The Right Scoop
"Good start... you're getting there."
Getting where? What you said is true, so how could I not agree with it? Those governance principles exist in the Bible as you pointed out -- it's just not the only place you find them, and they might predate the Bible as well -- and a few other places recognize the Christian presence that existed at the time, such as excluding Sundays in the 10-day period the President has to sign a law. All true statements. I do embrace the Christian history in this country -- you saw the blog post I wrote showing that, and I've been an atheist all my life.
But the one thing you need to realize is that I care not about the religious beliefs of those behind the words that were written. I could, if I tried hard enough, write something under a pseudonym that would likely be virtually indistinguishable from Christian apologetics. In fact people exist online who do just that -- colloquially called a "Poe", so named after "Poe's law" -- and they do end up garnering a following of Christians who believe every fake word they write. It's hilarious and painful to watch.
As such I take words at face value. I don't read too far beyond them, and I don't question or contemplate the motives or thoughts of the person that wrote them. You, however, keep trying to push me in that direction, and I won't go there, except only for this moment.
As I said, the words are very nonspecific. Why did they provide nonspecific words? You might think they are specific, but it takes looking through "God glasses" to think such. If they wanted the words to unmistakeably represent the God of the Bible, the words easily could have been much more specific so there would be no room for debate or misinterpretation. Again why did they not do that, since you keep wanting to analyze the intent of the people behind the words instead of the words themselves?
And no, I was not trying to set up a strawman. I think you've momentarily forgotten that a strawman is a misrepresentation of your position that is then attacked. I was not attempting to misrepresent any position, only demonstrate how those words are not exclusive to Christianity.
"The Mohammed cartoons are your example."
And where did I bring them up? You're the only one mentioning rioting. I'm just saying that Hitchens is not afraid of Islam and didn't title his book out of fear. Perhaps his publisher might be, and his publisher is what calls the final shots on what the book title/subtitle will be. But this is just a stalemated argument. You wholly wish to believe Hitchens titled his book in that manner purely out of fear, and I don't buy it.
But if you want to settle the argument, write to him and ask him. After all, you're making the assertion, so prove it.
"Divine document..." Yes, I know they are my words. Never said they were yours. But that is the apparent point of view of so many people who talk about the Declaration of Independence -- without actually reading it, I might add. But those four phrases you point out are rather vague and nonspecific for being the "God of the Bible". Those words could be uttered by any theist, including Muslims who believe Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World have convicted the United States of various crimes and that they are carrying out Divine Providence.
Assert if you must that they are references to the God of the Bible, but I'm going on words alone, not any perceived or implied intent of the people who wrote them. And the words are very nonspecific, likely for political reasons as there were other religions in the colonies in 1776.
"On the Constitution..." Finally you back up your assertions! The principles defined in the Preamble are reflected in the Bible (or vice versa if you will or must). Great! But they're also rather universal principles, as well. Christianity is not the only source of them. Even the Golden Rule predates the Bible and is found in areas and creeds where there was no Christian influence.
"Article I, Sec 7" You're pointing out a parenthetical and asserting it as signifying the importance of Sunday worship? Okay.... If the phrase was inline to the section instead of a parenthetical, then your assertion might have some more weight to it, but a parenthetical? That's more of a side-note, not something primary in their minds.
"Blue laws" Blue laws are entirely a State construct, immaterial in the context in which we are arguing. But since you brought them up, I will say this: you cannot accept or be in favor of blue laws and personal freedom at the same time, as blue laws restrict personal freedom. This says nothing on your support or lack thereof for those laws, and I am making no statement, assertion, or assumption about your support or lack thereof for blue laws.
Thankfully most blue laws have been removed from the books -- not due to any lawsuit regarding the Establishment Clause, but just because they're an asinine restriction on personal and economic freedom.
