Public Bible Schools (and Religion as a basis for US law)

[Rule of Reason Blog]

By Edward Cline from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A troubling development in my booksignings lately at Colonial Williamsburg is the growing frequency that visitors ask me if my Sparrowhawk novels reflect the alleged religious origins of the United States. I usually answer that the novels focus on the secular political ideas that were responsible for the founding.

If visitors press for a more concrete answer, I will answer that most of the Founders were professed deists who nevertheless were adamant in their conviction that God and Government should be separate, that religious beliefs were a private matter not to be suppressed, prescribed or regulated by the state, as they were in Britain, and that one of the things they feared both Parliament and king longed to import to the colonies was a state, tax-supported church.

I will then expand on one aspect of British-American tension, that two British organizations, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (founded 1698) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (founded 1701), both with Crown approval and encouragement, lobbied continuously both in London and in the colonies for the establishment of an Anglican episcopate or bishopric in the American colonies. This would have meant that all colonists, regardless of their particular faith, would have been taxed to support the Crown church. This idea was abhorrent to all but colonial Anglicans, and contributed to the swelling dissatisfaction with British rule.

I will offer them a historical tidbit: that the American Episcopal Church (root term, episcopate) is the direct descendent of the Anglican Church, which was disestablished in the United States in 1789.

If necessary, and if my visitors still look doubtful after this free lecture on the political origins of America, I will dwell on the fact that religious freedom, for the Founders, was subsumed under the broader concept of political freedom. Then I refer them to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which on this point is unambiguous in wording and meaning.

If my visitors persist and ask whether men of the cloth have any role at all in Sparrowhawk, I will say that the role is entirely incidental and subsidiary. There is only one benign minister in the whole epic; the other clerics do not appear in a very flattering light, since they all wish to impose tyranny over the minds of my heroes. I freely paraphrase Thomas Jefferson in such instances; if my auditors cannot abide the sentiment, it is not my problem.

That usually convinces many such visitors that Sparrowhawk is not for them. I do not volunteer the information without a query, and if no one asks about the role of religion or priests in the series, my policy is one of caveat lector; readers will discover my overall regard for religion and clerics as they progress through the series. Facts do not matter to them, nor the record. Their minds are impervious to reason, proof against rational persuasion. They are of the same mentality as Muslims. As far as they are concerned, God dictated the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to apostles sporting frock coats and wigs.

Often such visitors are parents who are home schooling their children. Some of these people are home schooling with a general, secularized course of instruction. Others are home schooling because, they say, public schools are “Godless.” Religious parents make up most of the people who want assurances from me that Sparrowhawk credits religion with the founding of the country. I give them no such assurances. In these instances, it means a loss of sales.

So, it was with great interest and with not a little surprise that I opened the Sunday, August 12th Newport News, Virginia Daily Press and on page 3 found an article reprinted from the Los Angeles Times under this headline: “How do you teach the Bible without preaching?”

My snap mental answer was: Well, you don’t – unless you are Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, and then you are not so much teaching the Bible as exposing it as pure balderdash and bunkum.

It was a long article about the controversy of Bible studies in public schools.

In public schools?? Bible studies? Apparently, public schools are not as "Godless" as many parents assume.

“Exact numbers are unavailable, but experts agree that the number of Bible classes in public schools is growing because of new state mandates, increased attention to religion in public life, and the growing prominence of two national Bible curricula.”

Earlier, the article states:

“There’s broad agreement across the social, political and religious spectrum – and most important, the Supreme Court – that the Bible can be taught in public schools and that knowledge of the Bible is vital to students’ understanding of literature and art, including Moby Dick, Michelangelo, and The Matrix.

“But battles are raging in statehouses, schools and courtrooms over how to teach – but not to preach.”

Several questions occurred to me as I read further into the article. How many politically correct, multiculturally skewed, diversity-laden public schools are still introducing their students to Shakespeare, or even to Herman Melville? And, given the appalling level of semi-literacy which public schools are notorious for imbuing in their law-mandated charges, is it too cynical to assume that most of these students are too intellectually stunted or undeveloped to apprehend and appreciate the subtleties of textual distinctions?

Isn’t “Bible studies” more appropriate for an accomplished graduate student planning a career in literary studies that would, for example, require him to conceive of a purpose or theme to tackle the 1,300 biblical references in Shakespeare’s plays or study the Old Testament in conjunction with Milton’s Paradise Lost and Samson Agonistes?

The Los Angeles Times article states:

“In 1963, a landmark Supreme Court decision declared school-led Bible readings and prayer unconstitutional. But Justice Tom Clark emphasized in the ruling that the court didn’t intend to discourage academic study of religion.”

Justice Clark wrote in his opinion:

“It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

On the premise that public school Bible studies truly do not try or intend to “preach” religion, I maintain there is no justification in intellectually arrested or otherwise lobotomized students studying the texts of the Great Grumpy Gremlin as related by a group of ancient true believers and whose words and tales and morality the living are expected to take on faith. They may as well study the magical world of Harry Potter novels or the electronic intricacies of The Matrix or the blathering language of a James Joyce novel.

But I do not think these courses are merely “academic” or that the motive behind them is so innocent or blameless. And I had to laugh when I read this sentence in the article:

“High school English teachers and university professors say this lack of exposure to Bible tales has led to an education gap.”

It is an education gap evident in the Western canon being discarded in favor of Third World literature and the scribblings of “minority” writers, in students who think that George Washington helped found the United Nations, or that the Triple Entente is either an ice cream flavor or a video game, and in math and science test scores that are among the lowest in the world. These teachers and professors imply that such a “gap” can be compensated or corrected by a study of the Bible (or the Koran, or Buddhism, or American Indian mythology). Which is as absurd a notion as claiming that one can master calculus by a close study of numerology.

The “gap” in American education can be ascribed to the complete absence of the advocacy of reason in public school philosophy – except when reason is being attacked by nihilists or sabotaged by multicultural subjectivists.

Biblical allusions and references doubtless occur in much Western literature; they even appear in Ayn Rand’s novels. Some day, if the world does not descend into another Dark Age, the Bible and its companion texts from other faiths will exert as little influence on men’s minds and on the culture as Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Nostradamus’s Centuries do today. For the time being, however, children and adolescents should not be made to study the Bible. They are already assaulted in their education by criminally irrational pedagogical policies; Bible studies simply underscore the arbitrary eclecticism. No individual should attempt to study the Bible unless he is a full-grown, mature, rational adult. Then he will have a chance to grasp its utter irrationality.

And, taxpayers who are forced to pay for public schools, whether or not they have children in them, should oppose Bible studies, regardless of their “objective, nonsectarian” intent. Promoters of Bible studies can claim that since God and religion are ubiquitous values in our society, they deserve serious academic examination. Not refutation or rebuttal, mind you. That is “preaching.”

The question remains: Why is the Bible appearing in public schools? Why not teach Shakespeare or Melville or Victor Hugo without making Scripture the primary literary referent? Is there an organization behind it, or is it a general cultural phenomenon? I do not think there is an overall, conscious conspiracy to bypass the First Amendment, although I would not discount the influence of the religious right, which is pushing for the acceptance of “intelligent design” as a legitimate course of study, as well.

As a cultural phenomenon, the growing number of Bible studies in public schools can be likened to water leaching out of cracks in an asphalt parking lot. If the lot were properly paved, no leaching would occur at all.

I suppose that with diligence and enough time, one could ferret out the culprits ultimately responsible for the growth of Bible studies in public schools (not to mention the growth of teen Bible study groups, and of Bible camps for teens). The places to start would be the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools and the Bible Literacy Project, competing organizations cited in the Los Angeles Times report.

But philosophically, and historically, the ultimate culprit is Immanuel Kant. At this year’s OCON conference at Telluride, Leonard Peikoff warned that, thanks to Kant’s influence, Western culture is headed for total disintegration, and that if trends are not corrected and reversed soon, the United States could indeed become a theocracy inside of forty years. The growth of Bible studies in public schools is simply one premonitory manifestation of the trend that substantiates his prediction.

Objectivists, Peikoff said, are in the same historical circumstance as the Spartans at Thermopylæ. We are the only ones who advocate reason. Or perhaps we could see ourselves as Athenians and aim for a Marathon. Either way one looks at our dilemma, however, we should not let the enemy pass without a fight.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/002734.html

[softwareNerd]

Great post. This may be a good topic for a "One Minute Case". Apart from the points Mr. Cline makes above, here are some others:

• The slogan "In God We Trust" was not on coins for many decades after founding. It first appeared only in 1864.
  
• The "Pledge of Allegiance" is not something the founders dreamed up; and, the words "under God" were added in 1954.
  
• The constitution specifies that the President says the following before taking office: :--"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." Note, that a President is not expected to swear, he can merely affirm.; and, for sure, he does not have to add the modern "so help me God" addition. In describing this sentence, the Constitution calls is an "Oath or Affirmation"
  
• While the declaration of Independence mentions "God" once and "Creator" once,it does not promote the mingling of religion and government. Further, the constitution does not mention it at all, except as a prohibition.
  

If anyone knows others, please post them here.

I think the historical argument can work very powerfully for some people. So, this is an important argument. Even if they do not admit it, the Christians should know in their hearts that the U.S. was founded as a secular country.

[fletch]

From James Madison, A Biography by Ralph Ketcham:

The other foundation stone of learning in Madison's day, and of his education, was the Christian tradition. Down through his graduation from college every one of Madison's teachers, as far as we know, was either a clergyman or a devoutly orthodox Christian layman. In fact, so pervasive was Christian influence, especially in rearing children, that an education under other then Christian auspices was virtually unknown.

[softwareNerd]

What was that quote mean to suggest Fletch? Firstly, the quote itself is more of a judgment. More importantly, it says nothing about what Madison thought about it. And, even more importantly, it says nothing about whether Madison wanted the U.S. to be involved with religion in any way.

My guess would be that there were some folks who wanted the U.S. to be less secular (more religious) than was finally agreed, in the form of the constitution. It would actually be good to have the "best of" quotes and facts from the religion side of the argument, to understand how to undermine it. However, that particular quote does not address the question at all.

Edited August 16, 2007 by softwareNerd

[fletch]

What was that quote mean to suggest Fletch? Firstly, the quote itself is more of a judgment. More importantly, it says nothing about what Madison thought about it. And, even more importantly, it says nothing about whether Madison wanted the U.S. to be involved with religion in any way.

My guess would be that there were some folks who wanted the U.S. to be less secular (more religious) than was finally agreed, in the form of the constitution. It would actually be good to have the "best of" quotes and facts from the religion side of the argument, to understand how to undermine it. However, that particular quote does not address the question at all.

Sorry, softwareNerd, didnt mean to just leave that post hanging there like that. I posted that particular paragraph to show that religious education is really nothing new in this country. The whole of the nation in Madison's era were educated under Christian auspices. Yet America was born under these conditions and, in fact, thrived. If Christianity and Christian education were not a threat to America in Madison's day, why would it be so now? My reading of the founders has lead me to believe that they were against the idea of a 'Church of America' not the idea of church in America. Or as some conservatives argue, freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The public education system in this country has bigger problems than whether or not the word God should be uttered in the classroom.

I am obviously out of step with the rest of you guys here about religion, but I dont fear Christianity at all. Personally, I think Christians should be given exactly what they are asking for. If they want creationism taught alongside of evolution, I say do it. Force the myth to confront reality. One theory will stand, the other will fall. I suspect that ultimately, for Christians, it will be one of those 'be careful what you wish for' moments.

[softwareNerd]

Fletch, the question here is not whether religion is a threat to the US, but rather: "was the U.S. founded on religious principles?"

It clearly was not. To the contrary, it was a step away from religion. I don't even understand this conservative idea that the U.S. founders did not intend "freedom from religion". What does it mean? Obviously, the U.S. government was not founded with the view to stopping people from practicing their religion. And, equally obviously the U.S. was founded as a secular state. This means that in any sense that matters, the government qua government was created to be free from religion. This does not mean that all historical religious paintings, statues and symbols must be banished from public buildings. It does mean that none of what they stand for qua religious symbols can be used by the government qua government.

In summary, the U.S. was not founded to be a country free from religion, but it definitely was founded as a country with a government that was free from religion.

[fletch]

Fletch, the question here is not whether religion is a threat to the US, but rather: "was the U.S. founded on religious principles?"

It clearly was not.

It is clearer to you than it is to me, obviously. The US was founded upon the principle of individual rights. The founders saw these rights as having a divine origin. So I am not sure how or why you would leave religion out of the equation.

This does not mean that all historical religious paintings, statues and symbols must be banished from public buildings.

Nicely phrased. Try adding a new religious painting, statue or symbol to a public building. I suppose it will stay there only so long as the ACLU in unaware of its presence.

In summary, the U.S. was not founded to be a country free from religion, but it definitely was founded as a country with a government that was free from religion.

The conservative beef is that private expression of religious belief is being suppressed in public places.

[softwareNerd]

Try adding a new religious painting, statue or symbol to a public building.

In general that would be inappropriate. I agree with the ACLU about that. Sometimes, it may be a minor issue. However, it is inappropriate nevertheless.

The conservative beef is that private expression of religious belief is being suppressed in public places.

Where, for instance? Generally one hears about this in the context of public schools. The root of the problem here is that schools are run by the government in the first place. Are you speaking of a context other than schools? If so, what's an example of such suppression? The Minneapolis airport authorities recently tried to make concessions for Muslim cabbies and also recently added a prayer area to the airport. There are chaplains in the army and in congress. In most cities, a person can stand on the street with a "Jesus Saves" sign and will not attract any more attention of cops shooing away loiterers than would any other loiterer.

Anyhow, all that really belongs in a different thread. As for the topic of this thread, sure the founders thought that God existed. Many of them were deists though. They thought that God had little role in life. He was like the Zeus, the initial spark. So, in that sense, rights came from God, as did everything else. The mention in the Declaration of Independence is a passing one. It is made as a metaphysical statement upon which Jefferson builds no argument of no ethical or political import. It is stated, and forgotten, as an irrelevancy. In addition, in the Constitution, they went a step further to distance the state from religion.

The founders may not have been representative of the common folk. It's quite possible that there was more traditional religious superstition among the less literate, and of course, amongst the clergy. However, for the most part, the founders were primarily secular. They did not look to the bible for ideas about the design of the state. Instead, they looked to ancient republics. What matters is not what the common Americans of the time thought; what matters is what the founders thought, and more important -- what type of state they finally crafted, after all their discussions and negotiations. The proof is to be found in the laws they crafted -- chiefly in the constitution.

You say it is not obvious to you? Do you base this on some substantial proof that goes against all the evidence of this thread?

[fletch]

The mention in the Declaration of Independence is a passing one. It is made as a metaphysical statement upon which Jefferson builds no argument of no ethical or political import. It is stated, and forgotten, as an irrelevancy.

Boy, softwareNerd, I disagree with that completely. First of all, the reference to a Creator is not a passing one, it is a vital one. It linked the concept of rights to an Almighty God, an objective power higher than the whims of an earthly king. Jefferson did more than build an argument of 'ethical or political import,' he built whole justification for the revolution upon this single sentence: "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." The idea that rights flowed from a Creator was not 'stated, and forgotten, as an irrelevancy' it was viewed by Jefferson as a vital self-evident truth requiring no futher explanation. You and I may be able to derive the concept of rights from a source other than a Creator, but the founders could not. They believed that rights flowed from God. Take away God and there was no foundation for the basis of inalienable rights. No inalienable rights, no justification for revolution.

It is in this respect, and in this respect alone, that I view the founding of the US as having been based upon religious principles. They may have come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, but I dont see the benefit in minimizing the the role of enlightened Christianity in shaping the world view of those men that the founded of this country. To be clear, I neither contend nor believe that the Constitution is anything other than a secular document.

[softwareNerd]

...he built whole justification for the revolution upon this single sentence: "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." The idea that rights flowed from a Creator was not 'stated, and forgotten, as an irrelevancy' it was viewed by Jefferson as a vital self-evident truth requiring no futher explanation.

It does not matter that Jefferson saw a God behind nature. If he had said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they are endowed by their Nature with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", everything else would still have followed from that.

You need to provide some proof when you claim that everything else followed from the mention of God.

[The Wrath]

They believed that rights flowed from God. Take away God and there was no foundation for the basis of inalienable rights. No inalienable rights, no justification for revolution.

“If we did a good act merely from the love of god, and a belief that it is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists.”

-Thomas Jefferson

[fletch]

It does not matter that Jefferson saw a God behind nature. If he had said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they are endowed by their Nature with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", everything else would still have followed from that.

Had that been the text of the Declaration of Independence, upon what philosophical principles would it have been based? Writing it that way would have effectively eliminated the religious element, but that does not mitigate the religious element in the original text. Jefferson saw God as the source of individual rights. While this may or may not be factually correct, Jefferson believed that it was. I believe that everything else followed from the mention of God, because Jefferson believed it. Jefferson chose his words carefully. If he didnt feel that the use of the word Creator did not reflect his thinking, or was not relevant to his point, I doubt that he would have used it.

[softwareNerd]

I believe that everything else followed from the mention of God, because Jefferson believed it.

Do you have some proof for this belief?

Jefferson chose his words carefully. If he didnt feel that the use of the word Creator did not reflect his thinking, or was not relevant to his point, I doubt that he would have used it.

Do you have proof, in the form of something like "para N, where he says XYZ...clearly follows from his belief in a creator?"

Obviously Jefferson was wrong in his appeal to God. You have to take everything he says, and go from those words to the underlying conceptual framework in his mind. You have to figure out the underlying framework he has created in linking God to rights, and if one does so, one finds that the whole structure of rights that he creates stands without that assumption. He could just as well have said "a pumpkin endowed man with rights...and therefore..." or "the devil endowed man with rights...and therefore".

Maybe a simpler example will help. Leave politics aside and consider the field of carpentry. Yes, carpentry; why not!

Consider a carpenter who is trying to follow "God's way" in carpentry. He pores over scripture for mentions of furniture, and tries to build things that are consonant with that. Or, he interprets some part of scripture as saying that man must be comfortable, and starts to build furniture with that aim. Or, he looks to religion for purpose, and builds furniture for churchs. This would be an example of a man who uses religion to explain his carpentry.

Now, take another person, who says: "God created wood and man, and that's it. Now, we have to figure out the nature of wood. We have to figure out our nature. We have to use the wood according to the nature of wood, and our own nature and purposes." Even though this man made a mistake by starting with the idea of a God, he did not use that in the rest. As far as his carpentry is concerned, he could just as well have said "wood is just there" and "man is just there".

That he did invoke God is relevant to understanding his thoughts, but not to the understanding of his carpentry.

I hope that makes it clear.

Also, as this exchange has gone on, I'm beginning to wonder if you simply believe that Jefferson was mistaken about God, or whether you yourself think that rights flow from God. If the latter, that would be a different topic; but, it would help if you clarify your own position on the link between God and rights. (I'm not sure if you've already posted about this on the forum.)

[fletch]

Do you have proof, in the form of something like "para N, where he says XYZ...clearly follows from his belief in a creator?"

The whole idea of human liberty in Jeffersons day came from the notion that God was the creator of men and that it was the will of God that man be free. Those who enslaved men, or forced one man to serve at the feet of another were not violating the will of a pumpkin, or the musings of men like Jefferson, they stood in direct defiance of the will of God. The whims of the earthly kings could be and, in fact, should be defied if they contradicted the known will of God.

Jefferson believed that it was a self-evident truth that source of rights was a Creator God. Perhaps if you believe otherwise, the burden of proof should be upon you.

Obviously Jefferson was wrong in his appeal to God. You have to take everything he says, and go from those words to the underlying conceptual framework in his mind. You have to figure out the underlying framework he has created in linking God to rights, and if one does so, one finds that the whole structure of rights that he creates stands without that assumption. He could just as well have said "a pumpkin endowed man with rights...and therefore..." or "the devil endowed man with rights...and therefore".

You can and, in fact, Objectivism does find a source of rights that excludes a Creator. But a lot of good that would have done the founders even if they had understood it. It was the linkage of rights to the Almighty that was essential in rallying the God-fearing public of the day to the cause. No one was going to follow the great pumpkin or the devil into battle with the King of England. They would and did fight for those rights they saw as endowed upon them by their Creator.

Consider a carpenter who is trying to follow "God's way" in carpentry. He pores over scripture for mentions of furniture, and tries to build things that are consonant with that. Or, he interprets some part of scripture as saying that man must be comfortable, and starts to build furniture with that aim. Or, he looks to religion for purpose, and builds furniture for churchs. This would be an example of a man who uses religion to explain his carpentry.

I think the case could be made that the founders interpreted some parts of scripture as saying man must be free, and started to build a state with that aim.

Also, as this exchange has gone on, I'm beginning to wonder if you simply believe that Jefferson was mistaken about God, or whether you yourself think that rights flow from God. If the latter, that would be a different topic; but, it would help if you clarify your own position on the link between God and rights. (I'm not sure if you've already posted about this on the forum.)

I dont believe that there is a link between God and rights, because I dont believe that there is a God. However, the fact that others see such a link does not cause me any real concern. Enlightened Christian thinking is preferable to much of today's unenlightened athiest ideology that links the concept of rights to society or majority rule or some other such nonsense. The principles that lead to the founding of the US have been proven to be compatable with Christianity. With that in mind, I dont see Christianity as a threat, but a potential ally. Religion isnt going away anytime soon, and if America can return to the enlightened Christianity of our founders, that will be a victory in itself.

[softwareNerd]

Well, you continue not to offer any type of proof, merely assertion.

There is enough evidence to indicate that many founders were deists. This means they considered God to be irrelevant to life.

The actual, final founding documents further confirm the notion of banishing religion from politics.

Finally, it is an unsupported assertion on your part that the common man of the time was somehow moved by religious fervor, into rebellion against the British.

Anyhow, after all these posts, I think we'll just agree to disagree. I don't intend to post again, unless you are going to offer proof of history, rather than repeated assertions of that history. In fact, I honestly look forward to someone making a good proof-based case to support the assertions you make. I think that understanding a well-made case would be important, in order to counter it. What I mean is a case based on the presentation of counter quotes, or the presentation of facts, like how paying a religous tax to the church in those days was considered a norm and not something outrageous, or how some counties had laws that punished the non-attendance of church.

That's the kind of case I'd like to see an opponent make. Thanks, nevertheless for the to-and-fro. I think our differences are epistemological. Now, you get the last word.

[JASKN]

For what it's worth, it was recently brought to my attention that the Treaty of Tripoli specifically stated, "[...]the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." According to Wikipedia, in 1797 it was read aloud, distributed to, and voted unanimously by all 23 Senate members. It was also reprinted in three newspapers with no outcry from the public.

Also, this quick Google result says that the Founding Fathers were Deists who were nevertheless mostly influenced by European enlightenment.

[KendallJ]

The whole idea of human liberty in Jeffersons day came from the notion that God was the creator of men and that it was the will of God that man be free. Those who enslaved men, or forced one man to serve at the feet of another were not violating the will of a pumpkin, or the musings of men like Jefferson, they stood in direct defiance of the will of God. The whims of the earthly kings could be and, in fact, should be defied if they contradicted the known will of God.

Yeah, I'll bite on that one. There is actually evidence that among the philosophes of the time that this was NOT the view. The most notable ethical theory to the contrary is Natural Law theory. We know that the founders were heavily influenced by Locke, and this particular theory was very prominent in his treatise on govt. This particular view actually is parallel to Snerds carpentry according to the nature of wood. As Snerd says already it matters very little what the everyday cleric of the time might have said, but rather what the founders based their thinking upon. That would be how I'd interpret the documents. Additionally, the idea that because it was common knowledge in Jeffereson's day that Jefferson himself believed it is highly suspect since Jefferson was known to be one of the most secular of the Founders contrary to common everyday thought.

So maybe you'd like to keep asserting this interpretation, but at some point you're going to have to back it up with something.

Thanks Snerd by the way. Your initial post on this was extremely well articulated as a thesis.

[softwareNerd]

I found this interesting link giving some information about the various founders, and their possible religious leanings. It's an interesting read.

[Qwertz]

Prof. Adam Mossoff's lecture, "The Rise and Fall of Property Rights in America," available for free to registered users on the ARI website, also covers this issue.

-Q

[fletch]

The most notable ethical theory to the contrary is Natural Law theory. We know that the founders were heavily influenced by Locke, and this particular theory was very prominent in his treatise on govt. This particular view actually is parallel to Snerds carpentry according to the nature of wood.

I will assume that you have actually read Locke's Two Treatises of Government and have not gotten your knowledge of it second hand. Book I contains enough Biblical references, talk of God and the role of Adam to cause ones eyes to burn. Book II, the more influential of the two, is far less reliant upon the Bible, but can in no way be said to divorce itself from a belief in God. I can post a relevant quote or two later, if anyone cares. Perhaps a source of our disagreement comes from my understanding of the relationship between Divine Law and Natural Law. It has always been my understanding that Natural Law is man's participation in Divine Law--which might be the result of reading too much Aquinas.

[softwareNerd]

Regardless of how much of an inspiration Locke was to the founders, he was not a founder. He was against Deism, while they were deists.

[KendallJ]

Book II, the more influential of the two, is far less reliant upon the Bible, but can in no way be said to divorce itself from a belief in God. I can post a relevant quote or two later, if anyone cares. Perhaps a source of our disagreement comes from my understanding of the relationship between Divine Law and Natural Law. It has always been my understanding that Natural Law is man's participation in Divine Law--which might be the result of reading too much Aquinas.

This is the one I've read. Based upon what you're saying here, are you of the opinion that any set of ideas that does not "divorce" itself from it's belief in God, must therefore believe in the particular derivation of man's rights you espouse? Thats sort of guilt by association isn't it? That would you deaf to the argument that Snerd put forward. Neither I nor he claimed that any of these people did not believe in God. It's your job to provide evidence that they did believe in the particular derivation of man's rights that you claim they did.

By the way, a very interesting read is Jaffa's Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution, which relies heavily on the natural law interpretations of the founders to defend against today's far afield interpretations of the Constitution.

Edited August 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

I just read an interesting letter by Jefferson, in which he says that Christianity is not a part of English common-law. (This is not about the US constitution). He starts by saying:

...the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you, to shew when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us.

The "amusing" part he refers to is a judge's opinion that the courts give credence to holy scripture. Jefferson explains that the judge had mistranslated "ancient scripture" (meaning, "ancient writing") into "holy scripture". This is how Jefferson ends his paragraph:

I might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!

The letter does not address the question of the US constitution. Also, it shows that Jefferson believed in God. However, it does demonstrate that Jefferson thought religious law was outside the province of common law. More than that, it shows him as being against the smuggling-in of religious law into common law.

[fletch]

I just read an interesting letter by Jefferson, in which he says that Christianity is not a part of English common-law. (This is not about the US constitution). He starts by saying:The "amusing" part he refers to is a judge's opinion that the courts give credence to holy scripture. Jefferson explains that the judge had mistranslated "ancient scripture" (meaning, "ancient writing") into "holy scripture". This is how Jefferson ends his paragraph:The letter does not address the question of the US constitution. Also, it shows that Jefferson believed in God. However, it does demonstrate that Jefferson thought religious law was outside the province of common law. More than that, it shows him as being against the smuggling-in of religious law into common law.

Michael Medved posted a column a few days ago on this topic. He lays out the opposing view here: http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnis...ecular,_society

[softwareNerd]

Fletch,

The founders were not atheists, and nobody claims they were. Rather than being atheists, they believed in God. So, pointing to the fact that the founders were Christians, attended service, maintained journals with prayers, and so on, does not show what they intended as the role of government.

Secondly, even the deist founders faced a quandary when it came to morality. Deism would have man discover morality by the use of reason. However, this isn't enough, because (qua deism) it does not lay down the foundational moral principle that will guide such reasoning. Regardless, many founders were not deists, and did think that good behavior came from being religious. However, this does not show what they intended as the role of government.

Thirdly, there were many people who did think religion ought not to be so separate from the state. For instance Washington was more religious than Jefferson. It's not as if there was a single founder. For instance, George Washington did proclaim a day of thanksgiving. However, this was not some simple, uncontroversial, symbolic act that went unremarked. There were objections to it. Even Jefferson went along with some such symbolic acts, but at other times he put his foot down and explained why. Today's Presidents routinely issue proclamations like this, and nobody even notices or objects. By this, would it be logical to conclude that the U.S. government is more religious today than it was in the first few decades?

Clearly, this issue was debated quite a bit among the founders; and, clearly, founders disagreed. Also, clearly, they finally decided to enshrine the separation of church and state in the constitution. Further, other than symbolic declarations and icons, they adhered to such separation in a preponderance of governmental actions. So, even the differences they had were nowhere near where today's evangelicals would have us take government.

When Christians like this Medved guy point to these symbolic exceptions, what is their point? Is it that the U.S. should continue this practice? It could not be, because the U.S. does do so. Rather, they are saying that the U.S. government was set up to be more Christian than the practices of the founders.

I'm beginning to wonder whether we're talking at cross-purposes here. Let me ask you a question. If you think the U.S. was meant to be a Christian nation, then exactly in what types of ways do you think this was so? Let's leave the terminology aside and get to concretes. In other words, what do you mean by this term? Other than symbolic declarations and icons, what types of laws do you think are constitutional according to your interpretation, but would be struck down based on the judicial practices of the 1900's?