PART VII
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2AppdxCrit.html
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
APPENDICES
Criticisms of the ‘Church-State Separation' Concept
Three common criticisms of church-state separation include the complaints
that the meaning of the Establishment Clause does not imply the concept of
separation of church from state, none of the separation phrases such as
‘church-state separation' are found in the language of the First Amendment,
and America has been and continues to be a Christian nation. These
criticisms are not based on the revealed truths of religion, but rather
rest on historical claims which either do or do not have documentation.
These criticisms are treated as such in the following, because neither
religion nor science flourishes when misinformation goes unchallenged.
Meaning: The constitutional authority for ‘separation' in church-state
separation has two historical foundations. First, the concept of keeping
religion separate from the mundane and morally compromised machinations of
politics in government in order to protect the purity of religion has a
long theological tradition. Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island
colony, took this position in his Queries of Highest Consideration (1644)
and in his arguments with the civil authorities of the Massachusetts Bay
Company.221
Second, the idea that civil government should be separate from
proselytizing clergy and the political aspirations of ecclesiastical
authorities was not a new idea in the 1790s. John Locke supported this
concept of separation. He was one of the most widely read political
theorists of his day, and his writings had a significant influence on the
thinking of the founders of this country.222 In regard to the authority of
the clergy, Locke wrote in 1688, "... it [the ecclesiastical authority]
ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any
manner be extended to civil affairs, because the church itself is a thing
absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on
both sides are fixed and immovable."223 Another writer with a perspective
similar to Locke's was Marquis de Condorcet, a French intellectual whom
Thomas Jefferson most likely read when he was in France as the United
State's representative from 1785 to 1789. In 1786, Condorcet wrote, "The
interest of the princes was not to seek to regulate religion, but to
separate religion from the state, to leave to the priests the freedom of
sacraments, censures, ecclesiastical functions; but not to give any civil
effect to any of their decisions, not to give them any influence over
marriages or over birth or death certificates; not to allow them to
intervene in any civil or political acts ..."224
Both reasons for separation, the state from religious institutions
as Williams would have it, and clergy from the state as Condorcet and Locke
argued, were reflected in the writings of important founders of our
government.
"For Madison and Jefferson, freedom of conscience meant the freedom
to exercise religious liberty [as an individual] – to worship or not, to
support a church or not, to profess belief or disbelief – without suffering
civil penalties or incapacity. It had nothing to do with a right to choose
one's beliefs," because, according to Jefferson, "the opinion and beliefs
of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence
proposed to their own minds."225 According to Jefferson and Madison, this
goal for religious freedom was best achieved by the means of church-state
separation. For example, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution,
wrote in 1785 that religion is "... not within the cognizance of civil
government. ... the general government is proscribed from interfering, in
any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion."226 As the First
Amendment scholar Leonard Levy notes, Madison "led the fight in Virginia
against the ‘general assessment' bill of 1784, which would have imposed
taxes to subsidize religion. ... Madison opposed ... any kind of
establishment of religion, no matter how inclusive or exclusive. ... he
shared Jefferson's belief in a high wall of separation. Madison spoke of a
‘perfect separation' and believed that ‘religion and Government will exist
in greater purity, without ... the aid of government.' "227
In 1789, George Washington wrote that he "... would labor zealously
....to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual
tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."228 Also in 1789, the
Constitution of the United States was adopted with no reference to God, a
radical act for the day, that separated any suggestion of religious
authority from the foundational document of the United States government.
Finally, various drafts for the wording for the First Amendment were
debated by Congress before the proposed draft was sent to the states for
ratifications in 1789. All 13 state legislatures approved the wording of
the First Amendment before it became part of the Constitution on December
15, 1791.229
In summary, not only were both reasons for separation known at the
time; we have evidence that those ideas were expressed by the Founders of
the United States government in their various writings, and these ideas
were discussed in all 13 state legislatures. In brief, freedom of religion
guaranteed in the First Amendment needed the prohibition of the
Establishment Clause, and for this clause to be realized in practice, it
required separating not only state from church but also church from state.
