Texas GOP: No church-state split

I think it's time to call this distraction for what it is. Unfortunately, when Republicans write things like this in their platform, Democrats tend to be scandalized and argue against the platform. That's a bad idea because by arguing, they concede that this is an important issue, which it is not. Instead, they should stay focused on the war going bad, tax cuts for the super-rich that leave the middle-class behind, and the croniness and corruption the Republican party is currently soaked with. That is what affects most Americans today, not a darth of religion in society.

If it was just Texan Republicans being Texan Republicans then I would agree with you Thomas. If Kansas was just Kansas then I wouldn't be nearly so worried. If Texans and Kansans didn't have equal representation in Congress then I wouldn't be worried at all. I wish that it were only a distraction. My concern is that without exposure (perhaps by religious groups rather than the Dems) the distraction will be a three-eyed monster before it's taken seriously.

Good for the Texas GOP....but I agree with Thomas that this simply isn't an election-winning issue for the Dems. Feel free to argue it however...

What do you mean by get ugly, J_B? Wouldn't the thing to do be lobby and get enough people on the side you feel is right?

Well, lobbying can be passively aggressive or actively aggressive. I guess I define ugly as actively aggressive.

That's cool. Thanx!

That kind of talk makes me want to throw something against the wall.

I like to vote Libertarian. Every so often an issue comes along that sways me to vote for one or another of the major parties. In the 30-plus years that I've been voting, the issue has never been one where I'm voting FOR a particular candidate or platform, always against the opponent. As a fiscally conservative, libertarian leaning moderate independent I would most certainly vote AGAINST any theocratic platform by voting for the opposing major party candidate.

Just make sure no one is standing in front of the wall if you do.

The word you wanted was dearth (sorry, i couldn't resist).

Frequently, for all that you and Habibi remained well-informed about matters political, in Europe and North America, either one or both of you will wander off into topics which most Americans would find obscure. Sometimes, either one or both of you will get caught up in polls or statistics which do not really impinge on issues which matter to Americans, or even ought to. That is not a criticism of your intelligence (either one of you) or your perception, but rather of your focus.

This is not such a case, at all. This is succinct and direct, and very much to the point. Perhaps we could get a little more of this from you in the future? Whether or not you agree with my not altogether flattering assessment of your contributions here, believe that i was very much impressed with this post.

This certainly isn't the position of all Republicans; certainly not mine. Becoming a theocracy would not be at all helpful, as the Founders wisely saw.

The expression "wall of separation between church and state" comes from a letter which Jefferson wrote the congregation of the Baptist Church in Danbury, Connecticutt. I acknowledge, before anyone else decides to make an unfounded charge against me of hypocricy, that i entertain a low opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

So my point is not what Jefferson did or did not think about the subject. My point is to underline Brandon's remark about the wisdom of the founders in taking steps to avoid the establishment of theocracy, or even just the establishment of any religion. What is known to jurists as "the separation clause" (Jefferson was/is not the only one to see this as an issue of separation) of the First Amendement: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . had exactly the intent Brandon has pointed to.

In Europe, from Jan Hus in the first decade of the 15th century until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, religion was a causus belli for one war after the other, regardless of whether or not they resolved politically. Religion was commonly established in European nations, and still was at the time the Constitution was written. More significantly, the colonies which were to rebel and form the United States had several examples of religious establishment. Massachusetts and Connecticutt had had Puritan foundations, and therefore had establishments of the Congregational Church. Virginia had a foundation of what we now call the Anglican or Episcopal Church. Early in the 18th century, a revivalism with a distinct evangelical nature was imported from England. In England, it would eventually lay the foundation of evangelism from which John Wesley and Methodism would arise. In the American colonies, it lead to a phenomenon which has been called (and much overrated) the Great Awakening. The genuine evidence stronly suggests that it had no affect on most colonists. But those who were affected were profoundly affected--and in Massachusetts and Connecticutt, the religious establishment used the power of government to crush the evangelical movement, and to hunt down and punish the itinerant revivalist ministers. In the colonies which were not much affected, the Baptists and the Presbyterians were nevertheless badly divided within their synods, and the Baptists permanently split.

So it become reasonable to see why the first clause of this amendment concerns itself with religion--both religious freedom, and freedom from religion. One of the ways the Federalists secured the ratification of the Constitution was to directly address the most powerful criticism of their opponents, the lack of a statement of basic individual rights. The Federalists promised that a Bill of Rights would be the first business on their agenda, and when the First Congress met in New York, the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, made it his principle order of business. This amendment was the third in the list sent to the states, but it was the first amendment to be ratified, which speaks to the significance that the states and their people attached to the freedoms of and from religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right of peacable assembly.

In late 1801, when Thomas Jefferson had not yet been President for a year, he received a letter from the Danbury (Connecticutt) Baptist Association. In that letter, after assuring the President that none other rejoices more than do they at his inauguration, they begin the second paragraph with this statement:



The letter then goes on to say that they are only allowed to practice their religion on sufferance, that "therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state [meaning that Baptists are a minority in Connecticutt]) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights . . ."--in short, they demand separation of church and state to defend their own liberties as Christians of the Baptist confession.

People in those times of deep religious conviction understood that no man's conscience can be free unless every man's conscience is free. The bible-thumpers who howl about the lack of religion and morality in society in our times do not speak for most Christians, let alone for most Americans of religious conviction.

Brandon is exactly right--the founders understood this issue, and took steps to separate church and state.

Freudian lapse. I watch Star Wars too often, and the dark side of The Force is rearing its ugly head in Texas. What can I say?

Just noticed this thread (I'd posted that already earlier :wink: ).

I'm looking quite often now at their program and quote from it: seems, it gives a good idea about .... well, whatever.

... about Texans of course. I mean, just look at Chai Tea, DrewDad, and the other Austinistas on A2K. Raving theocrats, all of them!

The complete program gives, indeed, some info about what people think their political aims are. In Texas. The Republicans there.

But when I quoted various stuff from this program on various threats - it found broad acceptance by the conservatives ... from elsewhere, too.

Does "elsewhere" include Europe, or just elsewhere in the USA?

Conservatives in some (three, if I remember correctly) different states than Texas.

(Actually, this platform [already published in June!] hasn't found much discussion in the [US] media, besides, perhaps, by some who point out that [like here in the New American.)

Sorry, Walter, I hadn't noticed your prior post.



That becomes the key political question. How representative is the GOP platform of the position of it's membership? My parents were both Republicans and certainly didn't advocate a theocracy. I can't ask them how they would vote in an election between a theocrat and a liberal. It would be enough to sway my vote, but I doubt it would be for them, supporting Thomas' position that this is not an election winner for the Dems.



I don't know if any of them are Republicans. In general, I believe university towns/cities tend to be less conservative than the surrounding areas. Currently 21 of 32 members of the House of Representatives from Texan are Republican (including Tom Delay's seat) as are both US Senators.

I don't know how many of those 23 individuals would embrace or endorse a theocracy. My main question then is whether Texan Republicans support thier party's platform.