June 26, 2005


The Fundamentalist Attack on Separation of Church and State Defames America and Its Founders (Harvey Wasserman, History News Network)

The right-wing's multi-front war on American democracy now aims at our core belief in separation of church and state. It includes an attempt to say the founding fathers endorsed the idea that this is a "Christian nation," with an official religion.

Really? Which one do they say is the official religion?

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 26, 2005 11:38 PM

I know this guy. The author of this gibberish. His kids went to the same school my kids have gone to. He is a loon. Don't take him seriously, nobody else does.

"On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog."

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 27, 2005 2:41 AM

Robert Schwartz:

I too had heard of this guy, but only knew his name. Thank you, author intro:

Free Press Senior Editor and "Superpower of Peace" columnist Mr. Wasserman is also senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. He is author or co-author of six books, including four on nuclear power and renewable energy, and two histories of the United States. He has taught history and journalism at Hampshire College, got an MA in US history from the University of Chicago, and travelled around the world, speaking and writing against nuclear power. He moved back to central Ohio in the mid 1980s, where he has helped organize successful campaigns against a regional radioactive waste dump, Columbus's now-shut trash burning power plant, a cancelled housing development at the Pickerington Ponds Wildlife Refuge, and the now-defunct McDonalds in Bexley.

Sounds like a real winner.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 27, 2005 2:57 AM

I'm still standing by waiting for one of these fulminators to tell us exactly what it is he fears and what specific oppressions he envisages.

Posted by: Peter B at June 27, 2005 7:14 AM


Being Canadian, perhaps you have missed recent goings-on at the US Air Force Academy.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 27, 2005 7:50 AM

He was SDS. All too many took and take him seriously. His, shall we say lapses in knowledge of history, are common at left wing sites.

Posted by: David at June 27, 2005 8:36 AM

Yes, Jeff, I was out trapping muskrat to feed the family while all that was going on.

Do you really think a game of "My intolerant guys are more tolerant than your intolerant guys" is the best way to approach this issue?

Posted by: Peter B at June 27, 2005 8:54 AM

What would be the point of a tolerant military?

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 8:58 AM

Well, I fear for a free press. Selfish, I know, but important to me.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 27, 2005 3:37 PM

The press long ago stopped being useful to the Republic.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 3:41 PM


Your comment questioned just what the author of the article feared might happen. (And I meant no insult; I just wasn't sure how much press an AF Academy story would get in Canada).

The AF Academy is a good example.

As it turns out, the Academy chaplain was the one who blew the whistle.


What's the point of unit cohesion?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 27, 2005 4:13 PM

That the unit fight better and serve better.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 4:17 PM


The evangelicals' conduct at the AF Academy is one of the shortest known routes to destroying unit cohesion.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 27, 2005 9:45 PM

No, you'd just prefer they cohere around other ideas, ones not worth fighting for to Americans.

Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 10:58 PM


No insult taken. We get almost all your big news while you get little of ours. Win/win all around, I'd say. :-)

Your quite justifiable revulsion has nothing to do with church/state issues. It is an incident of bigotry. The fact that bigotry exists and rears its ugly head at a personal level is not, in the end, as important has how we as a society react when it does. No one responsible is defending and no one is responding with anything other than a zero tolerance commitment to eradicate it. That is not true about the much more widespread anti-semitism we now witness in the university-centered secular left. Nor is it true about the issues raised in my link. The fact that you would even use the phrase "blowing the whistle" is good evidence that we all know where right and wrong lie on this one.

You are coming very close to the Harry school of social criticism---find a Christian who does something offensive or mendacious and blame Christianity for it. Q.E.D.

Posted by: Peter B at June 28, 2005 5:42 AM


That's untrue. None of those in chgarge have shown much evidence that they think it's a serious problem and they're not doing much about it. The whistle blower was fired.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2005 7:07 AM

Actually, that's nowhere near my school, Peter.

I only offer evidence (of which I have an endless supply) that religion in general and Christianity in particular do not create any better behaviors or conditions than irreligion.

That does not make religion bad (although it is, but that's another matter). It does mean that it cannot credibly occupy the privileged position that Orrin wants it to have.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 28, 2005 2:42 PM

Yet oddly you're bunkered down in one of the most religious societies in the world. Behavior is always a better indicator of belief than chatter.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2005 5:38 PM

Do I get partial credit for living in the least Christian part?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 29, 2005 3:30 PM

You get bonus points for living in the part Judds Christianized.

Posted by: oj at June 29, 2005 3:52 PM