I really wish humans could just figure out a way to be decent to one another and to the planet without the requirement of religion. While it ultimately "might" be well-intentioned, it is historically more often than not the cause of suffering, pain, misery and brutality, rather than the cure.
I still appreciate Jesus’ teachings after growing up in a Christian country (Church of England/school assemblies/RI classes) but I have no admiration for militants, fundamentalists, and misogynists in any religion. Warnock's right about the right-wing’s highjacking of a cultural treasure.
i agree. hegseth's minister was meeting with him (and others???) at the pentagon the other day. his minister doesn't think women should be allowed to vote. he also doesn't approve of them having careers. he thinks their careers are in the home because it's always been like that. wrong!!!!!!!!! within the last couple years it was discovered that very early humans ... both men and WOMEN ... were hunters. they didn't just stay home in the cave and cook.
I do appreciate that some religious people only want to do good and at the same time I find it so sad that people need some overlord being telling them what is good and what is wrong.
Again, I do admire good religious people. Not for their religion but for the good they do.
And talking about that MAGA gang (the bosses, sycophants, sponsors and voters). They should all stay very far away from anything "religious" for they worship a satan.
If Christianity is true, they will be in for a terrible shock when they approach the pearly gates only to learn that they have been worshipping the wrong god.
I am a Christian. But, if people cannot figure out a way to be decent to one another by themselves, certainly any kind of religion is not going to help them. They will just make it an excuse to hate their neighbor, or continually ask that question never asked by "the good guys," "Who is my neighbor?"
*I* need my "religion," but I don't need it to love my neighbor, no exceptions. I need it for me, not for anyone else.
You are not alone in needing your "religion." Belief in a "higher power" (i.e., the metaphysical) is a universal human need. Even those who insist that they believe in Science rather than Religion are invoking an arcane belief. For example, it takes physics students at least a year to incorporate quantum physics into their worldview so that it begins to "feel" intuitive.
If you want to see some real-world magic, turn on a light switch! Remember Arthur C. Clark's observation that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For more insight, look up "post-positivism," which is the philosophical basis for modern science.
You reminded me of a bit by Irish comedian Dara O'Briain, on how one would explain modern technology, if one traveled back a couple of hundred years in time....if one were not a scientist, or even an ordinary electrician.
What keeps the food in the box cold? Electricity...it comes from the wall.
What makes the house warm without burning wood or coal? Electricity...it comes from the wall.
How is human waste disposed of? It goes into the wall.
Is that what feeds this "electricity?"
That's a poor retelling, but it is very funny. And I agree with your Clark reference, which is most certainly true.
"Religion" does not "own the moral pathway. Humans don't need a belief in some entity that will make their lives, or their futures, miserable if they don't act exactly as some book tells them. Especially when that book conflicts with itself often.
There are many who ARE inherently moral and already think along the lines of what the religion they've chosen states. Perhaps they believe it came from their religion, when it's very likely the reverse. (In my opinion, of course.)
And, as so many are now stating clearly, huge numbers of people claim a religion, but then show from their actions and mouths that they are the "worst of the worst." If there is anything that is "taking the lord's name in vain," it's these very people. (I'm an agnostic heading toward atheist, so this phrase is meaningless to me, but allegedly NOT to so many who act it out over and over and over.)
No one religion has the ultimate answer for teaching morality to everyone. One of the themes running through Alan Watts' 1957 classic "The Way of Zen" is the recognition that different folks have different ways of accessing knowledge. That is why good classroom teachers always try to repeat lessons in as many different ways as possible. That way, some students "get it" one way, while others "see the light" through having it explained in a different way. Ultimately, the hope is that everyone will learn the lesson in their own way.
Different religions have different ways to prepare their adherents to receive what amounts to the same basic morality lesson. For example, folks in the Judeo-Christian-Islamist tradition are comfortable learning morality through the vision of an omniscient, omnipotent lawgiver laying down a moral code. Taoists, on the other hand, are more comfortable with a network of interacting forces making some actions provide better outcomes than others. Hindus understand a vision of a perpetually moving wheel that forces one to reap what one sows.
The first, and hardest, lesson is Tolerance that allows one to recognize that everyone has their own way of learning about morality, and that all ways are equally valid. It is the actions people choose to perform, not the mental reasoning they use to choose those actions.
Right, tolerance is a very good start. Acceptance is even better, but let's start with tolerance. Neither of those needs religion, any religion. That's what I was saying.
Do many people want their religion and take it to heart, believing that's what produces many things, including morality. Sure! and they are, of course, welcome to their beliefs.
But claiming that it takes a religion to be moral is just false.
I think many human beings honor values consistent with the core kindness of Jesus's teachings without any religious affiliation. I like to think that I do so more or less, but my ego (Latin for "I" often gets in the way. I like to think that we have a sense of ego for an important reason, but that ego without empathy and mindfulness is easily foolish, often hurtful, and can become evilly sociopathic. I grew up identifying as "Christian", and no longer do so, and yet respect what are said to be Jesus's lessons of care and inclusiveness. I am also aware that for centuries nominal religion has spread supremacy, entitlement, injustice, greed, and historical events of torture and genocide. I think that we err in even calling the latter "religion" because it seems to be the polar opposite of what figures such as Jesus or Buddha or Rabbi Hillel were advising. One thing for sure is "Christians" don't all believe the same thing.
From what remains of the record, I think of Jesus as an ascetic, indifferent to the politics of state and accumulation of property; which it seems to me is what got him killed. G K Chesterton observed that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” at least in many cases. I see a decisive split between professed "Christianity" in a context of kindness and personal humility, vs entitlement, hubris, and coercion, the one questioning and the other demanding. Contrast the lives of Jessie Jackson, or Desmond Tutu vs cosplay "Christian" Trump. It's day and night. I don't think we necessarily need religion to access "the better angels of our nature" and conflating religion with the need for material, evidence-based actions on the part of the state corrupts both faith and legal justice. I probably miss a lot in my dotage, but I would like to see many more Christians who really care about the wellbeing and experiences of "the least of these" more visibly distance themselves from naked cruelty and greed.
Heidi, you're right. People (including many who swore to support and defend our Constitution against domestic enemies) are abusing religion to attack and undermine our Constitution. They are, themselves, threats to national security. That was precisely the point of the people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Article VI emphasized that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Test Clause engendered copious vigorous discussion of--and even opposition to--the original Constitution in 1787-1789.
James Iredell (a leading Federalist and judge in North Carolina, and later a SCOTUS justice who issued an opinion emphasizing the sovereignty of the people) was one of the many who addressed Americans’ liberty regarding any so-called religion. He delivered a speech at the North Carolina ratifying convention defending the protection for freedom of conscience in Article VI:
"I consider the [Test] clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of [the Framers of our Constitution], to establish a general religious liberty in America. . . . [But some people have] objected, that [the Test Clause permits] the people of America [to choose] Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into [federal] offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly [passionately] contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened."
Iredell also emphasized the self-evident truths that "[i]t would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority."
Iredell repeatedly emphasized that the Test Clause “is calculated to secure universal religious liberty” to serve a purpose that is profoundly important to our Constitution and even, specifically, to national security. Iredell repeatedly emphasized that religious liberty is “the only way to prevent persecution,” and Iredell emphasized how that particular problem threatens national security (the very survival of our nation and our Constitution):
"Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. . . . Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centered in themselves, that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind, and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit has been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other, and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably; that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society."
Oliver Ellsworth (another leading Federalist who helped create the Constitution and who served as the third Chief Justice of SCOTUS) expressed similar thoughts in his published writing in A Landholder VII in 1787:
"The business of civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood."
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who were writing primarily to the people of New York, did not feel the need to address in The Federalist Papers such issues as directly as Iredell and Ellsworth did. Even so, they addressed related issues.
Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist No. 1, “in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” He also highlighted that, too often, in politics and religion “passions and prejudices” have proved to be “little favorable to the discovery of truth.” Too often, a “torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.” Too often, political or religious factions seek “to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.”
Madison in The Federalist No. 10 addressed related issues. His thoughts coincide precisely with the phenomenon we see today in the SCOTUS majority’s conduct in multiple decisions:
"a faction [means] a number of citizens . . . who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, [pertaining to] speculation [or] practice [about what to think or do]; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."
Madison writing to Thomas Jefferson in October 1787 more directly revealed his fears about persecution and oppression based on religion: “When Indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of a multitude,” and “it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it.” “If the same sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed.” Madison clearly meant something like “the more powerful, the meaner.” So “[t]he same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals.” “The great desideratum in Government is” to ensure that it is “sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society.”
Discussion such as the foregoing pertained to the original Constitution in 1787-1789. So such discussions necessarily were a crucial part of the background for and understanding of the First Amendment re: religion (which was written published in 1789 and submitted for ratification by from 1789 to 1791). The primary point of the First Amendment re: religion never was merely preventing any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The primary purposes of our entire Constitution always were (as the Preamble emphasized from the very start) promoting "a more perfect Union, establish[ing] Justice, insur[ing] domestic Tranquility, provid[ing] for the common defence, promot[ing] the general Welfare, and secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and our Bill of Rights understood that we cannot accomplish any of the purposes of our Constitution if we're fighting each other or persecuting each other over different ideas about so-called religion.
Definitely hijacked Christianity: they identify with it but twist and degrade it by their use. More than “Democracy”, though, which I don’t hear them tout so much, I would add “Freedom” which they scream from the rooftops as what they are defending while they cancel, fire, and attempt to indict anyone who disagrees with them.
Both "freedom" (and "liberty") and "law and order" mean very different things to Republicans in general and to MAGA and the white nationalists in particular.
Oh, and also "personal responsibility."
All of them basically mean "I (and other Real Americans, to be defined by us, not you) get to enjoy privilege with impunity while you have to meet whatever standards we set for your behavior, your culture, your style and taste, your personal choices, your spending habits, and your religion.
"We have the unalienable right to defend ourselves, our stuff, and our cultural shibboleths against even the vaguest threat of danger, whereas you are scary and menacing by nature and any one of us who reacts to you with fear or rage is obviously acting reasonably and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
"And our children -- especially if they are blond -- are innocent precious beautiful snowflakes who deserve a bright and safe future and a second chance if they make mistakes, while yours are disposable brats who are bound to grow into thugs, sluts, and leeches."
They treat the Bible and the Constitution in exactly the same way: hold them up as idols to be worshiped, swear allegiance to them, then pick a selection of convenient quotes that suit their purposes (the 2nd Amendment; then Ten Commandments, certain passages from Leviticus, Proverbs, Romans, 1 Thessalonians, the Book of Revelation ... ) and assign supreme significance to just those isolated passages while ignoring not only all the other isolated passages that can be used to counter their chosen dicta, but also the overall sweep and message of these documents.
And they have hoodwinked their own base into thinking that they alone get to interpret those documents, and that no matter what it looks like, their leaders are always right because evil and perverse forces are at work to destroy everything they hold dear.
As an United Methodist ordained minster of over 50 years, retired as an UCC/American Baptist pastor after more than 40 years, I rarely call myself "Christian" any longer. I much prefer to say that I try to be a Jesus follower. We have a bumper sticker that says "Not THAT kind of Baptist".
I still try to learn from the way Jesus tried to teach us but it looks nothing like what so many now see as "Christian".
so many of those "christian" white supremacists only quote from the blood and guts old testament. somehow they "forget" what Jesus preached. they may speak about Jesus, but they forget all about what he preached, such as loving our neighbors as ourselves, and caring for the least among us.
It should be so simple. Almost every religion has a version of "do unto others as you would have done unto you." We don't really need any more than that. As Jewel sings, "in the end, only kindness matters."
During the Third Reich, the national churches of Germany (Deutsche Christen) capitulated to Nazism and embraced anti-Semitism and the destruction of many "others" that they demonized. There was a smaller group of Christians who resisted the Nazis (calling themselves "Confessing Churches"). Among the martyrs from that group of Christians who resisted twisting the faith in order to achieve power was Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was also involved in a failed assassination attempt on Hitler). We need churches to step up in a more organized way in opposition to our own aspirational fascist regime.
Amen and as we are in the Lenten time, may we all reflect how we too can be better humans, embracing kindness, and compassion for our fellow humans. One race-human.
One could make a strong case that the religous right, a hypocritcal lot who hide their hatred behind Christianity, has gotten us into the mess we're facing, because they thought Trump was some kind of messianic figure. That they couldn't—or wouldn't—see that nothing could be farther from the truth is appalling.
I find it concerning that many of the project 2025 authors and enactors are self-proclaimed Catholics. JD Vance is a recent convert. Have they hijacked that variant of Christianity as well?
I am a practicing cradle Catholic. Shady Vance is just embarrassing. Look to Pope Leo, Cardinal McIlroy, and other actual Catholics for leadership. You may have noticed that they don't hesitate to object to Trump's anti-Christian behavior.
"Faith is being used to justify doing harm when it should be used to be doing good. And we should be calling this out and reclaiming it as a force for kindness.” (Gov. Andy Beshear).
Exactly, and this is one reason that our Constitution called for the separation of church and state; that those in charge of the state not use religion as a tool to inflict harm. We were promised not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion in our governing. What we have observed is a rise in "Christian" Nationalism effects in our government, which is anything but Christian in its directives.
Mike Johnson's Christianity desperately needs a reboot.
This is true: "Certainly, Warnock is not alone in fighting to reclaim faith from the idolaters who worship Donald Trump and prey on the stranger, take food (SNAP) and healthcare from the poor, and spout venomous bigotry. "
....so....when all those people surround Trump...close their eyes...hold up one hand...put the other hand over their heart where a flashy diamond crucifix is dangling............what non existent deity are they whining to?...................I think such "Christians" would make God gag.............
I really wish humans could just figure out a way to be decent to one another and to the planet without the requirement of religion. While it ultimately "might" be well-intentioned, it is historically more often than not the cause of suffering, pain, misery and brutality, rather than the cure.
I still appreciate Jesus’ teachings after growing up in a Christian country (Church of England/school assemblies/RI classes) but I have no admiration for militants, fundamentalists, and misogynists in any religion. Warnock's right about the right-wing’s highjacking of a cultural treasure.
you can hyjack Jesus and the American flag, but the actual meaning of each remains
same to the confederate flag and nazi symbol
i agree. hegseth's minister was meeting with him (and others???) at the pentagon the other day. his minister doesn't think women should be allowed to vote. he also doesn't approve of them having careers. he thinks their careers are in the home because it's always been like that. wrong!!!!!!!!! within the last couple years it was discovered that very early humans ... both men and WOMEN ... were hunters. they didn't just stay home in the cave and cook.
Agreed Kevin.
I do appreciate that some religious people only want to do good and at the same time I find it so sad that people need some overlord being telling them what is good and what is wrong.
Again, I do admire good religious people. Not for their religion but for the good they do.
And talking about that MAGA gang (the bosses, sycophants, sponsors and voters). They should all stay very far away from anything "religious" for they worship a satan.
If Christianity is true, they will be in for a terrible shock when they approach the pearly gates only to learn that they have been worshipping the wrong god.
the MAGA "christians" sold their souls.
I am a Christian. But, if people cannot figure out a way to be decent to one another by themselves, certainly any kind of religion is not going to help them. They will just make it an excuse to hate their neighbor, or continually ask that question never asked by "the good guys," "Who is my neighbor?"
*I* need my "religion," but I don't need it to love my neighbor, no exceptions. I need it for me, not for anyone else.
As an atheist I have full respect for people like you my friend.
We both do what Jesus would do, right?
I try. I'm afraid the current regime fills me with so much anger, that it is difficult.
As long as that anger energy is channeled to something positive you'll be alright.
If I'm not mistaking Jesus was also quite angry when he threw the merchants out of the temple.
"Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables."
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
Thank you.
"*I* need my "religion," but I don't need it to love my neighbor, no exceptions. I need it for me, not for anyone else." is exactly how I feel.
You are not alone in needing your "religion." Belief in a "higher power" (i.e., the metaphysical) is a universal human need. Even those who insist that they believe in Science rather than Religion are invoking an arcane belief. For example, it takes physics students at least a year to incorporate quantum physics into their worldview so that it begins to "feel" intuitive.
If you want to see some real-world magic, turn on a light switch! Remember Arthur C. Clark's observation that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For more insight, look up "post-positivism," which is the philosophical basis for modern science.
You reminded me of a bit by Irish comedian Dara O'Briain, on how one would explain modern technology, if one traveled back a couple of hundred years in time....if one were not a scientist, or even an ordinary electrician.
What keeps the food in the box cold? Electricity...it comes from the wall.
What makes the house warm without burning wood or coal? Electricity...it comes from the wall.
How is human waste disposed of? It goes into the wall.
Is that what feeds this "electricity?"
That's a poor retelling, but it is very funny. And I agree with your Clark reference, which is most certainly true.
"Religion" does not "own the moral pathway. Humans don't need a belief in some entity that will make their lives, or their futures, miserable if they don't act exactly as some book tells them. Especially when that book conflicts with itself often.
There are many who ARE inherently moral and already think along the lines of what the religion they've chosen states. Perhaps they believe it came from their religion, when it's very likely the reverse. (In my opinion, of course.)
And, as so many are now stating clearly, huge numbers of people claim a religion, but then show from their actions and mouths that they are the "worst of the worst." If there is anything that is "taking the lord's name in vain," it's these very people. (I'm an agnostic heading toward atheist, so this phrase is meaningless to me, but allegedly NOT to so many who act it out over and over and over.)
No one religion has the ultimate answer for teaching morality to everyone. One of the themes running through Alan Watts' 1957 classic "The Way of Zen" is the recognition that different folks have different ways of accessing knowledge. That is why good classroom teachers always try to repeat lessons in as many different ways as possible. That way, some students "get it" one way, while others "see the light" through having it explained in a different way. Ultimately, the hope is that everyone will learn the lesson in their own way.
Different religions have different ways to prepare their adherents to receive what amounts to the same basic morality lesson. For example, folks in the Judeo-Christian-Islamist tradition are comfortable learning morality through the vision of an omniscient, omnipotent lawgiver laying down a moral code. Taoists, on the other hand, are more comfortable with a network of interacting forces making some actions provide better outcomes than others. Hindus understand a vision of a perpetually moving wheel that forces one to reap what one sows.
The first, and hardest, lesson is Tolerance that allows one to recognize that everyone has their own way of learning about morality, and that all ways are equally valid. It is the actions people choose to perform, not the mental reasoning they use to choose those actions.
Right, tolerance is a very good start. Acceptance is even better, but let's start with tolerance. Neither of those needs religion, any religion. That's what I was saying.
Do many people want their religion and take it to heart, believing that's what produces many things, including morality. Sure! and they are, of course, welcome to their beliefs.
But claiming that it takes a religion to be moral is just false.
I think many human beings honor values consistent with the core kindness of Jesus's teachings without any religious affiliation. I like to think that I do so more or less, but my ego (Latin for "I" often gets in the way. I like to think that we have a sense of ego for an important reason, but that ego without empathy and mindfulness is easily foolish, often hurtful, and can become evilly sociopathic. I grew up identifying as "Christian", and no longer do so, and yet respect what are said to be Jesus's lessons of care and inclusiveness. I am also aware that for centuries nominal religion has spread supremacy, entitlement, injustice, greed, and historical events of torture and genocide. I think that we err in even calling the latter "religion" because it seems to be the polar opposite of what figures such as Jesus or Buddha or Rabbi Hillel were advising. One thing for sure is "Christians" don't all believe the same thing.
From what remains of the record, I think of Jesus as an ascetic, indifferent to the politics of state and accumulation of property; which it seems to me is what got him killed. G K Chesterton observed that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” at least in many cases. I see a decisive split between professed "Christianity" in a context of kindness and personal humility, vs entitlement, hubris, and coercion, the one questioning and the other demanding. Contrast the lives of Jessie Jackson, or Desmond Tutu vs cosplay "Christian" Trump. It's day and night. I don't think we necessarily need religion to access "the better angels of our nature" and conflating religion with the need for material, evidence-based actions on the part of the state corrupts both faith and legal justice. I probably miss a lot in my dotage, but I would like to see many more Christians who really care about the wellbeing and experiences of "the least of these" more visibly distance themselves from naked cruelty and greed.
Yes, great piece, MAGA has hijacked both Christianity and Democracy for its own base, cruel and self-serving political agenda.
Heidi, you're right. People (including many who swore to support and defend our Constitution against domestic enemies) are abusing religion to attack and undermine our Constitution. They are, themselves, threats to national security. That was precisely the point of the people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Article VI emphasized that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Test Clause engendered copious vigorous discussion of--and even opposition to--the original Constitution in 1787-1789.
James Iredell (a leading Federalist and judge in North Carolina, and later a SCOTUS justice who issued an opinion emphasizing the sovereignty of the people) was one of the many who addressed Americans’ liberty regarding any so-called religion. He delivered a speech at the North Carolina ratifying convention defending the protection for freedom of conscience in Article VI:
"I consider the [Test] clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of [the Framers of our Constitution], to establish a general religious liberty in America. . . . [But some people have] objected, that [the Test Clause permits] the people of America [to choose] Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into [federal] offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly [passionately] contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened."
Iredell also emphasized the self-evident truths that "[i]t would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority."
Iredell repeatedly emphasized that the Test Clause “is calculated to secure universal religious liberty” to serve a purpose that is profoundly important to our Constitution and even, specifically, to national security. Iredell repeatedly emphasized that religious liberty is “the only way to prevent persecution,” and Iredell emphasized how that particular problem threatens national security (the very survival of our nation and our Constitution):
"Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. . . . Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centered in themselves, that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind, and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit has been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other, and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably; that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society."
Oliver Ellsworth (another leading Federalist who helped create the Constitution and who served as the third Chief Justice of SCOTUS) expressed similar thoughts in his published writing in A Landholder VII in 1787:
"The business of civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood."
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who were writing primarily to the people of New York, did not feel the need to address in The Federalist Papers such issues as directly as Iredell and Ellsworth did. Even so, they addressed related issues.
Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist No. 1, “in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” He also highlighted that, too often, in politics and religion “passions and prejudices” have proved to be “little favorable to the discovery of truth.” Too often, a “torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.” Too often, political or religious factions seek “to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.”
Madison in The Federalist No. 10 addressed related issues. His thoughts coincide precisely with the phenomenon we see today in the SCOTUS majority’s conduct in multiple decisions:
"a faction [means] a number of citizens . . . who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, [pertaining to] speculation [or] practice [about what to think or do]; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."
Madison writing to Thomas Jefferson in October 1787 more directly revealed his fears about persecution and oppression based on religion: “When Indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of a multitude,” and “it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it.” “If the same sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed.” Madison clearly meant something like “the more powerful, the meaner.” So “[t]he same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals.” “The great desideratum in Government is” to ensure that it is “sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society.”
Discussion such as the foregoing pertained to the original Constitution in 1787-1789. So such discussions necessarily were a crucial part of the background for and understanding of the First Amendment re: religion (which was written published in 1789 and submitted for ratification by from 1789 to 1791). The primary point of the First Amendment re: religion never was merely preventing any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The primary purposes of our entire Constitution always were (as the Preamble emphasized from the very start) promoting "a more perfect Union, establish[ing] Justice, insur[ing] domestic Tranquility, provid[ing] for the common defence, promot[ing] the general Welfare, and secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and our Bill of Rights understood that we cannot accomplish any of the purposes of our Constitution if we're fighting each other or persecuting each other over different ideas about so-called religion.
Excellent summary. Thank you!
Definitely hijacked Christianity: they identify with it but twist and degrade it by their use. More than “Democracy”, though, which I don’t hear them tout so much, I would add “Freedom” which they scream from the rooftops as what they are defending while they cancel, fire, and attempt to indict anyone who disagrees with them.
Both "freedom" (and "liberty") and "law and order" mean very different things to Republicans in general and to MAGA and the white nationalists in particular.
Oh, and also "personal responsibility."
All of them basically mean "I (and other Real Americans, to be defined by us, not you) get to enjoy privilege with impunity while you have to meet whatever standards we set for your behavior, your culture, your style and taste, your personal choices, your spending habits, and your religion.
"We have the unalienable right to defend ourselves, our stuff, and our cultural shibboleths against even the vaguest threat of danger, whereas you are scary and menacing by nature and any one of us who reacts to you with fear or rage is obviously acting reasonably and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
"And our children -- especially if they are blond -- are innocent precious beautiful snowflakes who deserve a bright and safe future and a second chance if they make mistakes, while yours are disposable brats who are bound to grow into thugs, sluts, and leeches."
They treat the Bible and the Constitution in exactly the same way: hold them up as idols to be worshiped, swear allegiance to them, then pick a selection of convenient quotes that suit their purposes (the 2nd Amendment; then Ten Commandments, certain passages from Leviticus, Proverbs, Romans, 1 Thessalonians, the Book of Revelation ... ) and assign supreme significance to just those isolated passages while ignoring not only all the other isolated passages that can be used to counter their chosen dicta, but also the overall sweep and message of these documents.
And they have hoodwinked their own base into thinking that they alone get to interpret those documents, and that no matter what it looks like, their leaders are always right because evil and perverse forces are at work to destroy everything they hold dear.
i couldn't agree more, Heidi. thanks.
As an United Methodist ordained minster of over 50 years, retired as an UCC/American Baptist pastor after more than 40 years, I rarely call myself "Christian" any longer. I much prefer to say that I try to be a Jesus follower. We have a bumper sticker that says "Not THAT kind of Baptist".
I still try to learn from the way Jesus tried to teach us but it looks nothing like what so many now see as "Christian".
UCC member here. I say follower of Christ or a Matthew 25 Christian. Let ‘em look it up.
Need a mission to MAGATs.
so many of those "christian" white supremacists only quote from the blood and guts old testament. somehow they "forget" what Jesus preached. they may speak about Jesus, but they forget all about what he preached, such as loving our neighbors as ourselves, and caring for the least among us.
It should be so simple. Almost every religion has a version of "do unto others as you would have done unto you." We don't really need any more than that. As Jewel sings, "in the end, only kindness matters."
Kindness and also courage.
During the Third Reich, the national churches of Germany (Deutsche Christen) capitulated to Nazism and embraced anti-Semitism and the destruction of many "others" that they demonized. There was a smaller group of Christians who resisted the Nazis (calling themselves "Confessing Churches"). Among the martyrs from that group of Christians who resisted twisting the faith in order to achieve power was Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was also involved in a failed assassination attempt on Hitler). We need churches to step up in a more organized way in opposition to our own aspirational fascist regime.
The violence and hate of the Right has been exposed thus showing the hypocrisy of those who defend it with religion. We need more Senator Warnocks!
And fewer Trumps, Millers, Voughts, and Bondis
Amen and as we are in the Lenten time, may we all reflect how we too can be better humans, embracing kindness, and compassion for our fellow humans. One race-human.
People need to use their frontal cortex instead of relying on the more primitive parts of their brain.
I refer to them as Christian Supremacists.
One could make a strong case that the religous right, a hypocritcal lot who hide their hatred behind Christianity, has gotten us into the mess we're facing, because they thought Trump was some kind of messianic figure. That they couldn't—or wouldn't—see that nothing could be farther from the truth is appalling.
I find it concerning that many of the project 2025 authors and enactors are self-proclaimed Catholics. JD Vance is a recent convert. Have they hijacked that variant of Christianity as well?
I am a practicing cradle Catholic. Shady Vance is just embarrassing. Look to Pope Leo, Cardinal McIlroy, and other actual Catholics for leadership. You may have noticed that they don't hesitate to object to Trump's anti-Christian behavior.
I think Dorothy Day might have been the last true Catholic in terms of living the Gospel.
many fox hosts were sporting ashes the other day...lets not forget the Spanish inquisition
As a child of a country pastor and a deacon raised to understand that the loveless are de facto the faithless, I 100% agree.
This nonbeliever respects those who live their religion in a positive—and preferably silent—way. White christian nationalists? Hardly.
"Faith is being used to justify doing harm when it should be used to be doing good. And we should be calling this out and reclaiming it as a force for kindness.” (Gov. Andy Beshear).
Exactly, and this is one reason that our Constitution called for the separation of church and state; that those in charge of the state not use religion as a tool to inflict harm. We were promised not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion in our governing. What we have observed is a rise in "Christian" Nationalism effects in our government, which is anything but Christian in its directives.
Mike Johnson's Christianity desperately needs a reboot.
This is true: "Certainly, Warnock is not alone in fighting to reclaim faith from the idolaters who worship Donald Trump and prey on the stranger, take food (SNAP) and healthcare from the poor, and spout venomous bigotry. "
Great post Jen. "the Constitution protects those of any religion or no religion at all"
What's important is the goodness in our hearts and expressed in our actions.
....so....when all those people surround Trump...close their eyes...hold up one hand...put the other hand over their heart where a flashy diamond crucifix is dangling............what non existent deity are they whining to?...................I think such "Christians" would make God gag.............
The wrong one.
If one of them is Paula the Pilferer, her other hand is probably in someone's pocket. He has chosen his "spiritual advisors," well. They suit him.