This meaning of the Establishment Clause was understood by the founders.
Given this historical record, President Jefferson's famously
expressed position that there was a "wall of separation between church and
state"230 is likely a fair reflection of the sentiments of the majority of
the state and federal legislators who voted to adopt the First Amendment in
1791.
States such as Pennsylvania had, and other states would
subsequently adopt, their own version of the Establishment Clause. For
example, by the end of 1790, the Pennsylvania legislature had adopted
separation language in Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitu-.tion that
was very similar to that which would appear in the Establishment Clause:
"... no one could be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of
worship. ... no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious
establishments or modes of worship."231
The original purpose of the First Amendment in 1791 was to restrict
the relationship between organized religion and the Federal government.
Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in various decisions232 that
the First Amendment also applied to state governments, thus expanding the
protections for citizens' civil rights in states without a First Amendment
type of protection or where states had not enforced those protections.
Language: Despite the historical record showing that church-state
separation is the essential concept of the Establishment Clause, one of the
most frequently repeated challenges to this concept, whether expressed as
‘church-state separation,' ‘separation of church and state,' or ‘wall of
separation,' is that none of these phrases appears in the Constitution of
the United States. If this objection is intended to be taken seriously, its
advocates have the epistemological burden of explaining how a person
understands the meaning of what others say. Our common understanding of
what words mean is one of the primary ways by which we affirm, dispute, or
reconcile our observations with the reported perceptions of others. The
phrase ‘wall of separation' is a metaphor which expresses in just three
words the purpose of the Establishment Clause. Common synonyms of this
include ‘church-state separation' and ‘separation of church and state.'
How words are used in daily life is the criterion lexicographers
employ to determine the meaning of words and phrases. By this criterion,
the ‘church-state separation' phrase has entered the English language as an
accepted and widely understood phrase expressing the intent of the
Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.
"Separation first clearly entered public debates as a demand in the
election of 1800," Philip Hamburger, John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the
University of Chicago, noted, "when some leading Republicans employed a
version of the idea to elicit anti-establishment votes and to criticize and
even intimidate the Federalist clergymen who spoke or wrote against
Jefferson."233 By the end of the 1800s, the idea of church-state separation
was widely accepted as one of the most important, defining features of the
United States.
In 1875, both the Republican and Democratic political parties
adopted political planks endorsing church-state separation for their
presidential campaigns. Ulysses S. Grant supported this position by saying,
"Keep the church and the state forever separate."234 In 1876, the U.S.
House of Representatives passed the Blaine amendment 109 to 7 to amend the
Constitution in order to make the concept of church-state separation more
explicit, and to have it apply to the states as well as the relationship
between the Federal government and religions.235 This proposed amendment
failed in the Senate by only two votes. However, by then many states, such
as Pennsylvania, had adopted language providing for church-state separation
in their state constitutions. Seventy seven years later, in 1952, Congress
approved the constitution of Puerto Rico which includes the phrase
"complete .separation of church and state."
Public awareness of and support for church-state separation grew
during the 1800s as a result, in part, of the growing endorsements of the
clergy. In 1843, the Presbyterian minister Thomas Smyth asserted, "... that
Calvin taught ‘the spiritual independence of the Church, its entire
separation from civil government.' "236 In an 1852 sermon by the pastor of
the First Baptist Church of Boston, Rollin H. Neale said, "... it is to the
entire separation of the church from the state, and the perfect freedom we
enjoy in our religion, that the pulpit is indebted for much of the powerful
good with which it is here invested."237 In 1855, William Seward proclaimed
to Congregationalists, "... separation of Church and State may therefore be
regarded as a contribution made by the Puritans towards perfecting the art
of government."238 In 1855, Thomas Curtis, professor of theology at
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote, that "Baptists had long sought to ‘awaken a
spirit in favor of perfect liberty of conscience and the separation of
church and state.' "239
In 1871, the Unitarian minister Henry W. Bellows noted, "Happily
our founders were compelled, and by a blessed necessity, to introduce at
the very beginning a truly scientific principle into the foundation of the
national law and life. They declared a complete and perpetual divorce
between church and state."240 In 1875, the Methodist minister John P.
Newman offered, "Let us to-day thank God that while the Divine Author of
Christianity has declared the mutual and reciprocal relations of church and
state for the well-being of our race, yet has authorized their separation
and announced their independence."241 In 1890, in the Seventh-Day Adventist
publication, American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation, William
Addison Blakely wrote, "It is to set forth the true American idea -
absolute separation of religion from the state - absolute freedom for all
in religious opinions and worship - that these papers are collected and
republished."242 Regardless of whether you agree with the theological
perspectives expressed in these quotes, these fit the tenor of their day.
As the 1800s came to a close, members of the judiciary began to
speak in favor of church-state separation. In 1870, "a former judge of the
New York Supreme Court, Elisha P. Hurlbut, argued that there was an
irreconcilable conflict between ‘Democracy and Theocracy' - a conflict
‘stronger and fiercer' than that between freedom and slavery."243 As the
20th Century progressed, the Federal courts began using church-state
separation language in their opinions. In Everson v. Board of Education of
Ewing, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black wrote, "The First
Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That
wall must be kept high and impregnable."244 "It is my belief," said Justice
Black in an interview in 1962, "... there are ‘absolutes' in our Bill of
Rights, and ... they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words
meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.' "245
For two centuries, the language of church-state separation has been
and continues to be used in newspapers and books. On November 18, 2002, The
New York Times reported, "[Federal] Judge Thompson issued a 93-page opinion
today, saying Justice Moore had violated the separation between church and
state."246 Book titles include these phrases, .e.g., Separation of Church
and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction, 1982, by Robert Cord.
Even those authors who object to the intent of the Establishment
Clause find themselves using the terms ‘church-state separation,'
‘separation of church and state,' or ‘wall of separation' to explain
themselves. The meaning of these phrases is so well established that these
terms are used in book indexes to cross-reference subject matter. The
Columbia Encyclopedia (1963) defined separation of church and state on page
416. Similar language is used in Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia: a
Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World AD 1900 -
2000, p. 718: "...the United States has been clearly defined as a secular
state in which church and state are legally separated." The index of Robert
Wuthnow's authoritative, two-volume The Encyclopedia of Politics and
Religion, (1998) includes "Separation of church and state." An internet web
search for ‘church-state separation' generated 17,200 hits on November 8,
2002.
The durability of the language of separation since 1802, when
President Jefferson proclaimed a "wall of separation," is testimony to the
productive utility that these phrases have had in summarizing in a few
words the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
"Christian Nation": The evidence presented in this Appendix supports the
constitutional validity of church-state separation, which is, nevertheless,
opposed by some religious leaders. They claim that "America is a Christian
nation," and therefore church-state separation has no place in our form of
government.
This claim has been made by televangelist ministers Pat Robertson,
founder of the Christian Coalition, and James Kennedy, of the Coral Ridge
Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, both of whom oppose church-state
separation.247 Their assertion is promulgated from some pulpits, appears in
letters-to-the-editor of local papers, and is advanced in a variety of web
sites.
Is it reasonable to claim "America is a Christian nation?" To
answer this question, I will first start with a few definitions. A "nation"
is defined by its form of government and the characteristics of its legal
system. The seminal event of 1787 that distinguished the newly formed
"nation" of the United States from all preceding and existing nations of
that era was the adoption by the Continental Congress of a secular
constitution, with no mention of God, and the Constitution explicitly
states in Article VI, Clause 3: "... no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States." The Constitution and the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791,
were watershed events in the history of world politics; a new paradigm of
government was created that had no formal or legal connection to organized
religion. As a result, the "nation" of the United States is, and has always
been, secular by Constitutional definition. Therefore, our nation is not a
Christian theocracy as suggested by the statement "America is a Christian
nation."
Second, perhaps Robertson and Kennedy assume that the population of
this secular nation is Christian to such an extent that Robertson and
Kennedy believe America248 might fairly be characterized as a "Christian"
country. This raises the two questions, how is "Christian" defined, that
is, what set of beliefs are common to Christians; and how do we determine
if a person is Christian? Answers to these will help us determine whether
there is a reasonable justification for claiming "America is a Christian
nation?"
As to the first question, there appears to be little agreement
about which beliefs define a Christian. Today, some self-identified
Christians dismiss the validity or relevance of central Christian
doctrines, such as being born in sin, the importance of forgiveness, or
even the essential role of Christ. For example, "In some polls, you have
Christians saying, ‘Yes, Jesus is the only way,' and also, ‘Yes, there are
many paths to God,'" notes Egon Mayer, a sociologist at City University of
New York.249 These unorthodox beliefs have occurred, in part, as a result
of the inconsistencies among the stories in the Gospels, the current
administrative needs of some Christian denominations, and modern concepts
of justice. For example, in a 2000 New York Times survey, 73% of Americans
disagree that we are born in sin.250 Although for many forgiveness is a
defining attribute of Christianity, the four Gospels do not consistently
support forgiveness as a virtue.251 The divinity of Christ252 and origins
of the Eucharists253 are not consistently explained in the books written by
the Apostles.
Among Catholics in 1965, "the idea of female priests was
unthinkable. Today, over 6o percent favor the idea," notes Peter
Steinfels.254 In contrast to the New Testament's admonition against
homosexuality, Paul M. Weyrich, a religious conservative and a founder of
the Heritage Foundation has said, "I don't think sodomy laws could be
resurrected, because even most Christians believe that what is done in the
privacy of one's home is not the government's business. I've had a couple
of my own kids say that to me."255
A Gallup poll in 1978 reported that 80% of Americans agreed that
"... an individual should arrive at his or her own religious beliefs
independent of any churches or synagogues."256 This finding is consistent
with the results of another survey 23 years later, in 2001: "There is a
moral majority in America," reports Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi
Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. "It just
happens to be one that wants to make up its own mind."257 For example,
self-proclaimed Christians are on both sides of such important issues as
the place of women in society, contraception, a woman's right to choose
abortion, medically assisted suicide, prayer in public schools, teaching
evolution in public schools, gay and women clergy, and equal civil rights
for gays.
Such differences are not limited to the laity. In 1987, only 5% of
Episcopalian clergy agreed that "... the Scriptures are the inspired and
inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters," compared to
33% of American Baptist clergy, according to a poll conducted by Jeffery
Hadden of 10,000 American clergy.258 Christian clergy hold different
beliefs about the theological importance of the Biblical prophets, the
Pope, Mary Baker Eddy, or Joseph Smith who founded the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Leaders among the different sects of
the Mormons have sharp differences over the "divine principle" of
polygamy.259
On church-state separation, the Unitarian Universalists Association
adopted a resolution in 1985, "... to make manifest their commitment to the
separation of church and state... ."260 At the other end of the theological
continuum is dominion theology, which holds "... that Christians, and
Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular
institutions until Christ returns."261 Randall Terry expressed this idea as
follows, "Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are
called by God to conquer this country."262 In A Christian Manifesto, 1981,
the evangelical Francis Schaeffer advocated that Christians engage in "...
civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality."263 Similar dominionist
theological sentiments have been expressed by the evangelical ministers Pat
Robertson, James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, and Dr. James Dobson. Publically
elected and appointed government officials including House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay (R) and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft have expressed
dominion theology sentiments many times.
Another measure of how extensive the theological differences are
today is reflected in the diversity of denominations and congregations. In
1776, there were 11 denominations in the United States. Today, there are
over 2,000 denominations and over 325,000 congregations. This proliferation
of organized religion resulted from disagreements within congregations that
split churches and denominations apart,264 and also from the founding of
many new religions such as the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and
Jehovah's Witnesses.
Given the wide range of conflicting religious beliefs held by
self-identified Christians and the theological chasm separating many
Christian denominations, it is difficult to imagine that there is or will
ever be a consensus among Christians about what the phrase "America is a
‘Christian' nation" means.
