- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Tea Party's Glen Urquhart: Hitler Invented Church/State Separation
Delaware Tea Party candidate Glen Urquhart (yeah, same state as the anti-masturbation candidate Christine O’Donnell) told an audience that the
phrase “separation of church and state” originated from Adolph Hitler. Surprisingly, Urquhart knew about Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists but insisted the phrase was not in the letter.
Glen Urquhart is insisting that he was taken out of context and that was not really what he meant. So, to be fair, let us look at the entire context of the statement:
Glen Urquhart: “Do you know, where does this phrase ’separation of church and state’ come from? Anybody know?”
Audience member: “From the Devil.”
History teacher: “I do.”
Glen Urquhart (Pointing to audience member and laughing): “But I told you.”
History teacher: “No. I know. But I’m the history teacher. It was a letter.”
Glen Urquhart: “That is, actually, that exact phrase is not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring them the federal government wouldn’t trample on their religion. The exact phrase ’separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth. That’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they’re Nazis.”
So what does Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists say?
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
I suppose a person could say that Urquhart was technically accurate because Jefferson says “separation between church and state” and not “separation of church and state.” But even if we were to give him that technicality, it still does not detract from the asininity of the sentiment.
Perhaps Mr. Urquhart should go back to school and relearn his history. I bet the history teacher in the audience would be willing to tutor him.
So I have to ask… what in the world is going on in Delaware?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Urquhart is an empty suit, full of slogans
I just came from the New Castle County Chamber of Commerce debate where I listened to Urquhart and Carney answer questions put to them by Alan Ludell.
Carney offered constructive answers and insights, demonstrating a real command of the facts and the issues.
Urquhart, in contrast was all slogans and soundbites. His message can be simply summed up as a promise to do nothing at all if elected, except say "NO" as often as possible to bring government to a standsill. He would drastically cut spending, but lacks the courage to say what he would cut.
Hitler, Munich April, 1922
I SAY: MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND SAVIOUR AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO ONCE IN LONELINESS, SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE JEWS FOR WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND WHO, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
Where is the line...
...where you have to respect a persons political opinions and the line where you just tell them they're an idiot? Because I'm extremely sure this guy has just blown past it.
If you read Jefferson's letter, you'll find the words "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." He says it right there! A wall of separation between church and state!
You'd have to be blindly naive or incredibly stupid to believe otherwise. How does a man even come to that conclusion that Hitler invented separation of church and state? What next? Mussolini invented freedom of the press? Attila the Hun invented non-violent resistance? Stalin invented freedom of religion?
Worse than Stupid
You have to speak your truth. He is worse than stupid, he is deliberately distorting facts. He is feeding his audience wants they hear, playing on their ignorance for political gain.
Tea Party and Facts...
The right wing conservatives like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh et al and the Tea Party loons don't care about facts because their audience does not care about facts. As long as the leaders are spewing out stuff that confirms the fears and prejudices of the audience, facts are irrelevant and can be ignored.
No one cares that Urquhart's statement is demonstrably wrong to anyone who can read english and nobody in his audience will bother to check because they all just "know" that he's right.
And it this kind of unthinking, zombie-like devotion to paranoid fantasy that leads these folks to say things like what gigo said here on this board "It boils down to, you support secularism then you are supporting Nazi ideology."
Only someone incapable - or unwilling - to really think about their views and the crap that their leaders are selling them could possibly belive that that statement - or statements like this - are even remotly true. Of course, in this country, associating your opponents with Hitler and the Nazis is well-worn tactic ususally used in desparation by people who can't reasonably argue their positions and/or are incredibly shallow in their thinking.
bellyfeel the trutheness
It is quite descriptive of a phenomena found on both sides of the political isle, but is presently most visible on the right.
It does not matter if the statement is wrong, what matters is that it fits into their preconstructed world view... reinforcing what they on the right want to be true, so it "becomes" true.
It has a whole "We have never been at war with Eurasia" vibe to it.
Tea Party fax
"The right wing conservatives like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh et al and the Tea Party loons" - I do like that phrase! Every time some plonker from the Tea Party opens their mouth we get economies of truth, factual inaccuracies, not to mention downright lies. It gets better every time! I couldn't make up some of the drivel spouted by these wallies. Shame really, a party where the pot is cracked, the cups are chipped, spoons are missing and definately no fairy cakes (I assume muffins are a bit suspect too).
Glen + "fact" = Tea Party
He is a Tea Party candidate, what does anyone expect?
