Dangers of a Christian Nation
Dennis Prager and his ilk are still up in arms over Keith Ellison’s desire to take his Congressional oath of office while holding a Koran. According to Prager, this should be forbidden “not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.”
Apparently the Koran doesn’t undermine America, tolerance does. To allow Ellison to take his solemn oath on the Koran would simply embolden those who dream of an Islamofascist America. Prager goes on to argue that the way to fight back is to take a page from the same handbook:
Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.
In other words, non-Christians shouldn’t serve in Congress, or at the very least they should act like Christians while they are in office.
Prager is free to state his opinion the same as anyone, but part of me got twitchy when congressman Goode said essentially the same thing. Goode is a little more savvy about it since he doesn’t deny Ellison’s right to use the Koran. Instead he tries to link Ellison to the “immigration problem” despite the fact that Ellison was born in Detroit. The part that makes me twitchy is the assumption that the United States is a “Christian nation.” We are not a Christian nation. We never have been.
A Christian nation would be a theocracy. England is a Christian theocracy, with the Queen as defender of the faith. Norway is a Christian theocracy, and requires at least half its Council of State (roughly equivalent to our President and cabinet) to be members of the state church. The United States–despite its strong religiosity–is and always has been a secular nation.
The argument Prager and others try to make is that the United States was founded by Christians, and was founded on Christian values and principles. One can debate this assertion, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume this to be the case. In crafting the constitution, these Christian forefathers saw fit to ensure their young country didn’t become a theocracy. They sanctioned the right for Americans to practice any religion, not just Christian ones, and they forbid religious tests as a measure of equality under the law. As per Article VI, clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Granted, the founding fathers hedged their bets a bit. Their constitution denied suffrage to women, and denied citizenship to people of color, both of which future generations saw as intolerable. But theocracy was clearly forbidden. The founders understood theocracy. They had declared independence from the English theocracy, and were not about to establish one of their own.
Which gets me back to the comments of Prager and Goode. Both fear our country could become an Islamic theocracy. And they have a point. If the people of the United States have a strong desire for an Islamic theocracy, they can simply get the legislatures of two thirds (34) of the states to call for an amendment convention, then simply use the convention to implement an Islamic constitution. Such a convention has happened once before, when the Articles of the Confederation were discarded and replaced by our current constitution.
That is the real danger of our “Christian Nation.” By creating a democratic republic the founders left the door open to its own demise. We have the right to enslave ourselves. Still, I believe it is a risk worth taking given the alternatives.
So for those who agree with Prager and Goode, who fear the dangers of tolerance and multiculturalism, and who believe a society cannot be both diverse and united, my question is this: Would you like America to become a theocracy, even a Christian one?
Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian
Update: In true Washington showmanship, Ellison will swear in holding not just any Koran, but the personal copy of none other than Thomas Jefferson.
December 29th, 2006 12:29
As a conservative Christian, I must say…good post. Prager does not speak for everyone, and many of the Christian media superimpose their view of Christian doctrine onto politics.
Civil law should be enforced; however, projecting Christianity into the law, where it doesn’t exist, is problematic. This is one of many places where I believe religion gets into the way of appropriate political discourse.
December 30th, 2006 14:55
Rick,
As a conservative Christian, do you feel it is ever appropriate for your faith to play a role in political discourse? Areas such as gay marriage and abortion come to mind where many religious people make arguments for or against based on religious moral grounds. Do you feel these are ever appropriate? If so, what actual discourse can occur when many of opposing side simply doesn’t believe in your religion?
January 2nd, 2007 13:12
Brian,
You ask quite a series of questions. After three attempts to respond, I realized that none of my responses would be complete. So, I offer the following:
One of the greatest benefits and biggest risks of our political system is that we can and will bring our beliefs, prejudices and opinions into political discourse. We are human, after all, and none of us is perfectly objective.
Every entity has a point of reference from which it operates:
- Religions have a book or series of books that define its beliefs and behavior.
- Clubs and organizations have a set of beliefs and a code of conduct.
- Businesses have mission statements, business plans and earnings forecasts. Most also have codes of conduct.
- Jurisdictions have charters and laws.
Faith is individual; religion is communal. That we are allowed to teach and practice our beliefs in the U.S. is a blessing that is also afforded to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and all other practicioners of religion.
Political organizations are also free to teach and practice their beliefs. Just ask the environmentalists, big business, and any advocacy group.
When it comes to state or national governance, all of these should take a back seat to the jurisdiction’s point of reference: its charter and laws. I can absolutely, positively promote a personal belief, and advocate that activities upholding that belief should be turned into law. Our system of governance was set up to uphold its charter, and would discount my beliefs if they are inappropriate to introduce into law.
I believe everyone will bring their personal views to the table, whether appropriate or not. On the matter of jurisdictional governance, we are mistaken if we do not point back to the charter and codes of conduct under which that jurisdiction operates.
January 2nd, 2007 20:16
Dear Brian,
It would seem I am one of those ilk of Mr Prager’s that you referred to. I’ve been called by many names, but this is a unique first. I am quite unsure if I have been slandered or applauded. (grin)
You claim that the United States is not, and never has been, a “Christian Nation”. It is incredulous that you can say this with a straight face as a matter of fact. The plain fact is we have been an explicitly christian nation since the founding. Judeo-Christian principles were most consciously and most certainly in evidence during the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers. What we are not, and have never been, is a Christian Government. As you say correctly, there is no litnus test for religion as a citizen, nor as a elected official. We accept, promote, and defend the right for all to worship as they feel called to. This principle has been the bedrock alowing hundreds of nationalities, ethnicities and religions to root and flourish in this country. Our Western Christian tradition of tolerance has been central to ensuring the success of the ongoing American Experiment. What you have done here is to set up a straw man, purportedly presented as your opponents position, and then knocked it down with ease.