The second question was how do we determine if a person is
Christian. In 1956, about 80% of the U.S. population surveyed claimed some
religious identity or affiliation such as Jewish, Presbyterian, or
Catholic. Most self-identified as Christian. However, church records
indicated that only 62% of the adult population were members of a
congregation, and less than that, 45%, attended church.265 Attendance
dropped to about 35% nationally by 1995, and in a survey of New York City
residents in 2000, 25% reported they attended a house of worship.266 For
the largest Christian denomination, attendance at Catholic services dropped
from 65% in 1965, to 35% in 2002.267
If the old maxim "actions speak louder than words" has any merit,
church attendance is the most compelling evidence of traditional religious
commitment. Church membership, which does not necessarily require attending
church, is the second best evidence, and religious self-identification as
reported in surveys requires no effort at all. Although a majority of those
polled self-identify as Christian, few of them go to any church. The
disparities between reported religious self-identity, church membership,
and church attendance further weakens the claim that "America is a
Christian nation."
A third justification for claiming that "America is a Christian
nation" is the assertion that colonial Americans were Christian at the time
when the United States was founded. However, in 1776, 83% of Americans were
not members of any church. "...[W]hat is most noticeable about religion in
the colonial era," notes Roger Finke, associate professor of sociology at
Purdue University, "is how poorly the denominations were doing. To put it
another way, these firms [churches] had failed to make any serious dent in
the market ... the vast majority of Americans had not been reached by an
organized faith."268 Of the remaining 17% who were members of churches,
most were members of one of the 10 Christian denominations that existed at
the time.269
If the pattern of church-going in 1776 was similar to that in 1952,
it is likely that church attendance was much lower than the number of
people registered as members of congregations in1776. One of the concerns
among pastors in the1800s was the lack of participation in church by local
citizens. For example, in 1835, Rev. Bela Bates Edwards wrote, "A great
majority of the members of our successive legislatures are not connected
with the churches of any denomination."270 If church membership is a
reasonable criterion to use, it is a stretch to say that "America was a
Christian nation" in 1776.
Finally, although the heritage of many colonists may have been
nominally Christian, apparently it was not a sufficiently compelling
heritage to motivate 83% of them to join churches. We don't know a great
deal about the religious attitudes of most colonists. Opinion surveys about
religious self-identification were not conducted in the 1700s, and we have
few written records from that period documenting the religious preferences
of the illiterate, barely literate,271 and literate but non-churched
majority of the population.
In contrast, the written record of that era was dominated by a
small but educated population of clergy272 who were paid to preach, publish
their sermons, keep the minutes of congregations, and otherwise promote
their theology in pamphlets. From their historical records, one can get the
impression that the entire population was deeply engrossed in their
religion. If that was the case, why were only 17% members of congregations?
Therefore, relying on the record of religious heritage of colonials as a
justification for claiming "America was a Christian nation" is a flimsy
proposition at best.
In summary, the statement "America is a Christian nation" has no
constitutional basis at all, little documented historic or sociological
validity, and no specific Biblical foundation.273 However, it is important
to note that the above analysis does not prove that colonial Americans were
not, or Americans today are not, generally Christian. It only shows that
those who claim colonial Americans were Christian have little evidence for
this claim. Furthermore, the meaning of the term "Christian" is so defused
today that it has little definitional value without extensive
qualification. When it is qualified, the resulting definition leaves out
many who consider themselves Christian. For example, in 2000, "the 8.4
million-member United Methodist Church declared that Mormonism [with 11
million members] ‘by self-definition, does not fit within the bounds of the
historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith.'"274 Such
definitional distinctions further compromise the claim that "America is a
Christian nation."
The attitude reflected in the claim that "America is a Christian
nation" is at odds with the sentiment of 83% of Americans who agree that
"... there are many different religious truths and we ought to be tolerant
of all of them;"275 and it conflicts with the long-term, broad, public
support for church-state separation.276 Americans do not want to give up
their democracy for a fundamentalist, theocratic vision of the United
States. That was true in 1791 when the First Amendment was adopted, and it
continues to be the case today.
click here to continue: Notes and Citations
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Notes.html
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
Notes and Citations
[notes and citation are 30 pages long so you can click on the URL above
yourself to get access to them.
.
|
