If I look at you, how can I tell you're not Muslim?
16
Of course I am willing to gamble when the odds are so greatly in my favor and when refusing to gamble deprives others of their rights and me of my decency. I also do not know who is going to run into my car, break into my house, or rob the market I have just entered. Small risks, TINY risks, are the price of civilization.
14
wolffjac: Over 200 killed in 7.5 years/? A horrible reality. Another reality is that guns figure in 32,000 deaths every YEAR in America. Is that not important? Balance is important in life. If you decide you must run from the fox, you may run into the wolf.
26
George Washington changed his mind about his personal prejudices when facts showed him to be wrong? He is heralded as the wise father of our country. Hillary takes the same open minded approach and modern day Republicans deride it as "flip flopping". Thanks for the history lesson. We can all stand to be reminded that our divisions go back a long way and usually the open minded views eventually prevail.
25
Let's see, most Christians believe in 3 gods (although they will say one). Muslims believe in 1 god. Hindus have over 100. Buddhists are somewhat flexible on who they venerate, Taoists are also flexible; various nature based religions either venerate many or one great spirit. Many people describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.
Who is right? I don't know. Does it matter what path you take up the mountain?
Who is right? I don't know. Does it matter what path you take up the mountain?
11
Sarah Vowell, a simple thank you from one who up to age 11 lived just up the hill from the Memorial to Roger Williams in the park called Roger Williams Spring in Rumford, Rhode Island. I visit that park every time I return to Rumford, since, as you write "It's worth remembering that colonial Rhode Island had attracted so many Jews, Quakers, Baptists and other denominations..."
And thanks for adding one more piece of history we were never taught in school way back when, the exchange between Moses Seixas and George Washington. Thanks also for that closing line about the test question the Khans had to answer, one that many more of us citizens than DJT probably could not answer.
Now to look up your Lafayette in the Somewhat United States.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
And thanks for adding one more piece of history we were never taught in school way back when, the exchange between Moses Seixas and George Washington. Thanks also for that closing line about the test question the Khans had to answer, one that many more of us citizens than DJT probably could not answer.
Now to look up your Lafayette in the Somewhat United States.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
7
Sarah, this essay is spectacular. Every high school history teacher in the republic should post it their classroom somewhere, even if they have to redact Trump's name a few times in the name of political equanimity. This is why we study history. Thank you. Thank you.
15
Thank you for this tremendous piece. I will encourage my 12 year old son to read this as his homework assignment for his government class.
8
So much anxiety about Trump's constitutional understandings. So little about a president who avowedly has no tolerance for those bitter clingers to guns and religion, and who expects to rule with a phone and a pen. And nary a Washington anywhere in sight.
3
"Perhaps the party should start requiring potential presidential candidates to take a test about the meaning and mechanics of the Constitution." I agree. Bit "start" is important. How to continue. to counteract the "education" unavoidable in the family, the community, church schools, and in the pews of racist preachers? To address hate-inducing speech by politicians (e.g., "calves as big as cantaloupes from dragging sacks of drugs...") we need to raise the ethical bar on sitting members of Congress.
7
Giving bigotry 'no sanction' was and remains a universal responsibility.
Those who in the past correctly suspected bigotry was fundamentally flawed have now been thoroughly vindicated at the molecular level.
But conflating the noble cause of liberty with militarism remains a profound failing in the American concept.
Perhaps the coincidence of a first president who was also a wartime general wrongly fused civilian presidency with military 'commander in chief'. Perhaps this is how the flawed romanticizing of militarism as patriotic honor got built into our notion of civic duty.
Launching into false wars against imagined 'tyranny' does not validate liberty. Nor does 'serving' in combat. War is not a default patriotic requirement of the 'free'.
The last 70 years of gratuitous American wars are testament to this flaw in the American design. Universal human rights and liberty should not require enlisting in the military & following orders to kill or be killed in foreign lands.
The USA still fails to "rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal".
But bigotry is not the only fundamental flaw so eloquently identified by Dr. King, there remain in force all three of the "Triple Evils: Militarism, Racism, Economic Exploitation"
Civilians can't fix or escape endemic American racism by joining the army any more than they can engender liberty by killing people in foreign lands of no threat to the USA.
Those who in the past correctly suspected bigotry was fundamentally flawed have now been thoroughly vindicated at the molecular level.
But conflating the noble cause of liberty with militarism remains a profound failing in the American concept.
Perhaps the coincidence of a first president who was also a wartime general wrongly fused civilian presidency with military 'commander in chief'. Perhaps this is how the flawed romanticizing of militarism as patriotic honor got built into our notion of civic duty.
Launching into false wars against imagined 'tyranny' does not validate liberty. Nor does 'serving' in combat. War is not a default patriotic requirement of the 'free'.
The last 70 years of gratuitous American wars are testament to this flaw in the American design. Universal human rights and liberty should not require enlisting in the military & following orders to kill or be killed in foreign lands.
The USA still fails to "rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal".
But bigotry is not the only fundamental flaw so eloquently identified by Dr. King, there remain in force all three of the "Triple Evils: Militarism, Racism, Economic Exploitation"
Civilians can't fix or escape endemic American racism by joining the army any more than they can engender liberty by killing people in foreign lands of no threat to the USA.
5
Let me be clear......Donald Trump is the Republican Party writ large and in living color. They may not like that the rest of us can now see what they are really like inside but the rest of us must STOP PATTING THEM ON THE BACk FOR TRYING TO PRETEND HE ISNT THEM!
It's disgusting thst we are praising these individuals who have stood silently by while their proxies on SCOTUS have destroyed the Voting Rights Act or their brothers and sister in state houses across the country have penned laws to demean women and criminalize contraception and miscarriages. These men and, in large part it is men, have happily demonized labor, women, scientists and a raft of other fact based members of the community and now they get to pretend they are agast when Trump says pretty much what they have been thinking and DOING for decades!
It's disgusting thst we are praising these individuals who have stood silently by while their proxies on SCOTUS have destroyed the Voting Rights Act or their brothers and sister in state houses across the country have penned laws to demean women and criminalize contraception and miscarriages. These men and, in large part it is men, have happily demonized labor, women, scientists and a raft of other fact based members of the community and now they get to pretend they are agast when Trump says pretty much what they have been thinking and DOING for decades!
10
Shouldn't the title of this piece be "Join the Army and Choose Whatever God You Like or No God"? Why are atheists still left out of almost every formulation about religious freedom? Belief in some form of deity remains a prerequisite for all those in public life, making atheism perhaps the last remaining form of discrimination that seems to go unchallenged and unremarked.
5
“...these are my soldiers, these are my people. I have to take care of them.”
These words brought tears to my eyes. My son, a Major in the US Army, has said them to me so many times over so many deployments.
These words brought tears to my eyes. My son, a Major in the US Army, has said them to me so many times over so many deployments.
5
It is too bad that most people who might learn something from Sarah Vowell's Op-ed piece won't read it, wouldn't read it if I sent it to them over Facebook and wouldn't believe it if they read it. I am "of an age" and I wonder sometimes if the administrators in many of our schools really meant it when back in the 1960's when we all bemoaned having to learn World History and American History because, after all, how did it relate to our world? Much history has been lost and as rigidly hidebound as some of my Roman Catholic parochial education seemed, I am happy to have learned as part of an oft-marginalized "out" group, that my religion...and I... had the right to exist and believe as I saw fit. Of course, no religion should be able to beat, oppress, or physically and emotionally abuse its own adherents under the banner of freedom of religion. Many have. Many do. Many might and a little known fact is that the freedom the Puritans sought included the freedom to put their people in stocks in the public square, a practice the British and the Dutch were beginning to oppose.
4
Donald Trump better have the Constitution memorized by the time he debates with Hillary Clinton. That's all I have to say.
6
Truly a brilliant article, especially GW's thoughts on the weak tea that is "tolerance". As a proud atheist who, in the context of the other commenters would be considered a cultural Jew, I know something about the limits of tolerance. Too often people with deeply held religious beliefs tolerate atheists as those whose moral or ethical values cannot possible be up to the standards of theirs. Fortunately we have a constitution that protects (at least in theory) us all, for you never know when it's your group's turn to be persecuted. My respect for Mormons has gone up tremendously, as polling indicates many put principle over politics.
12
I'm slightly confused. Does the oldest synagogue in the US have an annual August celebration of "the fact that George Washington hated *tolerance*.?!
1
Donald Trump did not proposed to ban a religion. He proposed to ban travel and immigration from Muslim countries that export terrorists until the threat of terror attacks subside. The Constitution is mute on travel visas and immigration. So people who rushed out to buy a copy of the Constitution to learn what it has says about the issue must have been disappointed. However, U.S. Code § 1182 (Inadmissible Aliens), states: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” If the deaths of thousands of Americans in terror attacks doesn’t justify a suspension of travel and immigration from countries that export terrorists, what would?
4
Mencken's advice is correct on this topic, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
The very idea that one should embrace their fellow citizens' nonsense superstitions is absurd. Bad ideas do not become good ones because of society has a temporary love affair with political correctness and a disdain of reading history and classics. Theology is to philosophy as alchemy is to chemistry and astrology is to astronomy - a cheap dumb-down. The evil inherent in the worship of imaginary deities has been carefully propounded for almost 5000 years by the greatest thinkers in human history. A document written 250 years ago by men wanting to make social peace in order to consolidate the biggest land grab in world history does not change the fact of the matter: religion poisons everything it touches.
The very idea that one should embrace their fellow citizens' nonsense superstitions is absurd. Bad ideas do not become good ones because of society has a temporary love affair with political correctness and a disdain of reading history and classics. Theology is to philosophy as alchemy is to chemistry and astrology is to astronomy - a cheap dumb-down. The evil inherent in the worship of imaginary deities has been carefully propounded for almost 5000 years by the greatest thinkers in human history. A document written 250 years ago by men wanting to make social peace in order to consolidate the biggest land grab in world history does not change the fact of the matter: religion poisons everything it touches.
5
One can only wonder if the magnificent George Washington were to be alive today what he would think of our current political situation in this country.
Yes he was a slave owner, that can not be erased from his history but given the times he lived in, it would've been difficult if not impossible to have been the landowning Virginian aristocrat he was without them, not an excuse for his actions; just the reality of his times.
As a Virginian he stood with men like Jefferson, Mason, Randolph and Madison.
As a Founding Father he served with his fellow Virginians and has as contemporaries from the other colonies men like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Ben Franklin, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and Gouverneur Morris who was probably the most ardent supporter of Freedom of Religion amongst the Founding Fathers.
Today what men (and unlike in his time what women) would he find of an equal caliber to the men he served with?
What would he think of the vitriol that today is focused on Islam by some in this country?
How would he view someone running for President who openly attacks another religion?
What would he think of public officials who insist on hoisting their religion upon their constituents instead of just being of service to them?
Yes he was a slave owner, that can not be erased from his history but given the times he lived in, it would've been difficult if not impossible to have been the landowning Virginian aristocrat he was without them, not an excuse for his actions; just the reality of his times.
As a Virginian he stood with men like Jefferson, Mason, Randolph and Madison.
As a Founding Father he served with his fellow Virginians and has as contemporaries from the other colonies men like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Ben Franklin, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and Gouverneur Morris who was probably the most ardent supporter of Freedom of Religion amongst the Founding Fathers.
Today what men (and unlike in his time what women) would he find of an equal caliber to the men he served with?
What would he think of the vitriol that today is focused on Islam by some in this country?
How would he view someone running for President who openly attacks another religion?
What would he think of public officials who insist on hoisting their religion upon their constituents instead of just being of service to them?
5
I want to thank the Khan family for waking up all Americans and showing them what a real American is.
Their son Humayun, whose body lies in Arlington National Cemetery, is an American hero who helped saved the lives of his fellow soldiers - a patriot beyond description.
But before that is the story of a immigrants from Pakistan trying to make a better life in a place called America.
Khizr Khan said of his own early life in Pakistan: “My life was very ordinary. There was nothing special. I grew up as every other Pakistani. No extra earth-shattering events took place during my lifetime, and we were modest people.” But, he said, he had the ambition “to keep moving forward.”
The Khans immigrated to the USA, worked hard, saved money and Mr. Khan graduated Harvard Law School and became a citizen, as did his wife and became a successful lawyer.
The Khans raised three sons in America.
Every year, the Mr. Khan and his wife present the Khan award to that year’s outstanding scholar-soldier-cadet at the Army ROTC center at the University of Virginia in memory of Humayun Khan.
When Mr. Khan spoke at the DNC and said to Donald Trump, "Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America -- you will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one."....he literally pushed Trumpty Dumpty of his Great Wall.
Patriotism and love of country is in the Khan family DNA.
Thank you to the Khan family.
Their son Humayun, whose body lies in Arlington National Cemetery, is an American hero who helped saved the lives of his fellow soldiers - a patriot beyond description.
But before that is the story of a immigrants from Pakistan trying to make a better life in a place called America.
Khizr Khan said of his own early life in Pakistan: “My life was very ordinary. There was nothing special. I grew up as every other Pakistani. No extra earth-shattering events took place during my lifetime, and we were modest people.” But, he said, he had the ambition “to keep moving forward.”
The Khans immigrated to the USA, worked hard, saved money and Mr. Khan graduated Harvard Law School and became a citizen, as did his wife and became a successful lawyer.
The Khans raised three sons in America.
Every year, the Mr. Khan and his wife present the Khan award to that year’s outstanding scholar-soldier-cadet at the Army ROTC center at the University of Virginia in memory of Humayun Khan.
When Mr. Khan spoke at the DNC and said to Donald Trump, "Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America -- you will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one."....he literally pushed Trumpty Dumpty of his Great Wall.
Patriotism and love of country is in the Khan family DNA.
Thank you to the Khan family.
48
Response to Socrates: as a NY Times reader, I wanted to thank you for your comment. The truth of the matter is that many of the younger generation have either, never learned that the USA is a country of immigrants, or that our greatness, was, and still is, due to our open door policy. Talent, ability, strength of character, the desire for the underdog, no matter what race or religion, to succeed are part of our social fabric. One could say immigration is in our DNA. Your support for the Khan family is admirable but it is as it should be. They lost their son in a military campaign. He gave his life for his country and the Khan family should be held in the highest esteem. It's nice to be reminded that there are citizens who cherish the founding principles of our country and consider themselves lucky to have had the opportunity to grow up in this great land. By allowing the Trump candidacy to proceed, the GOP has exhibited exceedingly poor judgement. It seems incomprehensible that the party of Lincoln would select a man like Trump who's opines hate, malice and bigotry as his principles. It may have been possible to exclude Trump from participating in the primaries based on the number of type of lawsuits that have been brought against Trump U and Trump Institute. The GOP certainly should never have shown any support for his candidacy and should have done everything in their power to try to dissuade Trump from entering the primaries.
5
To GW I say "Amen."
2
Great piece.
“an unaccountable kind of stupidity"
... That really resonates for some reason.
... That really resonates for some reason.
3
As Ms. Vowell's quotes about Washington make clear, US presidents must be conscious of the words they use. And the consequences of stupidly worded statements have much more dire consequences. I am one of the many who feel that Trump's ridiculous positions mean that he should never have access to the nuclear codes. No "biscuit" in his pants pocket!
11
Religion may bring comfort and peace of mind to many, and answer for many the great questions of life, making sense of a senseless world without having to search further for answers - and it may instill love in some - but religion is also a source of intoleralance in this world, often a tool of conquest, and has also been used for the enslavement and exploitation of others. So, it is not because it has good qualities that it needs to be kept apart from the state, but because it also has bad qualities, and the bad ones it has can lead to a loss of our freedom, just as it has currently led to the greatest inequality in the past few decades that Americans have ever known - which has all happened as religoiusity has increased in the political arena. For as the wall separating church and state has been broken down, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and everyone between the two got further and further behind.
8
Ah "how to salvage the moral foundation ".
Let it be known, no matter what you may believe or not believe in, the moral foundation was explicitly Christian in nature. Every American knows the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident", followed by a long list of objective moral truths.
No atheist, and hardly any progressives, would possibly stand for "truth, which are self-evident" today. Atheists would be hard-pressed to believe that moral truths exist at all, and would likely, as Dawkins, attempt to humiliate anyone did. Progressives are almost entirely relativists, and would have to balk at any object morality. "Who were they to say what was right for us???"
They could say "what was right for us" because they were Christians, believe in objective morality, founded of course in the Bible.
There is no state-sanctioned religion, USA was founded on the basis of Christian objective morality, and should we "salvage the moral foundation" we must return to those truths.
Which we hold to be self-evident.
Let it be known, no matter what you may believe or not believe in, the moral foundation was explicitly Christian in nature. Every American knows the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident", followed by a long list of objective moral truths.
No atheist, and hardly any progressives, would possibly stand for "truth, which are self-evident" today. Atheists would be hard-pressed to believe that moral truths exist at all, and would likely, as Dawkins, attempt to humiliate anyone did. Progressives are almost entirely relativists, and would have to balk at any object morality. "Who were they to say what was right for us???"
They could say "what was right for us" because they were Christians, believe in objective morality, founded of course in the Bible.
There is no state-sanctioned religion, USA was founded on the basis of Christian objective morality, and should we "salvage the moral foundation" we must return to those truths.
Which we hold to be self-evident.
5
Jesus was not a politician
2
Yggdrasil: the "self-evident" has a habit of collapsing under the microscope. The earth is not flat and is not at the center of the universe. The stars are not little lamps in the canopy called the sky. Humans are not the only animals that use tools. "Sexual preference" is not a choice and cannot be "prayed away."
America's Founding Fathers were enlightened according to the standards of their day. But their minds were enquiring not closed. Some of them were great readers, some were experimenters. Some were slave owners and exploited some of their slaves sexually--self-evident, I'm afraid.
America's Founding Fathers were enlightened according to the standards of their day. But their minds were enquiring not closed. Some of them were great readers, some were experimenters. Some were slave owners and exploited some of their slaves sexually--self-evident, I'm afraid.
3
Yes, the founders did borrow from Christian philosophy but to claim that was all ignores their other influences. Much of what we believe can be traced back to Aristotle and Plato and their ideas about the worth if citizens, the exchange of ideas, and individual rights. As a progressive myself, I do believe in an objective morality: The Constitution. Whether I am or am not a religious or spiritual man should not matter, whether anyone else is should not matter.
Though if you want to discuss moral relativism, look no further than Christianity. It seems that man's interpretation of what God wants changes based on fashion and the times. Organized religion and churches are the tools of men and reflect man's indifference to his fellows more than a Constitution that continually expands equal protection to all.
Though if you want to discuss moral relativism, look no further than Christianity. It seems that man's interpretation of what God wants changes based on fashion and the times. Organized religion and churches are the tools of men and reflect man's indifference to his fellows more than a Constitution that continually expands equal protection to all.
4
This is one of the most beautifully crafted and powerful editorials that I have read in quite some time. Thank you for inspiring me anew.
5
Yea Sarah! Who could say it better than the descendant of Cherokees on the death march "Trail of Tears" sent there by the Scotsman, real estate speculator Andrew Jackson, soon to become to become President and one of the nation's wealthiest men from the deaths of 4,000 Cherokee men women and children and the elderly. If Andrew Jackson had been successful Sarah Vowell and her twin sister Amy would have never born. It's a new day. The true histories are now being written, not by pedants and ideologues but by ambitious little potential PHDs searching for a different take from the story in Trump's head and the assumptions of people taught bias and prejudice in their schools. The same bias and prejudice they long to return to with Trump; but history will not be turned back. They are not Hulagu Khan and America is not 13th century Baghdad. The truth will eventually come forward and Scotsman Trump will be a poor ancestor for his descendants to claim and take pride it. Scotland will trash his golf courses and refuse to acknowledge his lineage. Yes I too am Cherokee and have Scottish lineage but my pride does not extend to Jackson or Trump. Every culture has a dark side as did the General riding into New York City in the picture. The difference seems to be that he changed and grew and had a senses of history. Sarah Vowell is both an artist and a wonderful writer with a sense of history. Thank you Sarah.
4
Great comment. A detail, not insignificant--Jackson's parents were born in Ireland in the north (there was no Northern Ireland then). Like many such folk, they or their forebears had come from Scotland, and brought with them the John Knox strain of Calvinism that is still strong in Northern Ireland today and in America's south. (It is a divisive, condemnatory strain of Christianity.)
Many such "Scots-Irish" began their journeys after major defeats of Jacobite Scots by the English, but they found the neighboring island too crowded so they continued on to America. Fleeing one kind of oppression, they joined the oppressors in their new home--much as some Catholic Irish did.
Many such "Scots-Irish" began their journeys after major defeats of Jacobite Scots by the English, but they found the neighboring island too crowded so they continued on to America. Fleeing one kind of oppression, they joined the oppressors in their new home--much as some Catholic Irish did.
1
Donald Trump is of German lineage; his original family name was Drumpf.
1
Tomorrow is Sunday so of course the NYT must build a temporary atheist wall. Its erudite readers can throw at it their thoughts while pretending themselves a relevant, definable collective that stands above - the nonsense of belief. You can almost hear the universalist cheers when they stick, with a "Pick" stuck on top.
5
So you dont understand the Constitution. It does say you have the right to say nonsense. But it also says that religion even no religion is more than fine. It is protected
11
Just pointing out that believing in any God precludes that believer from being labeled an atheist. Dig a little deeper, and observe that the disputes are about manner of worship and whose worship is correct, and then, inherently, being the only way to serve the God of belief.
There is an old saying "There are no atheists in a foxhole". Somehow I tend to believe that.
There is an old saying "There are no atheists in a foxhole". Somehow I tend to believe that.
