Certainly won’t be his last, but wanted to share with you the first time Marco Rubio took to the floor of the Senate to address his colleagues.  A fine speech by all accounts, and certainly one worth a few minutes of your time.  Enjoy.

“We are still the great American People, and the only thing standing in the way of us solving our problems… is the willingness to do so.”

“Our story, the story of America, is not the story of a nation that never faced problems. Our story is a story of a nation that faced its challenges and solved them.  Our story, the story of the American People, is not a story of a people who always got it right.  It is the story of a People who in the end got it right.”

From his YouTube page…

“On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Senator Marco Rubio delivered his maiden speech on the floor of the United States Senate. Focusing on themes of “The New American Century,” Senator Rubio celebrated the “American miracle” that allows so many to achieve their dreams and resolved that we all continue to fight for America’s role as a shining city on a hill.”

January 11, 1989… The day President Reagan said goodbye to a nation.

I could try to paint a background for this speech or I could shut the heck up, get out of the way, and let you enjoy it.  I will add a few of my favorite lines here – just in case you want to compare notes.

• “I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.  And they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow.  They came from the heart of a great nation.  From our experience; our wisdom; and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.”

• “Because we are a great nation, our challenges seem complex.  It will always be this way.  But as long as we remember our First Principles and believe in ourselves; the future will always be ours.”

• “We meant to change a nation; and instead we changed a world.”

• “I went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious… Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words … We The People.”  We the People tell the government what to do.  It doesn’t tell us.  We the People are the driver.  The government is the car.  And we decide where it should go; and by what route; and how fast.  Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are.  Our Constitution is a document in which We The People tell the government what it is allowed to do. We the People are Free.”

• “Man is not free unless government is limited”

• “As government expands, liberty contracts“

• “At first pull your punches.  If they persist, pull the plug.  Its still trust but verify.  Its still play, but cut the cards.  Its still watch closely and don’t be afraid to see what you see.”

• “An informed patriotism is what we want.”

• “Are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?”

• “We’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion, but what’s important.”

• “If we forget what we did, we won’t know what we are.”

• “I’m warning of an eradication of that; of the American memory that could result ultimately in an erosion of the American Spirit.  Lets start with some basics:  More attention to American history, and a great emphasis on civic ritual.  And let me offer lesson number one about America… All great change in America begins at the dinner table.  So tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins.  And children… If you’re parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American. Let em know and nail’em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.”

Full text posted below so you can follow along if you would like…

Full Text from the Reagan Foundation

My fellow Americans:

This is the 34th time I’ll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We’ve been together 8 years now, and soon it’ll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I’ve been saving for a long time.

It’s been the honor of my life to be your President. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.

One of the things about the Presidency is that you’re always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass — the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn’t return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.

People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, “parting is such sweet sorrow.” The sweet part is California and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow — the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.

You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the President and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that’s the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.

I’ve been thinking a bit at that window. I’ve been reflecting on what the past 8 years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one — a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.”

A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn’t get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that’s what it was to be an American in the 1980′s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again — and in a way, we ourselves — rediscovered it.

It’s been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of ’81 to ’82, to the expansion that began in late ’82 and continues to this day, we’ve made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I’m proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people ofAmerica created — and filled — 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, “My name’s Ron.” Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback — cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.

Two years later, another economic summit with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And then one of them broke the silence. “Tell us about the American miracle,” he said.

Well, back in 1980, when I was running for President, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that “The engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they’re likely to stay that way for years to come.” Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called “radical” was really “right.” What they called “dangerous” was just “desperately needed.”

And in all of that time I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation — from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people’s tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We’re exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.

Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we’d have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons — and hope for even more progress is bright — but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we’re a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there’s no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980′s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.

When you’ve got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn’t my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the People.” “We the People” tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. “We the People” are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the People” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the People” are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I’ve tried to do these past 8 years.

But back in the 1960′s, when I began, it seemed to me that we’d begun reversing the order of things — that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, “Stop.” I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Nothing is less free than pure communism — and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I’ve been asked if this isn’t a gamble, and my answer is no because we’re basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970′s was based not on actions but promises. They’d promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Well, this time, so far, it’s different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I’ve given him every time we’ve met.

But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street – that’s a little street just off Moscow’s main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.

We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we’ll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this: I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don’t, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It’s still trust but verify. It’s still play, but cut the cards. It’s still watch closely. And don’t be afraid to see what you see.

I’ve been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I’ve been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn’t for arguments, and I’m going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I’ve had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn’t win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan’s regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we’re to finish the job, Reagan’s regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he’ll be the chief, and he’ll need you every bit as much as I did.

Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I’ve got one that’s been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I’m proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won’t count for much, and it won’t last unless it’s grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn’t get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea thatAmerica was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we’re about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven’treinstitutionalized it. We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs production [protection].

So, we’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important — why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D – day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, “we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.” Well, let’s help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let’s start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ‘em know and nail ‘em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that’s about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We’ve done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Note: The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.

The greatest speech ever delivered.  Period.  I don’t care if we’re talking 1924, 1964, 1994, 2011, or 2024; this speech is as timeless as any speech in American history.  If I could start my every day with a dose of it I would.  Oh wait.  I do.  That’s why its up there in the corner and to the Right.  While I make the rounds of my daily reads, I listen to the Gipper put things in their proper context – some 50 years removed.

–

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson narrates a tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan in honor of what would have been his 100th birthday – February 6, 2011.  The video, just Tweeted by Senator Thompson, was posted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and it is an absolute must see.  Take a look.

(May 19, 2010 - Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

In an interview with UC Hastings law professor Calvin Massey for the California Lawyer, Justice Antonin Scalia answered a few questions regarding the Nation’s Highest Court and explained with brilliant simplicity his take on Strict Interpretation of the Constitution.

You can read the whole interview here…

A few highlights…

HuffPo wasn’t pleased.  Shocker.

Many of you who frequent this site know that there are at least three subjects that I wish were talked about more frequently and openly in and among Conservative Right Wing media circles – Strict Interpretation of the Constitution, The American Civil Religion, and American Exceptionalism.  The last, and perhaps the most “politically incorrect” of the three, is the subject of a brilliant piece I stumbled upon today over at Heritage.

Matthew Spalding offers an outstanding survey of American Exceptionalism that I would encourage all of you to spend some time with.  After all, if we can’t be proud of this great nation, what is the point folks? Regardless of how hard the Left and our wonderful global apologist President try to tell each of us that the United States has a history that we should be ashamed of, we are part of something special; something transcendent; something remarkable.  This nation was founded on principles of Individual Liberty, and that founding set off a chain reaction the world-over that forever changed the role of governments in relation to the people they serve.

Take a look.

Getty Images

I have long been a Mike Pence supporter.  I think I have made that abundantly clear around here.  I think he is not only a leader in the conventional sense, but also a leader amongst true Conservatives – a man confident in his political philosophy and convictions; unafraid to stand alone and lead the charge rather than waiting for the call to arms to emerge from the reluctant pack.  He is time and time again among the first to speak out on issues important to Conservatives and the American People, and he does so in a resolute fashion that reflects a true and consistent guidepost for his ideology and his methodology toward governance.

I am often asked who I would vote for in future Presidential elections – 2012 or beyond – and the only answer that I can give without equivocation is Representative Mike Pence from Indiana.  I have given that answer for quite some time now knowing that Pence had no desire to seek the nation’s Highest Office.  I have been extremely pleased as I have quietly begun to hear rumblings from others about the prospect of his candidacy and have been nothing short of excited when he has come around to flirting with the idea.  As he has emerged as a leader of his Party, I have become enthusiastic that the day may actually arrive when he will announce his intentions to seek the office he appears so uniquely prepared to hold.  To date, he has not made such an affirmative statement.

That said, he chose not to run for the Indiana Senate seat left vacant by departing Evan Baye – a seat that would have kept him occupied through 2016.  While he never noted the Presidency as a motivating factor, many (including myself) believed it at the very least played a small role.  In a straw poll conducted at last weekend’s Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, Pence claimed 24% of the vote edging out conservative starlet Sarah Palin and presumptive favorites Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney causing many new to the Pence discussion to ask the question “Who is Mike Pence?”

For those of you similarly situated asking yourself “Who is Mike Pence?”; take a look at a speech he gave Monday night at Hillsdale College.  The topic of the speech was the “Presidency.”  He didn’t discuss cap & trade, Obamacare, Iran, Afghanistan, or even renewing the Bush tax cuts.  He didn’t tackle the tough issues of abortion or same-sex marriage.  He didn’t have to.  He simply spoke about the office; the power and the responsibility; and reflected on the respect he has for our nation’s Highest Office; and he told us all everything we needed to know.

It is truly a remarkable speech – among the best I have seen in many a year.  If you can’t answer the question “Who is Mike Pence?” —- You certainly need to find out.

Have a look at some excerpts I pulled or read the full speech here…

—————————–

The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the luminous and passionate Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution, terse, sober, and specific, does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor, but this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and, something seldom seen in history: a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, George III said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions the purpose of which is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except — as planned — by careful amendment. There is no instruction to the president to override the law and, like Justice Marshall, let it catch up to his superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.

We, too, have the voices of shades that emerge from the past. We too, have what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called, “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown — and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are, every one of us, their descendants. The sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even were it not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history, the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor — for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.

Many great generations are gone, but I see them in my mind’s eye, and by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children … who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.

They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late, keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”

——————————————————-

Brilliant stuff Representative Pence.  Brilliant stuff.

With the controversy over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York reaching unforeseen heights, the debate over new mosque construction has spilled across state lines and is taking root in many communities great distances from the site of the worst terror attack in American history.  A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 85% of Americans are following the story and 62% oppose the mosque’s construction.  Why are Americans separated by countless miles from the site of the 911 attack so emotionally dedicated to this story when most of them will never go within 100 miles of the proposed structure?  What is the debate really about?  Opposing a “victory mosque” near Ground Zero?  Sympathy for 911 victims’ families?  Freedom of religion?  Or freedom from Islam?

Two communities in Tennessee are tackling that very question.  Nearly 900 miles from Lower Manhattan and Ground Zero, the central focus of that debate has been thrust upon whether or not Tennesseans want mosques in their neighborhoods either.  There are seemingly no strong ties to the September 11th, 2001 attack aside from a shared collective American conscience; there are no surviving families of victims who lost their lives; and their are no sacred plots of land needing to be protected.  The debate is simple, and yet so unbelievably complex that it has left communities divided; familiar foes on unfamiliar sides of a First Amendment debate….

- -

For me, the debate surrounding the mosque at Ground Zero is a matter of common sense and common decency.  The First Amendment gives all Americans the right to worship as they choose and to construct places of worship accordingly.  Nestled in the power of that same Amendment is the Right to Free Speech, and I applaud all New Yorkers who are exercising that Right inopposition to the Park 51 Project.  While words like “sensitivity”, “compassion”, and “sympathy” are typically reserved for arguments made from the Left, they are the only weapons at our disposal in this fight.  While the all-knowing Liberal elite appear to be ignoring their typical calling cards, those who oppose the mosque’s construction have been forced to rely upon the traditional tools of the Left as their last line of defense.  They understand that organizers have a Right to build at that location.  They simply hope that said organizers understand that just because they have the right to build there doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.

If the true objective of the project is the stated one – to increase inter-cultural understanding – its organizers must recognize that continuing with the project as planned only leads to the opposite end.  Its divisive, its insensitive, and its shedding an unfavorable light upon a whole population of Muslims in this country that may be completely unwarranted.

Such is the case in the aforementioned communities in suburban Nashville, Tennessee.  The stain of resentment, poor taste, and a complete lack of sensitivity being exercised by the Ground Zero mosque organizers has been transferred to Muslims far removed from the Empire State.  Opposition to the construction of proposed mosques in communities there is equally as passionate as it is in NYC, even in spite of the lack of a similar connection to a horrific tragedy such as 911.  

Two proposed mosques - one in Metro Nashville and one just south of town in Murfreesboro – have been blocked, stalled, stayed, and interfered with by any and all means necessary.  Televangelist Pat Robertson of the 700 Club even weighed in on the matter this week implying that local officials could be “bribed” by Muslims.  Creative zoning tricks and legal maneuvers have successfully slowed construction and will likely force the places of worship elsewhere – only passing the controversy on for the next community to oppose.

Watching these events play out and unfold, I cannot help but ask the question of why?  Why is there such great opposition to the construction of a place of worship?  As a proud Tennessean, I know there are but two constants in the fine state I have called home much of my life – maybe three if you count UT Football – support for the Second Amendment and protection of the First.  Having traveled much of this great country I can sincerely tell you that Tennesseans are among the most God-fearing, deeply religious, people you will find anywhere.  Religion wraps itself in politics in this fine state with an ease that would make our Founders’ heads spin, but the lone resonating consequence is that religion is protected; it is catered to; and it typically rules the day.  So why the change of tone?  Why the great deviation?  Why is religion – of this particular persuasion – suddenly such a vile creature; such a collective enemy of all?

This proud state that usually champions the Freedom of Religion to the point that it presupposes its place in government (yes I understand the paradox there – move to Tennessee and you will also) is now willing to exert its collective will upon a religious congregation and tell them that they have no place in the Volunteer State?

Having deliberated over the matter for some time, I have come to a simple conclusion.  The matter is not really about the First Amendment.  Its not about the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause.  This debate, as it relates to Tennesseans, is about Freedom from Islam.  Just as Tennessee uniquely entangles its religion and its government in an effort to keep the two apart, it is once again creating a special exception to the US Constitution as it deems fit and proper.

