Oct 23 2007
Huckabee Wrong About Founding Fathers Being “Clergymen”
Huckabee gets a historical correction on his statement that the founding fathers were all men of the cloth:
During the Republican debate, Mike Huckabee said he believes one of the defining issues facing the country is the sanctity of human life. Arguing that the issue is of historical importance, he invoked the Declaration of Independence’s rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and said that most of the signers of the declaration were clergymen.
Not even close.
Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). Politifact.com
It’s always baffled me as to why so many on the conservative side of the political spectrum have tried to portray the founding fathers as some massive collection of devout super-Christians in the face of overwhelming historical evidence that they were anything but.
Ha! And check out Sean Hannity getting bodyslammed by anti-theist Christopher Hitchins:
well, here:
http://blogs.wauwatosanow.com/alienated_blogology/archive/2007/10/23/hannity-got-served.aspx
That’s a bit of an overstatement, in two parts. First they don’t portray them as “super-Christians” whatever that term might mean (frankly, I don’t know what it means) and second “anything but” is just as unsupported by historical evidence.
There’s great historical evidence that the vast majority, if not all, of the founders believed in a God of some sort, and many of them were self-labeled as Christians. Those who didn’t generally considered themselves Deists, and all would have handled Hitchens’ illogic better than Hannity, who is more than inept in this, indeed most, intellectual arenas. They would, without exception, have been amused by Hitchens’ leaps. (BTW, I’m sure Hitchens is capable of rational thought; I just didn’t see much of it on display in the above noted clip. To give an example, one, or even a million, extinct species cannot possibly reflect upon the quality of a design unless the purpose and parameters of the design are known. Yet he cited it nearly in terms of a refutation of it, which was beyond silly.)
To address a more general sentiment behind your comment, though, Dan, you might profitably ask yourself why so many religious people end up on the right (meaning right-wing politics, not right as in correct) despite the fact that the folks they meet there don’t reflect their social views. The reason is there’s a fundamental hostility towards them from the left, sometimes even to the point of denying their right to exist.
I’m not trying to start up a theological debate, but since you’re running for office I just wanted to encourage you to think about the issue. You’ll find some social issues they’ll still disagree with you on, but if you keep the door open, you’ll be surprised how many stands you’ll have in common.
“…they were anything but.”? O.K., if they weren’t devout super-Christians what were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, religion-wise?
The Declaration does mention “God”, “Nature’s God”, “Creator”, “divine Providence” and “the Supreme Judge of the World” so the 56 signers gave at least tacit support to the idea of a Supreme Being. So did the signers regard “God” as the Hairy Destroyer dear to Southern Baptitsts or a Unitarian Cosmic Muffin? Can you point to any overwhelming historical evidence to support your position?
“…ask yourself why so many religious people end up on the right…”
Because too many of them refuse to differentiate between personal moral decisions they’ve made in their own lives and the absurdity of allowing their government to stifle at least the same opportunity to make an opposing decision by those with whom they disagree. The political right often champions the CODIFIED suppression of hot button issues like gays and abortion, and religious folks often succumb to fearmongering dogmas that threaten some sort of Divine retribution for a society that would allow even the CHOICE to live one’s life as one pleases. That’s downright baffling to me - doesn’t one of the primary tenets of Christianity state that eternity is supposed to be decided by the choices one makes in life?
I was going to write a long, well thought out explanation to this post and the comments that followed, but I just realized that 1) for some, well, thought out explanations wouldn’t be understood, and 2) it is the arrogance of those that are anti-Christian that have caused people to organize, and become a force in politics. Using words and phrases like “codified suppression”, or “fearmongering dogmas”, just makes my point even clearer.
A question you should ask yourself is, “Is it only the right and religious group(s) that stifle choice and/or many other personal desires?” If you can say YES to that question, I’d have a hard time taking anything you have to say, seriously.
First of all, you’re making quite an assumption when you drop the “anti-Christian” tag. Easy there, Sean.
More importantly, what exactly about “codified suppression” is inaccurate? When anti-gay proponents think they’re coyly side-stepping an all-out ban on, say, gay marriage by endorsing an amendment that supports their own description of marriage, how is that not codified? When pro-lifers make it their top priority to criminalize abortion because they’re convinced they know when life begins, how would such legislation not be codified? Again, it goes to the issue of living one’s own life by one’s own moral code as opposed to having at the very least the OPTION of living an alternative code ripped away from you via new laws. It’s simple - if you don’t like abortion, don’t get one. When you outlaw behaviors with which you disagree when said behaviors have no bearing on the lives of others, you endanger genuine freedom.
And about “fearmongering dogmas”…
What, pray tell, was Falwell talking about then? What about Robertson? If you think they’re the only ones who share this belief, you’re kidding yourself. It may surprise you to know I was raised in such a religious setting myself, and I know for a FACT that such political influence by church leaders exists in spades! Let’s be clear - I’d never say ALL dogmas are fearmongering, and if you got that impression from my comment, please adjust your interpretation of said comment accordingly.
“A question you should ask yourself is, ‘Is it only the right and religious group(s) that stifle choice and/or many other personal desires?’”
And a question you should ask yourself is, “Why do I think Les thinks it’s ONLY the right and religious groups that stifle choice and/or many other personal desires?” I never said that, and I’d appreciate it if you’d avoid framing my argument as such. Do I think the left can go overboard in its own zealotry at times? Abso-frickin’-lutely. YOUR question, however, asked why so many religious folks gravitate to the right, and THAT’S the question to which I offered an answer. Specifically, any time a political entity - right OR left - offers a platform potential voters can identify with, those voters are obviously going to support it. In THIS particular case, if the political right is willing to pursue legislation based on personal moral/spiritual beliefs, then naturally those who share that opinion are going to get behind it. Whether or not I agree with such behavior is irrelevant to the context of your question, Sean.
You may not agree with me, but does that at least answer your question a little more clearly?
Abortion isn’t the best example to be using here. There are third parties involved and it is rational for people that think abortion is on par with murder to want it prohibited by law to protect the victims.
Marriage is a better example. I think the government needs to figure out exactly what is trying to do with laws covering marriage. Is it to encourage production of children, good homes for children, provide tax advantages when transferring property between partners after one of them passes, provide guidelines for splitting property between partners, provide tax credits they can point to a reelection time or whatever? There may be better ways of accomplishing whatever goals are chosen then the way we are doing things now.
Personally, I think the people that pushed for the ban on civil unions were acting in a mean spirited (and unChristian manner).
“…it is rational for people that think abortion is on par with murder to want it prohibited by law to protect the victims.”
I completely understand the logic there, Bruno. The reason I mentioned it, however, can be found within your response. Some people THINK abortion is on par with murder because they THINK they know when life begins. Knowledge and what one thinks are two completely different animals.
Long post, sorry, but I want to make a couple of points about religion and politics. Read at your own leisure.
1.
Here’s a nice little pro-choice argument, just for argument’s sake, that also ties in to the codified law string.
If the government is given the ability to ban abortion, it is essentially given the ability to legally regulate childbirth. This is the basis of Roe v. Wade - that the decision to bear children should be left to the individual, not to the state.
But let’s say the government had the right to make that decision. By that logic, the government could also constitutionally choose to mandate abortion. It could deny an individual the right to continue a pregnancy.
Absurd? Maybe. But constitutionally true nonetheless.
Would anyone feel comfortable giving the government that ability? Not I, and I assume the pro-life contingent wouldn’t either.
This all goes back to Les’s point that no faction, whether right or left, should be allowed to codify its moral standards. That is a slippery slope, and stopping it from happening a primary reason that the Bill of Rights exists in the first place.
2.
As to the religious convictions of the Framers - they are and should be irrelevant. Whatever they believed, they wrote the First Amendment for a reason.
“Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion…”. This protection has been applied to the state governments as well by the Fourteenth Amendment.
There is a very clear record of the intention of the Establishment Clause, and it is this: for the protection of both, there should be no contact between Church and State. Meaning, religious convictions should not be used as bases for codified law.
Our Supreme Court might ignore this - and they do - but they cannot change the fact that the Framers, particularly Madison and Jefferson, the two men most responsible for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, sought above all else to keep the influence of religion as far from politics as possible.
