A note sent in regarding our program “America: A Christian Nation?” (see our program list for more information) which posed some of the following thoughts and questions.

i just wanted to write you and tell you that i think your show, which i only caught part of, was way off the mark. it was on america being a christian nation. the founding fathers were correct, i believe, in seperating church from state. they did a good job leaving christian symbols out of buildings and some tombstones and the like, but what about our money, oaths taken for office, and swearing in at trials and hearings?and that really isn’t the question about whether “america” is a christian nation. regardless of what some of the fathers wrote or said, the “people” of this country were christian and built many buildings such as churches, schools and hospitals. a poll, done by cnn i think, in 2004 said that 80% plus people regarded themselves as being christian or “tied” to christianity. i personally would never try to shove my beliefs onto someone else, and i realize that some christians want to “seize” our government, but don’t christians have a “right” to elect the people they believe will best serve their interests? the term “christian nation” only really started to appear in my newspaper and tv after bush was elected like it was wrong for “those people” to elect someone they wanted. it would seem to me to be more appropriate next time to use the term “christian government” insread of christian nation to make your point.

The term Christian nation denotes much more than a majority sentiment or belief. It refers to the political structure of a country. For instance, the United Kingdom is a Christian nation, because it has an established church that is officially recognized and supported by the government. Many other countries such as Sweden, Peru, and The Netherlands have similar arrangements. Our constitution expressly FORBIDS the official establishment of religion by our government, so the United States is, by definition, a secular republic, where the religious or non religious inclinations of all citizens must be given equal protection under the law.

QUESTION: Don’t christians have a “right” to elect the people they believe will best serve their interests?

ANSWER: The majority can elect who it chooses, and recently it seems that you don’t even need to be a plurality, much less a majority, to elect someone. However, regardless of who is elected, their JOB is to serve the public interest as defined by the Constitution. If they deviate from the Constitution on behalf of a zealous majority or minority, they are violating their oath of office and should be removed.

Spending taxpayer dollars, PUBLIC money, on programs such as Bush’s “faith based initiatives” is unconstitutional, and must end. If people want to involve their churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, covens, etc in charity work, they can fund it directly, instead of asking Americans whose faith differs from their own to offer money to be spent under their auspices. The founders and the authors of the Constitution were very clear about this. A key point of democracy, as opposed to mob rule, is that, while it reflects the will of the majority, it does not allow the majority to tyrannize the minority. Imposing subjective morals that should apply only to members of a religion in secular law is tyranny. Using government money, which is secular by Constitutional mandate, to implement programs that favor any religion is antidemocratic, and tyrannical. It is one step away from taxation without representation. Eliminating religious favoritism is one of the reasons we fought the American Revolution.

If one has any doubts that faith based initiatives can engender religious favoritism, take a look at who has received the money. A much higher percentage of evengelical Christian applicants have been successful in receiving awards of money than those from other denominations or religions who have applied for it. If a different political constituency had more power in a future administration the tables could be turned, Neither scenario is acceptable. Even if it were Constitutional, this is an inefficient use of tax money because, far from providing an advantage by eliminating public bureaucracy, it helps to fund duplicate private bureaucracies.

Furthermore, the poll cited here does not reveal anything about the public’s will in political decision making, since among the eighty percent of Americans who identify with Christianity in some way or another, there is a wide range of opinion about what, if anything, their Christian association means in terms of political action. Some of the most committed Christians in America are the Society of Friends (usually called Quakers). I greatly doubt that THEIR political agenda would be even remotely palatable to the Southern Baptists, but they make up part of that eighty percent you are citing, As do Russian Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Mormons, Brethren, Rastafarians, liberation theologians, African Methodists, Coptics, Metropolitan Church members (gay Christians), and even some Unitarians. So the poll says little about the religious will of people who identify with Christianity, let alone non-Christian Americans. Even if there were a monolithic viewpoint being represented by that number, that constituency would have to amend the Constitution to force its will on the rest of us, and they would be sacrificing our democracy on that zealous fire.

Frankly, I find it hypocritical that neoconservatives want to invoke the Constitution to protect our gun rights (which I support by the way), but want to ignore it when it gets in the way of subsidizing religion, reusing old communist detention camps in eastern Europe, setting up a system of illegal eavesdropping, or sticking their noses in my library records. Americans need to step back from all of the shortsighted and disrespectful tinkering with Constitutional law that we have been indulging in since Bush took office.

In conclusion, I will ask that one ponders the following: Would you want a President Hillary Clinton or Edward Kennedy to award the monies and wield the powers that are currently being offered to George W. Bush?

Ed Lacy
UnCommon Sense TV