Knowing that it is inconsistent and absolutely unconscionable to speak openly about the real issue at play, those who oppose suburban Nashville mosques are simply calling upon public sentiment and animosity toward the Park 51 Project to bolster their argument 900 miles away.  References to terrorist funding and sponsorship of radical Islam are not just part of everyday conversation, they even became part of Congressional primary campaigns.  Freedom from Islam – peaceful or otherwise – became not only a talking point, but a requisite stump speech for any and all seeking public office.

While politics tend to cater to public sentiment and politicians feed on public hostility toward an issue, it is strikingly odd to me that the deeply religious people of Tennessee have so easily abandoned their posts as the last line of defense for religious freedom.  In matters such as this, people often talk of slippery slopes; and while such statements may seem cliche, I cannot for the life of me think of a place more appropriate for such an argument than at the center of this debate.  If a community can prevent a Muslim mosque from being constructed, what is next – A Buddhist Temple?  A synagogue?  A Catholic Church?

The short of it is this.  Mosque construction in suburban Nashville, Tennessee is not the same as Park 51 in Lower Manhattan.  From a legal perspective, both cases for opposition are equally lacking, but what distinguishes the two however, is the fact that residents of Murfreesboro and Nashville were never the victims of a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim extremists; they have no sacred plots of land to protect; and they have no families of innocent victims to shield from future sorrow.  Their opposition is masked by faulty logic and non-existent connections to 911 – an opposition that disrespects the battle being fought 900 miles to the North.  This is not about Freedom of Religion or freedom from terror, it is about wanting to live in a society Free from Islam altogether.

—————

————-

——–

–

More on this subject from around the Web

Gateway Pundit, Freedom’s Lighthouse,  Weasel Zippers, The Huffington Post, Little Green Footballs, The Caucus, Harry’s Place, Informed Comment, The Mahablog, Atlas Shrugs, The Moderate Voice and Big Journalism

Hat Tip – Washington Post

RESURRECTING A TRUE AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

Downplaying the role of organized religion in the form of Southern Evangelical Christianity will facilitate the Republican Party’s climb back to relevance.  However, success in this endeavor will depend solely upon the Party’s ability to reunite its base around conservative principles.  Learning from the eight years of the Bush administration is essential in generating the necessary level of unification.  Regardless of one’s beliefs about the successes and /or failures of that administration, it is still possible to see that it was deeply effective in uniting the Southern Evangelical base for support.  While there may be debate as to whether Bush was the dog that wagged the tail or vice versa, it is easy to see how religion can drive political support for a candidate or an elected official.  However, and perhaps more importantly, it is also necessary to realize that limiting support to such a divisive and regional contingency is hardly an effective strategy for a party that intends to have a national reach.

Having distanced itself from said policies however, the Republican Party must find a way to generate equal or greater support to be successful in bringing conservatives to the forefront of the Party.  To accomplish this objective, it may be necessary to examine how our Founding Fathers would have approached such a public relations dilemma.

Irregardless of the outcome of the debate over whether this is a Christian nation or simply a nation founded on Christian principles, it is clear that our Founders intended to establish a government that embraced aspects of religion.  While they intended them to be subtle and barely noticed, they were certainly present in many aspects of our founding.  Additionally, they viewed religion as an effective tool for control and manipulation from a practical standpoint.  While they worked diligently to keep religion out of the realm of government directly, they repeatedly made biblical references and drew upon truisms that paralleled Christian dogma.   While their religious views were certainly not that of contemporary or even 19^th century Christians, they were extremely versed in religious doctrine as well as the intellectual works of the Age of Enlightenment.  Drawing upon parallels from each source was commonplace and is reflected throughout our founding documents.

The Founders were set on high ideals.  They weren’t simply trying to create a newer version of that which had already been tried and failed.  They envisioned themselves to be creators of a new nation which would set the standard for all that followed.  They intended to form a nation that would send a clear message to the rest of the world, that this was a new nation founded on the notion that the ultimate power was vested in the people.  This was unheard of and unimaginable at that time.  It was to be a nation not guided by tyrants or priests, but simply by the people.  However, in the absence of religion serving as a controlling force in government; where would this new nation turn for its unifying and moral motivations?  All of their predecessors had used religion to serve these ends.  Remembering that these were well-read men of the Enlightenment; they were well versed in the perils of pagan religious culture and the downfall of the Roman church.  After much deliberation and much debate, they balanced the interests in favor of creating a nation that could exist on its own absent any religious affiliation.  In the end, they turned to a uniquely American source; one that was just beginning to come to life; and one that continues to grow with each generation of Americans just as the Christian faith has grown and been added to the teachings of Judaism.  It is one that is undoubtedly influenced by everything from paganism to Christianity.  Many of our Founders Deist beliefs and tendencies are well reflected in this new creation as well.  Emerging from the blending of historical and religious references was a sociological construct known as the American Civil Religion.

While they were likely unaware of the full impact of this driving force, it is likely that they understood its power even in its infant form.  While the American Civil Religion has evolved immensely over the course of the last 200 years, it was already firmly entrenched by the time our Constitution was ratified.  It began in colonial times and matured through the years of the Revolution.  By the time of the Constitutional Convention it was all around the Founders.  While the majority of that which is attributed to the American Civil Religion was not yet established, its core was firmly in place.  At the heart of the ACR is an unwavering and unyielding American Spirit.  It is what motivated those statesmen to create a nation unlike any the world had seen; it was that spirit that drove American colonies to unite in revolution; and it was that spirit that brought the puritans and pilgrims to this new nation and carried them through their hardships.  Long before there was a United States of America…there was an American spirit.  It is that spirit that is at the center of the True American Civil Religion.

ORIGINS OF THE OLD AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

The term American Civil Religion was originally made famous by Robert Bellah in the 1970’s.  Bellah adapted traditional sociological and historical ideas on “civil religion” using works of many from Alexis de Tocqueville to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and applied them in an American context.  The “American Civil Religion” is what emerged from this blending of historical and religious influences and it generated a great deal of commentary as it came on to the scene.[1] The Bellah version of the American Civil Religion is one that has been debated and criticized for some time.  In fact, many of those who recognize the existence of the American Civil Religion are skeptical as to its usefulness and many more fear its powers in our political process.  Critics from the right and left of the political spectrum have attacked Bellah’s work.  Most have done so not from an academic standpoint but simply from the image that it creates.  Whether it seen as a theory, a myth, or even an overanalyzed and over glorified comparison to Christianity without the institution; it has nonetheless been deliberated on by many.  Part of the quandary that is the American Civil Religion as Bellah described it is that it resonates with many Americans even if they disagree with its impact or its usefulness.[2]

