Courting Religion
Steven Waldman on Founding principles.
An NRO Q&A
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTcyMmI4Njk2MmZlNGM2NmU0MTFlMGY5NWMwYjJiMzI=
[excerpt]
The Reverend Wright charade of the past weeks has once again brought to
the
forefront the debate over religion’s role in American political life. In
an
election year that has seen many such moments — from the miraculous rise
of
Mike Hucakbee, to the prospect of a Mormon in the White House, to the
messianic disciple****p of Obama sup****ters — understanding the intentions
of the Founders on the matter of religion is of prime im****tance. Weighing
in on religion and the Founding is Steven Waldman, author of Founding
Faith
and editor of BeliefNet.com, who recently discussed the faith of the
Founders, the separation of Church and State, and the flouri****ng of
religious belief in America with National Review Online editor Kathryn
Lopez.
KATHRYN JEAN Lopez: Your book jacket reads like you’re trying to tick off
people both on the Right and the Left. Why be confrontational about
religion?
STEVEN Waldman: Confrontational? The first two titles actually were, John
Adams is a Big, Fat Idiot and Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal Fascist, but
they seemed too derivative. I’m not trying to tick off both wings but both
sides have introduced some distortions into the history and I wanted to
establish at the outset that this book challenges the way we think about
the birth of religious freedom. But while the first and last chapters
engage in some curmudgeonly “myth busting,” the rest of Founding Faith is
the (inspiring) tale of how we ended up with one of America’s greatest
achievements: religious freedom. Mostly, its the story of how the Founders
got it right.
Lopez: What do Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
types have most wrong?
Waldman: That the First Amendment intended to separate church and state in
every nook and cranny of our land. The First Amendment was a states’
rights
compromise that envisioned separation at the national level but allowed a
great deal of church-state mingling at the state and local level. There’s
an amazing moment during the congressional deliberations on the First
Amendment when Rep. Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut complains that
Madison’s proposed amendment could be “extremely harmful to the cause of
religion.” How could our beloved Bill of Rights harm religion? Huntington
feared it might wipe out the official state establishment in Connecticut.
Madison had to reassure him that Connecticut could keep having an official
state religion. Madison actually wanted the First Amendment applied to the
states, but he didn’t have the votes to carry the day.
Of course over time, the states got rid of the establishments, and the
14th
Amendment did attempt to apply much of the Bill of Rights to the states,
and that’s how we end up with prayer-in-schools cases. But it was a very
gradual process, driven more by the framers of the 14th Amendment than by
the framers of the First Amendment.
Another thing that some separationists get wrong is their assertion that
the Founders were Deists. I believe that almost none of the Founders I
studied (Wa****ngton, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison) were truly
Deists. Though some of them did have serious problems with the Bible and
organized religion, they also believed in a God that intervened in history
and in their lives — not a distant “watchmaker” God who created the rules
and then left the scene. Even Jefferson, who famously sliced out the parts
of the Bible he didn’t like, at other moments talked about God’s
intervention and looked forward to reuniting with friends in Heaven.
Lopez: What are Americans for the separation of Church and State most
right
about?
Waldman: Alas, “separation of church and state” is not a myth concocted by
20th-century courts. While it wasn’t a unanimous, clear-cut legacy of the
Founders, it was a prominent stream of thought, especially espoused by
Madison and Jefferson. “Every new & successful example therefore of a
perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of
im****tance,” he wrote Edward Livingston. “And I have no doubt that every
new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that
religion and Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are
mixed
together.” Now, Madison and Jefferson didn’t always win their battles, and
that’s why the First Amendment legacy is murky, but the 20th-century
courts
didn’t just make up “separation” out of thin air.
Lopez: You write, “a Christian who is not allowed to run a Bible study
group on public school property is still allowed to wor****p in church, at
home, in the car, on the street, at a rock concert, plugged into an iPod,
or surfing on the Internet.” So should we tell the kid with the Bible
study
group to suck it up?
Waldman: I tend to think holding a Bible Study in a school is
Constitutional but I’m not sure it’s an im****tant battle for religious
people to fight. The key is that the Bible study group actually happens.
So
if having it on school property is really the only way it’s going to
occur,
then they should fight it. If it’s easy enough to hold it somewhere else,
they should do that. My concern is that we focus so much on getting
religion into the public square that we start to think that the public
square is essential to our spiritual lives. It’s not.
Where I tend to come down on the gray area cases is that some of them are
Constitutionally permissible — but unwise. Just because something is
allowed doesn’t make it a good idea. If religion can happen without
government’s involvement, that’s preferable.
To be honest, some of my point here is simply that we should have a sense
of perspective. If the Founders were here and heard about someone not
being
allowed to have a Bible study on public school property, I think some
would
side with ACLU (I’m guessing Madison and Jefferson) and some would side
with the kid (probably Wa****ngton and Adams). But mostly they’d say: wow,
you folks have way more religious freedom than we did, and way more than
we
thought you would. Congratulations! Perhaps we should just have a
once-a-year holiday where we put our lawsuits aside and celebrate the
great
success of religious freedom. We can go back to suing each other the next
day.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
