Monday, April 13, 2009

Michael Lind Should Know Better: The USA Is Not A Christian Nation

Michael Lind is correct in his assertion that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Kudos to Lind for this view. However, brickbats to Michael Lind for his egregious references to this country as "America" and its citizens as "Americans." Canada is America. Mexico is America. The nations of Central America are American nations. The nations of South America are American nations. The United States of America is not more American than all of those nations. Michael Lind decries the arrogance of the Religious Right, but he is just as arrogant in his "America this" and "American that." If this is (fair & balanced) verbal jingoism, so be it.

[x Salon]
America Is Not A Christian Nation
By Michael Lind

Tag Cloud of the following article

created at TagCrowd.com


Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is? One American doesn't think so. In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: "One of the great strengths of the United States is... we have a very large Christian population — we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Predictably, Obama's remarks have enraged conservative talking heads. But Obama's observations have ample precedent in American diplomacy and constitutional thought. The most striking is the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797. Article 11 states:

"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 [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

Conservatives who claim that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" sometimes dismiss the Treaty of Tripoli because it was authored by the U.S. diplomat Joel Barlow, an Enlightenment freethinker. Well, then, how about the tenth president, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter:

"The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent — that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."

Was Tyler too minor a president to be considered an authority on whether the U.S. is a Christian republic or not? Here's George Washington in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island in 1790:

"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.... May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Eloquent as he is, Barack Obama could not have put it better.

Contrast this with John McCain's interview with Beliefnet during the 2008 presidential campaign:

"But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'" Asked whether this would rule out a Muslim candidate for the presidency, McCain answered, "But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is a Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would — I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead."

Conservatives who, like McCain, assert that the U.S. is in some sense a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation tend to make one of four arguments. The first is anthropological: The majority of Americans describe themselves as Christians, even though the number of voters who describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated has grown from 5.3 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008. But the ratio of Christians to non-Christians in American society as a whole is irrelevant to the question of whether American government is Christian.

The second argument is that the constitution itself is somehow Christian in character. On that point, candidate McCain said: "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." Is McCain right? Is the U.S. a Christian republic in the sense that according to their constitutions Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan are all now officially Islamic republics? What does the Constitution say? Article VI states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States." Then there is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

True, over the years since the founding, Christian nationalists have won a few victories — inserting "In God We Trust" on our money during the Civil War in 1863, adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance during the Cold War in 1954. And there are legislative and military chaplains and ceremonial days of thanksgiving. But these are pretty feeble foundations on which to claim that the U.S. is a Christian republic. ("Judeo-Christian" is a weaselly term used by Christian nationalists to avoid offending Jews; it should be translated as "Christian.")

The third argument holds that while the U.S. government itself may not be formally Christian, the Lockean natural rights theory on which American republicanism rests is supported, in its turn, by Christian theology. Jefferson summarized Lockean natural rights liberalism in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."

Many conservatives assert that to be a good Lockean natural nights liberal, one must believe that the Creator who is endowing these rights is the personal God of the Abrahamic religions.

This conflation of Christianity and natural rights liberalism helps to explain one of John McCain's more muddled answers in his Beliefnet interview: "[The] United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values [sic], which were translated by our founding fathers which is basically the rights of human dignity and human rights." The same idea lies behind then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's statement to religious broadcasters: "Civilized individuals, Christians, Jews and Muslims" — sorry, Hindus and Buddhists! — "all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator."

In reality, neither Jewish nor Christian traditions know anything of the ideas of natural rights and social contract found in Hobbes, Gassendi and Locke. That's because those ideas were inspired by themes found in non-Christian Greek and Roman philosophy. Ideas of the social contract were anticipated in the fourth and fifth centuries BC by the sophists Glaucon and Lycophron, according to Plato and Aristotle, and by Epicurus, who banished divine activity from a universe explained by natural forces and taught that justice is an agreement among people neither to harm nor be harmed. The idea that all human beings are equal by nature also comes from the Greek sophists and was planted by the Roman jurist Ulpian in Roman law: "quod ad ius natural attinet, omnes hominess aequales sunt" — according to the law of nature, all human beings are equal.

Desperate to obscure the actual intellectual roots of the Declaration of Independence in Greek philosophy and Roman law, Christian apologists have sought to identify the "Creator" who endows everyone with unalienable rights with the revealed, personal God of Moses and Jesus. But a few sentences earlier, the Declaration refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Adherents of natural rights liberalism often have dropped "Nature's God" and relied solely on "Nature" as the source of natural rights.

In any event, in order to be a good American citizen one need not subscribe to Lockean liberalism. Jefferson, a Lockean liberal himself, did not impose any philosophical or religious test on good citizenship. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. 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."

The fourth and final argument made in favor of a "Christian America" by religious conservatives is the best-grounded in history but also the weakest. They point out that American leaders from the founders to the present have seen a role for otherwise privatized and personal religion in turning out moral, law-abiding citizens. As George Washington wrote in his 1796 Farewell Address:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

In Washington's day, it may have been reasonable for the elite to worry that only fear of hellfire kept the masses from running amok, but in the 21st century it is clear that democracy as a form of government does not require citizens who believe in supernatural religion. Most of the world's stable democracies are in Europe, where the population is largely post-Christian and secular, and in East Asian countries like Japan where the "Judeo-Christian tradition" has never been part of the majority culture.

The idea that religion is important because it educates democratic citizens in morality is actually quite demeaning to religion. It imposes a political test on religion, as it were — religions are not true or false, but merely useful or dangerous, when it comes to encouraging the civic virtues that are desirable in citizens of a constitutional, democratic republic. Washington's instrumental view of religion as a kind of prop was agreeable to another two-term American president more than a century and a half later. "[O]ur form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith," said Dwight Eisenhower, "and I don't care what it is." And it's indistinguishable from Edward Gibbon's description of Roman religion in his famous multi-volume Decline and Fall: "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

President Obama, then, is right. The American republic, as distinct from the American population, is not post-Christian because it was never Christian. In the president's words: "We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." And for that we should thank the gods. All 20 of them. ♥

[Michael Lind is the Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The American Way of Strategy: U.S. Foreign Policy and the American Way of Life. Lind holds a B.A. from the University of Texas-Austin, an M.A. from Yale University, and a J.D. from University of Texas-Austin.]

Copyright © 2009 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Copyright © 2009 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

The Word O'The Day: Mockumentary, My Dear Watson

This blogger viewed a great documentary on HBO last Saturday night: "Thrilla in Manilla" which recounts the third fight between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier on September 30, 1975. While not a fight fan, this blogger was astounded by the violence narrated by Liev Schreiber (a gifted actor who is also the narrator of Bud Greenspan's Olympic Games documentaries). However, the other side of the documentary coin is the mockumentary and the Bud Greenberg of this film genre is Christopher Guest.

In 1984, Rob Reiner's film, "This Is Spinal Tap," marked the beginning of Christopher Guest's work in mockumentaries. Guest and his writing partner, Eugene Levy, and a small band of other actors have formed a loose repertory group, which appear across the several films. These include Catherine O'Hara, Michael McKean, Parker Posey, Jane Lynch, John Michael Higgins, Harry Shearer and Fred Willard. Guest and Levy write backgrounds for each of the characters and notecards for each specific scene, outlining the plot, and then leave it up to the actors to improvise the dialogue, which is supposed to result in a much more natural conversation than scripted dialogue would. Despite making a number of mockumentaries, Guest himself dislikes the term. He maintains that his intention is not to mock anyone, but to explore insular, perhaps obscure communities through his method of filmmaking. When pressed in a 2003 PBS interview by Charlie Rose, however, he could not provide a word to substitute for "mockumentary."

Guest's mocumentaries include "Waiting for Guffman" (1997), "Best in Show" (2000), "A Mighty Wind" (2003), and "For Your Consideration" (2006). However, a mockumentary challenger has emerged: Sacha Baron Cohen, a British comedian and actor, is most noted for his comic characters Ali G (an inner city youth from suburban London), Borat (a Kazakh reporter), and Brüno (a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion reporter).

In his shtik, Cohen typically conducts interviews with respected figures while posing as one of his characters for comedic effect. Those he interviews mistakenly believe that the interviews are sincere and legitimate. After the release of "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," Cohen announced that because the public had become too familiar with the characters, he would retire Borat and Ali G.

But wait, there's more! In July 2009, Cohen will release "Brüno," the self-proclaimed "voice of Austrian youth TV." According to pre-release chatter, Brüno gains an interview with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and during the course of the interview, Brüno attempts to seduce the congressman. Ultimately, Ron Paul (not to be confused with RuPaul) splutters and flees the camera. At this time, Cohen is embroiled in a ratings controversy with the Motion Pictures Association of America. As submitted, the film was to be given a rating of NC-17 which is the modern-day equivalent of X-rated. Will Ron Paul end up on the cutting room floor? Stay tuned. If this is (fair & balanced) cinematic lunacy, so be it.

[x Associated Content]
Top 8 Best Mockumentaries
By Aida Ekberg

Tag Cloud of the following article

created at TagCrowd.com

Mockumentaries have been around for a long time, but this film genre just hasn't exploded the way others, like romantic comedies and horror films, have. However, with Americans getting tired of reality television, mocking these shows about real life captured by tag-along camera crews will likely become more popular. Until then, you can view great mockumentaries like these:

"Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages" - This is the oldest film on this list, and may be the first mockumentary ever made. It's a silent gem from 1922 that purports to tell the tale of witches, demons, and devils. It's full of scenes of sexual perversion, torture, nudity, and frightening costumed characters, so it was probably a little too much for audiences of early cinema, who were very susceptible to believing that what they were seeing was real. The film contains some amazing special effects, costumes, and camerawork for its time, and was resurrected many years later as a "Midnight Movie" narrated by William S. Burroughs. It's a great movie for viewing around Halloween, and a must-see for film students.

