We’ve been talking– or writing– a lot about the founding of our nation, both here and in comments on other blogs. What I’ve struggled the hardest to do is to try to explain in clear language why it is important that we know what we were founded upon and just what kind of nation we are, or are becoming.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
A few weeks ago we talked about Morality in education using as a springboard the whole topic of homosexuality in the public school system. Core to the premise that the school is a proper place to teach right and wrong is the concept that the children belong to the state, not to the parents.
What’s strange is the parallels between this concept of “it takes a village” to raise children and Plato’s Republic. Two portions of Plato’s Republic I find scary (especially when you consider that Plato is thought to have lived between 427 and 347 BC).
Any in depth look into the Freedom of Religion in the U.S. Constitution must, at some point, take up the subject of James Madison. He is the writer of the current text, and was very influential in the founding. It is through his documents that those looking for the Founder’s mind go to as they ponder these questions. We’ll look at some of his documents, his actions in Congress, and his writings later.
The question in Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” revolves around the question of whether he is concerned about all state aid to religion (a high wall separating church and state) or a subsidy for a single religion or sect. Those that hold to the former take this quote:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever.
Two points to consider here:
However, I believe that there is more to support that Madison was more concerned about subsidy and allowing for freedom of conscience than he was about no entanglement:
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account be rendered. As the [Virginia] Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens; so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exceptions.
Can you guess what one of the earliest acts of the First House of Representatives was? On Friday, May 1, 1789, “the House proceeded by ballot to the appointment of a Chaplain” and “the Rev. William Linn was elected.” James Madison was a member of the Congressional Committee that recommended the Chaplain system.
Further, Madison’s first draft of the Establishment Clause read:
The Civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of Conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Sounds like a guy more concerned that there not be a national religion and that all were treated fairly. Which would be consistent with the fact that when the Establishment Clause was added via amendment to the constitution, saw the same people that voted for it also vote for a day of Thanksgiving unto God come from the national government.
Madison did have some things to say about this after he was out of office (both House and Presidency). Taken by themselves, one could assume that he had a different opinion, or that he was even a different person. However, I agree with Robert Cord that it is more instructive to take a person’s testimony while in office than in reflection.
There’s nothing here to indicate that the U.S. was not a Christian nation– but that Madison did not want any one sect to be able to receive preferential federal government treatment or to have a national church. This is a far cry from having things removed from court houses, white washing religion out of the public square, and denying the right for school children to pray.
Unless otherwise noted, quotes taken from Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction
American Political Theology’s main purpose, as stated in the conclusion, is “not only to examine emotion-charged issues dispassionately and objectively, but also to provide a framework for analyzing political and theological relationships” (180). It seeks to accomplish this goal through the major works of different time periods, including present thought.
The first period covered is the founding of the American government. Quickly, the different ideas of America’s founding are presented. The author makes a good point, after presenting both. He states the importance of knowing the America’s roots for “If America is a Christian nation as conservatives argue … we have created a government decidedly contrary to the Founders’ intentions” (11) It is either that, or religion has been given too much of a ground in the government. He then presents a series of documents, uncut, to show what the Founders thought from what they said. Included in such are a listing of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) which states that if any blaspheme the name of God, he shall be put to death.
The next period is the Civil War. In this chapter, the author discusses the sweeping perfectionism that came from “enlightened” thinking. Theologians began to preach the total sanctification and perfection of man on this earth. The sneaking in of the humanist ideas probably began here, where the conservatives of the day began to start thinking that man was, or could be perfect. Focusing too much on man and his accomplishments started to eat away at some of the Founder’s concepts put into the Constitution, such as the natural depravity of man.
The third section discusses the New Deal era and shows how the social gospel movement started. The social gospel’s main motive being to “establish ‘the kingdom of God on earth’” (47), the government took the programs the churches did for the community’s welfare and made it the state’s business. “Gradually, man became more important and God less important” (47). Man was the final authority on what was and was not God’s Word in the Bible.
The fourth section discusses contemporary American politics. In this chapter the author shows that the church has been asleep. Although it may have prospered in numbers, the church has not been as involved in politics and teaching as it has been in preparing people for the ministry. He goes on to state that the Christians have started to see how bad the government is getting, and finally deciding to do something about it. He does observe that whenever a church gets involved in politics it usually hurts the fundamentalism of the church.
Lastly, he discusses the leadership in America, specifically the Presidents. Showing through paradigms, the author concludes that from the beginning to the New Deal, the Presidents were of Conservative Ideology and Theology. As we grow towards the present, more turns toward the exact opposite. He observes that the economy does affect the way the Presidents are chosen.
His one proposition about leaders should encourage the Christian to get involved in politics, on whatever level: “Proposition 6. Presidents and other political leaders tend to reflect rather than direct theological influences on politics and public policy” (178). We must be willing to take this country back to the Scriptural basis on which it was founded.
One of the common arguments against the fact that America was a Christian nation is that the Federal Constitution has no reference to the Creator in it. There’s nothing there to remark about any religion, and, in fact, it starts out by declaring that “We the People” have the rights to create this Constitution, not that we got the right from God.
From Whom Do We Get Our Rights?
Well, first, you have to look at the Declaration of Independence and why it was necessary for the writers of that document to stress that we were God-given inalienable rights to life, liberty and property and it was thereby that the colonists believed that they had the right to declare themselves free. In my mind, that document had a theological reason as well as a practical and legal one. (Besides the fact that, in that time, the law was wedded with theology.)
You see, Romans 13 tells the Christian that they should be subject to the ruler that is is over them– for they are God-ordained. So, any good Christian would have problems revolting. Hence there were some Tories among the colonists that believed that they needed to submit to England. In order for those that were considering revolt to justify themselves, they had to have a Biblical reason too– and that reason was wrapped up in the concept that all were equal under God, and that they had rights that were being taken away by the king. Right or wrong, it was their logic.
States Had Established Religions Under Our Constitution
Another point to note is what the states did as far as establishment:
At the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, there were established churches in nine of the thirteen colonies. The Anglican Church had been established in Virginia in 1609, in New York’s lower counties in 1693, in Maryland in 1702, in South Carolina in 1706, in North Carolina nominally in 1711, and in Georgia in 1758. The Congregational Church was established in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. By the summer of 1787, however, only Georgia, South Carolina, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire had retained their religious establishments.
From 1788 to 1833, those states disestablished their churches, but this shows that the establishment of a state church was not something that was a problem for the Founding Fathers. In fact, the purpose of the First Amendment was strictly to prohibit Congress from recognizing a particular sect from being the Federal church, not for prohibiting the states from doing such.
One way to see this, take a look at these quotes from two of the states and see what they suggested:
Virginia:
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; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society out to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others.
New York:
That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.
North Carolina and Rhode Island passed resolutions like Virginia’s. And if you take these statements together you come to the conclusion that these States were not having trouble with Islam, Buddhists, or Hindus. They were concerned about different sects within Christianity usurping authority.
James Madison’s Own Words
Adding to that, Madison makes the following comment when discussing whether or not the First Amendment was actually necessary:
The United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution, and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest.
Obviously, Madison wasn’t thinking about religious persecution of Atheists, Jews, etc. because this statement would make no sense. At the founding of the country there was a super-majority of Christians, but I doubt there were any Muslims. If there were Jews, they were appreciably few. This statement only makes sense if Madison is speaking from the concept that America was made up of Christians– Christians that did not what the Anglicans outlawing the Congregationalists, etc.
That’s a much different picture than saying that the government was supposed to be free of Christianity.
Unless otherwise noted, quotes taken from Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction
In order to understand why our government is set up in the way that it is, the logic behind it and why it has gone as long as it has one has to start with defeating the common notion that we are a Democracy.
America is Not a Democracy
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic. If you remember the Pledge of Allegiance you will recall that we pledge “to the republic for which [the flag] stands.” Why is this important?
It’s important because democracies lead to one of two things: 1) Anarchy or 2) Despotism. You see, the key thing to remember about a democracy is that majority rules regardless of whether it is right or moral. A majority could decide that white males should now be slaves, and they would be slaves. A majority could rally behind an individual, who would become despot.
Fortunately, we’re not a democracy no matter how many citizens we have that believe such. The only part of our government that functions as a democracy is that part in which we elect representatives.
America is a Republic
We elect representatives, Presidents, and others to represent our views, our beliefs and our morals. These people are supposed to have our best interest in mind. This is contrary to the current axiom which says that elected leaders do things for job security. Much different. Representatives were originally elected by land owning males to do the business of the country. They were not looking for hand outs, or support as much as defense and structure.
America’s backbone is the Rule of Law and Common Morality
It’s important to understand this truth. First, no American is above the law– not even the President. However, if the law is fluid– is only what man makes it– then the President could turn himself into a king, craft the law in such a way that it benefits himself, or simply abuse the law.
When the Magna Charta was signed, it was not to say that England did not want a king, but that the king was not the final authority. America at its founding acknowledged in its declaration and by its Founders that liberty came from God– the Creator.
But what about the fact that the Constitution says “We the people of the United States” do X, Y, Z? Who gave the people of the United States the right? In order for any people to believe they have the power to come together and give some of their rights to a governing body, they had to have first had those rights to begin with. If they had those rights, why do they have them? The Declaration of Independence says that they have those rights because they were given to them by God.
America’s Constitutional Republic Depends on a Creator
The reason you see an ascendant government and secular humanism on the rise goes hand in hand with the teaching that we are a secular society with a democratic government– because only then can it be justified the actions that are being taken without regard to the “Higher Law.” They have to water down the founding and founders.
They have to remove the linkage between Christianity and America. Because as long as people know the truth, they can see that the way the government is going is wrong, and they have caused themselves to believe that they are the highest power where they are not.
What is with all the public references to Christian religion? In reality, those that would argue against the United States being a Christian nation would have a hard time proving it to anyone on the outside.
From the outside, foreigners believe that we have strange, puritanical beliefs compared to the “free” Western societies.
But, one does not have to go to the effort of asking a foreigner– just look at some examples of a society that proclaims that America at least was Christian:
The history of America’s laws, its constitutional system, the reason for the American Revolution, or the basis of its guiding political philosophy cannot accurately be discussed without reference to its biblical roots. Every President, from George Washington to George Bush, has placed his hand on a Bible and asked for the protection of God upon taking office. Both Houses of Congress open each daily session with a prayer. The phrase “In God We Trust” is emblazoned on all U.S. currency. Witnesses are expected to swear on a Bible before testifying in a court of law. The Christian Sabbath is a national day of rest; many states restrict the sale of liquor and the operation of restaurants on the Lord’s Day in order to encourage religious worship and time spent at home. A government official opens each day’s session of the Supreme Court with the plea, “God save the United States and the Honorable Court.” The Ten Commandments appear on the wall above the head of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court; which is ironic when one considers that it is this very judicial body that declared it unconstitutional for states to do the same in the public schools. These laws and customs all have their origins in America’s Christian past and provide a clue as to the assumptions guiding the creation of America’s form of government, assumptions the founding fathers had about man’s nature, his place in eternity, and the character of the God to whom he is accountable. It is these ultimate concerns that determine the shape of society.
So you see, the argument that we are a secular society must rest squarely on the absence of God in the Constitution, but a quick glance of what was important to the founders and what was ruled into law and practice is more important.
Look at the kinds of things the early Federal government did and what the founders said and you will see a group of people that believed that the Christian God was God. They may have differed on which religious sect should be in charge– and why shouldn’t they? Most of them had escaped from a land that was persecuting a certain sect because another was in power. At that time, a majority of the states had a state church– preferences given though there was freedom for all.
To the people of the time, there was no difference in who to worship, just how. There was a desire that the federal government stay out of the states’ affairs and for a weak federal government. One of the problems that we have in trying to understand the problem is that we see the Federal government as it is now– strong, with far reaching tentacles. That, I believe, is not what the Founders intended.
Take a look– the evidences of our Christian heritage are all around. What we will become, though is still up for grabs as more of that heritage is removed.
 | Rachel (38) |
 | AG (12) |
| Mary (8) | |
| ChristianPF (6) | |
 | Leticia (6) |
Posting tweet...
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Comments from MInTheGap
