I made this comment via email [17 September 2001] about Falwell and Robertson’s blaming the 9/11 terrorist attack on “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians […] the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America:”
After last week’s tragedies, I didn’t think anything could shock me...until the U.S. version of the Taliban made their “moral” pronouncements.
I received this response [18 September 2001]:
I do believe that the secularization of America has contributed to our societal problems in many ways not yet fully understood. But the terrorist attacks of last Tuesday were not related to our internal problems, and to suggest that we 'deserve' what happened is outrageous.
There will be many who will try to use this atrocity as proof that they were right about their religious views, or their political views, or whatever. Those people must be ignored, but what they say must be remembered so that when the smoke clears we can hold them accountable.
I responded in slightly more detail [18 September 2001]:
What bothers me most about comments like theirs (aside from how many people agree with them) is that ignorance and hatred are often overlooked in our country when cloaked in the dominant religions. Imagine the furor that would result if a Hindu or Muslim group (or an atheist one!) spouted crap like this on TV...but (some) Christians can get away with it. An idiot like Louis Farrakhan would need police protection just to show his face in public, but Robertson and Falwell are still on the air - just like every other day.
About secularization: our transition from a primarily Judeo-Christian population to a more eclectic one hasn't been trouble-free, but our diversity is ultimately more a strength than a weakness. The ideals of our founders have done - and will continue to do - a far better job holding our nation together than any religious mythology ever could.
My gripe is that the zealots' desires for an American theocracy are excused and eventually forgotten. The accountability, somehow, never happens. That said, I would note that this tragedy has brought forth most people's best inclinations. Seeing other people at their worst, preaching the doctrine of blame-your-neighbor, is more jarring than usual by comparison.
to which I received this response [19 September 2001]:
This country was founded on, and became great by adhering to, Judeo-Christian principles. We "transition" away from those principles at our peril.
If I wanted to offend as many people as possible, and at the same time make sure that very few of them would listen to me with an open mind, I would sprinkle my conversations with phrases like "religious mythology".
I have found that, percentage wise, intolerance seems to be spread pretty evenly amongst people of all faiths and those of no faith. I believe that intolerance is a true enemy of civilized society.
As usual, I spent some time contemplating these words before formulating a detailed response. Clarity and brevity were at cross-purposes, so it is a lengthy reply:
As far as Falwell, Robertson, and “holding them accountable” for their comments: I predicted at the time that they would get away with it, and – surprise! – after some lame denials/apologies their blame-America-first rants were largely excused. If they expect to be taken seriously as socio-political commentators, then they shouldn’t fault others for accurately reporting their statements.
This is Falwell whining that reports of his exact words were somehow “out of context:”
“Despite the impression some may have from news reports today, I hold no one other than the terrorists and the people and nations who have enabled and harbored them responsible for Tuesday's attacks on this nation. I sincerely regret that comments I made during a long theological discussion on a Christian television program yesterday were taken out of their context and reported, and that my thoughts -- reduced to sound bites -- have detracted from the spirit of this day of mourning.”
Here is Falwell implying that his assignment of blame would be acceptable at another time, and calling his baseless attacks “theological convictions:”
“…I singled out for blame certain groups of Americans. This was insensitive, uncalled for at the time, and unnecessary as part of the commentary on this destruction. […] I obviously did not state my theological convictions very well and I stated them at a bad time.”
This is the text of Robertson’s “retraction.” It is odd that his initial reaction to Falwell’s statement, which he had allegedly “not fully understood,” was to immediately respond, “Well, I totally concur.”
“Rev. Falwell…uttered a political statement of blame directed at certain segments of the population that was severe and harsh in tone, and, frankly, not fully understood by the three hosts of The 700 Club who were watching Rev. Falwell on a monitor. It was this brief interchange with Rev. Falwell that was picked up by People For The American Way, who for approximately the past fifteen years have taped every single telecast of The 700 Club and unfortunately take statements out of context and spin them to the press for their own political ends. Rev. Falwell has issued a pointed clarification of his statement, and Dr. Robertson said on Fox News’ The Edge that he considered the remarks ‘totally inappropriate.’”
To my knowledge, only Diane Sawyer called Falwell on the inappropriateness of his remarks:
SAWYER: "Because you've said things like this before. Pagans, abortionists, secularists, the ACLU, gays, all these lists of people. I want to know, do you believe that they provoke the wrath of God, that they--that they endanger America? "
[Some dissembling follows before Falwell grudgingly admits…]
FALWELL: "I do not believe they endanger America. I misspoke totally and entirely."
Later in the interview, Falwell referred to his original comment as a “stupid statement.” (I suspect that he only started apologizing because clips of his anti-freedom rant were circulating on the Internet.)
Falwell has a long history of being on the wrong side of social progress. In 1963, he spoke against civil rights, declaring that, “it should be considered civil wrongs rather than civil rights” and labeling it “a terrible violation of human and private-property rights.” His “civil wrongs” rhetoric is now usually targeted toward gays and non-fundamentalists, but I don’t want his hatred of our precious freedoms in the wake of 9/11 to disappear down the memory hole again.
I’m not being facetious when I say this, but I’m curious about what you mean by America’s adherence to “Judeo-Christian principles.” The principles I see as most important to our nation are all secular ones: a representative government with limited and separated powers, a recognition of inalienable rights specifically protected by statute, and separation of church and state. To the best of my knowledge, none of these has a religious origin.
A truly Christian nation couldn’t have rebelled against England, since the Bible teaches obedience to authority instead of dissent. Beyond just the “render unto Caesar” remark (Luke 20:25), there are several others: Paul’s declaration that “the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13:1-2), his order to rebellious Cretans “to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates” (Titus 3:1), and his exhortation to “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” (I Peter 2:13-14).
I also wonder how you see “secularization” contributing to social problems. I’m well aware that televangelists and their ilk view the lack of ideological conformity as a frightening prospect, but – following the lead of none other than Thomas Jefferson – I have never considered a religiously pluralistic nation to be a threatening concept. He said it most succinctly when commenting that, “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.”
We apparently disagree about the proper height and permeability of the wall of separation between church and state. Jefferson, in his usual eloquence, provided the best justification for separation that I’ve seen:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. […] Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.” [Notes on Virginia]
Some of the rhetoric I’ve read (such as calling the elimination of mandated school prayer “kicking God out of school,” as if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity would be deterred by statute) is truly incredible, as is Robertson’s errant opinion that the separation of church and state is “a lie of the left.”
Religious pluralism (or secularization, if you prefer) is, of course, not a recent issue: In an attempt to give some kind of official recognition to Christianity, some assemblymen tried to insert an acknowledgment of “Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” into Jefferson’s Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom. Jefferson himself remarked that this effort “was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination.”
In much the same vein, Lincoln dismissed The National Reform Association’s proposed ‘Christian nation’ amendment to the Constitution. A supposed atonement for the Civil War, which – shades of Falwell – they viewed as God’s wrath at our secular Constitution, the proposal would have added the words "humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government" to the Constitution’s preamble. Congress ignored the proposal for nine years and the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives rejected it, noting that our nation was founded:
“to be the home of the oppressed of all nations of the earth, whether Christian or pagan, and in full realization of the dangers which the union
