There have been two conflicting traditions in the United States about the relationship between church and state. The first is exemplified by the holiday of Thanksgiving, which emphasizes the religious foundation of the United States. The Pilgrim fathers set out in the New World not only to worship as they wanted but to establish God's kingdom. They had the truth and all others were wrong; church and state were one. The second tradition comes from the time of the writing of the American Constitution, when our deistic, freethinking Founding Fathers (no mothers) embodied in the Constitution the principle of separation of church and state.
Here's a section that drew my attention:
The general pervasiveness of Christian assumptions about morality and family was reinforced by the so-called Mormon cases, the first of which Reynolds v. United States, which reached the Supreme Court in 1878 and established monogamy as the norm, ruling that it was the basis of Western (read mainstream Christian) societal life. In a sense, this was a double-edged decision because the Justices, in their effort to outlaw the Mormon practice, in effect asserted that marriage could be regulated by law, guaranteeing the states the right to issue licenses and to control marriage independent of the church.
Another one of the Mormon decisions marked the most far-reaching secular claims of government. The case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United States (1890) upheld the constitutionality of a law adopted by Congress in 1887 that annulled the charter of the Mormon church and declared all the property forfeited except a small portion used exclusively for worship. In a sense, however, this case represented not so much a conflict between church and state, but a statement of the dominant religions in United States against the feared Mormons.
The way I interpret the decision is that the Court was able to assert the supremacy of state over church because it was basically concerned with what Mormonism was doing to good Christian belief, and in this it had the almost unanimous support of all the other churches in the United States. In fact, as late as United States v. MacIntosh (1931), the Court went so far as to declare that Americans were a Christian people. The actual case dealt with a conscientious objector who had applied for citizenship and been denied. He appealed, and the Court decided that, unless Congress ruled otherwise, obedience to the laws of the land was required since such laws were not inconsistent with the will of God, i.e., as interpreted by mainstream Christian thinkers.
20 comments:
Very interesting, Ray. I wonder if this could be used to justify the "superiority" of traditional orthodox Christianity just as easily as it could be interpreted to illustrate the superiority of church to state?
Wow, exc, stuff, Ray. I hope you'll peel back the onion more on this.
There's more interesting stuff written by Vern L. Bullough that is posted at a Signature Books Library website, Chapter 6 - A Humanist View of Religious Universitities.
If a nation's cultural values are determined by religous claims, and not by scientific ones, then, religious wars will continue because of the diverse ways in which religions define cultural "order".
Should we seek a more unifying way to "order" society, such as science and not "God"?
Science has no heart. You want a heartless society?
I agree with Tom. It's crazy to think that science could provide unity or order for society. Yes, it has it's place and has a huge role in helping society come to a better understanding of the truth, but that does not make it the ultimate source of order in the universe.
I have experienced much less heart in religious climates, because they have the Ultimate Truth, than in scientific ones. But, possibly that is because I have been more exposed to religious environments.
So, it could be that neither science or religion makes for a more heartless society, per se, because civility ultimately depends on the individuals that form a particular society.
Civility has to do with appropriate behavior in the public square. Though I believe that Americans have the right to "free speech", I do not think it in taste to protest a "religious conviction" at a funeral.
I haven't been exposed to scientists that have behaved in a similar fashion...But, possibley they have and I'm not offended because I'm more prone to "see their side"...
Religious people are more closed minded, in general, they are traditionalists, while scientists are more open to new discoveries...nothing is sacred, in that sense....
And the rub when nothing is sacred is a possible "key" to the problem with approaching everything scientifically...
If our ideals are sacred, that is, if man is an ultimate, and not Nature, then, life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness is an individual right for all men, as an inalienable right. Man is to be autonomous and responsible being, not a dependent one. He is to pursue his own end, not the end of some elite class, or some superior "God"....
Science values all forms of life alike. Therefore, there is no distinction between human, animal, or plant. Every form of life is interdependent. Human survival cannot be supported apart from natural resources. And human prosperity cannot be met without innovation and discovery.
Therefore, politically, Americans value human life above and beyond other life forms, because humans have the ability to promote, determine, innovate, discover, and create, while other life forms do not. Without the liberty to pursue such ends, then life is limited and determined by natural instincts of survival, and not by potentialities, or possibilities.
Well, basically, Angie, you're arguing our notions of innate human dignity--which springs from "imago Dei"---and God-given rights on behalf of science. But science can tell us nothing of human dignity or rights. You see the problem.
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."---John Adams
Tom,
I understand that I am arguing within a "christianized" philosophy....defending man's innate rights. The question of where a particular person will define his own values by undermining his own life and liberty, his commitments to other values, or his nation's security is the question facing us today...that has to be a personal choice of value, as it cannot be imposed upon an individual without tyrannical force. It has to be chosen.
The Founders did not have the information we have today, as far as scientific understanding, did they? But, they did desire "Order" apart from tyrannical dictatorship....and this is where religion serves a utilitarian purpose, just as it does today...a Christian was to submit to the governing authorities, for they are ordained by "God", which was understood by the Founders as "Providence". Such appeals are appropriate social controls. Revolutions are started when men are given their "rights"...Should people submit when their liberties are at stake, whether because of scientific "interests"/discovery or religious zeal? I think not!
By the time the Calvinists and Founders got done with Romans 13, it became "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!"
And yes, you are working from a "Christianized" frame. That's the point. Science doesn't know Christ from Adam.
The point is, Tom, that those that know Adam, know Christ, because the Founders understood what happens to leadership that is unaccountable. Men don't change in regards to power over another. Social psychologists have known this for years, but new developments or understanding of group behavior is revealing...The problem is; All humans divide into groups. This is human nature. So how can we protect ourselves from discrimination? We can't as it concerns our values, but we can when it comes to allowing another a difference of value or right...
Power unchecked is addictive and corruptive, as well as corrosive to society! This is why the Founders wanted to divide and separate powers. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absoltuely...such is an absolutized claim about "God"...or an "absolutized God" image...or an absolutized science regarding man and all that is....political manuvuering is how one science gets the funding while another doesn't...and the science that gets the funding is the science that defines policy so often, or the science that affects popular opinion, or society as a whole..
Don't give me Calvin's theological frame, as to the "elect", or Providence, that is only language games for the empowered class to subterfuge another's life for thier own purposes...
The Church still intrudes upon others and their lives in the "name of God", and it is nothing other than collective positioning and organizational structuring that empowers the Church and its theological claims....as well as it claims about another's life in society!!!
The "popular" science of a given time is those that got information that was transformative of society and its values, or understanding about certain aspects of "all that is"...and these attempts at naturalizing "God", or sacralizing nature, are what the science/religion interface is about...and it is systems thinking...as it seeks to understand the whole and dismiss the part...which undermines the individual within society for the "greater good" or the "greater purposes" of an elite class!
Univerals cannot be held without particularity, because it is only in the particular that the universal is understood. This is what Kant's Categoriccal Imperative or the "Golden Rule" seeks to uphold. The problem is; a particular individual might have certain specifics that differ from another's, while the universal of liberty upholds the universal of "the Golden Rule" or the Categorical Imperative...act in a way that you would wish would become a universal! That is, do not take from another that which you do not want taken from yourself....which are basically the Ten Commandments...But, then, just as with group behavior and human nature, we all have to draw the lines around where we will define ourselves and our ultimate values, which might not be "ideal", but are of particular importance to us, as a person...
I'm not a Calvinist or a Kantian.
I was referring to Calvinist "resistance theory," desperately trying to get this discussion back to Religion and the Founding, the reason for this blog.
When I wrote that science doesn't know Christ from Adam, that was sort of a joke, and I thought, an apt one.
Tom wrote, "..science doesn't know Christ from Adam"...
Are you suggesting that the Church is to "form" through habit formation "Christ" in the individual? That is indeed Catholic/Aristole. And it means that Adam as "a man of nature" must be formed by social conditioning of the Church. This is the "Christ image" that the church approves as a "missionary". I'm not "into" that, as it smacks of Church authority to train individuals in "social consciousness", or "altrusim". It is a collective mentality. Why not formulate it in civil terms, not in religious ones? (which I suppose has under the philosophizing of Paul)....
It seems that some have been pegged to a religious "cause". That is deterministic, which I do resist/resent!
On the other hand, in light of the article about Mormonism and academic freedom, I have to say that science doesn't know the difference between Christ and Adam, because greed, power and maintaining control is what "Adam" is about....Leviathan and the state of nature....
Both the religious orthodox and the scientific communities can be guilty of such "sins" against "the human" and the "humane"....
Nothing that deep. It was a joke.
You're still using a Christian and/or metaphysical context that science can't duplicate.
Representation is a useful term for maintaining an order, in which the leader is accountable to those he leads. Such representatives are conscious of those they lead and are therefore aware of why they were put into power.
Parents are representative of "God" to their children, because of the power the parent holds over the children. But, as children come to an age of acountability/responsibility, the parent ceases their "control" of their children. Children become responsible citizens in society.
Government in America's understanding is not authoritarian dictatorship under a "Sovereign", but is understood to be a social contract of responsible citizens that are acting responsibly toward and for their nation's benefit. The attitude is peace, but not at all costs, otherwise, the Representatives could compromise the principles that our nation was founded on, which is individual liberty of conscience concerning religious opinion/commitment.
Tradition and text versus reason and experience are the two conflicting "traditions" that have caused our cultural wars...
AND, Representation is the value our country has for justice. Civil rights grant the individual citizen liberties of conscience regarding his life. Law is to protect and maintain the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the individual.
Does society have rights, when society is to be defined by the individuals who make up the society? Possibly this is what was meant by each State having a representative government as to the values of that particular State....
What an interesting coincidence. I just stumbled across this article yesterday, before reading your post on it, while searching for readings on religious freedom for my American Government class. Given that this is not a new article, but one written in 1996 that I'd never heard of before, what are the odds I'd find it one day and then, doing something completely unrelated, run across a reference to it the next?
Could this be a sign from God telling me to read this secular humanist argument? ;)
Secular humanism is an "ideal", that protects "all men" and their rights. That sounds nice, but is not practical, in the real world, because the world will always divide into groups. And there will always be the disempowered or marginalized, as well as the priviledged and empowered class.
It seems there is a move to protect the rights of the "underclass", whether the underclass are those that are materially, politically, or positionally at a disadvantage. And those that want to promote such "ideals" are those that put others in a marginalized position, such as "the Christian", so their "ideal" will become a reality. The question becomes one of ethics versus pragmatic solutions.
Is it right to marginalize anyone consciously? Is it right to predetermine another's "place" as in organizational structuring? Is it right to further one's own ends at the expense of another? Is it right to demand from another what one would not do oneself? Is it right to demand conformity to one's own personal interests and values?
Everyone knows the answer to these questions, but they also know the answers about the real world in political realities. This is why we have certain laws that are to protect the individual and his property.
Those that are interested in alturism are lured by promoting such a view without understanding that self-interest has promoted the overall well-being of our nation, by checking and balancing power between or among "selves". Should we dissolve our well-being to promote the "greater good" of "world order"? or another's "vision" for "hope and change"? Who will hold the reigns of power when the nation-state is dissolved of its cultural values/differences?
Civil rights has been used to centralize concerns about marginalized groups. And "group rights" cause civil unrest because of identification factors of these groups and the groups demand for power and priviledge. Lobbying is a way for such groups to gain political clout and have a voice that subverts another's right. Political wars are wrought by the demands of "rights".
Yet, none of us would undermine our own right to liberty, when it comes to our own lives. Those that lay claim on thier right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in spite of power, are those that make for change in the social order or the social understanding of a people group.
Individuals are the ones that initially suffer, or are marginalized, and take a stand against or make for a change, not groups. And such individuals cause movements that breed revolutions, resistance, or reform, politically, socially, or religiously. Groups form around ideas, that shape and reform values. But, such change also results in destruction of man lives for "the greater good" or some "higher purpose".
We all know that equality is never the experience of most, because there will always be power in the real world. The balance of power is key to the continuation of liberty, as to one's personal life, otherwise, liberty will cease to exist except for those whose political, social and material welfares are protected by abuses of power. This is why religious traditions "preach" hope for the future, or virtue for today, so that "godliness with contentment is great gain" in the afterlife....Submission is the standard response, not resistance. And such submission is assumed "under God", as the "Blessed Controller" of all things...but it leaves those under such beliefs under political tyranny.
I do not know what the answer is, but I do know that we must fight to protect liberty, otherwise, more of us loose, until we have a minority class that rules, or a dictatorial leader that oppresses.
Post a Comment