§1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
As I've noted before, one problem with the use of Story's quotation on behalf of the "Christian Nation" thesis is original meaning constitutional interpretation does not concern itself with the "real object" of various provisions of the Constitution's text, but rather the original meaning of the text itself. And, of course, the Constitution's text, says nothing of "Christianity," but rather uses the term "religion." There could be many "real objects" of various texts of the Constitution, which focused on specifically, unmoored from the Constitution's text could take on lives of their own. The Constitution says nothing about "Christian sects" only. That reading is as revisionist and "living" as the Wall of Separation concept.
However original meaning originalists can make a strong case, consistent with what Story writes later, that troublesome questions about "religion" v. "Christianity" and the US Constitution's text are placated by understanding that it was the states who were charged with resolving those nettlesome issues. The Federal government, as it were, would be burdened with a "hands off" restriction on involving itself in religious disputes.
That said, I want to address Story's "political theology" about which he writes in the excepts that Mr. Van Dyke quoted, what Story sees as the "ideal" way government and religion ought to co-exist with one another. Here is the the relevant part of Story's position:
§1865....
How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience. [Bold mine.]
I want to turn your attention to what it was in Story's quotation that he did and did NOT say. He seems to endorse the idea that there is an Almighty God to whom we are accountable and that publicly policy should be friendly towards "piety, religion and morality" and a "future state of rewards and punishments." In addition this public religion "cultivat[es]...the personal, social, and benevolent virtues." As Story notes these are "the great doctrines of religion." Finally Story intimates these great doctrines are found with the "Christian revelation." Arguably, they are. However, the orthodox argue they are not the ESSENCE of the "Christian revelation."
Story never invokes orthodox Trinitarian doctrine (original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and atonement) as having any connection to this "public theology." Finally while Story invokes a future state of rewards and punishments, he never invokes eternal damnation, certainly not eternal damnation for all non-Christians, as part of this political theology.
Some possible reasons why Story doesn't incorporate these things into his political theology? One is he didn't believe in them and neither did America's key Founders -- the men who wrote the Declaration, US Constitution, Federalist Papers and otherwise posited the ideals of republican government and religion (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Wilson, G. Morris and others). This is where the personal and the political connect. This is why it's relevant to inquire into the personal beliefs, even in their private letters, of notable Founders.
Here is Story on what he DIDN'T believe about Christianity:
TO WILLIAM WILLIAMS, ESQ.
Washington, March 6th, 1824.
...The Unitarians are universally steadfast, sincere, and earnest Christians.
They all believe in the divine mission of Christ, the credibility and authenticity of the Bible, the miracles wrought by our Saviour and his apostles, and the efficacy of his precepts to lead men to salvation....They differ among themselves as to the nature of our Saviour, but they all agree that he was the special messenger of God, and that what he taught is of Divine authority. In truth, they principally differ from other Christians in disbelieving the Trinity, for they think Christ was not God, but in the Scripture language “the Son of God.”
And here is testimony from Story's brother, speaking to and through Story's son:
After my continued absence from home for four or five years, we met again, your father being now about eighteen years old, and renewed our former affection towards each other. At this time we were, from a similarity of sentiment, drawn more closely together. I allude particularly to our religious opinions. We frequently discussed the subject of the divinity and the humanity of Christ, and we both agreed in believing in his humanity. Thus you see that your father and myself were early Unitarians, long before the doctrine was preached among us by any one, unless I except Dr. Bentley of Salem.
In other words, Story was a Socinian Unitarian, believing Jesus was 100% human and not divine at all. And here is what Story thought on salvation:
This faith he retained during his whole life, and was ever ardent in his advocacy of the views of Liberal Christians. He was several times President of the American Unitarian Association, and was in the habit of attending its meetings and joining in its discussions. No man, however, was ever more free from a spirit of bigotry and proselytism. He gladly allowed every one freedom of belief, and claimed only that it should be a genuine conviction and not a mere theologic opinion, considering the true faith of every man to be the necessary exponent of his nature, and honoring a religious life more than a formal creed. He admitted within the pale of salvation Mahommedan and Christian, Catholic and Infidel. He believed that whatever is sincere and honest is recognized of God; — that as the views of any sect are but human opinion, susceptible of error on every side, it behooves all men to be on their guard against arrogance of belief; — and that in the sight of God it is not the truth or falsity of our views, but the spirit in which we believe, which alone is of vital consequence. [Bold mine.]
Now, Story obviously thought his "liberal unitarian Christianity" was "Christianity." Story's private creed informed his beliefs on public political theology. And whether this creed qualifies as "Christianity" is a matter of debate. And certainly the debate is one that no government ought to resolve. And America's Foundations hold that no government ought involve itself in this debate. As Madison believed, it's not government's place -- any government, federal, state or local -- to take "cognizance" of these issues.
8 comments:
And whether this creed qualifies as "Christianity" is a matter of debate. And certain the debate is one that no government ought to resolve. And America's Foundations hold that no government ought involve itself in this debate. As Madison believed, it's not government's place -- any government, federal, state or local -- to take "cognizance" of these issues.
That would be Madison's view, and likely most of the Founders who were from Virginia and perhaps New York.
However, this cannot be presented as the view of "The Founders." Please see my essay on Joseph Story below, where he writes in §1873,
"Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments..."
[Boldface mine.]
I need to read over Story's writings a bit more, but it seems pretty concrete -- at least to me -- that Story affirms virtually everything we tend to agree on, Jon. His personal creed is clearly Unitarian and he seems to support the notion that America's founding can and should embrace all faiths.
In the first quotation of your post -- which you claim Christian Nationalists like to cite -- Story makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to Christianity being the founding religion of America. This is simply insinuated by the overzealous reader who desperately wants to make a connection that doesn’t exist.
Thx for the props on my long excerpts, Jon. I decided to trust the readers' patience so that once and for all, they can read Story's context for themselves.
As Brad points out, quote-grabbing out of context often results in dishonesty, and I must observe also that "Christian Nationists" aren't the only ones guilty of that.
I had hopes of us doing a "close-reading" and dialogue together in the comments section that post, but we have to start somewhere, and here is fine.
Brad, I would note in "nuance" that Story's quote isn't exactly of the "all faiths are equal" sort. When he writes in §1867
"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects..."
we should not, um, overzealously gloss over it in the opposite direction.
Indeed, he writes
"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth...
...Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power."
Now, it's true he leaves the question open, a question we pose to this day:
§1869. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.
NOW if we pick him up in context, we see his personal argument is that Christianity will be required for a successful republic, because some sort of religion WILL be needed, and Christianity is, he argues, essentially non-despotic.
But he leaves this question, this experiment, up to the states, which is the very soul of federalism.
[There are scholars who maintain James Madison was quite the supporter of federalism, but one thang at a time.]
But let's make no mistake---Justice Story cites the "bill of rights" of Massachusetts approvingly in §1869:
"The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. “As,” says the third article, “the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Common wealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, &c. &c. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”
Although you're technically correct that
Story makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to Christianity being the founding religion of America
he's far from agnostic, "neutral"---or even pluralistic---on the subject except, as Jon notes, on irrelevant [and irreconcilable] stuff like the Trinity.
TVD writes:
Brad, I would note in "nuance" that Story's quote isn't exactly of the "all faiths are equal" sort.
Yes, quite right, but nor does he exalt Christianity above the rest.
TVD also writes:
Although you're technically correct that
Story makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to Christianity being the founding religion of America
he's far from agnostic, "neutral"---or even pluralistic---on the subject except, as Jon notes, on irrelevant [and irreconcilable] stuff like the Trinity
Again, quite right. My point was that story simply does not affirm in any way the belief that Christianity is the religion of America.
I mentioned this in the post above by Kowalski, but I think I will also post it here. Tom, your quote from Story on the issue of religion being exclusively the domain of the states is, I believe, a very important one to explore. With this in mind, I will post some material from Steven Waldman, who both you and I have quoted on this blog. Waldman has some interesting things to say about this particular issue. He writes:
Remember how Madison was afraid that if he explicitly protected any freedoms, it might imply that those unmentioned were protected? Well, over time that is exactly what happened. He agreed to prohibit what he viewed as the most egregious form of state oppression – the creation of a national state church. But instead of that being viewed as the extreme example that must be mentioned just to be safe, it has now become (in the eyes of many conservative scholars) the only thing Congress had meant to restrict. Madison’s fears have been realized.
[...]
I believe there’s ample evidence that Madison wanted a strict separation of church and state. He wanted it locally; he wanted it nationally. But here’s the point that all Founding Father Lovers forget: It is not only their views that matter. Madison was in the business of building a political majority. We today may not pay attention to the other members of his legislative majority, but Madison surely did.
Remember that he originally didn’t even want to articulate the precise language on religious freedom. He wanted to leave the Constitution silent because he thought that would mean the strictest possible separation of church and state and therefore, in his mind, the greatest chance for religious freedom. No mention meant no power. He had confided in Jefferson that when it came to drafting language, others would not approach the topic with such liberality as they would…
[...]
As a result, we see different men likely voting for the amendment for entirely different reasons. Take Fisher Ames, the man who formally proposed the language that became the First Amendment. He was from Massachusetts, the state that historically considered government support of religion essential. Ames believed that the republic was based on biblical principles and advocated that the Bible should be taught in primary schools. “Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a textbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble,” he once wrote. It’s highly unlikely that Ames shared Madison’s views that government shouldn’t even aid religion at the local level. In fact, he probably supported the First Amendment in part for something close to the opposite reason – to make sure federal government would not interfere with Massachusetts’s ability to regulate religion as it saw fit.
Anyway, Waldman essentially argues that the original interpretation of the First Amendment (as it was interpreted by the founders) could easily go either way. Many saw it as a beacon for religious freedom across the board, both at the federal and state levels, while others saw it as granting the states the right to regulate religion as they each saw fit.
No matter which site they were on, the issue wasn’t settled until almost 100 years later with the 14th Amendment, and that is (obviously) leaving the founding era. Unfortunately, we cannot prove this one either way by relying exclusively on the founding generation. It took a few generations and one hell of a war to sort all that out.
I would submit that, per the post above about the "town green" or "public square," that the Fourteenth Amendment protects only individuals, and that the Supreme Court has still left some leeway [for now at least] about just how much accommodation an individual deserves against being "offended" by the free exercise of religion.
And I do think Story elevates Christianity above the rest as most friendly to liberty, although I admit it's what you like to point out as in dicta, opinions that are not necessarily fundamental.
Jon: As I've noted before, one problem with the use of Story's quotation on behalf of the "Christian Nation" thesis is original meaning constitutional interpretation does not concern itself with the "real object" of various provisions of the Constitution's text, but rather the original meaning of the text itself. And, of course, the Constitution's text, says nothing of "Christianity," but rather uses the term "religion." There could be many "real objects" of various texts of the Constitution, which focused on specifically, unmoored from the Constitution's text could take on lives of their own. The Constitution says nothing about "Christian sects" only. That reading is as revisionist and "living" as the Wall of Separation concept.
The framers understood religion in this context to refer only to Christianity. As Justice Marshall says, religion is xtianity, unless specifically noted. "Christian sects" were referred to in the debates, telling us what the context was.
The first amendment refers to a national religion. No other religion was even mentioned in any of the debates.
Story also notes unitarians believe in the miraculous, obliterating into the farthest reaches of the universe, unitarians referred to as theistic rationalists.
Story's brother: He admitted within the pale of salvation Mahommedan and Christian, Catholic and Infidel. He believed that whatever is sincere and honest is recognized of God;
This was only his opinion, definitely not the truth. This contradicts the letter posted from Story, and his other writings. This definition isn't that of a unitarian, or universalist.
This is the definition of a pagan.
IF that is pagan, then J. Story's political theology is "pagan" and his definition of America's Founding political theology is "pagan."
As John Adams put it:
“I believe too in a future state of rewards and punishments too; but not eternal.”
– To Francis van der Kemp, July 13, 1815.
AND:
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– To Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
Post a Comment