The ocasion was that the Alabama House passed a resolution declaring Easter Week to be "Christian Heritage Week."

HJR 415 cites the Mayflower Compact, a favorite Religious Right trick. No one disputes the theocratic nature of that document. Its influence on our Constitution, of course, was nil.

The resolution goes on to quote language from early governing documents from the American colonies, places everyone admits were sometimes harsh theocracies. One of them is Massachusetts, where the Puritans were so intolerant they actually hanged four Quakers between 1658-61. Is this really a heritage worth celebrating?

From there the resolution quotes an early charter from Harvard outlining that school's ties to Christianity. This is not surprising, given its religious origins. Again, what does this have to do with the U.S. Constitution and the form of government we were given?

Poor George Washington is maligned next. He is proclaimed a great Christian leader, but, oddly, this is followed by a wholly deistic quote. No surprise there. Washington frequently spoke of God in deistic terms. (His quasi-Masonic reference to the "Great Architect of the Universe" is my favorite.) Washington attended an Episcopal church but routinely departed before communion.

The resolution concludes with pro-Christian quotes from an Illinois Supreme Court decision from 1883 and a House Judiciary Committee report from 1853. Why these documents, produced long after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are relevant is not explained.

The Alabama State Senate is expected to take up the measure, but Boston observes that while the resolution cites a number of historic documents there are a few things that the resolution does not mention: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Article VI.

It's too late for the House, but perhaps members of the Alabama Senate should read them before they vote on this resolution.

Perhaps John McCain should read the founding documents as well, since here is what he said:

"the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

The narrative of how McCain is a maverick who has stood-up to the Religious Right -- once calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" -- doesn't square with his years of bridge building back to the Religious Right he needs to win the presidency. If he does win, it will be in large part because he is ready to be the Panderer in Chief to the Religious Right.

Here are the opening few paragraphs of an article I wrote last last year, at about the time of McCain's Christian nationalist coming out interview:

The notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is a central animating element of the ideology of the Christian Right. It touches every aspect of life and culture in this, one of the most successful and powerful political movements in American history. The idea that America's supposed Christian identity has somehow been wrongly taken, and must somehow be restored, permeates the psychology and vision of the entire movement. No understanding of the Christian Right is remotely adequate without this foundational concept.

But the Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism becomes a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway.

History is powerful. That's why it is important for the rest of society not only to recognize the role of creeping Christian historical revisionism, but our need to craft a compelling and shared story of American history, particularly as it relates to the role of religion and society. We need it in order to know not how the religious Right is wrong, but to know where we ourselves stand in the light of history, in relation to each other, and how we can better envision a future together free of religious prejudice, and ultimately, religious warfare.