Phil said:
That seems to be the implication by the article. I can't speak accurately to why you missed it, but I suppose it could be because you weren't paying attention.
As far as I can tell,
implications aside, the article offers not one example of anyone in the Administration telling the whopper that America was founded on Christian principles. I find this strange because while I think that there are people in the Administration believe it to be true, I don't really recall them saying so all that much, certainly not at the level that would justify an accusation that the Administration is attempting to foist the belief on the population via the "Big Lie" technique.
It seems odd that this article is lacking such examples, having made the claim that the Administration is using the "Big Lie" technique. I can only imagine that the article writer takes it as a given that the Administration is doing so, and believes that all of her readers take it as a given as well. That seems to be what has happened in this thread. Of course, we are predisposed to believe that the claim is true.
Here seems to be a more honest (and therefore I would argue, more effective) example of criticism of the Bush Administration's blurring of the Wall of Separation. I would point out one portion in particular:
Bush also uses his office to promote marriage, charitable choice and school vouchers as conservative Christian policy objectives. Yet he has never endorsed, at least not explicitly, the time-honored religious-right claim that the United States is a Christian nation.
It seems to me that if the Bush Administration is not engaging in this "Big Lie" technique, but we all accept that is is and spend our time debating the "Big Lie" (or worse, simply agreeing that the assertion is false) then we miss the real fight. We may want to argue with the Bush Administration over whether this nation was founded on Christian principles, but
contrary to what
The Nation may say, the Bush Administration doesn't seem to be engaging that issue.
In short, I disagree with Shanek's assertion that the article he linked to is 'excellent' - not because the majority, or even many, of its facts are wrong, (though it does remove context from Madison's quote in a pretty dumb way*) but because it appears to be setting up the straw man of "The Big Lie".
Of course, I'll withdraw my objections if presented with evidence that the Administration is engaging in the technique for this purpose.
MattJ
*The quote from
The Nation, as presented:
Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Translation: Religion is bad.
What Madison actually wrote:
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
Translation: State establishment of religion is bad.
Which version of Madison's quote is more useful to Atheists, who wish to convince the majority (Religious) population to maintain the Separation of Church and State in practice? The one which claims falsely that Madison believed religion to be bad, or the one which shows that Madison believed Separation of Church and State to be good, for both the State and the Church?