"The Blair Witch Project" - A great companion piece to the film above would be this more modern mockumentary (It was even produced by Haxan Films). Like 'Haxan', this film had many audience members wondering if what was happening was actually real (nice to know we're still so gullible today). It's based on a great spooky story: a group of film students go out into the woods to search for the Blair Witch, only to never return. The footage of their journey is found later, and turned into a feature film. The mood of the film is created by the actors and actresses, whose shaky scenes of terror have become some of the most-mocked of all time (who knew you could mock a mockumentary?) Just beware when watching this film: it's known to induce vomiting (not from loads of blood and gore, but because of extremely unstable camera work.)

"This is Spinal Tap" - This mockumentary is perhaps the most famous of all time, and it has become a very popular cult classic. It's about what it's really like to be a ditzy member of a big-time rock band. The film perfectly portrays rock n' roll star stereotypes, with the band Spinal Tap changing its name multiple times, changing its music genre a few times, and changing drummers a few times (due to mysterious deaths). Of course the band members clash and their fame slowly fades, but what remains is a spot-on satire. My favorite scene in the film has to be the discussion over the amp that goes to eleven.

"Man Bites Dog" - This is, perhaps, the darkest mockumentary on this list. It's about a charismatic serial killer who is being followed by a crew of cameramen that record his crimes and commentary on them. Serial killer Benoit is almost charming as he explains his art form to the camera crew, telling them why he chooses certain people to kill and what methods are best for certain situations. His likeability ultimately draws the crew closer and closer to him, and they eventually find themselves becoming a part of their own documentary. It's a very dark comedy, but it's definitely a must-see.

"CSA: The Confederate States of America" - This mockumentary takes a hilarious look at what life would be like in our country if the Confederacy had won the war. It's set up like a British documentary being shown in the CSA that doesn't exactly agree with the way that the CSA has written American history. We learn the history of the country through two viewpoints: that of a white CSA man and a black Canadian woman (both are historians). The film is interrupted periodically with racist commercials aimed at white families who own black slaves, like that for a COPS-like television program where runaway slaves are hunted down. It's a very funny, well-thought-out film, but it's also extremely frightening to imagine that America could have very well gone in this direction.

"A Mighty Wind" - This movie is the 'This is Spinal Tap' for folk singing. It's a very creative and funny mockumentary about a reunion show of three folk singing groups, and it's directed by one of the masters of the mockumentary and star of "Spinal Tap," Christopher Guest. One of the made-up classic folk songs in the film actually managed to get nominated for an Academy Award. It's not the best on this list, but if you're a fan of "Spinal Tap" or folk music, you'll probably really enjoy this film. 

"Zelig" - Woody Allen has done a few mockumentaries, but this one has to be my favorite. It's about an incredible man named Zelig (Woody Allen), who desires so badly to fit in wherever he finds himself, that, like a chameleon, he changes his appearance (as well as his personality) to do so He becomes a national superstar and finds himself in many now-historical situations, but a psychologist (Mia Farrow) becomes determined to help him with his problem. Of course she falls in love with him, and things start to get really crazy and bizarre. Among the pieces of historical footage that Woody Allen has his likeness placed are newsreels that include long-dead legends like Babe Ruth, Charlie Chaplin, Al Capone, Adolf Hitler, Josephine Baker, and Pope Pius XI. The special effects for this film were incredibly hard to create, because digital technology didn't exist at the time, so it is truly a one-of-a-kind work of cinematic art.

"Borat: Cultural Learnings of American for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" - Awards show announcers certainly had fun reading the title of this film for anything it was nominated for, and members of the Nation of Kazakhstan definitely did not have a very good time dealing with their newfound fame. This film, however, is probably one the funniest of recent years. It stars comedian Sacha Baron Cohen as Kazakh journalist Borat as he tours the USA. Borat is sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic, and some countries even banned the film because of its outrageousness. Borat's beliefs about America are funny but offensive to some, as he believes that the September 11th attacks were caused by Jews and that Pamela Anderson is a virgin. Many who appear in the film are unaware of exactly what kind of film they are taking part in, which led to many participants being angered when they saw the final product. Some see it as anti-American and extremely controversial, but it is truly just a comedy about America, and it's healthy for us to have a laugh at our own expense every now and then. Cohen has another mockumentary in the works, so be prepared to do it again.

There are a few other great mockumentaries out there (many of which were done by Christopher Guest), but these are a few of the best of the genre. So if you're tired of reality television dominating the airwaves, have a laugh at reality's expense with some of these funny and very entertaining films. ♥

[Aida Ekberg is a blogger living in Waco, TX. She is a self-described community college journalism dropout whose personal motto is "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"]

Copyright © 2009 Associated Content, Inc.

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Copyright © 2009 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves