Things that make you go, “Hmmmmmmmm…”
Why is it if one says, "Oh, God!" said person is taking His name in vain, but should one mention the name of some evil being, suddenly it's a "summoning?"
The Fascist State
Not content with vicariously baptizing John Adams a Christian, Ann Coulter has posted a whiny rant about a court system that keeps finding things protected by the Constitution that she feels are not, never were (nor ever should be) "in" the Constitution. Never mind that personal liberty and social responsibility were the pillars upon which the Founding Fathers built this country and framed the document in question. Why is it, do you think, they specifically excluded religion from government? It wouldn't be because of religion's tendency toward dictatorial authority would it?
In her list of "if gay marriage what next?" Ann lists the right to fascism. Since my concept of what fascism actually is is somewhat vague, I did some reading. Turns out the term fascism is, by its very nature, vague. I did find one article I found rather interesting.
In his article "Fascism Anyone?" published in Free Inquriy, Laurence W. Britt identifies fourteen traits common to seven fascist or protofascist regimes that might allow one to apply the admittedly nebulous term "fascism" to each one.
- Disdain for the importance of human rights. Propaganda was used to marginalize and
demonize those being targeted, thus convincing the populace at large of the inherent
"rightness" of their actions. - Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Common "culprits" often being communists,
socialists, liberals, secularists, and homosexuals. - Rampant sexism beyond a simply male-dominated culture. Adamantly anti-abortion
and homophobic, these regimes usually enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country. - Obsession with national security. Questioning the activities of the national security
organizations was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. - Religion and ruling elite tied together. Fascist regimes portrayed themselves as militant
defenders of the dominant religion. Any oppostion to those in power was portrayed as an
attack on religion. - Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
- The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
- Power of corporations protected.
- Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
- Obsession with crime and punishment.
- Rampant cronyism and corruption.
- Fraudulent elections.
- A controlled mass media.
- Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
While Ann does bitch contstanly about the media, I haven't heard her suggest they be government controlled. I haven't read anything about suppressing labor unions either. She does seem to have a problem with this pesky court system that seems hell bent on preserving personal liberty. Still, be careful what you wish for, Ann. Unless the courts find the right to fascism somewhere in the Constitution, your column's days may be numbered.
Sacred <> Profane
Secular is an antonym for sacred. So is profane. It is a logical fallacy to draw the conclusion that secular is therefore the same as profane. And yet, that is exactly the argument constantly being made against gay marriage. Bill Frist called marriage a sacrament. George Bush has called marriage a sacred institution. Sacred and sacrament are the realm of religion. Government has no business officiating in either one. At least some on the right have noticed this potential land mine. Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts, called marriage "a special institution," avoiding any religious overtones whatsoever. However, if you pull religion out of the argument, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. "Protect marriage!" is the rallying cry from the right. Their fight, however, has little to do with protecting marriage. "Protect marriage" is simply a more palatable slogan than "Down with fags!"
The concept of civil marriage has been around for quite some time. The need was obvious. Couples from mixed religious backgrounds, a Jew and a Catholic for example, often found themselves without a religious community willing to sanction their union. They still do. And yet, no one is proposing an amendment to prevent this heretical union from being acknowledged by the state. The need for civil marriage (dare I call it a civil union?) was actually guided more by the philosophical creeds of the founding fathers than a philanthropic desire to provide equal access to government protections to couples estranged from their religious traditions. Indeed, the founding fathers made it quite clear that government and religion make poor bed fellows. In her most recent column regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, Ann Coulter informs us that the author of the Massachusetts constitution, John Adams, was a very religious man. Somehow she draws the conclusion that any man who advocates the "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe," must be a Christian and would therefore be appalled that "his" constitution was found by a modern court to allow gays the right to marry.
In fact, the opposite is more likely. John Adams, like his good friend Thomas Jefferson, had little use for religion. Each believed in a God, a Creator, but neither was Christian. Thomas Jefferson did not believe that God had any active interest in the affairs of men. Jesus Christ he acknowledged as a great teacher. The rest, as far as Thomas Jefferson was concerned, was mere superstition. Indeed Thomas Jefferson believed religion corrupt, manipulating men's passions to what he saw as violent ends. Both men regarded the intellect and reason, man's ability to think for himself, as God's greatest gift to man. It is much more likely that John Adams would be delighted at the application of reason and the disregard of religious tradition in the court decision.
Christianity is certainly the dominant religion in America today. Many use this fact to call us a Christian nation. I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers would find such a statement appalling. Indeed, the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and ratified by Congress in 1797, states "...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." America was founded as a haven for religious freedom. The idea that a particular religious creed should hold sway over the direction of the country at large is completely at odds with the ideals and beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and is, in fact, an insult to their vision.
Many religious traditions in the United States view the Constitution as a document inspired of God. I doubt the Founding Fathers would take exception to that view. Their God, however, was much more all encompassing than the God of any particular religious creed. Perhaps that is why George Washington, when he did attend church at all, rarely did so at the same congregation twice in a row. For these men, secular was sacred. For these men, the freedom of each man to understand God through his own thought, feeling and intellect was the only true way to be spiritual. For them Christianity was but a subset of the Divine. That today's Christian Americans have coopted their ideals and called them Christian, would, I think, offend most of them to the core.