Flunking History: Idaho Congressman Misunderstands America’s Heritage Of Religious Pluralism

When Hindu chaplain Rajan Zed gave a 90-second prayer to open the U.S. Senate July 12, little did he know that he was sparking a rancorous national debate about religious diversity in America. Yet that debate is still percolating a month later.

Last week, an Idaho congressman blasted Zed’s invocation and, to make matter worse, criticized Minnesotans for electing a Muslim as a member of the U.S. House.

“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,” U.S. Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) told “One News Now.” “Those are changes — and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.”

According to the news service, which is sponsored by the Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association, “Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through ‘the protective hand of God.’”

Sali reportedly asserted that the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under the protective hand of God. The House member said when a Hindu prayer is offered, “that’s a different god” and that it “creates problems for the longevity of this country.”

Sali, of course, has American democracy confused with theocracy.

America’s Founding Fathers strongly believed that our nation should provide religious freedom for those of all faiths and none. Article VI forbids any religious test for public office, so Muslims, Hindus, Humanists and everyone is free to serve in our government. And, of course, the First Amendment establishes broad freedom of conscience. If the Founders had meant to limit public office and free exercise of religion to Christians, they could have done so. They didn’t.

While Christians certainly played an important role in our country’s history, our government is not built on “Christian principles that were derived from scripture.” The Constitution doesn’t even mention the word God, let alone Jesus Christ. The framers weren’t anti-Christian, they just insisted that religion was outside the realm of government.

Since his interview with Wildmon’s news service, Sali says he regrets how his remarks sounded and indicated that he plans to call Rep. Ellison and explain himself. But the Idaho congressman still plainly doesn’t get it.

“The idea that somehow we can move to multi-culturalism and still remain the same — I think that’s a little dangerous, too,” he told the Idaho Statesman. “From my standpoint, I believe the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and the God they were talking about is the God of the Bible.”

I won’t get into the debate here about whether the Founders were “overwhelmingly Christian.” In fact, they ran the gamut of religious belief. A few were orthodox Christians. A lot of them were heavily influenced by deism, even though they may have remained members of Christian churches. I think all of that is somewhat beside the point.

Regardless of their religious beliefs, the Founders were deeply committed to the separation of church and state. They supported that constitutional construct that has allowed Americans to follow any one of thousands of religious traditions – or to reject them all.

Rep. Sali needs to discard those David Barton “Christian nation” propaganda books he’s been reading and turn instead to some real American history. It would do him – and our national political discourse – a lot of good.

By Joseph L. Conn