Catholics

by

History of America: Chapter Two, Colonial America Settlers


England laid claim to all thirteen of the colonies. But in many colonies, it was people of other nationalities who made up a large portion of the population. People came from Holland, Germany, France and Scotland.

In 1609 the Dutch settled today’s New York. However, they named it New Netherland. They settled all along the Hudson River and to this day there are large numbers of Dutch people living there. The Dutch, along with Swedes, also settled northern New Jersey. Swedish settlers in New Jersey were found on the shores of the Delaware River. The Dutch also were the first to settle Delaware. In between New Jersey and Delaware is Pennsylvania which was an English settlement of William Penn, a state which was called “Penn’s Woods.” Following the early English were the religious group Quakers who felt they could experience religious freedom in this new colony and who settled in Philadelphia.

Maryland is an interest case as an English colony, it was settled by English Roman Catholics. George Calvert brought the colony’s charter to America and settled along the Potomac River.

Above is the Maryland state flag, unique in the United States. Where most states have the state seal emblazoned on their flag, Maryland’s flag represents the Clavert family colors. As discussed in the previous chapter, Virginia was settled by the English.

The remaining colonies, North and South Carolina and Georgia were all English settlements at their start. But after the initial settlements, other nationalities came to settle the southern colonies as-well-as Pennsylvania. In the case of Pennsylvania, Germans soon came to the colony settling at first in Philadelphia. They were followed by German religious groups, first the Mennonites, and then the Baptist Dunkers, Schwenkfelders, Moravians, Amish, and Waldensians and Lutherans. The Pennsylvanian countryside is littered with cities and towns showing religious beliefs, Bethlehem and Nazareth, to name a couple.

Scots settled America in New Jersey and North Carolina. Their influence in North Carolina was far reaching. The Scots first came to North Carolina in 1683. The Scots brought their Presbytarian religion to the region. An estimated 145,000 Scots, primarily Highlanders, came to the region. Additionally, the colony was settled by Germans.

Although Colonial America was considered largely English, the nationalities mentioned had considerable influence in the daily lives and politics of the various colonies. America was a melting pot on many nationalities from its earliest days. Other nationalities also came, Swiss, Belgian, and Irish came as well.

But in 1790, what was the largest single group in America? Black slaves who numbered at least 6 million, 2 million more than all other settlers! At least at the beginning of the United States, black people were the majority! But that first census of 1790, slaves were not counted. But these people of Africa brought with them foods, beliefs, and music which stood in stark contrast to white America.

by

Politics and Religion Do Not Mix!


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is actually very complex taking on no fewer than 5 separate issues. My interest here is in only one of them, religion. I will start with the man who wrote this amendment, James Madison. Madison was central to writing the base document as well. Madison was an Episcopalian. His colleagues in writing the basic document were:

http://www.internationalman.com/articles/framers-of-the-american-constitution

 

Adams was a Congregationalist, Dickinson a Quaker, Edmund Randolph was an Episcopalian, and Thomas Jefferson was a Deist which meant he did not adhere to any religion in particular. Such was the make-up of those who wrote the Constitution and helped with its first 10 amendments. But only a few of them could be found with any regularity at the church of their choice, except for Madison. The wisdom among each of these men was their ability to compromise because they recognized that to have the new country not only get off to a successful start, but to have a secure future. Going back to 1775, the only man of repute who helped get our country started but held disdain for organized religion was Benjamin Franklin. And yet to this day he is revered.

Strangely, the early 21st century, where politics is concerned, is sounding a lot like the early 19th century when America experienced the 2nd Religious Revival. Politicians from the Republican Party are particularly enamored allying themselves with Evangelical Christians. Curiously, only about 13% of the entire population clings to Evangelical beliefs. As a country, the US is about 71% Christian. Therefore, even among all Christians the Evangelicals can claim about 18%. Why is such a minority so important? When lawyers investigate certain types of individuals during a criminal investigation they are told to follow the money. I believe that it exactly what is happening in the Republican Party today and that is a real shame.

