God Blast America?

By: Vindictive | 22September2001

Motives I hope the reader will believe that my reasons for writing and publishing the following do not include an attempt to trash Christianity. I greatly respect the path that Jesus laid out, as well as devout Christians who live according to Jesus-inspired principles. My respect runs deep enough that I am offended when politically motivated powermongers, claiming to represent Christianity, attempt to distort the nature of Christianity into something it wasn't originally designed to be. In my opinion, some of the views held by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other so-called (but not actually) 'fundamentalist' preachers are as unrepresentative of the ideals that Jesus taught as the actions of a handful of terrorists are unrepresentative of Islam. Criminalizing Heresy The 1554 execution of David van der Leyen and Levina Ghyselins, described variously as Dutch Anabaptists or Mennonites, by Catholic authorities in Ghent in 1554. Since nearly it's beginning, people identifying themselves as Christian have oppressed, tortured and murdered followers of other religious paths for the 'crime' of disbelief. (Christians, in times and places when they were the minority, have also suffered persecution -- mostly by other denominations of Christians.) Unfortunately for the victims, there is no record of a definitive statement by Jesus to the effect that choosing to follow him -- faith in Jesus -- doesn't translate well into the world of officialdom, kings, governments and laws. Beyond advice on paying taxes ("Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...") and defending his claims of kingship before Pontius Pilate ("My kingdom is not of this world..."), Jesus didn't seem particularly concerned with the affairs of government. One contributor to Christian Scripture, Paul the Apostle, did offer an opinion concerning the Law (of Moses), the same law which in Jesus' time, formed the basis of Israel's theocracy: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. - Christian Scripture, Galatians, Chap 3 However, even this does not specifically discredit the idea of a government which requires its citizens to profess belief in the Christian God and/or live by the specific rules of personal conduct that a devout Christian might adopt. History is certainly replete with examples of governmental Christendom, and the accompanying intolerance for Jews, Moslems, Pagans and others. Rational believers -- often the minority of Christianity -- understood that their belief in Jesus was a matter of faith, not a governmental system. Adopting Christianity -- or any other religious path -- was considered a personal decision, not brought about by fiat. Unfortunately, it took hundreds of years before a viable political system was designed (though not always strictly followed) that incorporated this ideal of freedom to believe (or disbelieve) in whatever religious system the believer chose. Welcome to the New World The 1641 murder by Irish Catholics of approx. 100 Protestants from Loughgall Parish, County Armagh, at the bridge over the River Bann. The repressions and Inquisitions of ecclesiastical governments are among the primary reasons why millions left the physical comforts of Europe for the North American continent. They and their progeny eventually established the United States on the basis of freedom of religious belief. Roger Williams (1603-1683) was one such early American immigrant. He was born in London, educated as a clergyman at University of Cambridge, and evaded persecution for his Puritan faith by moving to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. There, he was labeled a dissenter and banished for [1] supporting separation of the "established" church of New England from the Church of England, and [2] questioning the authorities' seizure of Native American lands. The Narragansett tribe gave him shelter. While living with them, he studied their language and become friends with their chiefs. He and a few other white families bought land from the Narragansetts, on which they established Providence. This new settlement participated in principles of equality, religious toleration and separation of church and state, which led to it become a sanctuary for other victims of bigotry and religious persecution. He wrote and preached in defense of religious tolerance and Native American rights until his death. There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or a human combination or society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both papists and protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal I affirm, that all the liberty of conscience, that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two hinges--that none of the papists, protestants, Jews, or Turks, be forced to come to the ship's prayers of worship, nor compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they practice any. - Roger Williams to the Town of Providence, January 1655 The whole 'prayer in school' issue would likely be settled in the minds of 'fundamentalist' Christian TV evangelists if they were to read this simple guideline (and understand it), written nearly 350 years ago by a man whose love for Jesus cannot be questioned. Wall of separation The famous phrase "separation of Church and State" was probably coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to a Baptist Association in Danbury, years after the First Amendment was penned. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. If all American politicians (and television evangelists) were to periodically review Jefferson's words above -- on which I cannot improve -- the US might have always been as tolerant of religious minorities as it often claims to be. Falwell and Robertson's exchange on The 700 Club The entire transcript of the 13Sep2001 conversation between Falwell and Robertson can be found on the People For The American Way site. I've reproduced part of it here, for purposes of discussion. FALWELL: ....And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil, first time, and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population. FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this. ROBERTSON: Well, yes. FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'. ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system. FALWELL: Amen. Pat, did you notice yesterday? The ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, the People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang 'God Bless America' and said 'let the ACLU be hanged'. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time- calling upon God. ROBERTSON: Amen.... After the Falwell interview, Robertson made some summary comments: "...We have allowed rampant secularism and occult, etc. to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say 'why does this happen?'" Summary of those Falwell and Robertson blame for the 11Sep01 terrorist attack: pagans abortionists feminists gays and lesbians ACLU People For the American Way and those who have "tried to secularize America" In effect, along with people with lifestyles that Falwell and Robertson find repugnant, they also blame those who have encouraged and incited the US to a greater level of church-state separation. Secularized America Burning out religious minorities in Waco, TX. Definition of sec·u·lar·ize To transfer from ecclesiastical or religious to civil or lay use or ownership. To draw away from religious orientation; make worldly. To lift the monastic restrictions from (a member of the clergy). Say the word 'religion' to some people, and they will picture a list something like: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhist, Judaism, Sikhism, Shintoism, et cetera. Say 'religion' to most Americans and their list is more likely to be similar to: Catholic, Church of Christ, Baptist, Methodist, Quaker, Christian Science, etc. -- id est Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian... In spite of the First Amendment's "...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", citizens of the United States haven't historically enjoyed a great amount of freedom of religion. Most didn't mind, since -- if they professed to be anything at all -- they were some brand of Christian (primarily because of the European roots of most early American settlers). That is fine, in and of itself. Unfortunately for those who followed other paths, social and governmental institutions favored Christianity and tended to exclude most other belief systems (except, usually, Judaism -- since Christians generally believe the Jewish Deity, Jehovah, to be their own). Even Christian denominations within the US that weren't considered 'mainstream' have endured their own share of lack of respect -- or even persecution -- because some of their beliefs and practices seemed too bizarre to the majority of Christendom. America's freedom of religion was more a freedom to be some denomination of mainstream Christian. But as the world became smaller, as people from non-European countries continued to immigrate, and as communications with other lands increased, America started to become a bit more religiously diverse. Encouraged by purist Constitutional scholars and others who thought of 'religion' in terms of world religions, rather than various brands of one religion, some American laws and practices that favored Christianity began to change. As the US become more diverse, the "free exercise" clause began to be understood to indicate that it is unfair to non-Christians (and non-Jewish) citizens for government institutions to -- for example -- officially pay homage to the Ten Commandments, especially when the existence of other religious traditions with their own holy scriptures is officially ignored. Despite the lamentations of Christian fundamentalists, students are not forbidden from reading the Bible; they just aren't told that they must read it. Students are not prohibited from praying in school; they simply aren't ordered to do so publicly -- which is closer to what Jesus taught about the nature of prayer, anyway. [See the Gospel According to Matthew, Chap 6, v.5-6.] This movement away from governmental favoritism of one religious path, and towards fairness and true religious freedom (including the freedom to choose no religion) is precisely the secularization of America that Falwell and Robertson bemoan. PFAW & ACLU Among the issues that People For The American Way concerns themselves with are: Quality public education Freedom of expression Equal rights Building democracy Religious liberty Tracking the activities of the Religious Right political movement Yet PFAW has been demonized by Christian extremists, probably primarily because of the last item on my list. The American Civil Liberties Union has many campaigns to help ensure that Americans are granted their constitutional freedoms. I would guess that the ACLU's work to influence cyber-liberties, drug policy, lesbian & gay rights, and women's rights are among those that Falwell and Robertson find offensive. Giving the doctor his due On 18Sep2001, Jerry Falwell published an apology for his comments. There are some who might point out that -- given the public firestorm over his original comments -- an apology was merely prudent, and an attempt to reacquire a public reputation for decency. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, however. I believe that Doctor Falwell realizes that his words were hurtful and insensitive. In the interests of fairness, I have reproduced his apology in its entirety, as published on www.falwell.com: Jerry Falwell Apologizes DATE: September 18, 2001 FROM: Jerry Falwell Last Thursday during an appearance on the 700 Club, in the midst of the shock and mourning of a dark week for America, I made a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I apologize that, during a week when everyone appropriately dropped all labels and no one was seen as liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, religious or secular, I singled out for blame certain groups of Americans. This was insensitive, uncalled for at the time, and unnecessary as part of the commentary on this destruction. The only label any of us needs in such a terrible time of crisis is that of 'American.' I obviously did not state my theological convictions very well and I stated them at a bad time. During the difficult weeks ahead there will be much discussion about the judgment of God. It is a worthy discussion for all of us at a time when we are reminded of the fleeting nature of life itself, but it is a complicated discussion. I do not know if the horrific events of September 11 are the judgment of God, but if they are, that judgment is on all of America--including me and all fellow sinners--and not on any particular group. My statements were understandably called divisive by some, including those whom I mentioned by name in the interview. This grieves me, as I had no intention of being divisive. In conclusion, I blame no one but the hijackers and terrorists for the barbaric happenings of September 11. We know, as Abraham Lincoln anguished in his second inaugural address, that "The Almighty has his own purposes," but as he said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." Retraction? Not! On 13Sep01, Falwell implied -- although he did not specifically state -- that the terrorist acts were a judgment of God. The closest phrase that might be considered a retraction would be "I do not know if the horrific events of September 11 are the judgment of God..." There is no indication -- nor would I expect one from this man who, at least, sticks to his principles -- that he believes something other than what he initially said during his 700 Club interview. Falwell is certainly entitled to believe that the Creator he worships works through Islamic terrorists. Robertson, on the other hand, weaseled and equivocated in an effort to distance himself as far as possible from his part in The 700 Club conversation: ...Rev. Falwell's initial remarks were completely in accord with what had been said in preceding parts of the program, and then, unexpectedly, he uttered a political statement of blame directed at certain segments of the population that was severe and harsh in tone, and, frankly, not fully understood by the three hosts of The 700 Club who were watching Rev. Falwell on a monitor. ...Rev. Falwell has issued a pointed clarification of his statement, and Dr. Robertson said on Fox News' The Edge that he considered the remarks "totally inappropriate." He does not wish to comment further... - Pat Robertson Addresses Comments Made By Jerry Falwell, September 18, 2001 [emphasis added] In Robertson's judgment, apparently, "Well, yes" and "I totally concur" and "Amen" are correct responses to statements that are frankly, not fully understood and totally inappropriate. Neither Falwell nor Robertson, however, retracted their implications that America, guilty of becoming secularized, deserves to be punished by terrorists. The Other War The United States has been attacked by (it is assumed) Islamic extremists engaged in jihad. If so, the true motives for the attack (in spite of what George W. Bush says) probably include retaliation for American support of our attackers' enemies, and possibly also for American attacks on Middle Eastern targets during Clinton's administration. In the aftermath of Robertson's interview with Falwell, much was made by editorialists of the fact that these extremist Christians seemed to be in agreement with the terrorists in viewing their murder of Americans as a punishment from the Almighty. However, Islamic extremists do have at least one other ideal in common with Christian extremists: their preference for a national government that is rooted deeply in, and operated according to, the presumed dictates of the Divine. Much like the ancient Jewish religion (they share patriarchs, after all) Islam is both religion and political system. Afghanistan under the Taliban is a near-perfect example of what happens when there is no separation between Church (Mosque, in this case) and State. There is a war being waged, not of cruise missiles and hijacked airplanes, but of ideas. On one side are those who believe that every philosophy and belief system should stand or fall on its own merits, and that people should be allowed to choose what to believe without being encumbered or influenced by government policies. On the other side are those who hate this level of religious freedom because they distrust an undecided person's ability to choose wisely in a 'secularized' nation. This war of ideas will undoubtedly continue long after all those who currently threaten America are enjoying untold riches in paradise, boffing their seventy willing virgins.