Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Wages of Intolerance

By Marci Hamilton, AlterNet. Posted July 12, 2005.


A conservative Christian Republican explains why Bush can't choose a new Supreme Court justice based on religious criteria.
Advertisement

The immediate reaction to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation was so strident from both sides that the President has asked everyone to tone it down. Senate leaders are also asking groups to be more cordial. The problem with silence, though, is that we need to know what agendas are out there, and one of the cardinal problems in American politics is that too many times religious political pressure happens behind closed doors.

Before the calls for civility, though, plenty of groups were able to show their hands in this emotional debate over who to choose to replace Justice O'Connor, a moderate Goldwater Republican. Litmus tests abound, with conservative evangelical Christians claiming an entitlement to have a Supreme Court appointee who reflects their singular religious values. In the end, the President simply cannot choose a Justice based on their religious criteria.

This country was not founded on a single religious viewpoint, as the far right would have it, but rather on a wide diversity of religious beliefs. The current far right believers are reminiscent of the Puritans who settled what would become Massachusetts and who established their religion as the religion of the colony (and then the state). The Puritans believed in the right to believe whatever one wanted, so long as dissenters left their cities and communities. They believed in a religious culture controlled by the majority. Rhode Island was founded because of the Puritans' rank intolerance.

Many of the dissenting Christians in Massachusetts were Baptists, whose charismatic preachers, including the Revs. Isaac Backus and John Leland, preached the separation of church and state. Backus declared that the "notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever" while Leland called established religions, "all of them, anti-Christocracies."

Yet, far right Christians today, many of them Baptists, have no respect for disestablishment principles. They are intent on removing barriers between government and religion, and, in fact, making government the servant to religion. They want their religious messages on courthouse walls, their theology in the science classrooms, their prayers in public schools, and their values to mandate constitutional policy. They even argue that Protestants are a majority and therefore have the right to have the government deliver their religious messages. This is their agenda for the next Supreme Court Justice.

Not only are they opposed to the separation of church and state, they are also opposed to a balanced government. Right now, they are insistent that they have a right to dominate not just the Congress (witness the Terri Schiavo bill) and the President (he's harder to dominate, but he persistently plays to them), but also the Supreme Court. They say they are entitled to take the third branch.

Moreover, their primary criterion for a good Justice is one where they can predict how that Justice will vote on every issue that matters to them. In other words, they don't think too much of the independent judiciary, either. If they could, they would place an automaton in the Supreme Court that could be controlled by remote control. I wish that were an exaggeration, but their rhetoric is not terribly opaque.

I'm a conservative, a Republican, and a Christian, and I must say that I find this Christian triumphalism scary. Good for the liberals that are finally speaking up and saying that their Christianity is just as legitimate as arch-conservative Christianity. The voices we need next in the public square are the many silent conservative Christians who find it offensive that any religious group would attempt to control the federal government solely by its religious lights.

The far right has said repeatedly in recent years that it would like this country to return to its religious roots and to judging according to original intent. One can only hope that this President, who is not nearly as doctrinaire as his so-called "base," understands that the roots of this current movement are considerably closer to the Puritans than the Baptists at the time of the framing.

Digg!

Marci A. Hamilton is the author of 'God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law' (Cambridge University Press).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Finally!
Posted by: Rebcamuse on Jul 12, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a "liberal" Christian I am thrilled to read this article. Christians from both the right and the left need to take control of the Dominionism that plagues this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Finally! Posted by: papergirl
» RE: Finally! Posted by: IndyElliott
» RE: Finally! Posted by: papergirl
» RE: Finally! Posted by: Rebcamuse
» RE: Finally! Posted by: IndyElliott
» RE: Finally! Posted by: papergirl
» RE: Finally! Posted by: berrygoldwater
The Puritan "Ethos"
Posted by: bookwoman on Jul 12, 2005 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, my credentials. I am a moderate to conservative Republican who attends her church at least once, sometimes more a week. I always vote, even in primaries, and I applaud Ms. Hamilton's editorial.

Her reference to the situation in early Massachusetts drew my attention as, although the right to religious worship had been widened legally, in the early 19th Century, one of the dictates that the Puritans still kept in place was that there would be no Christmas as that was decadent and not in keeping with the propriety of Christianity. In 1827, Colonel Roswell Lee became Commandant of the Springfield Armory. Colonel Lee was an Episcopalian, and he and his family were used to celebrating Christmas. Lee had a small room at the Armory, which was Federal land and therefore not under Massachusetts law, turned into a chapel and invited an Episcopal clergyman to come and celebrate Christmas for his family and any of his staff who wished to join the service. On Christmas morning, many citizens of Springfield - Baptists, Episcopalians and followers of faiths other than Puritanism, crowded into the small chapel. There were so many attendees that the service had to be moved to a bigger room. By the end of the 19th Century, laws were changed and Christmas became a work as well as religious holiday. There will always be dissenters in our population. Our country was built on dissenting opinions. President Bush began as a baptised Episcopalian, made a short stop at Presbyterianism and finally landed on Southern Methodism because he felt comfortable there. There is nothing wrong with that; we have freedom of religion. However, his choice and that of his friends should not have to be my choice or your choice unless you want that. And, more importantly, the laws that govern us should not be designed by one set of religious doctrines. We should run our country on a consensus of all of our beliefs. Also, the Evangelicals should remember that the country belongs to all of its citizens, not just the ones who pledge to THEIR religion. I always wonder why it so necessary that they impress their beliefs on all of us. Are they afraid they can't control their own families. By the way, the "Puritan" Church is still around. They changed their name to The United Church of Christ, and last weekend, they voted to back gay marriage. Just imagine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Puritan "Ethos" Posted by: D. Julian Terry
» RE: The Puritan "Ethos" Posted by: wrdaviskiel
tunnel vision intolerance
Posted by: alternetleslie on Jul 12, 2005 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thoughts of "separation of church and state" everywhere seem like shades of Christianity are the only theologies. The very reference as "church and state" is biased. Only Christians use "church"; temples, synogogues, mosques are sacred communities. Church forgets to tell you: There are other good religions in the world besides Christianity. When you are fearing your personal tweak on Christianity will be forbidden, just apply those feelings to other pious, loving, kind people in this country and world Christians delare as "unsaved". If you are upset that some tiny difference in Christianity will be condemned, then convert it to compassion for peaceful Buddhists of every tradition, non-violent Hindus, modest God loving brothers and sisters of Islam, Bahai, Sufis, Sikhs, wise Taoists, nature loving Shintos and Wiccans and the sources of all your Christian thoughts now condemned: Zoroastorians and Jews of all varieties. These are humans to show love and stand up for protecting their right to their thoughts, beliefs and traditions. Do not be condemned to ignorance. Study these and you too will find the great source of love in each of them. You will include in "I" or "we" the billions of good people on this planet, who do not call the source of love and creation by the same name you do. Stop using arrogant introductory phrases: "I am a Christian, so I ... (am good or do good things)..." like Christians have some patent on goodness. Jesus did not invent forgiveness, it has been core of the most high holy holidays, Yom Kippur, of Judaism centuries before the birth of a Jewish carpenter use to connect to the holy. Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule: do some reading and you will find a version at the core of every religion as the basis for human relations. No one is trying to stop you from being Christian, if that's the symbolism you were taught to use for your spirituality and connection to the holy, but do not deny other people using other symbols you do not understand. If the creator made millions of varieties of plants, animals, fungus, etc. for creative delight, and rarely a human face is the same, why would this entity want to be worshiped in only one way or hear only one kind of prayer or song? So besides protecting your tiny Christian differences, think of all the people the separation of religious community and state must protect!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tunnel vision intolerance Posted by: builtolast
Yes, He Can, But He Shouldn't!
Posted by: thirdmg on Jul 12, 2005 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although this article is accurate on the reasons why dubya shouldn't choose a religious extremist for the Supreme Court, it's old hat. Both the secular and the religious left have been raising the same arguments for decades with few Americans - and even fewer conservatives - listening.

More importantly, when the article says that dubya "can't choose a new Supreme Court justice based on religious criteria," the author is correct only if he means "shouldn't."

But if he actually means "can't," the obvious answer is "Yes, he can!" What would stop him? The Senate Democrats are too timid, and the majority of the American public not only has little fear of mixing religion with government, but actually thinks it's a good idea. Besides, mid-term elections are coming up in which the GOP will need its extremist base to preserve a congressional majority. Dubya can't lose by choosing a religious extremist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, He Can, But He Shouldn't! Posted by: diamondvajra
» RE: Yes, He Can, But He Shouldn't! Posted by: diamondvajra
» RE: Yes, He Can, But He Shouldn't! Posted by: Pearl in Colo
There Is Room for All Faiths
Posted by: davidt on Jul 12, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheers to bookwoman, she has got it right!

These Rapturistas who will not tolerate any belief systems except their own go back to the novel 1984 by George Orwell. If they had their way they would spend 24/7 rifling through libraries to root out any morsel of sacrilege from every book ever printed.

What would constitute sacrilege? Why anything that they could not rationalize from the Bible. If that failed THEY would dictate that since their religion is handed down to them by Jesus Christ they are right and you are wrong. If that didn't work they would institute a law that every citizen would have their head shaved to spot the triple 666's whenever they showed up on one of Satan's Children.

What is the difference between this theological "rectitude" and the dreaded communists they are always beating us over the head with?

The problem is twofold. The Bible is a book, it did not simply fall from the sky. Men, an imperfect species, commited words to paper and, as is always the case, through the ages different VERSIONS evolved. So the Rapturistas, to solve one of these problems PICK the version that closely mirrors their vision of what they need the world to BE. That reasoning changes horses midstream.

Second the Bible is a book that is, of itself is an OBJECT to be read, kept as a paperweight or just as an adjunct to every hotel/motel room in case the lodger decides to read it. But, the person who reads it is a SUBJECTIVE mind who puts an individual interpretation on it based on pre-conceptions, myths, constructs or rules by which a person decides to live their life.

If the reader decides beforehand that the Bible is a speciial entity of its own and that every word in it is to be made into a law with which to GOVERN every human being on this earth that is delusional and it is dangerous. Like putting a square peg into a round hole. The human mind was not designed to function in a vacuum only to be altered when the Rapturistas have a new commandment for you to observe because THEY have decided that is what the Bible says. That is a theocratic "spin" on an old word that has been around forever, in many permutations and evolutions--TYRANNY!

It never can fly very long, it always comes crashing down to earth from its own weight and then metamorphoses into another "theology" beginning another cycle of control.

Beware!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christian Fundamentalists
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Jul 12, 2005 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is about time that we recognize these "Christian" extremists for what they are, Pharisees. Like their Muslem brothers, they have hyjacked their Holy book, the Bible, and apply only those passages serving their selfserving needs.

Unlike true Christians, they ignore the poor, preach hate, and feel that they are superior to those of other faiths. They pay no attention to the teachings of Jesus to love one another, all they want is power. It is about time we recognize Christian Fundamentalists for what they truly are terrorists bent on distroying democracy here in the good old USA.

I am sure that if they continue, St. Peter will have a big surprise for them when they arrive on his doorstep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What if you aren't Christian
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 13, 2005 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How nice that we are allowed a choice between exteme Christians or moderate Christians. The "freedom of religion" clause does not mean only freedom to be a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Lutheran, etc. You can even be an atheist.

How about freedom FROM religion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Christ were alive today...
Posted by: ricallan on Jul 14, 2005 8:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and tried to kick over the moneychangers booths in the "temple," he'd be crucified yet again, but this time, ironically, under the charge of being anti-christian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong....The Response From the Right
Posted by: agent tim on Jul 15, 2005 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, My response was way to long to be included here, so you can view it here instead. I hate to do that.

Here is a clip:

"Far right Christians today...have not respect for disestablishment principles. They are intent on removing barriers between government and religion, and, in fact, making government the servant to religion."

Our nation was established in the context of the English State Church. Government is not to make it's own religion....

..."They are insistent that they are right to dominate not just Congress...and the President...but also the Supreme Court."

Ms. Hamilton, in politics you work to get your party in power, and in the majority. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, you do not work to get outnumbered or create a stalemate. That's not how politics work.

Just a small sampling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

another viewpoint from the right
Posted by: sambo4 on Jul 16, 2005 9:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody ever takes the time to consider the possibility that perhaps the religious right doesn't care so much about IMPOSING it's will on the population as it does about preserving it's right to worship unhindered. The constitution says that "Congress shall pass no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If that is the case, I challenge anyone to try to get a Bible study going in a public school today. We're constantly seeing even the idea of "God" being challenged publicly. Prayer was removed from school. A federal court decided to ban the pledge of allegiance because it has the word God in it. Seems to me that there IS a state sponsored religion in this country and it appears to be atheism.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a Bible thumper, although you would never guess it by reading what I've written. But I do believe in a divine energy something like the force in Star Wars. I happen to call that force God. I take no offense whatsoever to the ten commandments or the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance or even the prayer that was removed from the schools in the 60's. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on you. Please watch over our parents, our teachers and ourselves. Amen" Really offensive huh?

In the end, I find it ironic that those who say how judgemental those in the "religious right" are pass the very same level of judgement on the religious right. Can you say "HYPOCRISY"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» enough from the left Posted by: bornxeyed
» PS Posted by: sambo4
» Conservatism vs Liberalism Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Conservatism vs Liberalism Posted by: bornxeyed
» oops Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: State's rights Posted by: bornxeyed
link to Palm Beach Post story of Independence Day fire at Presidential Women's Center
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 18, 2005 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/
sfl-pclinic06jul06,0,1782474.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

As I write this I hear on ABC evening News that Eric Rudolf was sentenced to life in prison for bombing an abortion clinic in 1998. He expressed no remorse for his actions.

According to fundamentalist Christian dogma, he will go to heaven for his belief in god and Jesus Christ, the women he killed are in hell for attempting to kill their fetuses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's do a little poll
Posted by: sambo4 on Jul 18, 2005 9:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a conservative republican. So conservative that to me Rush Limbaugh leans a little too far to the left. I really have no interest in overturning Roe V wade nor do most of the Republicans that I've spoken with. Now I may be out of touch with the vast right wing conspiracy, of the dreaded "religious right" but how can I know that. So if any conservatives are reading this, just reply and indicate in the grand scheme of things if you see overturning Roe V Wade as the primary objective of "stacking the court" as most liberals present it. If not, what do you think is most important.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's do a little poll Posted by: sensitiveguy
» RE: Let's do a little poll Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Let's do a little poll Posted by: sambo4
» RE: Let's do a little poll Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Let's do a little poll Posted by: sambo4
Its not just religion
Posted by: sensitiveguy on Jul 19, 2005 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not just religion which the supreme court seat is about. This is a case of it being liberals last stand. Liberals absolutely can not win at the ballot box. This is there only chance to pass there socialist agenda. They cant do it through elected officials, Americans are smart and dont want to forfeit there power to a liberal government who WILL take there rights away. So they fight for the supreme court so that activist judges can alter laws from the bench. You want proof? It was the 5 most liberal judges who voted in favor of the government in the imminent domain case. Check the records you will see that I am right. Thomas< Scholea< Renquist< and O Connor all voted against it. They were standing up for your rights. Yes even liberal rights. I hope that Bush keeps his campaign promise and goes for conservative justices. Our freedom depends on it. Conservatives stand up for your rights. Liberals want to take them away. It has been repeatedly proven over and over again. This is my take on this discussion, everyone have a great day!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All this over an attorney?
Posted by: FlapJackSeven on Jul 19, 2005 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It just goes to show you that if you can't win at the ballot box, you must control the courts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All this over an attorney? Posted by: berrygoldwater
Christian Reconstructionism
Posted by: needlefoot on Jul 19, 2005 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so glad to see that people are becoming aware of the Christian (Far) Right's agenda. I see it as a threat to this country, one that seems to have crept up behind all of us who did not see it coming.
If the Reconstructionists (Dominion Theologists) have their way the United States of America, adhering to its Constitution, will cease to exist. Biblical law will prevail, and the people living on this land between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans will be living under a theocratic government that is the Christian face of Islamic fundamentalism - Taliban style.
Please do not take my word for it. Check out the statements of people like Gary North - strict adherents who believe that stoning will be the best form of execution because stones are plentiful and free.
One hope: the Reconstructionists are a minority. There will be no excuse but our stupidity if this ever does happen. As a majority, whether liberal or moderate conservative. we do have the power to stop this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]