In the Christian religion there is only one God. It is interesting to note that Sarah Vowell was raised in the Penecostal faith but is now an atheist. She describes herself as culturally Christiian but when asked if there was a God her reply was "absolutely not." What is a cultural Christian? Is this a term that makes atheists feel better about themselves? I would love to have a response. For your information, I am a practicing Christian of the Catholic pursuation.
3
I seriously doubt Sarah is going to read the comments, but as a person raised Lutheran but now an atheist, perhaps I can help. She was raised Pentecostal but now an atheist. She can't deny the influences her upbringing inculcated in her any more than you can deny the influences the region you were raised in had on your values. And I'm betting she doesn't go around protesting all the stores that close on Christmas Day, no matter how inconvenient that is for her (or me).
10
Anna Quindlen once described herself as a cultural Catholic - someone who is not a believing Catholic but feels an ethnic or familial tie to it and loves its cultural trappings.
I don't know what being a cultural Christian is like since the "culture" of a Christian tradition is expressed in specifics, and different communal traditions have customs that vary so widely that they have hardly anything in common except the very things an atheist would reject.
I don't know what being a cultural Christian is like since the "culture" of a Christian tradition is expressed in specifics, and different communal traditions have customs that vary so widely that they have hardly anything in common except the very things an atheist would reject.
3
I speak for myself, not the author. A cultural Christian is one who does not believe in one definition of god but has adopted the best aspects of humanity existent in the Christian faith based on the fact that one's exposure to religion is through Christianity - charity, love of family, respect for elders, do unto others - while rejecting the worship and adoration of an unknown god. Rest assured that we do not need a link to Christianity to make "atheists feel better about themselves." We have adopted the best of religious culture in the name of humanity and disregard the bigotry, hate speech, disrespect and insult some devout people of faith, you included, openly display to outsiders.
60
Thank you Sarah Vowell! Beautifully written and reasoned. I sent this piece to everyone in my family.
22
Washington did this country a great service in recognizing that all Americans are created equal regardless of race, and Trump is an idiot for suggesting that all Muslims should be "banned" from the US.
However, the current situation is neither black or white. The real issue is that ISIS has been using the movement of Syrian refugees into Europe to plant terrorists amongst the "herd" of refugees. They are using asylum as a trick to get people into European countries who would cause harm.
While they state they are doing the best job they can in preventing potential terrorists to be admitted among the refugees, neither Obama nor Clinton can GUARANTEE that one or more prospective terrorists might not slip through their diligence - particularly when it is very difficult to do diligence on people coming from a country that is imploding.
The legitimate question is, should we be admitting people that we cannot be 100% certain might not cause us harm? Certainly, there are carve-outs (i.e., children) where this argument could be made. But for the most part, we cannot be 100% sure that a group of people being admitted as refugees dont contain a terrorist or two.
And for me, the possibility that even one person could be admitted whose agenda is to kill Americans, is a risk that I wouldnt be willing to take. A much better solution is to find some neutral ground (eg., an island) to house and care for refugees until the crisis in Syria is over and they can return home.
However, the current situation is neither black or white. The real issue is that ISIS has been using the movement of Syrian refugees into Europe to plant terrorists amongst the "herd" of refugees. They are using asylum as a trick to get people into European countries who would cause harm.
While they state they are doing the best job they can in preventing potential terrorists to be admitted among the refugees, neither Obama nor Clinton can GUARANTEE that one or more prospective terrorists might not slip through their diligence - particularly when it is very difficult to do diligence on people coming from a country that is imploding.
The legitimate question is, should we be admitting people that we cannot be 100% certain might not cause us harm? Certainly, there are carve-outs (i.e., children) where this argument could be made. But for the most part, we cannot be 100% sure that a group of people being admitted as refugees dont contain a terrorist or two.
And for me, the possibility that even one person could be admitted whose agenda is to kill Americans, is a risk that I wouldnt be willing to take. A much better solution is to find some neutral ground (eg., an island) to house and care for refugees until the crisis in Syria is over and they can return home.
2
Why would a terrorist- wannabe spend 2 years in a camp being vetted for admission when he can hop on a plane with a tourist visa to come to the US like the 9/11 hijackers.
This irrational fear of refugees, good people who were thrown into horrible circumstances, prolongs their suffering, makes us no safer, and denies both them and us a chance to reap the great rewards of their potential contributions to our country
This irrational fear of refugees, good people who were thrown into horrible circumstances, prolongs their suffering, makes us no safer, and denies both them and us a chance to reap the great rewards of their potential contributions to our country
21
Is it actually possible to guarantee of any person that we can be "100% certain might not cause us harm?" You are trying to shield prejudice and bigotry behind a seemingly plausible justification that I am sure you know is flatly impossible. Not to mention that your standard can not be met by anybody alive and in this country. All we can get is reasonable probablity - and in that sense, Muslim immigrants from Syria who are extensively vetted are at least as safe as immigrants from almost any other country who are not.
4
That isn't a legitimate question since a 100% guarantee is unobtainable and only exists to create an impossible situation. It isn't a good-faith requirement. Further, if you look at the source of those acts in this country that are Islamist in motivation, the overwhelming majority of them are from people who were born here. Quaking in your boots because of the infinitesimal chance that some refugee may be a bad actor is a spineless policy.
2
That religious belief is even mentioned in any political campaign, that we are burdened with reference to some god or other on our coinage, that Congress opens with a reference to some god or other and "our" president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution while placing a hand on a "holy" book belies every tenet of freedom we so easily vaunt.
There is no actual separation of church and state and to even think for a moment there is qualifies the person who entertains that thought as delusional, confused, rudderless, led by phantasmagoric conceptions and utterly divorced from reality.
All religions are based on ideological dictates of men who wish to maintain power through a mysticism based on fear.
A waste.
There is no actual separation of church and state and to even think for a moment there is qualifies the person who entertains that thought as delusional, confused, rudderless, led by phantasmagoric conceptions and utterly divorced from reality.
All religions are based on ideological dictates of men who wish to maintain power through a mysticism based on fear.
A waste.
25
Your version of "separation of church and state" is closer to French or Ataturk-era Turkey "laïcité" than it is to the constitutionally-required neutrality toward religion. You want religion out of the public and political sphere, which was never what separationism was in the United States. The ideal here is no government favoritism and no suppression of religious speech by individuals, including individual politicians. The Kim Davises of the country can spout whatever doctrine they want in their election campaigns, but then--and this is where we run into trouble--must be scrupulously neutral in the execution of their duties.
Of course, many people can't understand dividing personal belief and official action, so you get the real-life Kim Davis. Or they can't quite accept the full effect of neutrality on traditional practice, so you get the completely dysfunctional "ceremonial deism" of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Regardless of the failings, we're better off this way than we would be if we tried to enforce your version of separation of church and state. How could politicians be barred from making religious references without real repression? Now, if you want to argue that we'd be better off if there were a *norm* against overly religious politicking, I'd be the first to agree with you. Trying to enforce such a norm by law is another matter entirely.
Of course, many people can't understand dividing personal belief and official action, so you get the real-life Kim Davis. Or they can't quite accept the full effect of neutrality on traditional practice, so you get the completely dysfunctional "ceremonial deism" of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Regardless of the failings, we're better off this way than we would be if we tried to enforce your version of separation of church and state. How could politicians be barred from making religious references without real repression? Now, if you want to argue that we'd be better off if there were a *norm* against overly religious politicking, I'd be the first to agree with you. Trying to enforce such a norm by law is another matter entirely.
9
Ceremonial deism is not dysfunctional as long as it is recognized as no more than that.
7
Wrong. In the case of religion, it is not another matter entirely to try to enforce a "norm". It is the job of civil rights legislation and the backbone of our Bill of Rights. If not so, southern states would still discriminate at leisure against people of color. The separation of church and state is law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That is a very clear bar against the the ability of the law making body as defined by our Constitution, Congress, to make laws which enforce religious behavior. The fact that the First Amendment also guarantees citizens free expression of their faith does not empower Congress to act. It is when the free expression of one's faith represses another citizen that the courts enter the matter. It is generally accepted now that the rights of whites to be free of black participation in society did not trump the right of blacks to pursue inclusion. When citizens rights collide, those seeking exclusivity through legislation intended to deny inclusion should be the losers. Politicians and anyone else can spout all they want on religion or any topic. Do we not see this every day? However, any attempt, state or local, to codify law that discriminates in the public sphere on the basis of religion is unconstitutional. Any service or provider that discriminates should not have license to serve the public while sidestepping the establishment clause. Period.
9
Or no god.
The personal burden is lighter, but as a fellow religiously-apathetic Tennessean once told me, the only thing red-necks hate more than gays is atheists.
The personal burden is lighter, but as a fellow religiously-apathetic Tennessean once told me, the only thing red-necks hate more than gays is atheists.
17
"Those who fight to defend the Constitution understand its worth."
Just stop it, please. I will bet the vast majority of people serving in the armed forces have no more than a minimal grasp of American history, never mind a knowledge and understanding of the U.S. constitution. Let alone any concern that it be upheld and preserved.
Our army is not a 'volunteer' army. It is largely manned by people of an economic and social background that leaves them little choice of what to do with their futures, after barely graduating from high school.
But they get in shape, get to wear snappy uniforms, and of course tired old farts "thank them for their service."
The brighter ones join the airforce and become 'fighter pilots' who don't actually 'fight' anyone. It's a great career path if you want to go into politics.
The less fortunate drive around in trucks hoping they won't get their testicles blown off by a road side bomb. When they do, we call them "heroes" while we watch cat videos on Youtube.
The jingoism never ends, and as long as it continues, the wars will never end either.
Just stop it, please. I will bet the vast majority of people serving in the armed forces have no more than a minimal grasp of American history, never mind a knowledge and understanding of the U.S. constitution. Let alone any concern that it be upheld and preserved.
Our army is not a 'volunteer' army. It is largely manned by people of an economic and social background that leaves them little choice of what to do with their futures, after barely graduating from high school.
But they get in shape, get to wear snappy uniforms, and of course tired old farts "thank them for their service."
The brighter ones join the airforce and become 'fighter pilots' who don't actually 'fight' anyone. It's a great career path if you want to go into politics.
The less fortunate drive around in trucks hoping they won't get their testicles blown off by a road side bomb. When they do, we call them "heroes" while we watch cat videos on Youtube.
The jingoism never ends, and as long as it continues, the wars will never end either.
33
May we assume that you possess a maximal grasp of American history AND a complete understanding and knowledge of the US constitution? If so, congratulations and well done.
Please remember, though, only you few possess a +3s IQ.
Please remember, though, only you few possess a +3s IQ.
6
Maybe you don't know the hold that evangelical Christians have on the Air Force Academy in complete opposition to he Constitution
4
Wow. I spent 31 years in the Army defending the Constitution, etc., and apparently had little grasp of history or our founding documents and people.
How about we meet halfway - you don't give me false platitudes for my service (no thanks required - didn't ask for it, anyways), and in return I won't make a big deal about your quick stereotypes of those of us who actually did something for the country and our fellow countrymen.
