Americans United for Separation of Church and State… Chipping Away at Our Democratic Republic
Americans United for Separation of Church and State… Chipping Away at Our Democratic Republic
By Steven T. Voigt
Simply put, the Establishment Clause states that our nation can never have a national religion and citizens are free to worship God as they choose. Commenting on the Establishment Clause in 1859, Justice Joseph Story penned, “the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion, will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well-being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice.” 4 Likewise, Justice William Douglas wrote, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being . . .. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities . . . it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.” 5
When read properly, the Establishment Clause is limited in scope. Liberals who want their ideas made into untouchable law, however, choose to paste their own ideas onto the plain words of the clause. As with other parts of the Constitution, left-wingers like to read additional words like “wall of separation of church and state” into the First Amendment that are found nowhere in the text or even in the Founders’ intent. In fact, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution permits - and our Founding Fathers considered it permissible and even proper - for religion and religious values to find a place in a just government.
4.Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the United States: Containing a Brief Commentary (New York, Harper & Brothers 1859).
I am alway amused by absurd interpretations of the Constitution by those who have no clue about how to interpret it. Notice that Mr. Voigt uses one meaning for the word “religion” in the establishment clause to conform it to his personal wish for civil authority over religion, then switches to a different one for the free exercise clause.
“Simply put, the Establishment Clause states that our nation can never have a national religion and citizens are free to worship God as they choose.”
Were he consistent, the second clause wouldn’t prevent Congress from prohibiting anything but a national religion. Congress could outlaw any religion but the national religion.
I think there is no better refutation of Voigt’s twisted thinking about the founder’s intent, than the voices of the founders themselves:
John Adams -
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
The phrase “Wall of Separation” may not appear in the constituion itself, but it is a most obvious predicate in the thinking, discussions and other writings of the founders.
Thomas Jefferson -
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
James Madison -
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
Thomas Paine -
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.
George Washington -
I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.
...and further I observe that John Adams knew we would be having this discussion even today!
John Adams -
Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.
I think there is no better refutation of Voigt’s twisted thinking about the founder’s intent, than the voices of the founders themselves:
John Adams -
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Adams was writing about the state constitutions. Hence the plural. As such, the quotation is of limited (not zero) value in judging the intent of the establishment clause.
The phrase “Wall of Separation” may not appear in the constituion itself, but it is a most obvious predicate in the thinking, discussions and other writings of the founders.
So is the limitation of federal power and the strong insistence on preserving the power of the state governments (federalism). Regardless of rhetoric drawn from arguments touching state law (such as Madison’s “Remonstrance"), it seems clear that the founders meant by the establishment clause to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion (especially over and against the wishes of the states), whether by endorsing an existing sect or by codifying enough doctrines to qualify the law as a religion. The second aim may be self-contradictory in practice.
Thomas Jefferson -
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
Those aren’t the words of Jefferson, but the attempt of an editor to summarize Jefferson’s views. Think about it. Does it even sound like something Jefferson would write? It’s not delivered in the literary style of the time.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
James Madison -
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
Contextually, Madison was talking about a state law in Virginia ("experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates"). It’s certainly fair to note in his case (and Madison was more influential on the Constitution than most) that his views of church-state separation were broader than prohibiting Congress from establishing a national religion, but you’re still stuck with the language used in the document.
Thomas Paine -
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.
I wonder if Paine would consider the secular ideologies of today a form of religion?
George Washington -
I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.
...and further I observe that John Adams knew we would be having this discussion even today!
John Adams -
Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.
I stand corrected with regard to the Jefferson quote. Thank you. I offer this one in instead.
“Believing… that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.” --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.
Other than that I am not quite following all of your post. I am new to such heady discourse so forgive me if I am too plain in speech. Are you saying that the founders intended that the Constitution prohibit the US Congress from endorsing a religion, but not the individual States? What is your take on the intent of the founders? More importantly, what is your take on the proper roll of government with regard to religion?
FWIW I think the argument that quotes referring to the states and their constitutions cannot be viewed as indicative of the founders’ general sentiments when examining the national constitution to be specious. I don’t think the founders’ intent is, frankly, the end of the story anyway, but it is clear that many of them felt government should stay out of the relationship between god and the individual, and that this sentiment extended beyond the narrow idea of prohibiting an official national religion.
This controversy over the First Amendment’s establishment clause is a classic case of rewriting history to mold it to the viewpoints of conservative Christians. Aside from the obvious statement in the Treaty of Tripoli, “The United States was in no way founded upon the Christian religion...,” we need only look at the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution and the 10 Commandments to decide for ourselves.
First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
First Commandment:
“You shall no other gods before me.”
Well, looks like we can stop right there. The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly contradicts god’s First Commandments to the Jews. Whatever the Founding Fathers’ intent, their actions speak quite obviously. By their actions our Founding Fathers declared the United States government cannot establish a religion or restrict our freedom to practice any religion, yet the Bible commands us to obey a specific god. Today’s conservative Christians don’t like that, so they try to twist history to fit their world view. We must fight this attempt at every turn, for they would turn this country into a theocracy. I guess it doesn’t matter to them that our ancestors came here under considerable hardships to escape the very kind of religious dominance they now try to achieve.
I stand corrected with regard to the Jefferson quote. Thank you. I offer this one in instead.
“Believing… that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.” --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.
Better.
Other than that I am not quite following all of your post. I am new to such heady discourse so forgive me if I am too plain in speech. Are you saying that the founders intended that the Constitution prohibit the US Congress from endorsing a religion, but not the individual States?
I’m not a mindreader, so I don’t know what each of the framers and signers intended. I imagine it differed somewhat from person to person. The language of the First Amendment, on the other hand, specifically bars Congress from making certain types of laws. The Constitution was not taken to apply to the states until after (well after, that is, in the form of court rulings) the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment decades later. So I am indeed saying that the language of the Constitution appears to indicate that the intent of the document was as I described earlier. That is, to prevent the establishment of a national religion as defined. States would be able to if they wished.
What is your take on the intent of the founders? More importantly, what is your take on the proper roll of government with regard to religion?
They were a bunch of theists (Deists and Christians) who found common ground (as described in the Declaration of Independence). Their intent was to form a government of the people protected from the whims of kings (including claims of rule by divine right) and the whims of mob rule. The power of the state governments was important to them, so they envisioned a relatively weak federal government. For better or worse, that aim of the framers is safely considered a failure. State power dropped like a rock after the Civil War and has eroded gradually since.
The role of the government toward religion depends on the definition of religion. I think the framers understood religion as a system of doctrines, and they were keen to preserve the freedom of conscience of the individual against being forced to render worship against his will (the very reason many Europeans ended up in North America in the first place). I think using a broader definition of religion causes the Constitution to contradict itself. The document implicitly embodies a set of values that establish a framework for our laws. There is a “religion” in a slightly broader sense of the word embodied in the text. For that reason, unbridled pluralism encourages the destruction of the Constitution as it has been historically understood in that toleration of all doctrines vacates all doctrines through contradiction.
So (to place aim on the point again), the framers designed a document intended to lightly (since the federal government was intended to be weak) buttress what they held in common in their religions, considering that commonality effectively universal. Thus codifying it would be needless. Any number of framers may have regarded the federal model as the ideal for the individual states, but it seems clear that the language of the document falls well short of that position.
So (to place aim on the point again), the framers designed a document intended to lightly (since the federal government was intended to be weak) buttress what they held in common in their religions, considering that commonality effectively universal. Thus codifying it would be needless. Any number of framers may have regarded the federal model as the ideal for the individual states, but it seems clear that the language of the document falls well short of that position.
I understand your post and I can see your points on all counts. I admit to being somewhat more optimistic that their intent was not merely to preserve the rights of people to worship as they choose, but also to protect the unbeliever from having to worship at all.
While you are correct that by and large the founders were Deists or Christians, I am considerate of the implications of being a Deist in their day. For white, European men of the 18th century, not being a Christian was considerably more dangerous to careers and lives than it is today. In the language of the time, most Deists were very private about their lack of belief in Jesus (Paine is the most notable exception). Deists were very careful with their language not to offend Christians. Consider the candor of their private letters as compared to their public documents. When the constitution was written, Americans were less than 100 years removed from the Salem witch trials. I believe the founders achieved a remarkably clear expression not only for their time, but for today. The language is elegant, yet compact. I think they accomplished what they could and the original core document seems considerably less riddled with apparent compromise and legalese than the later amendments.
I have serious reservations that the current crop of 21st century politicians could create such a clear and compact document as the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Imagine a Constitutional Convention today comprised of politicians from every state and territory and each of them traveling with an entourage of special interests lobbyists. What kind of distorted, wordy, legalese --- riddled with tortured compromise would result? I do not even trust the current crop to tinker with the existing document. Imagine how the Bill of Rights would read if it were written today and the NeoCons had to be happy with it. The current constitution is the best defense we have against such nonsense.
So (to place aim on the point again), the framers designed a document intended to lightly (since the federal government was intended to be weak) buttress what they held in common in their religions, considering that commonality effectively universal. Thus codifying it would be needless. Any number of framers may have regarded the federal model as the ideal for the individual states, but it seems clear that the language of the document falls well short of that position.
I understand your post and I can see your points on all counts. I admit to being somewhat more optimistic that their intent was not merely to preserve the rights of people to worship as they choose, but also to protect the unbeliever from having to worship at all.
That’s definitely true to a point, but in their day an “atheist” more commonly wasn’t one who philosophically rejected the existence of a god or gods but one who lived the life of a heretic (hence the lingering confusion over the term that many atheists find irritating).
Those philosophers who rely solely on “conventional usage” should recall that “atheism” has been used throughout history as a term of opprobrium, a veritable smear word. Indeed, until the eighteenth century, an “atheist” could be anyone who disagreed with one’s own religious convictions—a person who denied the divinity of Roman emperors, or who disbelieved in witchcraft, or who denied the Trinity, or who rejected infant baptism, or who maintained that philosophers should be free to seek the truth, wherever it may lead them. http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm
You don’t even find philosophical atheism advanced in the letters, so it isn’t proper to adopt America’s early Deists into the atheist camp. But it’s perfectly fair to note that their resistance to many of Christianity’s doctrines gave you much less to contend with in the various constitutions in America, particularly the Constitution.
While you are correct that by and large the founders were Deists or Christians, I am considerate of the implications of being a Deist in their day. For white, European men of the 18th century, not being a Christian was considerably more dangerous to careers and lives than it is today. In the language of the time, most Deists were very private about their lack of belief in Jesus (Paine is the most notable exception). Deists were very careful with their language not to offend Christians. Consider the candor of their private letters as compared to their public documents. When the constitution was written, Americans were less than 100 years removed from the Salem witch trials. I believe the founders achieved a remarkably clear expression not only for their time, but for today. The language is elegant, yet compact. I think they accomplished what they could and the original core document seems considerably less riddled with apparent compromise and legalese than the later amendments.
I have serious reservations that the current crop of 21st century politicians could create such a clear and compact document as the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Imagine a Constitutional Convention today comprised of politicians from every state and territory and each of them traveling with an entourage of special interests lobbyists. What kind of distorted, wordy, legalese --- riddled with tortured compromise would result? I do not even trust the current crop to tinker with the existing document. Imagine how the Bill of Rights would read if it were written today and the NeoCons had to be happy with it. The current constitution is the best defense we have against such nonsense.
I agree with what you write above, with the caveats I expressed in my preceding paragraph. The framers had their differences, to be sure, but nothing like the differences that would have to be ironed out today in a constitutional convention. There is one weakness in your reliance on the words of the Constitution, however, though it can work to the benefit of atheists at times (as it can for any other interest group): Courts can interpret the document any way they see fit. The federal courts have made some remarkably creative interpretations in the name of the “living constitution.” That interpretive principle allows virtually any cultural movement to bend the Constitution to its will, much like various religious groups find their doctrines in ambiguous passages from the Bible.
This controversy over the First Amendment’s establishment clause is a classic case of rewriting history to mold it to the viewpoints of conservative Christians. Aside from the obvious statement in the Treaty of Tripoli, “The United States was in no way founded upon the Christian religion...,” we need only look at the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution and the 10 Commandments to decide for ourselves.
First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
First Commandment:
“You shall no other gods before me.”
Well, looks like we can stop right there.
That’s one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever seen.
FWIW, I happen to agree with you that Christians (not all) try to rewrite history to make it agree with their views. And Christians do not have an exclusive lease on the technique.
The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly contradicts god’s First Commandments to the Jews. Whatever the Founding Fathers’ intent, there actions speak quite obviously. By there actions our Founding Fathers declared the United States government cannot establish a religion or restrict our freedom to practice any religion, yet the Bible commands us to obey a specific god. Today’s conservative Christians don’t like that, so they try to twist history to fit their world view. We must fight this attempt at every turn, for they would turn this country into a theocracy. I guess it doesn’t matter to them that our ancestors came here under considerable hardships to escape the very kind of religious dominance they now try to achieve.
I’m a Christian, and I invite you to address any such mistakes in my argumentation. I’m not that interested in the mistakes of others (as in newly introducing them to the thread).
I agree with what you write above, with the caveats I expressed in my preceding paragraph. The framers had their differences, to be sure, but nothing like the differences that would have to be ironed out today in a constitutional convention. There is one weakness in your reliance on the words of the Constitution, however, though it can work to the benefit of atheists at times (as it can for any other interest group): Courts can interpret the document any way they see fit. The federal courts have made some remarkably creative interpretations in the name of the “living constitution.” That interpretive principle allows virtually any cultural movement to bend the Constitution to its will, much like various religious groups find their doctrines in ambiguous passages from the Bible.
You are correct. The Bible was used extensively as as an authoritative guide in arguments for abolition as well as against it. The constitution is also susceptible to cherry-picking and inventive interpretation. I think it is less so because of it’s brevity, but you are correct nevertheless. That danger is always present. It is one of the primary reasons I have become more vocal in the last few years about my atheism and my views on liberty. It is why I am in this forum now.
No document, no matter how perfectly worded, can serve the cause of freedom indefinitely if the people become ignorant of it’s meaning.
And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Well said fotobits;
/quote “
Well, looks like we can stop right there. The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly contradicts god’s First Commandments to the Jews. Whatever the Founding Fathers’ intent, there actions speak quite obviously. By there actions our Founding Fathers declared the United States government cannot establish a religion or restrict our freedom to practice any religion, yet the Bible commands us to obey a specific god. Today’s conservative Christians don’t like that, so they try to twist history to fit their world view. We must fight this attempt at every turn, for they would turn this country into a theocracy. I guess it doesn’t matter to them that our ancestors came here under considerable hardships to escape the very kind of religious dominance they now try to achieve. “ quote/
