There's a Very Secret Plan

Here are some quotes from good old Bill O'Reilly.

I mean, the ACLU and George Soros and these websites don't operate day to day without a plan. There is a plan.

. . . There's a very secret plan. And it's a plan that nobody's going to tell you, "Well, we want to diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A. because we want X, Y, and Z." They'll never ever say that.

Yes O'Reilly's right. There is a secret plan. But we, the very secret planners, are so cunningly crafty we have worked Bill O'Reilly right into our plan.

You see, O'Reilly is kind of a buffoon right? He's a dope. So when we get him to decry our insidious plan to destry Christmas, no one takes him seriously. See how evil we are? So go on, keep listening to old Bill O'Reilly. We evil secret planners have nothing to fear from him. Ha ha ha ha ha!

The President and Al-Jezeera

For those of you who don't know, there are reports coming out of England that President Bush discussed plans to bomb Al-Jezeera headquarters in Qatar. The reports indicate that British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked President Bush out of it. I'm not personally sure what to make of this, as a good two thirds of the proof consists in saying that the Bush Administration has it in for Al-Jezeera. Which they do.

But for a good review of this possibility, you might check out this article at Salon by Juan Cole. Personally I am going to wait for more solid information before making up my mind one way or the other.

A Time Table

Tony Blankley's latest article is about the big speech today, outlining our plan to win the war in Iraq. In it he argues that it is immoral and disgusting for us to discuss the political ramifications of such a withdrawal.

. . . to assume that the timing of the exit is for electoral expediency is something very different -- and very evil. If President Bush were to actually make such a calculation (which I refuse to believe he would), then it would undercut every reason for his starting the war in the first place. If he thought that the war could still be concluded successfully but he is willing to accept failure by leaving prematurely if it will save a few House seats, there would be a deep place in Hell for such a man.

Yes, I understand that the anti-Bush lefties always thought that. I don't care what those lost souls think. But if decent people who have supported President Bush begin to buy into this deeply cynical mischaracterization of his calculation, they do him and the country a terrible disservice.

The timing of the original Iraqi War Resolution was timed to coincided with the 2002 mid-term elections. I don't know if it's too terribly beyond the pale to suggest that politics might play into President Bush's war plans, even tangentially.

On the other hand, it doesn't appear that President Bush is going to be pulling troops out any time soon. His administration has released a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," and it looks like a continuation of what we are already doing. So this big speech today will probably be more of the same.

The Oeuvre of Coleman Francis

All three of Coleman Francis's movies have been covered by Mystery Science Theatre 3000, although only two "Red Zone Cuba" or "Night Train to Mundo Fine" and "Skydivers" are available on DVD. The third, and in my opinion the best, is not, the delightfully insane "Beast of Yucca Flats," staring Tor Johnson!

Anyway, Pop Matters has a great analysis of this author's work, by Bill Gibron, and how it reflects . . . well something. It's good!

Bush to make Major Speech

I know, I know. We've all heard that one before. And then we tune in and it's a glorified campaign speech or reiteration of cliches you didn't buy into the first time he said it. But tomorrows speech at the U.S. Navel Academy might provide a plan for bringing our troops home. Scott McClellen (White House Press Secretary who was just sure that Rove never talked to anybody about Valerie Plame) has announced that an unclassified "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" by tonight. Obviously you can insert your "Better Late than Never" joke here.

Fred Kaplan, of Slate Magazine, has some thoughts on what this speech could mean for the Republican Party.

Brace yourself for a mind-bog of sheer cynicism. The discombobulation begins Wednesday, when President George W. Bush is expected to proclaim, in a major speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, that the Iraqi security forces - which only a few months ago were said to have just one battalion capable of fighting on its own - have suddenly made uncanny progress in combat readiness. Expect soon after (if not during the speech itself) the thing that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, just this month, denounced as near-treason - a timetable for withdrawal of American troops.

And so it appears (assuming the forecasts about the speech are true) that the White House is as cynical about this war as its cynical critics have charged it with being. For several months now, many of these critics have predicted that, once the Iraqis passed their constitution and elected a new government, President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out - this, despite his public pledge to "stay the course" until the insurgents were defeated.