How about we meet halfway - you don't give me false platitudes for my service (no thanks required - didn't ask for it, anyways), and in return I won't make a big deal about your quick stereotypes of those of us who actually did something for the country and our fellow countrymen.
2
Thank you for a lovely, sensible opinion.
Trump frightens me. somehow, when he makes his excuses (e.g., "don't they understand sarcasm"), I hear comments from past Presidents.
There's no point in discussing LBJ except to say that if his lips were moving, he was lying. Somehow, I hear, in another voice, "I am not a crook," ". . .this 3rd rate burglary. . .," and everyone's favorites about Pat's "good Republican cloth coat," and his daughters' puppy, Checkers. If all else fails, lie and trot out the innocent wife and children.
Presidential lies of the 20th & 21st century could fill a book, but Dub was winning until Trump. Nixon steamrolled himself with his secret taping system and I thought Barry Goldwater was going to dance when he arrived at the White House to tell Nixon he had more than enough votes to convict him of "high crimes and misdemeanors." SCOTUS had already declined to be dragged into the Watergate mess. (SCOTUS did weigh in on Bill Clinton's issues, but only to say that the late Vince Foster's conversation with his personal attorney was covered by attorney-client privilege since the conversation had nothing to do with probate.
Trump frightens me. somehow, when he makes his excuses (e.g., "don't they understand sarcasm"), I hear comments from past Presidents.
There's no point in discussing LBJ except to say that if his lips were moving, he was lying. Somehow, I hear, in another voice, "I am not a crook," ". . .this 3rd rate burglary. . .," and everyone's favorites about Pat's "good Republican cloth coat," and his daughters' puppy, Checkers. If all else fails, lie and trot out the innocent wife and children.
Presidential lies of the 20th & 21st century could fill a book, but Dub was winning until Trump. Nixon steamrolled himself with his secret taping system and I thought Barry Goldwater was going to dance when he arrived at the White House to tell Nixon he had more than enough votes to convict him of "high crimes and misdemeanors." SCOTUS had already declined to be dragged into the Watergate mess. (SCOTUS did weigh in on Bill Clinton's issues, but only to say that the late Vince Foster's conversation with his personal attorney was covered by attorney-client privilege since the conversation had nothing to do with probate.
6
After decades of turning the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Hate, Lies, and Ignorance it will be hard to turn it back when the simple reality is that most of its current members are still driven by hate, lies, and ignroance as amply demonstrated by the rise of Donald Trump.
37
What bitter children the losing democrats have transformed into this election.
Future scholars, as well as the general public, will probably study this election with disbelief, attracted by the fact that one of the two major candidates for president embodied a set of values steeped in contempt for the institutions and principles that define this country. At the same time, they may notice that the threat he represented inspired many partisans of the main political parties, divided from each other over conflicting views of government's proper role, to rediscover a unifying vision in support of those institutions and principles.
Of those indispensable principles, none exceeds in importance the guarantee of freedom of conscience. In the body of the Constitution, as well as in the Bill of Rights, the framers insisted that sectarian differences not be allowed to invade the public sphere. Government would not promote or inhibit the exercise of any faith, and no elected official would ever have to pass a religious test to qualify for any federal position.
Many Americans have never fully accepted the implications of this state neutrality, but most still recoiled in disgust before Trump's blatant hostility to an entire community of faith. Sometimes it requires an individual such as him, who scorns the ideals central to our national identity, to remind Americans of how many values they share, despite their political differences.
Of those indispensable principles, none exceeds in importance the guarantee of freedom of conscience. In the body of the Constitution, as well as in the Bill of Rights, the framers insisted that sectarian differences not be allowed to invade the public sphere. Government would not promote or inhibit the exercise of any faith, and no elected official would ever have to pass a religious test to qualify for any federal position.
Many Americans have never fully accepted the implications of this state neutrality, but most still recoiled in disgust before Trump's blatant hostility to an entire community of faith. Sometimes it requires an individual such as him, who scorns the ideals central to our national identity, to remind Americans of how many values they share, despite their political differences.
19
The grandparents of the man who said you can't be a Muslim and an American probably said the same things about Catholics. Even during the Kennedy Election people expresses fears that the first allegiance of Catholics was to their Pope not their country.
25
I mean, who doesn't have qualms about the Spanish-American War?
10
I will send this wonderful article to as many people as I can. My father came from Scotland and my mother's parents came from Russia, both sides coming here in 1912. My family includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Athiests. Religion does not and never will divide us. We would accept Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, whatever, because we generally feel that belief or non-belief is an individual and personal choice.
My daughter, son and I have a combined 48 years of Military service, that includes Vietnam and Iraq. I had been having some qualms over recent political events, but this article dispensed with those worries. The American Dream lives on.
My daughter, son and I have a combined 48 years of Military service, that includes Vietnam and Iraq. I had been having some qualms over recent political events, but this article dispensed with those worries. The American Dream lives on.
53
Roger William's Rhode Island was ahead of its time. What Cheer, Netop!
6
Thanks for the shout-out for Roger Williams. Of all the figures in our nation's history, he may have been the most extraordinary. After being expelled from Massachusetts Bay colony for "dangerous teachings," he lived with the Narragansett Indians and then wrote a book about their language and culture - the first such book in American history. He believed that Europeans did not have the right to take Native American land and that civil authorities should not be able to enforce religious laws. He founded Providence Plantation on the doctrine of complete religious freedom and strict separation of church and state - radical ideas indeed in 1636. He was also the first abolitionist in American history - advocating the abolition of slavery in all English colonies. He also taught John Milton Dutch. I am very, very proud that he was my 9th great-grandfather.
29
In response to a Trump hat, someone said that the last time America wa great was in 1491
Ms Vowell's article brought me to tears. Our nation was founded as an unprecedented experiment in democracy by extraordinary men who were the products of an extraordinary age. Its foundation is a handful of words that binds us together as a people. It is the acceptance of those words that make us Americans, wherever we were born, whatever we look like, however we find our path to God. Our race does not make us Americans. The dirt under our feet does not make us Americans. We are not ein Volk. We are not about blood and soil. We are not about walls. We are about words. Ideas. Principles of equality, inclusion and fairness that may stay just out of our reach, but it is the reaching that defines us.
The words, the Idea of America has survived. It paid the price for the original sin of slavery in the Civil War's crucible of blood. It survived economic calamity and a whole series of strutting dictators who attempted to rule by appealing to blood and soil and to humanity's darker angels. The Idea of American has survived that and more. Surviving a petulant bright-orange man-child who only wants attention should be a piece of cake.
The words, the Idea of America has survived. It paid the price for the original sin of slavery in the Civil War's crucible of blood. It survived economic calamity and a whole series of strutting dictators who attempted to rule by appealing to blood and soil and to humanity's darker angels. The Idea of American has survived that and more. Surviving a petulant bright-orange man-child who only wants attention should be a piece of cake.
75
Wonderfully expressed - what this thing called the USA is. Thanks.
6
I would say what we did to the native peoples of this continent was the original sin (they were the first to be sold as slaves).
But of course, the African slave trade was such an egregious betrayal of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that it has shaped our national destiny for centuries, and we struggle with its consequences to this day.
And the exclusion of women from the political process until 1920 was pretty hypocritical too.
Homosexuality--well, we had to wait until the 1890s when the word and the modern binary concept of sexuality were invented to legally discriminate against them.
So there were great ideas and great words spun together back in the late 18th century on this land, but the implementation was a big fail.
But we're working on it!
Which should give us all a little hope that we may yet get it right.
But of course, the African slave trade was such an egregious betrayal of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that it has shaped our national destiny for centuries, and we struggle with its consequences to this day.
And the exclusion of women from the political process until 1920 was pretty hypocritical too.
Homosexuality--well, we had to wait until the 1890s when the word and the modern binary concept of sexuality were invented to legally discriminate against them.
So there were great ideas and great words spun together back in the late 18th century on this land, but the implementation was a big fail.
But we're working on it!
Which should give us all a little hope that we may yet get it right.
12
I love this: so eloquent and so true. I will save it, and use it, credited to you. Thank you.
Vowell's mention of the test that the Khans took to qualify for citizenship hit me between the eyes. My parents took it in the mid 1940's, I recall them studying for it. When they were sworn into citizenship I, as a minor, also became a citizen. Later, as did Humayun Khan, I served in the military.
Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Khan, for reminding us what U.S. citizenship should be all about. We need reminding.
Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Khan, for reminding us what U.S. citizenship should be all about. We need reminding.
96
Trump needs to read the Constitution. I'll be glad to explain the big words to him.
He seems not to understand that his threat against Mrs Clinton is also a threat against the Secret Service agents protecting her. The Secret Service protects Trump as well. They work hard and take their jobs seriously; they willingly risk their lives, but there's no excuse for Trump increasing the danger they live with.
He seems not to understand that his threat against Mrs Clinton is also a threat against the Secret Service agents protecting her. The Secret Service protects Trump as well. They work hard and take their jobs seriously; they willingly risk their lives, but there's no excuse for Trump increasing the danger they live with.
31
Trump won't read the Constitution because he doesn't read books.
2
A dear coworker invited me to her naturalization ceremony some years back. As I listened to the judge and to each budding citizen accepting her new country and constitution as her own, I was enormously moved. And I was embarrassed to think how many of my fellow native-born Americans knew so much less of the great privilege and duty our citizenship represents.
Please, if you have the opportunity to attend one of these ceremonies, go and prepare to be inspired and awed at what people around the world will give and do to share in what we take for granted.
Please, if you have the opportunity to attend one of these ceremonies, go and prepare to be inspired and awed at what people around the world will give and do to share in what we take for granted.
1
Is Sarah Vowell a regular Times columnist now? Please say yes!
44
typo-- hated intolerance, not tolerance.
2
Not a typo.
Tolerance meaning that you are better than those you tolerate. Please read Washington's replied to Seixas and his brethren.
Tolerance meaning that you are better than those you tolerate. Please read Washington's replied to Seixas and his brethren.
22
I don't think that's a typo. Tolerance is an ugly word, not because anyone doesn't like co-existing but tolerance, in my opinion, means that you simply put up with it, rather than fully accepting it. For example, we have to "tolerate" anyone who does not share our views. So I'd say I hated tolerance too, because it just feels like you're doing it to be civil, and not because you really want to. That's my opinion at least.
9
No typo at all. Ms. Vowell wrote an opening paragraph intended to shock, and then explained it in the rest of the piece. Did you read it?
11
Our current president has nothing but disgust and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution. He is the only president in a century to actually say he would ignore laws he disagreed with. He then issues edicts that rewrite immigration laws and edits a law passed by Congress fifty times due to political expediency, the PPACA.
For agitated GOP haters who know he means to reconstruct the GOP to say that he is the threat to the Constitution simply shouts to us that they never gave a rat’s rear about the Party.
Tolerance meant a different thing when everyone was a member of some religious faith other than statist liberalism. Now that the faithful liberals own the media our country is in its greatest danger ever.