The historical man Republicans love the most is Abraham Lincoln, and for good reason. He brought the party back to life and gave it direction. But Lincoln never joined any particular religion. It was not important to him.

Why then, are today’s Republicans so intent on infusing their religious beliefs on American society in general? Follow the money! Even though I have no proof, I believe many of the Republican PACs are funded mostly, if not entirely, by Evangelicals. This needs to stop, now!

I am not a big fan of Bernie Sanders politics, not because I am a Republican which I am not, but because of his socialist beliefs. And yet he has done something truly remarkable. He is waging a pitted battle against Hilary Clinton but Bernie receives zero PAC money while Hilary relies upon it. But Bernie has made an extremely strong statement in the way he is funded and that is he does not owe a PAC anything. With the exception of Donald Trump who can fund his own campaign, all the rest of the Republican candidates are deeply indebted to multiply PACs. And they know that the Evangelical based PACs are particularly adept at energizing the public to support their candidate.

“Their candidate” should be seen as a curse to every American. The two people who run for president representing their political party should be our candidate. Bernie is on to something because he has shown that individual Americans are more than willing to support a candidate at a level that makes the candidate viable. I expect Hilary will eventually become the Democrat candidate for president and that she will ask Bernie to be her running mate. He is charismatic and will energize the public, particularly young people.

Religion has no place in the American government. Our first amendment says as much. But more importantly, Americans need only look to otherwise democratic countries which do allow religion to mix with the government. In general they are a mess.

It is really quite simple, Jews do not want my Catholic ideas impressed upon them. Southern Baptists have absolutely no interest in embracing Unitarian beliefs, and so forth.

I ask only one thing:

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

 

 

 

by

And God Spoke to me……


I get a kick out of people who love to quote the Bible and take particular pains to tell me exactly where what they are saying exists in the Bible, like that John 3:11 thing that pops up all the time.  And so, to find out what exists there, I dug out my handy dandy Catholic Bible.  It made me laugh, not because of what it said, but because whoever wrote the passage seemed to think that it must be put in quotes.  By definition, the use of quotes in such circumstances means you are relating the exact words which were said.  And so  you ask me, what’s wrong with that.  When Jesus was wandering about Palestine no one was writing down a single thing he said.  If they did, well, it got lost because not a single text of that sort exists anywhere in the world today.  Now that does not mean Jesus did not say words to that effect, but I find it a real stretch to believe that it is in fact a quote.

The four gospels were written no earlier than 37AD but more likely close to 100AD.  But even at 37AD there exists an obvious problem.  How good was the memory of the writers and who were the writers.  Now here comes the real problem.  In 2012 scholars made a claim they had found the oldest surviving text of the four gospels.  It dates to around 125AD but it is just a small portion of the Gospel of Mark.  The oldest for Matthew dates to 100AD, for John 137AD, and for Luke 200AD.  Worse, none of these gospels is complete.  They are fragments, literally.  Scholars have had to rely on more recent, circa 400AD manuscripts to compile a single Gospel.

The next problem is equally significant.  All four writers of New Testament Gospels were present with Jesus during his life.  And yet, you can easily find time and again a passage in one which seems to disagree with its complement in another Gospel. There exist other Gospels by other writers which the Catholic Church has never accepted.  One of the Gospels is the Gospel of Mary.

Did you ever see the movie “The Life of Brian” done by Monty Python?  It is a parody, not meant to be taken seriously or to be offensive.  There is one portion where a man, Jesus, is speaking to a large crowd.  A second man is standing at the rear of the crowd, is a bit hard of hear, and is constantly asking the man standing next to him what was just said.  Invariably  the man repeating Jesus’ words gets it wrong.  And that is in the moment!

Most people of the day were illiterate.  I suspect Peter was definitely illiterate because he was a fisherman and his father probably never saw the need for that sort of education.  I also suspect that was true for most of the other apostles too.  The solution was an easy one and one oft used in those days, scribes.  But scribes cost money and money for Jesus and his followers was probably something they saw very little of.  There existed a second choice, the “story teller.”  The story teller existed right here in North America among the Native Americans.  Most of them did not have a written language and needed their legacy remembered.  And so all tribes had a story teller who would remember events, messages, and everything else in very exacting language.  They would learn it so well that they could pass on these messages, stories, etc. to the next generation in perfect form.  Each word was remember in it precise location and proper meaning.  Such people existed at the time of Jesus as well.  Unfortunately we have no evidence that those who traveled with Jesus were given such a task.  But just to make a point, the Koran is extremely accurate from its most early days precisely because people were tasked with perfectly committing it to memory and passing on the exact language.

Jesus was literate.  The speaking in tongues, as related in the Bible, speaks to his ability to speak not just in the prevalent native language, Aramaic, but quite possibly in Egyptian, Turkish, Mesopotamian, and the dialects of the various tribes he visited.  His was a mission to deliver the “good news.”

Now if you look at the four gospels closely you will find that there are really only a very few principles He preached constantly: faith, love, good works, acceptance, understanding and forgiveness. And so I just ran across this passage, it is from Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 1: “If you want to avid judgement, stop passing judgement. 2 Your verdict on other will be the verdict passed on you.  The measure with which you measure will be used to measure you.”  My take on that, he new who the gay people were and loved them.  He knew who the prostitutes were and loved them.  He knew who the thieves were and loved them.

Consider this, Jesus never founded a church because he was both born a Jew and died one.  He only preached in the synagogues towards the end of his ministry.  I expect he did this because he felt he could reach a lot more people by mixing with them in their daily lives.  We have ample example of that happening.

But the most curious of all statements in the New Testament is where some theologian thought to put the phrase “I have not come to change the law.”  I do not believe for a second Jesus ever said that because that is exactly why he came when he did.  The law was imperfect and needed changing.  He even went so far as to say the “eye for an eye” concept of the Old Testament was changed to the New Testament principle of “turn the other cheek.”  Jesus was a radical, an extreme liberal of his day.  Those Jews who felt offended by His ministry and said such were really just revealing their own guilt.  Jesus ended the ancient Jewish custom of stoning by saying “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

I believe that Jesus purposefully made certain that no exact record of his adventures was ever made because as he said, “go in peace, your faith has saved you.”  He led by example and showed everyone the righteous was to act hence forth.  In the early days following the death of Jesus, His followers were of course outcasts of the Hebrew religion but the did not know what to call themselves.  The chose to say they were followers of “the word.”  That was good enough and said everything.  The apostles remembered well what Jesus had taught them and went about spreading “the way.”  But it was certainly by the year 100AD that they called themselves Christian for the first time.

I was talking with a priest recently and said to him that it is my belief if Jesus decided to come back, but not in a “second coming” sort of way, He would most certainly visit the leadership of all the various Christian churches to voice his displeasure in how they are acting and what they are saying.  I think he would start with the Pope and ask him why Rome has found it necessary to accumulate such large caches of wealth while millions of followers go hungry each night.  He would also question the need for all the pretense of the Pope and his selected cardinals.  He would certainly question their requirement of tending to the poor, the sick, and the poor in spirit.

He would like remind many of the conservative Protestant churches of what was said in Matthew that I quoted above.  He would ask about their pride in being intolerant and intractable.  We could use a little Jesus about now.  Christians seem to have forgotten what his mission was and have made it into something that serves their desires while ignoring the intent of the words as Jesus spoke them.

God once said to me, “How dare you question my love for any of mine!”  I had asked the question of what to do when I come into contact with those who condemn gay people and state that “God hates fags.”  And in that one little statement a great deal was said.  We cannot know the mind of God as we sit here on earth but we do know his intent, Jesus gave us the words.  God simply wants us to do our best, to be kind to anyone and everyone we meet, particularly those who would quarrel with us.  He wants us to love all people as if they each were a blood brother or sister.  He tells us not to fear sin, but simply to make our amends and change that which took us into that sin.  And God has no preference of religious practice, one is as good as another as far as He is concerned.  No one religion is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.  And to put a point on that, He loves his Hindus, His Buddhists, His agnostics and His atheists.  He gave each person the right to be what he believes to be right.  He knows the best of Catholics or Jews is no better than the best of agnostics or atheists.

