So I've got a lot to blog about, but this is the most seasonally appropriate. On the Fourth of July, my dad convinced me (and my boyfriend and his sister as well) to go to church with him and the rest of the family. The church service started thirty minutes early to make time for a special Fourth of July play by the children. As a whole, the entire one and a half hour service was a bold display of the persistent forced marriage of church and state, and the pastor used the sermon to more acutely articulate his conviction that our nation was founded on Jesus Christ, and, unless the USA returns to her Christian roots, we will no longer be the land of the free and the home of the brave. To paraphrase the pastor, "today (July 4th) is a commemoration of our nation's independence from tyranny, but dependence on God."
I've heard conflicting stories about exactly what role the Founding Fathers wanted the church to play in America, but after doing some research I've discovered that many of our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams, specifically called for a separation of church and state. While they were undoubtedly devout Christians, they had no intentions for America to be a theocracy.
When the first colonists came to America, they came escaping religious persecution and state religion. Hypocritically, many colonies went on to officially establish their own religions, and some jobs and political offices required applicants to pass a religious test. However, this all changed once the Article 6 of the Constitution prohibited the use of religious tests and the First Amendment protected the free exercise of religion. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very clear in their writings that it for their best interest that the church and state be separated.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 articulating his beliefs (along with citing the first amendment) about the relationships between church and state"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
In fact, many historians claim the Jefferson was the one to coin the term "separation of church and state." Jefferson went on to design the University of Virginia (holla!) to further reflect his faith in the separation between church and state. As an architect and founder of the school, Jefferson placed the Rotunda as the center of his public university, ostensibly choosing to place a library modeled after the Parthenon at the nucleus of the UVa grounds instead of a church.
James Madison, our Father of the Constitution, was also a fierce advocate of the separation of church in state, as you can see from many of his letters. Many times he refers to the desire for a "total separation of the church from the State" and also writing that, "a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822). I don't think it's possible to have a clearer framer's intent.
Perhaps the most blunt assertion of the idea of the separation of church and state comes from a clause in The Treaty of Tripoli, as ratified by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797. The treaty was a part of the set of Barbary Treaties crafted to address pirating on the Barbary Coast. Recognizing that the area was dominated by the Islamic faith, Article 11 of the treaty reminds the world that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
And it's a good thing that our nation wasn't founded on Christianity, especially as the US becomes increasingly diverse. According to an extensive 2007 survey by the Pew Form on Religion & Public Life, 78.4% of American adults are Christian, and a shrinking 51.3% of them are Protestants. That's a pretty big number, but it also means that 21.4% of American adults practice other religions or none at all. Thus, to say that America was founded on and perseveres because of Christianity effectively excludes and marginalizes the religion of nearly one fourth of Americans, whether they be Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, or atheists. Even among those Americans who are Christian, there are so many different denominations and interpretations of Christianity that I doubt there could be a national agreement to what exactly "the church" is and how to apply it to policy. Just sit a Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, and Greek Orthodox down at a table and I'm sure they can come up with more ways that they're different than similar (come to think of it, this is exactly what Thanksgiving at my dad's house sounds like). After all, some of the worst wars and violentest of conflicts are between people of the same religion whether Catholics versus Protestants or Sunnis versus Shias.
Walking into a church full of children waving flags and streamers singing "God Bless America" is cute, but powerful imagery. While I don't think it's wrong for churches to celebrate the Fourth of July, it's factually inaccurate for anyone to claim that America was founded on Christianity and the marriage of church and state.
As long as voters or politicians erroneously believe that our country was founded on Christianity, we will get policy that is poisoned with homophobia and sexism, intolerance of other beliefs, government funding of religious initiatives, restrictions on sex ed and birth control, and Creationism in the schools. Ultimately, basing policy on religion is dangerous, because it needs no justification other than "because the Bible says so." There is little critical thinking in religious fundamentalism, and it's unfair to subject an entire country to any group's misguided beliefs.
For further reading check out Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or click on any of the links/ citations in this article.
For further reading check out Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or click on any of the links/ citations in this article.
Photo credit to Monque
Jefferson also is famous for stating that a Professor of Theology had no place at the University.
ReplyDeleteWow, Krista, very well spoken. That is very powerful and thank you for being brave enough to speak out about it. I too have felt this way for a long, long time. Right down to the "In God We Trust" on our money. Why is it not politically correct to use the "n" word (which I choose not to personally for my own convictions) but it is politically correct to force an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, or Wiccan to use money that states something they don't believe just because the gov't can?
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this.
I'll break this up into parts. As this is anonymous,you may be able to expect expect some trollage by a third party claiming to be me. Here goes:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that America wasn't meant to be a theocracy, I think that it's still somewhat fair for the other side to argue that America has a religious basis given the strong religious language used in many of the founding documents, the moral/law framework in comparison to more relative morals across human culture. However, I do have a few points to jab at in hopes that in can improve the paper. Feel free to jab back if I'm just misunderstanding.
--
On Tripoli, I feel that it’s a bad example to prop up since the use of it in context with the times can point to ulterior motives in their use of language when writing it and if you’re doing it, quoting the whole passage helps to avoid appearing as if you are quote mining. Just quoting that one line rings of the quote mining that many creationists are often criticized for:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—/ as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen/,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, /it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries./"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Aside from that the text is written in Arabic (and may thus signify a greater position of power amongst the Barbary Pirates since they were raiding ships and incurring ransom from multiple nations.), the cautious language in the text gives reason for the Americans to have been trying to avoid provoking aggression and thus a possible holy war. That's very sound on their part if it's the goal. Hilariously enough, America still ended up paying a ransom upon the subsequent peace treaty.
In addition, although a government is representative of a nation, is doesn't equal a nation. Therefore, they can very well shrug off the affiliation of their nation’s primary religion at the time being if it means securing lives.
(Short cut: gov != nation)
If you'd like to go that route regardless, it's worth quoting the opening line from Treaty of Paris (1783) so that we're on the same page:
"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” [Opening line]
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml
Savvy with words aren’t they, for being so separate? Although, it’s for show, it’s worth demonstrating for problem that quote mining can present.
--
Another point of disagreement:
ReplyDelete"When the first colonists came to America, they came escaping religious persecution and state religion. Hypocritically, many colonies went on to officially establish their own religions,and some jobs and political offices required applicants to pass a religious test. “(You)
The problem in that criticism is underestimating the scope of what they want to do. If they're escaping religious persecution and living out their own religion, that’s not in itself hypocritical. If they espouse [unlimited] religious freedom and then try to constrict it, that would be so. Given that some of this occurred before the national constitution banned it, those like North Carolina were in the right under their previous state constitution laws
XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
-- Article XXXII, North Carolina constitution of 1776.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp
(This does pose a question for the Indian’s right, but for the sake of argument where in might makes right and in the scope of European American politics, we can slide that to the side.)
. There is a reasonable area in dropping some criticism. However, they're just creating an enclave in which ensure that their religion is practiced as such. If someone wants to practice differently, who is keeping them within the enclave? Since questioning one's faith is a good thing, the founding fathers were definitely correct in their action of changing the previous status quo, though.
--
"After all, some of the worst wars and violentest of conflicts are between people of the same religion whether Catholics versus Protestants or Sunnis versus Shias."
I'd recommend changing "violentest" to "most violent" on a minor level (pardon my inner-grammar nazi). Furthermore, could you expound on this sentence? It's like you borrowed from TGD on this bit and I think it's very inaccurate. Given that worst is a subjective coloring unless you add numerical or qualitative spectrum to base it off of, it’s worth avoiding it. If you mean numerical on the basis of lives claimed and people harmed over a short 50 year window, the worst conflicts weren't religious based and more so based on ideology such as under Communist regimes during the 20th century(Ex: Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot). Combined, they exceed religious death rates by multiples and make them look pale in comparison; that includes factoring in the crusades (which again had many political bases upon) and the holocaust (upon which is debatable as well) if you want to argue for that. Avoiding that jab in the end can save some cringes by some readers. Feel free to educate me if I'm wrong.
--
Another point of disagreement:
ReplyDelete"When the first colonists came to America, they came escaping religious persecution and state religion. Hypocritically, many colonies went on to officially establish their own religions,and some jobs and political offices required applicants to pass a religious test. “(You)
The problem in that criticism is underestimating the scope of what they want to do. If they're escaping religious persecution and living out their own religion, that’s not in itself hypocritical. If they espouse [unlimited] religious freedom and then try to constrict it, that would be so. Given that some of this occurred before the national constitution banned it, those like North Carolina were in the right under their previous state constitution laws
XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
-- Article XXXII, North Carolina constitution of 1776.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp
(This does pose a question for the Indian’s right, but for the sake of argument where in might makes right and in the scope of European American politics, we can slide that to the side.)
. There is a reasonable area in dropping some criticism. However, they're just creating an enclave in which ensure that their religion is practiced as such. If someone wants to practice differently, who is keeping them within the enclave? Since questioning one's faith is a good thing, the founding fathers were definitely correct in their action of changing the previous status quo, though.
--
One more bit,
ReplyDelete“Ultimately, basing policy on religion is dangerous, because it needs no justification other than "because the Bible says so." There is little critical thinking in religious fundamentalism, and it's unfair to subject an entire country to any group's misguided beliefs.”
I’d disagree here on that basing policy on religion is inherently dangerous. You seem to lump a fundamentalist understanding and more moderate/liberal understandings (moderate/liberal Christianity/Islam) under one umbrella. In addition, that statement it doesn’t speak of knowledge of peaceful religions as well (Jainism and Humanism) as the idea of possibly interpreting a compromise between the previously mentioned non-fundamentalist groups. In addition, you can do many fundies a disservice as there are some critically thinking fundamentalists and scientific consensus isn’t always bulletproof. However, if you are to mean that by fundamentalist, the given subject cannot change, I rescind that part of where I disagree since Occam’s razor may cut too well in light of evidence.
One more bit,
ReplyDelete“Ultimately, basing policy on religion is dangerous, because it needs no justification other than "because the Bible says so." There is little critical thinking in religious fundamentalism, and it's unfair to subject an entire country to any group's misguided beliefs.”
I’d disagree here on that basing policy on religion is inherently dangerous. You seem to lump a fundamentalist understanding and more moderate/liberal understandings (moderate/liberal Christianity/Islam) under one umbrella. In addition, that statement it doesn’t speak of knowledge of peaceful religions as well (Jainism and Humanism) as the idea of possibly interpreting a compromise between the previously mentioned non-fundamentalist groups. In addition, you can do many fundies a disservice as there are some critically thinking fundamentalists and scientific consensus isn’t always bulletproof. However, if you are to mean that by fundamentalist, the given subject cannot change, I rescind that part of where I disagree since Occam’s razor may cut too well in light of evidence.
I'm unsure if everything posted. If I over-posted,my apologies. I think my browser may have been the culprit.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous-
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thanks for the thoughtful comments, even though we may disagree. I hope you didn't find any of the contents of my post disrespectful to your beliefs.
So to address your comments:
I can't really argue against the fact that America was founded on Christian principles, though I believe these core principles aren't necessarily unique to Christianity and aren't justification for the unification of church and state. The founding fathers spoke directly against such unification, and it was one of the reasons they so strongly opposed Catholicism.
As for the Tripoli quote, I don't believe I took it out of context. The treaty was read (in English) in front of the Senate and President Adams and they had the opportunity to debate it or vote against it, yet they didn't, so I assume that they agree with the statement. Nevertheless, I think the quotations from Jefferson and Madison are better examples of the Founding Father's intentions.
I can't deny the opening line of the Treaty of Paris, but perhaps it also served political means like you say the line in the Treaty of Tripoli did. Either way, I would say that the line in the Treaty of Tripoli is superior because it came at a few years later once America had more time to form her identity.
I don't have a problem with colonists wanting to practice their faith, but it still seems hypocritical for them to exclude those who didn't practice their religion. You say that dissenters could move elsewhere, but where? This was newly colonized America. Moving elsewhere (to America) was already a big inconvenience that had brought the colonists there in the first place. The fact is, dissenters were excluded from certain jobs, and in the case fo people like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, banned from the colony. And since when does might make right?
I don't mean to lump liberal and fundamentalist Christians together, but I speak of fundamentalists because they are the ones that are so vehemently against the separation of church and state, and they are unwilling to compromise.
My Dear Krista, (Part 1)
ReplyDeleteI love you and your willingness to engage in meaningful conversation! You know I prefer to have a campfire conversation rather than blogging. I think you have merged two separate issues into a single argument. The first issue is that no one is recommending a “persistent forced marriage of church and state”, so let’s table this. The debate must be focused on the answer to your question “Was America really founded on Christianity? The short answer is absolutely yes! Here is my evidence:
You have probably memorized these introductory words of the Declaration of Independence: “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.” So it is obvious that the Founders believed in truth (Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life…”), and in a Creator, who is God.
Did you realize that the last paragraph of the Constitution before the Founding Father’s signatures states “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”. Did you catch it? They specified the date in terms of the Year of our Lord. They were recognizing and paying homage to Jesus.
Additionally, The presidential oath of office dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The National Archives says George Washington added the words "so help me God" when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since. He also kissed the Bible after taking the oath.
Congress has retained paid Christian chaplains since 1789 to open sessions with prayer and to provide spiritual guidance to members and their staffs upon request. That practice was strongly opposed by James Madison.
What about education? Did you know that for about the first hundred years there were only two books used in school? They were the Bible and the New England Primer. The New England Primer was the first reading primer designed for the American Colonies. It became the most successful educational textbook published in colonial American and the early days of United States history. While the selections in the New England Primer varied somewhat across time, there was standard content for beginning reading instruction. Included were the alphabet, vowels, consonants, double letters and syllabariums of two letters to six letter syllables. The 90-page work contained religious maxims, woodcuts, alphabetical assistants, acronyms, catechisms, and moral lessons. Many of its selections were drawn from the King James Bible and others were original. It embodied the dominant Puritan attitude and worldview of the day. Among the topics discussed are respect to parental figures, sin, and salvation. Two of the most famous example verses are as follows(1784 ed.):
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray thee, Lord, my soul to keep;
If I should die before I wake,
I pray thee, Lord, my soul to take.
And, In Adam's Fall, we sinned all.
My Dear Krista, (part 2)
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that our country was founded on believing and trusting in God. The issue is a personal relationship with God that can only be achieved through Jesus, not religion. The government cannot make anyone believe. In fact, God does not want to force anyone to love him; just like you want love to be the free will of the other. The truth is that God is real, He loves us, and sacrificed his Son to pay our sin debt. Satan is real and wants to deceive as many as possible. Heaven and hell are both real and eternal. Each one of us must choose for ourselves whether to believe and trust in Him, and we are told the consequence of our decision. Don’t you find it interesting that this was the first and original sin? From Genesis 3 the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." I’m convinced that those who reject God are really making a statement that they want to choose for themselves what is good and evil.
The reason the United States has prospered to be the most powerful and rich country in the world is because God blessed us in response to our belief and trust in Him. We are also the most benevolent country in the world (love your neighbor). As our society has fallen away from Him, so has the socio-economic condition of our country. God has proven that he will destroy wickedness, that is, self-centered living that indulges in pride and lust. So the statement that our country must return to our Christian roots is prophetic if we ever hope to be that nation that was the envy of the world.
This plays out that our laws should be based on the Judeo-Christian framework for morality. We should love one another, do not steal, kill, lie, commit adultery, etc. We will not force anyone to love and believe in God. In fact anyone can worship anything they choose, but don’t try to change our foundation or else the solid rock becomes sinking sand.