Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Church and State: A Humanist View by Vern L. Bullough

Here. A taste:

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.

The conflict between the two traditions should be obvious, and it was neatly finessed by our Constitution makers by more or less ignoring what states did. Although technically the last established religion was eliminated in 1833 in Massachusetts, the lack of an established religion did not mean real separation of church and state. States later admitted to the union had to adopt statutes about religious freedom, but, since most Americans nominally came from a European Christian background, religious observances played an important role in American history. One current example is the delivering of a prayer that opens up Congress, a practice that Free Inquiry's editor, Paul Kurtz, attempted to stop by a lawsuit, which he lost.

I was never more struck by the contradictions in our concepts of separation of church and state than when I lived in so-called emancipated New York State. I appeared several times in court in New York as an expert witness, and each time I was required to swear an oath on the Bible to tell the truth so help me God. I objected to the attorneys for whom I was testifying but they asked me not to call attention to the issue since it could negatively affect their client. I complied. In the university at which I taught in New York, the commencement ceremonies were opened and closed with prayers, although there was a real effort by the clergy doing the invocation and benediction to keep their remarks general and platitudinous. Most secular schools in the United States have Christmas and Easter breaks, although the Easter break is somewhat less common than it was a few years ago. The most secular school I attended was the University of Chicago, at one time a Baptist school, which ignored religious holidays of all kinds but did have its quarter session usually end about December 22.

7 comments:

Phil Johnson said...

.
You might want to read THIS
.
Roger Williams lobbied Parliament for a charter for Rhode Island where church and state would be separated by a hedge?
.
Check it out.
.

Ray Soller said...

The very serious concern "not to call attention to the issue [regarding the religious nature of the oath] since it could negatively affect their client," has been around for a long time. An excellent example goes back to 1819 when the court case, Jackson ex dem Tuttle vs. Gridley; Oneida Circuit, was tried in New York State. Thomas Herttell (1771–1849), a New York City judge, state assemblyman, and reputed infidel wrote an extensive pamphlet on the subject. The full title reads The Demurrer: or proofs of error in the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, requiring faith in particular religious doctrines as a legal qualification of witnesses.

Here's a snippet from page 65:
To prescribe directly or indirectly, as the doctrine and decision of the court in the case in question does, a religious creed as a test of the competency and credibility of a witness, is, to proscribe every other or adverse religious faith -- and in effect and in fact, amounts to the establishment of religious tests and religious creeds by law. This doctrine, if consistently persisted in, will open and pave the way to the introduction of religious forms and places of religious worship -- all the dogmas -- cant -- hypocrisy -- mummery, and in short, the whole catalogue of trumpery and demoralizing influence of the "unholly alliance" of church and state powers.

Ray Soller said...

On October 13, 1829, Thomas Hertell sent a copy of his pamphlet, The Demurrer, together with a letter to James Madison in the hope that the pamphlet would "meet a favorable reception." The letter has been posted here.

Phil Johnson said...

,
So, as regards the separation of church and state, it appears as though Bullough is completely disregarding the efforts and successes of Roger Williams in getting Rhode Island's charter as an experiment in that "big idea".
.
Further, as regards this paragraph in John Barry's Smithsonian article, Williams described the true church as a magnificent garden, unsullied and pure, resonant of Eden. The world he described as “the Wilderness,” a word with personal resonance for him. Then he used for the first time a phrase he would use again, a phrase that although not commonly attributed to him has echoed through American history. “[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world,” he warned, “God hathe ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse.”, Roger Williams predates the Constitution and he was a Puritan.
.
Am I missing something here?
.
.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Williams wasn't a Puritan. He was a Baptist. The Puritans banished RW from Mass. to found Rhode Island.

Phil Johnson said...

.
I know Williams is reknowned as a Baptist.
.
"Winthrop hailed [Williams] as 'a godly minister,' and the Boston church immediately offered him a post, the greatest such posiiton in English America."
.
From the link, it appears that Williams was an ordained Puritan minister.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html
.
.
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
It was a stupid mistake for me to say that Roger Williams was a Puritan.
.
The Smithsonian article tells a very interesting story about how Rhode Island was finally chartered. Massachusetts claimed authority over the area Williams purchased from the native Americans. After some heavy lobbying of Parliament, Williams was able to get a charter for a government separated from the church.
.