My Correspondence with the leader of a local Christian Fundamentalist Activist group

[pepperbear]

Backstory: The group "Virginians for Liberty" held a march and rally in my hometown, and they marched down one of the most historic streets in the country. Of course, it was one of those "take back America" kind of gatherings.

http://www.wydaily.com/2472/Pogge-Urges-Citizens-Govt-to-Turn-to-Christ-During-Rally-at-CW.html

Anyway, I decided that enough was enough so I did a quick search and found the leader's e mail. Here are the exchanges:


My first letter

Dear xxx-xxx:

I wish to applaud you and your group, Virginians for Liberty, for exercising your first amendment rights when you assembled and marched from the Capitol to the historic Bruton Parish Church.

I would also like to remind you of the full text of the first amendment, especially the first half of the first sentence:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You believe God's laws supercedes the laws of man. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion coming from a person of faith. It seems, however, that the Founding Fathers disagreed with you, which is why they decided (after much debate, I might add) to include that most important component to the Bill of Rights. It was a bold experiment, you see, because they weren't so far removed from what an established religion had done to most of Europe. It is interesting that England does have an established church, the Church of England, yet they legalized gay marriage and they're constantly worried about offending their Muslim population. They've even made legitimate the practice of Sharia (Islamic) Law. Thank goodness it is a choice and not an imperative!

The rest of us "Earthbound" Americans like the Constitution the way it is. If you're going to exercise your rights using the rest of the first amendment, please do the rest of us a favor by not forgetting the first half of that very first sentence. It's there to protect ALL of us.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

xxx-xxx


her response

Mr. xxx,

Never fear, I do not believe we should have an established church as they do in England (and as they did in Virginia's early days). On the other hand, I think "separation of church and state" (a phrase not to be found in the Constitution) has been misinterpreted in modern times to mean that there should be no religious influence on state affairs. That is very different, as I'm sure you realize, from establishing a particular church. The founding fathers did not believe that a government like ours, a government of free people, could survive without the qualities of character that Judaism and Christianity tried to develop.
Many thanks for taking time to comment at such length.

Best,

xxx-xxx


my counter

Dear xxx-xxx:

I'm glad you wouldn't "dream of establishing a church", but I believe you have a very convenient interpretation of the Constitution. I've heard these talking points before, where "Non-establishment" is code for "We will allow all faiths, not just the Methodists", and I believe your organization still wants to declare the US a de facto Christian nation. I read some of the things said at the rally. Rep. Pogge is always entertaining, especially when she is trying to replenish her campaign coffers. "Never fear", you say? Why on earth should I be afraid?

You almost had me until you said that separation of church and state doesn't appear in the Constitution. Of course you're correct, but it's interesting to note that two other words don't appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence: "Jesus Christ."

The thing is, you also said that the phrase "separation of church and state" has been "misinterpreted" (I am all ears: how would you interpret it?), which means that you must agree that the separation does indeed exist. I have a feeling you wish otherwise, or you wouldn't have had the rally in the first place. I hope you don't mind when I say that I will do everything in my power to make sure that your wish never comes true. Granted, the only two things I have in my power are the "pen" and the voting booth, but I shall exercise them both regularly. I do, indeed, believe that there "should be no religious influence on state affairs." Fortunately, the Supreme Court has agreed with my stance many times. You also claim that the misinterpretation of the phrase is a modern phenomenon. That's because it was only in the last 75 years that anyone has bothered to challenge the church/state relationship in court.

Whose religion? Whose God? Which denomination? Which litergy? Whose Bible? Which version of the Ten Commandments (there are more than one)? What about Muslims, Atheists, and Jews? What about the Wiccans? How about Satan worshippers? Who are any of us to decide what God thinks is right or wrong? Will we believe in the divinity of Christ, or only God's divinity?

To deny protection from an overbearing theocracy is to deny the very principles this country was founded on, and it is also to deny the rights of religious minorities (and non-believers) whose protection, like it or not, was obviously important to our founders. I've seen many of the eloquent quotes that some of the founding fathers made in favor of a religious nation. However, that's only part of the picture:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."

-Thomas Paine

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''

-James Madison (draft of the original wording of the 1st amendment)

Regarding our relationship with those of different faiths in other countries:

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

-John Adams

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth

Believing 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

-Thomas Jefferson

I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did

The faith you mention has doubtless its use in the world. I do not desire to see it diminished, nor would I desire to lessen it in any way; but I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally seen it. I mean real good works, works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit, not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing, and reading, performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments, despised even by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason

-Ben Franklin

These men weren't exactly atheists, but I'm not ready to say they were necessarily Christian either, and they knew potential tyranny when they saw it.

You state that they couldn't imagine the survival of a society of "free people" without the development of Judeo-Christian "qualities of character". Do you mean to say that those are the only faiths that espouse such qualities? I offer that they couldn't imagine a society without freedom OF AND FROM religion, and they debated long and hard over this vital issue. You see, that "separation" you say doesn't exist in the Constitution is vital because it also protects people of faith, and ensures that no one will ever lock up the churches, synagogues, or mosques. I am comforted to know it also means I can declare that I don't believe in God the same way as you do, or that I don't believe in God at all, and that I can declare these things without fear of government reprisal.

Yes, that separation between church and state does and always should exist. What doesn't exist, unfortunately, is the separation between Church and politics.

Thanks again for your time.

Sincerely,


xxx-xxx

her response

I appreciate your taking time to write such a long and thoughtful message. I wish I had time to continue to correspond at length, but I am off on a business trip today and am generally taken up with my ailing mother and teenage children when I'm home. Just quickly: I do think non-Christians can be good citizens, and I would not wish to see Christianity established as a state religion. That congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a church does not mean, to my mind, that religion should have no place in the public square....we have chaplains in the senate, etc. etc.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

All best,


xxx-xxx


if you knew anything about this group, you'd know she was back-pedaling. I especially love it when she says that we have chaplains in the senate and tries to use that prove her point.

:)

[YOY]

1. " do think non-Christians can be good citizens"

Sure you do honey...sure you do. If they try real hard to accept the superiority of Christian citizens.

[baldguy]

2. Gee, that's mighty white of her.

Also - "I wish I had time to continue to correspond..". To email? That you can receive & reply to from anywhere in the world?

[MineralMan]

3. That's code for "You're winning, so I'm too busy to answer."