The more central question you are concerned with is the place of Islam in the West. We Westerners, of generally Christian tradition, and Americans in particular, have a tradition, custom and legal code of tolerating all nationalities, religions and peoples. We allow others to join our societies, if they can adopt those same civic principles, codes and beliefs. The problem Mr Prager has raised is what is our position toward those of different beliefs who seek to supplant our traditions of tolerance with a civic code and religion which admits of no other legitimate belief. How are we to maintain the openness, vibrancy and diversity of our culture if a strain of belief gains traction which is a jealous and demanding belief system; which is prepared to use not only persuasion but force and law to demand obeisance to it’s tenets; which severly limits the roles and opportunities of one sex. Islam in it’s unfettered forms is repressive, regressive, intolerant, aggressive, and violent.
Our rights to freedom of religion, the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and to petition the government, would all be in grave peril if we were subject to Sharia law. Islam seeks to be a controlling theocracy. Christianity has not sought that in centuries. So, I must ask you, where is the real threat ?
This discussion would be worth our lives in several countries in Arabia. We in the West do tolerate differences. Those of the Middle East have no trouble claiming sole religious sovereignty. If we do not confront these realities, we will “tolerate” ourselves out of existence. I do not think that the the true meaning of tolerance demands that I be party to a suicide pact, in the personal sense, nor in the cultural sense.
This is the difficulty Mr Prager is raising in his writing. This danger is currently playing out in Europe in several countries. The problem is that we cannot wait til it is in full flower to oppose it, or we will have lost the means to oppose it. The solution is to oppose it’s worst facets while we can, and seek to moderate it into a form which can live equably with the rest of us. For if we do not, we will surely not be able to live at all.
I remain, your interested reader,
Denis
January 2nd, 2007 23:59
Hello Denis and warm welcome,
As it is Brian’s post you responded to, I’ll let him respond to your comment directly but THANKS for dropping by and I hope you are a frequent visitor and contributor. Yours is exactly the kind of intelligent conservative response I was hoping to see when I got into this. I look forward to continued interaction should you remain interested, and please feel free to pass bravehumans along to others you think might be interested.
-Grant
January 3rd, 2007 10:38
Rick,
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing for the rule of law. We each have our biases and perspectives and are free to act upon them through the election process and within the law. If that is your assertion then we are in general agreement. Where I think it gets interesting is where one’s personal (religious) convictions stand in opposition to the law. For example, pacifists who opposed their own conscription, or more currently pharmacists who refuse to dispense “morning after” prescriptions on moral grounds. But this strays off topic…
January 3rd, 2007 12:15
Denis,
Welcome to the site. It was not my intention to name-call, but rather call out Prager’s assertions.
I think we agree on the origins of the United States. Clearly its foundation was a product of its time, and its influences can be traced to Christian tradition, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and earlier civil documents such as Magna Carta. There is a confluence of historical events which gave rise to the ideas of religious freedom and personal equality. But while our democratic republic shares a common history with Judeo-Christian tradition, it also breaks from that tradition. I don’t think I would agree with your assertion that we are an explicitly Christian nation, but I would say its founding was implicitly Christian given its historical origins. The founders themselves held a wide range of Christian and non-Christian beliefs, ranging from the conservative Christianity of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams to the secular Deism of Franklin and Jefferson. (There is an excellent discussion of this in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers by David L. Holmes) The Constitution itself is secular, and it is for this reason I claimed we are not and never have been a Christian nation. You are correct that the United States has traditionally been a “Christian Nation” in the sense that the majority of the population are culturally Christian. This is changing however, which is why I take issue with Prager’s argument.
Prager did not argue against “creeping religiosity” in politics. He has no problem with using the Bible in constitutional oaths, and actually argues that it should be required. This is where I take issue. What Prager defends is the establishment of Christianity as the preferred and implicitly authorized religion of America. His position is unconstitutional, and is as condemnable as one arguing for the imposition of Sharia Law. Keith Ellison is a freely elected congressman and has not argued in favor of Sharia Law. He has argued for the right to bring his personal faith into a civil ceremony equal to the way Christian congressman have.
You ask whether I see Christianity or Islam as a greater danger. I would argue that both pose threats to our open society. Extremists of both Islamic and Christian faiths would seek to establish a theocracy of their own making. Prager argues for a Christian theocracy by preferring Biblical oaths over personal oaths of one’s choosing. I feel such arguments are a step down a dangerous path.
It is interesting that you cite Europe as an example of the impending danger. While much of Europe shares secular government in common with the United States, European countries seem to argue for a freedom from religion rather than a freedom of religion. They seem to take a view that government officials should be nonreligious, and people should leave their religion in the church/temple/mosque. The United States generally takes the opposite view, that one’s religion can be worn proudly, free of persecution. Personally I feel this is where America has an advantage over Europe. By encouraging free and open practices of faith we prevent the kind of persecution and marginalizing influences which allow radicalism to fester. But this can only happen if we all stand up for an equality of religions. So in my view, Prager is wrong. Ellison has the right to draw upon his religious faith in the service of his country, and we should defend that right as we have defended the rights of Christians.
January 3rd, 2007 19:18
Brian,
Correct, I am arguing for the rule of law. I don’t have much else to add at this time, though, at least not that applies directly to this topic.