Wednesday, January 14, 2009

FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

While reading an ongoing debate on the thread of a post at another blog, the following statement was made:

“First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad that people consider this worthy of debate. The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter? This intenet is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate?”

Now, the First Amendment states in part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Apparently the intent of this amendment is not clear enough.
About those framers or founding fathers? We don’t need to guess at their intent since some of them had weighed in and left a record of their opinion.

In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."

Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.

John Adams wrote in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"

“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... 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.”

My favorite “framer” is Benjamin Franklin. If you have never read his autobiography, you are missing some great reading and a colorful and detailed account of life in “those days.” He was a vegetarian although he would sometimes eat fish which he seemed to be very fond of. He also had within his circle proponents of deism. With his beliefs in natural law, Franklin would probably have had more in common with “tree huggers” than church goers. Here are his own words:

"You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”


Benjamin Franklin was also the person who encouraged Thomas Paine (a lifelong Deist) to print his views in what would become the now famous work, “Common Sense.” At the time, those who wanted to declare independence from Britian were in the minority. Many of those at Congress were wealthy landowners who feared losing the protection and trade of England. “Common Sense” came out in pamphlet form and has been credited with turning the tide toward full independence.

Even George Washington had a tolerant view. After he became the president he was approached repeatedly by those worried about their right to practice according to their own religious beliefs. Over and over again, Washington reiterated his belief that, as long as everyone behaved as good citizens, their religious beliefs were not an issue for the government, but were only a matter for each individual and God. These statements were similar to his earlier comments to Tench Tilghman in March of 1784, when he was trying to hire workmen for Mount Vernon, noting that "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."

It is no mystery why our founders would want to separate church and state; after the abuses by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, the English were pretty fed up with politics corrupted by religion and visa versa.

History is not events frozen in time; it is more a living record of our lives, flowing through time and leaving imprints behind as it goes. Our founding fathers were not all saintly, pious men totally focused on this country’s independence.

In fact, they were not so unlike Americans today with events unfolding as they struggled to make a living and care for their families.. Some were certainly religious men and I’m sure we would recognize the conservatives, but we would also recognize the liberals. They argued about religion, politics, taxes and government structure. These guys were radicals and rebels, mature men and incorrigible rascals. They were us 200+ years ago, living and dying in America.

AND THEY HAVE SPOKEN!

14 comments:

  1. It's good to read observations from somebody that actually read and knows something about our Founding Fathers. It's sad that deluded right wing fools like the Nutty Professor and his clique make up what they thought the Founding Fathers were thinking. Ironically, it was this same Nutty Professor that turned me on to this site. Congratulations to your team for spreading truth over a field of right wing bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rockync, I certainly recognize the quote (and thank you for picking up the thread once more). As I pointed out in an earlier post , the quote contained several logical fallacies (noted in brackets). It is interesting to recap other parts of the same conversation, as follows:

    CC (Robert): Those who wish to change the Constitution on this issue draw my ire as well. I have no desire for any denomination to be arbiters of public morality laws nor do I care for a government to establish a state religion.

    Robert is either contradicting himself or playing loose in how he chooses to the read the Constitution. Later in the comment thread, I gave an example of how “free expression” creates a de facto form of established religion when it excludes a minority population from participation in a public context:

    SZ (Octopus): Jewish children being shunted aside during a Christian holiday in a public school … a Protestant child being forced to sit through Catechism … a Catholic child forced to sit through Hebrew school … the child of atheist parents forced to sit through a religious invocation …

    What Robert refuses to acknowledge is that “free expression” turns into “established religion” when any one denomination insinuates itself upon an unwilling minority, especially on public property or in an official context. In fact, his interpretation changes the meaning of the Constitution altogether. Even more unwelcome are Robert’s next comments:

    CC (Robert): I don't think anyone was speaking of "disenfranchisement" but merely the fact that there is such a liberal agenda and anti-religious attitude in the school system … the level of hyperbole regarding Nazism is a bit much.

    Oh really! How could Robert fail to notice the newsreel montage of Nazis in the video posted by Gayle? And so casually (callously) dismiss my concerns? Yet, in his above denial, Robert characterizes the “liberal agenda” as a “fact.” More than a vicious non sequitur, this is where Robert gets downright scary. Another commenter refuted Robert’s assertion:

    Dan Trabue: What you and I can cite are instances of individuals with an agenda (pro-Christian, anti-Christian, etc, etc) because people are people and that happens. But that's not the same as systemic bias [my bold].

    Finally, I took the time to compile a list of cults and sects that seek to overthrow the Constitution and install a self-styled theocracy, along with this admonition:

    SZ (Octopus): Your precious freedom to worship will disappear if any of these groups succeed. Separation of church and state guarantees your freedom to worship, but somehow you idiots think otherwise … while blaming “liberals” for the precious freedoms you enjoy.

    There was a time in the history of our country when people were lynched, when interracial marriage was banned, when Irish Catholic immigrants could not find work, when Jews were persecuted, and witches were burned at the stake … all in the name of religion. Segregationists rationalized their bigotry on the basis of “separate but equal.” You disguise your own bigotry under a rationale of “separate and superior,” while referring to “liberals and Nazis” in the same sentence.


    At this point, I lost all patience with Robert, his fallacious arguments, and his forum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also include the specific prohibition against religious tests for federal office.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good point, Matt, and probably the clincher to the whole argument. Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Truth 101 - Thank you for the compliment and I've been over to your place and you will be a daily read for me; you have a lively place.

    8pus - I have no desire to continue a pissing contest but this invoking of the founding fathers rankles me so just by the sheer fallacy of it all, I had to at least post some sort of rebuttal.

    Matt - very good point and certainly reinforces the separation of church and state. I will be doing a daily drive by at Osborne Ink.

    Now, all I need to do is figure
    out which hours of the day I'll actually be working so I can live!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain." - John Adams

    Good post (I kinda like this place).

    This is one of my favorite articles on the Separation of Church and State. Rationalrevolution.net. Hasn't been updated in over a year but still a good read.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.”


    -Jefferson-


    Too bad a less specific statement didn't make it's way into the bill of rights. Christianist sentiments abound where I live and the belief that a majority religion should have the right to do as they please while minorities should be grateful enough to be allowed to exist.

    Someone recently proposed that "atheists" should have their own holiday and refrain from comment about having to pay for plastic idols. My answer was that there are already two of them: Constitution Day and the Fourth of July, and I will thank the crusaders for respecting them.

    Great thread here - it's so rare to have an informed and rational discussion on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Much agreed on the separation of church and state. Seems to me that religion signs its own death warrant if it mixes closely with politics, and Jefferson & Co. knew it better than most moderns do.

    Aside from that issue, a few thoughts on religion straight from the Jurassic game trail ….

    Ritual and institutionality are the pharmaka (pl. of the Greek neuter noun pharmakon) of spirituality: they are undecidably both poison and remedy. On the one hand, spiritual belief probably isn’t sustainable without expression within institutions (church) and without ritual practices to give shape to people’s aspirations; on the other hand, perpetually binding such aspirations to institutions or ceremonial practices reduces spirituality to an ideological control mechanism or an empty formalist gesture. One of the most sophisticated writers on this subject was and is one William Blake, that eccentric English prophet-poet.

    My view is sympathetic to the religious folk, though I have little patience with those who insist on making their particular belief system everybody else’s by means of government or even communal enforcement.

    What do the religious get right, at least when they’re at their Sunday best? Well, they insistently privilege whatever in us longs to get beyond mere selfishness and materiality, and they honor the deeply rooted impulse to seek transcendence rather than get bogged down by the cares of life. I find myself disenchanted with today’s ultra-rationalists and scientistas, who seem quite certain that reason is the way and the life. But the limitations of that practice, that faculty if you prefer, are stark and should be well known to anybody capable of, well, “reasoning the matter out.” Reason is great when well used and acknowledged to be the limited thing it is; otherwise it is to humanity what the tooth is to the tiger or the shark.

    Understanding is not the same as wisdom; I honor reason’s productions and have no desire to deny them, but I prefer to dedicate my time, for the most part, to the pursuit of wisdom in literature, art, and yes, sometimes the great religious texts.

    All power to Mother and Father T-Rex, who reign forever, side by side, lording it over the Celestial Watering-Hole. For this is the dino-law and the lizard-prophets.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Editor - isn't it amazing how much material there is on this subject and yet the religious right insists on making erroneous statements?

    Glad you like the place, come on over any time, just watch out for the occasional stray tentacle...

    Fogg said,"Too bad a less specific statement didn't make it's way into the bill of rights."

    Capt, I guess our founding fathers didn't foresee the dumbing down of America.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am sympathetic to religious institutions as a rule and am happy to have them carry on as long as no living creature is harmed in the process.
    I once was an avid church goer, raised my children in the church, etc. But as time went on and I gained some spiritual maturity, I found contradictions and disparaties I could not ignore and so started my quest to further enlightenment.
    What I have found is:
    I have a better communion with God when I am removed from all the dogma and traditions of organized religion.
    I am on this journey for life as there is no end to enlightenment.
    I am not convinced that the Bible is the definitive work of God.

    The closest definition of my beliefs is to say I am a deist although I'm not sure that is completely accurate.

    A church cannot make you a saint; a lack of one doesn't necessarily make you a sinner.

    But for me, to each his own - whatever gets you through the night...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I mis-typed somehow. The quote was Jefferson's preference for the bill of rights, but a watered down and more vague one made the cut.

    He did, however foresee that dumbing down and went so far as to suggest that regular, if not frequent bloody revolutions would be required and the "blood of patriots" needed to feed the "tree of Liberty." Hence the Second amendment.

    It's enlightening to read "the Jefferson Bible" and the letters to friends such as Benjamin Rush.

    I've spend many decades reading the sources of the Bible and the idea that it was written by a supreme being is absolutely the most ludicrous proposition in human history. There are few subjects of which the public is more ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. From what I've been reading, Fogg, it looks like our founding fathers were pretty diverse in their beliefs or lack thereof also.
    While researching this post, I was astounded at how they struggled with many of the same issues or at least similar issues that we struggle with today. And they were just as divided on many issues but at least they managed to pull together long enough to battle the Brits and win independence.
    Thomas Paine was abroad for a sum of years afterwards and when he returned, he was shunned for his deist beliefs and given no credit for his work in galvanizing the masses. To his credit, Jefferson ignored the critics and took Paine in, which I found pretty telling of his true character as I have always thought of him as the more conservative of the famous framers.
    Strangely enough, reading this account, what came to mind was the biblical story of the Good Samaratin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It amazes me that this issue is still being fought in the courts:
    - - - - - - - -
    FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS SANTA ROSA SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DISCONTINUE RELIGIOUS ADVANCEMENT

    PENSACOLA, Fla. – United States District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted a preliminary injunction late Friday in the highly publicized American Civil Liberties Union case seeking to prevent Santa Rosa County School District officials from proselytizing and conducting other religious activities in public schools. The court’s order requires school officials to discontinue myriad policies and practices that promote religion throughout district schools.
    The decision follows the school district’s admission to the court that it has violated students’ constitutional rights by persistently and pervasively sponsoring prayer at school events, such as graduations, orchestrating religious baccalaureate services, and proselytizing students during class and extra-curricular activities. ACLU attorneys attempted to work with the school district for two years prior to filing litigation …

    The preliminary injunction entered in Friday by the Court prohibits all district officials from:

    Promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events, including graduation;

    Planning or financing religious baccalaureate services;

    Holding school-sponsored events at religious venues when alternative venues are reasonably available; and

    Permitting school officials to promote their personal religious beliefs and proselytize students in class or during school-sponsored events and activities
    .
    - - - - - - - -
    Here is a link to the Press Release.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think people have a really hard time separating morality from religion - you can have people with good moral values that don't necessarily subscibe to any religion AND you can have the immoral deeply involved in religion; there have been enough ministers and priests in the news to support that!
    A school can certainly help young people set their moral compass for life by espousing the Golden Rule. "Do unto others..." does not have to be tied to any sort of religious dogma and neither does don't cheat, don't steal, don't do any harm.
    It is a parental duty to instruct their children in religion and morality - it is the school's duty to help reinforce the behaviors dictated by our laws.
    I would NEVER want someone outside my home instructing my children in their personal religious beliefs.
    So, I guess all that crying for less government interference by the right does NOT include schools.
    Or medical facilities.
    Or government buildings.
    I'm not always thrilled with the ACLU or their antics, sometimes they are a bit much, but I shudder to think what would be going on in the country without them!

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.