Bellah’s version of the ACR has generated a great deal of skepticism and concern for both the practicality of its application and the extent to which it permeates.  Accordingly, many alternate viewpoints have emerged.  However, before attempting to address criticisms, analytical opinions, or grievances that others have had with his version of the ACR as to its origin and purpose, we will simply address what the American Civil Religion is in its truest and most simple forms to demonstrate its prevalence in our society.[3]

AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

One of the reasons that religion has served as such an iatrical part of nation-building is that it has the unique ability to unite.  It brings believers closer to one another in a common bond and a shared relationship with “God.”  While avoiding allegiances to any specific Gods, our Founding Fathers firmly entrenched an indelible “God” image of in nearly every aspect of the government they were creating.  The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  When Americans say the Pledge of Allegiance, they recite that we are “One Nation Under God, Indivisible.”  Our money states “In God we Trust.”  The Deist roots of many of our Founders obviously facilitated the use of this universal God Figure as it was directly reflective of traditional characterizations of Deism.  This “God” was to be a universal God – one that could appeal to all religions.  The Founders wanted to unite Americans around their government, not their religious affiliations so they turned to a universal source and drew upon its unifying ability.  They needed allusions to religion, but ultimately they wanted Americans to bow at the altar of a free and democratic government, not at those of organized religion.

So, what can be characterized as the altars of the American Civil Religion?  While there are no structures specifically referred to as such, there are many that could serve in such a role.  Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell that used to ring there, are two that thousands pay tribute to each year in Philadelphia.  Our nation’s capital is home to a great deal of similar attractions of national importance.  The most apparent of these may include the White House or the Capitol Building.  These structures have been used as the centerpiece of many of the great ceremonies and celebrations of the ACR.  Ceremonially speaking, our newly elected presidents traditionally swear an oath, to God, in the shadows of our Capitol every four years.  Hundreds of thousands line the streets to witness the transition of power and the inauguration of our new leader.  Then there is a grand parade as the new president makes his way to his new home – the White House.  Both of the structures used scream symbolism.  The pure nature of the color choice of our chief executive’s home and the fact that the home of our nation’s legislative body is known as Capitol Hill obviously parallels the Winthropian idea of “a Shining City Upon a Hill.”[4] While these two great structures are clearly cornerstones of the physical manifestations of the ACR, they were not created solely for the purpose of reverence or reflection.  However, there are many that were erected entirely with that objective in mind.

We have paid tribute to our great leaders and our fallen soldiers with great monuments to their legacies.  There are shrines to Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson that would rival any traditional religious structures.  These public displays are not confined just to the capital city either.  Perhaps the greatest of all these tributes is the creation that is Mt. Rushmore, which immortalized Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson in the side of a mountain.  While these monuments inspire great national pride and remembrance, it is our nation’s symbols that are the bedrock of The American Civil Religion.  Lady Liberty and all that she represents should not be overlooked either.

Any discussion of symbolism and its use with the ACR must begin and end with our nation’s flag.  The stars and stripes are the embodiment of the unifying effect that the Founders intended.  With the original 13 colonies and the 50 states represented under one common flag, this is the center point of national pride and the ACR, but it does not stand alone.  There are many symbols that evoke a sense of Americanism or national pride.  Some of these may include the Bald Eagle, the Presidential Seal, the Scales of Justice, or even Uncle Sam.  These symbols reflect the truest ideas of what it is to be American.

While symbols, monuments, and altars are all important aspects of the ACR, the spirit behind it is what makes it useful as a unifying force.  Some have simply referred to this spirit as American pride or Americanism.  It is reflected in notions like the American dream and manifest destiny.  Some even argue that it reaches a level of passion that it takes on a quasi-religious fervor.  While it is not a religion in a conventional sense, the guidance and the unifying force that it presents may give it a close relation.  It should not be thought of as an alternative to religion for citizens of this nation, it should simply be thought of as a supplement to the government of this nation since its creation required actual religion to be absent at all levels.  In fact the ACR may have been the driving forced that allowed religious freedom to survive throughout our nation’s history.  It provided at least a glimpse of higher guidance or purpose that prevented actual religion from seeping into the fold.  Historian Robert Mailer once said “In America, the country was the religion.  And all the religions of the land were fed from that first religion.”  The ACR is purely a result of subconscious and conscious feelings, emotions, and commonalities that unite Americans whether they realize them or not.

There are some that take the religious nature of the ACR a step further.  They draw specific parallels to Christian dogma.  This level of structure and organization was obviously not intended by the Founders, but it is worth mentioning to illustrate the wide range of opinions on what in fact makes up the ACR.  It has been articulated that the center of the ACR is a version of the Christian Trinity, with Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson assuming the traditional roles.  Washington was the “Father” figure as our nation’s first president.  Jefferson is the “Spirit” as the creator of the Declaration of Independence which paved the way for the creation of an American nation.  And lastly, Lincoln has been associated with the resurrected “Son” figure.  His place as the leader of the nation at the time of the Civil War and his eventual assassination linked him to the effort of those who gave their lives so that the nation could be reborn causing many to place him in this role as the resurrected son.[5] Historian, Robert Linder supported such Christian parallels and summarized the wide range of such beliefs with the following:

“The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and later, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address became the sacred scriptures of the new public faith.  Just as the colonists saw their own church covenants as vehicles of God’s participation in history, so these public documents became the covenants which bound the people of the nation together in a political and religious union…A leadership imaginary developed that paralleled the biblical account of Israel and led to the Founding Fathers mythology…Before long Washington had become the Moses-liberator figure, Jefferson the prophet.”[6]

In addition to the Trinity figures, there have also been attempts to formulate a list of saints and prophets.  Some that could be included among these are: saints – Betsy Ross and Francis Scott Key; and prophets – Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, and Martin Luther King Jr.  While recognition of these parallel roles to Christian dogma is important for seeing the full picture of the ACR, their importance is nominal to the importance or effectiveness of it as a unifying tool.

While directly using any reference to these parallels is not politically viable, recognizing and appreciating the value of the ACR is of fundamental importance.

It is not important or even necessary to embrace any of these notions as long as there is an acknowledgement that they are relevant and present in the American conscience.  They do not have to be revered in the manner which Christian or any other religion’s deities are, they simply have to be acknowledged for the visceral feeling that they create; even if only symbolically.  What is important and is fundamental to the Republican message is the importance of the scripture of the ACR.  Three documents form the basis for all that is America and all that is the ACR.

The first is the Declaration of Independence.  It was a message to the world that we not only were seeking our independence, but that we were doing it in a manner that was to be a guide for all nations seeking to find true liberty in the years to come.  It was a declaration that there was a Creator – a God- but that it was only fundamental in declaring that the rights of men are defined by their relationship to their Creator and to one another; not by a government or religious institution.  This made a significant step in removing religious affiliations from the equation and it is fundamental to the liberty that our Founders sought.  If the Pledge of Allegiance – which has been compared to the Christian Profession of Faith – describes and reaffirms our collective unity under the ACR then the Declaration was the explanation of what that faith was.

