Guest Blogger
[John Fea of The Way of Improvement Leads Home blog has been following our recent series of posts on religion and federalism and has been working along similar lines himself. Used with permission.]
This morning I was reading an old news story about a newly elected councilman in Asheville, North Carolina who refused to say "so help me God" or place his hand on the Bible during his swearing in ceremony. The man in question--Cecil Bothwell--is an atheist. Unfortunately for him, the North Carolina constitution (written in 1868) disqualifies from public office "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." As you might imagine, conservative Christians are invoking this clause to remove Bothwell from office.
As it turns out, there are six other states that require officeholders to believe in God. They are Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. My favorite is the Texas state constitution, which states:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
What?
Actually, these state constitutions are quite liberal when compared to the religious restrictions placed on officeholders in some of the original state constitutions. For example:
The 1776 Pennsylvania state constitution required officeholders to subscribe to the following declaration: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder to the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." When the constitution was revised in 1790, the language was toned down a bit to limit office holding to those who acknowledge "the being of God, and a future state of rewards and punishments."
Or consider Vermont. Today's Green Mountain State liberals might be surprised to learn that the original 1777 Vermont constitution declared that all citizens of the state "have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding, regulated by the word of GOD." It also secured basic civil rights to anyone who "professes the protestant religion." It further noted that "every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day, and keep up, and support, some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of GOD." Finally, officeholders in Vermont had to make the following affirmation: "I believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion." When the constitution was amended in 1786 and a new constitution was written in 1793 (following Vermont's entrance into the Union), all of these religious provisions remained in place.
Only Virginia and New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders.
It is clear that most of these original state constitutions privileged Christianity and, in many cases, Protestantism.
How do these state constitutions fit into the larger debate over whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation?
It would seem that those who argue for a "Christian America" based on the Christian nature of the state constitutions have a pretty good argument. While the United States Constitution says that there can be no religious tests for office-holding (Article 6) and the First Amendment forbids a religious establishment and secures religious freedom for all, it is quite obvious that none of these restrictions applied to the individual states. As a principle of federalism, the states were given the authority to handle the relationship between church and government in their own way. Massachusetts and Connecticut, for example, upheld religious establishments well into the nineteenth century.
Those who want to debate whether or not America was founded as a "Christian nation" have fought long and hard over what makes a nation "Christian," but they say very little about what constitutes a "nation." For example, is the "nation" called the "United States of America" defined by the United States Constitution? If so, then one would be hard pressed to say that the framers wanted to establish a uniquely "Christian" nation.
But to what extent did the Constitution really serve as a marker of national identity in the eighteenth century?
In one of my favorite historical articles, "A Roof Without Walls": The Dilemma of American National Identity," Princeton historian John Murrin argues that the Constitution provided a very weak form of nationalism because it could not overcome the individual identities, rooted in colonial history, of the states. "In a word," Murrin writes, "the Constitution became a substitute for any deeper kind of national identity. American nationalism is distinct because, for nearly its first century, it was narrowly and peculiarly constitutional. People knew that without the Constitution, there would be no America." In other words, "Americans had erected their constitutional roof before they put up the national walls."
If Murrin is right, and the Constitution failed to create a strong or "deep" sense of nationalism, then the people would continue, as they did under the Articles of Confederation, to find their most meaningful and important sense of political connection to the states in which they lived. And most of these states privileged Christianity in a way that many of today's conservative Christians would welcome.
So let's go back to the original question: Was American founded as a Christian nation? I would hesitate to say "yes" to this question because not all of the states had Christian establishments or forbade non-Protestant Christians from holding office (see Virginia and New York), but it would seem to me that the early republic was closer to being a Christian "nation" than some might be willing to admit.
Dr. Fea is Associate Professor of American History at Messiah College and author of THE WAY OF IMPROVEMENT LEADS HOME: Philip Vickers Fithian and the Rural Enlightenment in Early America (University of Pennsylvania Press).
13 comments:
Well, we are sure off to a good start for 2010! Thanks for posting this here, Tom. I read this on Fea's blog and was thinking of doing the same.
I think Fea makes a very good point. The state constitutions really are the best "ammunition" available for the Christian Nation crowd. They provide strong historical support for many of their general claims that America was founded on religious (Christian-y) principles.
Now, I imagine that those who will debate this point will say things like, "the idea of what constituted a nation wasn't solved until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment" or "these states have since amended their constitutions to reflect the ideas of the federal charter" or "just because the founders deferred religion to the states doesn't mean they were right. After all didn't they 'screw up' the slavery issue as well?"
However, I think there is a more basic argument to be made here. Just as the secularists downplay these state constitutions in an effort to prove their case, the "Christian Nation" apologists, I believe, read to much into these state charters. Yes, the founders may have deferred the issue to be settled in the states but they didn't do so out of a desire to create a "Christian Nation." They did so because they believed in the state's right to choose was was best for its citizens. Whether this was the right choice or not is another matter entirely.
Personally, I believe that these state charters (which have clearly evolved over time) are a further illustration of America's religious/providential founding and heritage. However, I don't see these charters providing for exclusively "Christian" roots, nor do they shut the book on the matter After all, which flavor of "Christianity" was the American Christianity? Which "Christian Nationalism" was the American Christian Nationalism? In other words, many of these state charters supported a different take on what "Christianity" was and how it was to be applied to the state and its people.