"Year of our Lord". The convention of which I speak is the wording itself. It is a long-standing convention. It might be an uncomfortable reference for others, but to me it is not, as I've used the convention myself. We can argue the nature of the convention, but it's immaterial as the only thing that wording does is just signify the current year in relation to a particular point in history, as does statement following the calendar year: "and of the Independence of the United States of America". Again, relation to some historical event.
"So in brief… the Preamble embraced good governance principles from the Bible, while a few other places recognize a Christian presence in the public."
That's a good way to summarize it.
I doubt he picked the title "God is not great" out of fear of Islam. For one, Allah translated from Arabic means "God", and translated from Arabic the Shahada says "There is no god but God and Mohammed is the Messenger of God." So saying "God is not great" attacks Islam just as much as it does Christianity and Judaism.
However instead of asserting he picked the title out of fear of Islam, how about writing him to ask him why he picked that title instead of "Allah is not great".
And rewrite history? I'm doing no such thing. I'm going on the words of the Declaration, and the words of the Declaration are to not only declare independence from Britain, but justify that declaration. It isn't some divine document. Yes it mentions rights, but that text was influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was adopted June 12, 1776. And it is believed the Committee of Five adapted some of the text of that Declaration in writing the Declaration of Independence.
We could argue till the sun explodes if the Declaration would ever have occurred absent Christianity, but there's no way to know for certain (your assertions notwithstanding). History occurred, and that is how history occurred. There's no point in asserting that it could only have happened the way it did, as there is no way of knowing for certain. The text of the Declaration may have been different, but the act of declaring independence would likely have still occurred absent Christianity.
And no, those citations are not from the Constitution. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution discusses the process by which a bill becomes law. No mention of God, Christianity or Sunday worship anywhere in that document. Are you sure you're thinking straight, or are you just tossing out random citations without realizing that I will verify them?
Wait you think that Hitchens is afraid of Islam? You haven't listened to much of what he's said -- and going on just one book title ain't gonna cut it. He's been very outspoken on Islam, and has received death threats and the like because of it -- yet he keeps going, speaking out against all religion. Yes his primary target is Christianity, but that is because he is a US citizen, and what is the dominant religion in the US?
As a good example of him speaking out against Islam, I recommend a lecture he did at the University of Toronto back in 2006 - (Part 1) (Part 2). He is not afraid of Islam.
And what "Declaration of Independence" are you citing? There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence (the one adopted July 4, 1776, by the Second Continental Congress) regarding the God of the Bible. The word God is mentioned only once, and it's in reference to "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" (if you want to believe that's the God of the Bible, be my guest), and nothing of what you cite is in the Declaration. Again, have you actually read the Declaration of Independence? Given your incorrect citations and reference to Articles and Sections, into which the Declaration is not divided, I'm starting to doubt you have.
Whittle is amazing and his commentary is always right on no matter what topic he tackles. I watched one of his speeches at a Tea Party rally and it was electric. He's always been among my favorites since I first watched him on PJTV.
While some draw meaning from the reference to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is baseless. Apart from the fact that these references could mean any number of things (some at odds with the Christian idea of God), there simply is no “legal” connection or effect between the two documents. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence, nor did it found a government. The colonists issued the Declaration not to effect their independence, but rather to explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies; nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies could choose whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take it as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a secular government founded on the power of the people (not a deity).
A little out of order... you'll see why, though.
"First -" Again, I think we're settled here.
"Second -" I think we're settled on this one.
"Fourth -" The words "Christian constitutional plan" are your own words. I wouldn't have quoted them if you didn't say them.
"Third -" Christianity holds the religion majority in this country. That is the only reason you are perceiving attacks on religion as being attacks only on Christianity, as that is where the majority of attacks are directed. Many atheists do go after Islam and other religions (with some exclusions, such as Pastafarianism, Jainism and deism) just as much if not more so than Christianity. And I know that many Christians are saying to atheists that we need to be instead directing our attacks against Islam, seemingly ignoring the fact that we already do, but also in an attempt to deflect attacks off Christianity.
