“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This is the 1st Amendment from our Constitution and the section of this I wish to analyze is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. Why was this important to the founding fathers? How is it we constantly hear the quote “separation of church and state”?
Our founding fathers were men from many denominations of Christian faiths such as, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Quaker, Dutch/German Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Huguenot, Unitarian, Methodist, Calvinist. Their forfathers came from many European countries. During the 16th and 17th century most European countries were ruled by governments which were tied directly to a national church / religious faith, which was one of the reasons people fled Europe for the Americas. These are the basis of why the founding fathers did not want Congress to establish any one religion over another. Their intent was to ensure no one religion was forced upon the people. Thus the quote “Freedom of religion”.
The Constitution does not say “separation of church and state” so why is this the mantra we hear all the time? What the Constitution does say is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which means the Federal government is prohibited from establishing a national religion. It also says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, meaning the people are free to exercise any denominations they wish without government intervention.
In the quote “separation of church and state”, we hear these days, which has its roots from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan 1, 1802 and a Supreme court ruling, Everson v. Board of Education 1947. “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state’. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” This was not the first time a Supreme court ruled on a separation of church and state, However it was the first time the Supreme court limited Thomas Jefferson’s letters’ interpretation to one line of the letter instead of the full content. Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter to help reassure the Baptist ministers that the government would not interfere with their practices and had nothing to do with expressions of religion in public places.
Many people have questioned the logic of removing prayer from school, several seconds for students to reflect and say thank you. Yet, the evidence is obvious that our society has not progressed forward on moral values but actually regressed. So why then are we allowing what we know is good and right to be pushed to the wayside? We are a Republic which means “We the People”, bear a responsibility to make our voices heard by contacting our elected representative and letting them know where we stand. We also should require those candidates wishing to become our representative to tell us what they hold true in their hearts before elections. We have few leaders in our government these days, but we do have a lot of politicians. The difference being a leader leads by explaining and directing actions to accomplish goals. Politicians are self involved individuals, who’s primary purpose is themselves first, so they do not lead they take the path of less resistance.
So let your voices be heard. Contact your representative and express your wishes. I would also use the 1st Amendment if you have a chance to speak in a public place to say a prayer. For you are, “We the People”, and by saying a prayer as an individual does not mean the government is establishing a
religion.
Jeff Korson
Alapaha, Ga.
Sent 9 4 2009 Tifton Gazette
Published 20 Oct 2009 http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_293231830.html
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. That letter, though, played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Indeed, the Court mentioned it only in passing after stating its conclusion based on a lengthy and detailed discussion (encompassing many pages and many footnotes) of the historical context in which the First Amendment was developed. The metaphor “separation of church and state” was but a handy catch phrase to describe the upshot of its conclusion. The Court’s reading of the First Amendment in this regard was unanimous; all nine Justices agreed on that much, but split 5-4 on whether the Amendment precludes states from paying for transportation of students to religious schools–with the majority allowing states to do that.
Perhaps even more than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
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 transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
Doug the Separation of Church and State was not a metaphor throughout the history of this nation such as the metaphor Bill of rights, first ten amendments to the Constitution. This is why, James Madison started with 42 Rights. These were whittled down to 12, which were introduce, but only 10 were finally ratified. The “Bill of Rights” are well documented in the federalist papers and other documentation of the time and in his writings with the term “Bill of Rights”. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances are actually concepts started from the ancient Roman times and relates only to the US Constitution in that the powers of the different branches are define in said document. “thus building a wall of separation between church and State” was first quoted in 1878 US supreme court, That’s over 100 years after the country started so it was not an metaphor or understood meaning as you are insinuating to our founding fathers.
Quoting James Madison can be extremely fun because he has so much documented such as “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”.
The fact remains the same from the quote you sited that was the context? “Strongly guarded… is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” You interpretation about “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and ” religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts” are not acceptable. However the facts as you so eloquently pointed out remain the same in that all these things existed and were put in place by the founding fathers, hence how is it if that was not their intent why did they do it? And for some many years to this very date? I contend it is what they wanted, seen that it was right, and does not go against the true meaning of the Constitution. Why did the current President take the oath of office with a hand on the bible? Yep there is some controversy on this point, but he at least tried to make the populace believe he did it.
The true meaning of the first amendment, religion clause, is the government will not establish a state/national religion such as those the pilgrims ran from in Europe. Meaning Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran … as a mandated religion. So I believe the conclusion you came to on the quote from James Madison is in error. I believe your error is a simple one which you wish to point to one line or statement someone made, but you are not using the whole picture. Why did the founding fathers do the things they did (revolutionary war)? What did they do once they won the war? Many public proclamations, State of the union address, official congress records, Constitution, Declaration of independence, hired chaplains… all these pieces are critical to a better understand and tons of references to God, Jesus Christ and Christianity all in public government and founding documents.
I think you’ll have fun researching these quotes “Had the people (the founding fathers), during the Revolution, a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect (denomination).”
“In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants”
Both quotes are from: House Judiciary Committee Report Mar 27, 1854
Also I appreciate the chance to refute the talking points of the atheist web sites. It’s discussion like this that motivates people to ask questions and research things on their own, which is critical for our nation right now.
God Bless for even though you may not believe in him he believes in you.
Just for point of fact, the verbs in the First Amendment are:
“respecting an”
“prohibiting the”
“abridging the”
Respecting an establishment of religion is not equal to “establishing a religion.” In any rational sense of the phrase, the Establishment Clause must go beyond merely establishing a religion.
That is, for those of us who believe that words have meanings, and were not used frivolously when writing the Constitution.
If the founders meant simply “no establishing,” then they would have said, “no establishing.”
Jeff,
The concept we now commonly label “separation of church and state” has been part of our nation’s constitutional history from the get-go, regardless of whether commentators popularized the label only later. Madison, for instance, vetoed two bills, neither of which would have formed a national church, during his presidency on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
With respect to Madison’s Detached Memoranda, I did not “interpret” him, but rather quoted him. It was Madison, not me, who said the Congress’ appointment of chaplains to the two houses and for the army and navy and the Executive’s religious proclamations were not consistent with the Constitution. You ask how can that be if it was not his and the other founders’ intent. Madison offered an answer of sorts in his Detached Memoranda, further inquiring what should be made of these various actions already taken in the nation’s then “short history” inconsistent with the Constitution. Ever practical, tacitly conceding the infeasibility of reversing these actions at that time, he answered not with a demand that they be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].”
Apart from Madison’s commentary, the legislative history of the First Amendment belies the narrow scope you would give it. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (actually several) concerning the establishment of a national religion and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms, 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 Congress from enacting a statute formally establishing a national church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of formally establishing a church.
I am familiar with the House Judiciary Committee Report you quote. It was prompted by questions raised about the constitutionality of Congress’ appointment of chaplains–one of the very topics Madison addressed in his Detached Memoranda. As Madison’s commentary was not published until many years later, the Committee did not see or consider it. To the extent they were acting as objective historians, they may have been persuaded to reach the same conclusion as Madison. To the extent they were acting as politicians, knowledge of Madison’s understanding may have made little difference to them–though it certainly would have been interesting to see them struggle to sidestep it. Perhaps they would have accepted his understanding of the Constitution as well as his suggested means of finessing the political difficulty.
I recognize, as you note, that many of the founding fathers and others of their time were much influenced by religion, including various forms of Christianity as well as deism. Whatever the religions of the various founders, though, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion, and indeed that is what the founders did.
Doug Thanks I learned something new. I read a couple quotes from the memorandums off the net and none of them included the secondary comments about the Chaplin, proclamations… so I assumed it was your conjecture and not his writing, I found a complete copy. Samuel Provoost was the first Chaplin put into position Apr 25 1789, less than two months into the 1st United States congress by many of those whom are considered the Founding Fathers of which James Madison was the represenitive from Virginia. Founding Fathers defined as signers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and delegates to the Federal Convention. So the people responsible for the meaning of the Constitution did not understand what they wrote down for the first amendment is what you are saying just because James Madison wrote down his decent opinion many years latter. There is truth in it, but the facts still remain the same the Chaplin did exist and was put in place by those whom knew the meaning of the Constitution for they were the Founding Fathers. Even to this day they still exist.
James Madison is a well documented individual and founding father. His stance on religion defiantly changed during his life a fair amount. The memorandum, which is believed to have been written sometime around 1817-1832, is from his latter life. This does not negate it, but it does help to put things into context in that when he was involved with the direct founding of the nation he wrote and help established the nation with certain congregation intentions. Then much latter he may or may not have had some changes in his philosophy as an individual, but it was not as part of the founding documentation.
From James Madison 1st inaugural address “we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.”
He also issued several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Some will argue he was pressured into doing this and that was one of the reasons for items on the memorandum. This is mute because the fact remains the same in that it occurred, He signed it, and it was what the people wanted, for this nation was founded on Christianity.
Again the 1st amendments purpose was to ensure no denomination was made a national religion. Those were just some of James Madison actions, which were accomplished while he was holding public office. Remember even though Madison was critical to writing the Constitution and had a fair amount of weight in its construction (He is considered its main author) it was not a document of one persons intent it was the product of many. Meaning even if the above references were dismissed and James Madison had been with a completely atheistic point of view the facts would still remain the same. The actions from the founding fathers (yes including James Madison for he was not an atheist), which consist of many references to God, Jesus, and the holy sprit are still there in official documentation such as Constitution, Declaration, Proclamations, acts of congress, Supreme Court rules…
My guess is you may want to challenge the fact the nation was founded on Christianity also. If so I have a question or two for you. What if any day of rest would religions other than any Christianity based religion recognize? Has Christianity ever been recognized as an official act a part of the founding of this nation? The answer to these two question is critical to understanding the first amendment and the fact the founding fathers wants to ensure no specific denomination was given persistence over another.
God Bless, For at least you are with mind and are trying to use it for discussion. So many are not and wasting such a treasure along with giving up their freedoms.
Jeff,
The idea that the First Amendment’s establishment clause is limited merely to assuring that no denomination is made a national religion does not square with the language of the First Amendment or its legislative history or wider historical evidence such as that analyzed by the Supreme Court in Everson.
With respect to the language, the Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . .” First, note no mention of “national,” “denomination,” “sect,” or the like. 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 religion” or the like (thus limiting the scope of the establishment clause as you urge), 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 religion. Certainly, the founders could not have intended Congress to have the power to prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as it was less than national.
With respect to legislative history, Madison initially doubted the need for any amendment on the subject because he considered the matter beyond the government’s power anyway; since others insisted on it, though, he was persuaded to introduce a proposed amendment. During the discussion in the First Congress, some expressed a desire to focus the amendment on establishment of a national religion by law. Madison was generally comfortable with much of what others proposed, including that, and he actually made a motion to add the term “national” to a precursor of what later became the First Amendment. As it turns out, though, those versions of the proposal were rejected. The term “national” was omitted and broader phrasing was employed in the First Amendment as ultimately adopted. The explicit consideration and rejection of language focusing the amendment on establishment of a national religion suggests that the ultimately adopted version is not so focused.
Certainly, there is room for debate on the evidence if for no other reason than that, as you note, there is no single unified “intent” of the founders. There were many founders with various views. Some, like Madison, were more vocal than others, so we know more of what they were thinking than others. The vast preponderance of evidence, though, supports the unanimous view of the Supreme Court Justices in Everson.
With respect to the nation being founded on Christianity, I actually don’t challenge that–depending on what is meant by it. Certainly, at the time of the founding of our government and yet today (even if to a lesser extent), America is a Christian nation in the sense that Christianity is a dominant influence in society. Just as certainly, America is a secular nation in the sense that our government is established by the people and predicated on the power of the people (and not a diety) and is constitutionally constrained to operate apart from religion at least in some measure. By that means, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or flounder as they will. It is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religion, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government, and our nation may be said to be founded largely on Christianity in that sense as well. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it’s simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will. 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 Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or flounder as they will. As you emphasize, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religion, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it’s simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will.
I have been less interested in the discussions about the religious views of the founders, since the constitutional issues do not depend on that. Thoroughly religious people may establish a secular government and keep it separate from religion thinking that is the best way to foster religion in society. Alexis de Tocqueville, in fact, echoed that view after touring the United States in 1831: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
In closing, I’ll add that I appreciate your direct and respectful manner and your thoughtful, intellectual approach to this subject–regardless of whether your inquiry leads you to the same conclusions I reach.
Doug again you are looking at the clause without all the facts. Those who wrote the Constitution themselves as you acknowledge were strong Christians of many denominations. they themselves in official documents recognized God and the Lord Jesus Christ on many occasion. They themselves knew this did not establish a national religion because they themselves knew the intent and meaning of what first amendment. Yes, it can be argued recent court rules have defined it differently, but that by far does not mean they are right. It does point to activism in the courts because there have been several cases throughout US history with the same question asked which were shoot down. Not to mention the for mentioned facts of previous posts.
Knowing the references the founding father and others in office have done to these very days, look at recent inaugurations, does not mean the mentioning of God, Lord, Jesus Christ, Almighty, and Holy Ghost… establishes a national religion. For if it did then logic would then dictate we have had one since the beginning of the nation, yet you and I and most of the nation know we do not have a national religion. We do though have a Christian nation.
Definition of establishment / established from Random house “The act of establishing or stating of begin established”. Merriam-Webster Dictionary “A settled arrangement; especially: a code of Laws”. World Reference “the act of forming something. All these definitions have in common a theme to establish it requires an act declaring a beginning. To establish a national religion there would need to be an act such as a law passed that would dictate a starting point that this religion X is only the acceptable religion. We have not had that and I do not believe we ever will. Just as congressmen Keith Ellison (in Nov 2006) swore and oath of office on the Koran a couple years ago. It did not establish a national religion right?
The other point I disagree on for sure is the implication you had that “America is a secular nation in the sense that our government is established by the people and predicated on the power of the people (and not a deity) and is constitutionally constrained to operate apart from religion at least in some measure.” This is contradictory to the other founding document of this nation. The Declaration of Independence starts out “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”. From this statement mankind (We the People) were given power from God. I will also take it the next step to the Constitution, which then has man giving some of the God given powers to the government as defined by Article 1 section 8 (Powers of Congress), section 9 (Limits on Congress), section 10 (powers prohibited of States). Along with that and the fear of a future tyrant the Bill of rights was written. The purpose of which is a one way contract with “We the People” and defined rights that the Government cannot overstep its bounds, assumes more power than what is defined in the constitution, which is where we are now. One-way also means the government cannot, but the people can. Example I want a manger seen at my town square. I get with others in the community and we put one up “We the People” decided we wanted one. Person X does not want it because they are offended. This sad for the individual but “We the People” would also be offend by its removal and we greatly out vote person X. Now is this the way we are currently operating? As of two years ago I would say no. But in two years I will say either an overwhelming yes or a complete no way. I see a large renewed battle to return to our founding occurring and if I am right we will take a large step over the next two years to return to those times.
God Bless
Jeff K
It is clear from the actions of the founding Fathers, ie: Having a Chaplin at meetings, saying prayers at meetings, having church services at the places (gov’t) they convened, attending Churches as a legislative body, etc, that the amendment’s original intent was not to keep christianity out of government. It was to prohibit a “national” Church such as The Church of England being forced upon the citizen’s as they had experienced in Europe. Most of of their public and private writings cite the Bible and invite God’s blessings and to think that our founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of civic or government affairs is ludicous. Many, in fact, stated the necessity of the christian faith in gov’t for it to work properly.
Jerry Camp
Jeff,
The fact that many of the founders were “strong Christians,” as you put it, tell us nothing about whether they intended the government to operate separately from religion because, as I noted before, thoroughly religious people may well intend to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion thinking that is the best way for religion to flourish. So, we can read professions of religiosity by various founders until our eyes cross–and not learn one bit about the intended meaning of the Constitution. While I enjoy learning about the beliefs of various founders to get a better sense of them as individuals, I do not confuse any of their expressions of religiosity with a desire to fuse religion and government together.
The evidence–in the text of the Constitution and in statements and actions of the founders and others of their time–that government was to operate independently of religion is, I think, overwhelming, but I see that the selections I offered in earlier comments leave you unconvinced. I’ll not beat that horse further.
With respect to the United States being a secular government founded on the power of the people and not on a deity, the Constitution is abundantly clear. It plainly says “we the people” found the government and says nothing whatever of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause. That pretty much nails it. Indeed, that very aspect of the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity.
While some yet try to draw meaning from the reference to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence and then infuse that meaning into the Constitution, the effort is baseless. Certainly, there is no “legal” connection or effect between the two documents. I suppose one might argue there is an intellectual or philosophical relationship, but that is a far cry from supposing the Declaration has even the slightest legal effect on the Constitution.
Important as the Declaration is in our history, it should be noted that it did not operate to bring about independence, nor did it found a government. The colonists did not issue the Declaration to effect their independence, but rather to explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Recall that several of the former colonies adopted constitutions establishing themselves as states independent of Great Britain before July 4, 1776. The independence of the former colonies was not dependent on the Declaration. The import of the Declaration is political, not legal.
Indeed, recall that the people of the former colonies actually formed two types of government–one after the other. They initially formed a government founded on the Articles of Confederation. That government, predicated on the authority of the several states, was essentially secular, though the Articles did allude to “the Great Governor of the world.” Dissatisfied with that experiment, the people of the by-then independent states gave it another try in the Constitution–establishing a plainly secular government without any substantive reference to god(s).
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that depends on anything said in the Declaration of Independence. 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. Certainly, the Declaration’s passing reference to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the government the people actually formed in the Constitution.
In any event, the fact that independence first needed to be achieved and that the Declaration was an important step in that process does not lead to a conclusion that the government ultimately founded by the free people of the former colonies somehow draws its authority or its nature from the Declaration. 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 they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a secular government.
Doug it is obvious we will not agree. You like to work with words only such as a lawyer would, but the old saying is key to the whole discussion “actions speak loader than words”. The actions of the founding fathers is what you like to dismiss so quickly and the words which you have trouble seeing are there for one and all to look at and read to determine for themselves what the intent was. I believe when people read the words and see what the actions were of the founding fathers they will overwhelmingly see the reverence our founding fathers had for God and the Lord Jesus Christ. They will also see founding fathers belief in the divine intervening in the founding of the nation. Another quick example added to the bottom of this entry is the Thanksgiving day proclamation from yes, the one founding father seen as the father of this country by many, George Washington. Readers whom never seen this before may find this official act of the president very telling and help dismiss the recent trend to paint George Washington as an atheist. It only takes a little bit of research to prove that recent books in question when you read President Washington in his own words instead of the words of twenty century men with an agenda.
Doug the rest of you blurb is oh so cool, but just has little bearing on the subject which is the falsity of Separation of Church and State and what establishment of religion means. It is of little matter on these specific subjects but I am aware of the documents and their purposes, but I am not going to deviate from the subject here.
The one thing I will comment on which does have baring is what you stated “Certainly, the Declaration’s passing reference to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the government the people actually formed in the Constitution.” Two points the Declaration is another document which shows the mindset of the founding fathers and we will let the readers decide what “Nature’s God and Creator” means to them. I think you will be disappointed in that most people will recognize this part of the declaration as referring to God just was the founding fathers recognized so many times in their speeches, proclamations, and other official documents.
______________________________________________________________
Thanksgiving Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in thecourse and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington
______________________________________________________________
I thought this document poetic for the time of year…
Tell me Doug is this an official action of the government? Does it establish a religion? There are tons of examples of this throughout Untied States history. You can deny these actions and disagree with the intent, but the saying “those with eyes will not see” comes to mind to describe those thoughts. Doug you insinuate so much the intent of the founding fathers was for a secular nation, so I have a challenge to you. Show me a document from the founding fathers declaring they wanted or designed a “secular” nation please. If you can do this it will give me a chance to do more digging and learning for so far I have yet to come across this.
One last thing and example of my comment above on your lawyer like wording. You commented “The fact that many of the founders were “strong Christians,” as you put it, tell us nothing about whether they intended the government to operate separately from religion because, as I noted before, thoroughly religious people may well intend to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion thinking that is the best way for religion to flourish.” I noticed you used the words “may well” which tries to lead the reader into the direction you wish to go, but in reality it means your personal wants and has nothing to do with the founding fathers actions or words IE facts. Hence it is a diversionary tactic from the point/s you do not wish to recognize.
Take care my friend for you are strong in you beliefs, but in error in your heart.
God Bless
Jeff,
Just returned from a business trip.
I’m not sure what actions you think I’m too quickly dismissing. In assessing the intent of the founders, I’ll gladly consider any relevant evidence–actions as well as words. Moreover, I readily acknowledge that the available evidence does not all point in the same direction. For instance, as noted earlier, Congress appointed chaplains for the two houses of the legislature and for the army and navy, and the Executive issued religious proclamations, such as the one you quoted by Washington. This evidence can be seen in at least two ways. On one hand, it can be seen, as you urge, as evidence that the founders considered those actions to conform to the Constitution, thus indicating they did not intend the Constitution to prevent the government from taking actions of that sort with respect to religion. On the other hand, it can be seen, as Madison says and I agree, as simply examples of early mistakes by Congress and the Executive, where they failed to conform to the Constitution. Mistakes of that sort are hardly unexpected or unusual. Recall that Congress made two other similar mistakes during Madison’s presidency, resulting in two vetoes of bills. The government has made many such mistakes during our history, and continues to make them to this day.
While I think the vast preponderance of evidence reveals the founders intended some measure of separation of religion and government, I recognize that some evidence points the other way. In light of the available evidence, at the very least, it is ridiculous to say things like the principle of separation of church and state is a myth or that the Supreme Court made it up in 1947. Those voicing such ideas either delude themselves or insult the intelligence of their listeners and in any event do a disservice to all.
The very fact that evidence can be found on both sides of this issue is one of the reasons we established courts–we call on them to resolve such issues. In this instance, the Supreme Court did just that, and did so unanimously.
With respect to your challenge calling for a document showing the founders designed a secular government, I will offer two. First and foremost, the Constitution. As noted earlier, in that document, “we the people” founded a government based on the power of the people and we said nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.
Second, shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” That’s pretty darn clear. Why, you might ask, would the United States include such a statement in a treaty? In the Treaty of Tripoli, the United States represented that it had no reason for war with the several Islamic nations along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and offered this statement as one of several explanations.
As you might imagine, if you research this treaty, you’ll find lots of discussion. Some, seeking to dismiss it, note that the Arabic version of the treaty does not include language corresponding to this statement. That hardly matters, though, since our interest in the treaty is what it reveals of the founders’ understanding of the Constitution. President Adams signed and the Senate ratified the English version of the treaty. It was published in the newspapers of the time, along with a statement by Adams that, with the advice and consent of the Senate, he had considered and ratified the treaty and “every clause and article thereof.” As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that publication of the treaty prompted any public dissent.
Others seek to discount the foregoing provision of the treaty by pointing out that later treaties negotiated with the Barbary nations do not contain it, suggesting that it was somehow repudiated. The reason it does not appear in later treaties, though, is that the entire article about the United States not having reason for war with the Barbary nations was omitted from those treaties because, by then, the United States had already gone to war with those nations.
Finally, my use of the words “may well” in a previous comment was not intended as a lawyer’s trick. I used the words not when discussing evidence showing the founders intended to separate religion and government, but rather when discussing evidence that they were religious men. I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy: If a founder says he is religious, it simply does not follow that he intends religion and government to be merged. That is a non sequitur. A religious founder can, might, “may well” intend to keep government and religion separate; whether he actually does so intend, of course, can only be ascertained by examining other available evidence.
As for the treaty of Tripoli, I’ve already investigated this and written my thoughts on it so I’ll just cut and past a recent response to this in here:
The Treaty of Tripoli is a very interesting document and it did contain article 11 as you stated. The English version was read in its entirety to Congress, voted on and passed. With this known we need to also ask ourselves would there be a reason why? I believe there is a reason for this. During this time ~1796 the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) were at war with Christians, in 1796 America was in a Quasi-War with France which had a vastly larger navy. Needless to say, America needed trade and was not in a power position for the treaty with Tripoli. Now move forward 8 years and what transpired during this time? From 1801-1805 the Barbary Wars occurred because America would not pay the rising demands from Tripoli. Victory and part of the Marine Corp Hymn came from this war, but better yet the Treaty was rewritten and what was article 11 vanished. So for discussion there is more to the story than meets the quick eye. There is also a legal implication concerning the 1797 version of the treaty. When a contract is signed it is normal practice for the two parties copies to be the same. In the case of this treaty the Arabic version (opposite side pages in book) Article 11 was a letter from Hassan Pasha to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. This would make the 11 articles null and void. Lastly take the quote for what it was worth “The government was not founded on Christian Religion”. The nation is not the government and what exactly is the Christian religion? As Roy pointed out Christianity is made up of many different religions, making the wording meaningless. Remember “We the People” are the nation and the government works for us. I contend our leaders at the time, many of which were founding fathers, were playing a word smith game with Tripoli, which they were very well versed for.
John Adams, The president which signed the treaty also stated a year later Oct 11 1798 “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” To what was John Adams referring? Well he answered that in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813 “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.” One more from John Adams before 3 months and 3 days before he signed the treaty Which was signed by him on Jun 7, 1797 ) Mar 4, 1797 Inaugural address ” I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.”
Time for another government documented fact that does not establish a national religion, but does help reinforce the Christianity of our founding fathers and principals. The national seal was commissioned on July 4 1776 and completed on June 20 1782 by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. On the reverse side, the side considered the spiral side you will find the “Providential Eye”, all seeing eye of God. There is also the quote “Annuit Coeptis” which means “He favor our undertaking”. You can pull a one dollar bill out of your pocket (well if the government is still allowing us to hold our own money) and look on the reverse side of the dollar and you will find both sides of the national seal. The reverse side of the seal will be on the left side of the dollar. One can defiantly say that by itself it only reflects the belief in a God but when added to the rest of the story (history) the case for a Christian nation is once again reinforced. Note not a denomination just the strong belief our founding fathers had in Christianity.
The Constitution is a contract where “We the People” do give power to the government as you suggest. However again I’ll point to the other founding document, which is critical to the power “We the People” have and defines where that power came from. In the Declaration of Independence power is noted as given to the people by God (Creator) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” This establishes the power given by God (Creator) and the Constitution then has the people giving some of that God given power to government. So yes the Constitution does not mention God because it is not necessary to mention God in defining the powers we allow the government to receive from “We the People”. God is not mention in the Constitution for this was already “established” in the Declaration of Independence. As we loop back to the original subject “Separation of Church and State” is no where to be found in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There is no doubt in my mind that you do not see the difference between the establishing a national denomination as the intent of these Christian men (Founding Fathers) and the fact that this nation was and is a Christian nation. This we will just not agree on. Readers of the blog and of history will have to make up their own minds on the intent of our founding fathers. Thus one of my purposes of the blog and writing on these things is to get people to dig and make up their own minds.
I noticed that both your examples evade the challenge, so I shall keep that challenge open “Show me a document from the founding fathers declaring they wanted or designed a “secular” nation please.” Your examples were the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli both of which do not use the word “Secular” and I dare say or the intent of the word secular.
Lastly, I’ll still contend the actions as you are clearly see in the acts and official documentation show that the founding fathers knew what they were doing (yep they designed the system so whom could know better) and also knew it did not establish a national denomination hence “may well” is but a distraction from the facts. Meaning speculation on your part but not reflective of actual actions. Considering you have actually acknowledge many of the actual actions of the founding fathers how is it you can contend their intent was different from their actions?
Hope your trip went well and was productive because our government is growing by the day and needs its feeding (Money).
God Bless
Americans were to be free to express their personal beliefs w/o Federal interference. There was not be no power of the government to either ban nor to require certain social beliefs. Social beliefs, ethics, values and morals mostly derive from one’s relgious background and to have a self governing moral and ethical people, the freedom of religion was considered necessary for constitutional freedom. An unethical and immoral people need a police state to govern them because they are too socially ignorant to govern themselves.
Socialists have given themselves the power through the living constitution courts to ban religious free speech and to design and order the social beliefs of the nation where they can harm and punish people with “incorrect” social and moral or religious beliefs. They have selected the religion of humanism for the country which is against the constitution.
Jeff,
Thanks. My trip to DC went well–for me as well as the various taxi drivers and waiters I did my best to support.
With respect to the Treaty of Tripoli, your comment gives the impression of straining hard to avoid the obvious. First and foremost, the treaty plainly says what it says, and it was approved by the President and unanimously ratified by the Senate, all with no apparent public dissent or controversy.
Second, the treaty is the most solemn representation of the government of the United States; it is not some informal, unofficial comment by an individual founder. Treaties, you will recall, are the highest law of the land, after the Constitution.
Third, the reasons you offer to, I gather, somehow discount the treaty as evidence of the founders’ intent simply do not wash. Your suggestion that the treaty may be invalid is entirely beside the point. Ours is a factual question, not a legal one. We’re looking for evidence of the founders’ intent, not trying to determine the treaty’s validity. Assuming for the sake of argument that the treaty was legally defective (which, to be sure, is not my view), the fact remains that by signing and ratifying it, President Adams and the other founders in the Senate plainly confirmed their understanding that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Your further observation that Article 11 was included in the 1797 treaty when the United States was in a weak position and omitted in a later treaty after the United States had bested the Barbary nations in battle does not support the notion that the President was playing word games with our adversaries. Are you suggesting that Adams and the others indulged in a lie to somehow dupe the Barbary nations into the treaty? And no one in the United States caught it and voiced questions or objections? Implausible as that is on its face, it bears noting that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Indeed, the fact that the Arabic version of the treaty does not contain this clause largely undercuts the idea. Moreover, I know of no evidence that the foregoing phrase was the subject of negotiation either in 1797 or later. The straightforward explanation is that the phrase appeared in the 1797 treaty as part of the explanation why the United States had no reason to go to war with the Barbary nations, and it was omitted from the later treaty not because of some negotiation over it, but rather because it no longer had any purpose since, by that time, the United States had actually gone to war with the Barbary nations, so it would hardly have made any sense to include provisions purporting to explain why we had no reason to go to war with them.
The Treaty of Tripoli, thus, offers an official, definitive declaration of the United States and many of its founders of their understanding that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”–a declaration that cannot be disregarded or discounted.
You call attention to one aspect of the treaty with which I heartily agree–the distinction between the government and the nation. As I noted in an earlier comment, I readily agree that the United States is a Christian nation in the sense that Christianity is the dominant religious influence in our society. At the same time, the United States is secular in the sense that the government was founded by the people predicated on their power and was established to operate independent of religion. The United States is a Christian nation with a secular government.
With respect to your earlier challenge, you asked for “a document from the founding fathers declaring they wanted or designed a ’secular’ nation.” I offered the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli. You now suggest they don’t qualify because the word “secular” does not appear in their texts. That seems a rather petty, pointless concern. The term “secular,” particularly as applied to government, generally refers the concept of being separate from, not connected with, or neutral toward religion. The Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli are two official documents that perhaps most authoritatively reveal and establish that the United States government is separate from, not connected with, and neutral toward religion. It hardly matters that neither uses the term “secular.” If I invite a woman out on Saturday night for food and drinks, she may reasonably understand she’s been invited for a dinner date, even though I did not utter the term “dinner” or “date.” Similarly, those who read the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli can readily see they speak of a secular government, even though they do not use the term “secular.”
Hello again Doug, Yes I absolutely am keeping the offer open because as you stated several times in your past entries you believe the founding fathers built a “secular” government and if that was the case then there should be not problem to find that in their writings. You used the word 20 times in 6 posts. As to the opposite, I contest, the founding fathers did set up a Nation on Christian principles and have supplied many examples and I am only pulling from the top of the barrel. I do realize you have agreed the founding of the nation was Christian. So the challenge is still on for you to show the readers how strong your case is that the intent of the founding fathers was different from their actions and words they performed and documented.
Yes the treaty of Tripoli says ”As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” which we both know is true, IE “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (government definition The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit), but the Nation (Definition A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country) which is and was “We the People” are a Christian Nation of which we both agreed on in prior posts. So yes article 11 of the treaty is actually a meaningless sentence and I do stand by what I said in my last post. As the reader can see they did know what they were doing “Word Smith’s” that they were.
I agree and their intent is just the point. This is why word smithing and invalid legal documentation (when two parties sign a contract (which a treaty is) the copies have to be the same or they are null and void), which I am confident you as a lawyer are familiar with, are critical to understand. They knew what they were doing, under duress, to make a worthless statement. So to answer for their intent I have given good cause to understand their actions. Readers can make their own decisions and research the history some more to build a better picture of the international politics of the time. Yet you still have not shown any intent of all the other documented examples of the founding fathers acts and official documentation different than what I have proposed.
Doug in response to you second from last paragraph in your last post I will remind you of this quote: John Adams Mar 4, 1797 Inaugural address ” I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.” Yep, Christians make the best public servants IE government officials. That said, I will return to one of my original statement again “Our founding fathers were men from many denominations of Christian faiths such as, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Quaker, Dutch/German Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Huguenot, Unitarian, Methodist, Calvinist. Their forfathers came from many European countries. During the 16th and 17th century most European countries were ruled by governments which were tied directly to a national church / religious faith, which was one of the reasons people fled Europe for the Americas. These are the basis of why the founding fathers did not want Congress to establish any one religion over another. Their intent was to ensure no one religion was forced upon the people. Thus the quote “Freedom of religion”.”
Thanks for helping me with my message.
God Bless
Jeff,
Just returned from another business trip.
Intrigued by your continued focus on the term “secular,” I did a little homework. Your challenge, I think, turns out to be a trick question, though you presumably did not intend it as such. Language changes over time, and the meaning and usage of the word “secular” fits that pattern. While the word has been around for centuries, its meaning and usage have varied. Its common usage with respect to government developed in the mid-1800s–well after the founding. See http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Excerpts/secularizaton.html and http://wapedia.mobi/en/Secularism I’m not sure I’ll ever find some digital data base of founders’ writings on which I can readily perform an electronic word search to nail down whether and how they used the term “secular.” Given the history of the term’s usage, though, it appears likely that whatever thoughts the founders expressed that we would today characterize as secular, they generally did so without using that term.
With respect to the rest of your last comment, I think my responses would largely consist of repetition of points and evidence already presented in previous comments. Not seeing much to be gained from starting another round, I want instead simply to thank you for an enjoyable and enlightening discussion and wish you the best.
Hello again Doug, Thanks for the discussion. So if I understand your last post correctly you contend the meaning of “secular” did not mean: “not overtly or specifically religious” (merriam-webste definition B) or to have any meaning relating to lack of religion in any way. I do not totally agree with that because canon law definition “anything that is not related to religious orders”, which was established in 1140AD used it with that very meaning, but for the sake of this discussion I’ll leave it at that.
I will say if the word had no meaning like the above stated intent at the time of the founding fathers. Then is it not interesting the point you were trying to make in earlier discussions time after time was to say the founding fathers intended a secular government? Yet this concept did not exist.
Take care, especially on the trips to DC where so many politicians lurk waiting to sell their souls. Do not fret many of them have a very rude awaking coming in a couple months when they are bounced out of office and held accountable for their actions.
God Bless