It is to their credit that they did this regardless of their own personal religious/moral predilections. It’s a shame that we’ve drifted so far from what they intended.
Societies, especially democracies, not only have a right, but on obligation to set certain moral and ethical rules. Most if not all of those rules are based on what people think and BELIEVE. It’s not about codified morality, it comes down to the question of right versus wrong, and we, through the constitution, bill of rights, and judicial rulings, determine what our society accepts as right and wrong.
I am not going to go into an in depth conversation regarding Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, because I’ve found that whatever “argument†that is put out there, neither side budges, and the conversation is worthless. What I am going to comment on is the pro-choice argument assuming that if you outlaw abortion, you give the government the legal right to regulate childbirth. That logic is at best, absurd. Taking away the ability to do something (aborting a fetus) does not give the government the legal ability to then regulate childbirth. How you get from barring someone’s action, to allowing the government to infringe on every aspect of the act is absurd, and not even close to being constitutionally true…..That would be like saying, that because the government bars us from yelling “Bomb†in an airport that they can then bar us from free speech. Certain acts are considered illegal for the safety of our citizens (drug use, reckless driving, yelling fire in a crowded theatre), and the same argument is made when it comes to abortion, basically defending the life and safety of the embryo/fetus. To answer your question, I would not want the government to have the ability to regulate EVERY aspect of procreation. The only way that would happen is if, like the Supreme Court of 1973, they were to legislate from the bench.
The first amendment is a broad but powerful piece of the bill of rights and over the past 30-40 years has been twisted to reflect a certain ideology; that being, the oft quoted phrase, “separation of church and stateâ€. Nowhere in the constitution or the bill of rights is that phrase ever uttered. Unfortunately a flawed interpretation of the first amendment and establishment clause has caused most to believe that phrase is in the constitution or bill of rights, when it is not. There are many that think the framers of our constitution and subsequent bill of rights wanted or intended to have government completely out of religion, which is systematically untrue. They specifically say, (and I am quoting directly from the first amendment) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;†The key word in that sentence is ‘establishment’…..The basis behind that portion of the first amendment is there solely because of England’s establishment of the Church of England, and the papacy in Rome. The intent was not to have religion completely out of government, but, more accurately, not be controlled by it, along with not allowing the government to infringe on the free exercise of any and all religions.
“Certain acts are considered illegal for the safety of our citizens (drug use, reckless driving, yelling fire in a crowded theatre), and the same argument is made when it comes to abortion, basically defending the life and safety of the embryo/fetus.”
That very sentence underscores my point, Sean. We KNOW drug abuse, reckless driving, and yelling fire in a crowded theater endangers the safety of others. Again, I have no problem with laws designed to protect people when the behaviors to which those laws apply are clearly dangerous. The malevolence of acts like murder, rape, and assault are not in question, nor are they based on one’s personal belief system. They are, in fact, malicious acts that undeniably put people at risk, and there’s no logical reason one should oppose laws intended to protect a society from them.
The disconnect lies in how people view issues like those we discussed above. In this particular case, gay marriage and abortion. As you mentioned, there is no consensus among us on when life begins. Furthermore, there is no reasonable evidence showing gay marriage negatively affects the lives of others. Accordingly, it seems inappropriate to me to allow laws to be created based on such a subjective perspective. Again, whether or not one agrees with the issue in question is irrelevant.
Here’s the fundemental difference, and one that I will not expound upon, for many people abortion does endanger the lives and/or safety of others. You’ve just chosen to ignore that fact. Many people KNOW that killing a human fetus is wrong, so for you to label that subjective and irrelevant is sad.
Scott,
Read a little closer. The intent of the clause was the keep the Government (and therefore politics) from influencing religion. Not the other way around. Specifically, they left the Church of England because they were not allowed to freely worship God/Jesus. Clearly MOST of the founding fathers were devout Christians.
“…one that I will not expound upon…”
Perhaps you should, because the difference in context is important, and depends heavily on whether you’re talking about the mother or whether you’re talking about the fetus.
“You’ve just chosen to ignore that fact.”
