What Did the Founders Believe About Church and State?
Many of you commented that the Founders’ religious beliefs did not determine their approach to separation of church and state. I agree. So let’s turn now to the big question: what DID the Founders believe about separation of church and state?
First, there’s no such thing as “the Founders.” They disagreed with each other on a number of key points. John Adams and George Washington supported more church-state mingling than did Jefferson and Madison. Crucially, while some folks back then seemed to use the term “establishment” to refer to official state religions, Madison for one thought it meant something much broader. During the fight in Virginia over state support of churches, he referred to tax subsidies for religion as being “an establishment,” just as dangerous ultimately as an official church.
Second, though it’s certainly interesting and important what the Founders believed on this – hell, a lot of my book is about that topic – that alone doesn’t determine what the law is on separation of church and state.
Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. But his proposal to apply this principle to the states was defeated. Madison was not allowed to send his legislative draft straight to the National Archives. The First Amendment was a states rights compromise. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. Rep. Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut complained that Madison’s amendment could "be extremely harmful to the cause of religion." How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion. Madison assuaged him by assuring him that the amendment would allow Connecticut to keep doing what it was doing. Some people supported the First Amendment only because it allowed the states to continue with their practice of NOT having separation of church and state. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that the nation began the process of applying some principles of the Bill of Rights to local government, and even then in a confusing way. What Madison believed, and what the First Amendment means, are two different things.
What no lawyer or advocate on either side wants to admit is this: the First Amendment does allow many gray areas. We need to stop looking at every church-state question solely in Constitutional terms. My personal view is that because of intentional ambiguities in the First Amendment, that constitutionally a fair amount of church-state mingling is allowed. That’s what’s Constitutional. What’s wise is a separate question. On the merits of what actually should happen, I’m more with Madison. When in doubt, err on the side of separation: “Religion and Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." [i] I agree with him that having government or politicians involved in religion not only is problematic in terms of political discourse, it also sours people on religion. Has the Republican Party embrace of the religious conservative moral agenda really been good for Christianity? Has it really taught more people the beauty of Jesus’s teachings? I think the experience of the last few years has validated Madison’s view that the biggest beneficiary of separation and church and state is likely to be the church, or, more accurately, religious vibrancy.
The time has come for separationists to focus their arguments on what’s best for society, not only what’s Constitutional or what “the Founders” believed. I think they happen to have the better argument, but on social, not Constitutional grounds. One of the most effective arguments for religious freedom is that it’s good for religion. Advocates for separation have sometimes had such hostility toward religious leaders that they’ve failed to see that the most religious Americans ought to be the biggest advocates of separation. Madison and Jefferson understood this, which is why they worked so closely with the evangelicals of their day to promote separation. Meanwhile, it’s time for conservatives to stop using the faith non-sequitur – as in, “I know I’m right about separation of church and state, because John Adams believed in God.” And it’s time for them to stop perpetuating the myth that the United States was created as a Christian nation.
I’m sorry if this casts me as a mealy-mouthed centrist. I just happen to think that religious freedom is one of America’s greatest achievements. And it seems to me that in their anger at each other, both sides have failed to see the obvious common ground position that Madison laid out for us: the best way to promote religion is to leave it alone.
Hard to tell if you're a mealy mouthed centrist because while you say that "constitutionally a fair amount of church-state mingling is allowed," you don't say what you mean. Give some examples so we can see where you stand.
I think your observation about separationists being hostile to religious leaders is just off. More often than not it's religion making the incursion into public spaces, places and policy. Separationists tend not to be the aggressors. The religionists come out of their churches all the time. We secular types don't tend to barge in. Most of us have no interest what goes on in their churches.
You argue that the separation of church and state is good for religion. I agree. Too bad we can't trust religious leaders to agree with that or to behave accordingly. If anyone needs to be lectured about aggression, it's the god people.
March 13, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, in practice I don't find many non-religious hostile too religion--except in the lefty blogosphere. There's a lot of hostility THERE(here) so it's a straw man to discuss it in more wide reaching terms.
That said, I'm not sure there's a lot to disagree with in this post.
Also Tankard, give it a damn rest. How's he suggesting that we deviate from the Constitution? as far as I can see he's saying we should have MORE separation than the Constitution mandates and to that focus on public attitudes.
And that sounds just fine to me.
March 13, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently I am misinterpreting something in Mr. Waldman's statement.
The time has come for separationists to focus their arguments on what’s best for society, not only what’s Constitutional
To me, this means that separationists should focus their arguments on what's best for society, not only what's Constitutional. I guess I'm wrong.
March 14, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you're right that a firm separation of government and clerical functions is good for religion, and the vibrancy thereof.
Of course, people who are non-religious aren't likely to make this argument, since religious vibrancy is low on their priorities list. Some religious groups do, but they seem drowned out by the "Christian Nation" crowd that wants to tear down that wall.
Ultimately, religious freedom is good for everyone, religious or otherwise. It's a worthy point to make and write about. Thank you for doing it.
March 13, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course its good for everyone. You need religious freedom in order for people to be free of and from religion.
March 13, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the original idea was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
March 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim,
You must bear in mind that the very "freedom" granted to religion was it's ban from government. No mandatory tithing, no mandatory attendance, no state support for religion, no religous tests for office... in other words, though you can refer to the intent of the 1st Amendment to enshrine freedom OF religion, it does so largely by providing freedom FROM religion.
March 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're both equally important. No hitting me just cuz I'm an existentialist and I won't hit you because... oh wait, I can hit you if I want. I'm an existentialist!
March 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you think through what your saying. In reality, we don't entirely disagree as much as you might think. Secularism tends to be hostile to individual rights. It is secularism that is behind the movement to remove any acknowledgement of the existence of religion from our government, "freedom FROM religion". However, secularism is a belief system in its own right, against the concept of religion. The government is run by people, and those people have values by which they make decisions. If they are forbidden to use those values, they can't have any integrity as individuals. Freedom FROM religion denies individual freedom. If secularism is not considered a religion and is imposed as a government standard, then it infringes on our religious freedom as individuals. In our current system, we have the freedom to express our individual values and we have discourse, differing belief systems are respected. We attempt to make policy that is based on our shared values. The solution is not to ridicule someone else's beliefs, but to find common ground upon which to operate.
March 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Freedom FROM religion denies individual freedom."
Jim,
This is clearly false. Freedom from religion supports an individual's "freedom" not to have the state impose any form of religion on them.
I don't want the government foisting prayer in school.
I don't want the government placing monuments to religion in their places of Justice.
Mandatory tithing, religous tests for office...
The individual is free to practice whatever faith they like. They are even free to proselytize, but there is no role for the government to play in supporting or participating any form of religion.
You are arguing for the freedom of government to adopt religion.
that ain't freedom.
March 13, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Secularism tends to be hostile to individual rights."
Bullshit. What secularists can be hostile to is the stupidity and mind boggling gullibility which seems a pre-requisite for christianity.
It's really not too pleasant to ridicule someone's beliefs, out of a strong sense of propriety and politeness, but sometimes it's unavoidable. When one 'side' is rooted in logic and reason while the other in mindless ritual and superstition, that is not a meeting of equals.
March 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, I think you misunderstand the meaning of freedom FROM religion. It is not banishment of religious thought or beliefs within the individual, or banishment of religion from society. In the same way individuals should have the freedom to choose their form of faith and not have another faith promoted through their government, those who do not subscribe to any religious doctrine - be it atheists or non-religious spiritualists - also have the right not to have religion - specifically or generally - forced upon them, or promoted by using their tax dollars or legal codes.
Separation of church and state shouldn't mean one can't be guided by their faith in making decisions while in public office. But it does mean that the dogma of a particular faith, the promotion of religious beliefs, or governmental favoritism towards any form of faith or specific religious institution should be avoided.
Why? Because when the governmental institutions designed to protect our freedoms are used to to promote one or more groups of people over others, we risk a slide down the slippery slope that leads to persecution and loss of liberty. As soon as religion and faith are linked to governance, it can be used as a tool to suppress, isolate or hurt others who don't fit-in with the majority. One of the biggest fears the 'founding fathers' had was that in a democracy, persecution could come from the majority against the minority. The Bill of Rights, including the section regarding separation of church and state, was specifically created to protect the MINORITY from the majority.
This isn't an anti-faith argument. Quite the opposite. Separation of church and state gives people of any faith the freedom to practice and express their faith without fear of governmental interference. It institutionalizes the idea that governance should be impartial to faith in the same way justice should be. When a non-christian enters a courthouse, they shouldn't be confronted with a 2-ton monument to Christianity. In the same way such a monument could signal a less than impartial jury or judge, such a monument in City Hall says the same thing when approaching the mayor or other officials for a permit to build a new Temple, or start a business. While the lack of monument is no guarantee that the government is fair and impartial in matters of faith, it is an important symbolic acknowledgement of the principal that we're all equal in the eyes of the government. That is the essence of the phrase "freedom FROM religion".
March 13, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting an even finer point on it, I believe that freedom of conscience was actually the original idea. It was from this important idea that having the freedom to choose one's religious beliefs sprang.
March 13, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
WWaldman misses the fact that the Fifteenth Amendment essentially federalized the Bill of Rights, thereby extending church-state separation to the state level.
And, yes, I do think you are a mealy-mouthed centrist at times.
IMO, the First Amendment in today's America needs to be fully understood as freedom FROM religion.
March 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the 14th amendment (not the 15th)that provides for the application of the Bill of Rights to the states.
While I believe it clearly federalized the Bill of Rights in toto, the courts have not agreed on all counts that this is so and conservative Republican appointees have done their best to prevent the 14th amendment's clear intention of federalizing the Bill of Rights from actually occuring.
March 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Fifteenth Amendment was about not denying the right to vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." And if you really meant the Fourteenth Amendment, I point you to this piece of the article:
"It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that the nation began the process of applying some principles of the Bill of Rights to local government"
March 13, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see this post on this blog. This is an important issue for our country. Government should stay out of the affairs of the church, and the church should stay out of the affairs of government. However, I also believe that we cannot compartmentalize our values and ethics in our private and public lives. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, no matter whether it is in our private lives or in our government. We must have common values that we live by, such as the "Ten Commandments". Our country was founded on certain values that are reflected in our constitution. We are slowly moving away from those sound values in favor of freedom without proven values. Freedom without a foundation of solid values that have stood the test of time and scrutiny sets the stage for making disasterous policy decisions for our country.
March 13, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ten commandments have as much relevance to human civilization as any other piece of antiquated fiction. Choose your own values to live by, don't you dare try to choose mine.
March 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim,
What unites us as a country and makes us a country rather than just a collection of individuals and local communities is our shared values.
But as a country we become fractured when individuals and local communities start demanding that values specific to themselves -- and that were never agreed to by the nation as a whole -- be recognized as shared values whether the community as a whole ever agreed to share them or not.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions as well as other philosophies all offer value systems that may be very good value systems, but that doesn't make them SHARED value systems, although it may be possible to find commonalities among them that can be the basis for shared values.
Unfortunately, that's not what the religious right is doing. The purpose of declaring the country a Christian Nation is exclusionary and is meant to say that only Christians -- and really only fundamentalist Christians because in the RR mind these are the only real Christians -- only they should decide what the shared values of the country are, which is to say they get to impose their values on all.
And let's be clear about something else as well. Christian values are good values. I've always considered Christ and important moral teacher in my own life.
But there's nothing particularly American about these values. They are the values of Christianity everywhere.
What makes America unique are the values -- and these ARE without question shared values for all of the country -- that were developed here as part of the American Revolution.
America was first and foremost founded on a belief in the value of the individual and the right of each individual to possess and control their own life -- whether society approves of how they use it or not. It was founded on a belief that there is no set of men, not priests, nobles or kings who are inherantly better than other men by reason of birth or station. This informs our every law and our every consideration of government in this country, as it must.
The RR -- especially the Reconstuctionists -- seek to tear this down and replace it with their own parochial value system, and if they continue in that project they will either be defeated or rend the country apart.
March 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd really prefer you speak for yourself when you talk about the Ten Commandments being some sort of shared values of all Americans.
I, personally, do not consider the Ten Commandments any sort of statement about my values. Sure, a few of the commandments are the same--such as frowning on stealing, murder, and coveting our neighbors' wives and property.
I, however, don't really care how often or what ways your so-called lord's name is taken in vain. Or how and when you decide to worship your god. I don't care if you and everyone around me worship graven images. And I fail to see where any of that is mentioned in any way, shape, or form in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
In fact, all the reading and research I've done into this matter proves to me that the vast majority of the men at the Constitutional Convention meant both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. And that they understood, all too well, that you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from it.
March 13, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in a town of about 60,000, just outside Philly. A few years ago Alabama's Chief Justice, Roy Moore, had a large granite monument of the 10 Commandments placed under the rotunda of the State Judicial building. This caused a country wide controversy.
A fellow from our town, a good Christian no doubt, wrote a Guest Opinion to our newspaper supporting the monument and its placement with the usual reasoning; God is on our money, we're a Judeo Christian nation, babble babble; and, condemning those who wanted it removed. He was not alone, may Letters said much of the same thing he did.
The gentleman's name was at the end of the Opinion so I looked in the phone book and got his address. I then drove to his house on a quest, to see just how much he supports the Ten Commandments.
Well, imagine my surprise when I saw no 10 Commandment Monument on his lawn. Actually, not only was a 10 Commandment Monument missing, but there was no sign on his property of Religiosity.
How, I asked myself, would one know that this man is a good christian fellow?
Anyhow, I wrote my own Guest Opinion in reply, and in it I mentioned how sad I was to see the lack of 10 Commandment Monuments on lawns throughout the Town, puzzled as to how this could be when so many wrote in to support the display.
Who will save us from the Christians?
March 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
I think you missed the point of the controversy, and focused on your opposition to Christianity in principle. The 10 commandments are a set of values that most of us agree on, Christian or not. They didn't originate with Christians, they were adopted first as Jewish values. I believe you would probably agree "Thou Shall Not Kill". If you don't, you might want to warn your neighbors. We look to our government to make policy decisions based on our common values like these. That was the root of the concern with taking down artwork with these values stated on it. It is symbolic of the values used in the courtroom. If we throw them away, where are we then?
Jim
http://thejimanderson.com
March 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, the Ten Commandments are not the basis for our Constitution.
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not use my name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
That's the first five, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with our legal code, nor are they commonly agreed upon moral principles. I'd argue that coveting your neighbor's house or wife is also not enshrined anywhere in our law.
March 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your simple approach to things, Jim. Just do this and do that and follow this and all will be all right. But just because you say "most people" agree on something doesn't make it so.
Your simple approach - any simple approach - always biases toward one group or another. For instance, you seem to have a limited knowledge of where the Ten Commandments come from, saying that they're Jewish. Well, sure, in a way.
But the Jewish religion (my religion) is itself derived, including the principles embodied in that top-ten list, from older religions, the Hebrew tribes having assimilated aspects of the religions of the Tigris and Euphrates regions, and those religions themselves having assimilated aspects of the religions of India, et al. So, should we not follow the advice from the more direct divine dispensation and follow the teachings of the Brahmins of the Indus and Ganges regions? Would that be okay with you too? Or does it have to be your particular religion we need to follow?
So you can strum your guitar and sing your songs of Jesus all you want. I may even enjoy it. I've rolled that way myself. But if you make a wish that we all sing with you and follow what you consider to be right and good, then you go too far. You don't know any better than me or anyone else what is good for someone else, despite what a so-called majority MAY think.
That way lies oppression and totalitarianism. You may not have the political grounding to understand that to be true, but it is and you should consider adding some new learning to your simple approach in order to put forth a valid argument that anyone could take seriously.
Yet we tolerate you in this Book Club. Isn't secularism wonderful?
March 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
HI Jim,
I hope you're still around. While many of us disagree with some of your assertions, I appreciate the tone with which you bring your case to the floor. You're attempting to be reasonable and I sense some degree of openness to the dialogue. I hope you'll read my earlier response to you, above.
Others have made some important points here that you should consider too. Certainly, it would be fair to say that the founders of this nation made the choices they did within the context of the Judeo-Christian society to which they belonged.
At the same time, as others have already pointed out, the Ten Commandments are not the basis for our constitution. The guiding principal upon which this nation is built is found in the opening line of the Declaration of Independence: the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the compass by which this nation is guided - usually. (Sometimes we get off track, but somehow, we seem to eventually regain our sense of direction and do the right thing.) That purpose is big enough to include religion without promoting it. But it is up to those of faith to promote their ideals and values to the rest of the citizens. It is NOT the job of the government to do that. The job of the government is to give YOU, Jim, and your church, the protected right to promote and advance your faith, so long as you and your church don't infringe on the rights of others.
If you think that "we are slowly moving away from those sound values", I would assert that it is the failure of your particular faith to effectively promote those values DIRECTLY to the people of this nation. It is not the job of our government to promote those values, nor is it the job of religion to promote those values via the government. Faith can only be real for people when they are personally moved to believe. No government can do that by legislating morality, or faith. So, again, I say that those of strong faith like yourself need not look to government as the place to fix what ails our country, but rather, reach out to people directly. And be glad that our constitution lets you do this without fear of governmental persecution.
March 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim,
If the Ten Commandments didn't exist, I still wouldn't kill, nor steal, nor dishonor my parents....who are long gone.
And Jim, I'm not opposed to religion, I'm opposed to the hypocrites like the guy I wrote about and so many others like him.
Bush is a Christian.....or so he claims.
I rest my case. :-)
March 13, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Advocates for separation have sometimes had such hostility toward religious leaders that they’ve failed to see that the most religious Americans ought to be the biggest advocates of separation."
Like who?
*Use of the term advocates for separation is itself misleading as separation already exists as enshrined in the 1st amendment and made directly applicable to the states via SC interpretation of the 14th amendment. The hostility results from social conservatives attempts to erode it.
March 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any and all anger from secular people, and from regular Christians who disavow the Christian Dominionist agenda, is provoked in the first place by Dominionism's steady and continuing work to undermine The Constitution and replace it with their own interpretation of what they consider their inerrant bible.
Believe it, we have been very slow to anger in the face of the selfrighteous "infallibility" coming our way. From the ignorant slander from Terri Schiavo fanatics to the Huckabee right- wing-of-god that wants to base our governance on that previously mentioned bible, the believers in God AND The Constitution, as well as the secularists, have been much more tolerant of the opinion of Dominionists than the other way around. By their own definition, they CANNOT tolerate our way of thinking.
Who is it who waves their religiosity and so-called righteousness in the face of whom? Who is it who thinks The Other needs to be lectured about how to live their lives? Who is it who wants to do away entirely with the separation of church and state, which separation is indeed constitutional and is indeed without any gray area that you insist remains despite the guarantees and mandate of the 14th Amendment to THE CONSTITUTION.
As said on a prior day, you seem way out of your depth here and should be on the 700 Club instead of this book club. The 700 Club audience really doesn't care to know the rational truth and has abandoned crucial aspects of its critical reasoning faculties for reasons of their own. It seems to this believer that they are your more appropriate readers.
March 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very important point not mentioned in this posting, hopefully it is in the book: Is that not only the first amendment per se, but all the church-state separation in the Consitution, including the deliberate absence of any reference to God, Creators, Christ, Christianity, etc. was actively argued during the drafting and ratification process. It is not an accident. It was deliberate. It was argue over. Some were opposed and wanted God or Christ mentioned in the Constitution. They lost.
Given the many continued attempts to re-write history by the Christianists this is important to highlight.
One irony of course was that it was not only the deists and sceptics who were for this. Most of all it was the many minority dissenting religious activists -- including especially the Baptists -- who were for the separation, the non-establishment AND the absence of reference to God or Christ. They were for this because they feared being dominated by the majority religion in their states, mostly Anglican or Congregationalist, depending on the State. I believe that Connecticut was the last state to disestablish at the state level.
March 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is indeed a very important point, and a central argument of my book. We have separation (and religious freedom) because of an alliance between the Enlightenment intellectuals like Jefferson and Madison and the 18th century evangelicals, especially the Baptists.
March 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel compelled to make a correction here.
18th Century evangelicals is a completely inappropriate term and in this context could actually give a highly misleading impression of the religionists who supported separation of church and state. Dissenters might be a more appropriate term but doesn't really do the trick either. There really is no one term that can describe this coalition of religionists and their motivations.
The religious advocates of separation were many and varied. And they were certainly way too varied for the term evangelical to have any credible meaning in explaining the political lay of the land back then.
Some of the protestant denominations were reviled, considered obnoxious and heretical--despised even by most (not just one or two) of the other protestant denominations--the Baptists chief among them. Baptists were driven out of Massachusetts early on because of this and into Rhode Island and then driven in large part from New England. This was not just an American reaction to Baptists who also had a pretty hard time in Europe in those days.
Other Protestant denominations that were not considered by most of their peers to be beyond the pale as the Baptists were, but who could do some math and also had some common sense and no great desire to dominate, realized that allowing the people the freedom to make their own religious choices and leaving the government entirely out of it was not only wise, but the only workable, practical solution in a nation that already had a fairly wide range of religious belief extant for those times and which also had enough of a track record of experience on it's own to understand how church and state entanglement might lead to. The pioneer experience of the nation also played a role in the sense that on a day to day basis people lived pretty much by the simple principle of "mind your own business."
Much of the support for the pro-separation position among these protestants was informed by the disasterous attempt by the Presbyterians in England to run the government (which they did) and dominate Great Britain after the Civil War and execution of the King in the previous century. The experience of that time in England was the root of much of the political and religious wisdom/insight in young America. It was the brief but disasterous religious dominance of government after the civil war that prompted John Milton to write at the time that "Presbyter is but priest writ large."
When the Protectorate was deposed and the monarchy restored there was dancing in the streets and a general celebration that the strict, depressing, drabness of the formerly ruling religionists was over. And this from the mainly protestant population! It was not a development easy for American protestants to forget.
Many of those who were Presbyterians in America (at the time a significant proportion of the population)and those belonging to other protestant denominations (several of which were born in Great Britain around the time of the civil war) also recalled that lesson and understood how unwise it was to mix religion and government whether or not it was their own brand of faith. One of the historical lessons most prominent in the minds of many protestants during the time of the writing of the Constitution was the struggle so many of their denominations had simply to exist under the shadow of the official state church in the old country which for most was Great Britain but for a few (such as the Huegonots of France) could also be one of the continental states of europe.
But, back to my main point, all of the above is to illustrate that use of the word evangelical first and foremost is too broad and general to have any accurate meaning in this context and additionally it has been so badly mangled and abused in recent years that it simply is not appropriate to use the term in characterizing those religionists who allied with Jefferson and Madison on this question of separation of church and state. The word inadequately describes who those religionists were that allied themselves with Jefferson and Madison, the range of beliefs they held and the differences among them doctrinally, in terms of numbers of members, in terms of their motivation for supporting a measure of this kind and so on.
March 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steven,
What is your view on whether "Militant Unitarians" are Christians or not. It is my less than perfectly informed opinion that many on the religious right would hold out belief in the trinity as a requirement for being considered a Christian. Additionally belief in the inerrability of the bible would be another requirement. The reason I bring this up is there is a refrain I have heard that the FFs were "Christian". Whereas I think there are aspects of Unitarianism that would go against such an unqualified statement.
The reason I bring this up is from a SoCaS perspective I have 2 "levels" of concern. The first is when people argue against the concept that the government should not choose one religion over another for special treatment. (The FFs were Christian so we should only look to the infallible bible, especially the word of Christ, to guide our nation. We'll call this the Huckabee approach.)
The second arguing against a prohibition against the government choosing to favor religious institutions over non-religious institutions. (The FFs were religious and built the country based on morals that were come strictly from religious teachings).
I would think a Militant Unitarian (tm) (or a Unitarian of any persuasion) would be troubled by the first because of the inherent belief in the inerrability of the bible that would undergird such an approach.
The second level would seem problematic to me from a Unitarian perspective as well because of it ignores rationality and relies solely on spritual writings. I would think a Militant Unitarian (tm) would believe that the path to God is through rationality.
I will not speak for "most progressives" but I will say when I have become concerned about SoCaS it is these two levels of concern. (There are clearly others such as can tax money ever go to a religious organization or Christmas Trees on public property that are further down the spectrum and about which I have less firm thoughts on.)
Finally a point about the Deist fallacy. When I have heard that the FF were Deists I understood that to mean that they while they were spiritual and believed in a God, they did not necesarrily believe in the trinity and in the inerrability of the bible. (To some extent were they "Christians" or not) Through this conversation I have learned that to be more precise. I should not think of "Deist" as simply nontrinitarian. I do not think I am alone in this view and that is why I think, in some (many?) cases the concept of FF were Deists being a fallacy is less about being a fallacious belief and more of misunderstood semantics.
March 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right that the assertion that some of the Founders were Deists is based on semantics. My sense is that pure Deism includes the points you mentioned (aversion to Trinitarianism and Biblical literalism) PLUS a belief in the "clockmaker God" (i.e. One who created the mechanisms and then let it run.) And I wanted to make it clear that even the Founders who disagreed with the Trinity and Biblical literalism really did believe in an active and intervening God.
As to whether these Founders were Christian, you're right again -- it depends whose definition you're using. Ironically, by the standards used by many of today's conservative Christians, many of the Founders were not Christian but by the standards of today's liberal Christians, they were.
It's worth perusing the online Jefferson Bible we just put up at Beliefnet (www.beliefnet.com/foundingfaith). We have it so you can click on little scissors icons and see what Jefferson cut. Then ask yourself: does this prove Jefferson was a great Christian because he was so conscientiously creating a Bible he could treasure and which highlighted Jesus's great teachings? Or does it prove he was not at all a Christian because he's rejecting so much basic Christian doctrine?
March 13, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I wanted to make it clear that even the Founders who disagreed with the Trinity and Biblical literalism really did believe in an active and intervening God. - swaldman
Mr. Waldman,
This is not correct. While they may have casually made references that could be interpreted as consistent with a belief in divine intervention, there is little else to suggest they really believed in it.
There is not a single instance wherein our Founding Fathers relied upon an act of God to save the day, beyond a it's in god's hand's now.
Given that belief in divine intervention plays no supporting role in the actions of any effective government, I ask you...
So What?
Of what possible import is it that a credible case can be built that the FF's all harbored a spiritual side? What does this mean for the role of religion in government?
but to insist that the FFs specifically must have believed in divine intervention ventures a guess no other man can make with certainty.
nor is it relevant to good government.
March 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is simply incorrect, unless by nation one means only the federal government.
By the time of the Civil War, most states had amended their state constitutions to incorporate some version of separation of church and state and done away with laws requiring membership in a particular church as a requirement in running for political office.
New states coming into the union incorporated this language into their state constitutions from the start.
So the nation as a whole had come to adopt separation of church and state at all levels long before the 14th amendement. In fact, I would argue that's why the 14th amendment could pass in the first place -- because it was only ratifying what had already become the standard belief of the nation.
March 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes i did indeed intend nation to be limited specifically the federal government.
i understand that many state constitutions were amended to adopt first amendment guarantees prior to the adoption, and interpretation, of the 14th amendment.
i merely wanted to highlight the fact that the bill of rights was originally intended to govern the relationship between citizens and the federal government only.
hence the early blue laws enacted by state legislatures were perfectly constitutional.
March 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point. The states did chip away at the establishments before the civil war, and the last formal establishment fell in 1833 (Massachusetts). However, the establishment clause itself wasnt applied against the states until later, so that many states allowed for state-written or state-led prayers in school, right up until 1962.
March 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
merely because it took the states a while to weed religion out of government is not an argument that the FF's didn't intent to keep the federal government out of it.
And, now, that same intent is applied with equal force to State Governments, which is as it should be.
March 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have believe the 2nd Ammendment was to permit state militias, not armed citizens.
March 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you would probably agree "Thou Shall Not Kill".
That does not mean we also agree that "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God."
Atheists might have a little problem with "Remember thou keep holy the Lord's day."
Most reasonable people might not agree that it is more important to proscribe the coveting of my neighbor's ass than commanding me to care for my children.
Many might think that a commandment to be a good steward of our planet might be more meaningful than one to lie idle on Saturday.
Face it. Only four of the Ten Commandments have much meaning in the modern world, and those are pretty much common to all cultures -- and just as universally ignored.
March 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The time has come for separationists to focus their arguments on what’s best for society, not only what’s Constitutional or what “the Founders” believed."
100% agree. Not that defending the legal turf of SoCaS isn't important in the meantime, but the most important issue is simply promoting the idea that government governs best when it is not given authority over matters such as religion in the first place. Everything the government does is done on borrowed authority. But in the case of religion, the people have no need at all to cede anything to government direction, instruction, or anything else.
March 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The time has come for separationists to focus their arguments on what’s best for society, not only what’s Constitutional
Dubya would agree with this. And as far as he's concerned, the Constitution is nothing but an impediment to achieving his version of "what’s best for society."
The preamble to the Constitution states its purpose, all of which have to do with what's best for society. In other words, the Constitution itself is a blueprint for how to run a government that is best for society.
The suggestion that we should deviate from the Constitution to improve our society is equivalent to one that we find a shortcut by leaving the road and driving through the swamp.
March 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's look at the church-state question on financial grounds.
President Bush launched the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI) on January 29, 2001, ordering a "comprehensive effort to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and other community organizations."
Faith-Based and Community Initiative:
* In FY2006 faith-based nonprofits won $2.18 billion.
* A comparison of awards between FY 2003 and FY 2006 across the first five agencies with FBCI Centers reveals a 41 percent increase in the number of competitive awards made to faith-based organizations, from 1,634 to 2,300.
* The 3,125 competitive Federal awards won by faith-based charities represents 11.3 percent of all awards in FY 2006, a rate more than triple the three percent of awards won under Welfare-to-Work in FY 1998 and FY 1999.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/fs_measmatters.html
March 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, the Baptists -- though conservative supporters of Bush -- actually opposed this idea at first. They recommended to their own churches that they not accept the money, but they didn't fight against the policy itself.
March 13, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, secularists are hostile to individual freedom?! Is that because Jesus walked on water?
And secularists are jealous?
There's no talking with Jim's kind of brainwashing. Rationality is tossed aside in the minds of his kind of believer, never to be retrieved. He is just a religious "concern troll", telling others how they should live - and he twists that inside out and projects it back onto others, saying THEY're the ones trying to tell him how to live. Another compartmentalized brain lost to reason. Sad.
If you're reading still, Jim: Nobody gives a flip if you believe in Jesus or not. They just don't want you telling them what to do, and that includes your religion, or any religion, intruding on the public space, which is where your nose ends and mine begins. Pray for discernment.
March 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am concerned that grown ups would try to regurgitate what they believed 18th century pioneers in democracy would be thinking about, and how it pertains to a subjective observation on religion today? Ben Franklin asking folks to pray? You make it sound as though he wasn't playing the tools sitting in front of him for what they were? Praying is a way to attempt to make someone else believe you have something to say, or that they should show proper reverence. He was trying to get a country started and he was working for agreement amongst diverse individuals. What do you think someone might say to a group of people still firmly engaged with the primitive society of their day? People that they tried to convince to leave the church behind. Convinced them that no church could be involved in freedom as they are contradictory in every respect.
I have to let you know, many of us can't understand why a child does not leave religion behind as a fantasy in their earliest years. We can however see the correlation of these children being told the same nonsense by adults that continue to act as though it is a part of reality. It is embarrassing to talk about religion with people. It indicates that the person abandoned the scientific method long since, and found it unacceptable, or more likely, could not understand it. If you try using it, you will prove to yourself that your religious meanderings are without merit, and without fact.
In the 18th century, in those little colonies on the eastern seaboard, they murdered witches suffering from ergot poisoning. The churches were the community and their hierarchy dictated policy. Go against them and you could be banished from your community, livelihood, family, colony. Our founders realized this and tried to make it impossible for such vermin to have a place in civilized society.
go back to school son. Find an education of merit and value to your fellow man. Use the scientific method so you won't embarrass yourselves among people that do. You appear to be quite lucid, yet are willing to imagine the mindset of someone living in another era, working on a task that had nothing to do with religion. In fact it was a group of people bound and determined not to let religion control them or their ancestors for another year, after centuries of depravity. It shares much with our current world. Millions of truly ignorant or perhaps even stupid people suffering from the disease of the teachings and actions of religion throughout history.
March 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible Franklin was just cynically using prayer to move the Constitution forward? Yes, it's possible. And it's possible that Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were also being cynical when they used religious rhetoric. I believe the simpler explanation is that they actually believed it.
March 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you "believe" it, but you don't know it. Exactly.
March 13, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If as you say they "believed" the supernatural ruled the material world, then they were in error. We as a species learned this in the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Some continue to hold onto the darkness of superstition, others follow the light of reason.
March 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now.
Lapiltz, I think you meant to say that the first amendment protects Jim's right to proselytize for his religious beliefs, but forbids the government from supporting or mandating anybody's religous beliefs.
I do agree that it is Jim who has not thoroughly examined his beliefs in this area but I didn't get the impression he was a troll.
March 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard not to ridicule someone else's beliefs when yours are so obviously prejudiced against people who don't agree with you. Secularlism (as if that is some sort of a faith system like a religion--a laughable statement in itself) hostile to individual freedom?
Sure. And waterboarding isn't torture.
March 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, meant to reply to Jim Anderson above.
March 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freedom without a foundation of solid values that have stood the test of time and scrutiny sets the stage for making disasterous policy decisions for our country.
You mean, like the solid values that have led to the last seven years of peace and prosperity?
Wait, you're a praody troll, aren't you? You can't possibly be making these arguments seriously.
March 13, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Waldman,
I think what everyone is waiting for is the answer to "So, What?"
I think just about every commenter here is willing to admit that even Jefferson harbored thoughts on religion that are compatible with Christianity... loosely.
So What?
Is your book in reaction to people like that drunk Christopher Hitchens as the embodiment of your straw man that liberals are making wild claims about the religous beliefs of the FF.
I get the impression you feel that religion is under attack and you are using the founding father's rather questionable religous beliefs as some sort of argument in favor of the legitimacy of not only the belief in god, but the actual WORSHIP of a notably very absentee landlord.
Wouldn't you expect better from an all-powerful, all-knowing being?
It is a strawman argument that seeks to posit that Liberals are somehow denigrating the religous beliefs of the Founding Fathers. They were happy enough to do it themselves.
How about some examples of Liberals Making Wild Claims about the FFs' religious beliefs?
March 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two points. One; the notion that only 'faith' can provide the moral basis for a society or personal approach to life is a pathetic straw-man. As an atheist, I'll be aggressive against the "pious pete's" of the world who would call me immoral without looking in the mirror themselves. Respect for your fellow human being ('the golden rule') has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the basic structure and survival of any human society.
Point two; isn't it interesting that we are arguing what the founders were thinking over two centuries ago when, by their own admission, they never expected the constitution they wrote to last more than a couple generations? Just a thought.
March 13, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Madison was not allowed to send his legislative draft straight to the National Archives."
What do you mean by this? The National Archives wasn't founded until 1935, just a wee bit after this debate.
March 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Tough crowd. Sorry. I didn't mean to force my values on anyone. That wasn't my intention. I respect differing opinions on the issues, but not disparaging comments. I respect our right to disagree. I'm not a troll, I'm don't have a hidden agenda, I don't believe we should have a government that doesn't allow free choice, I don't necessarily align myself with the "Christian Right" activists, and I have given much thought to my position. I believe I should be free to express it, just as everyone should be free to express their position, with respect for each other.
I believe we can have a mutually beneficial discussion, but it takes two to do that. I thought the discussion was about the issue of seperation of church and state. I support it. I do believe, however, that there should be governing principles that we live by. That is my position, you are free to believe what you choose. Thats my comment.
I apologize if I came off in an offensive way.
March 13, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Mr. Anderson.
I don't think anyone wants to scare you off, it is simply that post was at best inaptly phrased.
Everyone agrees that people need principles to live by; honesty, compassion, empathy, justice and the pursuit of happiness and all that.
It's not that the American people have lost their principles, it's that their elected representatives have lost their principles.
"Liberal" anger is not directed at religion per se, but at those who cloak themselves in religion in order to inject their views into politics, by hook or by crook.
March 13, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am encouraged by the robust rejection of superstition, fantasy, and especially Christian fundamentalism but I'm a bit taken aback at some of the personal ugliness that gets thrown in with it, as well as a tendency by some to cast aspersions on all religious belief when, in fact, it's mostly dogmatic Christianity that seems to be the target of most of the ire. Not that dogmatic Christianity hasn't earned every bit of it, but there is such a huge variety of religious belief in the world that condemning all of them because you have a bit of experience with one of them seems a bit much. They are not all dependent upon rigid conformity, dogma, and blind faith. After all, religious beliefs such as that of Zen Buddhism is completely without dogma as far as I can tell, requires no conformity of belief, has no God per se to worship (at least not in the way westerners tend to conceive of God) etc...
I have no problem with attacking what one sees as bad ideas, but belittling a person or group of people as though the belief you dislike is the same as the person that holds the belief makes me uncomfortable because it seems like bullying and is very disrespectful. Sometimes words should be chosen more carefully so the point is clear and so that the ideas you wish to discredit are discredited without being pointlessly nasty and disrespectful to another person who really is not your enemy even if not in complete agreement with you.
March 14, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which "10 commandments" are you talking about? The first set that Moses broke in a fit of pique or the second set that god supposedly made for him? Also, do you really believe that your god made them out of thin air and presented them to Moses? What exactly do you believe? That is my question. It's so confusing.
March 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink