Senator Joe and the “public square” revisited
10 January 2004 by Ron In a recent Democratic Presidential Radio Debate, Joe “It’s the same God! Really!” Leiberman was asked about his bullshit use of the “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion” buzz-phrase that theocrats love so. He tries to weasel out of its offensiveness. Here’s the exchange:
[Question] “You’ve said in the past that separation of church and state means freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. How do atheists and secularists fit into that vision of American spirituality?”Leiberman: Thanks very much for asking that question. This is a difference between individual behavior and the public square. And the point — the great point of the First Amendment is that it protects every individual’s right to worship or not worship, as they choose. I always through it was a remarkable, a brilliant act of principle when in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote and the others signed that there were self-evident truths that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an endowment from our creator. And one of those rights in America is not to believe in the creator if you don’t want to. What I meant about freedom of religion in that sense and not freedom from religion is that there’s been too much of an attempt, and too often from members of my party, to feel uncomfortable talking about faith or to try to exclude faith or expressions of it from the public square. The fact is, in America we’re the most religiously observant in our individual lives nation probably in the whole world, and we are the most religiously tolerant.”
Two comments: (a) Did somebody point out to him how offensive the “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion” canard is, and tell him to back-pedal out without losing the godsters? (b) I count two rapid-fire uses of the code-phrase “public square” here (see my earlier comment on this code-phrase). Does anybody seriously doubt the “we’re for theocracy” code status of this now?
