Bokonon

I hope to get it published somewhere. Critiques are welcome. Be brutal.

Don’t Believe It
Donald Lathbury, Jr.

In his July 2 column entitled “Believe it or not,” published in WorldNetDaily, famed pundit Bill O’Reilly presents his case against the Ninth Circuit of Appeals’ recent Pledge of Allegiance ruling. O’Reilly consistently characterizes himself as a true patriot, fighting for the ideals of our founding fathers. However, his article presents a man who distorts his enemies’ positions and blatantly lies about the founding fathers of this nation. Point by point, O’Reilly manipulates reality to substantiate his opinion. For a man who prides himself on his “No Spin Zone,” Mr. O’Reilly’s tactics are particularly disheartening.

All the hoopla began when Dr. Mike Newdow, a lawyer and atheist, became America’s most hated man by successfully petitioning the Ninth Circuit of Appeals to declare the phrase “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by a Socialist Baptist Minister, never contained the phrase “under God.” Congress added the words in 1954 in an effort to distinguish God-fearing Americans from the Atheistic Communists. For a McCarthy era patriot, the implication was quite clear: true Americans believe in the Christian god.

Much has changed since 1954. America once again respects the founding fathers’ intentions to maintain a separation of church and state. One must wonder whether or not O’Reilly’s America believes in such ideals. To present his argument, he first insists on distorting Dr. Newdow’s position. O’Reilly writes, “His (Dr. Newdow’s) goal is to remove all traces of theism from American public life.” O’Reilly knows full well Dr. Newdow holds no such position. In accordance with the founding fathers’ intentions, Dr. Newdow wishes to maintain our secular nation by insisting that our government take no position on any religious matters. Dr. Newdow has no intention of removing theism from public discourse. He in fact encourages such debate amongst America’s populace. Newdow merely demands that the United States Government refrain from endorsing monotheism. By encouraging the recitation of the amended Pledge of Allegiance in most public schools around the country and by distributing money that endorses trust in a singular god, our government currently violates the establishment clause. Mr. O’Reilly assuredly recognizes Dr. Newdow’s actual position but insists on mending it to suit his own purposes.

Following his outlandish misrepresentation of Newdow’s position, O’Reilly decides to attack the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. As O’Reilly accurately claims, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Ninth Circuit about 80 percent of the time. While that statistic may appear shocking at first glance, upon further review, the Ninth Circuit does not stray too far from the other Appellate courts. When the Supreme Court accepts a case from the Appellate, the Court is likely to overturn the ruling. Amongst all cases accepted by the highest court in the land, 67 percent become overturned. The Ninth Circuit encompasses a huge population, far more than any other Circuit Court. Over 55 million Americans reside in the Ninth Circuit. Nearly 20 percent of all Americans live in the Ninth Circuit. As such, they see far more cases than any other appellate court. The Supreme Court questions more Ninth Circuit rulings than any other court largely because there are far more rulings to examine.

Later in his piece, O’Reilly boldly claims, “…the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the Founders framed the Constitution around God-given rights.” While many Christians no doubt lived in the Americas at the time of our nation’s birth, many of the most prominent founding fathers professed absolutely no faith in the Christian god. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin all adhered to a Deist philosophy. George Washington most likely adhered to a Deist philosophy as well, for he refused to publicly profess his faith and further refused to publicly pray. The founding fathers possessed great foresight by refraining from any mention of a deity in our Constitution. They wished for our government to become non-theistic (not atheistic!) while still ensuring religious freedoms for all Americans. Written during Washington’s term and signed into law during Adam’s term, the Treaty of Tripoli states, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The Senate unanimously approved the treaty. Protestant thought no doubt influenced most of the founding fathers. However, to claim that the United States “was founded on Judeo-Christian principles” ignores the true religious beliefs of at least four of the most influential founding fathers, including at least three that would later hold the highest office of the land.

To support his position, Mr. O’Reilly cites the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence no doubt contains a few references to divinity. It even states, “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Of course, O’Reilly neglects to mention the fact that the Creator Jefferson speaks of bears little resemblance to the Christian god. Of all the non-radical founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson represented the most vocal force against Christianity’s intrusion in government. In his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson wrote, “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” Jefferson and the other founding fathers witnessed the religious conflicts that enveloped Europe for centuries. They desired to make the blossoming young American nation free from religious dogma, especially the intrusive elements of Christianity.

Following his flawed presentation of the Declaration of Independence, O’Reilly writes, “The author of the Constitution, James Madison, joined with the first Congress to pass a law paying chaplains for the House and the Senate with public monies.” With this statement, one must question the intellectual credibility of O’Reilly. In fact, the exact opposite of what O’Reilly says is true. James Madison voted against the law! He disapproved of their actions. In regards to the law, James Madison wrote, “…it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets.” Madison disapproved of the paying of the chaplain with public monies. Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly should reexamine his knowledge of American history.

Mr. O’Reilly cites various Supreme Court decisions that support his position. One should note that the Supreme Court has been known to overturn past rulings. Indeed, there was a time in this nation when “separate but equal” was deemed perfectly acceptable. The Supreme Court ever changes its position with the passing of time. With regards to the establishment cause, one can only hope it returns to the intentions of the founding fathers.

In summarizing what he feels the “under God” ruling truly represents, O’Reilly states, “These people are not looking out for their country, they are trying to impose a narrow set of secular standards on a nation that was founded on principles that are much greater.” The secular standards desired by Dr. Newdow mesh nicely with the secular standards desired by the founding fathers. From Madison to Washington, the founding fathers insisted on a firm adherence to the establishment clause. The founding fathers wished for this nation to remain a secular nation. Only then could it flourish away from the dogma and superstitions of the European theocracies. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” The state should play no role in restricting or expanding any belief in a deity.

Despite what O’Reilly may or may not think, there is no vast Atheistic liberal conspiracy to ban the mere utterance of god in public discourse. The “anti-God squad” merely wishes to remove the unconstitutional endorsements of one religion over another in government. Those in the private and public sector can believe in one god, no god, or many gods. Dr. Newdow and those who support him simply desire an America where those who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian god are not viewed as second-class citizens. Whether intentionally or otherwise, throughout his piece, O’Reilly misinterprets many individuals’ positions. Mr. O’Reilly must adhere to the intellectual honesty he so demands from his opponents. To quote the man himself, “The spin stops here.”

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

Buffman

Great letter! Just one item that I noticed that could do with further research. Thomas Paine was not an Atheist. He, too, was a Deist.

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." (Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason" Part First, para #3)

(Added)

Worth reading.

<a href="http://www.deism.com/paine_essay08.htm" target="_blank">http://www.deism.com/paine_essay08.htm</a>

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

enemigo

I find it rather ironic that O'Reilly believes that removing "under God" is "trying to impose a narrow set of secular standards." How are these secular standards narrow? They include everyone.. He is the one narrowing it to include only the McCartheists.


richard

Bokonon

Thank you. Upon a quick check, you're right, Paine was likely a Deist. I will make the ammends. If you'll notice, I slightly edited the essay to tone it down a bit. A collegue of mine said it was too much of an attack on O'Reilly. It's still an attack on O'Reilly, just a more friendly attack.

TooBad

If I'm not mistaken, "populous" is an adjective. I think you mean "populace".

Sorry to be nitpicking, but that's just the kind of guy I am.

Admirable piece. Hope it gets into print.

Bokonon

That's what I want. Nitpick away, my friends! Edit coming...

hezekiah jones

Excellent piece. Next up you might want to take on WorldNutDaily's Liberalism and terrorism: Different stages of same disease, by Ann Coulter.

Of course with headlines like that I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would even dignify such drivel with a response.

Graeme

Very well written! Keep us posted on where you manage to get this printed or published.

ex-preacher

Well-written!

Although they had deistic tendencies, it must be noted that John Adams was a Unitarian (believed in the God of the Bible but not in Jesus' divinity or all the miracles) and James Madison and George Washington were Episcopalian.

It looks like you removed Paine from your article. I would sugest you put him back in as a deist. Many historians credit Paine's pamphlets, especially Common Sense, as vital elements in increasing support for the Revolution.

Although he was not a founding faher, I find it fascinating that the Republican (and I believe, Presbyterian) Teddy Rosevelt was adamantly opposed to putting "in God we trust" on US currency and coins. He thought it violated separation and trivialized religious belief.

On a side note, it really bothers me that conservative commentators call the 9th circuit decision "politically correct." How can their decision be politically correct when the Senate condemns it by a 99-0 vote?

jlowder

What was the URL for O'Reilly's essay?