 

 

by

The Jesus I Know


The historical figure Jesus lived and died 2000 years ago. His public live lasted only 3 years. Prior to that we know precious little of his life. In his day Jesus was a religious leader and pointedly eschewed all things political. He rather pointed said that people should give the Cesar those things which are Cesar’s and to God those things which are God’s. That mean prior to people like John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and their peers, he had already separated the life of politics for the religious life.

But then he said something very curious, at least according to the New Testament. It is something I believe either translates very poorly or is otherwise poorly explained. He stated that he had not come to change the law. He was referring to the ancient Mosaic law, the laws of the old Testament. And yet, that is exactly what he did. He made the state that instead of an eye for an eye, the aggrieved person turn the other cheek. Is that not a change to the old law? He also said prior to the stoning of a fallen woman that only a man without sin could throw the first stone. Again, a long held Jewish tradition, he changed.

The Jesus I know was a man who was the penultimate radical of his day. He chastised many of the Jewish leadership for their preference of worldly things over heavenly. But once again we have a departure from the traditional belief. Jews historically do not believe in an afterlife and yet Jesus, a lifelong Jew, spoke frequently of it. What did he know that the others did not?

But all those things are merely the lead-in for his more important message. The New Testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are filled with “parables.” The word parable is an archaic word for story. That means Jesus told a lot of stories. It is unlikely that most of the characters in his stories were people he had known, although that cannot be dismissed out of hand either, we simply do not know. Either way, Jesus told these stories to make a point. My favorite is the story of the good Samaritan.

In the day of Jesus, Samaria was a region in the Middle East. The Samaritans were a group of people the Jewish population felt ill towards. They simply did not like them. And what does Jesus do? He puts a Samaritan in a situation where that person’s actions can only be thought of as being highly commendable. He tells us that this is the type of person we all should strive to be like.

Jesus spoken in the language Aramaic. His words were first put into the printed work in Greek, as far as we know. The book of Matthew, for example, is not a single text but an amalgam of several ancient Greek texts pieced together to give us the best and most complete version. But we must remember, someone who spoke primarily Aramaic had to tell someone who spoke primarily Greek the actions and words of Jesus. How good are you at remembering something, particular the words, spoken to you 60 years ago or more. That is exactly the situation the early writers face.

I mention all this not to take away anything from the four Gospels but rather to suggest that the words contained within them are the very best version of what happened and what Jesus said that we have. Each is a book of concepts meant to guide mankind in the years after the death of Jesus.

Unfortunately, there are Christians who take each word at face value never considering them to be a list of ideas and ideals. They prefer exacting principles to interpretive ideas. Even more, they fail to recognize the historical setting within which these words were first said, and then translated. For example, Christians believe in the virgin birth. This concept actually did not come into being for several centuries after the life of Jesus when Rome was translating the texts, again, and struggle with the word for virgin. They knew it was synonymous in the days of Jesus for the word “young girl.” Their true struggle was the concept of sex coupled with the fact that a 30 or 40 year old man named Joseph could possibly have had sex with a girl who may well have been only 12-years-old. In today’s society that is unacceptable, of course, but in the days of Jesus, it was not all that unusual and well within the Jewish tradition of arranged marriages. This is my long was of referring you back to Jesus saying “judge as you would be judged.”

It Is not the truth of historical facts that hurts a person like Jesus but rather the half-truths and out right fantasies.

Jesus took on a very traditional and very conservative religious culture by giving them a new way of looking at things. He never shied away from taking a position which ran contrary to accepted beliefs. He was in his day viewed as a radical, a revolutionary. But more importantly, he was hugely popular with the common man, and his popularity grew as his ministry continued. And yet, he never claimed to be anything other than a Jew. Even at his death, the Romans, in what was meant to be derisive, condemned him as “King of the Jews.” Jesus never portrayed himself as being such, but he absolutely was the most charismatic figure of his day.

When Jesus died and the Apostles came out of hiding, they referred to their new form of Judaism as “The Way.” They never called themselves Christians. That was an appellation which took about 100 years to evolve.

“The Way” was quickly spread throughout the Middle East, Turkey and Greece, well before it arrived in Rome. The Apostles insisted that Jews was in fact a deity. But that did not sit well with everyone in the Middle East. In the year 610 and Middle Eastern prophet named Mohammed started a religion we know today as Islam. Mohammed was well away of Jesus, his follows and predecessors. Mohammed, like many others where he lived, saw Jesus as a prophet and so when he was tasked with how to refer to Jesus, John the Baptist and earlier Jews, he referred to them as prophets.

Jesus does have a prominent position in Islam but not as a deity. They acknowledge him as an important figure within their own religion. I think it likely that the writers of Koran used some of the principles Jesus proposed within the Koran and carrying great weight. Mankind has a long history of adopting the ideas and ideals of predecessors into their own tradition for simple reason that they are good and worthy.

The two principles Jesus espoused the most were peace and love. I think we he to once again walk the surface of the Earth he would be aghast by what he would see by those professing to be “Good Christians.” I feel he would have huge problems with the amount of wealth accumulated by the Catholic Church in Rome and by other Protestant religions at their headquarters. Jesus most certainly believed in the redistribution of wealth. He once told a man to give half of everything he owned if that man had hopes to enter into heaven. I really like Jesus the historical figure over the religious Jesus so many religions have made him into. I think the two are so disparate as to defy almost all comparison.

by

Mankind Versus Religion


When I was young, an adolescent or young teen, I as my father, once Sunday noon over our traditional Sunday meal, why I never saw him in church.  He responded, and rather quickly too, that “when they stop preaching politics from the pulpit, I’ll go back.”  The backdrop on this is my father was a Unitarian and my mother a devout Roman Catholic.  When they were married, in 1946, the Roman Catholic Church did not allow for marriage between two people of different faiths.  And while they did not prohibit Catholics from marrying those of other religions, such marriages were never allowed in the church proper.  And so, my parents, two really good people who genuinely loved each other, were married by a priest but not within the walls of the church.  To be fair, the Catholic Church was not alone in such practices, and while that practice no longer exists today in the Catholic Church, it does in other religions.

My first crisis of faith happened at age 15 when, having suffered a very traumatic experience at the hands of another, I sought out a priest, an Augustinian, who after hearing my story told me I should ask forgiveness for my sin.  He showed absolutely no understanding, no empathy, and to my mind, not to slightest knowledge of New Testament Bible teachings.

And now we arrive at the Bible, the basis of all Judeo-Christian religions.  I have actually read it!  Even when I was young, many parts of it did not make much sense to me.  But I was instructed that it is a work of faith, and I must have faith in its teachings.  Really?  I cannot help but wonder what is to be learned from the Old Testament teaching of “an eye for any eye” except that we will end up with a bunch of blind people!  And actually, the New Testament contradicts that saying with Jesus telling his followers to “turn the other cheek.”  Now that makes a whole lot more sense.  Except that one of Jesus’ first pronouncements was that he had not come to change the law.  I am assuming he was referring to the old Mosaic Law.  And that law, if you considered it based on the 10 Commandments, was freely lifted from the ancient Egyptian “Book of the Dead.”  Such facts make me wonder about the honesty of religions.

Conservative Christians today are quick to condemn gay people to hell claiming it is God’s will.  I find that curious since the New Testaments clears states that you should judge someone in the same manner you wish to be judged.  I don’t think they believe such an admonition applies to them.  They are quick to point at the passage in the New Testament condemning one man laying with another.  But the proper historical perspective on that saying comes from the fact that traveling merchants of the day would take young boys with them who would satisfy their sexual needs.  It was not a commentary on people who were gay but upon the corruption of old men using innocents for their own selfish needs.

One of the most basic problems for all religions today is their interpretation and application of the Bible.  If you were of no religion and desirous of joining a particular religion based on the Bible it used, you would first have to read through literally hundreds of Bibles, the Catholic Bible, King James Bible, New American Bible, Mormon Bible, and so on.  The Hebrew Bible, of course, contains no New Testament, while Christian Bibles vary as to which Old Testament Books they include.  What that alone tells us is exactly how personal religion is.