Meanwhile, George Soros uses Hillary Clinton's State Department to steal anything left intact from the part of Europe he came from. And she went right along with his demands - as shown us in the hacked emails.
TruthTip: When you own and control a ''charity'' your own donations which you will later spend on yourself are certainly NOT ''charitable donations.''
For agitated GOP haters who know he means to reconstruct the GOP to say that he is the threat to the Constitution simply shouts to us that they never gave a rat’s rear about the Party.
Tolerance meant a different thing when everyone was a member of some religious faith other than statist liberalism. Now that the faithful liberals own the media our country is in its greatest danger ever.
Meanwhile, George Soros uses Hillary Clinton's State Department to steal anything left intact from the part of Europe he came from. And she went right along with his demands - as shown us in the hacked emails.
TruthTip: When you own and control a ''charity'' your own donations which you will later spend on yourself are certainly NOT ''charitable donations.''
6
" Now that the faithful liberals own the media our country is in its greatest danger ever. " "the media." So liberals own Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, a host of regional and local newspapers and television stations?
50
L'Osservatore, the big difference between our current president and the one one who preceded him is, the current one had the stones to say what you said he said.
4
Only in opposite land where you live in another universe. BTW GWB added many a signing statement that said he would not enforce what he was signing
2
Eleanore Roosevelt used to write a column entiled "My Day". I will never forget the one entitled, "Tolerance is an Ugly Word".
10
And then I googled the quote. It was actually in Coronet Magazine. My bad.
4
I loved what I assume was Ms. Vowell's renowned caustic wit -- when she referenced President Taft's well known visage by saying "...I would imagine it took extra guts for Mr. Taft to add his family name to the list of mutineers."
15
The more one reads of George Washington, the more one will be amazed and proud to have such a man at such a time.
60
Or choose whichever god you DON’T believe in.
When I had to help with my late husband’s headstone being placed in the National Cemetery of the Pacific, I was told I had a choice of a Jewish Star of David, a cross, a crescent--whatever.
I looked at the VA counselor (Nicest man in the WORLD!) and hemmed and hawed--“well he was an atheist..” I was expecting a lecture--instead he just said: "No problem. Leave that part of the headstone blank.” He told me that MANY folks asked that a cross be put on just to “look good...but he/she wasn’t religious in any way.”
I even considered putting a crescent on--just to show that we supported Muslim soldiers. But just let it be..
When I had to help with my late husband’s headstone being placed in the National Cemetery of the Pacific, I was told I had a choice of a Jewish Star of David, a cross, a crescent--whatever.
I looked at the VA counselor (Nicest man in the WORLD!) and hemmed and hawed--“well he was an atheist..” I was expecting a lecture--instead he just said: "No problem. Leave that part of the headstone blank.” He told me that MANY folks asked that a cross be put on just to “look good...but he/she wasn’t religious in any way.”
I even considered putting a crescent on--just to show that we supported Muslim soldiers. But just let it be..
79
“The Constitution says that religion is a right for all people.”
No, the Bill Of Rights states that the government shall remain neutral on matters of religion and this applies ONLY to citizens.
The relevance of holding up a booklet of the Constitution escapes me, as these rights to do apply to prospective immigrants.
Just more propaganda and spin from both political parties...ignore.
No, the Bill Of Rights states that the government shall remain neutral on matters of religion and this applies ONLY to citizens.
The relevance of holding up a booklet of the Constitution escapes me, as these rights to do apply to prospective immigrants.
Just more propaganda and spin from both political parties...ignore.
4
Perhaps you've forgotten Mr. Trump's statements, once again by insinuation: he will have special surveillance of American Muslims; special surveillance of American Mosques, American Muslims wearing identification. If he wins I hope he doesn't have any long ago acquired grudge against some other minority or religious group (Appears the Mormons in Utah are worried too.)
5
Here is the problem: Many of the tenets and practices of various religions have remained steadfast through time despite social changes. These include views related to birth control/women's reproductive rights, that "homosexuality" is a sin, that gender segregation is ok, and it is ok to torture animals in the slaughtering process. Meanwhile, the more secular side of our nation keeps moving to a place that is continually re-defining what is meant by equal rights - Yes to gay marriage, Yes to women having a say over their reproductive health, Yes to Title IX. While Ms. Vowell's account may be historically true -it is not entirely a reflection of the course we are now on: Parts of the Left keep moving towards greater equality (which is at odds with the more conservative and orthodox forms of various religions) - and many on the Right (Mr. Trump included) want to keep dragging us back to the 18th century.
17
Most religions claim infallibility, but history quickly dispels that notion.
6
Some do, but many don't. Most Presbyterians enthusiastically reject the idea.
2
You expose your agenda by saying "redefining what is meant by equal rights".
This is classic relativism. You are stating that moral obligations ("rights") are relative - to our nation's culture, apparently. But the second you say you can redefine moral obligations, you lose all authority to do so.
Why? Because then anyone's definition of morality is as good as yours, and if you are a liberal, you must accept it! What you are really saying is that you are going to force your same-sex marriage morals upon me. By law.
The declaration of independende started with "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Clearly objective morality. And amongst the self-evident moral obligations that follow, they could have just as well added "marriage is between one man and one woman".
And they could just as well prefixed the sentence with "Because we are Christian .."
This is classic relativism. You are stating that moral obligations ("rights") are relative - to our nation's culture, apparently. But the second you say you can redefine moral obligations, you lose all authority to do so.
Why? Because then anyone's definition of morality is as good as yours, and if you are a liberal, you must accept it! What you are really saying is that you are going to force your same-sex marriage morals upon me. By law.
The declaration of independende started with "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Clearly objective morality. And amongst the self-evident moral obligations that follow, they could have just as well added "marriage is between one man and one woman".
And they could just as well prefixed the sentence with "Because we are Christian .."
1
Let's not forget that at the same time that Washington was writing this letter to Touro, he was also preoccupied with how he was going to control the behavior and prevent the escape of the "house slaves" he was bringing from Virginia to the new capital in Pennsylvania, where slavery had recently been abolished.
5
The thing I miss the most about military life is the camaraderie.
4
Me, too. Fellow military members can become as close as family members. It can be a powerful lifelong bond. Males who came of age in the 1950s and could pass a physical were pretty sure of some form of military service. Staying in for a career was the best decision I ever made.
Military service can transform residents into citizens. My brothers and children also served.
Military service can transform residents into citizens. My brothers and children also served.
4
It’s somewhat more difficult to unite people under less extreme circumstances.
1
Yet another hit piece on Trump. How original.
But here are the facts regarding the Constitution, immigration, and ideology: the Constitution applies to citizens, not to would-be citizens. Its protections regarding religious liberty, free speech, due process, etc do not apply to Islamists in Pakistan who file for visas and citizenship on one hand, and who take to Facebook to praise 9/11 and Osama bin Laden on the other, like the San Bernardino shooters did.
If our Department of State, INS, or DHS deign to scrutinize foreigners for signs of religious and ideological fanaticism and opposition to the ideals upon which this country was founded, and then use such signs as a filter with which to block their immigration into this country, doing so is perfectly Constitutional.
Most people get this, which is why Trump's proposal to limit immigration from parts of the world where a hostile ideology dominates is still widely preferred by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. People who want to confuse things can keep on dragging Khan and his pocket constitution into the conversation, but no one is fooled by this.
And I think if Clinton gets her way, and emulates Merkel's suicidal open doors policy, the backlash is going to be severe. Because as sure as the sun rises in the east, Islamist immigrants will continue to inflict horrific terrorist attacks whenever they're given the chance, in whatever country they're allowed to invade.
But here are the facts regarding the Constitution, immigration, and ideology: the Constitution applies to citizens, not to would-be citizens. Its protections regarding religious liberty, free speech, due process, etc do not apply to Islamists in Pakistan who file for visas and citizenship on one hand, and who take to Facebook to praise 9/11 and Osama bin Laden on the other, like the San Bernardino shooters did.
If our Department of State, INS, or DHS deign to scrutinize foreigners for signs of religious and ideological fanaticism and opposition to the ideals upon which this country was founded, and then use such signs as a filter with which to block their immigration into this country, doing so is perfectly Constitutional.
Most people get this, which is why Trump's proposal to limit immigration from parts of the world where a hostile ideology dominates is still widely preferred by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. People who want to confuse things can keep on dragging Khan and his pocket constitution into the conversation, but no one is fooled by this.
And I think if Clinton gets her way, and emulates Merkel's suicidal open doors policy, the backlash is going to be severe. Because as sure as the sun rises in the east, Islamist immigrants will continue to inflict horrific terrorist attacks whenever they're given the chance, in whatever country they're allowed to invade.
7
Not precisely correct. Some U.S. Constitutional provisions and protections do extend to non-citizens in the U.S.
8
Thanks for giving me the occasion to look into whether the constitution applies to non citizens. In the constitution itself can be found, in the 5th Amendment: "no *person* shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And in the 14th Amendment: "...nor shall any State deprive *any person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Seems pretty clear from this that non citizens have constitutional rights. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has occasionally been ambiguous on some questions of these rights. Given this record, says legal scholar David Cole, "it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake."
9
Some of us are old enough to have been drafted to fight in Vietnam. And of course no females were part of that draft. Very easy for this NYTimes writer to comment on her mythical gods. But Vietnam draftees only cared about staying alive.
12
This whole piece is disingenuous New York Times propaganda for the last line--the allusion to Khan's self-serving diatribe.
The point: If Shariah is the center piece of the Muslim religion, as it is, can a faithful Muslim, or one who calls oneself a faithful Muslim, protect and defend the Constitution above all things? (Perhaps there's a special out-clause for American citizens who are of the Muslim faith.)
De Tocqueville pointed out some time ago that Islam is antithetical to American democracy, as the Christian and Jewish faiths are not, for it is not based on the equality of condition nor are men and women equal, e.g., seen the male-female dress-code recently. More important, the Muslim religion is a political system--stoning, caning, heads and hands chopped off, daughters chattel, and so forth, clerics running the show, e.g., Middle East, top to bottom, side to side.
In point of fact, Mr. Khan, which is what this piece is really about, should put his pocket DNC-theater copy of the Constitution down on the kitchen table next to the Koran--a binding prescriptive religion document--and examine both side-by-side, for both are political agreements among the "citizens".
He forgets that the madness of the Middle East, i.e.,Islam, is undoubtedly one the reasons he emigrated to the United States and why his son was probably a moderately faithful Muslim, but an American citizen above all--and that is to be celebrated, not Mr. Khan's DNC-inspirited abuse of the Constitution.
The point: If Shariah is the center piece of the Muslim religion, as it is, can a faithful Muslim, or one who calls oneself a faithful Muslim, protect and defend the Constitution above all things? (Perhaps there's a special out-clause for American citizens who are of the Muslim faith.)
