The warning bell is sounding

I read Cheri Pierson Yecke's bizarre essay entitled, The separation myth, with profound gratitude that she is no longer in charge of education in Minnesota. It is obvious that Ms. Yecke wishes to use the Minnesota Public Schools as a platform to evangelize for Jesus. To that end, Ms. Yecke blithely submits for our inspection the proposition that the concept of separation of church and state is, after all, just a myth.

It is not surprising that someone of yecke's ideological bent uses selective historical "facts" to shape her argument. If Yecke and others like her weren't polluting my beloved republic with such frequency I would think her a brilliant humorist. But alas, she is in earnest. Well, I've got news for you, Ms. Yecke. In America, the state is not a church. It hasn't been since our country was conceived; it isn't now; and the wisdom of the executive branch, congress, the judiciary and the people prevailing, it never, ever will be a church.

The notion of separation of church and state isn't the product of "Activist Judges," for pete's sake. It's one of the ideas on which the foundation of our liberty rests. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't have to be written into the constitution for the principle to exist. In fact, so many American presidents and thinkers from the beginning of our history until now reference the separation of church and state that it reduces the assertion that we have somehow missed its meaning in the constitution to a bald-faced lie.

Maybe the words of James Madison spoken in 1811, will strike a chord: "[T]he appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’" (James Madison,1751-1836, 4th U.S. President,February 28, 1811; Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908, p. 133. )

Perhaps a little James K. Polk: "[T]hank God, under our constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the U.S. I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments to office." ( James K. Polk,1795-1849, 11th U.S. President, from Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Age of Jackson, Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1945, p. 355. )

Here's Millard Fillmore: "I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." ( Millard Fillmore, 1809-1865, 13th U.S. President, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)

Ulyssess S. Grant: "Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the more perfect security of free thought, free speech, and free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion. Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, Pagan, or Atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the Church and
the State forever Separate." ( Ulysses S. Grant,1822-1885, 18th U.S. President, address to the Army of the Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, September 25, 1875; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, 1983, pp. 287-288. )

James Garfield weighs in: "The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community." ( James A. Garfield, 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President, 1874 Congressional Record, 2(6):5384; from Gene Garman, America's Real Religion: Separation Between Religion and Government in the United States of America, Pittsburg: America's Real Religion Pub., 1991, p. 104. )

Teddy Roosevelt makes the case: "I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." (Theodore Roosevelt,1858-1919, 26th U.S. President,New York public address, October 12, 1915. )

This is a small sampling. Yecke's assertion that the modern interpretation of the separation of church and state popped into being with the 1947 Supreme Court decision Everson vs. Board of education is frankly cartoonish in its intellectual dishonesty. Far from disregarding 150 years of practice, policy and judicial precedent, the ruling affirms it.

And of course the liberties Ms. Yecke takes with the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founders are just as appalling. In quote after quote, letter after letter, the founders stake the future of our country on the idea that it is better for religion and better for government that the two remain inviolately separate. It is why the word "God" does not appear in the constitution. It is why the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, unanimously ratified by congress and published globally in 1796-97, unequivocally states that ""[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." It is why Thomas Jefferson rather acidly remarked in his Notes on the State of Virginia, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."( Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782; from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1984, p. 285. )

In other news, it is reported that there is more than one interpretation of God. It confounds me why people like Yecke are so anxious to eradicate the principle of separation of church and state from the American consciousness. Is it not obvious to her that there is more than one religion? True Jeffersonian thinking does not interpret the first amendment to mean that government has no right to select a denomination, as Yecke suggests, but no right to establish a state religion. Jefferson makes this implicit in his recollection of his authorship of the preamble of The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

On some points, I agree with Yecke. The Supreme Court ducked its responsibility when it turned away the recent challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance on a technicality. Some of the suits and challenges to the word "God" and the Ten Commandments in public spaces are spurious, some are not. None represent an assault on Christianity, as Yecke implies. They are part of our ongoing national dialog on the appropriateness and constitutionality of linking our government with a religion. This conversation is as old as our country. In no way does it diminish religious liberty. Rather, it is evidence of it. As long as church and state are separate, we will continue to have it.

In conclusion, fellow Minnesotans, I urge you to share my utter astonishment that we had, in our state, a commissioner of education so ignorant of the tradition and history of free American thought that she would openly advocate proselytizing to children in public schools in the name of religious freedom. This must never be allowed to happen again. It has been said that vigilance is the price of liberty. Let Yecke's thoughts serve as a clear warning bell to us all. If we are to enjoy the freedoms born of the sacrifices of our founding fathers and indeed, of those who fight for freedom even as I write, then we must strengthen the foundations of liberty so that no religious ideologue - Commissioner, Governor, President or Dog Catcher - can steal the soul of America while we sleep.

Hear my prayer

I often ponder God. The source of my faith is humility. I Understand that I am small and God is Great. If God is God, He/She/It is utterly and absolutely beyond my comprehension. God is beyond the understanding of any person on earth. I do not know God. I seek God, but do not know God. For me to say I know God would be arrogant. I believe God is good. I seek truth.

I mistrust people who say they know what God says. If someone tells me they know what God says, I think there is only one thing that can be concluded: They don't know what they are talking about. The ultimate reality of God is not known and will never be known by humans as long as we are human. Even when Jesus was here, touching us as a human, His divinity, His power, His being were cloaked in an absolute shroud of mystery. We only interpreted Him through the filter of our perceptions. With our weak faculties, we can barely conceive of Jesus the divine, Jesus the Creator and master of a billion billion galaxies. Even if Jesus returns, He will appear in a form we understand, which is by definition, the smallest micron of God's totality. Does Jesus appear and die on all the planets of the Universe or does he appear in different forms to different life forms? It is not knowable to us.

Allah must be a mystery as well. Chac Mool or Zeus or Krishna must be unknowable. Any of the hundreds of names and incarnations of God to which humans pray can only be defined by faith. Are they not all different names for the same God? If God is God then there is only One. As members of the human race and seekers of God, we put aside our senses and call out to God in the darkness. God hears all prayers. Whether or not there is communication is a matter of faith. I believe God is available to me. The truth is available. But God does not come to me. I have to seek God. That is God's contract of free will with humanity and the basis of faith.

How can we attribute the consequences of human design to anything but humans? Humans do not execute the will of God. Humans execute their own will. It is within God's power to control our thoughts and actions. But that is not how we operate. We have free will. When we act in the name of God, we take risks. We make choices. We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. In fact, whenever we act, we take risks and make choices. In either case, our actions, choices and associated consequences are our own.

If our actions, choices and consequences are our own, and not God's, why do we pray for our conception of favorable results? Can we control God? Why do we ask God to bless our country? Will God bless our country more than another country? Are the souls in other countries less important than our souls? Why do we pray for our soldiers? Do we hope that God, who has infinite names across the universe, will protect our soldiers and not enemy soldiers? What is God to do with the prayers of our enemies? Does God favor the prayers of liberals or conservatives? Straights or Gays? The woman getting an abortion or the people protesting outside the clinic?

We are in a national debate that is as much theological as it is material. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance yesterday. SBC president, Paige Patterson, noted, "with sorrow in our hearts, a continual leftward drift in the BWA." Patterson went on to say that, "The SBC study committee noted in recent years the BWA's increasingly anti-American stances, tolerance of liberal theology and disregard for its own procedures in accepting the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a member in 2003."

Later, President Bush addressed the convention, reiterating stances on life issues, and same-sex marriage.

This is all well and good of course. We live in a country where our religious rights are guaranteed. It is worth noting, however, that the practicing theology of a 16 million person organization is closely tied with our national identity. Their God is an American God. The answers to the above questions are not ambiguous to the SBC. The current president fosters and encourages this thinking. It is dangerous to do so.

The founders of this country staked the outcome of the American Experiment on the idea that it is better for religion and better for government if the two remain completely separate. They understood that man does not speak for God, because we cannot agree on what God is. Therefore we could not be trusted to govern in the name of God. I submit that it is unhealthy to pray in the name of America as well.

Amen

Vice President Roboto

Maybe the Weekly World News has it right. Dick Cheney is a robot. That's the only way you can explain his refusal to back down on his claims that Saddam is linked with Al Qaeda. He can't say anything else. He is programmed to continue to spout exactly the same kind of wishful thinking and destructive world view that landed us in Iraq.

I believe the truth will prevail. The 9.11 commission's report stating that Iraq didn't help Al Qaeda plot against the US will help clarify the matter. But Cheney, and by association President Bush, will continue in their quest to "help" voter's believe that our detour in Iraq was somehow related to 9.11. President Bush will continue to say, Saddam had no link, while refusing to repudiate the Vice President by name.

The Hammer will fall

A few months ago, Tom Delay began quiety discussing stepping down if he were indicted for campaign finance abuses in his home state of Texas. Now, Rep Chris Bell a democrat from Texas, is filing house ethics charges. This will be interesting. The Hammer should get put down for his various assualts on the constitution and his off-season gerrymandering. Barring all that, genuine criminal behavior will do just fine.

Leave him, Colin, before it's too late

Dear Mr. Powell:

I just saw a bumper sticker. It said, "Free Colin Powell." I wish we could. I am afraid you will have to do the hard work yourself, though.

Now, I realize I am not in the best position to evaluate your experience with your boss. He might be a sweet guy when he's with you. But I think he's setting you up left and right. From the outside, it sure looks like you are getting used.

Have you ever had a friend in an abusive relationship? You know the kind, where your friend seems to walk around with a hawk hood over his/her face while the lover cheats and lies, maybe gambles down the savings account, get's drunk and violent? You just want to pull and Anne Landers and say, "Wake up and smell the coffee!" Usually they protest that you just don't know the real ________. And if we did, boy would we change our minds.

Colin, I write this as a friend. Do we know the real Bush? You have been schooled on WMD, Abu Ghraib and now your annual terrorism report. How many times are you going to appear on tv and apologize for some godawful failure of the US government to serve its citizens and the world? Are you going to continue to shill for lies until that is all you represent?

Colin, if you are truly not a happy camper, you should resign. Today. Have courage, sir, I dare you: reclaim you soul.

Yours truly,

Chris Dykstra
Minneapolis, MN