Further, many of us also argue against or mock the tenets of Christianity and not the Christian. I do my best to keep to such a restraint, but if a Christian attacks me personally instead of the views I hold, then all bets are off (see my response to Allen Poe in this section). Now if you see attacking Christianity as attacking Christians, then I cannot help that.
And I feel I can say that most of us don't mind Christian expression in the public circle. I don't, so long as it isn't government officers acting under the authority of their office doing it, such as Rick Perry's proclamation of a day of prayer and fasting. And if I perceive someone as attempting to infringe upon your right of religious expression, I'll stand by your side to defend it.
Again, as I've already said, I am not anti-theist in the same way as Hitchens and Dawkins.
Certainly been an interesting discussion.
Regards,
Kenneth
And here I thought it showed that, 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).
You posed a series of factual questions. I responded by noting the framework in which those questions should be considered and offering a reference that discusses the types of questions you posed. Had you bothered to consult it, you would have learned the short answers to your questions are: It depends--on the circumstances and details.
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.
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
There you go. Make a pitch for your point of view; each of us can do likewise and see how it plays out in our society and polity. I prefer to make my pitch to a full room, thank you.
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.
I agree with you that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people's expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people's values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite--the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity's influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that--and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow "lock in" (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
As Whittle suggests, to the extent our Constitutional framework leaves people largely free to do as they will, we count on people to act morally. I think Adams had largely the same idea in mind.
What you mean by your second sentence, I do not know.
"First -" My morality isn't so much shaped by this culture as merely the culture providing a idea of how people should act. Now if you want to believe that is due to a heavy Christian influence on the culture, then fine. I'm willing to concede that at best I've been indirectly influenced by Christianity. What you were attempting to argue at the outset is that I was directly influenced by Christianity, and that is not true.
"Second -" Yes, natural laws are demonstrably true. I never said otherwise. But this is not what you were attempting to argue. The natural laws being handed down by God is what you say the Founders believed, and that is what must be proven. Not that the natural laws are demonstrably true, which they are, but that those laws were handed down by God.
"Third -" As I argued with ABC, you cannot protect religion from government without also protecting government from the excessive influence of religion. Yes we can argue the definition of "excessive" till the sun explodes, but the idea is to prevent a notion that did exist prior to the Courts stepping in: religious cronyism -- religion and religious organizations receiving special consideration from the government. And in many ways it still does exist. Just look at the special considerations and privileges afforded the Boy Scouts of America.
"Fourth -" I believe is what you were attempting to argue all along. On that I agree in part, but I won't argue the dissent as I'd be arguing philosophy. But saying the Constitution is influenced by Christianity is far different from calling it a "Christian constitutional plan". The former I agree is true to an extent, the latter is a whole other matter indeed.
And you are now doing what I alleged Allen Poe to be doing: presuming I do not know or understand that which I already do.
Further, my choice of words in the preceding response to him was deliberate, but not characteristic of me. In general while I might be argumentative I am otherwise respectful of the person with whom I am conversing. However if the person with whom I am conversing is disrespectful from the outset, why should I show respect to that person?
Rshill7,
I understand you pose an important and interesting philosophical subject about which much could be said. My interest in commenting here is focused more on the constitutional separation of government and religion, so I'd rather just leave any discussion of the existence of god(s) and the possibility of morality sans god(s) to others.
As if morality was not possible until god(s) were invented. The notion that morality depends on religion is preposterous. Yes, yes, I've heard much opining on relativism, absolutism, and all, so thank you for sparing me.
Dittos MaxineCA - "... why I didn't take up the debate..."
I also avoid these kinds of debates on forums because they are fruitless... if a fact is evaded by an opinion.
Opinions are great, when based on facts... an opinion not supported by a fact is without substance... there's no there, there.
Yes, "... we are not going to change their minds."
But, we can influence friends.
I have adapted the 1937 Dale Carnegie book title, "How To Win Friends And Influence People" to how to "influence" people and THEN win friends.
