Thursday, June 30, 2005

O'Reilly has it Wrong, again.

More than occasionally, I listen to one the ubiquitous right-wing talk radio shows out there (I think it's illegal in this part of the country to broadcast a left-wing show). And, to tell the truth, I often agree with what I hear. But a couple days ago Bill O'Reilly claimed that the founding fathers intended this country to be a Christian country, and that really set me to thinking.

Now, a "country" is a political entity, having a designated head of state, a specific system of government and defined geographic borders. I submit that the founders (all of whom were not even Christian, by the way) most specifically did NOT intend this to be a Christian country, as evidenced by their inclusion in the constitution of a very specific separation of Church and State. Okay, I know those exact words aren't there, but by "not making a law that respects one religion over another," Jefferson et. al. are obviously advocating a government that is not only secular in itself, but, by definition, equally tolerant of all faiths. Herein lies both the beauty and strength of our constitution and of our government.

On the other hand, a "nation" is a much looser aggregate of people linked by some commonality, be it race, language, or ethnicity. Or even Christianity. If O'Reilly had stated that the founders had intended this nation to be a "Christian nation," I could have let it go (even though I know what he's inferring). As a "nation," that is, a social, sociological, and cultural entity, Christianity was one of the commonalities between a majority of the founders. But, and this is an absolutely key caveat, they were far-sighted enough to be able to separate the structure of a government from the composition of the people. It's a distinction that neither O'Reilly nor our current administration seems able to make.

I should have known better than to tune to The O'Reilly Factor in the first place. What no spin zone?

No comments: