Barry Lynn, who is the executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State discusses why he believes religion has no place in government, schools, etc. Lynn is also an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ and is a prominent leader of the "religious left." As a result, most members of the religious right -- who are traditionally the strongest opponents of church/state separation -- have castigated Lynn as being a heretic.
It is my opinion that Barry Lynn's view of religion in America's founding is very close with what the founders originally hoped to establish. Here are some of his views:
Lynn's General Views:
Barry Lynn on Fox News:
Lynn on the O'Reilly Factor:
And Lynn on Hannity & Colmes:
33 comments:
How soon we forget that Baptists were, for better than three centuries, among America’s strongest proponents of strict separation of church and state. Indeed, it was Southern Baptists who in the 1940s organized and initially staffed Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the very organization headed today by the Rev. Barry Lynn. See John Lee Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity: A History of the Social Attitudes of Southern Baptists, pp. 161-62 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, rev. ed. 1987).
John Lee Eighmy observes that when the United States Supreme Court ruled against prayer in our public schools, “most Southern [Baptist] Convention sentiment supported the Court.” Id. at 161.
The Baptist “Joint Committee [on Public Affairs] not only upheld the Court but did much to clarify the decision and then opposed efforts in Congress to nullify the ruling by a constitutional amendment.” Id.
The remarkable shift in Southern Baptist popular opinion, which now appears to favor school prayer and to oppose the strict separation of church and state that Baptists long advocated, is a relatively recent development – and one closely linked, I suspect, to the Republican Party’s so-called “Southern Strategy” (which featured attacks on the judiciary).
Indeed, it appears that Richard Nixon’s friend the Rev. Dr. Billy Grahamplayed a critical role, denouncing the Supreme Court’s church-state rulings. These days you’ll find that many evangelicals will loudly blame “secular humanists” and “the ACLU” for advancing positions that, before the 1970s at least, were vigorously promoted by Baptists.
Some excellent points, Eric. I also agree that the Republican Party's union with religious fundamentalism has resulted in the relatively recent shift in how many Christians today understand the church/state argument. Again, it is politics and religion mixing in a way that creates a culture of religious patriotism, which is blind to the historical record.
Brad, once again, I find myself in disagreement with you. Barry Lynn's views are not in step with those of our Founding Fathers, with the exception of Thomas Paine. I'll give you Paine. He would be very comfortable with Mr. Lynn. But not the others.
The Founding Fathers did not want the US government to establish a state church or intert itself into sectarian divisions (i.e., Calvinism v. Arminiasm, etc.). But the idea that government can't encourage religion or religious-based values in general terms (which Lynn says) would be anathema to the vast majority of the Founders.
If you disagree, Brad, please tell me what two things George Washington (our preeminent Founder) identified as "indispensable supports to political prosperity." And please take note that he very clearly, in the next few lines, made clear that you can't have one without the other.
That's George Washington, Brad. Now, you can side with Barry Lynn. That's your right.
But, I'll take Washington's side.
curious.
Brian writes: "Barry Lynn's views are not in step with those of our Founding Fathers, with the exception of Thomas Paine. I'll give you Paine. He would be very comfortable with Mr. Lynn. But not the others."
Again I think you are completely missing the point here, Brian. Lynn is not saying that religion or morality is irrelevant, he is simply stating that the founders ABSOLUTLY advocated a separation of church and state. Ever heard of the "Memorial and Remonstrance" by James Madison??? Or maybe the "Notes on the State of Virginia" by Jefferson???
As for Washington, this is completely irrelevant to the point of this post. We are not arguing that morality, religion, etc should be excluded from government -- a point that most Christian nationalists don't understand. Instead, Lynn is simply saying that it is unconstitutional to include certain church-based beliefs in the halls of government, and he is 100% right.
I think we are all aware of the large number of quotes and sources from our founders that can be used to defend Lynn's views, so it would be a waste of time to include them here. Instead, I will simply ask this question: why have so many churches -- the Baptists and other evangelical denominations specifically -- changed their views in recent years? Eric Isaacson is 100% right when he point out that they were among the loudest and most passionate defenders of these ideals. Eric even mentions the fact that religious circles gave little resistance to the prayer in school debate. Why the change?? Surely it isn't political! =)
I was raised in a Baptist church.
.
I can say without equivocation that our church was dead set against any connection between the church and state.
.
It was almost included as one of the Fundamentals.
.
Thank you Phil! That is exactly what Eric and I are trying to say. There is no doubt that a lot of this church/state union is a relatively new phenomenon in many ways.
What church and state union? What union that is "relatively new phenomenon?" The pendulum has definitely swung in the other direction over the last half-century. I don't know what you're talking about.
Mr. Tubbs makes the proper delineation between sectarianism and religious belief and values, something that is conflated by those who call for their eradication from the public square.
But it's a sophistry, using varying meanings of the same word [religion, church] when it was sectarianism and the establishment of the political power of one sect over the others that was the Founders' greatest concern.
That the Founding ethos was based on multiculturalism and relativism---or no specific set of values at all---is pure nonsense. Mr. Tubbs properly cites Washington's Farewell Address, and the subject cannot be addressed honestly while ignoring Washington, who was more typical than atypical of the Founders.
.
There you go again, Tom, with "That the Founding ethos was based on multiculturalism and relativism---or no specific set of values at all---is pure nonsense."
.
You throw those two words around as though the means something to you.
.
Exactly what is it you mean to convey with your useage?
.
Mr. Tom Van Dyke,
With all due respect, I have been reading your stuff on here for a while and usually you sound somewhat smart, but what in the hell are you talking about? I think that you just like to sound educated so you use all kinds of one-liners but you almost always avoid making any conclusion.
Sorry but the pendulum has NOT swung the other way because there IS NO PENDULUM TO SWING!!! There is a separation of church and state PERIOD, end of discussion. THis shouldn't be an issue and I hope those who agree will just ignore this nonsense so that other interesting issues can be discussed.
ERATA
.
This sentence, "You throw those two words around as though the means something to you.", should have read, "You throw those two words around as though they mean something to you."
.
Mr. Tubbs makes the proper delineation between sectarianism and religious belief and values, something that is conflated by those who call for their eradication from the public square.
What eradication from the public square are you talking about? Again, you are just talking but getting nowhere. This is the stereotypical tactic of all pro-religionists: whenever you get cornered just start shouting that the sky is falling! Give me a break!
A separation of church and state is actually what you want. If religion supporters understood this 1st grade concept they would know that they are on the wrong side of the issue. Everyone here that has pointed out the historial evidence which makes it obvious that religionists supported a separation in the past are on the right side. As for a "pendulum swinging" as Van Dyke states, I think that the only "pendulum" is that of the religionists who complain about a church/state separation.
If you will, please, give me one example of where a church/state separation is a BAD thing for religion? I beg of you.
Mr./Ms. Raven: I'm not interested in corresponding with you at this point for a number of reasons.
Because you're quite right that when I present evidence, I often leave the conclusions open. There is no PERIOD, end of discussion.
If you feel I haven't sufficiently made my thesis or proved my case so far, you're likely right. But do keep reading. There is much more to come in the future, and I'm a patient man.
In the meantime, I'm simply seeking sympathetic readers, not adversarial ones. I have found that those who employ the latter method waste both their time and mine, and things get ugly far more often and quickly than they become beautiful.
________________________
Phil, until Mr. Tubbs' objection is answered, this is not a discussion, only an exchange of monologues. Mr. Tubbs' objection---quoting Washington, whose thoughts were typical of the Founding milieu---is fundamental.
My use of "multiculturalism" was in part based on something you previously wrote. Either America had a unique and identifiable Founding ethos or it did not, and any ol' ethos would have stood in just as well. I do not think that is the case, neither does Mr. Tubbs, and neither did the statesmanlike Washington, who kept his terms properly generic, as was the custom of the time.
Maybe I missed something along the line.
.
Do you have a special position of authority at this blog?
.
And, do you only answer only the questions that suit you?
Ok, let's talk about good ol' GW.
In his farewell address, Washington states the following:
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In our current era, this segment of Washington's address is often perceived by Christian apologists as being a clear admonition for religion and government. They are wrong.
Washington -- like the majority of the founders -- understood the important role that religion, morality, etc. played in a democratic society, however, they also recognized the dangers of giving religion too much power or influence. Benjamin Franklin referred to this delicate balance of these two forces as being a "public religion" of sorts. In other words, cultivating morality, virtue, etc. were the responsibility of the citizenry and religion certainly helped in such a cause. However, religion was NOT to be given a seat at the tables of government.
In one respect Brian is absolutely right: Washington is representative of the majority of the founders on the issue of morality BUT this does not mean he was in favor of a mix between church and state.
As we have talked about ad nauseum on this blog, the founders supported the idea of "natural religion" as being the "public religion" of the American populace. This form of religion insisted upon reason and rationalism as opposed to revelation and faith. Thus, it would be NATURAL for our fathers to favor a strict separation of church and state -- something I believe Washington was clearly in favor of.
On a separate note, I have to agree with TVD. Raven, at times I have enjoyed your comments, but I too will refrain from ever commenting or acknowledging your remarks so long as you continue to issue blatant threats.
Enough said on that matter.
Washington -- like the majority of the founders -- understood the important role that religion, morality, etc. played in a democratic society, however, they also recognized the dangers of giving religion too much power or influence.
Brad, I don't think there is any disagreement here, except by Dominionists, who are small in number and whose apparent volume and resonance makes them seem much more menacing than they actually are.
I can't speak for Rev. Pastor Brian Tubbs, with whom I find myself frequently allied on issues at least in principle, but as a nominal Catholic, I've previously written that I don't want to be ruled by the Pope, let alone Dominionists. [Who think the Pope is the anti-Christ or the Whore of Babylon, or some such crap anyway. First they came for the atheists, then the Catholics...]
I'll be out there against them with my gun right beside you, baby, y'know, if I can find the ammo. Must be around here someplace.
But neither do I want to be ruled by Barry Lynn. I think his way leads to nihilism. I think he doesn't get it, as Washington did. America's Founding ethos was indeed a fragile thing, one that simultaneously believed in Divine Providence yet respected pluralism and the conscience of the individual enough to permit Quakers to be conscientious objectors to all war and not be required to bear arms in the citizens' militia.
I find both the Dominionists and Mr. Lynn unwise and brutal.
Our friend Phil Johnson asks TVD:
And, do you only answer only the questions that suit you?
It's my new policy. I have tried being open to all comers, but unfortunately, the courtesy of my replies goes largely unrequited.
But you're still on my "A" list, Phil. When I write something you don't quite follow, you hit the google to make sure the fault is not your ignorance, but my bad writing. Only then do you hit "PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT."
You meet me halfway, the mark of an honest and honorable man. I have all the time in the world for people of good will, and none for any other. I'm not so young meself anymore, my friend.
As a Baptist preacher, I can tell you that I'm 100% in favor of the separation of church and state. The idea that the Baptists have CHANGED this view is simply not true. Phil is correct. I can point to Baptist creeds and statements over the years - including currently - where Baptists CONTINUE to emphasize this cardinal principle.
But when the Founders talked about separating church and state, they were NOT saying that the government had to be neutral on matters of faith and morality.
The Declaration of Independence, for example, cites God four times. And it makes clear that our rights come NOT from the state, but from God. Now, THAT is a religious statement. It is an endorsement of monotheism and, in fact, it's grounding our recognition of rights in a theistic framework.
So, yes, I and other Baptists are 100% in favor of keeping the INSTITUTIONS of church and state separate. But the idea that "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust" on our coins violates the separation of church and state (something Barry Lynn has more or less said) is - as I said before - NOT in step with the Founders.
p.s. And...YES...Brad, I'm familiar with "Memorial and Remonstrance" by James Madison and "Notes on the State of Virginia" by Mr. Jefferson. I've read "Memorial and Remonstrance" in its entirety and large sections of Jefferson's "Notes."
Brian, I can agree with Washington that "religion and morality are indispensable supports," "which lead to political prosperity." I can agree that Washington saw the "sense of religious obligations" as an integral part of the oaths administered within the courts of justice. Washington also thought chaplains and religious services as essential to building military discipline while he was the commanding General of the Continental Army. (He preferred that the soldiers not gamble, swear, or become brawling drunkards.) However, I would appreciate it if you could please continue and indicate other legislated and regulated examples where Washington felt it necessary for the federal government to interject religion into the public square.
Mr. Soller, I think Mr. Tubbs has made a legitimate enough case per washington to merit a counterargument, which you or anybody else haven't made.
So I'll ask you, Ray, man to man, person to person---since I've seen this so many times on the internet and still don't know how to deal with it intelligently, with principle, or even charity---what do you do when the other fellow simply skips over your best argument and demands more proof, and yet more proof and yet further proof?
It seems to me a black hole. Mr. Tubbs' key argument per Washington is being driven around here, and so he seems to be obliged to make more and more arguments that grow weaker and weaker until he's aha! dismissed as bullshit.
I pose this question, Ray, because it might be the only thing I have yet to learn here, except from our reliably informative bloggers on the main page.
It seems to me that Mr. Tubbs---and yes, me meself sometimes---are continually presented with disingenuousness about our key arguments, and so, out of good faith, obligingly walk to our own Peter Principle point, and then off the plank.
You seem a fair-minded or at least intelligent man, Ray. I'm very interested in your answer.
Ray, I'm content to discuss the implications of Washington's positions on just the examples you cite. It's not even necessary to go further.
Let me also add...and I think it was Ben that made this point...I'm not saying that a church or pastor should be able to stand up and say "Thus saith the Lord..." and that this should somehow close off debate and decide our direction. I don't believe that, and I've never believed that. And I've not said that.
And I don't believe that a President should stand up and say "God is telling me to do this" and then demand/expect the entire populace to simply go along with him.
And...I don't believe that our government should take orders from any church group or denominaton.
I'm simply saying that RELIGION and MORALITY have been - and should continue to be - critical dimensions to our republic. They should be factored into our policy debates and discussions.
Secularists (like Lynn, at times, frankly) try to make the argument that religion should be compartmentalized into people's homes and places of worship - and that's that. That religion and religious-based morality has no place in the public square, given our diversity, yadda, yadda, yadda. That's simply NOT what the Founders envisioned.
.
I suppose it might be argued that it is perfectly legal for a pastor of a church to stand in his pulpit and preach a sermon promoting any particular candidate to office. And, churches should be able to put up billboards and to buy advertising space in newspapers and advertising time on broadcast media for the purposes of promoting their favorite candidates for office.
.
But, then, they should be taxed just like any private property holder and profit making organization.
.
Once any organization acquires tax free status, it gives up some of its rights.
.
Phil, perhaps the real problem is the tax laws? Just a thought.
Perhaps any non-profit enterprise, Moral Majority, Unitarian Universalist Church, Sierra Club or moveon.org should not be taxed. Let them say whatever they want, endorse who they want. The DNC and RNC, the Libertarian Party, for that matter.
Seems more in spirit with freedom of expression and Amendment I and all that. The tax rules seem artificial and arbitrary to me.
.
O.K., Tom, you're starting to use your head.
.
heh heh heh
.
Now, once the preachers stand up for the politics in which they believe, we will begin to see what all this difugalty is all about.
.
The facts are that some of us are being led by pre-modernist thinking (Are you one?) and they want the rest of us to give up on pluralism all together. Rather, they want everyone to believe that there is some universal truth that they--alone--have found in all of history. And, they want to impose their Absolute Truth on the entire world.
.
But, they claim that it really is not what THEY want; but, that it is what the AUTHOR of this ABSOLUTE TRUTH which has been REVEALED to them demands--or else, wooooo! You guessed it--eternal damnation..
.
They are opposed to American Pluralism and will do everything within their power to bring it to an end.
.
Phil, I generally agree with what you say about the tax laws, and that's pretty much the status quo. If a church becomes little more than an arm of a political candidate or party, it should be taxed and classified as a political organization and not as a church. I'm with you on that.
And just so we're clear, when I'm preaching, I'm very clear NOT to endorse any party or candidate.
Regarding this "Absolute Truth" stuff that Phil's harping on...
I and most evangelical Christians believe that there IS such a thing as Truth. Truth is ultimately absolute and external. But this doesn't mean that I or anyone else can claim a monopoly on truth.
It's not my role (or anyone else's) to define truth or claim ownership over truth. It's my role to discover it.
.
Brian sez, "Regarding this "Absolute Truth" stuff that Phil's harping on...
.
To harp on something is to bring it up continually.
.
I've had several interactions with Tom regarding the issue of American pluralism and that is the point I hoped I had made. My comment could be expanded to include American Creation in the sense of what this site is all about.
.
So, I think you took umbrage without cause. I'm sorry you took offense; but, I would be more than happy to explain my point.
.
If I can get Tom to explain his statement about the specific set of values on which our nation was founded, that is.
I've explained them often, Phil, and yet another repetition would serve no purpose. But if you'd like to hazard a guess, and write my position to your best understanding, fairly and without making me sound like a cementhead, as you do above, perhaps I'll respond.
You said the American nation was founded on "five specific values". And, you seem to have claimed American Pluralism was just another way of indicating multiculturalism. I questioned that.
.
Why should any observers be forced to read every post of every blog to find out what you think?
.
It shouldn't be such a big deal. I'm not trying to test you. More persons than me are interested in your answer.
If after reading me for these many months, Phil, you still have no idea what I'm talking about, one more restatement at the bottom of a comments section isn't gonna make a damn bit of difference.
Sorry, Phil, new policy---no more turnip truck discussions every morning, especially with those with whom I'm long-acquainted. It insults one of our intelligences, and likely both.
.
Tom sez, "If after reading me for these many months, Phil, you still have no idea what I'm talking about, one more restatement at the bottom of a comments section isn't gonna make a damn bit of difference."
.
I know exactly what you are talking about.
.
I think most others do as well.
Post a Comment