I haven’t ignored anything, and if you’d read my response to Bruno earlier, you’d notice we touched on it briefly. Again, please stop making unfounded assumptions about my arguments. How could you possibly know which information I’ve considered in forming my opinions on this subject?
“…so for you to label that subjective and irrelevant is sad.”
Sad?!? Let’s not cherry pick pieces of this whole discussion for rhetorical effect, ok? The issue on the table here is the codification of personal beliefs, NOT just abortion. By assaulting my position on this, are you basically saying it’s “sad” to remove one’s personal moral convictions from the table when authoring laws that affect the lives of everyone? Excuse me, but I’d argue that doing so is downright essential to our national health!
You know, something you wrote earlier bears repeating:
“I am not going to go into an in depth conversation regarding Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, because I’ve found that whatever ‘argument’ that is put out there, neither side budges, and the conversation is worthless.”
You’re right. When you’ve already made a blanket judgement about the moral constitution of your opposition and decided you know how they really feel inside about any given issue, you’ve effectively made any further conversation worthless.
Sean and TGad,
The phrase “Separation of Church and State” is indeed not in the Constitution, but it is useful shorthand. Check out Everson v. Board of Education (1947) - the Court’s opinion includes a detailed inspection of the history and intent of the Establishment Clause. Yes, it was intended to protect both state and church from one another.
And the clause was further intended to bar more than simply the establishment of an official religion. What would constitute an “establishment” of religion? An official religion, for sure. Also: forcing a citizen to profess any religious belief, or denying them the right to do so; forcing a citizen to support any religious cause (through taxes or otherwise); favoring one religion over another; favoring any or all religions whatsoever; and more that I can’t remember off the top of my head.
This is not interpretation - these are the words of Madison and Jefferson, the two men most responsible for the 1st Amendment. Regardless of their personal religious beliefs, they left a very clear record of their feelings on the matter. The Court, in its wisdom, has chosen to simply ignore their intent. (Free Exercise is a different clause altogether).
—–
In any event, I don’t rely on the 1st Amendment for my opinions on abortion, gay marriage, etc. There are plenty of non-religious arguments that can be made against these activities.
Instead, I would rely on the right to privacy as created in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Yes, this right was “created,” or “legislated from the bench,” but it is clearly hinted at throughout the Bill of Rights, and the 9th Amendment states that the BoR is not an exhaustive list.
Certain decisions should not be left to legislatures, which are notoriously prone to bigotry, intolerance, and a host of other human flaws. Our legislatures have enacted laws banning interracial marriage, denying so-called “bastards” many rights of citizens, and much more.
Certain decisions are so personal that they must be protected by the Constitution itself.
—–
And as to my personal-favorite pro-choice argument - it is only absurd because we don’t expect our government to ever actually mandate abortion. But it is not absurd the legal sense. When the government has the right to proscribe a practice, it inherently has the right to prescribe a practice. That is the nature of government power (barring a constitutional amendment to the contrary).
Actually, as far as the absurdity of such a thing goes, I would point to China’s “one child” policy. Could we ever do such a thing? Of course not! American history is devoid of cruelty!
—–
One more thing, to close: our government CAN and HAS restricted the freedom of speech more often than not throughout our history. See: Alien and Sedition Acts (1798); Espionage Act (1917); Sedition Act (1918); Smith Act (1940); etc. — It is only a recent development that free speech exists in the U.S. (and even still, plenty of exceptions exist).
Free speech abuses are a lot more recent than mentioned above. The “Free Speech Zones” used by politicians to keep people from protesting where they might get covered by the news is a significant example.
I believe that a few years ago Seattle passed a law that they knew would eventually be ruled unconstitutional, but did so shortly before a trade summit where protests were expected in order to shut down those protests. Afterwards they just said my bad and there were no further consequences. The last presidential election cycle there were abuses in New York where people were held without bail longer than allowed by law. Some protesters (and a number of unlucky people swept up because they were in the same area as the protests) were arrested and then held for the duration of the convention (so that they couldn’t participate in any other protests during the convention) and then most had the charges dropped in return for promising to not cause any trouble.