The second is the Constitution of the United States.  It is the doctrine; it is the bible; it is the all-inclusive document that defines what it is to be American.  Careful in its drafting, the Founders created a document that would aim to balance the rights of men with need for a unified federal government.  It was careful to not infringe upon the rights of men or the rights of states to govern, but was clear in the message that it was creating a nation rather than an association of states or simply a confederation.  The Founders had learned how such attempts would lead to eventual failure as they had with the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution, and the reverence that should be afforded it, is the core of the ACR and should be the focus of Republican attention.  Conservatives believe in the importance of this founding document because it preserves the true intent of those who created this nation.  At times the Republican Party has championed this message but far too often they have let policies and issues detract them from this central focus.  This is where the Republicans need to call home.

The last is the Bill of Rights.  While technically part of the Constitution, it deserves special reverence because of the rights and freedoms which it aims to protect.  It is particularly important for the standard that it set for all nations of the world as well.  Much deliberated and much debated upon, this series of Amendments emerged in an antithetical role to what Christians would call their Ten Commandments.  In doing so, it may actually exemplify the notion that this is a nation founded with ACR principles in mind rather than a Christian form.  For this reason it has its most profound importance.  The Ten Commandments pronounces the Ten things that Christians must not do, whereas the Bill of Rights proclaims the Ten things that Americans are guaranteed under our new nation – as inalienable.  These were not granted by the nation.  They were inherent upon creation.  These were the universal rights; the promises that this new nation was making to the people it wished to serve.  And for this reason alone, it is profoundly important to any discussion of the ACR or life in America as we know it.

In addition to these foundational documents, much can be learned about the ACR from its use by our nation’s presidents over the years.  Beginning with the first administration, the American Presidency has been the focal point of the ACR as it has evolved throughout generations.  Robert Bellah noted that each of the first three presidents set the tone for how their successors would refer to religion in the public forum.  He believed that they derived many of their religious references from Christianity but that they were particularly selective in which they chose.  Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all spoke of “God” but never mentioned Jesus.  Bellah believed that this was a conscious choice and facilitated creating an impression of God in American life as being about order, laws, and right rather than love and salvation.

Bellah also believed that the idea of an American Civil Religion was not on the minds of our nation’s founders as they were creating our new government.  It was simply a creation that arose as a byproduct of their actions.  This assertion should not be ignored or completely discounted; but it may be more accurate to assume that the Founders did intend to create a government that drew upon religion and its most desirable qualities without going as far as believing that they were creating a “religious” entity.  While both views don’t completely contradict one another, the latter may be more reflective of the Founders’ collective view on religion and its importance in society.  It may also be worth noting that the absence of Jesus from public speeches by the early American presidents may simply be a result of their personal beliefs on religion generally.  It is well documented that both Jefferson and Washington were likely Deists and were likely non-believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

That being said, the concept of an American Civil Religion in any form may have begun long before our first president took office.  Many believe that the origin of “American Excpetionalism” has its roots at a much earlier time.  If those who believe in American “arrogance” sight an earlier date, perhaps there is an earlier origin of national pride to call upon as well.  This early American spirit, which some characterize in a negative light, was encapsulated in a speech given by John Winthrop as he and his community embarked upon a new voyage into the land that came to be the United States.  In a sermon to the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1630 he stated,

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us.”[7]

With those words he described the new nation they were attempting to create in poetic and visionary terms that have been echoed throughout our nation’s history.  President John F. Kennedy referenced Winthrop in his first inaugural address stating:

“But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arabella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier…Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us – and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill – constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”[8]

A generation later saw President Reagan reflecting upon his presidency in its final hours being drawn to that early American display of “exceptionalism” as well.

“The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the ‘shining city upon a hill.’ The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined…I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it.  But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.  That’s how I saw it and see it still.”[9]

Winthrop has been mentioned countless numbers of times by American presidents throughout our nation’s history.  The profound ideas that sermon articulated resonate with Americans and their feelings toward this nation.  Our earliest statesmen were committed to the cause of creating a nation that could serve as a model for the world to follow.  They wanted to create a nation that would be the embodiment of freedom and liberty.  Our first president shared in this spirit and recognized the responsibility that Americans were taking on.  In his first Inaugural Address he stated,

“That Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every defect…The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people.”[10]

ORIGINS OF THIS UNITING INFLUENCE

While Robert Bellah is credited with coining the phrase American Civil Religion, he was not the first to speak in general terms about such an entity.  Civil Religion was discussed and debated for generations in the sociological, historical, and religious communities; it was simply Bellah who was able to encapsulate an American construct of the idea.  The American version was even discussed before him by Historians like Yehoshua Arieli, Daniel Boorstin, and Ralph Gabriel who assessed the religious dimension of ‘nationalism’, the ‘American creed’, ‘cultural religion’, and the democratic faith.’  Sociologist Seymour Lispet said Americanism and the American creed rose to quasi religious fervor because of the existence of a distinct set of American values. [11]

While many others attempted to accomplish this feat, Bellah was uniquely successful and generated a tremendous amount of controversy with his efforts in academia and with the general public.  Much of the controversy in the public sphere emerged as a result of the negative aspects of Bellah’s ACR.  It was characterized as dangerous and divisive and many believed that if such a civil religion existed it did so only to alienate non-believers.  This alienation coupled with a negative perception of Excpetionalism, made the ACR a negative rather than a positive force.  Two sociologists’ views on civil religion may help to illustrate the fears that many had for the ACR.[12]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a great deal to say about Civil Religion as well.  He was of the belief that civil religion consisted of a generally accepted set of social norms or standards that citizens must abide by.  If the citizen chose not to follow them, then they could not be a “good” citizen or a “faithful subject.”  These were distinct from religious dogma.  They were simply societal norms or mores.[13] In reference to specific dogmatic creations he was very clear as well.

“The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.”[14]

“Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the prince the pontiff. Such a dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other, it is fatal. The reason for which Henry IV is said to have embraced the Roman religion ought to make every honest man leave it, and still more any prince who knows how to reason.”[15]

Bellah referenced Rousseau in his formulation of the ACR and characterized his view of civil religion as “a sensible thing for leaders to create or encourage.”  Contrastingly, he also drew upon the works of Emile Durkheim who Bellah characterized as seeing civil religion as “an emergent property of social life itself.”  While skeptical of both beliefs, Bellah went on to reference Durkheim’s theories of the creation of civil religion.  He characterizes Durkheim as believing that civil religion arises out of unity rather than actual religion.  It is essentially a chicken or egg scenario.  Durkheim’s approach lends itself to the belief that religion emerges out of social integration rather than social integration emerging as a result of religion.  Hence, religion emerges as an outward representation of this unity.  While some of this message is lost in discussion of classical religion and the origins of civil religion altogether, it is of little importance to a discussion of a new concept of an American Civil Religion as it should be viewed in an entirely different light.[16]

TRUE AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

This new version of ACR would draw simply upon Durkheim’s notion of how civil religions emerge in the first place.  While an opposing view would lend itself to the belief that an ACR would only lead to alienation and divisiveness, it may be more accurate to describe the American version as having much more humble and noble origins.  If the American Civil Religion emerged as a result of natural integration rather than as a tool to force integration, the natural order would be inclusive rather than divisive.  This positive view of American Civil Religion was simply not shared by Bellah and many of his critics.[17] The new or true American Civil Religion should be thought of in a context more similar to what the Supreme Court has described as a product of rote repetition rather than compulsory participation.  In the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 US 1(2004), Justice O’Connor concurring in the opinion referenced her analysis of the use of the word “God” in the dicta of her supplemental opinion stating,

“I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of “ceremonial deism” most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto (“In God We Trust”), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as the Star-Spangled Banner, and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions (“God save the United States and this honorable Court”). See Allegheny, 492 U.S., at 630 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.”[18]

Presenting an argument that attempts to advocate the use and exoneration of the American Civil Religion is admittedly controversial and will likely generate much opposition.  Critics will undoubtedly focus their attention on previous sociological debates concerning this issue and will lead them to believe the ACR is a divisive and exclusive concept that aims to alienate rather than to include.  They will speak in terms of those within the ACR and those on the outside; in terms of believers and non-believers.  However, this attempt to call upon the ACR for motivation and unification of Americans is not attended to promote either of those unfavorable qualities.  Simply stating that ill effects are not intended is a rather empty promise; however, a closer look at what is being advocated demonstrates how claims of that sort are simply unfounded in a True ACR.

The TRUE American Civil Religion should encapsulate all that is purely American.  It should be characterized as simply an effort to unite Americans around all of those entities and similarities which have made this nation so uniquely historic and exceptional.  Those who believe that the ACR is a divisive tool rather than a uniting force should realize that the TRUE ACR champions all that is American.  This includes diversity.  This includes the old adage that this nation was and always will be a “melting pot” for all races and nationalities of immigrants.  This includes acceptance of our cultural differences because in those differences we have formed an American culture which is absolutely distinct from any that exists elsewhere.  The TRUE ACR is one that appreciates the differences and dissimilarities that exist between all Americans but focuses on their commonalities and similarities rather than taking a negative approach and focusing on that which divides us.

Some will argue that this is merely an outgrowth of “American Exceptionalism” and argue that such a movement or effort will have a negative influence with its impact and perception in a global community.  As for those “scholars;” we will acknowledge their point of view and remind them that this great nation is what has allowed them the freedom to share it; and we will simply accept what they have to say and move forward all the same.  While the United States must recognize its relationship to a global community, it is far more important to recognize its responsibility to Americans.  This does not mean that the US should take an isolationist posture.  It simply means that creating a new generation of American apologists is not simply an option.  As a nation, we are not without flaws.  As a citizenry, we are not without arrogance, contempt, and resentment.  However, as a nation we should be proud of what our country stands for and the role it has played in the global community.  While our detractors may only focus on our missteps, we should focus our attention on our successes; our compassion; our charity; and our continued pursuit of liberty for all God’s children.  It is without question that those who believe that the United States should take a more humble and reverent approach to self perception will be highly critical of this rhetoric.  For those citizens of that belief we must offer our support and accept them as our brothers, but we must not let their ill feelings toward this great nation detract us from the ultimate realization and celebration of our nation’s greatness.  American pride should be more than a bumper sticker or theory whispered for fear of being heard.  It should be promoted and felt within the hearts of all Americans without guilt or apology.

The idea of American exceptionalism arose from the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville who believed that the new nation that our Founders created was like no other the world had ever seen.   It was a nation of immigrants who united to form the world’s first modern democracy.  He saw this as quite a feat.  He referred to the new nation and the spirit that drove it as “exceptional.”  While he used the term in his depiction of a young America, it wasn’t made famous until a much later time and in a very different context.[19]

Those who have followed with the use of the term American Exceptionalism have taken a slightly more negative tone with its use.  They believe that this spirit or attitude casts Americans in a negative light.  Believing that this mindset began with Winthrop and his sermon in Massachusetts Bay, they believe the ACR and the commonly shared beliefs of Americans are a negative force.  Much of this sentiment is what has caused the ACR to be seen in such an unfavorable light.  For the most part, this criticism emerged in the post world war II era and in the Cold War years.  During each of these times American pride was particularly high and some were of the belief that such fervor takes on an arrogant tone.  Actions of the Bush administration have caused many who share in this ideology to begin throwing the term around again in recent years. While these concerns are genuine, they should not be mistaken for truisms.  Those who are of this negative mindset are also those who believe that our nation must apologize for all that it has been and all that it has stood for in the last 200 years.  For those misguided individuals, we must simply remind them what it feels like to be proud of something rather than insecure about the perception that pride may create.

In formulating his version of the ACR, Robert Bellah was of the belief that the Founders would not have been mindful of such a creation.  He extended this naivety to all with the exception of Thomas Paine who he believed would have certainly advocated such a framework.[20] In Paine’s book, Common Sense he refers to his vision of America in stating,

“… have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months.”[21]

In the same spirit and optimism that Paine conveys, a True American Civil Religion would embrace the triumphs of our founders.  It would celebrate America’s legacy.  It would be proud to be called exceptionalist in the interest of promoting nationalism and generating a common sense of pride for all Americans.  While nationalism often invokes images of the German form that led to WWII, it doesn’t have to be seen in such a negative light.  Americans can be united in their national pride and such unity can be used as a defense against increasing diversity dividing us from within.  Removing actual religion from the political conversation as our Founders intended will do wonders for creating a more open and accepting culture.  The focus must be on the Constitution not religious dogma or beliefs.  What better place to unite a nation than around a document that gives us the freedom to do so.

The Republican Party needs a unifying and motivating force; a spirit to support its philosophies.  It has tried rallying around organized religion and has failed miserably in the effort.  It must now turn to the uniting force that is the True American Civil Religion.  How can the ACR aid the party in this objective?  If the Republican Party is truly the party of conservatives, then it is fundamental for the Party to return to its roots; and at the heart of that notion is embracing the Constitution as our guiding light.  Recent attempts at protecting and rallying around the Constitution have come only in the form of protecting certain issues or policies that over time the Republican Party has called its own – abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state.  While these are all important issues – they are hardly the basis of a platform for resurrecting the Party to prominence.  They are issues and unfortunately, they are the issues with which the Party has become defined.  It is time to once again be a Party that is about fundamental beliefs and core values not divisive issues and policies.

The notion of adopting and embracing the True American Civil Religion by the Party is not a talking point or a subject of a stump speech; it is simply embracing the things that make this nation great and focusing on the most fundamental ideals of our Founders.  First and foremost on their mind in creating the United States was to form a federal government that would UNITE citizens from the several states under one common government. We were a nation of colonies.  This seems like an unusual notion in contemporary American society, but for the Founders it was a daunting task.

