http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58930
The left has purposefully confused and distorted the debate about the separation of church and state, and it is time they were hauled up on the carpet for it. Harvard law professor and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz was interviewed in the Ottawa Citizen this month. Speaking about Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, Dershowitz said the endorsement was "the best thing that's happened in a long time. It exposes the cynicism of both of them. The fact is Robertson is endorsing Giuliani not because of his religion but despite it, so it makes it very clear that Pat Robertson's religion is really politics. His Jesus packs heat, cuts taxes and hates immigrants."
I almost had to agree with Dershowitz just a little. The endorsement did smack of cynical politics. But Dershowitz's comment also revealed a staggering level of ignorance and hypocrisy.
For one thing, Dershowitz, who styles himself an expert on Thomas Jefferson, the founding father made famous for the "wall of separation" clause, loves to treat Jefferson as though his were the only voice speaking in the history books.
(Column continues below)
adsonar_placementId=1270202;adsonar_pid=663759;adsonar_ps=1451068;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
Dershowitz says that what Robertson has done is violate the very foundation upon which the America was constructed. "Jefferson would be turning over in his grave."
A little background is important here. According to Dershowitz, Jefferson was not favorably disposed toward Christianity. He was a Unitarian. He rejected the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible. He even rejected the Ten Commandments because they were vindictive. In fact, Dershowitz says, "Jefferson didn't want Christian religion to influence American politics."
But what about the "being created equal before God" clause?
Dershowitz says that when Jefferson wrote that, he wasn't talking about the "God of the Bible"; he was talking about "nature's god." Jefferson was a deist. He didn't want "monkish interference" in the commerce of the state.
Now, I'm no expert on Jefferson. But it strikes me as peculiar that Dershowitz and his ilk tend to ignore the body of evidence that shows that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians with a Christian political ideology.
When the framers of the U.S. Constitution discussed the issue of church vs. state, they were talking about a separation of institutions. To put it plainly, they were saying that "the government of the church should not interfere with the business of civil government," and vice versa. They wanted a separation of the institutions and their structures, because they didn't want a particular church to run the government of the people just as they didn't want a particular government to run any church. But they patently did not envision a society where Christians had no right to vote according to their convictions, run for office as Christians, or apply their Christian views about civil government to their duties while they were in office.
Is Dershowitz guilty of a little revisionism here?
And another thing. If mixing church and state is really the national kill-joy Dershowitz and his cronies claim it to be, and if it indeed violates the "spirit of Jefferson," then why aren't the Democratic hopefuls being castigated for parading their "piety" on stage in the primaries?
Why are the catcalls about confusing personal faith with political leadership not as vitriolic and visceral and shrill when the religious left in the persons of Al (poverty-pimp) Sharpton and Jessie (pandering-racial-tension-mongerer) Jackson are glad-handing with Obama, Hillary or Edwards?
Hypocritical? It's even more egregious than that.
There's a blatant contradiction in Dershowitz's excoriation of Pat Robertson. One is led to believe that what he's really upset about is not that Pat Robertson, a "man of the cloth," is involved in politics. Rather, it is that Pat Robertson, a "man of the cloth," is involved in politics with the wrong party. A party that believes in the First Amendment rights of Americans, limited government and border security all very Jeffersonian in spirit.
The debate about church vs. state has never been about keeping religion out of politics. It has always been about whose religion gets to influence and drive the political agenda. And one thing the left hates is free market competition, especially in the arena of political ideas.
Because whatever you make of Dershowitz's politics, always remember that there simply is no such thing as religious neutrality. Whether or not he professes a belief in God or goes to a church or synagogue has nothing to do with it. Alan Dershowitz is not non-religious. Everybody, Jew, Christian and atheist alike we are all religious in the sense that we all have a set of assumed presuppositions about life and morality. These presuppositions make up our religion. It's called a worldview. And everybody has one.
Unfortunately, when the critics of Christianity argue the "church vs. state" paradigm today, they're trying to eliminate the competition in the political arena. They want Christians to keep their religious worldview in the closet, while they get to parade their secular values in the open for all to see. And Dershowitz provides a good example of this approach.
So next time you hear an opponent tell you to "keep your religion out of it," tell him, "Fine, as long as you keep yours out first." Of course, that's impossible, because there is no such thing as a religious vacuum in politics so you might as well keep the secularists at bay and push back with Christianity.
The left has purposefully confused and distorted the debate about the separation of church and state, and it is time they were hauled up on the carpet for it. Harvard law professor and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz was interviewed in the Ottawa Citizen this month. Speaking about Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, Dershowitz said the endorsement was "the best thing that's happened in a long time. It exposes the cynicism of both of them. The fact is Robertson is endorsing Giuliani not because of his religion but despite it, so it makes it very clear that Pat Robertson's religion is really politics. His Jesus packs heat, cuts taxes and hates immigrants."
I almost had to agree with Dershowitz just a little. The endorsement did smack of cynical politics. But Dershowitz's comment also revealed a staggering level of ignorance and hypocrisy.
For one thing, Dershowitz, who styles himself an expert on Thomas Jefferson, the founding father made famous for the "wall of separation" clause, loves to treat Jefferson as though his were the only voice speaking in the history books.
(Column continues below)
adsonar_placementId=1270202;adsonar_pid=663759;adsonar_ps=1451068;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
Dershowitz says that what Robertson has done is violate the very foundation upon which the America was constructed. "Jefferson would be turning over in his grave."
A little background is important here. According to Dershowitz, Jefferson was not favorably disposed toward Christianity. He was a Unitarian. He rejected the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible. He even rejected the Ten Commandments because they were vindictive. In fact, Dershowitz says, "Jefferson didn't want Christian religion to influence American politics."
But what about the "being created equal before God" clause?
Dershowitz says that when Jefferson wrote that, he wasn't talking about the "God of the Bible"; he was talking about "nature's god." Jefferson was a deist. He didn't want "monkish interference" in the commerce of the state.
Now, I'm no expert on Jefferson. But it strikes me as peculiar that Dershowitz and his ilk tend to ignore the body of evidence that shows that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians with a Christian political ideology.
When the framers of the U.S. Constitution discussed the issue of church vs. state, they were talking about a separation of institutions. To put it plainly, they were saying that "the government of the church should not interfere with the business of civil government," and vice versa. They wanted a separation of the institutions and their structures, because they didn't want a particular church to run the government of the people just as they didn't want a particular government to run any church. But they patently did not envision a society where Christians had no right to vote according to their convictions, run for office as Christians, or apply their Christian views about civil government to their duties while they were in office.
Is Dershowitz guilty of a little revisionism here?
And another thing. If mixing church and state is really the national kill-joy Dershowitz and his cronies claim it to be, and if it indeed violates the "spirit of Jefferson," then why aren't the Democratic hopefuls being castigated for parading their "piety" on stage in the primaries?
Why are the catcalls about confusing personal faith with political leadership not as vitriolic and visceral and shrill when the religious left in the persons of Al (poverty-pimp) Sharpton and Jessie (pandering-racial-tension-mongerer) Jackson are glad-handing with Obama, Hillary or Edwards?
Hypocritical? It's even more egregious than that.
There's a blatant contradiction in Dershowitz's excoriation of Pat Robertson. One is led to believe that what he's really upset about is not that Pat Robertson, a "man of the cloth," is involved in politics. Rather, it is that Pat Robertson, a "man of the cloth," is involved in politics with the wrong party. A party that believes in the First Amendment rights of Americans, limited government and border security all very Jeffersonian in spirit.
The debate about church vs. state has never been about keeping religion out of politics. It has always been about whose religion gets to influence and drive the political agenda. And one thing the left hates is free market competition, especially in the arena of political ideas.
Because whatever you make of Dershowitz's politics, always remember that there simply is no such thing as religious neutrality. Whether or not he professes a belief in God or goes to a church or synagogue has nothing to do with it. Alan Dershowitz is not non-religious. Everybody, Jew, Christian and atheist alike we are all religious in the sense that we all have a set of assumed presuppositions about life and morality. These presuppositions make up our religion. It's called a worldview. And everybody has one.
Unfortunately, when the critics of Christianity argue the "church vs. state" paradigm today, they're trying to eliminate the competition in the political arena. They want Christians to keep their religious worldview in the closet, while they get to parade their secular values in the open for all to see. And Dershowitz provides a good example of this approach.
So next time you hear an opponent tell you to "keep your religion out of it," tell him, "Fine, as long as you keep yours out first." Of course, that's impossible, because there is no such thing as a religious vacuum in politics so you might as well keep the secularists at bay and push back with Christianity.