This strategy could put Democrats and Leftists in a tight spot. Obviously if we don't completely forgive President Bush and give unquestioning support to this plan, we will be accused of hypocrisy. After all we wanted to withdraw the troops.

On the other hand, we'll be called hypocrites and worse no matter what we do, so perhaps its better to consider this plan on the merits (when we read it, that is).

Personally I think showing a real commitment to getting out of Iraq will be a good move. It will help drain support for the insurgency. That said, we need a smart withdrawal that takes account of our commitments to the Iraqi people.

Should make for an interesting week, at any rate.

Cal Thomas sez - "Our Troops Could Learn a Lesson or Two from the Terrorists."

From his latest article.

The United States is forced to fight differently from the terrorists. The insurgents use torture, beheadings and "suicide bombings" that take the lives of noncombatants. But when someone charged that the United States uses intense, or unusual (whatever that means) techniques to pry information from a captive that could save lives, war critics and the media go wild and suggest the U.S. military is replicating Saddam Hussein's torture chambers.

We aren't winning this war because we aren't brutal enough, apparently.

A few reminders. Many if not most of the people held at Abu Ghraib were determined to have no knowledge of the insurgents. The procedures used on them involved torture. Our choice to use torture on Iraqis has made winning the war harder.

Thomas also notes that the left is seeking political advantage around the Iraq war issue, a situation he deplores. "How sick is that?" It's comforting to know that this disgusts Mr. Thomas given the hundreds of times the President, Vice President and other Administration flunkies have, you know, tried to use the war to their political advantage.

Arguing Made Simple

Arguing with an extreme position is easy. Very easy.

Arguing with a mainstream position is more difficult.

So what to do? Simply assign to your political opponents an extreme position, and argue against that. Much easier than trying to come to terms with what your opponents actually argue.

It's easier, of course, when you are arguing against a large movement like, say, the left.

For a demonstration of this technique, let's check out Jennifer Roback Morse's latest article.

The Left can not accept that we are born as either male or female. You might expect me to say that the Left hates gender. But to say that is to accept their terms for the debate. Gender is for nouns. We come in two sexes: male and female.

The Left hates sex because men and women are so different that they can never be made equal in the way that the Left demands.

You see how that works? Now the nice thing about making it "the Left" is that there probably are some people on "the Left" who have that opinion. Is it a mainstream "Left" view? It doesn't matter! What matters is that arguing against hating the fact that we have males and females is a heck of a lot easier than arguing for women making less money than men for doing the same work.

The Godless Constitution - Final Thoughts

Just read an article by Patrick Hynes called "Time to Rethink the Religious Right Stereotypes." In it Mr. Hynes lists off the benefits of going to church; apparently people who go to church are healthier, happier, and wealthier. Then he explains that being Christian means you voted for George W. Bush. Specifically he notes that 65% of the people who go to church more than once a week voted for President Bush, while only 35% of those voted for Kerry. Or, to make a long story short, to be religious in America in 2005 is to be Conservative.

Hynes' nominal target in this piece is Hollywood; they need to start portraying Christian Conservatives in a more positive light. The actual target is Christian Conservatives, and the message is "Gosh, you guys are great. And anybody who questions you is probably an elitist bigot."

I suppose if I were a Christian Conservative I would like that message. I know that I occasionally laugh at the posters at Free Republic for example, which is more or less the same thing. People who disagree with me are stupid. It's very comforting.

But it's a guilty pleasure, isn't it? Because the whole point to bothering with a Democracy is that there isn't one right and obvious answer to all the nation's problems (if there was, then Bush is right, a Dictatorship would be a lot easier). Good-hearted, intelligent people can disagree on the best way to handle our problems. As comforting as it might be to draw a line through the country and put all the people who agree with me (or who agree with Patrick Hynes, for that matter) on the good side and all who disagree on the bad side, such a division would not only be stupid. It would be dangerous to our democracy, because it essentially ends conversation.

At any rate, I heartily recommend The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State. It's well written, interesting, and not overly long.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 9 - George W. Bush and the Wall of separation

What does it mean to have a President who believes that he is doing God's will?

Can God's will be changed by new evidence coming forward? By scientific surveys? By sociological studies? By foreign intelligence?

By the will of the American people?

If God's will is clear and the President knows that will, how could he allow the voice of the people to override God's will?

Now I don't know if President Bush looks at it this way. I would think in some areas he probably does (the war, for example) and in other areas not as much. But it is something to think about, particularly given the way he has melded his political discourse to a certain religious argument.

The authors discuss how the tight intertwinning of religion and political values has hurt our national discourse. The Republican Right has done what it can to set up "Secular" and "Religious" as opposites, forever hostile to each other. They have also successfully, more or less, made Moral a synonym for Christian Conservatives. They deplore both developments.

We need then to view our moral language as common property, not as something that belongs to people of a particularly religion or to people of no religion. Our state is a secular one, which renders moral debate in the public sphere as something different from a theological inquiry into the nature of God's will. At the same time, self-styled secularists should never imagine that they have nothing to learn from people of faith or that the moral passion of evangelical Christians never speaks to issues that concerns them.

I think this sums up the book; Kramnick and Moore are not arguing that Christians need to be removed from the public stage (despite the paranoid fantasies of a few of them). Merely this is an argument that they are going to have to share that stage with Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Agnostics and Atheists.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 8 - Religious Politics and America's Moral Dilemma's

This was the last chapter in earlier editions of the book. The big wrap up chapter where the authors take their argument and apply it to the modern day.

The authors select three of the current proponents of "religious correctness" to focus on. The three they select are Pat Roberston, Ralph Reed, and Patrick Buchannan. This dates the book a little bit (which is, presumably, why they felt to add a chapter. While both Robertson and Reed are still players and Buchannan is still around.

Pat Robertson is notable for how he blended his religion and his political ambitions. Ralph Reed is notable for how he has successfully marketed the Christian Coalition by downplaying it's specifically exclusionary demands. And Patrick Buchannan is notable for how he combines a sort of muscular Christianity with libertarianism. If Kramnick and Moore were writing the book today, possibly they might switch their focus to Bill O'Rielly, defender of Christmas. They might also reference James Dobson, who's star has certainly risen since President Bush took office.

The section on Pat Buchannen is interesting for how it explains a particular distinction between previous generation's understanding of the phrase "Christian" nation and our current generation's understanding of it. Previous generations might understand our nation as having a sort of national relationship with God. Just like God might bless or punish a person for committing sin, so might God bless or punish a nation for committing sin.

This theory can be used as a rationale for controlling private behavior. It's hard to argue that I should have the right to say you can't drink (assuming you aren't going to drive drunk). How does your choice to drink hurt me? Well in this theory of a national morality, your drinking offends God and weakens our nation's relationship with him. Remember these statements by Pat Roberts.

We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?"

Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.

Patrick Buchannan has, in statements excusing modern responsibility for slavery or the treatment of the Indians, rejected this argument. Frankly it's hard to be a libertarian and believe in this sort of thing.

Of course, it's also easy to point out that the fact that we allow thousands of children to go to bed hungry every night does not seem to bother God nearly as much as removing the Ten Commandments from a court house. At least in the mind of Pat Robertson.

The authors conclude the chapter with a clear statement that religious people need to be involved in the political process, but they do not need to use their religion as a sort of holy trump card that ends debate. Which I wholeheartedly agree with.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 7 - Sunday Mail and the Christian Amendment

What accommodations should be made out of sensitivity to the religious concerns of Christians?

Today that question might center around whether or not a Christian pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs or medical products he disagrees with (such as birth control or the morning after pill.

In the early days of this country the question centered around delivering the mail on Sunday. Should post-masters and postal workers, who were assumed to be Christian, be required to work on their Sabbath. What did the government of the United State's choice to ignore the Sabbath Day say about our relationship with God?

But of course there were good reasons for operating on Sunday. For small far flung rural communities, coming into town to attend services was a struggle; why compound the struggle by requiring a separate trip to get the mail. And travelers who used the mail coaches would doubtless seek other transportation options if forced to rest on the Sabbath. And people in the Western part of the country at that time wanted up to the date information in order to make their business decisions.

The authors point out that this debate also centered on the liberal idea of giving people a day off. Forcing the post office to close on Sunday may sound bad, but forcing people to work 7 days a week doesn't sound much better.

In this case the necessities of keeping the mail running won out until such necessities were alleviated by the development of the telegram and the railways.

The chapter also covers the Christian Amendment, which was an attempt on the part of the some to add an amendment to the constitution clarifying that this was a Christian nation. This issue sprang up during the Civil War, when emotions were naturally pretty high. In some versions this would have re-written the preamble, as follows.

We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, The Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the Nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.

Obviously many non-Christians and even smaller Christian groups (like the Seventh-Day Adventists) saw this amendment as a threat to their religious freedom. And both President Lincoln and the Congress felt no particular haste in addressing this issue, so it was allowed to die a quiet death.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 6 - American Baptists and the Jeffersonian Tradition

This chapter covers the interesting position Baptists held in the early Republic and how that position changed over time. Baptists were dissenters from the Calvinist beliefs of the Puritans, particularly on the matter of infant baptism. Despite having left the Puritan congregations, Baptists in New England continued to pay taxes to support them. Thus they came to the principle of separation of Church and State not through any process of cool reason, but simply because their personal experience had taught them not to trust the state when it meddled in Religion. This lesson led them to staunch support of President Jefferson, for his work in separating church and state.

The chapter also covers the church's' movement into the areas of what we might call moral guidance or social justice? If there was to be this barrier between church and state, in what areas might the various religious organizations properly operate? Some Christian organizations rejected the notion of supplicating Congress for help in approaching moral problems; others chose to embrace this idea.

The chapter ends with a discussion of the Southern Baptists, how they formed (in response to northern abolitionist sentiment in the Baptist churches), and how they have negotiated the political terrain in the intervening years. The authors compare the Southern Baptist position to the Amish position, which is interesting.

If all the religious people in the United States interpreted their religious responsibilities like the Amish, the nation would be in deep trouble. Refusing to join a political crusade to proclaim America a Christian nation is one thing the founders had in mind in writing the godless Constitution. However, regarding one's fellow citizens as sinners who should be ignored is an idea that is not part of our secular state. While it makes unthinkable a political party of religious correctness, it also makes any sort of nation impossible.

This passage makes clear that the authors are not advocating that religious people should be barred from political activities. Of course, they also note that Southern Baptist leaders have made overtures to the Conservative movement; a tendency which has only increased over the last few years.

The Godless Constitution - An aside on Mr. Jefferson

I do want to comment on last night's post on Mr. Jefferson, where my personal religious convictions may have bled into my writings on what he believed. And by may have I mean definitely did.

In other words, I may have overreached by suggesting that my personal beliefs on the experience with the divine aligned with Jefferson's thoughts on the subject.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 5 - The "Infidel" Mr. Jefferson

This chapter deals with, you guessed it, Abigail Adams. But it also mentions Thomas Jefferson and that is who I want to focus on. Jefferson is a key figure in the history of Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary America, and he seems to have largely shared the author's point of view. One could argue that their focus on Jefferson is a bit self serving. One Amazon review noted "a failure to discuss any evidence that is contrary to our authors' thesis."

I don't think this assertion is accurate; I've pointed out, for example, the author's see several positive effects of New England intermingling of church and state. That said, this is a book with a point of view, a polemic. They label it so in the first chapter. It is understood that polemic expresses a particular argument; if this Amazon Reviewer wishes an argument in favor of religious correctness, there are any number of sources he could turn. To criticize this book for not presenting completely both sides of the fence is to argue that the authors should have written a different book.

Jefferson believed that religion was a purely private concern. He was a religious person, spending a great deal of time studying the Bible, and described his own creed as "the philosophy of Jesus." Which is, I have to admit, close to what our current President has said. That said, he did not have a great deal of faith in priests or other church leaders. Rather he described them as "mountebacks" and "a band of dupes and imposters."

