Contact Aletheia: 715-849-8328
A Review of
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part VI
Sept 14, 2007, Wausau, Wi — Last time
in my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I showed the superficiality of
Dawkins’ view of God. From there,
Dawkins begins a discussion of the Founding Father, trying to claim that,
“contrary to [The American right’s’] view, the fact that the United States was
not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of the Treaty
of Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in
1797.” (pg 40)
Once again,
the simplicity of Dawkins’ approach leads him into error. United States is not a Christian nation in
the sense that government has established Christianity as the official religion
of the United States; which is basically what the Treaty of Tripoli says for it
clearly refers to “The Government of the United States.”
The problem
for Dawkins’ is that there is a difference between the government and the
nation as a whole. A country is more than just its government. This is true of all nations, and is
particularly true of the United States where even within the government there
is a difference between the federal and the states. Nothing shows this clearer than at the very
time Dawkins claims that the Treaty of Tripoli showed that the United States
was not a Christian nation, many of the states still had established religions,
all of which were Christian.
Dawkins goes
on to claim that, “the genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day
America, and the founding fathers would have been horrified… the founders most certainly were secularists
who believe in keeping religion out of politics, and that is enough to place
them firmly on the side of those who object, for example, to ostentatious
displays in the Ten Commandments in government-owned public places.” (pg 41-2)
Dawkins’
view is common among secularists, but it conflicts with the actual
history. In fact, as I detail in my
book, Christianity
and Secularism, the
phase “Separation of Church and State”
which is the defining phrase for secularists is not only absent from the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it did not even enter into Constitutional
law until 1947, when it was inserted by the Supreme Court.
While
secularist do mention it very often, the very first clause of the First
Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion” Perhaps the only thing that secularist mention even less, would be
the second clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The founding
father thought that religion was important enough to make this the very first
part of the First Amendment.
Dawkins’
view is even further called into question by the fact that Congress, the day
after approving the First Amendment passed a resolution calling for a national
day of prayer and thanksgiving. If the
founding fathers were so intent on getting religion out of politics as Dawkins’
claims, how could the very same people who approved the First Amendment the
very next day pass such a resolution?
The simple fact is that if Dawkins’ view of their goals were correct,
they couldn’t have.
Rather than
being horrified by rampant religious fanaticism as Dawkins’ claims, the British
historian Paul Johnson has a much more actuate view when he pointed out that the
current dominance of secularism “would have astonished and angered the founding
father.” (see Christianity and Secularism, pg 19)
While it is true the founding fathers did not
want an established religion, it was because they saw religion as extremely
important, so important that it needed to be the very first thing protected in
the Bill of Rights.
The
founding fathers believed in checks and balances. The reason they saw religion as so important,
is that it was the one thing strong enough to check the growth of government. They did not fear religion, what they feared
was that one group would gain power and use its position to dominate and
suppress opposing points of view. In short, that a single view of religion
would become a tool of government and used to suppress differing religious
views.
The
founding fathers’ view of religion dominated until the middle part of the 20th
century. By then secularism’s distain
for religion had grown to the point that religion came to be seen, not as
something so important it needed to be protected from government, but something
so dangerous that government it need to
be protected from it.
Thus,
starting with the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education ruling, the Supreme Court
has effectively rewritten the constitution, allowing the court to reshape
American society. What we have now is what
the founding fathers’ feared most, that one religious view, in this case secularism,
has gained power and has used that power to reinterpret the First Amendment,
and is using the new interpretation to dominate and suppress all competing
religious views.
Thus in the
name of freedom, prayer in public schools was prohibited. In the name of
freedom, Bible reading in public schools was prohibited. In the name of freedom, prayer at graduations
was prohibited, even if voluntary and done by students. In the name of freedom, the Ten Commandments
were banned from public schools. In the
name of freedom, Christians are routinely told that their values and beliefs
are illegitimate in the political process because they are “religious.” Thus on many issues such as abortion or
definition of marriage or family, secularists say you are free to have whatever
views you want, just as long as you keep them to yourselves, as only their
views can be represented and promoted by government. That is hardly view of freedom and democracy
the founding fathers wanted.
This is
Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
See www.consider.org for additional information.
The book and press materials are available upon request.
To schedule an interview with Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
contact Aletheia at 715-849-8328