That being said, it is not contended that the Republican Party has quite the monumental the task ahead of it.  The groundwork for this movement has already been laid.  The Founders, in all their infinite wisdom, already began this process by never loosing focus of the need to UNITE.  Republicans need not wear the badges of this movement upon their lapels or cast great posters upon the wall as they champion this message.  The banners are already there; when Republicans give speeches and make appearances, the American Flag is proudly flying behind them.  They must simply remember that the cause that they are supporting is that which is symbolized by our nation’s flag.  It is the American Spirit.

So how does the Party put these core values to work in the context of the ACR?  They must use the rationale that the Founders used in creating this great nation.  They have given us the tools; we must simply choose to apply them.  Americans are united under one common principle – they are American.  As this nation becomes increasingly diverse, it will become even more profoundly important that the Republican Party become the party that is the protector of the American way and American values.  When people stand for the Star Spangled Banner at ballgames and they see the Flag waving in the outfield, they are all uniquely united even if for that moment.  When the nation has faced times of crisis like those that followed in the days after the attacks of 911, they were united as Americans.  The great national pride that is generated in those moments of tragedy is precisely what the Republican Party needs to embrace in times of triumph as well.  People want to be proud of their nation and they want to be proud of their government; they want to be reminded of the greatness of those Americans who came before them; and what better way to generate this pride than to remind them of the bonds that uniquely unite them?  A True American Civil Religion encapsulates everything that makes us uniquely American.  President Reagan understood the power of the ACR.  In his First Inaugural Address he stated,

Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city’s special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man. George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

There will be many that will criticize such a movement as simply “rallying around the flag.”  This has to be much more than that.  It must be coupled with a renewed commitment by the Party to focus on individual liberties, state’s rights, smaller federal government, and a commitment to conservative values.  The Party cannot go half the way on this.  They cannot champion the cause of protecting the Constitution but be willing to ignore it when it is expedient to do so.  Because to do so would be to trample on the intent of the Founders and it would do little to advance the notion of uniting Americans around an American Civil Religion or any entity for that matter.  The Party must proceed with caution in regards to their religious evangelical base; and while protecting their liberties and interests, they must not lose sight that the Founders intended this to be a Nation Under God, not a nation under religion.  There should be no mistaking the order of this allegiance, it should be to God then country, but in no way, shape, or form did the Founders intend to choose that God for our citizens.

In a time of increasing cultural and religious diversity; and an increasing number of those Americans who consider themselves to be “god-fearing” but not religious, what better time for the Republican Party to be the party that is open minded; and the party that can have deeply religious roots but also pay homage to the greatness of this nation and the principles it represents.  At the end of the day, the Founding Fathers believed, Deists or not, in the importance of moral guidance that stemmed from a commitment to self improvement and an individualized morally principled framework.  What could be more important to uniting both religious and non-religious Americans under one common goal than a party that aims to protect the best interests of both groups?  If the party of Christians truly follows the Christian way of life, they should be just the party to make this gesture to their fellow Americans.  Why can’t the party of Christians be the party that embraces those from every walk of life and appreciates the uniting force of religion in any form?  If this is the Party that is committed to protecting the American way of life and preserving its founding documents, is there any cause that could be more important?

So yes, rally around the flag, sing “The Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America,” and say to hell with those who will call this American Exceptionalism.  Revere the great Americans that paved the way for our freedoms and protect the documents that created this great nation.  Unite Americans around the notion of what it means to be American.  Remind them in times of triumph and console them in times of peril with the idea that this nation will persevere and will continue to stand for the highest ideals of liberty and freedom for all of its citizens.  Remind them that this nation is that “City upon a Hill” for the world to see.  It is time for the Republican Party to remember the greatness of this nation and to remind Americans from all walks of life how to preserve those liberties and that greatness; to bring Americans together around things that unite them rather than focusing on that which divides them; to remind them of the American Spirit which has paved the way for this nation’s successes; to restore this nation to a place where all its citizens can openly rejoice that they are Proud to be an American; that is the power of the True American Civil Religion.

[2] Bellah, Robert

[3] Bellah, Robert

[4] Winthrop, John. “Models of Christian Charity.”  Sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[5]Bellah, Robert. “Civil Religion in America.”  Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. “Religion in America.” Winter 1967, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 1-21. see; Robert Lowell, “On the Gettysburg Address.” pp. 88-89.

[6] Pierard, Richard, and Robert Linder.  Civil Religion and the Presidency.  Academie Books.  Grand Rapids.   1987.

[7] Winthrop, John. “Models of Christian Charity.”  Sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[8] Kennedy, John F. Speech to a “‘Joint Convention of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’”.  January 9, 1961.

[9] Reagan, Ronald.  “Farewell Speech to the Nation”.  January 11, 1989.

[10] George Washington. 1^st Inaugural Address. April 30, 1989.

[11] Cristi, Marcela. From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and Politics. University Press. 2001

[12] P. L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  “Secularization and Pluralism.”  Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion. 1966, pp. 73-85, refer to “sacred comprehensive meanings for everyday life.” See also; Bellah, Robert and Phillip E. Hammond. Varieties of Civil Religion. Harper Rowe.  NY, 1980.

[13] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract: or Principles of Political Right. 1762.  Constitution.org. Retrieved May 1, 2009.

[14] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.

[15] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.

[16] Durkheim, Emile.  Elementary Forms of Religious Life trans. Joseph Swain New York: Collier, 1961 pp. 62 and 432

[17] Varieties of Civil Religion..

[18] Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. 542 U.S. 1 (2004) 328 F.3d 466, reversed.

[19] De Tocqueville, Alexis.  De la démocratie en Amérique (Democracy in America).  Penguin Classics. 1835.

[20] Varieties of Civil Religion..

[21] Paine, Thomas.  Common Sense.  January 10, 1776.  (Published Anonymously: “Written by an Englishman.”)

As we approach the turn of a new decade, the global balance provided by the Cold War is now but a distant memory and the assertive influence of the United States appears to be little more than a perceived reality as we continue to handcuff this great nation with progressive foreign policy.  Nations from across the globe are positioning for power and their place at the table; and to accomplish that end they are arming themselves in a manner the world has never seen.  Are we on the verge of a budding world-wide arms race?  Could we be on the cusp of a repeat of the Cold War but on a global scale?  Just take a look at some of the headlines from the last twelve months.

I am certainly not predicting that we are heading toward global Armageddon or worldwide obliteration at the hands of weapons of mass destruction, but it is extremely alarming that in an era where so many nations have a stake in the game, WE are the only nation talking about nonproliferation and disarmament.  In a time such as this, wouldn’t a more prudent course be to increase military spending and expand our weapons programs rather than reducing them? 

