I though I’d try a little experiment. There is a growing trend that the idea that America was founded by Christians with the intent for Christianity to play a significant role on government and society is in some fashion revisionist. Was there the intent for religion generally, and Christianity specifically, to be absent in government? Or was it permissible or even encouraged?
I’d like whomever responds with their opinion that the First Amendment was pregnant with the idea of “separation of church and state”, and that “separation” was intended to mean religious absence in government — to provide and cite historical documentation which supports their opinion along with an explanation as to why the citation means what you think it does.
Acceptable documentation includes:
- Personal correspondence between Founding Fathers
- Governing documents from the founding era (i.e. State Charters and Compacts, U.S. and State constitutions, etc.)
- Declarations made by Founding Fathers in an official capacity
“Founding Father” for purposes of this discussion is defined as someone who wielded significant influence in the development and birth of America and includes:
- The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence
- The Presidents of the Continental Congress
- The 55 men at the Constitutional Convention
- The first Governors of the Colonies and States
- Every member of the First Congress
- The earliest members of the Supreme Court
Because the concern is with the founding of the Nation, only the earliest — and by extension — the most relevant documents and statements will be accepted. Note that only one or two quotations is unacceptable since the founding of the country was not built upon one or two people. Remember, you are trying to make a case, not cite an exception.
Sifting Reality 
I can’t wait to see what might be posted.
BTW, it should be “Personal correspondence between Founding Fathers”. I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand when I find I’ve made a typo in my posts. Feel free to delete this comment if you find it the least bit offensive or awkward.
Wow, two in one day, I used the spell check, so I’m passing the buck on this one! WP might need a grammar check too. I don’t mind the correction. I’d rather have it right. I’m not offended by my mistakes, its not your fault I fowled up the term. Ba dum bum.
Was there the intent for religion generally, and Christianity specifically, to be absent in government? Or was it permissible or even encouraged?
I like the term initiated by Roger Williams in the 1600s and echoed by Madison/Jefferson in the 1700s: There ought to be a WALL OF SEPARATION between the church and the state.
I don’t think the founders cared if you were a Christian or some other religion, they just didn’t want religion getting its hands on gov’t nor gov’t getting its hands on the church.
You can read many of their quotes here.
I think we need to keep in mind what they were reacting to/against: They were well familiar (especially Roger Williams and William Penn, based on first hand experience) with what happens to religious liberty when the church is enmeshed with the gov’t and vice versa. It is harmful to both church and state to have that sort of enmeshment.
That being said, clearly, many if not most of our founders were religious men. I am quite sure they didn’t suggest that religious folk can’t take part in gov’t. Just that there should be, as Williams said, “When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, … and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day.”
Keep your religion out of my gov’t and personal life and keep your gov’t our of my religion and personal life. That is what I think their intent was.
Perhaps you could cite some of the original governing documents where they expressed they wanted religion out of government? Say, in a charter or state constitution which is where it would have materialized first.
I’m sorry, John, I thought that link would suffice. It offers all the quotes and documentation.
But note that I’m not saying they “wanted religion out of gov’t.” Those are your words, not mine.
I’m saying that, because of foundational work done by Baptists and Quakers and others (many who were well-acquainted with the problems and persecutions that happen when church and state mix too freely), they did NOT want to have gov’t tangled up in church or the church tangled up in the state.
That is, it is my position/understanding that the founders did not want the state getting involved at all in the matters of the church NOR did they want the church as an institution to make policy for the state. Individuals of any religious stripe or none were/are welcome participants.
Some of those sorts of quotes:
James Madison:
“strongly guarded . . . [is the] separation of religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” (Arlen Specter, Defending the Wall: Maintaining Church/State Separation in America, 18 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 575, 580 (1995)
“the total separation of the church from the state.” (8 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 1808-1819, 432 (Gaillard Hunt, ed. 1908)
In a letter to Edward Livingston dated July 10, 1822, Madison disapproved of Congress’ appointment of chaplains, and said:
“a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.” (9 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 1819-1836, 98, 102 (Gaillard Hunt, ed., 1910)
[W]e hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. (Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments)
The following year, Madison persuaded the state legislature… to enact Jefferson’s Act for Religious Freedom, which commences with these words:
Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion…
Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error [ie, too strong a connection between church/state -Dan], that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against…
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)
“Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of
religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
-“Detached Memoranda,” date of authorship unknown, estimated between 1817 and 1832
On Congressional chaplains:
“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.”
-“Detached Memoranda”
That sort of thing. I’m not saying they wanted “religion out of gov’t” (I’m not sure how you would do that, since the majority of humanity is religious in one way or another), but they wanted a FIRM WALL of separation between the two.
So based on one Founding Father then? You know there were more than 100. It does not make a case to cite one, or two. A case is made based on a cumulitive presentation. So perhaps you’d like to cite from a minimum of a half dozen or more, as well as cite the earliest governing documents which make the case. You know, like Charters, Laws, and Consititution where the Founders themselves set into motion the required absence of religion from government. It would also help to cite some of the first Supreme Court decisions on the issues, say, from the first decade or few.
You see, that’s how an overall case is made. What you’ve done is cite only one man, with “detatched memorandia” as a source, which is not an actual source.
But this is typical of the “secular founding” crowd. They cite from ONLY the 3-4 agnostics and atheists, and ignore the other 150 founders, and ignore the earliest governing documents. As if this kind of selective citation would be countenanced in any other discussion.
This is what I suspect the answers will look like. Which, of course, is why I added “one or two quotations is unacceptable since the founding of the country was not built upon one or two people. Remember, you are trying to make a case, not cite an exception.”
Here’s another batch, bringing the total of founders and contributors to American democracy to eight (admittedly, not all “founders…” only five of these are founders, but VERY IMPORTANT founders/framers (ie, Jefferson, John Adams, Washington, Franklin and Madison)…
Now, I would ask you (again) if you have any quotes from any founders (or early contributors to American style democracy/liberty) who actively WANTED religion actively involved in gov’t?
George Washington:
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792)
In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. (George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793)
“[N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of . . . every species of religious persecution. . . .”
“The citizens of the United States . . . have the right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience. . . . [T]he Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
“In this enlightened age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.”
John Adams:
In his youth John Adams (1735-1826) thought to become a minister, but soon realized that his independent opinions would create much difficulty. At the age of twenty-one, therefore, he resolved to become a lawyer, noting that in following law rather than divinity, “I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.” (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 88. The Adams quote is from his letter to Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756.)
“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. (John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788]
In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books?
I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. (John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825.)
Benjamin Franklin:
When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. (Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790, American statesman, diplomat, scientist, and printer, from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780)
Alexander Hamilton:
“[I]n politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”
“The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. . . .”
(Historian Craig Nelson:) “When Alexander Hamilton was asked why the U.S. Constitution made no mention of God, he said the country did not require ‘foreign aid’; when his mother insisted on a serious reply, he explained, ‘We forgot.'”
Thomas Paine:
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776)
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity. (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man)
The adulterous connection of church and state. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)
Isaac Backus (Baptist minister at the time of Revolution):
Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state. (Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773)
when “church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued.” (“An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty” – I think)
More quotes from Jeffson that I do not have the source for off hand…
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions. . . . I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrine.”
“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 and State.”
And more from President Madison (“father of the Constitution”)…
“There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant violation.”
“Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States. . . .”
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
“[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”
Why, yes Dan. Multiple dozens from multiple dozens of founders. As well as from the first Charters and consititutions.
HERE: http://truthinreligionandpolitics.com/2010/09/02/finders-keepers/
John,
Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and ratified by Congress clearly states that the United States was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
There is no need to delve further, in my view. I am a Christian but I feel religion and government should be kept totally separate. The Founders believed this as well – or, at least enough of them did.
There is absolutely reason to delve further Terrance,
The Treaty of Tripoli is generally the the last resort for the proponent of a Christian-less Nation. The treaty was negotiated during the “Powers of Barbary Conflict”. The Barbary Conflict continued through the three presidencies of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams. The Muslim Barbary Powers of Tripoli, Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis were warring against what they considered to be the “Christian” nations of England, Denmark, France, Spain, and the United States. In 1801, the nation of Tripoli declared war on the United States, initiating America’s first official war as an independent nation. During the conflict, the Barbary Powers regularly attacked the defenseless U.S. merchant ships. The Barbary Powers were capturing and enslaving “Christian” crew members, and their cargo, in retaliation for what had been done to them by Christians of centuries prior (Crusades and the expulsion of Muslims from Granada, for example). Attempting to secure a release of captured American crew members and a guarantee of unhindered passage in the Mediterranean region, President Washington dispatched ships to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. The American envoys negotiated a number of treaties with the Muslim Barbary nations for the protection of U.S. commercial ships passing through the region. Unfortunately, the terms of the treaty were usually unfavorable to America, requiring the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in ”tribute” (a warship to Tripoli, a frigate to Algiers, $525,000 in ransom paid for captured American crew members from Algiers) to the Muslim nations. The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of many treaties in which the countries would officially recognize the religion of the other attempting to prevent further possibility of a Holy War between Muslims and Christians. The oft quoted Article 11 reads in part, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”. On its face this seems to be an open and shut case. Unless you keep reading for the context, the entire Article reads:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Reading the Article in its full text reveals that America was intending to differentiate itself from other nations which held an inherent hatred toward Muslims. It assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like the nations of previous centuries which sought out war with the Muslim nations, and would not provoke a religious war against them. Additionally, This Treaty is written in the context of the Federal Government, and as such in this historical and legal way, to declare this country is not in any way a Christian nation is correct. In that the Federal Government was not Christian in the same way Muslim governments are Muslim.
Lemme guess, that doesn’t prove anything, right?
Also, if enough of the founders believed that, it would be found in more places than a quarter of one sentence in a treaty with Muslim pirates, don’t you think?
John,
I studied History at the U of M, so believe me when I sayI understand the purpose of the Treaty of Tripoli. But I have trouble understanding how our desire to differentiate ourselves from countries that hated Muslims has anything at all to do with this debate. The Treaty clearly states that we were not founded on the Christian religion. Are you suggesting we lied and put that in there to fool the Muslims?
When you consider that along with all the statements already offered, it’s seems pretty open and shut to me.
If you’re saying the United States was founded by Christians, you’re right. But it was also founded by atheists and polytheists. Other than that, I don’t understand exactly what you’re argument is.
I am saying you are mistaken in your intepretation of the language in the treaty. Especially when the Treaty of Paris in 1763 opens with the following line:
In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So be it
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris763.asp
This treaty is being commissioned in the name of who?
What about the Mayflour compact which states why the settlers were comming here?
“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia” to spread Christianity
Or the first charter of Virginia?
“We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People” which states the mission was to bring Christianity to the new country
or
“We according to our princely Inclination, favouring much their worthy Disposition, in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty,…- The Charter of New England : 1620”
Or
whereby Our said People Inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderly Conversation may win and invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true GOD, and He Saviour of Mankind, and the Christian Faith. – Charter of Connecticut – 1662
Or every original State Constitution required the belief in God (the Christian God) and most had to affirm the truth and inspiration of the Bible? Or that Maryland had in its constitution that the government was to use funds to propagate the Christian church
Or that Jefferson himself — the big time separation guy — commissioned federal funds for evangelism to native Americans?
Lotta good your history classes did you.
The point is that even if now, our government is expected to be void of religion. It was not so at the founding. In fact, it was expected to be an integral part of government. The founding was very much a Christian founding, in addition to being founded by Christians. The source most quoted by the Founders when writing laws was the Bible, not some secular brain storming session. I can get the numbers if you care to know them. But I get the impression, that one quarter of one sentence of one treaty is enough to over ride scores of citation to the contrary.
So judging by the language in the treaty of Paris, yes either they lied to the muslims, since the Paris treaty was done in the name of the Christian God, or you’re misinterpreting the Tripoli treaty. Which seems more likely?
The point was that the U.S. was not run by any church organization such as Anglicans running England, Catholics running Italy, Spain, France, etc, and Lutherans running Germany, etc. There was no Christian organization running the USA
Don’t tell him that, he has a sentence and a class in history
John, may I ask you what you think the founders wanted?
Can I explain that what I’m thinking is, just what I’ve quoted: They wanted a “wall of separation,” but what does that mean?
I think if you look at some of the examples the founders cited:
Madison did not want to see clergy paid for by tax payer dollars.
John Adams did not want the state to be prosecuting people for reading the “wrong” books (so decided by the religious authorities).
That sort of thing. They DEFINITELY did not want the state to interfere with people’s religious practices, can we agree on that much?
They also (at least the eight I’ve quoted thus far) did not appear to want to see the church dictating policy to the gov’t. Can we agree on that?
They DID think it was okay for religious folk to participate in gov’t. Agreed?
They were well familiar with the tendency towards corruption and oppression when you had anything like a church state or a denomination dictating policy and did not want to see anything like that.
Agreed?
So, do you agree that, in general, the founders were generally in favor of a “wall of separation between church and state…”?
And how about some quotes supporting whatever it is you think they were advocating? I know I’ve “only” provided eight quotes (from five of the most important framers, including the “father of the Constitution”), but you’ve not provided any, thus far.
The problem with at least some of the others is that they did not write as much as the “big” founders.
Your turn…
“Madison did not want to see clergy paid for by tax payer dollars.”
And that one one of the scores of founders, the rest of which made sure clergy were on staff in the capital to give sermons on capital hill (it was used as a chapel on Sundays)
“John Adams did not want the state to be prosecuting people for reading the “wrong” books (so decided by the religious authorities).”
which has nothig to do with this
“That sort of thing. They DEFINITELY did not want the state to interfere with people’s religious practices, can we agree on that much?”
Interfere? No. But the first bible mass produced was commissioned by Congress for the people. Bibles were required reading in public schools, and so was prayer, all by law. So youre suggesting they wrote and passed those laws virtually unanimously, but then broke them? Hmm. or perhaps people are misunderstanding the term from a private letter (to the Danbury Baptists) that was not part of any actual law. Or that Jefferson commissioned federal funds for Christian evangelism. Hmm. the separation guy used federal dollars??? To spread Christianity???
“They also (at least the eight I’ve quoted thus far) did not appear to want to see the church dictating policy to the gov’t. Can we agree on that?”
Yes, we can agree that the 8 (of which only a few were Founding Fathers) did believe that. Now the goal is to see what the other 150 wanted. Or are we ignoring them?
“They DID think it was okay for religious folk to participate in gov’t. Agreed?”
Of course. Thats why the earliest State Constitutions REQUIRED public offices to be held by professing Christians. Many also required an affirmation that the Bible was Divinely inspired. Really??? Consitutions requiring only one particular religion??? Hmmm.
“They were well familiar with the tendency towards corruption and oppression when you had anything like a church state or a denomination dictating policy and did not want to see anything like that.”
Which is why the States were allowed to do what I just noted, and not the Federal Government. The US constitution was prevented from having those religious requirements for the reason you cite above. Remember States Rights??? 10th amendment???
“So, do you agree that, in general, the founders were generally in favor of a “wall of separation between church and state…”?”
Not the way you are trying to narrowly portray it I don’t. Care to do some fact checking and gain a representative sampling of the Founders, and get back to me? Maybe then you can see that the 5% of people you quote was not in any way in step representing the other 95% of the founders. Agreed? Fair Enough?
John,
This country was still under British control in 1763, for crying out loud. You cannot reasonably use documents written then with documents written after the Declaration of Independence. Geez. And then you offer up documents written by puritans and think your point has been made. Wow.
You have no argument.
Using the very first documents from the country’s history is exactly where you would find the intention of the direction of where the founders wanted it to go.
The founders had one thing in mind and that was no one denomination of Christianity would be the state religion the way the Anglican Church was in England, the Roman church in most of Europe and the Lutheran Church in the rest of Europe, etc. Christianity WAS seen as the religious belief to be fostered by the Federal Government but it was not to be any particular denomination’s control.
Glenn (or John, or anyone), let’s assume you are right and the founders ACTUALLY wanted to “foster” Christianity, do you even begin to think that’s a good thing?
That is, do you truly want GOV’T fostering, promoting or otherwise endorsing Christianity? WHAT version of Christianity do you want gov’t endorsing/fostering? Obama’s version? Bush’s version? The Pope’s version? Billy Graham’s version? Your own personal version?
You see, I think there WAS this inclination towards promoting Christianity in the early days of our gov’t, but our founders increasingly realized that there was EXACTLY this problem of endorsing one form of religion over another: WHO decides?? Based upon what?
While all of us Christians no doubt want to see the Kingdom of God on earth, as it is in heaven, it becomes problematic when you try to legislate, endorse, foster or otherwise support it. That sort of support tends towards corruption and a loss of liberty. Or so says history with a fairly resounding “yuck.”
But I’m seriously curious if any of you all seriously think that gov’t “fostering” Christianity is a good thing? What does that look like to you?
I do think it is a good thing. It’s not going to happen now, and I accept that. The whole purpose of this commentary is not (as Terrance wrongly opines) to attempt to coerce people into Christianity, or to silence other religions. The purpose is, regardless of where America is now, at its founding, it was founded on a very explicit set of religious beliefs, with a religious purpose. I’m not sure what secularists think they lose by admitting it though. As if admitting it means it must return there.
It is not about whose version. it is and wasnt a doctrinal fostering. It was Trinitarian Christianity. As basic as that.
What is overlooked is the restrictions of making laws establishing a religion was on the federal government. States could (and did) have official denominations of Christianity. Yet another nail in the coffin of secularists.
There is no loss of liberty in fostering a particular religion. Actually quite the opposite. So far, since the secularism influx, religious liberty of public officials has been greatly infringed upon. Even Gov. Perry was criticized and threatened with lawsuits for participating in the day of prayer in Texas.
Either way, secularists get so offended when this topic comes up. I wonder what the hostility is all about. Of course, when asked, the answers are all about hypothetical injury, not actual.
What the government IS fostering now is the religion of secular humanism. WHy is that okay?
John,
I quite like you, so don’t take offense to what I’m about to say. It’s not personal; it’s politics.
That you would offer documents written before the United States became a soverign nation as justification for your puritanical assessment of this country, and then demean the accomplishments of those who refuse to accept it, proves beyond all doubt that you are a religious fanatic, uncompromising in the amount of utter nonsense and meaningless noise you allow yourself to advance.
You can stick your fingers in yours ears and scream “la-la-la” all you want, but the immutable fact of the matter is that the First Amendment, coupled with the Treaty of Tripoli, prove this country “is not, IN ANY SENSE,” a Christian nation. All the letters, statements, and various quotes being drudged up by you and others is all academic. It makes for good discussion, but “proving the myth” has indeed already been done.
I don’t understand what the purpose of this debate is anyway. You, me, and the guy down the street all have the right, per the First Amendment, to practice our religion – whatever it may be – anyway we choose. I wonder why that isn’t good enough…..
But I forgot. That cannot be good enough for the religious-right; they have to throw it in people’s faces. And that’s really what this is all about, isn’t it? You figure you convince enough people that this nation does indeed have a Christian foundation and eventually you’ll have your prostelyzing idols up in every government building across the land. And to hell with the Muslim, Buddhist, and Atheist. We don’t care about their feelings.
Sell crazy to someone else, John. Please.
And how anyone can misinterpret “the United States is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion” is a new world wonder.. Because, in the words of the greatest president the 21st century has yet to see, Barack Obama, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”
Now I’m finished with this debate. You can sling mud at Dan and others if they’ll have it.
Well, all I can say is it is sad that when talking about a founding, you think it is inapropriate to cite the original documents. I can also say the fact that you remove all historical and textual context from a document and isolate just a portion of one sentence, shows you have no interest in actual history. I wasn’t aware that you were so closed to the issue. It wasn’t until someone asked me the question I did in this piece that I realized I had been sold a bill of goods.
Not that it seems like you would care to, but I could point you to scores of supreme court decisions within the first 100 years that refute the entire separation position. But of course, a quarter of one sentence trumps everything.
And by your reasoning Christianity is false. After all, the bible itself says “there is no God” its plain as day. How you could interpret that any other way is a wonder. Of course the whole passage says “the fool has said there is no God” but we don’t need the rest of the words, just the part that helps us shut down the discussion, right?
I do think it [gov’t “fostering” religion] is a good thing.
So, you’d be okay with the Quaker teacher leading in a prayer to “end this unjust war and lead America to repentance for its warmongering ways?” You’d be okay with the Phelps-type teacher leading a school prayer for God to kill the gays and the military for supporting them? You’d be okay with the Mormon teacher telling her students about Jesus and the lost tribes of Israel in America? You’d be okay with the Mennonite teacher leading courses warning about the dangers of capitalism?
I sorta doubt that you’d be okay with all teachings of all branches of Christianity to be “fostered” by gov’t. Am I wrong?
And so, if you didn’t want that, WHO is going to be the arbiter of what IS and ISN’T acceptable Christianity?
You’re speaking of a hellaciously large and intrusive gov’t if you start going down that road.
I think this is clearly why we have wisely moved away from this whole notion of “fostering” ANY religion, or any flavor of one religion. It’s just a bad idea for the gov’t AND for the church AND for the people. It’s why the “major founders” (the ones I have earlier quoted) ultimately won out in that debate.
“So, you’d be okay with the Quaker teacher leading in a prayer to “end this unjust war and lead America to repentance for its warmongering ways?” You’d be okay with the Phelps-type teacher leading a school prayer for God to kill the gays and the military for supporting them? You’d be okay with the Mormon teacher telling her students about Jesus and the lost tribes of Israel in America? You’d be okay with the Mennonite teacher leading courses warning about the dangers of capitalism?”
Damn it, is that what I said? Or did I say in response to your question of which kind of Christianity: “it is and wasnt a doctrinal fostering. It was Trinitarian Christianity. As basic as that”
My first instinct was correct. Thanks for playing, Dan.
Actually, John, I have four years worth of History classes. But I can’t compete with your experience as a mailman; all the the Christian and conservative magazines you deliver entitle you to far too much knowledge for me.
Clearly.
Anyway.
You guys have no argument. You keep saying that what the Founders meant is that we, the United States, aren’t run by a specific sect of Christianity, like England, Spain, and whoever else at the time. That’s all well and good until you read the following words:
“The Government of the United States is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion.”
So, I have a hard time understaning how that means what you say it means when it clearly says that we are NOT, IN ANY SENSE, a Christian nation.
But you guys beleive what you what. What do I know? I was indoctrinated by a liberal university. I’m soiled.
How’s that degree working for you? It would be even funnier if I told you my credentials. Just because I work at the PO doesn’t mean I don’t have an education. And even if it wasn’t a formal education, that doesn’t invalidate an argument. Liberals think it does though. When all else fails insult your opponent, try to trump with degrees, and volume. But by all means, you hold on tight to your quarter of a sentence mined out of context.
I don’t know why you feel the need to make this personal.
Add the degrees tell you is that they spent more time in an institution than you did. And more time being brainwashed with liberal agenda, revisionist history, the religion of evolutionism, environmentalism, anything goes sexuality, etc, etc, etc.
Read that as “All the degrees tell you…” I have when that happens!
John,
I replied to your message on Facebook. But I would like to say that you made this personal first with that “Lotta good those classed did you” slight.
Regardless, read the Facebook message and understand where I’m coming from.
Glenn,
Please. I’ve heard that all before.
so the “excuse me but I have an education in history, so who are you to challenge me on this issue” comment was completely innocuous?
John,
You began explaining the Treaty of Tripoli as though I were a child. I simply informed you that I’m capable of understanding it all on my own, mentioning that I’m a History major. Then you said, “Lotta good those classes did you,” and all because I refused to accept your assessment and interpretation.
I’m still researching. I’ll have a post on it within a week or two.
I copied and pasted from something else I wrote. So it wasn’t written for you or even at you per se.
I applaud your interest and inquiry about the principle of separation of church and state, though think your suggested approach is a bit contrived.
In interpreting the Constitution, the court naturally first look to the terms of that document. The principle of separation of church and state is derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment provisions constraining the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
The courts may sometimes look beyond the Constitution for evidence of the framers’ intent–as the Supreme Court did in Everson v. Board of Education where it reviewed the historical context and took note of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instructive as that letter is, it nonetheless played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison has influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
During his presidency, Madison also vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles. Separation of church and state is not a recent invention of the courts.
You allude to the religious views of various founders. While these are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that most founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
It is instructive to recall that adoption of the First Amendment reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Note to responders: The U.S. Constitution was not America’s first governing document! Charters and compacts were adopted prior to the U.S.C. and are therefore the documents most closely associated with the governing intentions of the original Founders.
I’m not sure of your point. To the extent one is looking to determine the law, the U.S. Constitution is the foundation. To the extent one is more interested in an historical narrative, naturally other actions taken and documents adopted before the Constitution help tell the story.
If you are looking to establish an original intended direction, the very first emerging governing documents are the relevant documents. The US Constitution was adopted a hundred years after the founding, and even in that respect only was intended to apply to the federal government, not local and state governments.
“Original intended direction”? In interpreting law, courts aim to determine the “intent” of the legislature or, in the case of the Constitution, the intent of those who participated in drafting and ratifying it (which, yes, encompasses many–maybe even “We the People”). You seem to have something else in mind–perhaps some generalized intent of those who sailed here over a couple of centuries. I’m not sure how or why to go about that. In any event, it has little to do with the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
You are right to note that the U.S. Constitution, as originally ratified, largely prescribed powers and limitations of the federal government. It was later amended, though, including particularly by the 14th Amendment, to address various aspects of state and local government power.
I think separationists have intentionally muddled the first amendment. Since the language is simple and explicit in what is permitted and prohibited, protesters have had to find their doctrine from a private letter.
If “separation” was the intention (even though Supreme Court Justice Story has stated otherwise) it’difficult to see how Jefferson himself would have deemed allocating federal funds to evangelize not a violation of the separation intent. Seems that it is more likely that modern activists would be interpreting the document incorrectly, rather than the laws and practices enacted by the Founders were violations of a law they wrote.
As noted above, the principle is predicated on several fundamental aspects of the Constitution and not just the First Amendment. As also noted above, courts (“protesters”?) did not “find” “their” (?) doctrine in Jefferson’s private letter. If you read the Everson and other decisions, you will find that the letter played a small part in the Court’s analysis and basically only confirmed the Court’s conclusion reached on other grounds and lent a catchy short-hand label for the general principle.
“Modern activists”? Note that the Supreme Court was unanimous–nine-zero–in interpreting the Constitution to call for separation of church and state and the justices differed only in how to apply that principle to the case at hand.
The commonly repeated story of Jefferson allocating federal funds to evangelize Indians is one of many such lies. What he did was sign a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe in which the U.S. traded various items, including $300 to help the tribe (whose members were largely Catholic) erect a church and $100 per year for seven years to support a priest, in exchange for nearly 9 million acres of land. That’s it. You see the difference, I trust, between entering into a treaty with a sovereign nation providing what it asks and, well, any other government action, e.g., passing a law, with the aim of promoting religion.
In a more general sense, you are right to observe that, as one would expect, the available historical evidence does not all point in the same direction. For instance, while Washington offered Thanksgiving proclamations, seemingly seeing no problem in that, Jefferson refrained from issuing any such proclamations for the very reason he thought the Constitution precluded it. Madison too preferred not to issue any such proclamations, but upon being requested by Congress to do so, reluctantly issued one, though taking pains to word it so as merely to encourage those so inclined to celebrate the day. He later almost sheepishly acknowledged that had been a mistake. Also, Congress appointed chaplains for the two houses of the legislature and for the army and navy.
This evidence can be seen in at least two ways. On one hand, it can be seen, as you seemingly urge, as evidence that the founders considered those actions to conform to the Constitution, thus indicating they did not intend the Constitution to prevent the government from taking actions of that sort with respect to religion. On the other hand, it can be seen as examples of early mistakes by Congress and the Executive, where they failed to conform to the Constitution. Mistakes of that sort are hardly unexpected or unusual. Recall that Congress made two other similar mistakes during Madison’s presidency, resulting in two vetoes of bills. The government has made many such mistakes during our history, and continues to make them to this day.
Madison discussed just this point in his Detached Memoranda, excerpts of which I quoted earlier. As it happens, he not only stated plainly his understanding that the Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion by such acts as appointing chaplains for the houses of Congress and the army and navy or by issuing proclamations recommending thanksgiving, he also addressed the question of what to make of the government’s actions doing just that. Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions inconsistent with the Constitution be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].” Basically, he recognized that because too many people might be upset by reversing these actions, it would be politically difficult and perhaps infeasible to do so in order to adhere to the constitutional principle, and thus he proposed giving these particular missteps a pass, while at the same time assuring they are not regarded as legitimate precedent of what the Constitution means, so they do not influence future actions.
In its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has, in effect, followed Madison’s advice, though not his suggested legal theories. The Court has confirmed the basic constitutional principle of separation of church and state, while also giving a pass to the appointment of chaplains for the house of Congress and army and navy and the issuance of religious proclamations, as well as various governmental statements or actions about religion discounted as “ceremonial deism” or some such.
John,
You’ve given up on your little experiment, I gather.
You gather wrong. I live in New England and have been without power and internet access save for my phone due to IRENE. I am limited to short inresearchrd responses.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) in his Commentaries on the Constitution, said, “The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national, ecclesiastical establishment [being given] the exclusive patronage of the national government.”
I found it interesting that Story stated the intent of the Amendment was NOT to foster Islam or any other faith by “prostrating Christianity.” Yet this is what we see in America today, especially with the promotion of the Muslim faith.
Now, if we really want to look at the original intent of the Amendment, all we have to do is look at what the writers left behind as alternate proposals. Here are a couple for your perusal:
“[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” George Mason (the “father of the Bill of Rights’).
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.” James Madison
It is apparent that the founders of this nation believed that the Christian faith should be fostered and considered our national faith, and the only restriction being that no denomination be favored.
Let me again cite Joseph Story: “We are not to attribute this [1st Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution)…. Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragements from the State…. An attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation if not universal indignation.”
I suppose according to the Left, Justice Story was in error.
Reliance on Story’s comments in his Commentaries (which I first encountered decades ago while in law school researching for an article) is problematic to say the least. First, note that he offers conflicting ideas. In passages preceding those you quoted, he says this about the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution: “This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretense of any alliance between church and state in the national government.” He goes on to explain the aim was to cut off any alliance between government and any religion, Christian or other: “The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. . . . The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right Of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom the history of the Parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. . . . With one quotation more from [Blackstone], exemplifying the nature and objects of the English test laws, this subject may be dismissed. ‘In order the better to secure the established church against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, infidels, Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries, there are, however, two bulwarks erected, called the corporation and test-acts. . . .’ It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit, under the national government.” Story then turned to the amendments and offered the seemingly contrary views you quoted.
Second, perhaps in all his comments but at least in those concerning the First Amendment, Story appears to express his personal views rather than some conclusion drawn from evidence. He offers no evidence of the framers’ intent in this regard (failing even to acknowledge that Madison had by then already vetoed two bills based on an understanding of the First Amendment contrary to Story’s), and instead resorts to his personal opinion: “The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of; rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all, the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;– these never Can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community it is, indeed difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for; those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects.” (Moreover, that he was wrong in supposing this “impossible” is evidenced by the fact that hardly all devout founders shared this idea.)
Third, (as should be especially appreciated by those modern day show-me-the-words-separation-of-church-and-state literalists), he entirely fails to explain how he reads the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to mean only “to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects” and “Christianity ought to receive encouragements from the State.”
For many reasons, this notion simply does not square with the amendment’s language or evidence of the founders’ intent. First, note no mention in the text of “Christianity” or “sect” or anything of the sort. Second, note that the word “religion” is uttered once–setting the scope of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. If the text is read so that the term “religion” means only a “national Christian sect” or the like (thus limiting the scope of the establishment clause as Story supposes), violence is done to the free expression clause, which then would merely constrain Congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise “thereof”–i.e., a national Christian sect–and leave it free to interfere with the exercise of any and all other religious beliefs. Silly.
While the founders were, no doubt, confronted with the need to address competition and conflict between a variety of sects (largely but not exclusively Christian) and some (but hardly all) founders were motivated by that perceived need to support separation of church and state, it is a non sequitur to suppose therefore that they intended merely to stop the government from favoring one “sect” (however defined), but leave it free to favor some (also undefined) grouping of sects (e.g., “generic” Christianity or perhaps monotheism, or theism, or deism, or some such).
Any such interpretation, moreover, would raise so many problems that I tire at the thought of listing them. For instance, where and how would one distinguish sects or groups of sects? Christianity comprises dozens or even hundreds of sects depending on how one draws the lines. And why stop with Christianity since there are other monotheistic religions? Would it be okay for the government to support Islam as long as it refrained from choosing the Sunni or Shiite sect? And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism is a “Christian” sect.
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as Story notes, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
What do you do with the acts of Congress and committees which are thick and laced with religious and specifically Christian language and actions?
What do you have in mind?
I will dig up some examples over the weekend, im at work now and researching from a cell phone is not ideal. Be patient and even remind me if I don’t post something by late Sunday. I can easily forget some things.
I’m having trouble finding links on the web for the examples I want to use. But to start, perhaps you could explain the institution of prayer before opening Congress. The use of official chaplins to the Congress. The House being used as a church every sunday until about the Civil War attended by nearly every House member as well as Jefferson — the separation guy — regularly. The printing of Bibles by Congress.
I will also continue to look for US Supreme Court and other federal court rulings where religion was touched upon.
John,
You cover much ground in one brief comment. I’ll try to do it justice in a brief (yet still somewhat longer) response.
First, the sorts of things you mention serve to reveal, as I noted above, that the historical evidence presents a complex picture mixed with a good measure of uncertainty. (Thus, I could but smile at Glenn’s bolstering of his argument with the overstatement that “[i]t is apparent” that the founders believed, etc. Given that the founders were not a monolithic bunch and the available evidence may be seen to point in various directions, the one thing that can be said with assurance is that it is NOT apparent that the founders believed as he asserted.) To the extent events such as you mention reveal government taking actions regarding religion, they can be viewed in at least two ways (again as I noted above). One is to surmise that those then running the government (including many founders) must have thought such events were consistent with the Constitution. The other is to recognize that it is only human to announce new principles and intentions, yet imperfectly implement them and persist (for a time anyway) in some old, contrary habits. As mentioned above, Madison expressed that view with respect to such governmental actions as Congress’s appointment of chaplains for Congress and the army and navy and the Executive’s issuance of thanksgiving proclamations. I think Madison was right.
Second, caution should be exercised in assessing the historical evidence, since some are motivated to make more of things than may be warranted or even stretch the truth about them. The commonly heard stories about religious ceremonies in the House chamber and Congress printing Bibles are illustrative. The Speaker of the House did indeed announce in 1800 that the chaplains had proposed holding religious ceremonies in the House chamber on Sundays, the reason initially being that at the time there simply were no churches or other suitable buildings in all the Capitol. Such ceremonies were held and Jefferson attended some of them, and they continued for decades after churches had been built and thus the need to use the House chamber had passed. Contrary to many accounts, neither the Senate nor President Jefferson had a hand in the Speaker’s decision. Not mentioned in some accounts as well is that the ceremonies often were as much social as religious in nature (at a time when Washington otherwise lacked much social life). Misinformation about the Congress-Bible story commonly is more pronounced. Congress did not, as is often repeated (particularly in the blogosphere), order, import, print, publish, or distribute any Bibles. Rather, at a time when the general reputation of local printers was such that they could hardly compete against British printers, Congress simply passed a resolution recommending a Philadelphia printer’s recent edition of the Bible based on its chaplain’s report of the satisfactory “care and accuracy” of his work. Chris Rodda does a good job setting these and other common misconceptions straight in Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/); yeah, you have to get past the title, which puts off some, but it’s worth it.
Third, in any event, the very fact that evidence and arguments can be advanced in support of both sides of issues like this is one of the reasons we have courts and call on them to resolve such issues. In this instance, the Supreme Court has done just that–decisively, authoritatively, and, in the most important respects, unanimously. As noted above, in its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has, in effect, followed Madison’s approach–confirming the basic constitutional principle of separation of church and state, while also giving a pass to some governmental statements or actions about religion on one or another theory. As the Wake Forest paper serves to show, notwithstanding sometimes lofty rhetoric by courts and commentators about an impenetrable wall of separation, as maintained by the courts, that wall is low and leaky enough to allow various connections between government and religion. Indeed, the exceptions and nuances recognized by the courts can confuse laymen and lawyers alike, occasionally prompting some to question the principle itself, since decisions in various cases may seem contradictory (e.g., depending on the circumstances, sometimes government display of the 10 commandments is okay and sometimes not). In any event, the Court’s rulings confirming the Constitution’s separation of church and state have long since become integral to the law and social fabric of our nation–not the sort of decisions to be overruled lightly.
You take up quite a lot of space to not really say anything. You seem very intent on underplaying any of the events I mentioned, as if it was barely true, and only worth an honorable mention. As if the Bible werent read regularly and obligitorily in public schools until the 60’s. (the fact that Congress even approved such a thing sort of goes against the theory) Christian prayer in the public schools until about the same time. All the specifically Judeo-Christian inscriptions all over Washington DC Government buildings. It just seems like there is quite an effort to just waive it off. As a side note, when reading the Annuls of Congress on the debate over the wording of the religion clause of the First Amendment, their focus was on the concern that what they didnt want was a national official religion whereby citizens would be compelled to worship in a designated mannor. The “principle” they were focused on was keeping the government out of religion, not religion out of the government. And thats even according to Jefferson.
Also, though you write as if you have been at least educated in US history, I consider you using liars for Jesus as any kind of reference the same as me using Answers in Genesis as a reference for cosmology.
The Supreme courts you subtly reference are modern Courts ,(the past 60 years or so). But prior to that courts routinely ruled in favor of public religion, and religious intermingling in public office.
John,
If you reread my comment(s), you’ll find much more than you seem to see so far. As for “underplaying” what you mentioned, I thought I gave each item considerable and appropriate attention. I’m not sure what you have in mind by “barely true” and “honorable mention,” but I explained what I understood to be true (and false) and how I would assess each.
I’m not familiar with Answers in Genesis, but gather you suppose it to be a questionable source and thus cast aspersions at Chris Rodda by equating her work with that. The fact is that her book is thoroughly researched and meticulously documented. She presents some of the claims of David Barton and others of like mind, reviews the evidence and explanations they offer, and then discusses the evidence they omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up. She offers documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one’s self–and she posts all of the evidence from all of the footnotes on her website so everyone can easily see for themselves. As far as I am aware, neither Barton nor anyone else has refuted any–ANY–of the points she makes. Sure, some voice their generalized disapproval, but no one has actually delved into the details to show that the evidence is other than as she presents it or otherwise explain any error in her conclusions. (That is in marked contrast to Barton, for instance, who has been shown to misunderstand, misinterpret, misquote, and flat out misrepresent or make up evidence scores of times.)
With respect to the proceedings reported in the Annals of Congress, I suspect that you refer to comments by Madison regarding a precursor to the First Amendment. Madison initially doubted the need for any amendment on the subject because he considered the matter beyond the government’s power anyway; since others insisted on it, though, he was persuaded to introduce a proposed amendment. In doing so, he proposed what he thought others wanted. During the discussion, some expressed a desire to focus the amendment on establishment of a national religion by law. Madison was generally comfortable with much of what others proposed, including that. With respect to a proposal stating “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,” he proposed adding the term “national,” thinking that would address the expressed concerns of some. Following his motion, others expressed misgivings not only about the wording but also the scope of the proposal. Mr. Livermore suggested that it be altered to state “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” Madison withdrew his motion, and the House then considered and passed Livermore’s motion. The Annals of Congress reveal little more other than that over the next several weeks, the proposal went through several more iterations and emerged as what we now know as the First Amendment. If anything, Congress’s explicit consideration and rejection of language focusing the amendment on establishment of a national religion suggests that the ultimately adopted version is not so focused. To the extent there may be doubt on this score, Madison largely removed it by explaining in his Detached Memoranda his understanding of the First Amendment as ultimately adopted.
The record of the Annuls of Congress show debate over how to convey the message: we dont want a national official compulsory religion. And not: we dont want to have an intermingling of religion and government.
Now, while the federal government was not to have an official religion, or specific preference, are you also going to argue that the states did as well? I think the original constitutions of the states evidences pretty well the intention for Christians specifically to make up the governing body of the people. It also shows that the States were not to be melded with the federal government. As in, the constitution applying to state governments.
John,
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on our respective interpretations of the discussions in Congress on the First Amendment. It’s all there in black and white, so anyone can read it and assess that for themselves.
With respect to the Constitution’s effect on states, there is no question that the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, constrained only the federal government and not the states. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed as much. You are right to note too that, at the time of the founding, most of the states had constitutions or laws establishing one or another religion.
Things changed. First, as I noted in an earlier comment, each of the states individually disestablished its religion in the early 1800s. Second, the Constitution was later amended in the 14th Amendment to guarantee individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship. The courts naturally and reasonably looked to the Bill of Rights for the rights encompassed by these terms, reasoning that there are found the rights we hold most fundamental, and ruled that at least some of those, including freedom of religion and freedom from government established religion, are protected from state infringement. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29 While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments, e.g., the 14th, could extend that Amendment’s constraints to state and local governments.
My assertion has never been that things haven’t changed, or can’t change, or even that because it used to be that way, therefore I must return. Rather that initially it was intended for Christianity and Christians to play a significant role in governing and government.
Forgive the lawyer in me, but when you say “it was intended,” the questions leaps out: Who intended what, and in what context? Clarity in this regard is crucial, indeed absolutely necessary to any meaningful analysis or discussion.
As I noted above, in interpreting law, courts aim to determine the “intent” of the legislature or, in the case of the Constitution, the intent of those who participated in drafting and ratifying it. While attempting to discern a single “intent” of a legislature (or, with respect to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Continental Congress, the later Congress of the U.S., and all the ratifying state legislatures) comprised of many individuals typically with many different understandings and opinions is problematic enough, that undertaking at least is bounded by some parameters. The complexities of that undertaking, though, pale in comparison to an effort of the sort to which you allude, i.e., to discern and announce what “was intended” by society at large or some such (and at what point in time, I am not sure). Whether such an “intent” is even a viable analytical concept and, if so, could actually be determined by historians is doubtful. In any event, even if one could validly determine any such intent, what would be the point? Some generalized free floating “intent” of society at one or more points in time does not, for instance, have any legal effect unless it is translated into law by some process, e.g., enactment of a statute or passage of a constitutional amendment.
I can use the word “intended” because going back to Charters and Compacts it is unmistakably explicit the intent was to spread Christianity, and the following State Constitutions continue the sentiment by expressly requiring only Christians to hold public office.
Okay. You appear, then, to use “intent” in much the same way I do. And if I understand you correctly, you refer to the intent of those who adopted the charters, compacts, and state constitutions you mention. I’m not sure though whether you refer to the intent of those earlier laws to make some point about the present-day law of separation of church and state and, if so, what that point is. Those earlier charters, compacts, and constitutions are naturally of historical interest, and in some instances they may inform our understanding of the later adopted Constitution. In some respects, though, and this is particularly so with respect to separation of church and state, they have largely been superseded or invalidated by later laws, e.g., the Constitution and its amendments and the various state actions to disestablish their religions. In the text of some state constitutions, for instance, provisions yet remain reserving public office only for those who profess belief in god(s). Such provisions, of course, are no longer enforced, as they are invalid under the 14th Amendment; some states, for one reason or another, simply have not taken the formal step of rescinding those invalid provisions.
My over all point is the concept of “separation” we use today should reflect more closely with that of the Founders than that of the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation. I do not feel a need to require only Christians to hold public office, but i don’t think people should be in constant fear if they want to voluntarily pray at a sporting event, graduation, or inaguration, they’ll be sued. I don’t think that there should be lawsuits to prevent public officials like Gov Perry from participatiing in and expressing intrest in events like the one he helped organize.
The concept of “separation” today seems to be understood as “hostility”. As though religion must be scrubbed from the public square. Neutrality beans allowing public expression by the citizens in any arena, as well as elected official doing the same. It also means allowing allowing other faiths — if they so choose — to participate. Just because there is a nativity scene in front of a town hall, doesn’t mean everyone else is rejected, or is being marginalized. I do understand that towns may do so, if they also allow other faiths to express their holiday symbology. But it always comes with lawsuits. That’s the problem.
Yes, we certainly see much litigation–some of it warranted, some not, and some trivial, some not. As the Wake Forest paper serves to show, the law on this subject is not simple, bumper-sticker stuff. There is much confusion about it. And much abuse by those so motivated–in “both” directions.
It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical. The courts struggle to draw the line case by case–and, naturally, in the minds of different observers, they sometimes get it right and sometimes wrong.
“The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion”
this is where you’re wrong. The Amendment is crystal clear. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. as long as Congress makes no laws establishing a religion, all is in bounds. This is why there is so much confusion, because people with an anti-religious bent seek to obfuscate the language. There is nothing in the Amendment preventing a teacher from mentioning God or Jesus, or even having a bible laying around. There isnt even anything in there about assigning a reading assignment from the Bible, or Qur’an, or Vedas. Nothing at all. The term “establish” has been re-invented to mean something wholly different from what the Framers understood the term to mean. (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,establish)As you see, there is nothing about preference in the definition.
By the sentence you quote, I meant to summarize that aspect of the current law of separation of church and state. It is a suitable one-sentence summary, so I am hardly “wrong” in that sense. By “wrong,” I gather you mean to express your disapproval of that law.
Crystal clear, eh? By your literal reading, do you suppose the First Amendment’s reference to “Congress” and “law” means the President could, by proclamation or some such, establish a national religion? Or could the Executive declare the views of a particular sect of Christianity to be true, but stop short of officially declaring that sect to be our national religion? Or could the Executive direct all federal agencies to use stationery bearing statements touting the virtues of Scientology? Simple semantics may lead one astray.
Note that Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President’s veto, so to read the language as simplistically and literally as you suggest would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are “made” by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. An overly literal reading would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion–a manifestly silly result.
Moreover, as the Constitution designs the Executive to carry out laws that have been passed by Congress and does not give the Executive any independent power to establish religion, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain the Executive in its carrying out of laws that Congress passed. That is the way James Madison understood the clause; in his Detached Memoranda, he explained that “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts” are not consistent with it. His understanding of the constraint on “establishment” differs markedly from what you derive from a modern dictionary entry. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.
Take care, too, in what you ask for, lest you get it. By your suggested reading of the First Amendment, the Executive would be free as well to interfere with individuals’ free exercise of their religions.
The courts have to sort out these important issues in the real world–and can hardly just resort to simplistic semantics of the sort you suggest.