A large wooden cross was placed in an Air Force campus worship space for pagans and followers of other Earth-centered religions. Mikey Weinstein with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been assured that the Air Force academy is legitimately investigating "whether the placement of the cross was malicious, innocent or something in between.
W.D. Noble wrote an excellent piece about the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the military at Subversify's blog.
One problem, of course, is that the Tea Party is cherry-picking and taking out of context quotations favorable to their point of view. Even worse, however, is that some of the statements the Tea Partiers attribute to the Founders appear to be fraudulent. In fact, two are among a long list of quotes that Barton has used in the past (supporting his "Christian nation" argument) even though he admits that neither he nor real historians can point to evidence that the Founders ever said them.
From the Texas Tea Party Web site:
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Both quotations are bogus, and both are on Barton's list of false quotes that he once presented as true history. This is a classic case of how bad history gets accepted as fact in popular culture, especially when people are pushing a political agenda.
Barton's defense, of course, would be that he has acknowledged his error in using those unsubstantiated quotes in his writings and speeches. He also suggests that, while Madison and Henry probably didn't say these things, they could have because their other writings and statements included similar ideas, particularly in the case of Madison. But that's simply an opinion not shared by respected scholars of American history. In any case, we continue to see the quotes pop up when some pressure group or another promotes the lie that the Founders wanted a nation with laws based on the Christian Bible (instead of a nation based on the principle of keeping government out of the religious affairs of the people).
Think Progress reveals that 51% of Texans disagree with evolution, 30% think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and 30% were not sure whether humans and dinosaurs co-existed. In other words, only 40% of Texans are certain that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. As far as why those dinosaurs are not romping about with us humans? Well, there's a new theory out there called "Intelligent Recall."
If Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty decides to run as a Republican presidential candidate, it looks like his running mate might be God. The LA Times covered his speech made this Friday to conservatives:
He laid out a vision of smaller government and a strong defense. The other principle he said guides him: "God's in charge."
"If it's good enough for the Founding Fathers it should be good enough for each and every one of us," said Pawlenty, noting that God is enshrined in the country's founding documents.
Pawlenty, who is not known for wearing religion on his sleeve, noted that some people said it would be "politically incorrect" to bring up God. "Hogwash," Pawlenty said, drawing applause from a crowd that clearly appreciated his pitch.
Rev. Vern Hill, an assistant pastor at Grace Episcopal Church, opines to the Bakersfield Californian that it's time to Stop the 'Christian Nation' quotation war. In this refreshing piece written by a member of the clergy, Hill puts history and the views of the founding fathers into perspective:
What was fresh in their mind was that England had in recent history three tragic experiences with an "established" version of Christianity — Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and Puritan, and the subsequent exclusion and persecution of those who understood their faith differently. Those coming to America seeking escape from persecution came not to establish a place of toleration, but a place to practice their own "true" version of Christianity to the exclusion of others, a point not well understood about our own early history.
The behavior of the Massachusetts colony is but one good example of this. Quakers, Roman Catholics, Jews and others all suffered from exclusion in the colonies. The colony of Rhode Island represented one of the few places of toleration as we know it today.
The founders wished to avoid this religious warfare by removing government from the advocacy of any particular religious expression of faith and guaranteeing the free practice of religion or even non-practice. Even despite this commitment at our founding, the persecution of religious groups has continued throughout our history, as the "majority" attempt from time to time to exempt themselves from the Constitutional protections. Today, when we read some of the more virulent attacks on this notion of separation or even read the suggestion that we are a "theocratic" nation, we are experiencing the precise reason the separation is necessary. Protection from the well-meaning citizenry is a key element of the separation.
Check out the UNEXPLAINABLE STORE - Lots of freebies, bonuses and more. -
The link opens in a new window so you can satisfy your curiosity and return to this page!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Folks, thanks for the 'buzz' on my recent interview with Mikey Weinstein. I appreciate the effort.
Subversify Magazine is an online-journal (not a 'blog') which provides a genuine alternative to mainstream media – as a result, we seek out people who are not often contacted by the media, but who are working to make a significant contribution to the society in which they live.
You may find more of our work at Subversify.Com – additionally; the interview you referenced is available via Subversify Radio as a podcast at Subversify.Podbean.Com
Thanks for reading!
Great to hear from you, W.D. Sorry to call Subversify a blog … nonetheless, you have wonderful content.
No worries – we get the 'blog' thing a lot. Lines are blurred in media nowadays, anyway.
If you're interested, I'd appreciate your two-cents on the article at the website – plus your input on the interview (there's a lot of material in that half-hour which didn't make it to the print article):
http://subversify.podbean.com
Thanks again for reading!
-W.D. Noble