I carefully followed the recent posts about federalism, religious tests, and the "Godless Constitution." So what follows hits on this general theme, and also fits with the "Big Tent" theme of my previous posts.
John Fea noted a story on a religious test oath in North Carolina:
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.
This seems the perfect showdown for the latest "Christian Nationalists" v. "Secular Nationalists" culture war battle. What might help is to examine the dialogue at the North Carolina ratifying convention. The following is an excerpt of an exchange over Article VI, Cl. 3 of the US Constitution:
"Mr. Henry Abbot, after a short exordium, which was not distinctly heard, proceeded thus: Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties. The worthy member from Edenton mentioned sundry political reasons why treaties should be the supreme law of the land. It is feared, by some people, that, by the power of making treaties, they might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people from worshipping God according to their own consciences. The worthy member from Halifax has in some measure satisfied my mind on this subject. But others may be dissatisfied. Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required--whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution. [Mr. Abbot added several other observations, but spoke too low to be heard.]
Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect. I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably--that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant countries. In the Roman Catholic countries, principles of moderation are adopted which would have been spurned at a century or two ago. I should be sorry to find, when examples of toleration are set even by arbitrary governments, that this country, so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject that were narrow and illiberal.
I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America. Were we to judge from the examples of religious tests in other countries, we should be persuaded that they do not answer the purpose for which they are intended. What is the consequence of such in England? In that country no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church. This, in the first instance, must degrade and profane a rite which never ought to be taken but from a sincere principle of devotion. To a man of base principles, it is made a mere instrument of civil policy. The intention was, to exclude all persons from offices but the members of the Church of England. Yet it is notorious that dissenters qualify themselves for offices in this manner, though they never conform to the Church on any other occasion; and men of no religion at all have no scruple to make use of this qualification. It never was known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest. No test can bind such a one. I am therefore clearly of opinion that such a discrimination would neither be effectual for its own purposes, nor, if it could, ought it by any means to be made. Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn. If any future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by the Constitution, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, "Who authorized the government to pass such an act? It is not warranted by the Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation." The power to make treaties can never be supposed to include a right to establish a foreign religion among ourselves, though it might authorize a toleration of others.
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth."
Does this sound like a "Christian Nationalist" and a "Secular Nationalist" debating throwing God out of all government or more like two Christians discussing how big to make the tent? So much for the "Godless Constitution" ploy to prove the "Secular Nation" narrative. Perhaps more will embrace Dr. Fea's conclusion: "[I]t would seem to me that the early republic was closer to being a Christian 'nation' than some might be willing to admit."
"Secular" means not particularly related to religion or religious things, therefore, our country is built on secular "standards" or ideals, so that it represents all sects, and non-sects.
"Secular" happens to be defined by the religious depending on their own religious definitions, as "secular" is a neutral term, in regards to religion.
Although I understand that the Christian nation affirms the majority's view, we do know that this is not the real commiment or conviction of the Founding Fathers.
The problem with religious people that believe in an interventional God that punishes, condemns, etc. those with whom he has differences..is that all of us will be put under the convictions of that particular "sect's" definition of what constitutes "piestic" faithfulness.
The other night on a program on TV some of the Muslims in England were promising to bring in Shairia to replace English law. They wanted to see "hands cut off of a theif", etc....this is a real danger.
The Nigerian terrorist was going to a Falls Church mosque....what are we going to do when we affirm a tolerance of anything without qualifying positions of leadership, and yet, without discriminating against others with different religious convictions or opinions?
""Secular" means not particularly related to religion or religious things,"
Then the founding was obviously not secular. Thank for being honest but your view would have been seen as extreme at the time of founding. Perhaps the "lunatic fringe". That is how different things are today. Right or wrong.
Secular didn't "exist" in the Founding, as what one did as civic duty was part of being a citizen, religious or not.
Secular is a false dichotomy, as far as I am concerned, because what is considered religious is beyond reason. And the Founding was in the "Age of Reason"...
Who says religion is beyond reason? Certainly not many of the Founding Fathers. They may not have all been orthodox Christians but they all were certainly religious to some degree at the very least. Again, your view would have been considered extreme back then.
Post a Comment