Here in the United States we have many religions which do not have the Hebrew-Christian-Islam God.  Buddhists believe in Buddha and Hindus believe in an eternal spiritual truth.

Probably the most divided church today is also one of the largest, Roman Catholicism.   Millions of Americans, I am one, call themselves Catholic but cannot remember the last time they went to church.  Why?  Disillusionment with its archaic laws and teaching.  I suspect other religions are experiencing the same issues.  Historically, religion has badly trailed present-day issues its followers must face.  Unreasonable restrictions and admonishments by those church do little to comfort and much to confuse, frustrate, and cause anxiety among its followers.  It is hard to believe, at least in Christian churches, such church orthodoxy would be embraced by its founder, Jesus.

It might be good for man to consider that it was not God who created religion, but man.  Man has always searched for answers to those things he did not understand, and to bring meaning to life.  For the answers to things he did not understand he created science, and for the meaning of life, he embraced God.

If God had intended for all humans to be alike he would not have allowed for free-will, for considered decisions, or for humans to have a brain that would function on a higher level than another other animal on the face of the Earth.  And yet, there it is.  We are endowed with minds that allow us to make individual decisions and, even more importantly, allow each of us to be unique in our own way.  But it is that very uniqueness that does not allow us to think and act exactly as another other human being.  And that is a good thing because oh what a boring place this earth would be if we were all alike.

It would shock many Christians to hear that monotheism pre-dates Moses, and by thousands of years at that!  But it does not change the fact.  The fact is man has been working on the idea of one religion fits all philosophy.  If one thing the over 5000 years of recorded history should have taught us is the fact that that idea has failed miserably.  But it has always been small-minded men who have had a vested interest in securing places of power within their followers, who have usurped the God-given right to think for themselves.  To be fair, there exist a few religions that actually promote this think for yourself idea.  And if you think about, that is the only thing which makes sense when trying to ascertain “God’s will.”  Therefore, by definition, each person’s relationship with God is a very personal one and can only be defined in that one-on-one relationship.  It is certainly not the job of religions to tell us what that relationship should be defined by or look like, but our own personal responsibility.  It is the responsibility of religion to assist, the lend help, to show compassion, and to be there at the time of a person’s greatest need and without the least bit of judgment.  And on that last point it is my belief that most religions fail miserably.

This brings me back to my father.  Although he was a member of a particular church, I never associate that church with him.  I look at him as the person he was and cannot help believe, though he was absolutely of a different religion form me, he was none-the less, a literal saint of a man.  He died monetarily poor and richly loved.  I should be so fortunate.

by

Which God of Our Fathers?


Americans seem to love the phrase “God of our fathers,” but how is that God defined?  If you listen to today’s religious conservatives you will most definitely get a version which they will swear by.  They will also quickly point out that the founders of our country were all God-fearing men.  That is an impossible position to defend because it mostly lacks for definition.

The founders of our country were, in the first place, English merchants who saw an opportunity in the New World at the Virginia plantation.  Their allegiance, such as it was, was to the Church of England.  But the colony the founded at Jamestown was far more interested in it commercial value than allying itself to any particular religion.  As was true in later settlements, these Englishmen did not first erect a church and then a community to surround it.

Next you have the “Pilgrims” who settled Plimouth Plantation.  This group, very left-wing for its day, denied the Church of England any power over them.  When they landed in what is now Massachusetts, they formed their own religion.  They committed the ultimate heresy, of that day, by allowing a woman to preach the word of God!  This woman, Anne Hutchinson, was physically assaulted by the good men of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, when she dared venture to the environs of Boston and talk about God.  When arrested in the vicinity of Salem she was “dragged” behind a horse back to the Plimouth Plantation where she was warned to never stray from again.

The inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the Puritans who, although they found themselves in conflict with the Church of England, did not harbor the radical beliefs of their erstwhile brethren, the Pilgrims.  Even so, once settled in Massachusetts they formed their own church, or more correctly a church defined by their leader John Winthrop, which became known as the Puritan Church of America.

Then there came the people who founded New York City, then known as New Amsterdam, who were Lutherans, more liberal than their English cousins, but far more conservative than the Pilgrims.  Further south, in the Delaware Maryland peninsula, came the Catholics.  To this day the flag of the state of Maryland reflects old Catholic emblems.  Further to the south, southern Virginia and the Carolinas, came the Scots who brought with them their Presbyterian ideals.  This all points to the vast differences in religious ideology that existed at the very beginning of America.  What can be said with good certainty is that most Americans believed in a God of some definition particular to their own personal belief.

By the time Americans declared themselves an independent nation, 1776, Puritanism had given way to Congregationalism.  The Pilgrims had, in part, evolved into the American version of the Quakers.  But America, that which attended a church, basically identified itself with Protestantism.  Even so, American Protestants were divided between that religion which governed agrarian Americans and that which American merchants gave sway.  This division first showed itself in 1692 during the hysteria of the Salem witch trials.  Those most affected by those proceedings were the farmers, the people outside the main village, who were far more compliant with the preaching of the pulpit than were the merchants living in the village proper.  A study of the “afflicted” showed all but 2 of the 30 or more women brought to trial on charges of witchcraft came from the farming areas.

Our American Constitution was, for the most part, written by five men. Gov. Morris of Pennsylvania, one of the chief contributors was an Episcopalian.  Alexander Hamilton is difficult to nail down as to his beliefs.  He had called himself an Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Huguenot.  Thomas Jefferson was a “deist” or, as we would probably call him today, an agnostic.  John Dickinson was a Quaker.  Though his input was minimal due to his advancing years, Benjamin Franklin declared himself a “scientist” when queried about his religious beliefs.  Franklin was known for his outspoken ways but his beliefs were truly not much removed from the beliefs of his peers.  These men, all, were American aristocrats, scholars, statesmen, and merchants.  Theirs was a detached respect for the various religious institutions.  The inclusion of the word “God” in any American document was as much to mollify the masses as to express any personal beliefs.

The founders of the United States had just finished a war with England over the right to “self determination.”  The cry of “taxation without representation is tyranny” was the tip of the political iceberg of that day.  Colonial leaders had long and loudly complained over their lack of representation in the English Parliament.  They recognized, however, that if they were to become a united country the idea of dictating religion, as was true in England, had to be outlawed in the new nation.  The Constitutional delegates represented, at the very least, eight different religions.  It was obvious to them that an agreement over a uniform God and religion was an impossibility.

The brilliance of these men was over their ability to compromise and come to terms on a document that was acceptable to all the colonies involved.  For example, John Adams and other vocal northerners desperately wanted a clause that outlawed slavery in the Constitution.  The powerful Virginians, not entirely opposed to such language, correctly pointed out that the 3/5 vote needed to accept the Constitution was impossible under the present circumstances.  They knew at its adoption the Constitution was an imperfect device but one which allowed for challenges and changes as such things allowed.  And to that end, as soon as the new republic was formed, the adoption of the first ten amendments, what we refer to as the “Bill of Rights” was under way.  The first five amendments reflect prejudicial English laws that had been forced upon the colonists at various times and for various reasons.  Chief among them was what they considered every “Englishman’s right” to free assembly.  But that right was undermined by military governors in the waning days of colonial rule by England.  But also, many of these men had been reminded that their ancestors came to America to worship, or not, as their conscience dictated, and not as a king dictated.  And to that end came the 2nd part of the first amendment, the absolute separation of church and state.  They were not going to allow their God to be defined by a king or any other political entity.

The very most basic principle at rule here is the absolute right of the individual to be free of any governmental action with regard to religion and religious ideas and ideals.  To that end, our government is prohibited from taxing any recognized religious entity.  The separation of church and state must remain absolute.  Today’s America enjoys the greatest diversity ever of religious beliefs.  We have gone far beyond our original belief which were based in Protestant orthodoxy, to a country the Jews, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, and a plethora of other beliefs.  Large portions of the American population, while believing in a higher power, does not chose to call that higher power God.

That any individual or group believes that God is a necessary part of our government is just wrong.  It is an absolute insult to those who do believe in a higher power not called God.  But to be fair to all people regardless of their belief, our government necessarily must remain detached from all discussions regarding God, or any other religious ideology.  And while any individual member of our government has the absolute right to express his beliefs, he must, in total fairness, remember that his particular beliefs are unique to himself, and not necessarily shared beliefs.  More importantly, to govern effectively, he can go not further than to allow his religious belief to be his moral compass but not a point of government.

by

Who Hijacked the Republican Party?


The Republican Party can trace its roots all the way back to Washington.  While it is true that Washington and Adams both were Federalists, they were also the conservatives of their generation.  Jefferson, who became president in 1801, was the first “liberal” and his was the Republican Party.  The party of Jefferson, however, disappeared with the Whigs only to return as the party of Lincoln.

None of our first four presidents were religious men.  There is continuing discussion among historians as to what, if any, religion Jefferson truly ascribed to.  But it was a very conservative Adams, and equally conservative Madison, who made a point of distancing the federal government from any form of religion.  Their reasoning was simple and clear.  They remembered the heavy-handed dictates of the King of England insisting that his subjects be members of the Church of England.  It was this absolute separation of church and state, as much as anything, that brought the original settlers from England to America.  The second part of the first amendment is an affirmation of that fact.

Mitt Romney is a very conservative evangelical Christian.  His running-mate, Ryan, is a very conservative Roman Catholic.  The irony of those two being on the same ticket is that each of their chosen religions was a huge detractor of the other during the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries.  Each religion based itself of certain absolute ideas and ideals over which they were unwilling or unable to find any middle-ground with dissenters of that particular belief.  In the late-20th century, at least one Mormon tel-evangelist referred to Catholics as evil in no uncertain terms.  To be fair, and having been brought up Catholic, we were led to believe that the only true Christians were Catholics.  I believe Romney is crafty enough that he realized such a division could be brought up during his campaign for president, hence his drafting Ryan.  To many, the charismatic Marco Rubio was a better choice of running-mate, but that would have put two evangelical Mormons on the same ticket.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, evangelical Christians, lead by Jerry Falwell, formed what they called “the moral majority” and started a systematic takeover of the Republican party.  To be sure, they were conservatives all and well-financed.  But the “moral majority” fell apart when Jim Baker, and other prominent far right-wingers, were found guilty of marital infidelity and other such things.  But the Falwells were simply the figureheads for well-monied ultra-conservative Republicans.  They quite simply set an agenda and required all Republicans to buy-in or see their campaign funding dry up.

Not all Republicans have toed that line.  I do not believe that Scott Brown, a Republican US Senator from my own state, is of the ilk although I do think he has found himself in the position of voting for positions that are unpopular with his constituency rather than risk becoming a pariah.  Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has also shown courage of conviction to buck his party’s line.  Unfortunately, he is far from being a centrist.

The “Tea Party” has a hand in all this.  It is the answer to the Libertarian ideas of Ron Paul.  But unlike Ron Paul, it has a close alliance with evangelical America.  While Ron Paul takes a very pragmatic approach to reducing government, the Tea Party seeks quick draconian measures that would basically kill the middle class as it increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

I think everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they desire.  But I do not want their religion, or mine for that matter, being used as a basis for public policy and law.  Religion is one of the most personal things that exists.  Even among the most conservative group of people of a same religion, you will find differences in their beliefs.  And while these difference may seem minor, they are important to each individual.  How do you dictate what, religious in content, a country should hear, should have as a part of its public policy, and worse, a part of its law?

Good government and good government policy can only be built upon the absence of religious belief.  It is not unpatriotic, for example, to be an atheist, although ultra-conservative Republicans will have you think that so.  I demand freedom from your religion, as you should demand of me.  My First Amendment right says that will be so.  I do not, however, believe that is the plan of evangelical Republicans who have found a leader in Mitt Romney, and who have kidnapped the once proud and pragmatic Republican Party.  Please give back the Republican Party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, and of Dwight Eisenhower.