Oklahoma Representative Mis-Represents Founding Fathers

Posted with permission of the author. The original letter sent by Rep. Ritze, can be sent to you upon request. Just include your email address and name in the comment box below this article. Rep Ritze is also the patron paying for the recently passed and sited "10 Commandments Monument" on the north side of the Oklahoma Capitol building ---

I sent the following letter to Rep Ritze, and have submitted a small extract
from it to the Tulsa World as a Letter to the Editor.

As a member of the Board of the ACLU of OK and as the President of the
Ne OK Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, I have
been informed by some of MY constituents that you sent out a letter to your
constituents that states that "our Constitution ... demonstrate(s) that the
United States of America is a Christian Nation".

This is a myth that you are attempting to propagate.

It involves conflating America's two foundings - the earlier colonial
founding of Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. - with the Founding
of the federal government from 1776-1789. To distinguish between the two, I
suggest that we use different terms to describe these two "foundings." The
federal Founding Fathers were Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison,
Franklin, et al. Men like John Winthrop, John Smith, Thomas Hooker, and
Roger Williams were planting fathers.

It is true that the earlier colonial charters of the planting fathers used
explicitly biblical language and otherwise covenanted with the Triune
Christian God (save for Roger Williams' Rhode Island).

However, whatever useful ideas the Founding Fathers took from the earlier
colonial charters were secular. When comparing the language in the earlier
colonial charters to that of the US Constitution what is striking is just
how different their approaches are to religion and government. The US
Constitution completely and utterly lacks explicitly biblical language or a
covenant to the God of the Bible, but instead imposes a religiously neutral
"no religious test" clause in Article VI, Clause 3.

For example, the Mayflower Compact gives us a crystal-clear example of how
a charter is worded by people deliberately founding a Christian polity. We
are told directly that the colony is being "undertaken for the glory of God,
and advancement of the Christian faith." The Founding Fathers could have
used similar wording, but didn't. The rationales for creating the Union are
purely secular: insuring tranquility, providing for defense, promoting the
general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty.

On religion and government, if the Founding Fathers followed any of the
planting fathers' models, it was Roger Williams' Rhode Island, the man who
coined the term "wall of separation" between Church and State. And whose
government was in principle a secular entity, not founded on a covenant to
the God of the Bible.

The document that was finally approved at the constitutional convention
mentioned religion only once, and that was in Article VI, Section 3, which
stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States." Now if the delegates at
the convention had truly intended to establish a "Christian nation," why
would they have put a statement like this in the constitution and nowhere
else even refer to religion? Common sense is enough to convince any
reasonable person that if the intention of these men had really been the
formation of a "Christian nation," the constitution they wrote would have
surely made several references to God, the Bible, Jesus, and other
accouterments of the Christian religion, and rather than expressly
forbidding ANY religious test as a condition for holding public office in
the new nation, it would have stipulated that allegiance to Christianity was
a requirement for public office. After all, when someone today finds a tract
left at the front door of his house or on the windshield of his car, he
doesn't have to read very far to determine that its obvious intention is to
further the Christian religion. Are we to assume, then, that the founding
fathers wanted to establish a Christian nation but were so stupid that they
couldn't write a constitution that would make their purpose clear to those
who read it?

Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a
neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that
the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation
should review a document written during the administration of George
Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the
government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian
religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States,
ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).
This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the
administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it,
although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become
president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature
"Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of
America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the
consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause
and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from
our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted
in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding
fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."


As to your statement: "The principles and laws that govern us find their
basis in the Bible".
Dr. Gregg Frazer, himself a Christian historian at a Christian university,
lays this record bare:

In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison's notes on the constitutional
convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of
biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and
principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German
confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources - but no Scripture
verses.
In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of
the Constitution's principles, either - one would think they could squeeze
them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially
since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect
for, the Bible. The word "God" is used twice - and one of those is a
reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. "Almighty" is used twice and
"providence" three times - but neither is ever used in connection with any
constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.

1. None of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention noted any
discussion at all of Biblical sources. They mention many historical sources
for their ideas, from ancient Greece and Rome to Enlightenment philosophers,
but there is no mention of any Biblical principle anywhere in those
discussions.

2. In the Federalist papers, which were written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay
for the purpose of explaining and justifying the provisions of the
Constitution, nowhere mention any Biblical source for any of those
provisions. Remember, they were writing for a predominately Christian
audience and trying to convince them to vote for the Constitution. If they
could have pointed to Biblical justifications for the various provisions of
that document, that would have been a powerful and persuasive argument that
would have served their purposes. That they did not - indeed, could not -
make such an argument speaks volumes.

3. There are no Biblical analogs for the provisions of the Constitution.
There is no support to be found in the Bible for the notion of political
liberty, much less for religious liberty. Indeed, Romans 13 makes it quite
clear that all governments, including tyrannical ones, are instituted by God
and are to be obeyed. The very idea of revolution is antithetical to this
idea.

4. At no point in history prior to the Enlightenment is there a single
example of a Christian government that established anything even remotely
like a free and democratic society. Christian theology prior to that time
supported the divine right of kings and imposed punishments for things like
blasphemy that are entirely contrary to the notion of freedom of conscience.
The Constitution, by eliminating religious tests for office and forbidding
religious establishments, is completely opposed to that entire history.

--
Karl Sniderman
ksniderman@valornet.com

Americans United Urges Army Officials To Alter ‘Church Retreat’ Program At Missouri Base

Watchdog Group Says Further Changes Are Necessary To Avoid Religious Coercion At Fort Leonard Wood

December 18, 2009

U.S. military officials should make further changes at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri to ensure that soldiers are not subjected to unwanted religious proselytism, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.


In July of 2008, Americans United wrote to Department of Defense officials to raise concerns about the “Tabernacle Baptist Church Retreat” (previously known as “Free Day Away”), a program sponsored by a church in Lebanon, Mo. Under the program, soldiers are taken to the church for food and recreational activities but are required to attend an evangelistic service while there.

Soldiers who chose not to attend were left behind at the base to continue with their military responsibilities. The fort is a training center for new recruits, and the “Church Retreat” program is the only day (other than the day before graduation) off base allotted to enlistees. Officials at the fort had been promoting the program for 36 years.


Shortly after AU sent its missive, Department of Defense officials issued guidelines stating that it should be made clear that attendance is voluntary and that soldiers who remain behind should be allotted free time and not made to work.


Read the full press release at www.au.org

Read the follow-up letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

Americans United Praises Senate Vote Against Nelson-Hatch Amendment

Health-Care Reform Package Should Not Reflect Religious Doctrine, Says Church-State Watchdog Group

December 8, 2009


Americans United for Separation of Church and State today commended the U.S. Senate for rejecting a religion-based amendment to the health-care reform bill that would have limited women’s access to abortion.


By a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which would have eliminated abortion coverage from insurance plans that receive federal funds, even if the coverage is paid for with private funds. The proposal, promoted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is similar to a controversial amendment added to the health-care bill in the House at the behest of the church hierarchy.


The Catholic bishops and allied Religious Right forces are lobbying aggressively to enshrine their doctrines about abortion in the health-care reform package.
Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “I am glad the Senate defeated this proposal. Health-care legislation should be based on the needs of the American people, not the doctrines of powerful religious interest groups.

Read the full press release at www.au.org

Supreme Court Should Reject Religious Discrimination At Public Universities

Supreme Court Should Reject Religious Discrimination At Public Universities, Says Americans United

Church-State Watchdog Group Calls On High Court To Affirm Lower Court Ruling In Calif. Law School Case


December 7, 2009


The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will hear a dispute from California involving an evangelical Christian club at a public law school that wants recognition and funding as an official campus organization, even though it discriminates on religious grounds.


Americans United for Separation of Church and State urged the high court to use the case as a vehicle to make it clear that groups seeking public funding and official recognition on public college campuses must be open to all.
“This case is about fundamental fairness,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “If the student religious group wins, it will mean some students will be compelled to support clubs that won’t even admit them as members. That’s just not right.”


The dispute involves a branch of the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of Law at the University of California in San Francisco. The group sought funding and official status from the school, even though it effectively bars gays and non-Christians from membership by requiring all officers and voting members to sign an evangelical Christian statement of faith.


Read the full press release at www.au.org

Federal Appeals Court Blows Whistle On Wisconsin Sheriff’s Religious Proselytism

December 4, 2009


A federal appeals court made the right call today by striking down religious presentations given at mandatory meetings at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. ran afoul of the law by inviting the Fellowship of the Christian Centurions, a group that seeks to evangelize law-enforcement officers in its religious doctrines, to give proselytizing talks at meetings that deputy sheriffs were required to attend.


Americans United Executive Director the Rev. Barry W. Lynn welcomed the decision, which he called “a strong reaffirmation of religious liberty.”
Said Lynn, “Sheriff Clarke is free to engage in whatever religious activities he wants in his personal time, but he has no right to use official channels to impose religion on his staff.”

Read the full press release at www.au.org

Religious Right, Catholic Bishops Seek To Impose Religion On All Americans Through Law

‘Manhattan Declaration’ Signals Conservative Church Groups’ Intention To Undercut Separation Of Church And State, Says AU’s Lynn

November 20, 2009

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today expressed grave concern about a renewed push by a coalition of conservative church groups to impose religious teachings on all Americans through government action.

At a press conference today, Religious Right leaders and Roman Catholic bishops unveiled a joint statement criticizing laws that allow reproductive choice and same-sex marriage. The “Manhattan Declaration” indicates that participating religious leaders will defy such laws if they conflict with church doctrines.

Americans United charges that the real agenda is not protecting the religious freedom of churches, but rather attempting to impose those doctrines on all Americans by government decree.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “This declaration is certain to be deeply divisive. These religious leaders want to see their doctrines imposed by force of law, and that goes against everything America stands for.

“The United States is an incredibly diverse nation,” he continued, “and it would be a disaster if government started favoring one religious perspective over others.”

Lynn said most Catholics and evangelical Christians do not want to see their houses of worship drawn into politics.

“I am optimistic that the people in the pews will not heed their leaders’ misguided call to action,” Lynn said. “Polls show that most church-goers do not want to see their faith politicized. But I am also well aware that religious leaders have vast lobbying power that cannot be ignored.”

Lynn noted the House version of health-care reform was revised at the behest of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to curtail women’s access to abortion.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.




Read the full press release at au.org

Is House Health Care Bill a Threat to Our Constitution?

By Barry W. Lynn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
Posted on November 18, 2009,
Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144045/

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was delivered as a statement at a press conference called by the Religious Coaltion for Reproductive Choice at the National Press Club on November 16, 2009. The topic was the anti-choice amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that was attached to the House health-care reform bill.

In the United States, the institutions of government and religion are separate.

This is not just my opinion. It is the law of the land. Our Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Supreme Court has stated more than once that laws must not advance religion or have a religious purpose.

How surprising and appalling, then, to see that a provision designed to curtail women’s right to abortion was slipped into the health-care bill at the behest of a powerful religious group, a provision that reflects the doctrines of that group.

A few days ago, Rep. Bart Stupak, the prime mover of this provision, told the Associated Press, “The Catholic Church used their power — their clout, if you will — to influence this issue. They had to. It’s a basic teaching of the religion.”

Therein lies the problem. It is not the job of government to enforce religious teaching. Abortion is a constitutionally protected medical procedure in this country. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has sought to change that fact, but the bishops have been unable to persuade the American people that their view is correct. Indeed, polls show that the church hierarchy has been unable to persuade even its own members to adopt the church’s narrow view on legal abortion.

The church hierarchy now seeks through legislative action to accomplish something it has failed to get through its own efforts at moral suasion. Is it any wonder that those of us who are not even members of the church are upset and angry about this? We wish to live in the 21st Century, not an echo of medieval Spain. We do not wish to have the doctrines of the Catholic Church – or indeed any faith – imposed on us through law.

I understand the desire of the House leadership to pass a health-care bill. The issue has been on the national agenda in some form or another since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

But health-care reform that attacks the rights of more than half of the population by subjecting some of their basic and most intimate decisions to a large and powerful church’s governing body is not reform at all. It is a huge step backward. As the director of a constitutional rights group – and I
say this sadly -- it would be better to dump the entire bill than to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact.

I suppose those of us standing here today may be accused of “anti-Catholicism” for what we have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know that across this country, Catholics of goodwill have joined us in opposing this heavy-handed move by the bishops and their Washington lobbyists. You can feel the anger stirring across the land; a backlash is building. It will not be silenced, and we are here today to give voice to that movement.

I have always taken as one of my guiding lights America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. In a famous 1960 speech he said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act…. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials….”

Those were wise words. We best honor them today not by enshrining them in books and nodding in agreement when we read them. We honor those words by putting them into practice and ensuring that America upholds the separation of church and state

That’s why we are calling on the Senate to not include this amendment in their version of the bill. There is still time to stop this from becoming law.

This lobbying effort by the Roman Catholic Church was as well-orchestrated and ruthless an assault on the rights of the poor as any campaign waged by any other corporation. At a minimum, the church should voluntarily register as a federal lobbyist and disclose the costs of this attack on women’s constitutional rights. This would be consistent with an ethos of transparency, without even raising the specter of undue government interference with religion.


Rev. Barry Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Proposed ‘Christian’ Prison In Oklahoma Raises Serious Legal Issues, Americans United Warns

November 18, 2009

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today warned Oklahoma corrections officials that a proposed “Christian” prison cannot be supported with public funds.

In a letter to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Americans United attorneys said the U.S. Constitution prohibits public aid for worship and religious instruction. Thus, public funds for Corrections Concepts’ Christian-themed prison would violate the First Amendment.

According to news media accounts, sponsors say the Wakita, Okla., prison will hire only Christian staff and inmates will be required to participate in a Christ-centered curriculum.

The AU letter noted that the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a similar religious program in Iowa in its 2007 Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries decision.

“If the Department provides funding to Corrections Concepts’ prison,” Americans United attorneys insisted, “indoctrination will be the inevitable result, just as it was in Prison Fellowship Ministries. And, just as inevitably, the funding of such indoctrination will violate the Constitution.”

The letter was signed by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser and AU Staff Attorney Ian Smith.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, says the issues at stake are critically important.

“It is wrong for government to take taxpayers’ money and spend it on religious indoctrination,” Lynn said. “That’s a violation of the fundamental rights of every American.

“I strongly believe that inmates should have access to religious services of their own choosing,” he continued, “but government should never favor one faith over others or coerce inmates to participate in religion.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/11/proposed-christian-prison.html

Proposed ‘Christian’ Prison In Oklahoma Raises Serious Legal Issues, Americans United Warns

Church-State Watchdog Group Says Government Cannot Fund Religious Indoctrination

November 18, 2009

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today warned Oklahoma corrections officials that a proposed “Christian” prison cannot be supported with public funds.

In a letter to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Americans United attorneys said the U.S. Constitution prohibits public aid for worship and religious instruction. Thus, public funds for Corrections Concepts’ Christian-themed prison would violate the First Amendment.

According to news media accounts, sponsors say the Wakita, Okla., prison will hire only Christian staff and inmates will be required to participate in a Christ-centered curriculum.

The AU letter noted that the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a similar religious program in Iowa in its 2007 Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries decision.

“If the Department provides funding to Corrections Concepts’ prison,” Americans United attorneys insisted, “indoctrination will be the inevitable result, just as it was in Prison Fellowship Ministries. And, just as inevitably, the funding of such indoctrination will violate the Constitution.”

The letter was signed by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser and AU Staff Attorney Ian Smith.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, says the issues at stake are critically important.

“It is wrong for government to take taxpayers’ money and spend it on religious indoctrination,” Lynn said. “That’s a violation of the fundamental rights of every American.

“I strongly believe that inmates should have access to religious services of their own choosing,” he continued, “but government should never favor one faith over others or coerce inmates to participate in religion.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/11/proposed-christian-prison.html

Fair-Minded Judicial Nominee is Under Attack!

This link will provide you all the details you need to send your own email or to make contact in another way with your two Senators.
Act now!

Urge Your Senators to Support Judge David Hamilton


Next week, the U.S. Senate may vote on President Obama’s first judicial nominee, Judge David Hamilton, who has been nominated to fill a seat on the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton is an experienced, fair-minded judge who has spent years at the District Court level, but conservative groups are targeting him and portraying him as anti-God. We cannot let a judicial nominee go down for his application of the basic principles of religious liberty found in the U.S. Constitution!


In 2006, Hamilton wrote an opinion in the legislative prayer case, Hinrichs v. Bosma, in which he ruled that a pattern of sectarian prayer in the Indiana General Assembly was unconstitutional. In doing so, Hamilton applied the clear mandates of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and followed Supreme Court and other federal court precedent. The prohibition on sectarian prayer has been well-established in the courts, and Hamilton had a duty as a District Court Judge to uphold established law. The attacks on him for this reasonable decision are unacceptable.


Judge Hamilton has proved to be a highly qualified nominee, and he enjoys broad support. Yet some Senators including those who demanded an up-or-down vote for all past nominees have threatened to vote against a cloture motion on Hamilton next week. Judge Hamilton clearly needs your support. Write a letter to your Senators now urging them to confirm Judge Hamilton speedily.

This link will provide you all the details you need to send your own email or to make contact in another way with your two Senators.

Tell Your Senators to Support Judge David Hamilton