Ahhh... Another Englishman,
Still bitter from the first tea party. Seriously. Seriously?
Musing...
Are the ACLU and their bastard cousins, American Atheists, really Hitler? No, of course not.
Do they have virtually identical political ideas concerning religion? Yes. Sure they do.
Do they have a similar goal of eradication of a the political power of a particular religion in a particular nation? Yes, again.
Is the conclusion of that goal a means to a similar end as was Hitler's? We just do not know. They'll say "Nope." However, if they tirelessly ridicule into silence the majority of Americans to the point that being a Christian is point of shame, is it reasonable to assume and trust that that silence is their ultimate goal?
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
From one Christian to, presumably, another
Solar Sanitizer, you just do not get it, do you?
I am a Christian, who passionately believes in the separation of church and state, not because I have any "Hitler-like" ambitions or HATE CHRISTIANS or anything ridiculous and monstrous as you seem to manufacture in the windtunnels of your mind. I honor the principle because it protects our right as people to worship in whatever way we choose without any pressure or interference from government. The last thing I want my government meddling in is my spiritual beliefs and practice.
If they start having a state religion and one denomination is favored over another, pretty soon there is discrimination and we have no religious freedom in this country. That was at the core of why this country was founded: to escape religious persecution and be free from tyranny over one's beliefs. That is all it is about. When a person says he or she is for the separation of church and state it does not mean he or she is not Christian. It only means he or she does not want to impose the state to that on anyone. That is a dictatorship, which is precisely what Hitler had and precisly what Hitler did practise, by the way.
SEE: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
If anyone has ANY doubt about how Hitler was NOT a proponent of separation of church and state, I recommend you take a look at this excellent page of photos and video from the u.S. Holocaust Museum and other highly creidble sources, showing Hitler praying, his troops in church, the Nazi flag flying in front of cathedrals, the priests mixing with the soldiers, Hitler believing himself to be Christ in the temple chastising the "moneychangers", the Christian military weddings,
funerals and Christmases and last, but not least,
Hitler's oath:
I swear by God
this holy oath
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Absolutely Wrong
See my post regarding Hitler's speech in Munich, April 1922
not so fast there buddy...
"Do they have virtually identical political ideas concerning religion? Yes. Sure they do."
Have you spent any time really researching the Nazi's religious beliefs or are you just going by what you think you know? From what I've read, the Nazi's had a rather odd conglomeration of pseudo-cristian/pseudo-pagan beliefs combined with an obsession with the occult - NONE of which any atheist worth his salt would agree with or have any sympathy for.
As far as the "political ideas concernig religion" goes, I think that most atheists have ONE idea regarding politics and religion - that the two should not mix. Period. The Nazi's on the other hand had complex belifes about the role of religion and religious symbolsim in poltics. Indeed, many have commented that Naziism represents a quasi-religious poltical philosphy...but you would know that if you researched it a little.
"Do they have a similar goal of eradication of a the political power of a particular religion in a particular nation? Yes, again " Again, a bit of research on your part would show how wrong this is. Nazi's attempted to usereligion as a political tool and an means to achieve and enhance thier power. They did not attempt to eradicate it. Atheists on the other hand would probably like to eradicte religion from politics becasue they belive it should have np lace in politics. That hardly makes them the equivalents of Nazis.
Is the conclusion of that goal a means to a similar end as was Hitler's? We just do not know. They'll say "Nope." However, if they tirelessly ridicule into silence the majority of Americans to the point that being a Christian is point of shame, is it reasonable to assume and trust that that silence is their ultimate goal?"
If the Chrsitan tireless ly ridicule non-belivers into silence - as they try to every day - to the point that being non-Christian is a point of shame is it reasonable to assumethat everyone who espouses religious views wants to establish a Christian Facist theocracy in this country ?
remeber what they say about what happens when you assume...
Just going by 'what I think I know.'
Which the impolite/hostile way of saying 'what I know.' Not sure why you want to be impolite, but I figure it is your way of ridiculing me into silence. It didn't work, as you can see.
I'll tell you what I think I know about atheists: They are not really against religion in government, they are actually against Christian beliefs in government. I think I know this because folks like American Atheists and ASUCS and ACLU do not oppose any other religion except Christianity.
The popular excuse is: Christians have the most political power, so it makes sense to focus on them in this nation. This exposes the biggest hypocrisy in the various "Anti-religion/Religious freedom groups": They also maintain that America isn't a Christian nation.
I say you folks cannot have it both ways. You either need to acknowledge that America IS, in fact, a Christian nation (especially seeing that ours is a republic with strong democratic functions (Which means that the many select the few and the few set policy for the many)).
The many, in this great nation, are Christian. On the order of 75-80%. This puts my in the minority, as I assume it does you. What separates us, though, is you fear Christianity. I don't understand that.
Maybe it is because you have over-thought it. You act as if all Christians are little Hitlers. I'd say this comes from learning too much of what you know from a book (Read: the opinions of another) and not enough from figuring out actual people (Read: making up your own mind.)
You go ahead and remember "what they say" about assumptions and everything else, I'll go ahead and do more thinking and less agreeing.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
To Clear the air
By it's nature to be an athiest is to be a non beliver of "all" religions....they are all quite silly.
Atheists pick on Christianity because the target is so big it is hard to miss. What would you expect from a faith that has people rising from the dead...like in a class B horror film.
If you do not like to be picked on .....use reason instead of faith...it clears the head......or maybe turn the other cheek....I think you might find that phrase in an old book somewhere.
What you know is wrong
"They are not really against religion in government, they are actually against Christian beliefs in government."
The first half of that stament is wrong, the second half is right. If there were Muslims or Jews running for office on strongly religious platforms akin to Chrsitian candidates, atheists would oppose them. If Muslims or Jews were trying to impose their religious views through government policies or legislation, atheists would oppose them on exactly the same grounds as they oppose Christians trying to do these things. Atheists reject ALL religions. Are there agressively anti-Christian atheists? Certianly, but I believe that that's a natural result of the fact that the folks who are most vocal and agressive about trying to impose their religious views in American society are CHRISTIANS, not Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc. Next time you meet an Atheist, ask him if he'd be happier with an Islamic theocracy or a Chrsitian one...I doubt it will make much difference.
As for the US being a "Christian nation" - what does that mean anyway? Yes, the founders of the nation were various types of Christians and yes the founding documents mention God, but they also were quite explicit to preclude any possibility that there would be any sort of "official" government religion. You might as well say that this country is an 'English nation" or "European nation" because of the ethnic and cultural heritages of the founders and colonists. Heck we speak "English" don't we?
I am sorry to say that your understanding of democracy is missing one very important thing - perhaps the most important. They way you describe it, it appears that you think that our democracy should function like mob rule - the majority wins. But our founders knew that this was they way to tyrrany. They knew that majority rule could not be absolute and that the rights of minorities must be protected. Our goernement is set up to do just that, thank goodness. What you're advocating is a therocracy - the majority Christians in this "Christian nation" elect ther Chrsitian representative to set policy for the rest of us.
That's not "American" and it's certianly not "Democratic" That's tyrrany. That's theocracy. That's what the Taliban want.
And that's what the ACLU and many atheists are fighting against.
"You act as if all Christians are little Hitlers." and you act as if all atheists are Nazis (there, I hurled your Hitler/Nazi insult right back at you. Now we're gettinig somewhere, right?)
I don't object to Chrsitians or Christianity. I don't believe in it but I have no problem with those that do. I do however have a problem with people of any religion trying to impose their religious beliefs on me or the country, especially through our government. THAT is the problem - not the fiath or the religion but that Chrsitians can't leave the rest of us alone. If you foks would just do your thing and let us do ours, there'd be no problem. But you can't help but meddle and impose and we can't sit by and do nothing. So we fight.
BTW - you set up a choice without giving the two options when you wrote "I say you folks cannot have it both ways. You either need to acknowledge that America IS, in fact, a Christian nation..." - you didn't give the "or" implicit in the statement. What is the "or" ?
So let's get to the bottom of this.
Atheists are opposed to Christian beliefs being made into policy in our government.
Which unpalatable Christian values are being opposed?
The "or" was the acknowledgement that ours is a nation of Christians, statistically speaking. The first part of the hypocritical dichotomy was the laser-like focus on only Christian beliefs.
As for you trying to redefine "Democracy", I reject your redefinition. Democracy IS majority rule. (The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power".) Our nation is not a democracy, though. It is a republic. We have the constitution in place to limit government, we have two houses of Congress to cool the whimsy of the populace, we have the Executive branch to check the Congress, and finally, we have the Judicial to check the other two. That is what I "think I know."
Going back to the top, where I requested we get to the bottom of this, I'd like you to think about what "Christian values are being imposed on you through legislation, list which you oppose and why you oppose them, please.
Keep in mind, I think I know some Christian values which are legislated into law that I agree with and have formulated a list in my mind. We should compare lists and see if imposing Christian values is not best for American society.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
values
So what Christian Values was this country founded on?
A good number of the Founding Fathers were Christians but at the same time many were Deists (like the author of the Constitution).
Looking at the Constitution I don't see anything that is exclusive to Christianity (Jesus doesn't even get a passing mention).
There is the no murdering / stealing bit... but that is hardly exclusive to Christianity, all major civilizations have had those rules.
reply
My argument is not so much with ‘Christian values” (see below ) as it is with the way Christians have forced/continue to force their faith on others though our government.
In general, my objections center on three things: first, I believe that government has no business promoting or support any religion or religious belief. Second, I believe that while it is reasonable and acceptable to draw upon religious traditions and beliefs when making policy decision - especially technological or scientific - such decisions should not be made only BECAUSE of religious faith. Third, I believe that matters or religion and faith should be private and not objects of public policy or otherwise imposed on others. Believe what you want, but don't try to force me to believe it too or otherwise coerce me to act in accordance with your beliefs.
- the incorporation of "under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance and the appearance of "In God We Trust" on our money. The posting of religious texts such as the Ten Commandments in courts, schools and other government buildings. Prayers at public gatherings sponsored by governmental organizations like schools.
Why? Because the government should not be in the position of advocating or supporting a particular religious point of view. Nor should it allow it's publications, facilities or employees to impose their expressions of religious faith on others because such impositions are perceived as advocacy and endorsement.
- the imposition of creationism into school science curriculums (curricula?)
Because it's NOT science and it totally destroys the meaning of 'scientific theory' to assert that creationism is a "valid alternative theory". It's not a theory. It's religious faith. Teach it in a comparative religion class, but don't call it "science".
- the "National Day of Prayer"
The government has no business promoting religion.
- The ban on stem cell research funding
The debate is being driven by faith-based argument about the value of clumps of cells rather than and reasoned discussion about the merits of the technology . Yes, issues of morality and ethics DO have a place here (as in all scientific debates), but the discussion is not so much about ethics as it is about faith - i.e. the belief that all human life is sacred, that life begins at conception ,etc.
- the effect of Christian beliefs in the abortion debate
The polarizing influence of absolutist Christian beliefs has poisoned the debate to the point that reasonable discussion about the morality of abortion is not possible. It has also resulted in laws that infringe on the privacy rights of women and their doctors and diminished the personal liberty and freedoms of women.
- the insertion of faith into political campaigns as a "litmus test' of the suitability of candidates for office and the constant 'wearing of one's faith on one's sleeve" that are politicians feel they need to do to appease the country's Christians.
Religious faith should be personal. It's nobody's business what you or I believe. Our actions should speak for our character and not what church we attend, how often we go and how many public displays of piety we engage in. The far right's obsession with Obama's religion is a perfect example of this. What difference does it make if he's a Christian or a Muslim or a Taoist or an Atheist as long as his policies and decisions and behavior are benefitting the country?
There are more, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop.
I will also list some so-called "Christian values" that I think have a positive effect on government:
- Injunctions against murder & theft
- the values of charity and compassion
- the consideration of issues of morality and ethics in political and policy debate
The thing is, all of this stuff is not unique to Christianity. They are universal and for Christians to claim them as being uniquely Christian is arrogant.
Although you may not think so, I do believe that religion has a place in society and I am not in favor of its elimination. I just don't think that ANY religion should be the basis for government and I don't think that government should have any business advocating either directly or indirectly any particular religious views. "Freedom of religion" also means "Freedom to excercise one's personal religious beliefs whatever they are". In a country that values relgious freedom, no single religion (ie. Christianity) should be promoted by or have undue influence over our government, regardless of how many members of that religion are citizens.
The liberal nazi takeover
Glen Urquhart is using the same slippery slope argument you hear a lot coming from the right regarding secularism. It boils down to, you support secularism then you are supporting Nazi ideology.
Much of the Tea Party rhetoric regarding religion boils down to, America is a Christian nation and we need more Christianity in politics now more than ever. We are seeing candidates pushing for legislation that is based on personal religious beliefs and with that agenda it is imperative to show that the secular tradition in America is a liberal lie, conspiracy, or just a misinterpreted idea.
The left on the other hand are just terrified of the mention of religion and seek to quell every mention of it. Which seeks to downplay the strong foundation Christianity has on the nation. The middle ground of these two beliefs seems far more beneficial to the nation than to align to either extreme. But the current political trends have no room for those seeking the middle ground because we have been sold the idea that these issues are merely black and white, right and left.