Congressman Bill Sali's most formidable opponent in the next Congressional election ... is Bill Sali. Larry Grant or whoever the Democrats run against him face long odds, but Sali can beat himself by continuing to make public comments like this one.
Here is what Sali told an interviewer about a Hindu prayer that opened proceedings in the U.S. Senate.
"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.”
Representative Sali may know his politics, but he needs to brush up on his American history a bit, because while it is true the founding fathers likely didn't envision the specifics Sali mentions, they did set up the system of government that not only allows for them but also embraces them.
As anyone who passed high school history knows, America was founded and settled initially by Protestant religious sects looking to escape religious persecution. For example, many who migrated from England objected to the state-created Church of England (or Anglican Church), which was formed by Henry VIII after he discovered the Catholic church frowned on his attempts to annul marriages from wives who could not give birth to a male heir to the throne. The Protestant beliefs of American settlers and their experience being oppressed by the Anglican Church, and other forms of state-sponsored religious persecution around the world, made the founding fathers abhor the idea of state sponsored religion. Although they never used the exact phrase 'separation of church and state,' the founding fathers clearly embraced the concept by creating the 'establishment clause' in the Constitution of the United States. For the vast majority of the founding fathers, religion was a personal belief that had no place in government, and government had no place in regulating (ie. oppressing) the personal religious beliefs of its citizens.
And back to Sali's point, the founding fathers could not specifically envision lots of things. Women holding office and voting. Blacks holding office and voting. It appears likely the Democratic nominee for President will either be a woman or an African-American. Unfathomable in 18th century America, yet accomplishable with no modifications to the U.S. Constitution even though it wasn't envisioned by its framers.
That's because the brilliance of the founding fathers was their ability to incorporate many of their ideas into a living, breathing form of government that could adjust to societal change while still holding true to fundamental values of freedom and democracy.
It is true virtually all of the founding fathers were Christians, but most were careful to invoke the word 'God' and not the word 'Christ.' Perhaps the two most notable founding fathers, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were outspoken in their opposition to the mixing of government and Christianity. Both did believe in a God whose grace they considered critical to America's survival and ability to flourish. But when it came to government, the founding fathers took their cues not from the Bible, but from the writings of great democratic thinkers ranging from Aristotle and Cicero (Pagans who pre-dated Christianity) to John Locke (whose writings and philosphy were counter to Christian philosophy). Some have even gone so far as to say the United States was the first nation whose government was not based on any religious principles.
It would be accurate to call the United States a 'nation of Christians' who at times have brought their political weight to bear with mostly positive results. America's Christian values help make us the most charitable nation in the world. The abolitionist movement that eventually led to the Civil War and freeing of slaves was a Christian movement. On the flip side, so was the temperance movement that led to the failed era of Prohibition.
But perhaps the most telling recent example of how Christianity impacted our democracy came in the 1950's and 1960's. Then, you had two factions with opposing viewpoints on civil rights that both claimed God and Christian values were on their side. On one hand were the Protestant segregationists, including the infamous Ku Klux Klan, which was reinvigorated in the early 1900's by a Christian Pastor and terrorized parts of the south and midwest for decades to come. Protestant segregationists believed God empowered white believers as 'chosen people' to rule America.
On the other side were the more liberal Christian leaders of the civil rights movement like the Reverend Martin Luther King. They believed in the American 'dream' that 'all men are created equal' and its people should be judged on no other basis than the 'content of their character.'
Congressman Sali would be wise to remember which side won that debate, and why. It is because a system of government that is equal for all Americans, no matter what their race, sex, creed, religious beliefs or sexual orientation, best reflects the 'all men are created equal' ideal of the founding fathers. History shows that in America over time, tolerance always trumps intolerance.
I don't doubt there is a political calculation to Sali's remarks. He enjoys 'playing to the base' of Republican Christian Conservatives, but he's on a slippery slope. That's because most Idahoans today do understand the value of religious tolerance. That's especially true of Christians whose faiths have suffered from religious persecution, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
As a Congressman, Representative Sali is now on a much more visible stage than he was as a state legislator. He has the ability to be a true statesman that reflects Idaho's best values of individual liberty and personal responsibility. But he also has the ability to embarrass our state as a backwater of ignorance and intolerance, and if he does that, I suspect he will lose the privilege to represent this great state in Congress.
As always, feel free to add your thoughts to this debate. We may use them in another blog or on air.