Obviously these kinds of comments did not endear Mr. Jefferson to the religious leaders of his day; particularly those religious leader who favored religious correctness. But Mr. Jefferson is consistent. If the greatest religious benefit comes from a personal and individual and private communion with God, and if priests or politically ordained religion can distract us from seeking that experience, well then they are obviously harmful.

There is, in the Book of Mormon, an extended parable about a vineyard, which we understand to represent the House of Israel or the Church of God. The Lord of the Vineyard, representing God, tends to his vineyard. At one point he returns to view the one of his vines, and laments it's condition.

47 But what could I have done more in my vineyard? Have I slackened mine hand, that I have not nourished it? Nay, I have nourished it, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it; and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long, and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard, and cast them into the fire that they should be burned. Who is it that has corrupted my vineyard?

48 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard - —have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?

This can be read many ways, I suppose. But I've always seen it as a metaphor for letting the trappings of religion distract one from the purpose of religion. The purpose of religion is to place one in harmony with God, which is a very personal process (which is one of the reasons I haven't felt to discuss religion overmuch in this blog). But one can be come distracted by the trappings of religion, the branches, so that one neglects the roots of religion; this experience with the transcendent.

And I believe this is one of the reasons Jefferson was right to describe a necessary wall between church and state.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 4 - The English Roots of the Secular State

This chapter, obviously, covers about the intellectual tradition from which American Secularism sprang from. Specifically it focuses on John Locke, who's writings were extremely influential on American thought.

One revolutionary aspect of Locke's thought was the shrinking of the Public Sphere and the enlargement of the Private Sphere. Under the medieval order, the religious practices of the community were everybody's business; under the new system religious practices were to be private and personal. One might share a congregation with one's neighbors, but one would not be required to share a congregation with one's neighbors.

The chapter also makes the points that the same forces that argued for a rejection of the specifically Christian state also argued for a laissez-faire economic policy. It is interesting that the modern forces of religious correctness have abandoned this policy. They believe in the power of the government to make men good but not in its power to make men good employers.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 3 - Roger Williams and the Religious Argument for Church-State Separation

I think I can do the next two chapters relatively quickly. This chapter covers Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island (your probably guessed that already). In specific it covers his argument against an established church, which was made on specifically religious grounds. It's easy enough to understand why people who aren't religious or people who are of a different religion than the dominant one would be in favor of a godless constitution. But there are valid reasons why you might not favor it even if you are of the dominant religion.

Incidentally, the authors words of praise for the tight intertwining of church and state in several New England states puts further lie to the suggestion that they want a Godless America.

Williams reasoned that the ability to govern, like the ability to farm, was not particularly tied to religion. It implicitly implied that an atheist might be as good at governing as a devout Christian. Of course, we have not had an atheist president and the current political climate makes having one unlikely.

He also noted that politics had a tendency to corrupt religion; the religious feelings and ideals, when appropriated for political purposes, lose their holy trappings and become just another ploy. Given the nature of politics (and I mean politics in all of our history), I can see his point. You can't take a silk scarf into a pig sty and expect it to stay clean.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 2 - The Godless Constitution

Yes, the second chapter has the same name as the book. Deal with it.

To start out this discussion let's check out an Amazon Book Review, of the predecessor to this book.

Kramnick and Moore imply in this book that the founders intended to create a godless nation. Be assured, I am the last person in the world to claim that the United States is a "Christian Nation." If it was a "Christian Nation" I would burn my Bible and become an agnostic! But these authors ignore the deep history of faith that the framers had.

This is a misstatement of what this book (and this chapter in particular) is about. The founders most certainly did not want a Godless Nation; on the contrary many of them believed in the ennobling influence of religion. But they wanted a Constitution that did not reference any particular God.

I don't hold this reviewer all that guilty though; it was clearly a review of the book's title, rather than the book itself. Doing that, you can't help but make mistakes.

At any rate, despite claims to the contrary, the Constitution was clearly intended as a Godless document. This was seen in the debates and attacks on the constitution for failing to exalt the Christian religion into a special place in our society.

Most states at that time (save Virginia and New York) contained some kind of religious test. Deleware's struck me in particular.

. . . in Delaware all elected and appointed public officials were required to profess "faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God forevermore.

Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity, and so, I assume, would not have been able to take this oath.

Of course that's another dirty little secret about the desires of those who wanted to impose a religious test for holding office; there were lots of Christians they weren't very comfortable with either. Catholics, Quakers, and the like were not desirable in high office.

Those who opposed imposing a religious test for high office pointed out the seemingly insurmountable problem that there was no religious uniformity in the United States.

If that was a problem then, it is doubly a problem now.

The Godless Constitution - An aside

I wanted to quickly expand on something I said in the last chapter, about how believing in a secular politics and a secular government has its roots in our history.

The problem with America is that it is largely founded on a series of disagreements. Our political history is a history of Americans disagreeing with each other. Thus in a confounding way, both sides of many of our national debates have deep roots in American history.

I find the current brand of Conservativism (or Limbaugh conservatism) to be small-minded and mean-spirited, but I can'd deny that Limbaugh is building on a certain American historical tradition (although, as we all know, he would deny that my liberalism has any American roots).

That is one of the reasons why the Right wing's constant attempts to portray their political enemies as un-American is so troubling; it's a denial of the spirit of conflict and discussion that this country's politics have been built on.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 1 - Is America A Christian Nation?

This is a question that has puzzled me many times; particularly when I am presented with somebody asserting vigorously that we are a Christian Nation. My first response is usually something along the lines of what do you mean by the phrase "Christian nation."

Given the tone of such pronouncements, I know it does not in fact mean "Statistically speaking, there are a lot of Christians in the U.S."

And such people are usually quick to deny that it means "Non-Christians should not have the same rights as Christians." The then move to the theory that Christians are persecuted in America (a theory one step removed from "White Males have it tough in this country" on the ludicrousness scale). So somewhere in between those two I would guess?

Kramnick and Moore have a term to describe the philosophy of those who favor the assertion that America is a Christian Nation; Religious correctness.

It [religious correctness] maintains that the United States was established as a Christian nation by Christian people, with the Christian religion assigned a central place in guiding the nation's destiny.

The authors do note the importance of the Christian religion in our nation and in our current culture; but they disagree on the notion that it has a special role in our political culture.

They also believe that the injection of religion into politics hurts both politics and religion. Religious leaders who stand on the public square suffer the same slings and arrows that every other politically active person or movement has to suffer. They quote Alexis de Tocqueville, who asked, ". . . what would become of its [religion's] immortality, in the midst of universal decay?"

I'd also like to point out something on the burden of proof in this book. Obviously Kramnick and Moore believe in the secular state (as do I). But even if you are not convinced that the secular state is the way to go, an honest reader of this book would have to concede that the proponents of a Secular Politics and Government have at least as much of a claim on the American tradition as proponents of religious correctness.

The Godless Constitution

This is the name of a book I read yesterday by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The full title is "The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State", which is an updated version of a book they wrote in 1996. Which makes sense; it's not like these issues have gone away.

As we are moving into the Christmas season, the time when the Bill O'Rielly's of the world are going to insist that liberals are destroying Christmas, I wanted to read a book that covered Church and State issues. Plus, this website usually shuts down over holidays, and I didn't want to do that this time; rather we will do a sharply focused series of articles about this book and the issues it raises.

I do want to be careful not to simply summarize the book; it's really quite good and you should read it yourself.

I should comment on my biases before jumping into this particular subject. For those of you who do not know, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; A Mormon. My religious heritage will naturally inform my discussion of this subject. My father was something of a church history buff and I have also been interested in the history of the church, so I have a strong sense of Mormon history.

Mormons believe, and I believe, that the Constitution was divinely inspired. What will be clear, however, is that I believe that the separation of Church and State, the Godless-ness that the authors reference, is, in a paradoxical way, divinely inspired.

So that's the agenda for the next couple of days. Hope you enjoy.