Now, I do believe (as TVD has put it in the past) that America's origins are "Christian-y." However, I think we should reject the idea that these state charters close the book on the matter. Quite the contrary. I believe they complicate it.
But they do prove that America was founded to be a religious nation.
Most people that state "Secular Nation" are ignorant of all that is written here. That saddens me.
Now, I imagine that those who will debate this point will say things like, "the idea of what constituted a nation wasn't solved until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment"
Yes. I hope our readers will follow Dr. Fea's link to the essay "A Roof Without Walls," as it's fresh ground on what the Founders conceived of as the United States as a "nation."
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/dfg/amrv/murrin.htm
"these states have since amended their constitutions to reflect the ideas of the federal charter"
Some did so right after ratification. Seven states still have not. But 48 of the 50 states' constitutions still have God in them.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-answer-to-godless-constitution.html
But there are few outside the religious fringe who argue for anything resembling theocracy in 2009, and even the most "Christian" states were not nearly theocracies. There is nothing to "return" to. [Even "Dominionists" argue for a voluntary theocracy. Heh. As if.]
On the other side, however, there are many who argue the Founding was deistic, and that "godlessness" of the US Constitution demands we drop the Judeo-Christian ["Christian-y"] worldview---ethos---of the Founding in favor of a "neutral" mechanistic, legalistic regime of "godlessness."
Even the ratification of the 14th Amendment didn't render 48 of the 50 states' constitutions unconstitutional.
Or mebbe it did, depending on whatever the Supreme Court rules at some future date. Nothing would surprise me.
Touche.
KOI writes:
Most people that state "Secular Nation" are ignorant of all that is written here. That saddens me.
True, true, true.
But does it not offend you when you hear the Barton's, D. James Kennedy's of the world?
Brad stated:
"But does it not offend you when you hear the Barton's, D. James Kennedy's of the world?"
Some of the things Barton says are true. Kennedy I think claims TJ was a evangelical Christian is that is absurd. But yes when they exaggerate is disturbs me. When church controls state or state controls church it is never good. But to throw the baby out with the bath water is perhaps a worse idea.
"Some did so right after ratification. Seven states still have not. But 48 of the 50 states' constitutions still have God in them."
A powerful point!
A minor point: Fea wrote, "[Post-colonial] New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders." I'd like to know the particular source for this statement. My source, Laws of the state of New York, Passed in the First Session of the Senate and Assembly of the Said State, Beginning in the Tenth Day of September, 1777, and continued by Adjournments, and ending with the Last Day of June, 1778, Chaper 6, pages 13 and 14, indicates otherwise.
KOI - Most people that state "Secular Nation" are ignorant of all that is written here. That saddens me.
Don't be so sad, many who advance the secular state or Godless constitution theses are not ignorant of the facts that are written about here while they may be ignorant of what is written here. Not everybody has heard of here yet.
And, not everyone making the secular state and/or Godless constitution argument is advancing a secular nation or Godless nation argument. The distinctions have been made "here" before and it would be helpful to make clear the distinctions.
When someone is defending the secular state or Godless constitution they may concurrently be making an argument for religious value and freedom. Not mutually exclusive.
Jrb,
This is a very complex topic. Agreed to all you said. It is just a shame that so many of the abusively outspoken on both sides seem to be the most ignorant. Go watch who shows up at Dispatches when this topic comes up.
KOI writes:
This is a very complex topic. Agreed to all you said. It is just a shame that so many of the abusively outspoken on both sides seem to be the most ignorant.
Or perhaps or appropriately put, the it is a shame that so many Americans are so willing to let partisan politics lead them down an all-or-nothing road as it applies to this issue. Like JRB stated, most KNOWLEDGEABLE secularists aren't trying to eradicate God and religion but simply looking to secure religious diversity and freedom, while most KNOWLEDGEABLE Christian Nation advocates aren't wanting a theocracy.
It's the huddled (dare I say stupid) masses who let the Glenn Beck's and Howard Zinn's of the world dictate their entire understanding of the founding era. Hell, I bet that most of them have never read anything substantial from the founders themselves.
I found the source for the claim that "New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders." It comes from, as you might guess, Kramnick and Moore in their book "The Godless Constitution," page 31. Here is the claim:
The two exceptions among the state constitutions were those of Virginia and New York. In the former, (with Madison's help) Jefferson's "Statute for Religious Freedom," passed in 1786, specified that no religious test could be applied to the holding of public office. Even more interesting was New York's constitution, which in 1777 self-consciously repudiated tests that sought to maintain "any particular denomination of Christians." The absence of religious tests would, the New York constitution claimed, "guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind."
The NYS Consitution did, indeed, endorse "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference," but NYS statute required that a candidate for public office subscribe to a religious test oath in the form:
I, A. B. do solemnly swear and declare in the presence of Almighty God, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the State of New York as a free and independent State; and that I will in all things to the best of my knowledge and ability, do my duty, as a good subject of the said State ought to do; so help me God.
Cosequently, contrary to what Kramnick & Moore indicate in their next paragraph, it was only the "principles of Virginia and [not] New York [that] were written into the new federal Constitution, 'without much debate.'"
Brad stated:
"Hell, I bet that most of them have never read anything substantial from the founders themselves."
You would win that bet. The Dispatches crowd probably is one of the most education groups you will find but often resort to venomous attacks based on ignorance.
Post a Comment