Let's start with the painfully obvious. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...It's a prohibition against the Federal .gov establishing a State-sponsored church. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Then I was asked, aren't all the references to God in the Declaration and the Constitution in conflict with that statement?
Of course not (and I realize that, in many cases, I'm preaching to the choir). The Founders made it very clear that they recognized the hand* of God in the course of establishing the new Republic.
But but but ... what about John Adams' statement:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
That's even easier. Moral people, it says; not "Christians". Please notice that the Constitution forces no religion on any person. There is no clause that says "Believe as I do (or as the .gov does) or we'll kill or punish you."
A gentleman who probably heard about this from the cradle on up, said the following -
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
From the day of the Declaration ... they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.
~ John Quincy Adams
Principles and natural laws. A code of conduct. Not some particular religious belief.
They believed that if one conducted his/her affairs in accord with the code of Biblical behavior, that one would have no problem supporting the laws of the United States or its Constitution. (Of course, they also believed that the new federal government would make primarily just and moral laws, but that's another story.)
Not a theocracy, ladies and gentlemen, but a Constitutional Republic with citizens who conduct themselves civilly by means of moral precepts described in the Bible.
It's so simple, only a theologian** could screw it up.
*Or finger, as G. Washington put it. Take your pick.
**Or a historian. Just sayin'.
5 comments:
The most important thing to remember about the founding period was that they came of an age in a time when there was a state religion. In a good many of the colonies - just like in England, you had to go to Anglican services. Whatever creed you actually believed, you had to go to Anglican services. And pay tithes to the Anglican church. I believe you even had to say their creed, but I'm not certain yet on that one.
And yes, some people got a bit..um... snippy over that.
So... That is where they were coming from. The first makes a lot more sense in that context, I think.
Nor was atheism an unknown at the time - the Jacobins in France by and large ranged from militantly atheist to simply militantly secular and anti-Christian. (In fairness, given the behavior of the Church over the last millennium or so, I think they can be forgiven some of their anger). At the same time - I'm coming to think that difference was among the most important factors - if it wasn't the most important - in why theirs ended with the guillotine and bloody infighting instead of nasty editorials.
Finally, the Founders were extremely well versed in Classical history and literature. It's not uncommon in their works to find Classical quotes interspersed in the original Greek and Latin, without translation. It's just assumed the reader would know it. That's important because it meant they were deeply familiar with - and looking to - the end of Republics as well as their beginning. Machiavelli also had written some time earlier that Republics larger than small city states could not endure.
As such, I think they were very, very much concerned with public virtue (which is also why it was common for many among them to advocate for public education).
Hence the Adams quote - because for a free republic to endure, its citizens must do by trained nature and minded inclination what they cannot be forced to do by the state.
----
Coincidentally, I just ran across the section in the Adams/Jefferson letters where they spend a lot of time talking about religion (around 1813). I've not had more time to do more than skim, but my initial impression is that they are both rock-solid certain in the existence of God, but very much in the midst of inquiry into the nature of God, and the history of mankind's relation to God. They'd probably both send a doctrine-bound minister into fits, but both are self-identifying as Christian throughout.
Astute observations; several of the colonies/new states had official religions, but most had not. The right to establish an official religion - or NOT to do so - was one of those rights 'reserved to the States'.
I understand the purpose of the 1st amendment, and used it as if the reader were equally familiar. :) Perhaps I should have gone into the background ... but then we'd have been deprived of your comments.
Thank you for the correction Paul - I confess my education so far is very much focused on the Southern colonies. Virginia ain't Rhode Island. :)
In the other hand - England was England. It's odd to think that the Founding generation was closer to the 17th c. wars of religion than we are now to our own Civil War. And as any drive through a Dixie backroad will show you, those scars still haven't healed.
I think we've enjoyed so much of what they gave us for so long, it's hard to truly appreciate the cultural landscape in which they lived and formed this world now.
Good Post! Always enjoy visiting...
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Excellent conversation! I've had some study into the religiosity of the founding documents and the nature of belief held by those who put ink to parchment on those founding documents. You have said it all above, indeed. What I often pose in this discussion is if a person must be a Christian for our moral society to work, or if holding simply to God's Natural Law's of man (Golden rule, commandments, or non-christian variations of these same laws) is sufficient.
I always have held the belief that the religion or belief of the man was less important than the adherence to Natural Law of order - don't murder, don't covet, don't steal, etc. It seems to me that the great corruptions of civilization have been brought about due to man's perversion of God's laws, and the ensuing power over the masses by this perversion - leading to great acts of genocide, torture, and prohibition of mass education and general spread of scientific knowledge.
This is the same for our free and secular society. Understanding the power over the people religion has, the founders intended to restrict the government of this new nation from becoming 'god-men' like the King of England, and many kings of many lands before him. This was one of the greatest gifts that they had given to us. However, government has become all powerful and godlike via other ventures. Remember, God only requests 10%... the government takes upwards of 60% when all is said and done... How does THAT make sense?
Post a Comment