I've seen a lot of nonsense here on Gather about the non-separation of Church and State in our Constitution. I wrote some of the following as a response in a thread, but I thought it was pretty cogent, so I brought it here to share.
It has been said that the Founding Fathers were religious people, even Christians (of the non-Catholic persuasion, no doubt), and that they, therefore, never meant to make a "real" separation between Church and State. Sorry, Charlie - that's just not the case... not even close.It's true the founding fathers WERE religious, but they were pretty much Deists - Christian by baptism only, and members (if they belonged to a church at all) of the American version of the Church of England.
Their church attendance and other religious activies (e.g., Jefferson allowed worship services in the Capital, all of them called upon God publicly and often, etc.) were, however, basically political. They were still influenced by Europe, where you changed religious affiliations to match your King (or Queen, as in the Mary vs. Elizabeth spat). Churches in Europe have the right of taxation, and can compel attendance at services. They feared that in their new nation.
Once the Founding Fathers recognized they had a problem in the creation of a new nation, religion, or lack of it, in their lives notwithstanding, they permanently and completely severed ALL ties between ANY religion and the government. A lot of religious cant drifted back into government as time went on (some of it pretty bizarre), until, finally, the Supreme Court began reseparating it with anti-convergence rulings.
America is not now, nor has it EVER been, a country based OR founded upon ANY religious doctrine. The Founding Fathers (for the most part) believed there was some sort of god, but they did NOT put him in charge of the country... thank God (yes, Virginia - that IS irony).
© 2009 - All Rights Reserved R C Larlham
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
Blessings and best wishes - S.
And thank you for clarifying the inception of this country for those not yet enlightened about what its foundation actually was.
Purr: Oh, yes - the history-challenged need to go read some of the older (read "complete" history texts I used in school.
We have the freedom to do what each individual feels is right. Who's to say any one religion is wrong? Each one feels they are "right". We won't know until we die.
If you read the history of England, France, or Holland you will see what I mean.
They meant to separate "Church and State" not "God and State". Over and over again, God is intertwined in government. He's in the Constitution. He's there when people take office or swear an oath at court. He's there over and over again because the important part is not the church but to believe in a higher power.
MY problem with the recent CT issue was that it was 1. directed specifically at the Catholic Churches and 2. It was focusing on the financial affairs. Both no bueno.
That said, you have the right idea but should comment on how God fits in to the great USA. As George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said, "once you take God out of our country, democracy will cease to exist". Look up INALIENABLE... interesting.
~M
The English American colonies were started in New England and the six states that are known as New England were started by the breaking off of religious factions that had different beliefs and all proclaiming to be christians.
Their is only one christian faith and it is defined by the religious weriting of the New Testamant and all the rest of the so called christian faiths are branches and nothing but personal opinion of the founders.
However, the real purpose of the clause in the Constitution was actually an opposition to federalism. At the time of the signing of the Constitution several states actually had “state religions” and required all the citizens to pay taxes to support the state churches. The amendment was designed to prevent this from happening at the federal level. Eventually, a top down process of rights flowed from the federal constitution to the state constitutions.
We don’t talk about “religious oppression” in colonial times that existed even after the signing of the Constitution. Jefferson’s famous quote about the “wall of separation” was in response to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. They were concerned because at the time the Congregational Church was the state church of the state. “Connecticut had a real establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution, but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue.” (Wikipedia) In addition Roman Catholics were prohibited from owning land in the state.
This doesn’t count the oppression against non Christians; mostly Jews because there were very few Moslem people in the new nation, but also against native Americans who had not converted to Christianity. (Many had sadly converted to the Roman Catholic faith which was considered even worse in the eyes of many of the “Christians.”)
Anyway, thanx for the response. And let's be clear - the Pilgrims did NOT come here to establish a land where anyone could practice any religion he liked. They came here to establish a religion, and enforce it. Brigham Young had the same idea, although he masked it by financing the construction of Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist and other churches in Salt Lake City. But my sanctimonious, self-righteous ancestors just couldn't get past the polygamy thing. Buncha small-minded dorks, they was.
#5-Murder is illegal, #7-Stealing is illegal, #8-Lying under oath is illegal. The rest may not be the most moral of things, and others have only to do with Christianity, but they ARE NOT illegal.
You can make all the broad statements you want regarding the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers but the fact was they were religious and of varied religions to include Jews and Catholics. None of them wanted anything like the Church of England as a national church but had no problem because of the federalism with state religions (Maryland was Catholic for instance).
So while making a few broad statements, you don't point out where its been a problem nationally. None of the FFs had problems with religion in of itself except as something forced on the nation. From Day 1, God was called on by presidents and other government officials to witness or help or watch over the nation. From Day 1 there was no problem with invocations. Its only recently some people have decided that means ALL religious connections to any government. Given the First is pretty adamant on the subject, Federal interference on any level is wrong even if recently the interpretation has changed.
St. Patricks Day Comments
2.0 Myspace Layouts Host Images
When you think about it, the chronic, long-term messes in the world, the never-ending problems that both sides never seem to really want to solve - N. Ireland/Middle East - tend to involve nations that mix their politics and their religions, and in the case of Ireland it was further complicated by England siding with the protestant minority.
And many of the problems within this country evolve from efforts to blur the line between church and state.
Clearly, the preserving of that line is vital...
This is a very good discussion on an important topic in our culture. When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, people who mentioned God in conversation were considered rude and impolite. Today, God is interjected in conversation quite routinely even in educated circles. It's not that people are more religious, today. It's that at some point in time, it became fashionable to insist and demand that one's version of God be discussed. Personally, I find it to be the source of dull conversation. I rarely suffer these fools. Religion is a private matter and I still subscribe to the belief that polite people respect the privacy of others.
Now, when religion entered politics during the President Reagan years, we saw many excesses that created division and great misunderstanding in our country. This new breed calling themselves the "Moral Majority" ran roughshod over our political process. Since that time, we have government handouts to religious organizations under the guise of "faith based initiatives." We have evidence of preachers and ministers politicizing their churches on Sunday. It is quite ignorant. So, what has happened is that religion no longer enjoys the respect that it once had when good people didn't discuss God in polite company. When churches understood that they thrived in America because of separation of church and state, they maintained a healthy respect for the civic life of the country. Today, there are people who claim to speak for God who use every opportunity that they can to intimidate the rest of society. I think that these people could do themselves a favor by learning a little bit about respect for people regardless of their religious beliefs. The founders clearly expected that our laws would reflect that basic respect for the right to practice religion according to the way one sees fit. Historical revisionists don't want us to actually read the US Constitution and take comfort in the truth. They want us to think that if this is a "Christian" nation that they in their self imposed authority get to dictate how Americans should live. I'm glad that the founders were wiser than these "snake oil" opportunists.
As far as religion and government, our legislators can legalize anything they want, but some of us will still see those acts as sinful. It's based on personal beliefs.
I think it's important to respect one another's faith choices, just as it is important to respect their political preferences. They are not necessarily connected; just two belief systems that are important to people.
People need to understand that no ONE religion is right, there are more ways to God then YOURS. EVERYONE in the 3 major religions, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, all think THEIR way is the ONLY way.
In the days of the founding fathers there were no strong atheists (as there are today) who apparently seem to have developed allergies to the mention of “God” or anything remotely religious. Instead the founding fathers who were agnostic choose a more “whatever” kind of approach. Thomas Jefferson could invoke “God” with the best of them.
In one sense (and not in the religious one) the government needs “God.” If we look at Thomas Jefferson’s basic argument in the Declaration of Independence we see some smoke and mirrors. It is not “self evident” that all are created equal and are endowed with rights that cannot be taken away. Indeed if man grants rights then man can take them away. If “God” on the other hand grants rights, then only he can take them away, and since he’s not actively running around making official statements on His rights, we can safely say that they cannot be taken away. “God” effectively becomes a rock upon which the inalienable rights of man are anchored to.
(Side note: Not only have I seen GOD, I’ve gotten messages from GOD. You see where I live there is a company called “Guaranteed Overnight Delivery.” Their trucks have GOD in big letters written on them.)
I have to take exception to your remarks about Thomas Jefferson. It was Thomas Jefferson who reassured his listeners that we are never to be misconstrued as a Christian nation in any way. He was quite fond of reminding people of this fact. We are a pluralistic country. No religion takes top billing. All religions are acceptable under our legal system and within our culture. Our laws demand that kind of respect of all persons in the USA.
In fact, the founding fathers made it pretty clear that they did not want either a church which controlled their nation, or a government which controlled their religion(s), probably in large part due to the splinter factor, but also simply because they wanted a free nation, and no nation run by any church, nor any nation in which the governing powers have tried to control its citizens' religious practices (beyond making murder illegal), has ever been free.
I guess that is one of a number of areas in which disagree with conservatives, despite having many other, just as strongly held "conservative" beliefs.
I do think that the use of the term "creator" in the Declaration of Independence does give the state permission to co-exist with community members' acknowledgment of a higher power. It doesn't justify making any citizen ever adopt any specific religious philosophy, but neither does the idea of "separation of church and state" mean that the state is Atheist. (After suffering repeated attempts at conversion by others, especially those in my own generation, I have come to think of Atheism as a religion, possessing its "live and let live" practitioners along with its badly misinformed evangelical zealots just like every other religion on the planet, so I think that an Atheist state would also be in violation of the concept of separation of church and state.)
A little common sense applied to the church/state argument would be nice, but since both sides contain elements possessing too much hatred and bias against each other to be logical, I doubt the argument over whether or not there should be a separation of church and state will ever be resolved. The far right will always continue to try to establish their religious government, and the far left will always try to establish theirs, with each forever attempting to "erase" the other, and with everyone else getting stuck in the middle feeling like taffy pulled by both sides of the argument. O.o
Thank you for the complement on my writing. It's all my Mom's fault.
Yes, Liz, I am independent. I vote for more Republicans than I do Democrats because my one really big political issue is a conservative one, but I have never been and probably never will be completely satisfied with the positions of any candidate for high office. In fact, anyone running with a platform I like would probably be more likely to be placed in a mental institution than to get elected to any position for which he or she might run.
Much though I beleive in [Gg]od's activity in our lives, I believe it should come through people acting good, not by being used as a reason to put laws in place. I believe [Gg] should be, and wants to be, as far away from our government as possible.
Excellent article highlighting the fact that this was not founded to be a Christian country and that sch is a myth! All one must do, if in doubt, is read the treaty of Tripoli and realize it passed and was signed into law without controversy, stating that in no way was the nation founded to be a Christian nation.
Every person has every right to belong to any or no church as he or she desires and is not to be discriminated against in political matters based on this choice. Jefferson, of course, wrote his own bible in which he took the new Testament and removed from it the portions smacking of magic and similar things and making Jesus the moral teach he was.
No one can be truly free in his religion until and unless everyone is also free from any religion they do not want! My own church has consistently rejected any funding of its schools by government in order to keep them totally separate. But the sword of freedom cuts both ways!
Lord will you please help us in your name? JESUS
May the Lord Bless you & keep you and your family & there family close to his heart!!! In the name of Jesus!!! "
Apparently, Jesus was white and made a practice of worshiping... oh, yes... Himself.
I am mistaken for believing that The Last Supper was a celebration of The Passover, and I am an anti-Christian bigot for calling Our Lord and Savior a Jew.
Shame on me, LOL!
O.o
Not only do I support separation of church and state, I want churches taxed. Many have become overwhelmingly political.
I support President Obama wholeheartedly, but I am questioning his wisdom on faith-based initiatives.
1) not on a bible, even the lincoln one is still a bible
2) a minister , a christian minister, would not have made a speech which assumed everyone believes in christ
as he prayed mentioning christ though not a lot but it was clear where this was heading
3) practically speaking the official holidays are christian
and i dont recall hearing chanuka songs in the post office around december
but christmas songs galore
the article is a good one because the writer is obviously intelligent however
in the us more than anywhere else christian values are shoved down your throat in hidden ways ,
israel, a jewish state has no religious texts mentioned in political swearing in
i think the US has more religion involved than most countries
i also disagree that christianity and islam were ever peaceful movments
the whole idea behind those religions is that they are better than others and therefore must eliminate nonbelievers in the case of islam or increase worshippers in the case of christianity
as for judaism , i dont recall a history of forcing others to convert
the opposite is true
however all religions think that their way is the only way
like food, fusion would be good but not acceptable
and it is unfortunate that the religious wars continue
even if one turns a blind eye and reflects fondly upon founding fathers
Many of the comments relate to 'freedom of religion', but we atheists have very little freedom FROM religion in official America, and are forced to support religious activity of all sorts through our taxes--and through the lost revenue that would be due if the churches were forced to pay their fair share.
But wait, you cannot ignore religion, because many of them will demand in the name of a diety of some form, of which you deny the existance, that your children be taught blatant nonsense, and that the requirement to teach this nonsense be enacted into law. They will demand that your children, who may in a moment of supreme teen stupidity, engage in sex, risk their very lives to do so, rather than be taught that there are ways to prevent that risk. They will insist that wmen give up their lives and futures in obeyance of this terrible invisible deity, and allow them to decide the morality of their choices. In short, athiests are BOUND to fight any and all attempts to maintain ANY religious presence in our government(s), at ALL levels, lest we become the christian version of Iran or Afghanistan, ruled by some tiny but loud, insane, Taliban-like fundamentalist sect of the huge and various, amorphous "Christian" reliion.
Isn't that who/what Rush Limbaugh is?
Oh... my... goodness! *ROFLMAO* Yeah Kid, pretty much.
Yes, this is a real statue. Locals actually refer to it as the "touchdown Jesus." One day I am going to have lots of fun with him in Photoshop.
...lots!
Anyway, the point is in this comment.
The touchdown Jesus was built with money collected from fundraisers, tithing (sp?), and other donations to the church based on their claims that the money was going to be used "to help the poor."
There are quite a number of local folks who wonder how much of those tax-exempt church dollars went toward the design and building of that monstrosity, and why.
The risk is always this: what happens when government starts to promote a faith unlike your own? Then your faith becomes disadvantaged at least or actively suppressed.
All people, whether belonging to a faith or not, should embrace the seperation of church and state. Freedom of religion, including your freedom to practice your religion, must of need include freedom from religion.