“America’s militant agnostic minority has totally distorted the meaning of separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean banning religion and religious values from the public square. It doesn’t mean Howard Stern’s off-color (and frequently off-the-wall) ‘humor’ is protected speech, while the free _expression of religion is banned. It means the United States will establish no official religion, while remaining equally hospitable to all religions — and to those who practice none. Religious principle is not something to fear and loathe and banish from the public square; it is a code of conduct on which we can and should rely to guide our personal and civic behavior”
– singer Pat Boone, writing in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
I know, I know – Pat Boone? But he seems to me he got this one about right (except for the implication that Howard Stern’s humor may not be protected speech).
Contrary to popular belief, “separation of church and state” is not found in the US Constitution. What is found in the Constitution is a prohibition on the establishment of a state church (which is why it is known as the Establishment Clause) reading thusly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The ‘separation’ meme comes from correspondence between Jefferson and Madison, but was never enacted in Constitutional language.
A nice, fairly even-handed intro can be found here.
Personally, I think that the issue of impending theocracy and separation of church and state evaporates, once you take seriously the US Constitution’s limited grant of power to the national government. If the national government is held to its enumerated powers, then it lacks the power to implement into civil law most behavioral controls that various religions might promote. Since the federal government restricted to its enumerated powers has no Constitutional basis to, for example, ban abortions, it simply cannot be used for that purpose by the purported theocrats among us.
The various left-wing ninnies who are running around bleating about theocracy are, in effect, hoist on their own petard. Having spent generations destroying the idea of limited government and creating an all-powerful national state, it ill becomes them to complain now that their tool is being turned to different ends. Even so, it is astonishing that virtually none of them realize that the uses to which the Republicans want to put federal power are inevitable, once you establish an all-powerful state in a country that is actually quite Christian and conservative, all told. It is sad but unsurprising that none of them are willing to attack the problem at its root by calling for limited government. No, the only solution the statists can imagine is seizing power again, themselves.
Every significant cultural movement in US history has had a religious element as a primary motivation. The Abolitionist movement is one of the landmark political/social campaigns in our past, and it was very strongly influenced by religious sentiment.
The collectivist social movements of the turn of the century (20th, that is) were driven by a coalition of socialist and religious groups. Both Jewish and Christian traditions had adopted European welfarist doctrines that state action was a legitimate and necessary replacement for personal charity in the anonymous mass culture of the modern world.
The Civil Rights movement, the labor movement, the antiwar movement, and the social justice movement were often led by clergy, the first almost exclusively, given the prominence of the church in the black community. The War on Poverty and the War on Drugs have a great deal of support from various religious communities.
The idea that religious influence is something new, or that the left doesn’t have a strong religious component, is pure bunk.
In fact, I would contend that the huge social welfare programs of the last century are largely based on religious teachings, as is the ethos of socialism itself, (but that is an argument for another time), so any fear mongering about theocracy had better start with a very serious look at the left’s relentless attempt to incorporate the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount into public policy.
When it comes to violating the constitutional prohibition on establishing a state religion, the statists from both the left and the right have done quite a bit of damage already. Anytime the conversation turns toward reducing state power to alleviate the problem, I will be happy to join in.
I thought some of you might find my latest letter to the Editor of the Oregonian interesting….
An open letter to the hand-wringing ACLU members, Democrat activists and assorted other leftists teetering on the edge of a stroke over the alleged theocracy that Republicans are trying to create in the U.S:
You should have thought about that when you were fighting to make government so big. Now that you don’t have your hands on the wheel of the ship of state, you don’t like the direction your opposition is taking it. But they couldn’t do any of the things you fear or dislike if YOU hadn’t helped to create the bloated monster in Washington. How does it feel to be hoisted on your own petard?
Now can we have the Constitution–and limited government—back please? Just asking.
Surely a prohibition on establishment of a state church is a level of separation of church and state – whether that language is used or not. As regards the issue evaporating if the US Constitution’s limited grant of power were taken seriously – excellent point – though it seems to me from Mr Boone’s quoted remark there’s certainly no sign of evaporation there!
What is found in the Constitution is a prohibition on the establishment of a state church (which is why it is known as the Establishment Clause) reading thusly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Actually, its an imposition against the establishment of a FEDERAL state church. It was never meant (as originally written) to apply to the states. This is why Justice Thomas has no issue with the states establishing their own state churches. Second, it is also VERY clear from the writing of Madison and others that the “establishment” applies to more than simply a “federal state church” (e.g., read Madison’s “Remonstrance”); included in this prohibition are tax levies for churches, etc.
The ‘separation’ meme comes from correspondence between Jefferson and Madison, but was never enacted in Constitutional language.
No. Untrue. It comes from a letter Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist Association (in Conneticut) which Mr. Madison was not a member of.
…once you take seriously the US Constitution’s limited grant of power to the national government.
This of course ignores the danger of state government.
…then it lacks the power to implement into civil law most behavioral controls that various religions might promote.
Most such behavioral controls have never been implemented by the federal government. Look at your own state and its persecution of homosexuals.
veryretired,
Every significant cultural movement in US history has had a religious element as a primary motivation.
Each has also had a non-religious element.
BTW, I am trying to figure out where the “free expression of religion” has been banned in the U.S.
BTW, look at these two phrases from Boone:
It means the United States will establish no official religion, while remaining equally hospitable to all religions — and to those who practice none.
Religious principle is not something to fear and loathe and banish from the public square; it is a code of conduct on which we can and should rely to guide our personal and civic behavior.
As an atheist I can see where that is going. 🙂
Also, I love how we are being lectured by a Texan on behavioral controls. The state that won’t allow you to sell dildos legally and wants to ban homosexuals from being foster parents. And, yeah, would continue to make forms of adult consensual sex illegal if it could.
Whatever…
Why do you want religion in government activity? The constitution even as currently (mis)read puts no limits on private religion. It’s only extended to contexts such as schools because they have become a pseudopod extended forth from the blob in DC.
I can see no useful purpose for intermingled church and state. Depending on the size of government they’d either be tyrannical in the Taliban mould, or a moot point when the government is not allowed to do anything which religion could influence. Since it’s implausible that the “religious right” is arguing to secure the government’s right to be impotently religious, “militant agnostics” can validly worry they’d prefer something more to the Taliban end of the spectrum.
Well, in a lot of the early cases after Zorach, such as Abington, concerned schools having mandatory Bible reading in the morning over the P.A. system. Children could be excused but that typically meant that they had to sit outside and wait for the reading to end.
If fundamentalists had their druthers, that is the sort of thing that they would do in U.S. public schools.
If the national government is held to its enumerated powers, then it lacks the power to implement into civil law most behavioral controls that various religions might promote.
And that’s a very, very big IF. If fact, we know what happens when various religious behavioral controls are implemented, many have. They’ve done it because those limits on power have been ignored. One example is the recent trend to passing anti-gay marriage laws across various states. No one could seriously claim these laws as secular creations. Other examples would be the modification of the Pledge, the requirement that it be recited in classes, and prayer moments at the start of the school day. That’s before we get to Creationism, the religious labelling of Science textbooks, and ID.
We can blame the left (and rightly so) for helping create the behemoth of big Government. But no one forced the religious groups to use it to further their own creeds. For all their rantings against “Big Government”, they’re quite happy to use it to get “Big Religion”.
The Religious Conservatives are all for small Government all right. One that’s small next to their faith. The U.S. is no theocracy, but let’s not pretend that keeping religious doctines in “the public square” stops at the benign elements.
Gary—yes, of course. The social justice movement is a marriage of convenience between progressives who were anxious to justify enlarging the scope of state action and religious groups who were anxious to use political measures to legislate the type of sharing communalism they preached about.
The mystics of muscle and the mystics of spirit are allies because they both believe they have the moral right to enforce a “superior” mode of living on the less compassionate members of society.
This partnership accomodates the right as well as the left. They may have different behaviors they wish to either prevent or compel, but the mindset is the same.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
This is more than a prohibition on creating a national church. The text does not say that Congress shall not make a law creating an establishment, or establishing, but respecting. In its archaic meaning, “to respect” meant to treat one thing differently than another. Congress is not only forbidden from making a national church, but Congress is forbidden from treating one religion differently than another. That obviously pitches the idea of using national funds to promote Christianity.
Whether you think the First Amendment protects against state action depends on your view of the Incorporation Doctrine. If you think the 14th incorporates the 1st, the states are also prohibited from treating one religion differently than another, and so things like creches on public grounds are out.
Of course, if the Constitution has no legitimate authority…
– Josh
Not all of them. Being an extremely devout follower of the Jesus of the Bible, I find the infliction of one’s personal convinctions on another through legislation (force of might) extremely appalling, which is why I’m one of the staunchest libertarians here. The so-called religious right is a perversion of what it really means to follow Christ (speaking only for Christianity). Christ said, “Take up your cross and follow me.” He didn’t say “Take up society’s cross and follow me.” My job as a Christian is not to get everyone else to behave the way he did, but to do it myself. This is how I can, in good faith, prefer a government that minimalizes itself, without feeling compelled to prevent gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc.
James – I’m not sure if you realize that we are in 100% agreement.
Gary – what on earth makes you think this Texan, who just put up a post lauding limited government, is in favor of the idiocies being bandied about by the legislature here?
Julian, others – I think you are missing a critical distinction between the institution of religion and ideas held by people who are religious. While a Catholic theocracy is a bad idea, laws which reiterate “thou shalt not kill” and ” thou shalt not steal” are a fine idea, in my book.
The anti-religious zealots are making exactly the same mistake the theocrats are – they think the religious ancestry of an idea is the main thing that matters. Just because an idea has a religious ancestry should neither automatically disqualify it or automatically enshrine it, in either the public square or the statute books.
The founders, who started their first Congress with a prayer, lets not forget, were mainly concerned with the effect of religious institutions, not religious ideas, on governance.
Lets not forget, after all, that the keystone of libertarian thought, free will, is at the heart of Christian philosophy, and that you will be hard pressed to find any culture that holds individual liberty in any regard at all that hasn’t been heavily influenced by Christianity. And I say all this as a lapsed Episcopalian and a practicing agnostic.
Winzeler,
What about the “Great Commission?”
R.C. Dean,
What on earth makes you think I stated what you write I stated? The point is that any level of government with the “general power” is as dangerous as any other level of government with the “general power.”
And free-will isn’t at the heart of every sect of Christianity; which is why pre-destination has been so popular throughout the history of Christianity!
They were also interested in religious ideas, which is why there was such a contested debate over sabbath laws and blasphemy laws througout the early Republic. As I recall, the last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy was convicted right before the civil war.
The Great Commission comes not through legislation or force, but through teaching. As some can testify, I am more than willing to share my faith, but I AM NOT willing to force it on anyone. “Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” -Matthew 28:19-20. He didn’t say, “forcing them to observe.” By the way, the thing he commanded them most was to believe and not be afraid. Both have little to do with the so-called religious right’s causes (gay marriage, drugs, abortion, etc. as I mentioned before).
Gee, Gary, when you write:
Also, I love how we are being lectured by a Texan on behavioral controls. The state that won’t allow you to sell dildos legally and wants to ban homosexuals from being foster parents. And, yeah, would continue to make forms of adult consensual sex illegal if it could.
I find it difficult to read that as anything other than an accusation that I, the Texan in question, is in favor of the behavioral controls you mention.
Still, I guess as one of the resident collectivists in the commentariat, you find it impossible to imagine that different Texans might have different views on an issue.
R.C. Dean,
Well, clearly my statement is referring to the moronic notion (which you apparently hold) that the only problem area is the federal government. The remark doesn’t concern your beliefs re: dildos, it concerns your fetish about state governments. This fact is clearly driven home by the statement itself, as well by my statements which preface it.
And I am hardly a collectivist. But you are welcome to try to prove that I am. 🙂
Of course, given your lack of verity in the past (claims about Switzerland being part of the E.U., your claim about about Jefferson’s statement being in a letter to Madison, etc.), I know I can take such statements with the grain of salt that they deserve.
R.C. Dean,
Or to quote my earlier comment:
Most such behavioral controls have never been implemented by the federal government. Look at your own state and its persecution of homosexuals.
And it is of course true. Most behavioral controls have historically come from the states and that will likely continue. Be it bans on gambling, contraceptives, abortion, sodomy, business practiced on Sundays, etc.
Oh, and I could also include efforts to ban smoking in bars and other “public places” as well as litigation to ban the sale of beef (over the “mad cow” hysteria).
Kind of funny how I oppose all these sorts of laws, yet somehow I am a “resident collectivist.”
Could R.C. Dean being lying? Hmmm. The answer is of course yes.
Not all of them. Being an extremely devout follower of the Jesus of the Bible, I find the infliction of one’s personal convinctions on another through legislation (force of might) extremely appalling, which is why I’m one of the staunchest libertarians here.
The problem is, there’s sadly far too few of people like you.
Robert,
Part of the problem is also that what Boone is talking about is not religion in general, but the Christian religion in particular. Also, there’s no mention made (for the sake of fairness) about the value of non-belief. Simply put, Mr. Boone sees no obstacle to having HIS religion inform Government morality. I VERY seriously doubt he was referring to Islam or Hinduism in any shape or form.
And besides which, we’ve managed to formulate “thou shalt not kill” very well into law, independently of religions.
I’m not seeing anything especially worthy in religion that’s not already found in the secular world.
True. I personally believe this is the primary reason (along with affluence) for the deadness of the church. Drawing from other dialogues with you (Yours seems to be mostly a reaction against an overbearing, condemning Catholic influence -unfortunate that Catholocism is so closely related to Christianity in your mind when they are worlds apart in mine) and others, I find the reaction against the church lamentable, but understandable.
I tend to think God will not manifest his power or presence to anyone who is primarily concerned with what other people are doing. Considering this is what most Christians do nowadays, it is understandable when I see the deadness of the church. Christianity (or any theistic religion) without the power of the God is pure form and hardly worth considering. That said, if Christians began taking their eyes off the world, stopped trying to tell everyone else how to live, and focused on their own lives and emptiness, maybe, just maybe, they would find God, and you would see something you cannot find in the secular world. But until that begins to happen, you’re right, we have nothing you can’t find without God.
Gary, I don’t know if you noticed or not, but my post was about the national government, the Establishment Clause in the national Constitution, and the relentless destruction of the notion of limited national government by the very people now whining about the uses to which that unlimited national government may be put.
I invite you, please, to find one syllable in my post or subsequent comments concerninig state governments. I invite you to point to one syllabe that indicates support for the various idiotic nanny state notions you refer to at any level of government.
As to whether you are one of our resident collectivists, I speak from a general impression, having not made a study of your collected (so to speak) works. As with so many of your lefty friends, you are quick to equate disagreement or error with lying, a mental trope that I find says more about the accuser than the accused.
James, I’m not sure its possible to say that we formulated “thou shalt not kill” into law independently of religion. Given the pervasive influence of religion on morality and law, not to mention the fact that Mosaic law predates any extant legal code, I suspect not.
The founders didn’t have any problem with voters and Congressmen voting their (religious) consciences, and for the most part neither do I, regardless of religion. A Christian like Pat Boone will naturally consult his Christian beliefs in matters of politics as well as other aspects of his life, and why shouldn’t he?
The founders were not opposed to majority rule even when the majority was Christian, within Constitutional boundaries which applied to the intermingling of Christian and government institutions, not Christian belief and civic or legal action. To imagine that you can banish religiously-based thought utterly from the public square is a noxious fantasy, after all, and not one that a free people should have any patience for.
James, I’m not sure its possible to say that we formulated “thou shalt not kill” into law independently of religion. Given the pervasive influence of religion on morality and law, not to mention the fact that Mosaic law predates any extant legal code, I suspect not.
That’s a very strange thing to say, when it has clearly been shown that the Hammurabic codes predates the Decalogue by about three centuries. Older again is Lipit-Ishtar, although it’s an incomplete code by any standards.
The Decalogue has 4 items that are directly related to God. All of these items are in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. If they were introduced into law tomorrow, they would be very quickly struck down by even the most conservative of Supreme Courts. If they did in fact inform law and are the root of it, then we’d have a Theocracy. Actually take a look and see what that code says. Depending on what version you look at, there are 3 items which, while being perhaps immoral, are not illegal by any law I know of in the Western World. That leaves 3 items that have parallels in modern law, but again, these are found in codes predating the Decalogue.
Have a read of Hammurabi. It makes the Decalogue look like a child’s attempt at law.
This
makes the Ten Commandments look like a child’s attempt? Also, how do you figure it’s independent of religion:
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
R.C. Dean,
Gary, I don’t know if you noticed or not, but my post was about the national government, the Establishment Clause in the national Constitution, and the relentless destruction of the notion of limited national government by the very people now whining about the uses to which that unlimited national government may be put.
Yes it was. And you treated that as if it were the ONLY threat to liberty. *DUH* Read your own words.
And of course you were factually incorrect in your statements on two occassions. In other words, you’re also a shitty scholar.
As to whether you are one of our resident collectivists, I speak from a general impression, having not made a study of your collected (so to speak) works.
In other words, you have no evidence to substantiate your accusation. None. Nothing. Nada. Nunca. You, as usual, are spouting bullshit out your ass. You’d think that someone so sure in their opinion (as is evidenced by your own statements) would have some evidence as to that opinion’s verity. But you don’t. You have nothing.
What you fall back on is a meaningless discourse of “psycho-babble.” Wow, I am so impressed. Not! 🙂
Given the pervasive influence of religion on morality and law, not to mention the fact that Mosaic law predates any extant legal code, I suspect not.
Ah no. *duh*
The first legal code came prior to that of even Hammurabi. The first (that we have evidence of) was either the the code of Ur-Nammu or that of Urukagina. Following these came the code of Lipit-Ishtar. The schools in Texas must suck ass.
As to influence of the Decalogue on Western Law or Anglo-American law in particular, most of the claims of significant and specific influence are, well, a myth. Please see: Steven K. Green, The Fount of Everything Just and Right? The Ten Commandments As A Source of American Law 14 J.L. & Religion 525 (1999-2000)
James,
Our legal restrictions against homocide are not based on religious law and haven’t been for quite some time. Can you imagine what they would be like if they were?
What R.C. Dean is arguing for is basically undemonstratable amorphous influences.
What influenced the Founders the most, and, to be frank, what made them so radical, is that their ideas were based on the Enlightenment values coming from the writers of the Enlightenment. Which is why the work of men like Montesquieu (whose “Spirit of the Laws” was placed on the RCC’s codex), who eschewed the notion that governments were founded on Biblical law, etc. were so popular at the time. Montesquieu instead claimed, like any good social scientist, that there were laws to human behavior and that legal systems should be based on such laws. If one actually reads the Convention debates (which I doubt R.C. Dean ever has), one will notice that people refer to secular authors for the most part; indeed, the work of Montesquieu was the most commonly used source.
What followed this fairly radical generation was a generation of far more religiously minded people; such is personified by the life of Justice Story or the influential University of Maryland law professor David Hoffman.
James,
Our legal restrictions against homocide are not based on religious law and haven’t been for quite some time. Can you imagine what they would be like if they were?
As the British would say, “I shudder to think”.
What influenced the Founders the most, and, to be frank, what made them so radical, is that their ideas were based on the Enlightenment values coming from the writers of the Enlightenment. Which is why the work of men like Montesquieu (whose “Spirit of the Laws” was placed on the RCC’s codex), who eschewed the notion that governments were founded on Biblical law, etc. were so popular at the time. Montesquieu instead claimed, like any good social scientist, that there were laws to human behavior and that legal systems should be based on such laws. If one actually reads the Convention debates (which I doubt R.C. Dean ever has), one will notice that people refer to secular authors for the most part; indeed, the work of Montesquieu was the most commonly used source.
Agreed. There’s no way the U.S. system could have gotten started anywhere else, because it would be crushed by the very religions who now claim to have birthed it. What I find most disappointing is that so many here buy into the idea of the “Judeo Christian” mythos.
What followed this fairly radical generation was a generation of far more religiously minded people; such is personified by the life of Justice Story or the influential University of Maryland law professor David Hoffman.
Just like the modern left, they thrived in the freedoms that Enlightenment system allowed, and preceeded to remake it in their own image, and then claim it was like that all along. The Christian need to somehow claim parentage to the U.S. constitution is a level of revisionism that any Holocaust denier would be proud of.
I find it funny in a sad way that with all the argument over the promotion and endorsement of religion, the word Liberty has not yet come up. Liberty means that you worship, or not, as you please, and I shall also, but neither of us has the right to interfere with the other, as this is a personal matter. One person’s rights end where another’s begins, but that doesn’t matter to fascists or religious fanatics, who would have us all marching to their drummer, by force if necessary. Give me Liberty, or give me death.
James,
Its unfortunate that so many folks want to foul the nest that secures their liberty.
Improbulus Maximus,
I agree.