Since the creation of the nuclear bomb - well actually since the moment that a second nation other than the United States got the thing – we have been of the mindset that the greatest deterrent to their use was the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).  It is what allowed cooler heads to prevail throughout the Cold War and it is what keeps Russia hanging on to the belief that it is  still a “superpower.”  Essentially, no nuclear power is going to use a their arsenal because doing so would trigger a response – and then a response – and… well you get how that plays out. 

But the fact remains that while only a handful of nations hold the power of nuclear weapons, a great many nations have now developed the capacity to strike well beyond their borders and to do so with technology capable of destruction that far exceeds previous major wars. 

Essentially, if we are of the mindset that no one will use nukes because of MAD, we have entered an era where the slightly less than nuclear weapon is the most dangerous weapon of all.  Any weapon that can cause adequate to severe destruction more than 500 miles outside its own territory is essentially more desirable – or at least more practically effective than a nuclear weapon.  I’m not discounting the desire of power-hungry nations to acquire nuclear weapons, but the fact that no one will ever really use them effectively gives rogue nations and the little brothers of former super powers an equal hand in the global community by simply building arsenals non-nuclear in capacity.  Nukes have become Doomsday scenarios and the race is for everything short of that end. 

The problem with this is really two-fold.  One.  If such a ”less than nuclear” war was to break out between regional rivals, what is the end game?  Obviously alliances would impact the depth of the conflict, but at the most simple of levels, do two nations simply continue launching these non-nuclear weapons at one another until they return each other to the stone age?  The answer to that question is essentially yes; well yes and no.  If war was to ever break out in such a fashion that would in fact be the logical resolution – hence our desire in WWII to build the war finisher – the nuclear weapon.  But the answer is more likely no, because non-nuclear weapons are actually more useful than nuclear weapons for use as a threat.  If Iran poises ten short to medium range missiles at Israel we believe that they may use them.  They may target vital infrastructure or specific targets.  This gives them a great deal of bargaining power and puts them in a position of strength as they are perceived as an imminent threat.  In contrast, if India lines up a nuclear warhead and aims it at Pakistan, they are far less likely to use it, so the threat is not as great even though the effect of what weapons system would far exceed that of the other.  The point is MAD keeps nuclear wars from beginning and to a certain degree keeps tensions at a manageable level, but for nations without nuclear capabilities, even the slightest non-nuclear aggression can ignite quite a powder keg.

This leads to the second major problem.  How to prevent these arms races without creating an exorbitant amount of unnecessary and meaningless multilateral allegiances, alliances, leagues, associations, pacts, groups, unions, treaties, and world bodies that inevitably lead to World War rather than relying on the Pre World War era philosophy of letting two insignificant nations wipe each other off the map.  In a world where (regardless of whether Russia or China want to admit it) the United States is clearly the only true superpower, how do we bring balance to the situation without being directly involved in the process every time conflict arises?  Continuing to expand NATO or developing new allies through economic / regional partnerships cannot be the answer for the long term unless we intend to have half the nations of the world swear allegiance to us in return for our broad protection.  It simply an implausible strategy. 

Hegemonic Stability Theory is the nerdy version of what people refer to as a relationship like the one that existed during the Cold War.  Essentially two superpowers and their minions / allied nations keep balance in the global community by both exerting their powers to keep the outlier nations as well as one another in check.  There is still a power struggle but for the most part is only focused on bringing more nations under the respective rings of influence rather than genuine conflict.  Perhaps the most important characteristic of that system is that it is mutually beneficial for both the large and the small nations.  Its a much better scenario for the two world powers as well because neither side has to solve all the world’s problems alone.  Its a schematical equivalent to preferring that 50% of the world hates you as long as 50% loves you rather than gambling that 99% won’t hate you if you’re out there alone. 

In the current system, we are the lone Hegemon.  The role of playing arbiter to any and all problems has fallen at our feet and ours alone.  There are some – like our wonderful President – who believe that balance is achieved by empowering institutions such as the United Nations.  This is a noble cause, but is whimsical at best in its likelihood for success.  The truth is that the UN has no real power, and we are the only entity that gives it even an ounce of credibility.

Those in the Obama fantasy world will disagree with that point, but I would ask them simply – what would happen if the UN wanted to sanction the United States?  What would they do if we said no?  They could do absolutely nothing.  As it is now, we bear the burden for 75% of the overhead costs for running the thing, and we provide 80% of the security /peacekeeping forces for 95% of the places in which they are deployed.  The UN is essentially our frustrating liberal little brother that we keep around because he’s family, but while we throw him some cash and get him a job from time to time, we could survive happily without him and never give it a second thought.

The UN is nothing without the U.S. and the world knows it.  As crazy as it may sound… that was actually the only part of crazy Muammar Qadaffi’s speech to the UN that made any sense - the first ten times he said it at least.  It is a broken entity that placates shared and cooperative power in a world where the only true power shared is that which we choose to concede. 

So where does this leave us?  It leaves us staring at the very real reality that the US is the lone peace keeper in a world where everyone is fighting for a piece of the second tier pie.  It leaves one nation with the responsibility of bringing balance to a world that cannot achieve any such balance as long as we are in it. 

What it truly means is that as the Obama administration attempts in every way to be the “Anti-George W. Bush administration” its only going to make this burden greater.  For all the hatred and animosity that the Bush administration generated in the global community, it was a necessary evil.  The post Cold War years left the world wondering if Russia would reemerge or if China would rise to fill the void.  When neither of those outcomes came to fruition, the United States simply assumed a greater role.  We were just unfortunately on the negative end of that 99% love/hate thing for a while absent another power willing to carry 50% of the burden.  And for as painful as it may be for progressives to hear, George W. Bush’s time in office is not likely to represent the limits of that expansion either.  For as hard as President Obama tries to empower the UN and to decrease the sphere of influence of our great nation, he will eventually be forced to realize that sometimes there simply has to be an asshole; someone to blame; someone to hate; and even someone to turn to.  For now that someone is US.  Attempting to empower an institution that the world knows is powerless without our support is the foreign policy equivalent to doing all the work and getting none of the credit or taking all of the blame and getting none of the praise. 

So do I think we are on the verge of a global arms race or a 21st century version of the Cold War?  The short answer is no.  Most of the governments across Europe are even more progressive than even we are at the present time, and appeasement is more likely to permeate there than any military bravado.  But that does not mean that the second and third tier nations of the world will rest.  Those who can’t achieve credibility economically often attempt to militarily.  As our focus continues to center upon the nuclear ambitions of rogue states like North Korea and Iran, we may be missing the bigger picture.  Is it important that we prevent nations such as these from acquiring nuclear weapons?  Of course it is – it should be issue number one, but we have to remember not to lose sight of the trees for the forest.  We must be vigilant not to ignore the threat that non-nuclear weapons may pose as we continue our efforts to combat world-wide nuclear proliferation.  Nuclear weapons may end world wars but it may be the non-nuclear weapon that sparks one.