christians brazenly claim that our law ultimately derives from christian principle, so any accurate interpretation of our law must therefore be consistent with (current) christian principle.  Any interpretation which does not is false on its face, for it clearly does not take into account the christian intentions of our christian Founders.

3).  A further christian argument is in response to a method which claims to interpret American law and our constitution separate from the principles of any religion, in accord with the stated desires of our Founders.  The christian answer to this is familiar: there exists no ‘religion-less’ interpretation of things.  Just as they called people who believed in no gods at all ‘atheists’ - whom they said followed the religion of atheism - christians now say that any ‘non-religious’ interpretation of the law is really itself a religion.  The current name for this religion is ‘secular humanism’.  And secular humanism is no ordinary religion, no.  It is in fact the religion of Satan himself.

Just so we are clear about this, I want you to understand: from a Christian’s point of view, when a judge thinks to himself “how can I apply the law here so that it is neutral to the issue of this man’s religion?” - this judge is really an activist who is practicing the satanic religion of secular humanism.  Perhaps you think I’m kidding.  I assure you, I’m not.

4).  If you speak to a christian today, you will undoubtedly get a strong dose of the doctrine of majority rule.  It is common to hear that activist judges thwart the will of the majority with their humanist interpretations of law, trying to install the society of the intelligencia, the new left, whatever.  In fact, the judicial branch is the one most feared by christians, who (currently) believe that the will of the majority should rule the minority even in matters of moral conviction.  As a leading advocate for the re-design of our constitution, Judge Robert Bork, former conservative nominee to the US Supreme Court, argues that in fact the whole concept of judicial review (the sole power of the judicial branch) is actually a ‘disease’ which undermines democracy.

Here is an abbreviated rebuttal, in reverse order:

4).  It is true that majority rule is a fundamental ground rule of democracy.  But of course we are not just a democracy.  We are a constitutional democracy (an American invention), and we see immediately that it is the constitutional part of our system that worries christians.  Why?  Because our constitution requires freedom of religion as a fundamental right not reversible by the will of the majority - even the ‘moral’ majority.  This is, of course, the very purpose of the constitution: to protect our citizens’ established rights from the tyrannical aspects of majority rule.  It is quite plain that our Founders intended that the majority rules only in matters not established as fundamental rights in the constitution.  This means, quite obviously, that our judiciary is to play a vital role in our system.  It also means that the rejection of Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court was entirely justified.

3).  But this distinction is blurred when those whose loyalties lie with the established law of the constitution are for that reason called ‘religious’ by those who are themselves religious.  The battle then becomes one of competing religions - an issue not directly addressed by the constitution, to hear christians tell it.  Perhaps there is an argument here, but if so, it is only because our christian Founders never conceived that their ideas of ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘separation of church and state’ would be described by their christian descendants as religious ideas - and certainly not that they would be called the very religion of Satan.

2).  So now we begin to see this intimate interpretive connection between christians and our Founders breaking down.  With regards to the law, history records clearly where it came from.  Madison - who wrote the first draft of our constitution - did not consult the bible before he put pen to paper; instead he read every governing document he could get his hands on, from ancient times to his present.  These were the words of men he researched, not of god - for his business was of man’s government, not God’s dominion.  And if nothing else, to our Founders one thing was clear: Americans, whatever their religious beliefs, were to hold true to the law upon which we all agreed.  For the purpose of our government and its operation, therefore, the constitution was to take the place of any religious text.  This was to be a nation of laws, not of men… christian or not.

1).  And this leads us back to the primary christian argument, the one which turns this country into God’s own, and therefore their country: the idea that America is a christian nation because our Founders were christians.  I won’t even argue that they weren’t, though history, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin suggest problems with this generalization.  But even assuming that our government was founded by bible-believing, god-fearing people, the idea that they must therefore have tried to inscribe their religion into this country’s founding documents and laws is grounded in an astonishing view, and one that should offend every honest christian in the country when they realize it.  For it essentially argues that even though our Founders attempted to be fair and equitable in their governmental creation, because they were christians they could not have been.  The argument is that christians, even those who were at the time persecuted by other christians from a different country, would not have been capable of espousing freedom of religion as written in our constitution.  And how are these christians so sure that they know this of our Founders?  The answer is obvious: because they themselves currently would not be capable of it.

One last note:  when discussing these issues with christians, one eventually comes across the idea that we used to be a christian nation, and over time have slipped away from it.  This is a nice view, but one not supported by history.  The constitution recorded what we wanted to become, not what we were; our country did not suddenly transform into the one described in our constitution, but began to work toward this goal.  Consider, for instance, that the head of the third branch of constitutional power, the Supreme Court, did not even exist for many years after ratification, and held no power for many decades.  It took 100 years to even start to deal with the clear exhortation in our Declaration that men (even black men) were free - and another 100 years to get christians (among others) to stop fighting against that idea.  Equality - that great ‘christian’ idea which our christians hated - was not a feature of America for 150 years after ratification.  In fact, every attempt to claim the guarantees of our own law has been met with broad opposition, many of these guarantees (like religious freedom) have never become a reality for Americans, and yet more (like freedom of association) come and go with the whims of our leaders.

This is not a liberal revolution; it is the revolution of our Founders - one that has yet to be realized.  I find it ironic that I must take up the call of our christian Founders against the ‘moral’ challenge of our christian masses.