Jack Charchol, the author of the letter to the editor "Congress, court established religion" (linked above) has taken a step in a worrisome direction. He cites the Northwest Ordinance and the court case Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States as a "proof" that the United States is around to "legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity." Essentially that this is a Christian nation ordered by the Founders to do Christ's work.
First, Charchol props up his argument with a very narrow quote in the Northwest Ordinance.
"Religious liberty is the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected and that, being necessary to good government, religion, morality, and knowledge shall forever be encouraged."I say "narrow," but perhaps a better description exists. He pulls several narrow sections out and has thrown them together into meaning what he hopes they meant. Let me give you the way it reads in the Northwest Ordinance. (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/5.htm)
And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territoryOkay. This is important. Charchol leaves out "the fundamental principles of civil AND religious liberty. Onward!
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.Alright, so the members of Congress thought that religion, morality and knowledge are necessary for good government. I'm not sure too many would disagree. This does not mean that Christianity is the sole basis or sole religion for the task. Furthermore, morality is not necessarily religious, and can be gained elsewhere. That also includes knowledge. Keep in mind that the members of Congress also wrote several times in this Ordinance about "religious liberty."
Charchol goes on to say that these member of Congress "even defined religion, morality, and knowledge. Religion meant Christianity, morality meant Christian character, and knowledge meant a biblical worldview." I don't know how else to put this, but he's vastly mistaken. There is not one thing suggesting God, Christ, Jesus, Bible, biblical worldview, christian character, etc. Not one. Maybe if you fill in the blanks with what you feel they should be (which were obviously left blank for that "religious liberty"). Charchol should give the Northwest Ordinance another read before citing it, because it clearly and repeatedly speaks of "religious liberty." Religious liberty really doesn't mean much if it really means just Christianity, does it?
Charchol moves on to the famous (or infamous depending on which side of the table you sit) Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States of 1892. (Found at http://home.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm) There is a passage in the write-up that Charchol clearly pulls some verbiage from.
We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."King James I wrote that on Virginia's Charter in 1606. The verbiage I was referring to is "propagating." That Charchol would give credence to this passage by the use of "propagate" in his article is frankly a little backward. The English gave Virginia the charter in part to propagate Christianity to the miserably ignorant, infidels, and savages that lived here at that time. Is this how Charchol views the world today? He uses it to make his point, so I can only assume this.
Charchol writes that the Holy Trinity vs U.S. states that "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based on the teachings of the redeemer of mankind." No where in this opinion does it say those words. Redeemer is never used, and mankind is used once in a quotation of the Northwest Ordinance. I'm not sure where Mr. Charchol managed to pull that little gem from, but it wasn't the Northwest Ordinance or the court case mentioned above.
The court case does however, use the words "this is a Christian Nation" which is why its so famous/infamous. But it also says:
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire peopleand
These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.Also, it is important to note that this case is noted for its "87 precedents" which the Joint Baptist Committee says "were not case decisions but mainly examples of our undisputed religious roots from pre-Constitutional documents, historical practice, colonial charters and the like." The court case is an obscure one "that has never been cited as precedent in the modern era", according to Rob Boston on the website http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9471.htm. Yeah, I know, not exactly free of bias, but check out the data and run the searches. Furthermore, the Joint Baptist Committee writes that the court case's comments about religion are a "dicta -- that is, it is a gratuitous statement that is not essential to the Court's holding. The Court had already decided the issue before venturing its opinion as to the religious character of the country." Susan Batte writes: (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm)
The rationale of the case contains the different reasons why the Court decided a case the way that it did. Contained within these reasons can be comments by the Court which do not have any bearing on the specific rule of law and are not binding on future cases with similar facts. These non-essential comments are called dictum, and unlike the holding of the case, dictum carries no precedential value. The essential comments, or the holding, becomes precedent which can then be applied to subsequent cases with similar facts.Alright, the point is, this court case is hardly anything to base the supposed duty of the United States of America to "legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity. So what we have here, is a few sentences strewn together from the Northwest Ordinance, that somehow come to mean that the United States is a Christian nation with Christianity as its religion, Christian character as the official character of the nation, and the Bible as the sole source of knowledge. Then we move on to a highly disputed and obscure court case, which has seemingly never been cited by another court in over 100 years.
Beyond Mr. Charchol's flawed and misleading interpretations of misleading and flawed citations, respectively, what would be so wrong about accepting that the United States is a Christian nation and, to beat that drum once more, has a duty to "legislate, propagate, and secure Christianity?" I would suggest reading the writings of the Founders and others who actually experienced a state enforcing an official religion.
But for my own gratification, I wish to give my own reasons. Any time a State and a Religion mix together, whether it be the State sticking its nose into Religion or Religion into the State, it leads to a corruption of both. A State that gets into a Religion almost necessarily turns the Religion into politics. Religions are already very clear and solid about sin and politicians are experts at bending truths and playing word games that insinuate less than pure qualities to less than pure people, which is to say everyone. When a Religion gets into a State, the Religion begins to try to enforce itself on its people or others. First through laws, then through police power. Look at any theocracy. That is what happens when States and Religions mix.
Furthermore, I would like to examine what Charchol desires the United States to do. Dictionary.com defines each word following.
Legislate : to exercise the function of legislation; make or enact laws.
Propagate:to spread (a report, doctrine, practice, etc.) from person to person; disseminate. OR to cause to increase in number or amount.
Secure: firmly established, as a relationship or reputation OR make certain of
Alrighty. Mr. Charchol wants to make or enact laws using Christianity as a sole basis. So that means that Agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, some versions of Christianity, etc. will have to abide by laws of the accepted Christianity (maybe even Mr. Charchol's, if he's lucky).
Mr. Charchol wants to spread, disseminate, or increase in number the amount of Christians. Okay, that's pretty standard in terms of evangelical religions. But lets remember legislate. He wants to, by force of law, spread Christianity.
Now, the really important one. Secure. He wants the United States to firmly establish or make certain of Christianity. This is the one that takes the United States out of the United States and into the world. Legislate has to do with our laws and such. Propagate ties into both Legislation and Security. He would like to see the United States secure and propagate Christianity throughout the world.
Mr. Charchol forgets that Christianity is a choice. It must be chosen for someone to accept it. Legislation and security are solid concepts of enforcement. Can religion really be enforced? Can you shove religion down some one's throat and make them accept it? Not only is Mr. Charchol so blatantly advocating the ignorance of the Constitution, but also one of the things that Christianity requires. Acceptance. Not force.
-Rage
1 comment:
Well said.
Post a Comment