| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2004 07:53:10 AM |
| Object: |
Ceremonial Deism, Public Religion |
A sneak preview
PART I
THOUGHTS ON POWER,
CEREMONIAL DEISM & PUBLIC RELIGION
From a variety of sources
****************************************************************
WARNINGS AND ADVICE FROM THE FOUNDING ERA
"Guard against those men who make a great noise about
religion,"
.. . .Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their
embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a
great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is
electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would
not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion
to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected;
for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty,
talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men
will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come
to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .
Source of Information: Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July
5, 1802". The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press &
The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The
Writings Of The Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life,
Written By Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene,
Lanesboro, Mass. Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
---------------------------------------------------
The more complete the separation of church (religion) and
state (government) the better for both
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the occasion which
presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
************************************************
Ceremonial Deism would be unconstitutional
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that
religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force
or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction
and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate.. . . . We maintain therefore that in matters of
Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society
and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no
other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be
ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true
that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at
large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. . .
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on
our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of
Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.
The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened
itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all
the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by
denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity,
in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any
particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the
same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of
his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to
conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. . . . If "all men are by nature equally free and independent,"
all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions;
as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than
another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as
retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the
dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to
embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of
divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have
not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be
abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore,
not to man, must an account of it be rendered. . . Are the quakers and
Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions
unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the
care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all
others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed
from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of
these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over
their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common
opposition to the measure.
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a
competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an
engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by
the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world:
the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
James Madison Memorial and Remonstrance [ca. 20 June 1785]
************************************************
THIS ERA
Setting the stage
F. JUDICIAL TECHNIQUES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
§ 15:33. Avoiding the constitutional issue
The United States Supreme Court has often announced that it will not decide
constitutional issues unless doing so is unavoidable." It said, for
instance, in 1952: "This Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
an act of Congress . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable . . . ."
The same judicial abstinence customarily prevails with reference to acts of
the state legislatures, as well as to executive decisions and procedures at
trial. "Constitutional adjudication should where possible be avoided," says
the court.
The Supreme Court avoids constitutional issues frequently by
deciding cases on nonconstitutional grounds, rather than on the claims of
unconstitutionality. For example, in 1948, the court decided that judicial
enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia
violated national public policy, rather than the Fifth Amendment. Said the
court: "It is a well settled principle that this court will not decide
constitutional questions where other grounds are available and dispositive
of the issues of the case."1 The Supreme Court will, if possible, decide
cases on nonconstitutional grounds even when such grounds were not raised
by the parties. (Internal citations and footnotes omitted, supplied upon
request)
SOURCE: Modern Constitutional Law, Volume II, The States and the Federal
Government, Chester L. Antieau, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing. (1969) p.
687
************************************************
BACKGROUND
THE WORDS
". . . It would not solve all; for example, constitutional tolerance of
the opening prayers in the Congress would require some other
theory-possibly the idea that another class of public activity which the
Dean of the Yale Law School recently called "ceremonial deism,"7 can be
accepted as so conventional and uncontroversial as to be constitutional." .
..
7. I quote Dean Rostow from my memory of his spoken words, I hope
correctly. The phrase occurred in his Meiklejohn Lecture at Brown in May,
1962, which is unpublished.
SOURCE: 40 Ind L. J. 83, 86 n, 7 (1964-65) Book Reviews, Religion and the
American Constitution, By Walter G. Katz, Reviewed by Arthur E. Sutherland.
Evanston: The Northwestern University Press, 1963, Pp. 318. $3.50.
************************************************
The phrase "ceremonial deism" was coined by former Yale Law School Dean
Walter Rostow in a 1962 lecture he delivered at Brown University. As
reported by Professor Arthur Sutherland in 1965, Rostow reconciled the
Establishment Clause with a "class of public activity, which . . . c[ould]
be accepted as so conventional and uncontroversial as to be
constitutional." Rostow labeled this class of public activity "ceremonial
deism."
SOURCE: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism, Steven B.
Epstein, 96 Colum L. Rev. 2091 (1996)
************************************************
DEISM
Deism was actually a religion that existed in Europe and America during the
founding era. It is that same Deism that so many on the religious right
want to deny any of the founders were.
There is something very ironic that a name of a religion that was viewed as
being so threatening by many men of the founding era and by many on the
religious right today that they can't even acknowledge that many founders
were considered to be Deists has come to mean irrelevant words and/or
practices devoid of any religious meaning or intent. More on the subject:
************************************************
Deism in America was a product of French intellectual thought in
the eighteenth century3l and had among its fundamental principles the
existence of a Supreme Deity, worthy of adoration, and the necessity of
religious liberty.It also eschewed theological and ecclesiastical
ex-tremes. One of deism's most ardent American proponents was Thomas Paine
According to Paine, "[d] eism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief
of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed."m Dean
Rostow s combination of "ceremonial" with "deism" was probably intended to
refer to expressions of and to God in ceremonial, as opposed to
theological, settings. Yet this literal definition gets us only so far.
(Internal citations removed)
SOURCE: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism, Steven B.
Epstein, 96 Colum L. Rev. 2091 (1996)
************************************************
Eugene Rostow, Dean of the Yale University Law School, introduced the term
in 1962. Deism was a belief popular among some social and political
reformers during the Enlightenment period. Eschewing sectarianism, the
Deists instead believed in a single god that created the universe and
established the Laws of Nature. This deity, though, refrains from
interfering with these processes. There are no miracles, revelations or
interventions made possible through prayer.
Several of the founding fathers and others identified with the period of
the American Revolution have been described as Deists. Jefferson and
Madison expressed doubts about Christian orthodoxy, and perhaps the most
outspoken and clearly identified Deist of his time was Ethan Allen, hero of
the battle at Fort Ticonderoga. He authored a provocative book, "Reason,
The Only Oracle of Man," and informed readers: "I have generally been
denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed."
But the term ceremonial deism was Rostow's effort to justify a number of
constitutionally suspect practices by defining them away. He argued that
the term referred to activities such as the celebration of Christmas, or
the presence of "In God We Trust" on money that were "so conventional and
uncontroversial as to be constitutional."
SOURCE: The Trap of Ceremonial Deism
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0OBW/9_43/112799659/p1/article.jhtml
************************************************
If taken literally, "ceremonial deism" suggests that the beliefs of
Deists are not worthy of protection from government usurpation under the
Establishment Clause. Deism is a sincere belief that has existed in the
United States from the birth of this nation. Suggesting that it, unlike any
other belief, can be trivialized or secularized for use by government is
itself a violation of the principles underlying the Establishment Clause.
The respect for religious beliefs engendered by the Establishment Clause
would be equally violated by secularizing Catholic, Protestant, Islamic,
Jewish, Hindu, or Sikh beliefs and practices to the point where "they have
lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 716 (1984) (Brennan, J. dissenting). Thus, we must
eliminate the Deist from ceremonial deism if that concept is to pass
constitutional muster.
SOURCE: Brief of Amici Curiae, Seattle Atheists, (and others) in support
of respondent, Elk Grove unified School District v. Newdow, p. 11
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/SeattleAtheists.pdf
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