How do we influence?
First, a Not... not by telling them they're "wrong" because...
Next, a Do... do lay out a "fact" with a "therefore" conclusion, one at a time, in one sentence... not multi-syllabic words in multi-thought sentences.
Of course, there so much more to a point-counterpoint debate, but that's the essence.
PS. Also, AmericanborninCanada, that's great writing in your comment that starts with "Religious displays running afoul ... ."
Can you include your sources in the future, either names of source material and/or url links for further reading?
Thanks.
Art
Hey Art. Thank you. But as for that first line, I can't claim that one- I was repeating what Kenneth said actually. I guess I should have put it in quotes- I don't know how to do that thing where people who quote back stuff do it with a dark background. Most of what I wrote in rebuttle is taken from my own blog, from a short series on the founding of America I did last year. I did and still do a ton of reading, but for that I read from the federalist papers, some of Blackstone's Commentaries, and other history sites for many quotes and speeches of the founders.
Thanks,
The dark background requires simple html code, so I just use " " quote marks instead ... it's faster.
I took a quick look at your blog a few days ago, and since there was so much content on our comment to Kenneth, I thought it could have been from your blog.
Art
I largely agree with Whittle's main thrust.
He slips in certain regards though. He speaks of our nation's founding and founders in rather simplistic and unduly worshipful terms (perhaps owing largely to the brief video format). He also largely conjoins virtue and religion, particularly Christianity, and all but brushes aside the prospect of virtue without belief in god(s). Lastly, he gratuitously adds an unexplained and unjustified swipe at what he terms the "Occupy" generation and "OWS," broadly painting them as lacking virtue and claiming entitlement.
Franklin - a man of virtue?
Jefferson - a man of virtue?
The era of our founding - one of great virtue?
What history is Whittle reading, it certainly is nothing I've ever read. Franklin was a womanizing jerk who apparently associated with the Hellfire Club while in England. Jefferson never met a married woman he did not try to seduce, and did not have the intellectual courage to free his slaves, even upon death. Washington's greatness was not in his virtue but in the fact that he over-came his personal ambitions. That is not virtue, but character.
If you were to time-travel back to the time of the "founding" I think you would find it a vile place to live, filthy, unbathed, diseased, corrupt - a culture that was reaching the point where it could literally go no farther. That was the reason for revolution. It was replaced by a more enlightened era that began around 1797 or so when men cut their hair, began to bathe on a daily basis, brush their teeth, and deodorize. I think if you were to step into the Continental Congress in July, 1776 you would gag over the filth and the body odor. The real change in culture began in England with the advent of Beau Brummell.
As for Jefferson, the more I learn about him, the more repulsive he becomes. This was a man who not only provided the creative philosophy behind the Reign of Terror in France, but NEVER ONCE spoke out against the cold blooded murder of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, the vast majority of them guilty of being nothing more than devout Catholics.
The founding of this nation was a remarkable thing in history, unique, creative, and courageous. It is a great insult to take very human men, many of whom absolutely detested the sight of one another, and give them qualities they did not possess. Their greatness was in over-coming their personal demons and learning how to compromise to create something amazing. Don't insult their memory by turning them into saints. They were far from it. They were humans, frail, flawed, and imperfect - that is their real greatness!
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Bill states that you "can have an internal Judge without God, it's just a damn site harder to find". Yes you do have to purposely think, reason and act because moral actions just don't happen by accident. Man needs a philosophy to live and our schools don't teach any, secular or religious. We need to assert our sovereignty, rights and our moral codes on Earth-based facts not mystical-beliefs if they are to have unimpeachable authority. There is such a philosophy, distilled from the greatest thinkers of Western Civilization, it is the Objectivist philosophy. If there is any hope for the human race to break out of our suicidal ways, Objectivism is it.
Good luck and long life to you. Restore honor, and virtue will follow. My life observation, is we are losing that war.
I must have been a real oddball. I opposed all get trophies, pass all, kids had to do chores, and any disrespect got an reaction, my kids did not expect. I fought with the teachers, the PTA, college profs, and with the no kid left behind. Look at all I accomplished. After my kids left home, it all went right back to the same old stuff. My kids became hippie addicts. I would do it again, do you have the guts? Oh, did I mention wife became hippie.
We can't always get the desired outcome even when we knew we've done the right thing. Look at Reagan. His own children are a disgrace to his legacy only his adopted son defends and believes what Reagan believed. It's a crap shoot at best but when it works it was well worth the efforts. I don't know what the exact odds are for successfully raising children who do have values but as long as each child or spouse is an individual there's only so much you can do. Much is still left up to the individual to decide how they want to live their life no matter how they were raised or who they were influenced by.
This post maybe a bit on the lengthy side, so apologies in advance to those "offended" by a "wall o' text". However, since the First Amendment and more particularly the argument of "freedom of or from" has reared its head once again I felt it important to post the thoughts of an individual, who was possessed of more insight into the meaning and intent of the US Constitution than any now living.
§ 986. And first, the prohibition of any establishment of religion, and the freedom of religious opinion and worship.
How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. 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. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience.
§ 987. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed. One, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons, not belonging to it, either wholly, or in part, from any participation in the public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a government may simply declare, that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state, and shall be aided, and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare, that the Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all, not belonging to it, from all public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities.
§ 988. 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 encouragement from the state, so far as it is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. 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.
§ 989. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether say free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.
§ 990. But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner, which, they believe, their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said, that "religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, has at the same time expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. "No man, or society of men," says he, "have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself." The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as of revealed religion.
§ 991. The real object of the 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, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New-England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, had furnished a chapter, as full of dark bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity have been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.
§ 992. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity, of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship. ~ Justice Joseph Story
Reliance on Story's comments in his Commentaries 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.
Madison while having the honorific of "Father of the Constitution" (one he repeatedly declined) was a champion of the document but not even close to its sole author, as the document was a product of a committee of delegates. You were aware that Madison was adamantly opposed to the Bill of Rights were you not? While Madison did do yeoman's work in keeping the convention together and functioning, It was James Wilson of Pennsylvania a member of the Committee of Detail to whom we owe the lions share of thanks to in putting together our Constitution.
Your view of the reference to Story's work as "problematic", would seem to be a personal bias. I for one do not see the problems with it apparently that you do. For example, Your parsing of what he wrote, does shade it to appear that way ( I have often seen the technique before) however it does indeed make sense when the statement is taken as a whole as in;
§ 991. The real object of the 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, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New-England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, had furnished a chapter, as full of dark bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity have been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.
And then we have this;
§ 988. 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 encouragement from the state, so far as it is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. 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.
Changes it a bit, when taken in context, does it not? That is about as far as I care to go or have time to, at this moment. In other words, I find your argument, specious.
From your explanation, I now understand the problem. You misunderstood my comments.
The two lines you claim I cherry picked have nothing whatever to do with the contradiction I pointed out in the first paragraph of my comment. The contradiction is between what Story said with respect to the Constitution’s no-religious-test clause (pertinent portions of which I quote above) and what he says with respect to the First Amendment (pertinent portions of which you quote above).
I note the two lines you mention in making the separate and further point (in the third paragraph of my comment) that Story fails to explain how he derives a limitation only on championing any particular faith or sect from the words of the First Amendment.
Having misunderstood those points, you disputed something I never argued and, in the process, did not really respond to what I actually said.
In any event, what’s all this muttering about “living document” and techniques and hacks of the progressive left and supposing I only skimmed Story’s Commentaries? You would do better to focus more on my arguments and speculate less about me. I first encountered Story’s Commentaries, by the way, more than thirty years ago while researching for a law review article I was writing on First Amendment issues. Rest assured, I have more than skimmed them.
I merely pointed out that you cherry picked two lines out of two separate sections and presented them, falsely, as Story contradicting himself. This type of misrepresentation is common among the "Living Document" hacks of the progressive left (which is where I have seen the technique used most frequently). What you obviously missed in your skimming of Story's commentaries, is that he points out that the First Amendment protects the right of the people to openly and freely practice their faith of choice without the threat of sanction, persecution, bias or interference from the Federal government. Likewise it prohibits the Federal government from championing any particular faith or "sect" of a faith. My previous reply to you pointed out the specious nature of your argument, by presenting the lines in their actual context to illustrate your misrepresentation. The real irony here is that you attempt to discredit the very work that supports your expressed view.
Apart from simply characterizing my views as "personal bias," suggesting that my parsing of Story's words is a "technique" to somehow "shade" his meaning, and then asserting, without explanation, that his words "make sense" when taken as a whole, you do not substantively address ANY aspect of my several arguments. That, on that basis, you find my argument "specious" is the height of irony.
"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..."
Seems that that is what Supreme Justices do, they draw from persona; views on what they believed the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution.
As for your questions reguarding the use of the words sect and religion, it is because most of the founders were learned in the Christian Bible, and came from a nation that while imposed a state sanctioned church, the head of which was the King of England- it was still a church based on the religion of Christianity. The fact that the very settlement of the first colonies was for Christian religious purposes, the founders Christian Biblical knowlege and beliefs is why the freedom OF religion argument has basically been meaning the Christian religion.
While Supreme Court Justices often are criticized for drawing more on their personal views than on the intent of the framers (particularly in the media and blogosphere), the fact is that when interpreting the Constitution, they generally endeavor to determine the intent of the framers--or, at least, take pains to explain their conclusions with reference to the intent of the framers.
Again with the prepositions? That seems more a semantic sidetrack, but perhaps it would be more useful to note the two aspects of the First Amendment. First, it protects the freedom of individuals to exercise their religions. Second, it constrains government not to promote or otherwise take steps to establish religion. The phrase "freedom of religion" is sometimes used to refer to the first aspect, sometimes to the whole. The phrase "freedom from religion" is sometimes used to refer to the second aspect in the sense of freedom from government promoted or established religion.
Of vs. From...
If the original intent was freedom "from" religion, we would not have this incessant debating.
Thomas Paine, who was an atheist, would have won the debate... but he lost it... to Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, who advised him to not publish "The Age of Reason".
The Age of Reason - free PDF download - Deism.com -
>> PDF - http://www.deism.com/theageofreason.htm
Obviously the intent was "of" religion and not "from" religion.
Art
Actually, my comment does not take a position on "Of v. From" and was merely an observation on the argument coming up again. Regardless of whether the in tent was Freedom of or from, we would still have this incessant bickering (I call it bickering because it always goes beyond reasoned debate). For myself, I defer to Justice Story's position;
"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject."
My take on this, that is reinforced by Story's astute commentaries, is that these issues where left to the States to decide, this is further reinforced by the 9th and 10th Amendments. The intent was to keep the Federal government out of the business of religion as well as keep the Federal government free of religious bias;
"It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."
In the case of this argument "of or from", I would submit that both were intended. As the right to free exercise would be severely hampered if not completely blocked if the Federal government were to advocate or place any particular faith or sect of a faith in a position of preeminence.
Vol 1
Vol 2
http://books.google.com/books?id=VZQPBIhVPsMC&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false
Vol 3
Intent...
Yes, KenInMontana, I accepted your original comment as not about freedom "of" religion or freedom "from" religion.
That was my focused point relative to Justice Story's larger intent.
As your 1st focused Justice Story quote above says in the last sentence, "to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject" is being ignored today.
"To exclude ... all power to act ... ."
It seems to me that freedom "from" religion was not the intent of the revolutionary "thinkers" who laid the faith cornerstone of this Republic to promote, protect and defend freedom "of" religion.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is a case in point.
However.
The issue being debated today in the 21st century is not about the original intent of the "thinkers" who founded our Republic, or Justice Story's accurate articulation of to original intent of the founders of our Republic of laws.
The issue being debated today in our Republic is a progressive "new thinker" philosophy that the original intent of the "thinkers" is passe...
... and the "original intent thinking" of the founders, INCLUDING the Deist Thomas Paine, MUST be replaced with whatever removes the influence of religion "from" the public square.
Obviously, the intent was "of" religion and not "from" religion.
Thomas Paine agrees - from Deism.com -
>> see - http://www.deism.com/theageofreason.htm
It is THIS "new thinker" emphasis today that Justice Story could not deal with during his day.
The principle of the 'separation of church and state" is irrelevant to the "transformers" of America.
That means that Justice Story's words extracted from your 2nd quote above also are also being ignored by the progressive "new thinkers" in our Republic,
"... perpetual strife
"... on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy,
"if the national government
"were left free to create a religious establishment.
"The only security was in extirpating the power."
In "extirpating the power" the "national government" was NOT to be FOR freedom "OF" religion and NOT to be FOR freedom "FROM" religion.
But the progressive "new thinkers" are ignoring the constitution and the "original intent" as Justice Story articulated.
Why?
Because the progressive "new thinker" philosophers and academicians and legislators who want to "nudge" America into a brave new world do NOT care about the "Congress ... no law" 1st Amendment, just as they do NOT care about the 2nd amendment, etc., and they definitely do NOT care about the "natural born citizen" clause in Article 2, Section 1.
The progressive "new thinker" influence to ignore the "original intent" of "natural born citizen" has infected the debate, both left and right.
To conclude.
What has changed in USA today is the attempt by some progressive "new thinker" agnostics and atheists, and even Deists, who believe that removing the influence "of" religion "from" the public sphere would free the spirit of this age and transform what it means to be a citizen of this Republic.
There is a "putsch" to change our Republic, one "nudge" at a time, and the BHObama administration is in agreement with and is an active "putscher" of the progressive "new thinker" philosophy that seeks to "transform" our Republic from a government of laws to a government of progressive "new thinker" men and women.
We can refer the progressive new thinkers to Justice Story and the revolutionary "original intent" of the US Constitution...
...but they don't care...
... their progressive new thinker "revolution" is happening, and the "occupy" the public square movement is a symptom of the ideology behind the revolution...
... and the "original intent" of the words of the US Constitution and Justice Story's accurate articulation will just be ignored until a brave new social justice community is given birth.
Art
This commonly expressed argument about prepositions leads nowhere. Freedom "of" religion encompasses each individual's freedom "to" exercise his or her religion and freedom "from" government actions to promote or otherwise establish religion. There, all prepositions are fairly represented.
Yes...
That's what I surmised about our cross fire.
Constitutional law is NOT an issue for the "new thinker" transformers of our Republic, nudge by nudge, in all areas, freedom "of" religion, education, health... and death panels.
There definitely are "... those who seek to influence our society and polity..." and in the BHObama regime his name is Cass "nudge" Sunstein.
For quick reference, Wikipedia is ok -
Sunstein "... currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration."
>> Cass Sunstein - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
His job, as Administrator of czars, is to "nudge" legislation along... on low heat -
>> Yale Press - http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300122237
"Nudge" - the authors
"... show that by knowing how people think,
"we can design choice environments
"that make it easier for people to choose
" what is best for themselves, their families, and their society.
"Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how
"thoughtful “choice architecture”
"can be established
"to nudge us in beneficial directions
"without restricting freedom of choice.
Art
Well, perhaps we are talking of different things. There may well be those who seek to influence our society and polity as you suggest. That's the way of our free society and republican form of government. It's not a constitutional law issue, though, which was my focus.
"... profoundly mistaken..."
No, dougindeap, you are profoundly mistaken.
This issue is not about a "concept" as you articulate.
Other than this, it seems that we are in agreement.
The issue being debated today in the 21st century is not about the original intent of the "thinkers" who founded our Republic.
The issue being debated today is a new philosophy that the original intent of the "thinkers" is passe...
... and the "original intent thinking" of the founders, INCLUDING the Deist Thomas Paine, MUST be replaced with whatever removes the influence of religion from the public square.
The principle of the 'separation of church and state" is irrelevant to the "transformers" of America.
Why?
Because the "new thinker" philosophers and academicians and legislators who want to "nudge" America into a brave new world do NOT care about the 1st Amendment, just they do NOT care about the 2nd amendment, etc., or "natural born citizen" Article 2, Section 1.
There is a putsch to change our Republic, one "nudge" at a time, and the BHObama administration is in agreement with the new philosophy that seeks to "transform" our Republic.
That is THE issue of today, not a "concept born of atheism, agnosticism, or deism."
Other than that, it seems that we are in agreement.
Art
You are profoundly mistaken in several respects. First, the constitutional separation of government and religion is not a concept born of atheism, agnosticism, or deism. Second, it is important to distinguish between the "public sphere" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public sphere--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 point...
Your philosophical points, dougindeap, are understandable as is.
It's possible we may be talking at cross purposes.
In a forum such as this, sometimes it is not possible to plumb the depths of an issue without a lot of point-counterpoint discussion that takes a lot of time.
So, to focus, here's the point of the umbrella philosophical issue.
It seems to me that the generic freedom to privately believe whatever a person wants to believe about being and doing was the point of the founding "thinkers" of our Republic, as Thomas Paine articulated in The Age of Reason.
"Being and doing" refer to being a participant in a community and participating in the activities of the community.
>> The Age of Reason - http://www.deism.com/theageofreason.htm
Deism is Paines' thing, not Jesus' thing...
... and I write this as a theist who believes that Jesus "knew" what he was talking about and why he was doing what he was doing on the road to resurrection from death.
Thomas Paine the Deist could not, and Deists of the 21st century, can not accept that belief statement because it is a matter of faith, which is by definition outside of the realm of reason.
To conclude.
What has changed in USA today is the attempt by some agnostics and atheists and Deists who believe that removing the influence "of" religion "from" the public sphere would free the spirit of this age and transform what it means to be a citizen of this Republic.
THAT is the debate between freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion.
Art
I did not make my point clear. Each individual enjoys the freedom to exercise his or her religion--publicly as well as privately. To that extent, there is no freedom "from" religion. Those who equate freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion have a valid constitutional point, though, to the extent they refer to freedom from religion promoted or established by government, but not to the extent they refer to freedom from religion practiced and expressed by individuals in public.
"... lead nowhere - all prepositions - represented...
Interesting.
However, the issue is the intent of the "thinkers" who wrote down the words that are being debated today.
Obviously, the intent was "of" religion and not "from" religion.
Thomas Paine agrees - from Deism.com -
>> see the opening paragraphs - http://www.deism.com/theageofreason.htm
"It has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion.
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
"I do not believe in the creed professed
-by the Jewish church,
-by the Roman church,
-by the Greek church,
-by the Turkish church,
-by the Protestant church, nor
-by any church that I know of.
"My own mind is my own church. ... ."
Also, see the header rotating quotes -
"In Deism, our reason and our belief are happily united."
Thomas Paine
Art
I would point out that we are not discussing the Spanish Monarchy but the US and our Constitution. However, I think you have overlooked the fact the Spanish Inquisition was a case of collaboration by the Spanish Crown and the Spanish Church in completing the Reconquista.
This is my favorite website Maxine. I've got plenty of friends in real life who are also brothers and sisters in Christ, but in my spare time, I come here and see what's important in the news (the side I'd never know if I watched TV) and we are all able to air our opinions, have friendly debate and learn from each other. I love it here too, and am grateful to Scoop that he allows us to be so open here.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.