De Tocqueville pointed out some time ago that Islam is antithetical to American democracy, as the Christian and Jewish faiths are not, for it is not based on the equality of condition nor are men and women equal, e.g., seen the male-female dress-code recently. More important, the Muslim religion is a political system--stoning, caning, heads and hands chopped off, daughters chattel, and so forth, clerics running the show, e.g., Middle East, top to bottom, side to side.
In point of fact, Mr. Khan, which is what this piece is really about, should put his pocket DNC-theater copy of the Constitution down on the kitchen table next to the Koran--a binding prescriptive religion document--and examine both side-by-side, for both are political agreements among the "citizens".
He forgets that the madness of the Middle East, i.e.,Islam, is undoubtedly one the reasons he emigrated to the United States and why his son was probably a moderately faithful Muslim, but an American citizen above all--and that is to be celebrated, not Mr. Khan's DNC-inspirited abuse of the Constitution.
11
Have you read the Republican Party flatform? It reads (in considerable part) as an Evangelical Christian attempt to impose its religious dogma on the American public via government laws. Are Muslims doing this? Yes, Islam is in need of a reformation, just as Christians were "made to suffer", but I am not aware of a concerted political effort to subvert the US Constitution by imposing their religious beliefs on American citizens, unlike, again, Evangelicals (Republicans).
27
You might refer to the Declaration of Independence, which declared that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It matters not if you believe in Shariah law as that is your right. It matter not whether you espouse White Supremacy as that is your right. What matters is when people try to restrict a citizens right to practice their religion or belief, as in this country they are free to do so.
You can try to paint this as some DNC ploy or apply your value system to another's beliefs or religion. But doing so seems Un-American.
You can try to paint this as some DNC ploy or apply your value system to another's beliefs or religion. But doing so seems Un-American.
9
Theocracies are enslavement to mythology.
10
Nice job. Beautiful in it's simplicity.
8
Religious freedom only works if religious people put the Constitution first and their individual faiths second. It cannot work, if the individual religions work to enshrine the tenets of their faith into law. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion.
90
The only people who perfected freedom FROM religion were the Soviets and other communist societies.
Christianity initiated the whole idea of the separation of the civic state from religion. You never had anything to fear from the faith that called a halt to the world's pattern of conquest - which was Christianity.
Only by America being a land full of religious people did the openness exist that allowed RP's kind of thinking to develop in the first place.
You were tolerated from the very beginning.
But have you made a religious faith of your progressivism? Being your own god is a tough row to hoe.
Christianity initiated the whole idea of the separation of the civic state from religion. You never had anything to fear from the faith that called a halt to the world's pattern of conquest - which was Christianity.
Only by America being a land full of religious people did the openness exist that allowed RP's kind of thinking to develop in the first place.
You were tolerated from the very beginning.
But have you made a religious faith of your progressivism? Being your own god is a tough row to hoe.
3
Fair Verona must have something odd in its water supply. It's amazing how much its inhabitants get wrong. Almost an 'Alice through the looking glass' inversion of reality. But entertaining in a tRumpian sort of way.
5
The main political dispute in the Middle Ages was if the Church could exercise power over the State (as expressed in Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam). Likewise, there were members of 17th century England's equivalent of the religious right who tried to impose a religion and its strictures on society.
Christianity was forced to be separate from the state by the Enlightenment, not by it's own precepts.
Christianity was forced to be separate from the state by the Enlightenment, not by it's own precepts.
2
Yes, fine then, Trump is a threat to our nation. However if you must support Hillary would you please apply tough love and inform her that your support comes with real expectations that require her to keep her promises (no excuses) or your support will be withdrawn. Get some skin in the game NYT!
9
Obama ignores the suffering of people in Syria, and Sarah Vowell remains silent.
So tell me, who has been more harmful to Islam- Obama or Trump?
The facts prove it is Obama, but Vowell ignores that because she would rather revel in self-righteousness than confront the horror of what is really happening in the World!
So tell me, who has been more harmful to Islam- Obama or Trump?
The facts prove it is Obama, but Vowell ignores that because she would rather revel in self-righteousness than confront the horror of what is really happening in the World!
6
Maybe a third of a million Syrians have died from the Jihadists and the Russian bombing in support of the local tyrant. Reports are that most these were non-Muslims.
2
There have been a number of reports of non-Christians in the Army, including at West Point, being harassed by Christians. This is not the Army I knew in 1963-65 when I was a draftee chaplain's assistant, including a year in Seoul, Korea. Troops never mentioned religion or argued about it. Only a few came to church services. One chaplain in Korea, a full bird colonel who had served in the Korean War a little more than a decade earlier, was in part responsible for church attendance. He had a great eye for Catholic names writ large on fatigues, something I observed on our occasional walks to someplace on the large UN base. When a troop he didn't know saluted him he might bark, "Finley, why the hell aren't you attending Mass? I'll be looking for you this Sunday morning at the South Post Chapel at 10. Better yet come early for confession and for praying a rosary. You need it." Then he'd touch the rattled guy on the shoulder and say something like, "Peace be with you, son. Carry on, soldier."
His manner could be very different. Once I walked in his office when I thought he was out. He'd come in the side door to hear a confession, the troop sitting at the end of Father Joe's desk, his back to the door. The look on father's was of total compassion, understanding, forgiveness. I quickly excused my self, left and shut the door. One of the main things priests did in Seoul was confession. Always available.
His manner could be very different. Once I walked in his office when I thought he was out. He'd come in the side door to hear a confession, the troop sitting at the end of Father Joe's desk, his back to the door. The look on father's was of total compassion, understanding, forgiveness. I quickly excused my self, left and shut the door. One of the main things priests did in Seoul was confession. Always available.
16
I have been watch such issues for years and have never heard of Christians opposing non-Christians at ANY of the service academies.
However, the Christians themselves have CLEARLY been under attack by the leadership at these academies since the extreme politicization of the Department of Defense years ago.
However, the Christians themselves have CLEARLY been under attack by the leadership at these academies since the extreme politicization of the Department of Defense years ago.
1
Reports of even greater official pressure at the Air Force Academy for a long time. At West Point in the 70s, I never saw it; however, I was and am a non-practicing Protestant. I know one of my Jewish friends in the Reserves often felt that the invocation and benedictions at official Army events weren't really non-denominational.
The only experience I had with religious "pressure" on Active Duty or the Reserves happened when I was a new Second Lieutenant acting as a Forward Observer during night firing. The battalion commander, my senior rater, came to our position and asked me if I believed Jesus Christ was my savior. My response was "Sir, I am a little busy right now, may we talk about this later?"
The only experience I had with religious "pressure" on Active Duty or the Reserves happened when I was a new Second Lieutenant acting as a Forward Observer during night firing. The battalion commander, my senior rater, came to our position and asked me if I believed Jesus Christ was my savior. My response was "Sir, I am a little busy right now, may we talk about this later?"
7
This still happens in the military.
And how is forcing the taxpayers to pay for military chaplains not a violation of the First Amendment?
And how is forcing the taxpayers to pay for military chaplains not a violation of the First Amendment?
2
In the realm of national treasures, Sarah Vowell is top tier.
When a presidential candidate advocates suspending two sections of the 14th Amendment, Miranda warnings under the 6th Amendment, the No Religious Test Clause, the right to abortion, and the constitutional rights of 11 million deported people, that candidate is incapable of honestly taking the oath of office.
When a presidential candidate advocates suspending two sections of the 14th Amendment, Miranda warnings under the 6th Amendment, the No Religious Test Clause, the right to abortion, and the constitutional rights of 11 million deported people, that candidate is incapable of honestly taking the oath of office.
58
I would like to see how Trump would score on that citizenship test. He wouldn't do well and then would blame it on someone else.
19
His wife had to take that test. Maybe he helped her prepare for it.
2
"It was a rigged test !! "
9
Maybe she" copied" it from someone else. Mrs Trumps has recently been shown to have told many lies, especially about her immigration status.
1
If only that the author and the opposing party could write a similar inspiring article about the remaining Bill of Rights, including the second amendment. But that is not what the liberals are about. The have been conducting a campaign, spanning many presidential election cycles, to criminalize the second amendment in the minds of American voters.
7
Gee, I wonder why.
3
"If only that the author and the opposing party could write a similar inspiring article about the remaining Bill of Rights, including the second amendment. But that is not what the liberals are about. The have been conducting a campaign, spanning many presidential election cycles, to criminalize the second amendment in the minds of American voters."
If only the low-information Republicans in thrall to the NRA could write a piece that aligned their ideology with the Constitution and its authors as eloquently ad Ms. Vowell does here, that ideology would not appear so warped.
But they'd rather whine about a non-existent attempt to "criminalize the second amendment" (whatever the heck that means) and make no reference to the actual words or intent of the constitution at all.
If only the low-information Republicans in thrall to the NRA could write a piece that aligned their ideology with the Constitution and its authors as eloquently ad Ms. Vowell does here, that ideology would not appear so warped.
But they'd rather whine about a non-existent attempt to "criminalize the second amendment" (whatever the heck that means) and make no reference to the actual words or intent of the constitution at all.
25
I wonder that myself. Why do they not criminalize the people who violate to laws and and constitution instead of attacking the constitution itself?
4
I love Sarah Vowell.
14
What a fine opinion piece Sarah Vowell. You are a true patriot.
27
Thank you Sarah Vowell for putting Trump's P.T. Barnum candidacy in the context of real statesmen. Trump will leave his mark only in the history of NY tabloid journalism. Go Rough Riders!
24
As usual, Sarah Vowell hits the nail on the head.
16
Thank you, Sarah Vowell, particularly for your emphasis on the Tafts of Ohio. My late Ohio grandparents, Taft Republicans all, would be (perhaps are, who know?) appalled by DJT and even more so by his supporters, whatever their ilk.
51
Military means maniacs massacring multitudes
6
Lets stop wasting time writing, and focus on voting. Vote against every single Republican on the ballot, this November. Every one of them.
138
@MoneyRules
So you are so prejudiced that you want to vote against every single republican, regardless of who they are or what they believe.
Contrary to what you think, there is a lot of diversity in republicans, and many of them hate Trump (see the "NeverTrump" movement).
In fact, last I checked it was democrats who want to ban religion from public, since they are the ones that are hostile to organized religion.
So you are so prejudiced that you want to vote against every single republican, regardless of who they are or what they believe.
Contrary to what you think, there is a lot of diversity in republicans, and many of them hate Trump (see the "NeverTrump" movement).
In fact, last I checked it was democrats who want to ban religion from public, since they are the ones that are hostile to organized religion.
4
People (and countries) are rarely born without blemish. The real question will always be if can they learn to overcome those limitations they started with. Can they become more than what they were?
George Washington is a great example of a person who became a better man and leader than where he started. His ambition drove him to leave a legacy of what we now define as "presidential". Through many years of often bloody struggle, the republic became better as well
The struggle isn't over, there after many ways we can fight to become a place where “Every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”. It can still happen.
George Washington is a great example of a person who became a better man and leader than where he started. His ambition drove him to leave a legacy of what we now define as "presidential". Through many years of often bloody struggle, the republic became better as well
The struggle isn't over, there after many ways we can fight to become a place where “Every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”. It can still happen.
24
This article makes itself one with the generally excessive military worship of the day. OK Trump's a loser, and not a serious candidate. But could we discuss how the possession of some 600 military bases worldwide assists in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution? Must the President possess total lethal secret drone authority in order to guarantee our freedoms? Will HRC be essentially elected Commander in Chief in November, and is this continuing militarization of the Executive Branch such a good idea?
I think President Washington would've had qualms.
I think President Washington would've had qualms.
7
I agree that we have too many overseas bases, but ask any service person whether he or she would prefer being stationed in Germany or Oklahoma.
I think I know how 99% would respond. Recall which of the two we gave to the Indians, with no regrets.
I think I know how 99% would respond. Recall which of the two we gave to the Indians, with no regrets.
1
Thank you, Sarah, for a beautiful essay reminding us (as seemingly only you can) in a heartfelt yet humorous way, of where we come from--and pointing out how errant a turn some of us seem to be making.
Washington, as you illustrate, was not perfect. But his willingness to grow and to learn from his mistakes distinguishes him from most of our 'leaders' today--and even his contemporaries. And he bequeathed that to us as a nation, such that since his time we have ended de jure slavery, expanded suffrage to women and former slaves, and absorbed cultural influences from around the world.
Washington, as you illustrate, was not perfect. But his willingness to grow and to learn from his mistakes distinguishes him from most of our 'leaders' today--and even his contemporaries. And he bequeathed that to us as a nation, such that since his time we have ended de jure slavery, expanded suffrage to women and former slaves, and absorbed cultural influences from around the world.
24
Trump has asked for prayers from evangelical Christians. Everything will be all right. Forget Two Corinthians. No need to know the Constitution. Trump and country all going to heaven.
12
[Yawn] Mr. Khan was simply re-using a political sound-bite:
"The preamble to the Constitution doesn't just say "Double the rate of convictions," it doesn't just say, "Law and order," it says, "To ensure justice." And if Mr. Nixon hasn't read it, then I'll send him a copy."
Hubert Humphrey
1968 Democratic National Convention
"The preamble to the Constitution doesn't just say "Double the rate of convictions," it doesn't just say, "Law and order," it says, "To ensure justice." And if Mr. Nixon hasn't read it, then I'll send him a copy."
Hubert Humphrey
1968 Democratic National Convention
6
Humphrey was FAR too religious to be accepted as a Democrat today.
L'Osservatore:
Maybe you've missed it, but both Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton are committed, religious Christians.
Imagine that bright, beautiful day, some time in the future, when a US president, at his/her inauguration, says "I will protect the right to religion because it is in the Constitution, but I want everyone to know that I don't believe in superstitions, the supernatural, "miracles," "faith," or any other such patent nonsense. I believe in science, rationality, progress, human dignity, facts, personal responsibility, and the morality of doing good for humanity and the world based on reality, not based on made-up fairy tales and snake-oil." [Maybe, I hope, in my lifetime.]
Ironically, the first non-Christian president of the US might be Trump. He believes in nothing "greater than himself," including any religion.
Maybe you've missed it, but both Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton are committed, religious Christians.
Imagine that bright, beautiful day, some time in the future, when a US president, at his/her inauguration, says "I will protect the right to religion because it is in the Constitution, but I want everyone to know that I don't believe in superstitions, the supernatural, "miracles," "faith," or any other such patent nonsense. I believe in science, rationality, progress, human dignity, facts, personal responsibility, and the morality of doing good for humanity and the world based on reality, not based on made-up fairy tales and snake-oil." [Maybe, I hope, in my lifetime.]
Ironically, the first non-Christian president of the US might be Trump. He believes in nothing "greater than himself," including any religion.
1
Why do you say that? Many major Democratic leaders are quite devout. The party is chock-a-block with daily communicants, ministers, deacons, former seminarians, etc.
I would also not that Mr. Humphrey's protege, Mr. Mondale, his own children and his protoge's children have all been committed Democrats. Are you suggesting they all are have less faith then he?
I would also not that Mr. Humphrey's protege, Mr. Mondale, his own children and his protoge's children have all been committed Democrats. Are you suggesting they all are have less faith then he?
1
Having raised the point on several occasions in Comments this past year that I had serious doubts that Donald Trump has even read the Constitution from start to finish, and if he did, he has failed to comprehend the document, I was elated (ecstatic would not be too strong a word) when Khizr Kahn challenged Candidate Trump to answer the same question. There is, after all, a yuge difference between reading and looking at words on paper. Case in point: observe Mr. Trump when speaking extemporaneously, the again when he is trying to keep up with teleprompter's bouncing ball. His voice goes flat and emotionless, halting and uncertain, not at all like the Donald who pulls pins on hand grenades just for the joy of hearing the roar his words draw out.
And to those who insist the United States is a "Christian" nation, the words of Judge Alphonso Taft are music to the ears of an atheist. Rationalist, Spiritualists and Atheists are rarely accused of hypocrisy, whereas Christians practice it fervently, a point Mark Twain made more than a century ago. Perhaps if the Republican Party had stayed true to real meaning of the Constitution, it wouldn't be on the verge of implosion.
And to those who insist the United States is a "Christian" nation, the words of Judge Alphonso Taft are music to the ears of an atheist. Rationalist, Spiritualists and Atheists are rarely accused of hypocrisy, whereas Christians practice it fervently, a point Mark Twain made more than a century ago. Perhaps if the Republican Party had stayed true to real meaning of the Constitution, it wouldn't be on the verge of implosion.
102
Our founders, products of the Age of Enlightenment, gave us the wonderful gift of a secular republic, the first in history, and it is our only claim to exceptionalism.
11
We need to keep in mind that Ted Cruz supposedly has the Constitution memorized, but if the choice was between the mentally-disturbed illiterate real estate developer and the rigid ideological fanatic I think I would have to accept that the White House columns would be painted gold.
It absolutely astounds me that the founders of our country such as Washington had the for sight to realize that "every move he made set a pressident," to quote "Hamilton". I fear we do not teach this history to our children well enough. Thank you Lin Manuel Miranda for making some of this history more palatable to our younger generations!
15
Umm, except that Mr. Miranda's brilliant musical is notoriously bad history.
The article was informative and inspiring. As an atheist who at one time in my life was in foxholes I take serious objection to the title, which expresses the view on religious freedom of too many Americans, including some members of the Supreme Court, that you can choose "whichever God you like" but that discrimination against those with no God is acceptable. Some justices accept government expressions of theistic belief under the rubric of "ceremonial deism" and dismiss the concerns of nonbelievers.
58
Scalia had stated, not long before he died, that the First Amendment did not require the government to remain neutral on religious matters.
Astounding, but then he was a religious fundamentalist, so his viewpoint was skewed and self-serving, to put it mildly.
Astounding, but then he was a religious fundamentalist, so his viewpoint was skewed and self-serving, to put it mildly.
30
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, signer of the Constitution, and third President of the US, was sometimes called a Diest which accept the existence of God as some sort of prime mover I doubt he accepted all of the dogma, as he later is said to have stated "I am a religion unto myself" . He is said to not consider Jesus as other than a "moral man". Today, many in conservative religion block would not even agree that Jefferson was a "Christian".
He grew up in the Virginia State religion, the only religion allowed. He studied the Puritans and rejected the bigotry and intolerance of Plymouth Massachusetts.
We seem to have to learn the same lessons previously learned all over again.
He grew up in the Virginia State religion, the only religion allowed. He studied the Puritans and rejected the bigotry and intolerance of Plymouth Massachusetts.
We seem to have to learn the same lessons previously learned all over again.
15
Deists do not believe in a god that gets involved in personal human affairs, but tended to believe that everything needed an original creator.
Modern quantum physics does away with the need for a creator.
I accept a god that I can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. This wonderful God is known as Mother Nature. Let's endeavor to not foul the beautiful nest she gave us.
Modern quantum physics does away with the need for a creator.
I accept a god that I can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. This wonderful God is known as Mother Nature. Let's endeavor to not foul the beautiful nest she gave us.
4
Sarah Vowell, you are brilliant!
11
Strip away war and religion, and money of course, and the USA would not know what to do with itself.
21
Interesting comment from a neighbor to the north. Most Americans truly respect
Canada and feel fortunate to have them on our northern border. Sorry to hear that your opinion of the U.S. is so low. Perhaps you should try to get to know a few of us. IMO
Canada and feel fortunate to have them on our northern border. Sorry to hear that your opinion of the U.S. is so low. Perhaps you should try to get to know a few of us. IMO
4
I am American, Dennis. I live here because in contrast to the USA I find Canadian society humane and civilized.
Canada, whose population is about equal to California's, has accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees, for example, in contrast to the USA, which is enormous and enormously more wealthy by comparison, still fighting with itself about whether to accept 10,000.
Canada, whose population is about equal to California's, has accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees, for example, in contrast to the USA, which is enormous and enormously more wealthy by comparison, still fighting with itself about whether to accept 10,000.
14
The NY Times would do well to send a reporter to do some background on Roger Williams, who founded the first secular colony (not beholden to any established church) in the US. With Trump's cozying up to Evangelicals, we need a counter to the religious extremism.
One of their stated goals of today's religious Right is to restore themselves as an Establishment church over the USA. With Muslims, Hindus, and those from mainline churches (and non-theists) maligned and disempowered. If you doubt this, look up Dominionism and Christian Deconstructionism. Trump is playing with fire, cozying up to extremists like Franklin Graham and Gerry Falwell's son.
RI became a haven for dissenters who escaped the strictures of the Boston Puritans (who ended up hanging Quaker protester Mary Dwyer for her faith stance. This event happened on Boston Common).
One of their stated goals of today's religious Right is to restore themselves as an Establishment church over the USA. With Muslims, Hindus, and those from mainline churches (and non-theists) maligned and disempowered. If you doubt this, look up Dominionism and Christian Deconstructionism. Trump is playing with fire, cozying up to extremists like Franklin Graham and Gerry Falwell's son.
RI became a haven for dissenters who escaped the strictures of the Boston Puritans (who ended up hanging Quaker protester Mary Dwyer for her faith stance. This event happened on Boston Common).
44
A theocracy is without doubt the worst possible form of government.
5
No religious book has any place in any school in America because we have Separation of Church and State and schools are publicly funded. Those that are private religiously based have no business receiving any public taxpayer funds, grants or tax write-offs.
Separation of Church and State is what has kept America a relatively peaceful democracy since it's inception. Look at the middle east - religious differences are used as a tool to incite violence among people.
We can thank Thomas Jefferson and his knowledge of the French for making sure there is no "national" religion in America. We can thank him that we are free to worship - or not - as we please with no governmental interference.
We will be able to thank women - and the men who love them - for the new Equal Rights Amendment to our United States Constitution that prohibits any law in America that discriminates based on sex to once and for all get religious beliefs out of the lives and bodies of females.
Separation of Church and State is what has kept America a relatively peaceful democracy since it's inception. Look at the middle east - religious differences are used as a tool to incite violence among people.
We can thank Thomas Jefferson and his knowledge of the French for making sure there is no "national" religion in America. We can thank him that we are free to worship - or not - as we please with no governmental interference.
We will be able to thank women - and the men who love them - for the new Equal Rights Amendment to our United States Constitution that prohibits any law in America that discriminates based on sex to once and for all get religious beliefs out of the lives and bodies of females.
103
The Constitution of the United States is the bedrock on which this Republic is built. It represents all that is fair and good about who we are as a people and country. Donald Trump does not know what is contained in the document and would view it as a nuisance if he was elected to the office of President. If that doesn't qualify as an existential threat to our country I'm not sure what does.
45
Conversely, Hilary has demonstrated utter contempt for the constitution and the rights of the states. The only reasonable approach in this election is to vote third party.
3
Exactly how does joining the military defend the constitution?
It is a tool used by the President with, or without Congress’s approval, to protect and support American/transnational large Corporate Businesses’ interests around the world.
It is a tool used by the President with, or without Congress’s approval, to protect and support American/transnational large Corporate Businesses’ interests around the world.
8
Because as a former Army officer, I know that is the responsibility of the United States military, to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The military doesn't defend "the flag," it defends the principles of government as written in that document. The military doesn't technically defend the President. It defends the Constitution. Defending the Constitution is in the oath that officers take upon commissioning (the same oath the VP takes on Inauguration Day). It is written on my commission as an officer. It's also written on that commission as an officer that I serve(d) at the "pleasure of the President," not any particular president, but whoever was constitutionally in that office during that time of service (I can't say constitutionally elected - see Ford, Gerald). It is a sacred oath to defend our country and its form of government. I am 60 now, and long out of the Army, but I am proud of the four years I took out of my life to defend this country, and the document that describes it, in a long line of men and women, a band of brothers and sisters, who trace their dedication back to Washington and his army.
98
Robert, you sound like a person who would like, not only to be known as someone who is knowledgeable, but who actually wants to be so.
You have a long way to go, but the place to start is reading the Constitution, as Mr Khan suggested to Trump. Next would be some works by historians on the pretty unique place of our military in our Government.
Of course, if your aim was only to take a cheap shot at our military, then forget about it and stay shallow.
You have a long way to go, but the place to start is reading the Constitution, as Mr Khan suggested to Trump. Next would be some works by historians on the pretty unique place of our military in our Government.
Of course, if your aim was only to take a cheap shot at our military, then forget about it and stay shallow.
6
The Constitution, like various holy books, is a sacred document. The core of the document spells out basic principles & aims of society. In the case of the Constitution, "to form a more perfect Union." Because the Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution was a creation of human beings, it is inherently imperfect. Hence, the provision for adding amendments to better perfect the Union. With regard to the holy books (e.g. - Torah, Gospel, Quran), the words were understood (inexplicably) to be the direct word of God. Yet, each of the religions' followers looked for clarification through commentaries of its scholars (an imperfect process to be sure) but aimed at creating a "more perfect Communion." Given this imperfection, both the Constitution & holy books are subject to perversion & willful ignorance. Yet, we should strive on.
Regarding the Armed Services, they serve many purposes in our Union. They are the defenders of the Constitution from enemies both foreign & domestic. They are rightly subserviant to the civilian leadership. They are frequently at the vanguard of social progress. it is true that they are pawns in the military-industrial complex (a cancer on both military & civilian society (e.g. - Janissaries, Praetorian Guards)). Regardless, the military is the most regimented, rigorous & transparent body with regard to upholding the Constitution. The rank-and-file man & woman are the best examples of selfless duty to the principles of this nation.
Regarding the Armed Services, they serve many purposes in our Union. They are the defenders of the Constitution from enemies both foreign & domestic. They are rightly subserviant to the civilian leadership. They are frequently at the vanguard of social progress. it is true that they are pawns in the military-industrial complex (a cancer on both military & civilian society (e.g. - Janissaries, Praetorian Guards)). Regardless, the military is the most regimented, rigorous & transparent body with regard to upholding the Constitution. The rank-and-file man & woman are the best examples of selfless duty to the principles of this nation.
1
And do not forget that the Continental Army was the most racially integrated military until the 1950s. I believe that experience was what led George Washington to free his slaves upon Martha's death (Martha, being quite bright, freed them promptly after George died).
I think that the Times should publish, in full, the letter that this article refers to -- it is the best explanation of why the United States is, in fact, exceptional.
I think that the Times should publish, in full, the letter that this article refers to -- it is the best explanation of why the United States is, in fact, exceptional.
33
2
Er, what? George freed his slaves when Martha died; Martha freed her slaves when George died. Those statements can't both be true.
2
When Martha died the slaves (property) she owned were freed pursuant to her last will & testament. At the time Martha died, George owned slaves (property) in his own name. When Martha died he freed the slaves he owned (in honor of his Wife's wishes that no person should be a slave (property) as evidenced in her own testamentary demands). End result, no slaves owned by George or Martha upon/post Martha's death. That help?
4
While I heartily agree with the author's sentiments, I have to point out that the illustration used here is misidentified. It's actually Edmund Restein's painting of Evacuation Day in New York City, when Washington, accompanied by his officers and New York Governor George Clinton, entered the city after the British left in Dec. 1783 after seven years of occupation.
7
I don't get it. Don't you mean that Washington hated Intolerance"
2
Reread the quote. Washington is saying that toleration implies that one group is superior and tolerates another, whereas all groups should be seen as equal.
26
William Blake said:
"Pity would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor."
George Washington is saying that the freedom of others is a natural right, not something that depends on our vaunted "tolerance."
"Pity would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor."
George Washington is saying that the freedom of others is a natural right, not something that depends on our vaunted "tolerance."
20
From his letter to the Touro Jews, the accurate reading is that Mr. Washington did not like "tolerance" - not the open-mindedness version, but the condescending, "I will permit you to practice your beliefs since I am such a tolerant person".
Ms. Vowell should probably have added a sentence or two distinguishing tolerance and true acceptance, and highlighting how GWashington and the other key founders wanted the latter for the US of A.
I really liked the part where Judge Alphonso Taft says, “the idea, that a man has less conscience because he is a Rationalist, or a Spiritualist, or even an Atheist, than the believer in any one of the accepted forms of faith, may be current, but it is not a constitutional idea, in the State of Ohio.” Sweet.
Ms. Vowell should probably have added a sentence or two distinguishing tolerance and true acceptance, and highlighting how GWashington and the other key founders wanted the latter for the US of A.
I really liked the part where Judge Alphonso Taft says, “the idea, that a man has less conscience because he is a Rationalist, or a Spiritualist, or even an Atheist, than the believer in any one of the accepted forms of faith, may be current, but it is not a constitutional idea, in the State of Ohio.” Sweet.
19
Bravo, Ms. Vowell! Bravo!
17
If you want to learn about U.S. history in a way that won't put you to sleep, read Sarah Vowell's books. There are several to choose from, "The Wordy Shipmates," "Assassination Vacation," among several others. They're all informative, engaging stories that have provided me with lots of laughs and surprising details that I didn't know about our nation's history. I'd recommend them to Donald Trump, but I hear he doesn't read books.
86
I learned a lot about American history by reading The Bicentennial Series by John Jakes in 1976, Mary V. It was a series written as a novel that covered everything - that is when I realized the civil war and California gold rush took place at the same time. It also showed the huge contribution of women at all levels in forming our nation. Truly inspiring.
4
Agreed, Mary V. Sarah Vowell is one of my very favorite writers. For one thing, she often picks subjects that others neglect. For another, she has this quirky sense of humor that always draws you in.
18
The California Gold Rush began in 1849 - giving us the popular term "Forty-Niners". The Civil War began in 1861 with the artillery shelling of Fort Sumter. History is in the details, just like something else.
5
While I do appreciate the relative non-bias of this article and the fact that it does, for once, put the Republican Party and its members/founders in a somewhat positive light, I think it would be great if maybe the New York Times could actually also blast good ole Hillary for a change. We get it, Donald Trump has no political science degree and lacks knowledge of politics. It's cool that you support those Republicans who have stuck by their morals and chosen to defend the virtues the GOO was founded on. What if you maybe wrote an article encouraging or covering Democrats who have chosen to not back Hillary for her overpowering lack of morality and decision making. Or maybe her open hypocrisy. Maybe her pandering. Her blatant lies. Just something, please. I know the NYT thinks Trump is the devil, but you have to see that Hillary is far from an angel. Can we shoot to be just a little more fair?
17
"We get it, Donald Trump has no political science degree and lacks knowledge of politics."
I'm not sure y'all really do get it, if that's what you think is wrong with Trump.
This is not a contest like the one between Bush and Gore, or Romney and Obama. Today's candidates are not two equally-partisan, equally-flawed representatives of their respective parties. The Times can't be evenhanded when one of the candidates seems to be running for strong man.
I'm not sure y'all really do get it, if that's what you think is wrong with Trump.
This is not a contest like the one between Bush and Gore, or Romney and Obama. Today's candidates are not two equally-partisan, equally-flawed representatives of their respective parties. The Times can't be evenhanded when one of the candidates seems to be running for strong man.
84
I see dozens of GOP trolls on NYTimes and WaPo bashing and smearing HRC daily. It's become a cottage industry.
I would ask you, Brett, at which point, the Editorial staff starts to write about Trump's mental status and dysfunctions as a danger to this nation. They have a loyalty to the nation. The NYTimes and other leading newspapers don't think he's a devil. They don't do the black-and-white thinking you are doing. They are not using ancient Christian terms like "devil", "angel."
PS, the lies are mostly with Trump. Don't write about Hillary Clinton's 'lies' as if she were in a class with Trump. He's in a class all his own. And he's dangerous.
I would ask you, Brett, at which point, the Editorial staff starts to write about Trump's mental status and dysfunctions as a danger to this nation. They have a loyalty to the nation. The NYTimes and other leading newspapers don't think he's a devil. They don't do the black-and-white thinking you are doing. They are not using ancient Christian terms like "devil", "angel."
PS, the lies are mostly with Trump. Don't write about Hillary Clinton's 'lies' as if she were in a class with Trump. He's in a class all his own. And he's dangerous.
138
Printing anything that allows Republican politicians in this country to connect to true American principals is more than fair. I for one, am tired of the contrived "balanced' reporting that allows any comparison of a two bit snake oil salesman with a life long public servant working against a concerted organized effort to disparage her reputation. Try Fox News for "fair and balanced" and ask that they look into the "Donalds" taxes. lets see how far you get.
69
I'd pay money to watch political candidates take the citizenship test on TV. Best reality show ever!
141
Absolutely. It was be the best.
Slice it any way you want to; those are objective facts.
I can't tell by looking which Muslims want me dead because I'm not one, and which ones don't.
Can you? Are you willing to gamble with your children's lives, or your grandchildren's, that you can.
Or do you just not care. I care.