In his recent screed against the influence of Christian thought, Sean Faircloth presented a ten-point vision of how to restore America to greatness. It is ironic, then, that the message presented by this ten-point plan is predicated by a violation of a tenet found in the original ten-point plan: “Thou shalt bear no false witness.”

Mr. Faircloth gets himself into trouble by presenting the false dichotomy of religious versus secular values. All Americans (and all of humanity, for that matter) operates under a religious worldview that includes a system of morality.

To wit, Mr. Faircloth cites Thomas Jefferson extensively, even using the phrase “Jeffersonian values” in a revisionist attempt to purport that the Founders embraced secularism. This would be the same Jefferson whose thought was profoundly impacted by English Unitarian minister and scientist Joseph Priestley, according to the Unitarian Universalist Association.

By no means are Jeffersonian values — and since Mr. Faircloth so closely identifies himself with them, his ten-point plan — secular. They were and are shaped according to a specific religious bias or worldview — a humanistic approach to the Bible, one which Mr. Faircloth clearly embraces. One only needs to observe who the left trots out to lead the fight for marriage equality and social justice. Ever notice that most of them wear collars identifying them as members of the clergy? Clearly, there is no battle between the religious and the secular.

For sake of argument, I’ll play along with Mr. Faircloth’s grade-school, oversimplified usage of “religious right,” but to preserve intellectual honesty, the contrast can’t be drawn with the “secular” but with the “religious left.”

Before addressing that, let’s take a moment and apply critical thought to a couple of the ten points established by Mr. Faircloth.

No. 2 — the prohibition of Christians from applying principles of their faith within the health care industry. This is not only a clear violation of equal employment opportunity principles, but a violation of the Prohibition Clause found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of …” Notice that point No. 2 is a direct contradiction of point No. 4, where Mr. Faircloth writes, “There shall be no bias in employment … law.” It’s generally not a good idea to contradict oneself when attempting to make a convincing argument.

No. 7 — the prohibition of usage of government funds when religious bias exists in education. In that case, better close that hotbed of humanism known as the public school system.

Typical of the religious left, Mr. Faircloth decries all bias, well, all bias except that against Christianity.

When a member of the religious right mentions the Founders in conjunction with moral standards, the religious left blusters about the Founders and slavery. OK, let’s play that game. Mr. Faircloth’s paragon of secular virtues was not only a slave owner, but according to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation — an organization whose purpose is to further his legacy — Jefferson was the father of up to six children by one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, making him not only a slave owner, but a serial sexual harasser as well. We want Jeffersonian values? Really.

While it would be impossible in this space to exhaustively address the Biblical foundation on which America was established, it goes without saying that the values of the vast majority of our nation’s Founders more closely mirror those of the religious right than those of the religious left. It’s easy to discover for oneself the historical context from which originated our Constitution.

The Framers were the same men whose “secularism” manifested itself in such documents as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which states in Article 3, “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” Apparently, they weren’t aware of Point No. 7.

Links to the Northwest Ordinance and to Congress’ sanction of the printing of the Aitken Bible whereby it recommended it “to the inhabitants of the United States,” can be found on that hotbed of fundamental, Bible-believing Christianity known as the Library of Congress website.

The fundamental question that needs to be addressed then is upon which foundation is your worldview built — the shifting sand of a humanistic interpretation of the Bible to fit preconceived notions or the rock of a normal, grammatical approach that allows the Scriptures to set the standard?

K. Douglas Merrill Jr. lives in Verona Island.

Join the Conversation

37 Comments

  1. “All Americans (and all of humanity, for that matter) operates (sic) under a religious worldview that includes a system of morality.”
    This is just not true. 
    And morality can and does exist outside of a religous context.

      1. I know harming another is wrong because when I am harmed I feel as though I’ve been wrong.

          1. It’s a pretty universal concept. Despite your desire for it, the religious right doesn’t have a monopoly on good morals and values. For you, having good morals seems kind of superficial anyway, given your tendancy for name-calling and insulting those you disagree with.

          2. Interesting.  A universal concept.  How’d it get that way?  Did Judeo-Christian principles play a role in making them universal? 

            The point is that no one, not even you, develops convictions/morals in a vacuum.   Claiming otherwise is arrogant and illogical.  Somewhere, some day, someone imparted to you some wisdom and that helped you develop the morals you hold dear. 

            The question then needs to be asked, where did those that played an influence in your life gain their convictions?  And who influenced them?

          3. If you’re talking moral codes, laws and codes of conduct, the first ones were discovered thousands of years before the 10 Commandments, and they were Islamic.  Neither the Jews nor the Christians were the first to invent a moral, legal, or ethical code. In fact, the 10 Commandments bear a striking resemblance to laws in the Code of Hammurabi, said to be written almost 1500 years prior, also Islamic.

          4. Jews and Christians were not the first to develop laws, codes of conduct (morals), but the ones you cite are not Islamic.  The Code of Hamurabi was from a Mesopotamian culture (didn’t have time to lokk up which one) but was Semetic, not Islamic.  Islam dates from the 7th Century CE and posdates Judaism and Christianity.

          5. As I pointed out earlier, the development of morals was in conjucntion with the development of humanity.  Hardly a vacuum.

          6. No, what’s arrogant is trying to claim that your personal religion is the origin of morality and that is crazy and insane to me. Your claim that “no one” develops their own morals and convictions is also crazy and insane. 

            I didn’t say I developed morals completely on my own — I said they can and obviously have been developed in secular fashions. 

            Again, your point is the illogical and arrogant one. You don’t get to claim responsibility for all the good in the world. What a joke. 

          7. Glad you saw through the attempt to claim universal ethical behavior as a holy owned subsidiary of “Christian” churches.  LOL

          8. I believe that anyone basing their moral values on any “higher power” that is perceived by them, and basing their behavior and actions in life can be a productive way to lead life, regardless of your specific believe. With that being said, I do find it ironic that most religions believe unless you yourself have the same believes, your wrong in what your believes are. Seems all religions are self righteous to varying degrees. I’m not an atheist, or agnostic, but I do find a lot of religions to be hypocritical, and a certain amount of their membership have a hard time living by their religions standards.   Worshiping a religion on a regular basis or   doesn’t make you a better person, it’s the person within that make you who you are. There is no replacement for good parenting and mentoring your children.

      2. you don’t need religion to understand it’s wrong to kill
        another human, you don’t need religion to tell you to stop eating because your
        overweight, you don’t need religion to say it’s wrong to take what belongs to
        others, you don’t need religion to tell you it’s wrong to cheat on your spouse.
        If these are things that you must read from a book I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t
        naturally feel that these should be some of the common simple values we should
        share.

        1. You bring up and interesting point.  Did you develop your values entirely on your own, or did anyone (parent, teacher, friend, etc.) influence your thought process?

          1. You asked …. No parents, I was raised in a large loveless orphanage and treated as a second class citizen from the time I was 4 until I was 17. I’m sure that had some effect on my thought process. I learned if I punched someone in the nose it hurt them and made them bleed and was punished for doing so, but being punished isn’t what stopped me from fighting. I hurt myself too, my hands became damaged, Cause and effect.  If you took what didn’t belong to you, you were beat and so on So that had an influence on my thought process.

            They made us go to church, it was nondenominational, and I resented being made to go but I did listen to the sermons. It seemed there was always something didn’t add up for me. Even as a child I sensed logical gaps in the text and was irritated by it. So some of these values where beat into us but things like love, understanding and forgiveness I learned from raising my children and life in general not the church.

      3. I think it is easy to explain how morality can exist without the religious context. Go into the jungles of South America. Find some tribe living in isolation that haven’t been poisoned and infected by outside influence and you will find moral humans who can’t read or write and have no religious affiliations. Morality without a doubt existed before organized religion.

      4. It’s becoming qwuite obvious that morality of some kind has existed possibly as long as humanity has.  The colunnist implies this since he states that “all mankind operates under a religious world view that includes a system of morality”.  Since the majority of mankind is not Christian, this means that not just Christianity has a lock on THE morality.  In fact, the larger aspects of morality are largely equivalent among the various cultures (including those people who aren’t  religious).

  2. The religious right is generally misconfused about the
    religious left’s misunderstanding of history. A thousand years of “History”
    called the dark ages is all one needs to know about the religious right. Given
    their druthers the religious right will create a government that has no
    delineation between church and state, as Santorum recently stated. There is
    simply no room for any other kind thinking. You’re either with us or burn in
    hell for eternity, sounds fair and balanced.  

    The religious right and the Republican Party have formed an
    un-holy alliance that concatenates religions thought with right wing dogma. By
    disagreeing with them means you disagree with God himself.

    If the religious right feels set upon, blame only yourselves
    because when you’re foisting your beliefs into my life and I react badly it,
    there’s your sign. Believe in any way you like, just stay out of my life and
    keep your dogma where it belongs, in the church, and not in a house of debate.  

    The foundation of my world view is “Live and let live” one which the religious right should heed.

    We all know how the religious founded this country and it wasn’t pretty.

    “When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were
    resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing
    of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the
    Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: “Ask of me, and I
    shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of
    the Earth for thy possession.”

    When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the
    Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: “It was supposed that no less than
    600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day.”

    That was the biblical foundation this country was founded on, which continues till today.

  3. People always lie about Jefferson by omission.  
    This article is a good example of just that.

    The writer has zero integrity.

  4. To be secular or free from religion is not to be free from values or morals. That is incredibly ridiculous. This essay’s attempt to attribute all good to religion and all bad to secularism is crazy.

    Having our governmental systems, whether heathcare or education, be secular is for the benefit of us all. To have these institutions take preference in a certain religion hinders our own inherent rights. There is a freedom of religion in this country and it is allowed within bounds, those bounds are yourself and those who choose to assemble with you. When your religion heads into other venues, again such as healthcare or education, you start impacting others and you start lessening their own choices.

    Ultimately, this essay seems to be about self-victimhood. Where if Christianity isn’t the law of the land, it means that Christians by definiton are being persecuted and discriminated against.

    1. I believe the point of the essay is  to show that the US  is officially a Christian/ Protestant nation based on the Northwest Ordinance and that this religion should inform government, culture, education and religion.   Anyway that was the argument proposed by dirigodad earlier and it sounds suspiciously like the above argument.

  5. Indeed, the last vestiges of a feudalistic and  failed society may
    (hopefully) fall by the wayside and mankind can finally begin to
    progress in it’s march to the future – one does not need the hindrance of religion in lieu of ethics and humanism. The author portrays the world’s largest religion  as a persecuted victim – I see it as an anachronism whose time has passed.

  6. I simply do not see why I should be forced to live according to what someone believes their own god said or wrote.  It’s incredibly arrogant to believe that everyone should be in lock-step with one religion or one set of religious beliefs when there are billions of people who believe in thousands of gods and thousands of spirits or believe that there is nothing out there. 

    1. The religious right wants to claim all the world’s good, past and present, as their personal doing and then denounce everything else as secular consequences. You’re right, incredibly arrogant and obviously a lie. 

    1. I’d expect as much from someone that talks about “the rock of a normal, grammatical approach that allows the Scriptures to set the standard?”
      Which is nonsensical.

      1. Yeah, I didn’t understand that “normal, grammatical approach”  phrase either.    Didn’t realize there was a non-normal, un-grammatical  approach.  LOL

  7. Morality is learned behavior.  You are instructed in moral principles and to reenforce those principles you are, at one time or another, a recipient of the lack of morality on the part of others.

  8. Thank you for responding to Mr Faircloth’s opinion piece.   I found his line of thinking very scary and what was even scarier people actually agreed with him.  His column last week made me realize how the NAZI’s took control in Germany.  Thank God there are plenty of us who would never allow Statist like Sean Faircloth ever control the country.

  9. Religious right/Religious left?? Would someone please identify which religions or divisions of which religions are right or left?
    I wish I could remember the comedian who did a routine about two baptist who met and started talking about their church. They had everything in common through about 7 steps until the last when they found their churchs were in different parts of town. Each pointed a finger at the other and yelled ‘ATHEIST’.

    This whole song and dance show is an exercise in pure ‘futility’.

  10. From our very beginnings as colonies we have used religion as a political foot ball. To those interested in the history of this turmoil the Library of Congress has put together a history of religion in the US along with a display of original documents and pictures.  The Library of Congress exhibit  explains the origins of  both Sean Faircloth’s and K. Douglass Merrill’s points of view.  It’s fascinating.  It  helps explain much of our disagreement about religion’s role in the US today. 

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

  11. “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind” …. it appears to me they saw that the three were independent from each other by creating that list?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *