White Paper - For God and Country, or Not
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1, Line 1
The Facts on the Ground
- The relationship between church and state has been an issue from the founders' days.
- With the emergence of both the religious right and the atheist movements in America, this debate has heated up and become more contentious.
- An examination of the founders' intent, and our historical interpretation of these matters would be useful.
Overview
The argument that there is a separation between church and state is both popular and uninformed. The issue of the role of religion in the function of our country was of such importance to the founders that the first line of the Bill of Rights deals with that very issue. This issue goes to the very core of the principles that the country was created from, and speaks to the freedom that we enjoy to this day.
The colonization of the United States is steeped in religion, and in escape from religious persecution, or the freedom to worship as one sees fit. The Massachusetts Colony was founded, as we all are taught, by the Puritans, who were persecuted in England, and sought refuge in the New World.
The state of Connecticut was founded when Rev. Cotton Mather took issue with the Puritans of Massachusetts and moved his flock there to practice in the manner that they saw fit. Rev. Roger Williams later did the same and broke with Connecticut to form Rhode Island. William Penn opened up the colony of Pennsylvania to the persecuted French Huguenots, and the German Amish. The Mormon Church, founded in Oneida NY, sought refuge in Salt Lake, Utah in the mid 1800's. In later times, the Catholics of Ireland, Italy and Poland came to take refuge in the cities of Boston, New York and Chicago and practice their faith as they see fit.
In modern times we see an influx of every type of faith from the world over because we allow each person to worship as his God speaks to him, without persecution. The words “In God We Trust” are infused on our currency, and one of our major legal national holidays is set aside for us to give thanks for our blessings in whatever way we worship. Every session of Congress opens in prayer, the President is sworn in on a Bible, as are witnesses giving testimony in most states. This is the most basic of all rights. We even make room for the non-believer to exist among the believers protected in his belief that there is no power superior to that of man.
There is a common misconception that many of the founders were atheists, or found religion to be an oppressive force. To the contrary, there were a wide variety of religious beliefs represented. All of the signers of the Declaration of Independence claimed a religious affiliation (mostly Episcopal and Congregationalist), though both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin leaned towards Deism (a belief that God exists in all of his creation). Jefferson became a devout Christian in his later years. Presbyterians, Quakers and Unitarians made up the rest. Four of the signers were either current or former full time preachers, and most were active churchgoers.
The Constitutional Convention had a similar make-up, with additional representation by the Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, and Dutch Reformed. It was in this diverse mix of denominations that the concern for the free practice of religion according to an individual’s beliefs was born.
The wording is specific. Congress does not have the power to makes laws respecting (with regard to) any establishment of religion, nor to interfere with any religion’s free exercise. This principle has been well applied over time, and afforded to all religious faiths appearing on these shores. So how did we wind up in this confusing war of intolerance labeled the “separation of church and state.”?
The phrase goes back to a situation in Danbury Connecticut during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. The Danbury Baptist Association (a minority) presented concerns to Jefferson that the legislature in Connecticut felt that religious liberties were not immutable, but were privileges granted by the state. Jefferson replied that on the national level Congress and the Executive had no business in making laws respecting the establishment of religion or it’s exercise, and that the people of Connecticut should see to it that their legislature also should respect that principle. He referred to this as “building a wall of separation between church and state.”
From that point until modern times there has been little interaction between the Federal government and the churches or faiths of the United States. Religious matters were considered to be of the same order of matters that would fall under local control, and “community standards”. Governing bodies were to be removed from rulings on religious matters unless a ‘rights” issue was brought up.
Two notable exceptions of the time were the introduction of the 14th amendment, which in addition to addressing slavery, introduced the concept that all federal rights applied at the state level; and the Reynolds v US case of 1878 heard before the Supreme Court which effectively outlawed polygamy as practiced by the Mormons. The case did not specifically address the religious “right” to multiple marriage, but held that religious duty is not a suitable defense for a criminal indictment.
In modern times, with increased communications, and an ever-shrinking planet, Americans were made familiar with concepts that were gaining hold throughout the world. The movements of communism and socialism, which frowned on organized religion, gained some foothold with the Union movement in the United States. After WWII, American GIs, who were exposed to varying philosophical movements in Europe (nihilism, the works of Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung, Kierkegaard, and the like); and a growing belief in mankind controlling it’s own destiny began questioning the religious foundations of American society.
The April 8, 1966 edition of Time Magazine asked “Is God Dead? More and more people both identified with the atheist movement, or became more open in questioning the religious practice traditional to American life. Many suits were brought to the Supreme Court from the 1960’s on asserting that “atheists” were a protected minority entitled to their civil right to not engage in worship. Among the most famous were Murray v Curlett (1963) outlawing mandatory school prayer, Stone v Graham (1980), which prohibits posting of the Ten Commandments in schools, and Allegheny County v the ACLU (1989), which prohibits Nativity scenes inside government buildings.
This effort of the atheist / agnostic community rose in parallel to the growing religious right movement, with the atheists finding a home in the Democratic Party, and the religious right finding a home with the Republicans. Both sides have ratcheted up the arguments, invective and money to clog our court system with frivolous suits that seldom involve actual rights being violated.
Common Sense Dictates
The Founders sought to allow all to worship as they see fit, or not to worship at all. Religion has always been pervasive in America – several colonies were founded as havens for particular religious denominations. For many years, and some might argue to this day, the country is predominantly Christian.
The Founders have always intended for freedom of religion to extend to all faiths, as expressed by President George Washington’s letter to the 6 Jewish congregations in the United States in 1797. The intent of the Founders has always been one of inclusion, and of protection of rights for all citizens, including, in this case, atheists.
For many years Common Sense did rule through “community standards” – and the local communities made accommodation with the new and different faiths arriving. The atheists sought their accommodation as well. America is not to be at war with its faiths, or to sanitize them away. As a people we are to celebrate them as a unifying affirmation that the freedom we enjoy comes from more than a king or a privileged class – it is a natural right inherent in our very being. It is time to come together as a community and celebrate this, rather than viewing each mention of a different faith as somehow a slight upon mine. This is not a zero-sum game. All voices add to the rich history of America – none should be silenced.
RLB
Categories: Rights and Responsibilities, Constitutional Issues, Social Policy
Tags: Church and State religion wall letter Framers intent civic responsibility
I agree that the sensible and right thing to do is to let every faith (or non faith) have it's voice out there and open. It does seem like what the founder's would have wanted. Unfortunately, that flies in the face of our society today, where it seems like every religious persuasion (including the atheists) are on a membership drive. That would even be okay except for the fact that the only method being used to attract new adherents is to say that the other group is wrong and "going to hell". How is it that we could have reason and coexistence 250 years ago, but not now in what should be a more enlightened time?
Reply to this
Let's see - race, gays, dissing the GOP, and religion all in amonth's time - trying to build your enemies list? Ok, so in the spirit of things - Your timeline seems right on and that might be tha problem. The generation prior to the 1960s had to put up with the Great Depression and WWII. There were problems, but we still all saw ourselves as Americans first. Since the 60's and the "me" decades that followed, everyone wants their own individual sized portion of liberty, and most are looking in everyone else's cup to see if they've been shorted, or if anyone else got more. There's no sense of community, just everyone fighting for their share, and more if they can get it. Since the religious right got into it, with the secularists fighting back, now the fight is leading to apocalypse. I can't imagine that the founders thought that we would become so self-focused that we lost our ability to get along as a society. It's hard to hear all of the voices when most are yelling for more.
Reply to this
It seems like the real problem is not a separation of church and state, but the politization of the church - specifically the fundamentalist right wingers. As with any fundamentalist cause, they believe that they are right, and that everyone else is wrong. Conversion is more their thing than cooperation. Admittedly, the far left is taking the same stance. The middle is sounding more intelligent all the time.
Reply to this
I think a lot of the religious right backlash is in direct response to the atheist movement challenging things that were considered "traditional" in American life - up until questioned in the 1960s school prayer was the norm. I can remember as a boy performing a Christmas concert at my public grammar school for the parents and it was such a big fun time. After a while we added the Dreidel song (sorry, no Adam Sandler back then), and by the time I hit High School, "Silent Night" was out and it was pretty much just secular songs. The blowback from the relicious people is that the non-believers don't understand what a comfort religion is to those who do believe. Taking it all away, and so suddenly, it a little much for many.
Reply to this
It does seem like this fight is from the ends of the spectrum - no one I know is out there trying to convert anyone to their religion or to atheism. No one I know gets bent out of shape at a Nativity scene or Christmas music in the mall. If anything, it's not about religion now, it's about the gift giving - which, I guess, is a shame. The only people that I see arguing this out are the Holy Rollers and those guys so far on the left that it's a little creepy to be around them. I think most people ARE of the founders mindset - worship as you want and we won't bother you about it. I guess it is important because if either side does start throwing things out of balance, more people could get drawn in, but I think most people understand that the ones screaming the loudest have the least in common with the average person.
Reply to this
My grandmother is Italian, in her 90's and goes to Mass every day. She doesn't have a bit of problem or controversy here. She doesn't try to convert anyone, she doesn't debate the rights of non-believers, she doesn't frown on other faiths, she takes part in no religious debate. She is kind to everyone. She avoids loud people. She just goes to Mass, and prays for all of those poor other people that are going to hell. I hope they are returning the favor for her. There's a lesson in her example for all of us.
Reply to this
The greatest benefit of citizenship, or even of being in the United States is tha ability to freely worship God in the manner that you see fit, without regard to other religions. This is an almost unique benefit. In western cultures, it is imitated, but often badly - religious garb or symbols are often met with disapproval or outright hostility. An open showing of a religion that is not Christian meets harrassment even in so-called enlightened cultures. In most other places, condemnation, and open hostility are common. It is only here that Jew, Christian and Muslim can walk together in peace, and be joined by any other faith or philosophy in equality. This should be the first right - it is the most basic. It is why so many come here.
Reply to this
If only it was as wondrous and peaceful as we like to think. Throughout the black experience in America, it was the black ability to worship freely that suffered first and foremost. Perhaps that is because it is, as onesamuel16 put it - the most basic right. The ability to worship God is uniquely human, and by denying it, one is subjected to less than human status. Africans brought here were first denied their native natural beliefs and worship and given the Christian God. Many have come to believe in this God and his blessings - myself among them. He has been a sure hope in troubled times. When emancipation was granted to the black man, the racist element chased him from his churches, burning them down. A man without faith is a man without hope. The church remained segregated, and in many ways is still so. White and black alike know that the First Baptist Church in town is predominantly white, and the Second Baptist Church is primarily black. It is so across the nation, and few realize it's roots as a way to marginalize the black man before God. God was not a recognizer of where a man worshiped though. Out of the black church stepped the civil rights movement, and the move towards the equality we were supposedly given so long before. Our freedom to worship is now free, but there was a long and bloody path to get this far. For many the freedom to worship has always been. In the black experience we earned the right every day we stepped into a church and gave thanks.
Reply to this
Well, I've already said that religion is out of place in politics, and I have to believe that the reverse is true as well. What a man's individual conscience tells him is how he should worship and how he should vote. If a congressman wishes to preach his religion, he should become a minister of his preferred denomination, and use that pulpit. Should a preacher wish to draft laws, then let him run for public office and be elected by his district, and become a legislator. This muddying of the waters with the religous right backing Republicans, and the atheists erasing all mention of God from the public square through the Democrats is not how it's supposed to work. The Constitution is clear - Congress has no business legislating churches, and no individual church should hold sway over the population of the entire country - that would be the effect of establishment of a national religion. That is what is addressed by the first amendment.
Reply to this
This issue has been a big deal since the 80's at least. I'm not sure if the religious right got agitated over the Supreme Court decisions in favor of the "non-believers", or if the non-believers have stepped it up to counter the right wingers, but it's way more heated now than it ever was. I don't know for sure how a founding father would handle this, although Jefferson's letter was pretty brilliant - the Feds can not take interest, solve it at the local level. Most local communities at least try to make accommodation with their residents - it's how local leadership gets elected, and it always serves a community well to have it's citizens getting along. This should not be a Federal matter. It should be an agreement between neighbors, based on the freedom of religion that we all understand to exist in the principles of this country.
Reply to this
It's the old 10 / 90 rule of business. 10% of the people involved are responsible for 90% of the frustration going on. This looks like another issue where the vast majority of people are fine with whatever anyone believes, or how they believe or don't, and understand that this is one of the ground rules here in America. I don't know anyone who has taken offense at a Christmas display or the menorah added to it. Or the phrase "Season's Greetings" except for that militant fringe who wants to take a good idea like "peace on earth and goodwill to man" and go to war over it. No single religion or belief system owns all of the truth. No one should be forced to follow anything but his own conscience, but no single person or group's beliefs should seek to determine what another believes, or dictate how a community may publicly acknowledge the beliefs of it's residents. This goes not only for the fundamentalist religious types, but for the militant atheists trying to sanitize God out of everything. This country is made up of people who overwhelmingly believe in a power greater than themselves. If you don't, that's fine, and we will respect your right to not believe. Stop trying to spoil our party though.
Reply to this
It looks like back in the days when there were real problems - world war, depression, systematic racial oppression - that we could band together as a people and dosomething to fix those huge challeneges. We are in the same type of situation now - economic meltdown, wars on terror, and polarization of society right against left. Only now, we don't seem to be able to band together to fix anything. We look to our own self-interest, and join with other groups with similar interests and fight among ourselves for a bigger piece of the pie. Many people have noticed that arguments over religion, and gays, and even Republican vs Democrat - well, most people are trying to live their lives and just don't care. We came together for a brief time after 9/11 and the world took notice. Now we're back to fighting among ourselves and ignoring the big issues. Practice of religion and individual rights (whether gay, black or Martian) are covered in the bill of rights, which is to be applied equally to all. Political parties were something both Washington and Adams thought wee bad ideas - but now we're stuck with them. Let's just try to be intelligent about their use.
Reply to this
Nobody seems to be able to read anymore. How much plainer can things be than what is written in the First Amendment regarding religion. Government has no place restricting it, or endorsing a particular faith above others. It doesn't decide what displays are approporiate, or where they can be placed, or what makes them up. For those who argue against religious displays in the public square - shall we ban church buildings in the vicintiy of government buildings? In 1971 the Supreme Court established the "Lemon Test" (Lemon v Kurtzman)to establish if a government action violates the First Amendment - it makes a lot of sense even if it is a bit nit-picky. There is no violation if the government 1) has a secular purpose in participation, 2) it's primary purpose is not to inhibit or advance religion, and 3)there is no excessive entanglement between government and religion. That seems like a fair set of rules. They are established law. They make sense. Can we call this matter settled and move on?
Reply to this
I'm not a particularly religious guy, but hey, I enjoy the spirit of the holidays - and a nativity scene is not going to get me bent out of shape. If I had any objections at all to any of this it is having some religious group or another knocking on my door early in the morning to inform me that I'm going to hell unless I join their group. Usually I just smile and take their pamphlet and send them on their way, but as the ownner of a piece of private real estate, isn't that an invasion of my privacy? There doesn't seem to be a law around to protect me from them.
Reply to this
I hesitate to comment, because it's seldom welcome, but, to follow up on smitty's point, I am not a "believer" in any sort of religion. I look to science and to reasoning and not to what I consider a superstitious belief in something that can be explained in rational terms. I know that I am in the minority, and I'm not what you would call militant about it, but I am trying to raise my children in the same way. You would not believe how difficult that is being bombarded by "god" from every direction possible. People complain about too much sex and violence on TV - I need to sheild my children from hoping that some old man in a chair up in the sky will help them when they get in trouble. I am trying to teach them that by making correct choices in life and being responsible, you avoid the trouble in the first place. Many days it feels like I'm on the losing end of this battle - especially with the efforts lately to equate creationism with evolution, or explaining the insanity of holding up promising scientific research on embryonic stem cells because of blind adherence to nonsensical ideas. Even if I were to give you the existence of your god, wouldn't he want you to use all of your gifts and knowledge to improve the lives of others? In any case, I want my children to grow up with their eyes open that fullfilling their potential is up to them, not dependent on some frivilous "spirit" who blesses some and brings down disaster on others in random patterns. That's my 2 cents worth.
Reply to this
mbaldridge - you're not alone. My career is in the physical sciences, and for me, anything that falls under god is just what we haven't explained yet. I too, am raising my children to think, and it is hard to do in a society that is happy to trade rationality for wishful thinking. I don't want to fight it out with the "religious", but I don't want my family dominated by their backward beliefs any more than I would want them dominated by the backward beliefs of racism, sexism, or that the world was flat. You are not welcome to knock on my door to tell my family that they are going to hell. You are not welcome to proselytize in my place of work, or in my children's place of education - keep it in your church. Your right to practice your religion does not negate my right to not practice it.
Reply to this
No one is going to pass a law against knocking on people's doors to "witness" their religious beliefs. Congress can't - that's what the words say. In defense of your private property, you are free to not answer the door, to politely or rudely tell them to go away, or to post a sign telling them they are not welcome on your property and you will call the police if they ring your bell. Your right to not practice does not negate my right to practice. If you don't want to be bothered, just let us know - we won't bother you. If a religious display offends you, oh well. It was pointed out in another article that there is no right to not be offended.
Reply to this
That was sort of a glib exchange - very dismissive on all sides. Has anyone tried a little conversation and respect. dlawrence, have you tried telling the door knockers clearly and plainly that while you appreciate their concern, you are fully confident in your way of looking at things, any you would appreciate it if they would stop coming by? And door-knockers - how about if you are turned away, politely or not, taking the hint and making a note telling your friends that these people aren't interested. It will save you both some time, and in the case of Christians, Jesus gives you an out in Luke Chapter 10. Respect and understanding - we don't need to fight about this.
Reply to this
There is a regional mix to "how" important this is. In NY City, it's taken for granted that we all live together and do what we do. Even if we are approached by some advocate of some philosophy, there are many socially acceptable ways to deal with the "problem". My family is from the deep south, and socially, it is unacceptable to slam a door in someone's face. the norm is to invite someone in. Many of the evangelicals come from this same background, and look to receiving the same treatment in NYC, or Chicago, or L.A., as they would in Mayberry. If you combine the social aspect with the extreme urgency that they feel their message carries (hell is forever), and the pressure that the ministers of these congregations put on their members - you might be able to scrape up a little more mercy for them. They don't mean to be a pain in the neck, or to insult anyone. Most are genuinely concerned.
Reply to this
I like the 10/90 analogy. At least on the issues of religion in America, the only people up in arms are the super right wing religiots. They might as well be breaking bread with the Taliban, who share their views on morality and God. On the other side is the super left wing no personal responsibilty wingnuts who would have us living in Rome after the decline (which would be the Dark Ages). Militancy in any form is not usually helpful. Really, 90% of us groan every time we hear about a new lawsuit in front of the Supreme Court either promoting creationism as science, or chipping away at yet another traditional public custom that touches on religion. Both sides are looking pretty ridiculous to the majority of Americans.
Reply to this
It's always a few making noise for the many - that's how it works - squeaky wheel getting the grease and all. As a society, we need to not only respect the rights of the squeaky wheels, but also keep a watch when their demands for rights starts to infringe on the rights of the majority. Atheists should be as free to practice their beliefs as Baptists, but that doesn't require us to remove God completely from the public square any more than the Baptist prohibition for dancing should eliminate the High School Prom at the local public school - or dancing for the rest of us in general. There is a right to believe as one wants, and practice as one believes, but there is no right to limit others in their celebration because it offends one groups beliefs.
Reply to this
I think the only controversy we are having here is that after a huge chunk of time when religion (or lack thereof) was a personal issue - kept to family and friends - now it is a badge to be worn everywhere. Out of nowhere the "Christians" at work suddenly have a Bible Study at lunch (closing off that group). That caused the Happy Hour set to form a - I don't know - sinner's forum. There's a few people who have taken up the issue with HR, claiming offense (even though they really don't bother anyone - either group). This wearing your faith for all to see is more divisive that the fact that we all are different faiths.
Reply to this
There's a good point there - traditionally public settings (work, gym, school) having groups cordon themselves off for a "religious" purpose is against the basic spirit of this country that all should be included. I mean, really everyone isn't, but the religion thing implies that the sectioned off group thinks they are superior to the rest of us, and you can see how that might cause trouble.
Reply to this
Now that whole scenario is full of problems. not only do we have religious freedom here, but the right to free association. I don't have a proble with a group in a public space moving to a room or corner or the shade of a tree to discuss or pray or whatever. People have a right to associate with whoever they please, and as a private group, even in a public place, no one has the right to crash their party, regardless of their purpose in meeting together. It is the same principal as going to a public restaurant and not havng someone muscle in on your table, where you are eating with your friends. At the same time, if the group were to make issue and dominate the entire public square, and make a point of being loud or confrontational to the point that passers-by have no choice but to get involved, that would be an issue. I have no business disrupting any private group, even in a public area, unless they engage me.
Reply to this
A lot of people have pointed to the relationship between religion and politics, but I think there's a point that's being missed. Religion has taken on the same "in your face" attitude as politics. There is an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude that makes discussing religion or beliefs more of a subject for Jerry Springer than for coming to understanding and accommodation. I am a Christian, and can only imagine Jesus shaking his head sadly. Pompous windbags do not represent Christianity any better than Osama Bin-Laden represents Islam. This shoutfest of religiosity drowns out the normally rational humanists, who feel they need to shout to be heard as well. Samuraai had it - respect and understanding is necessary - not proving you are right.
Reply to this
I'm going to have to agree that the government on the Federal level, has no business at all here - including the Supreme Court. According to amendment 10, the States reserve the powers not expressly granted to the Federal in the Constitution. According to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights passes to the States from the Fed, so the states then have no right to regulate religious activity. This is a matter solely for the local community to decide - on the basis of community standards, with agreement sought from all residents on a reasonable solution.
Reply to this