STANISLAUS CONNECTIONS

Working For Peace, Justice, and A Sustainable Environment

January, 2002

A Modesto Peace/Life Center Publication

Peace and Freedom of Expression

Secularism and religious freedom

By VASU MURTY

Some nations, such as the former Soviet Union, have expressed outright hostility towards religion. Others, such as Iran (“one nation under God?”), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course–neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

Regardless of any cherished personal beliefs we may hold, bringing unproveable religious creeds or texts such as the Bible into the secular political arena is comparable to bringing “Grimm’s Fairy Tales” into a Strategic Defense meeting. America was not founded upon Christianity, nor were all its founding fathers Christian.

According to Isaac Kramnick, a professor of government at Cornell University, America was founded as a secular state completely neutral towards all forms of religious expression. “In 1787, Kramnick writes, “when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is.”

Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.” Amos Singletary of Massachusetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment).

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams. We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all.

The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural. “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson admitted, “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are the fabric of very inferior minds...” According to Isaac Kramnick, it was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state: “Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.”

Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pockets nor breaks my leg.” Jefferson advocated a “wall of separation” between church and state not to protect the church from government intrusion, but to preserve the freedom of the people:

“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught;” he observed, “but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind.”

Jefferson and the founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism. “The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight,” wrote Jefferson. “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this...”

As late as 1820, Jefferson was convinced everyone in the United States would die a Unitarian. Jefferson and Paine’s writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy. “I have sworn upon the altar of God,” wrote Jefferson, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Do something now to stop Ashcroft's regulation
American Civil Liberties Union

Without observing the legally mandated period of public review and comment, Attorney General Ashcroft has implemented a new eavesdropping regulation that gives the government, without judicial oversight or meaningful standards, the unprecedented power to listen in on conversations between prison inmates and their attorneys. The new regulation renders the age-old tradition of attorney-client privilege worthless and essentially guts the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution.  Furthermore, the new regulation is unnecessary since the Department of justice already has the legal authority to record attorney-client conversations by going before a judge and obtaining a warrant.

ACLU appalled by Ashcroft statement on dissent
By LAURA W. MURPHY,

Director, ACLU Washington National Office

WASHINGTON — In a blatant attempt to stifle growing criticism of recent government policy, Attorney General Ashcroft delivered testimony last week equating legitimate political dissent with something unpatriotic and un-American. We urge the Attorney General to learn from the history of American dissent — from the Civil War to the civil rights struggle — that free and robust debate is one of the main engines of social and political justice. While we feel as strongly as the rest of America that those who perpetrated the monstrous acts of September 11 must be brought to justice and our future safety ensured, we forcefully disagree with the Attorney General that domestic debate about the government response in any way harms the investigation. In fact, we believe debate only strengthens our government in this time of national crisis.

The Attorney General swore an oath to guard the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, including the First Amendment. For him to openly attack as “aiding the enemy” those who question government policy is all the more frightening in light of his constitutional duty to protect each and every American’s right to speak and think their mind. Even worse is the tone of derision used by the Attorney General to mock his detractors, declaring their concerns “phantoms” and charging that their criticism brings “comfort to the enemy.”

There is evidence that the recent steps by the Administration to hold secretive military tribunals, to allow the government to eavesdrop on confidential attorney-client conversations and to blanket interrogate and detain Arab-Americans and Muslims are problematic for liberty in America. Ashcroft should welcome a free and robust debate about the appropriateness and legality of his positions as a means of legitimizing his authority, not weakening it.

American history demonstrates clearly that the search for truth tends to become muddied in times of crisis. Since the turn of the last century, America has seen each of its military conflicts prod the government into taking steps to stifle domestic dissent. Ashcroft’s statement suggests that, if we are not careful, the tragedy of September 11 might be compounded by a repeat of this history.

While we firmly support the Administration in its efforts to prevent another September 11, we cannot abide - nor can the American commitment to liberty and democracy support - any attempt by the Administration to dictate or coerce the thoughts we think or the opinions we hold. Thinking critically about government policy is the strongest shield against government excess.

We will continue to voice our disagreement when we feel the government has stepped out of bounds and will do so with the conviction that one of the highest forms of patriotism is devotion to the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed within, including the right to speak out in disagreement with the powers that be.

© 2001, The American Civil Liberties Union

The war at home

By DAVID HARRISON

IPA Media

Three months after Sept. 11, many analysts are examining the domestic consequences of the “war on terrorism.” In interviews conducted by the Institute for Public Accuracy, critics focused on the FBI’s increased surveillance powers and the administration’s boost to big business through a proposed “stimulus package.”

Attorney General John Ashcroft “would like us to trust the FBI with sweeping new powers,” said Nkechi Taicha, director of the Equal Justice Program at the Howard University School of Law. “This is the FBI that tried to disrupt and destroy numerous nonviolent organizations ranging from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador to Students for a Democratic Society. ... Although the claimed purpose of the Bureau’s COINTELPRO [Counterintelligence Program] action — which Ashcroft seems to want to revive and expand — was to ‘prevent violence,’ many of the FBI’s tactics were clearly intended to foster violence, and many others could reasonably have been expected to cause violence.”

Fordham University associate professor of law Brian Glick, author of “War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists,” points out that “Ashcroft is not just proposing to drop the limits for spying on violent organizations — he wants to drop the limits, period. The FBI has a history of violating the legal limits; there is no telling what they might do without such limits. The document that launched the COINTELPRO operations against the black social movements directed FBI agents to ‘disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize’ dissident movements.”

Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, warns that the enhanced surveillance measures could lead the FBI to more repressive measures. “Surveillance of dissidents across the political spectrum is now conducted through a loose network of government agencies, corporate security and private right-wing researchers,” he said. “By re-establishing a dynamic where any dissident group can be secretly accused of being linked to terrorism, and subject to disruption, the government opens the door to domestic covert operations that in the past led to orchestrated confrontations and killings.”

Meanwhile, Jim Redden, author of “Snitch Culture: How Citizens Are Turned Into the Eyes and Ears of the State,” recalls that “there’s a long and sordid history of government operatives committing the very crimes they are supposed to prevent and setting up dissidents with phony charges.”

Micah Sifry, a senior analyst with Public Campaign addressed the $100 billion “stimulus package” proposed by President Bush. “At a time when the country is experiencing a renewal of solidarity and a sense of shared sacrifice, we’re confronting the twin challenges of war and a declining economy. It’s obscene that some of corporate America thinks this is the moment to cash in on all their access and influence in Congress with unwarranted tax rebates and unnecessary bailouts. By a margin of 56 to 32 percent, the public chooses increased government spending over new tax cuts, according to a Gallup Poll. But Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says not to worry. The $100 billion House bill will provide 300,000 new jobs, he told the Sunday TV talk shows. That works out to $333,333 in corporate welfare for every new job. Rather than using the word stimulus, the bill should be called the Campaign Contributors War Profiteering Act of 2001.”

Joan Claybrook, president of the advocacy organization Public Citizen, said: “While virtually everyone in the country saw Sept. 11 as an immense tragedy, many special interests saw it as a rich opportunity. They promptly sent hoards of lobbyists to swarm Capitol Hill to line up for all kinds of goodies. The airline industry was the first in line and got a $15 billion bailout package with no strings attached. It didn’t even have to share the money with its workers. Other industries have followed suit. The insurance industry is pressing for the government to bail it out in future attacks, and other big businesses are seeking huge tax breaks in the pending stimulus package. Even the administration has jumped on the bandwagon by dramatically cutting civil liberties and trying to push fast track trade authority through Congress — all under the guise of wartime necessity.”

At the University of California at Santa Cruz, economics professor David Kaun brings up the question of war profiteering by military industries. “It wasn’t that long ago — the late 1800s and forward — that the term ‘war profiteering’ impacted with a visible smudge upon those so labeled,” he said. “After World War Two, ‘arms merchants’ became highly sophisticated, ceding the promotional role to our major universities and defense ‘intellectuals.’ Today, having been hit with the double-whammy of terrorism and recession, the old pejorative seems alive and well. It’s full speed ahead with Star Wars ... accompanied with equally misguided tax breaks for the wealthy and permanent reductions in corporate taxes. Under the guise of security and stimulus, the Bush administration and House Republicans have taken the concept of ‘profiteering’ to broader and more obscene levels than ever before.

David Harrison (harrisonmn@yahoo.com) is a writer with IPA Media, a project of the Institute for Public Accuracy, www.accuracy.org