Dear Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes,
On November 29th, your show’s administrators contacted the local University of Florida libertarian group in an effort to have a discussion over a recent issue involving the separation between church and state. The Libertarian Activist Network, of which I am a cofounder, was chosen by your staff and we proceeded to conclude when and where we could have this discussion. I agreed to represent my organization and have meaningful discourse with the show regarding the subject at hand. The issue involved a monument to the Ten Commandments that was erected at the Dixie County Courthouse near Gainesville, Florida in an effort to connect the laws of our nation with that of Judeo-Christian religions.
As I was getting mentally prepared for the television broadcast, your administrators notified me that they had gotten another individual to take my spot: the leader of the atheist and agnostics on the University of Florida campus. Sadden by the change of heart on part of the Hannity and Colmes staff, I thought hard and well as to the reasons why a libertarian representative would be replaced with an atheist instead. One conclusion might be suggested that by inviting a representative of an atheist group to present the counterpoint in the Ten Commandments discussion, the show would immediately turn the impending deep and important political discourse into a religious ramble. The matter at hand has less to do with Christianity in itself and more to do with the Constitution and the separation between church and state. It is vital that the state not favor any specific religion over another, and by displaying monuments to the commandments of the Judeo-Christian religions at a courthouse, the state is doing just that. In essence, it is a matter of the constitutionality of the subject and not of the importance of Christian themes in our moral systems.
In addition, many of the individuals in favor of these Ten Commandment displays, such as you, Sean Hannity, claim that the United States of America is a Christian nation founded on Christian laws; this can not be farther from the truth. In all reality, one of the principle reasons for the creation of the United States was freedom of religion and the separation of religion from the state. This is something the British crown did not practice and which led to many acts against minority religious groups by the English government. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the United States government be free from all ties to any specific religion.
An additional argument in favor of this belief is the famous Treaty with Tripoli, signed by the 5th Congress and President John Adams, that states in Article 11 that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” I know this is a old and dusty paper, Hannity and Colmes, but it is one that clearly states the position of this government with respect to its supposed embrace of the Christian religion. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, but Deists who believed that God could only be understood through scientific insight and not faith. Thomas Jefferson himself urged us to “question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” This wasn’t (nor is it today) a popular opinion of Christian individuals, yet it was this man that wrote the very document that separated the colonies from the British crown. James Madison understood that “the general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion.” In fact, Madison believed that by government interfering in matters of religion and binding religion to its laws would inevitably lead to a decrease in the faith of individuals in religion. Madison writes that “religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government.”
It was Deism, not Christianity, that was the belief of a large part of the Founding Fathers and it is the duty of government not to respect any sect of religion, including Christianity. This is clearly not the case when government courts find it justified to place religious icons at the top of courthouse steps.
These are the points that you, Sean Hannity, the self-proclaimed libertarian, would not have wanted to hear come out on his show. In essence, by making the problem at hand into a religious conflict rather than a legal and political issue, your show could simply argue over the validity of the atheist’s claims and label them inherently biased. This is what Hannity and Colmes proceeded to do on the show, to label any individual opposed to the union of the state and Christianity as an infidel and atheist. In the blink of an eye and the execution of a phone call, the discourse of the show was changed from a meaningful and intellectual discussion to the religious ranting of a member of the Christian right. Individuals should be more concerned about the rights that are being stripped away from them by the religious right and less passionate about the unconstitutional union of the state with Christianity. This administration has been given the unconstitutional privileges to suspend habeas corpus, intrude into the private lives of law-abiding citizens without warrants, and gather the national guardsmen without regard to the wishes of the governors. If your show ever wants to have serious discussions on the many controversial subjects of our time, you know where to find us. Otherwise, your show can continue to perpetuate the dull and empty talking points found in modern political circles. It now seems clearer than ever that libertarianism and truth are out of fashion, while meaningless rants are all the rage.
Sincerely,
Alexander Villacampa Cofounder of the Libertarian Activist Network
December 1, 2006
Alexander Villacampa [send him mail] is a sophomore in economics at the University of Florida and summer fellow at the Mises Institute.
