Thursday, December 31, 2009

A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore


by Daniel L. Dreisbach


[Below, Jonathan Rowe continues our continuing series of continued fiskings of advocate/history writer David Barton. For a more scholarly account of Barton's objections, we feature excerpts from accredited historian Daniel Dreisbach. The full article may be found here.]


In their provocative polemic The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (W. W. Horton, 1996), Cornell University professors Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore argue that the God-fearing framers of the U. S. Constitution "created an utterly secular state" unshackled from the intolerant chains of religion. They purportedly find evidence for this thesis in the constitutional text, which they describe as radically "godless" and distinctly secular. Their argument, while an appealing antidote to the historical assertions of the religious right, is superficial and misleading.

There were, indeed, anti-Federalist critics of the Constitution who complained bitterly that the document's failure to invoke the Deity and include explicit Christian references indicated, at best, indifference or, at worst, hostility toward Christianity. This view, however, did not prevail in the battle to ratify the Constitution. The professor's inordinate reliance on the Constitution's most vociferous critics to describe and define that document results in misleading, if not erroneous, conclusions. Furthermore, like the extreme anti-Federalists of 1787, the professors misunderstand the fundamental nature of the federal regime and its founding charter.

The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.

Relationships between religion and civil government were defined in most state constitutions, and the framers believed it would be inappropriate for the federal government to encroach upon or usurp state jurisdiction in this area. State and local governments, not the federal regime, it must be emphasized, were the basic and vital political units of the day. Thus, it was fitting that the people expressed religious preferences and affiliations through state and local charters.

Professors Kramnick and Moore find further evidence for a godless Constitution in the Article VI religious test ban. Here, too, they misconstrue the historical record. Their argument rests on the false premise that, in the minds of the framers, support for the Article VI ban was a repudiation of state establishments of religion and a ringing endorsement of a radically secular polity. The numerous state constitutions written between 1776 and 1787 in which sweeping religious liberty and nonestablishment provisions coexisted with religious test oaths confirm the poverty of this assumption. The founding generation, in other words, generally did not regard such measures as incompatible.

The Article VI ban (applicable to federal officeholders only) was not driven by a radical secular agenda or a renunciation of religious tests as a matter of principle. The fact that religious tests accorded with popular wishes is confirmed by their inclusion in the vast majority of revolutionary era state constitutions.

Professors Kramnick and Moore also blithely ignore Article I, sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution, which deferred to state qualifications for the electors of members of the U. S. House of Representatives. This provision is significant since the constitutional framers of 1787 knew that in some states--such as South Carolina--the requisite qualifications for suffrage included religious belief.

Significantly, there were delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia who endorsed the Article VI ban but had previously crafted religious tests for their respective state constitutions. The constitutional framers did not appreciate this apparent contradiction, which arises under a secular construction of Article VI. The framers believed, as a matter of federalism, that the Constitution denied the national government all jurisdiction over religion, including the authority to administer religious tests. Many in founding generation supported a federal test ban because they valued religious tests required under state laws, and they feared that a federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments. In other words, support for the Article VI ban was driven in part by a desire to preserve and defend the instruments of "religious establishment" (specifically, religious test oaths) that remained in the states.

The Godless Constitution's lack of clear documentation is a disappointment. In order to examine the book's thesis more fully, I attempted to document the claims and quotations in the second chapter, which sets forth the case that the "principal architects of our national government envisioned a godless Constitution and a godless politics." It was readily apparent why these two university professors, who live in the world of footnotes, avoided them in this tract. The book is replete with misstatements or mischaracterizations of fact and garbled quotations. For example, the professors conflate two separate sections of New York Constitution of 1777 to support the claim that it "self-consciously repudiated tests" (p. 31). Contrary to this assertion, neither constitutional section expressly mentions religious tests and, indeed, test oaths were retained in the laws of New York well into the nineteenth century. The Danbury Baptists, for another example, did not ask Jefferson to designate "a fast day for national reconciliation" (pp.97, 119).

The book illustrates what is pejoratively called "law office history." That is, the authors, imbued with the adversary ethic, selectively recount facts, emphasizing data that support their own prepossessions and minimizing significant facts that complicate or conflict with their biases. The professors warn readers of this on the second page when they describe their book as a "polemic" that will " lay out the case for one" side of the debate on the important "role of religion in public and political life."

The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the "Christian nation" rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize.


Daniel L. Dreisbach, D. Phil. (Oxford University) and J. D. (University of Virginia), is an associate professor at American University in Washington, D. C.. He is the author of Religion and Politics in the Early Republic (University Press of Kentucky, 1996), and Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Crossway Books, 1987).

15 comments:

King of Ireland said...

And this crap is called scholarship and Barton gets blasted. You know how many people that are ignorant of most of what one would need to know to have an intelligent discussion about the founding spout off the "Godless Constitution" crap without even knowing what they are talking about.

I am honesty starting to believe that the Brayton hacks are just as brainwashed as the Barton hacks they blast. Ignorance is ignorance. For Evidence go look at the complete lack of any type of rational reply to anything I have stated the last week over there. They spout their shit off and most have not even read Locke.

I am no expert on all this but have found out how easy it is to get up to speed by reading the right resources and engaging in productive dialogue. Most have no desire to do so. They just want to spout off. The problem is that the Braytonites get a pass and the Bartonites get blasted.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Kramnick and Moore get the overwhelming majority of their historical assertions correct.

Dreisbach's calling them out on various minor details is nitpicking. But to be fair, it's on par with Rodda's nitpicking of Barton's details.

Where Dreisbach really differs with K & M, is in their UNDERSTANDING of facts that are not in contest.

See my next post tonight.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Dreisbach's criticism is substantive, not mere nit-picking.


The book illustrates what is pejoratively called "law office history." That is, the authors, imbued with the adversary ethic, selectively recount facts, emphasizing data that support their own prepossessions and minimizing significant facts that complicate or conflict with their biases. The professors warn readers of this on the second page when they describe their book as a "polemic" that will " lay out the case for one" side of the debate on the important "role of religion in public and political life."


Exactly. Polemics is a lousy way to do history, whether by David Barton, but especially by accredited scholars and college professors.

I'm so sick of history by polemic. It is unconcerned with the whole truth, which is to say THE truth, as Professors Kramnick and Moore explicitly admit here.

So go ahead and bury this post under their polemics, Jon, but they already admit they're not telling the whole story, just the parts they like.

Jonathan Rowe said...

All scholars bring their biases to the table, including Hamburger, Dreisbach, Barton, Kramnick and Moore. They can't get past them.

Hamburger's "Separation" was as polemical and law office history-esq. as K & M's "The Godless Constitution."

Yes, I am going to post a big one tonight.

I don't feel that I am unfairly burying your thoughts given that you mainly copied and pasted.

If you worked for a number of hours, I would wait till tomorrow or the next day.

Brad Hart said...

This is just replacing one radical view with another. That's all. As KOI states:

I am honesty starting to believe that the Brayton hacks are just as brainwashed as the Barton hacks they blast. Ignorance is ignorance.

Too many culture warrior chefs in the kitchen with political stones to grind.

But I agree with Jon. This isn't really isn't substantive. Every culture warrior will "nitpick." Whether it takes the form of Dreisbach, Rodda, Brayton, Barton, etc. it's the same dance to a different tune.

Not that I am against such arguments being presented here at American Creation. If we are to be an all-encompassing blog on religion and the founding it is sort of our duty to present this stuff from time to time (not to mention the culture warrior stuff is some of our more popular material).

But alas, keyboard warriors will always try to hijack the founding for their own respective causes. So long as we recognize this fact then we should be ok.

By the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!

Almost.

Brad Hart said...

With that said, Tom is right that it's a bit ridiculous for accredited scholars (who should know better) to make these types of claims when I am sure they are aware of the counter evidence. I'm not suggesting that they are entirely wrong, but their blatant one-sidedness is a greater offense than the Barton's of the world who are just too dumb to know any better.

In this respect, Tom is right. History by polemic is about as useful as talk radio.

Tom Van Dyke said...

How can you say Dreisbach's criticism isn't substantive when he cites the over-emphasis on the anti-Federalists, and the two most relevant parts of the Constitution?

It's lazy to wave away his criticisms. Answer them.

As for POV, yes, scholars certainly have them, some more than others. However, Kramnick and Moore explicitly admit that they're presenting an advocacy case, to "'lay out the case for one' side of the debate."

We don't quote David Barton around here except to criticize him, but these guys are OK?

That isn't history. Period.

Brad Hart said...

TVD writes:

How can you say Dreisbach's criticism isn't substantive when he cites the over-emphasis on the anti-Federalists, and the two most relevant parts of the Constitution?

Have you read The Godless Constitution? I'm not saying it's an amazing, blow your socks off book, but it does have some valid points. I think what Jon is saying is that Dreisbach is simply cherry-picking on a few smaller parts of the book without looking at the whole thing. But like I said before (reference my post right above yours) Dreisbach does at least prove that Kramnick and Moore should have been more careful in their more "dramatic" passages.

With that said, I will admit that I wasn't moved to tears by The Godless Constitution. It's an ok read. And Jon is right that many of the book's claims do have plenty of historical backing. Did they have a political agenda? Yeah, probably. But I wouldn't send the book into eternal purgatory with the likes of D. James Kennedy and Howard Zinn. I think Dreisbach's rebuking of the book should have been more along these lines rather than his "less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract" rebuttal. In so doing, he comes off looking as partisan (if not more so) as Kramnick and Moore.

Would I recommend The Godless Constitution to my uninformed friend who is wanting to know more about religion and the founding? Hell no. But am I willing to condemn it with the likes of A People's History and The American Heritage Series?

No Sir Ree Bob!

Jonathan Rowe said...

Christian America types are invited to comment here, and if their writing is good enough to be front page posters. Should we invite OFT back as a commenter?

Barton is fair game. Let the Christian Nationalists step up and defend him over here.

Tom Van Dyke said...

It's been the custom of this blog to do our own research and not be mouthpieces for others.

I could defend Barton like Jon defends K&M, that he gets it mostly right. But what's the point?

Arguments should be able to stand on their own and the "interposition" of Barton or K&M gets in the way.

I only used Dreisbach out of laziness and disinterest in polemics or answering against polemics. Let's just stick to the facts.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I could defend Barton like Jon defends K&M, that he gets it mostly right. But what's the point?

In the comments section, at least, you have.

bpabbott said...

Nice post, and follow up comments.

Collectively, they reveal the king of all false dichotomies.

The idea that the Founders, with little experience with secular institutions, would collectively embrace a purely secular National government, to the total exclusion of religion and its followers, is too much for me to swallow.

I'm greatly embarrassed that so many whom I might be associated with, due to my theistic view, do swallow it :-(

aarrrggghhh!

That said, I don't object to the qualification that the text of the Constitution is essentially Godless ... after all there is no religious establishments such as doctrine, not even an mention/assertion of God's existence.

However, the secular text of the Constitution was chosen both for the benefit of religious practice and as a constraint to religious tyranny. Thus, the assertion that the Constitution was intended to be an affront to religion is baseless.

What strikes me as strange is I can't find the assertions in K&M's book that are being objected to. Granted I'm also tainted by my world view and l only have managed access to the 1st Chapter, so perhaps I've overlooked, or don't have access to, them.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The idea that the Founders, with little experience with secular institutions

A very interesting observation, Ben, and one that speaks to the difference between the American Founding and the French Revolution.

The former was a cautious reform based on experience, the latter was a conscious effort to reinvent human society [if not man himself] by abstract principles.

[At some point, we'll look at Adams vs. Jefferson on the French Revolution. Spoiler: Jefferson eventually admitted he was wrong. Imagine that.]

However, the secular text of the Constitution was chosen both for the benefit of religious practice and as a constraint to religious tyranny.

Yes.


What strikes me as strange is I can't find the assertions in K&M's book that are being objected to. Granted I'm also tainted by my world view and l only have managed access to the 1st Chapter, so perhaps I've overlooked, or don't have access to, them.


I haven't read it either. I quoted the book once from a later chapter I got access to, where it admits the states held onto religious tests.

However, in our culture wars, the "Godless Constitution" is argued as a term and an ideology, much as "Christian nation" is.

Two antithetical terms, argued argued against each other;
neither one has any respect for the truth.

A war of words and terms, not of ideas. Feh. Let's leave such intellectual brutality to other blogs.

Thx for your comment here, Ben. Like the man said, clarity is more important than agreement.

[After all our time together, Ben, I think you didn't mean to describe yourself as a "theist," that it was a typo. Perhaps "atheist," agnostic, non-theist. I make you pretty close to Ben Franklin, especially lately, someone who won't be surprised at much of anything once you pass from this mortal coil.]

[And are equally prepared for winking out of existence or sitting on God's lap. Ben was.]

bpabbott said...

You're correct Tom. I intended to type "atheistic".

Regarding Franklin, about 50 yrs ago my Father read Poor Richard's Almanack and followed up with Franklin's Autobiography.

He latter decided to name his first son Ben ;-)

The "Godless Constitution" vs "Christian Nation" Culture war is certainly an embarrassment. My recollection of history classes, in public school, was a lot of memorization of names, events, and dates. I don't recall being instructed in an understanding of the people and events. It was always just good guys and bad guys :-(

There is very little in life that is a simple as oil and water.

King of Ireland said...

Ben,

That is because it is not History class anymore. It is an indoctrination into whatever that school board thinks about who the good guys and bad guys are. More and more it is becoming whoever the dept. of Ed thinks is good are bad as NCLB nationalizes education in the name of helping minority kids.