http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State
by
R.P. Nettelhorst
Introduction
Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was
founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although
well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United
States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of
Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any
stretch of the imagination.
Why do some Christians imagine these men are Christians? Besides a
desperate desire that it should be so, in a selective examination of their
writings, one can discover positive statements about God and/or
Christianity. However, merely believing in God does not make a person a
Christian. The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no
God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say
you believe in God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble."
Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence for demonstrating
either Christian principles or that a person is a Christian.
Perhaps, to start, it might be beneficial to remind ourselves of
what a Christian might be: it is a person who has acknowledged his or her
sinfulness, responded in faith to the person of Jesus Christ as the only
one who can redeem him, and by so doing been given the Holy Spirit.
The early church summarized the Christian message in six points:
1. Jesus came from God.
2. You killed him.
3. He rose again on the third day.
4. He sent the Holy Spirit
5. Repent and be baptized.
6. He's coming back.
An individual who would not acknowledge this much of the Christian
message could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a
Christian. The founding fathers of this country did not acknowledge this
message. In fact, they denied it.
Founders of the American Revolution
Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was
uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New
Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to
miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.
There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the
history of biblical scholarship during the past two centuries, but for
sheer audacity Thomas Jefferson's two redactions of the Gospels stand out
even in that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the
sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor
in hand, he sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself
says) "2. or 3. nights only at Washington, after getting thro' the evening
task of reading the letters and papers of the day." He was apparently quite
sure that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the
transmitted text of the New Testament...(Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson
Bible; Jefferson and his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan,
Boston: Beacon Press, 1989, p. 149. Click to go to a copy of The Jefferson
Bible).
In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my
leg. (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston:
Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the
faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the War of
Independence. But he was a Deist:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church,
by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the
Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own
church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason".
Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing
Co., 1945, p. 362)
Regarding the New Testament, he wrote that:
I hold [it] to be fabulous and have shown [it] to be
false...(Roberts, p. 375)
About the afterlife, he wrote:
I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it
imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so
made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to
do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do. (Roberts, p.
375)
John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the
deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency
that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli,
which states in Article XI that:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against
any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext
arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the
harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed.
Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America
1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.:
Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).
This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had been written and
concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington's Administration. The U.S.
Senate ratified the treaty on June 7, 1797; President Adams signed it on
June 10, 1797 and it was first published in the Session Laws of the Fifth
Congress, first session in 1797. Quite clearly, then, at this very early
stage of the American Republic, the U.S. government did not consider the
United States a Christian nation.
Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for
positive "God" talk. It is often noted that Franklin made a motion at the
Constitutional convention that they should bring in a clergyman to pray for
their deliberations:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the
dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when
present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once
thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings?....I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live,
the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the
affairs of men. (Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The
Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York:
Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)
It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his motion after "four
or five weeks" of deliberation, during which they had never once opened in
prayer. More significantly, it is never mentioned that Franklin's motion
was voted down! Fine Christians, these founding fathers. Furthermore, the
context is usually ignored, too. He made the motion during an especially
trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of
breaking up. Cathrine Drinker Bowen comments:
Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy or from faith,
his suggestion had been salutary, calling an assembly of doubting minds to
a realization that destiny herself sat as guest and witness in this room.
Franklin had made solemn reminder that a republic of thirteen united states
- venture novel and daring - could not be achieved without mutual sacrifice
and a summoning up of men's best, most difficult and most creative efforts.
(Bowen, p. 127)
About March 1, 1790, he wrote the following in a letter to Ezra
Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion. His
answer would indicate that he remained a Deist, not a Christian, to the
end:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly
desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to
us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has
received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present
Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a
question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it
needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of
knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin
Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.
Deism
Certainly it is generally the case that these people believed in
God, but it was not the God of Christianity. Deism began in the eighteenth
century and was very popular in America. According to the dictionary, it
was "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason
rather than revelation." Jefferson wrote that the religious doctrines of
Jesus that he accepted, and which he regarded as consistent with his
deistic perspective were three:
1. that there is one God, and he all-perfect:
2. that there is a future state of rewards and punishments
3. that to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is
the sum of religion.
Why do Christians want the founding fathers to be Christians?
Is it because they wish the best for these people?
Hardly.
It is because they hope that by demonstrating they were Christians,
they can justify their political agenda. Rather than wanting something new
(the injection of Christianity into government) they seek to restore
something they imagine has been lost.
Reality: nothing has been lost. It wasn't there to start with.
Therefore the whole concept of "taking back America" is a lie. America was
never Christian.
Recent Misinformation on the Concept of Separation of Church and State
Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of
separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers,
and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of
Supreme Court decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
This simply isn't true.
Separation of church and state is not something the Supreme Court
invented in the 1950's and 60's. The phrase itself appears in a letter from
President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury,
Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.
The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson
regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized
as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by
assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single
denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The
First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."
Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph
3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be
bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added)
The concept of the separation of church and state appears in the
1963 Baptist Faith and Message (a revision of an earlier statement where it
also appears) adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free
from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word
or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes
to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual
ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination
should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being
ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience
thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church
should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of
Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The
state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.
The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of
religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this
implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all
men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion
without interference by the civil power. (emphasis added).
Look at what Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, had to
say about religious freedom in the 17th century. He was a Baptist
persecuted for his faith who argued for the separation of church and state
nearly a hundred fifty years before Jefferson.
The Church and State need not be, Williams insisted,
inextricably linked: 'A Pagan or Antichristian Pilot may be as skillful to
carry the Ship to its desired Port, as any Christian Mariner or Pilot in
the World, and may perform that work with as much safety and speed.' 'God
requireth not an Uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any
Civill State,' he declared. Rather, the tares in the field of Christian
grain must be left alone; let man hold whatever religious opinions he
chooses provided he does not 'actually disturb civil peace,' ran a
provision of the Rhode Island Charter of 1663; let civil government be
based on the consent of the governed. 'The Soveraigne, originall, and
foundation of civil power lies in the People,' Williams insisted. They 'may
erect and establish what forme of Government seemes to them most meete for
their Civill condition.'
William's plea for Separation of Church and State stemmed far
less, Harold Laski writes, from tender concern for men's consciences than
from 'a fear that their unity meant the government of the Church by civil
men and thus a threat to its purity.' Popular control of the Church through
elected magistrates Williams thought evil since it gave the Church 'to
Satan himself, by whom all peoples natural are guided.' The precise
intention of Scripture could not be ascertained, he believed, with the icy
certainty claimed by the New England clergy. He wanted Church and State
separated so the Church would not be corrupted by the State. Thomas
Jefferson entertained the opposite conviction, fearing that the State would
become contaminated by the Church. (Alpheus Thomas Mason. Free Government
in the Making: Readings in American Political Thought. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1965, p. 55)
In his tract on the topic of religious toleration Williams madesome
important points:
...Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience, is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for
vengeance under the altar.
Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice, in
their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially
civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual,
or Christian, state and worship.
Sixthly. It is the will and command of God that, since the
coming of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish,
Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships be granted to
all men in all nations and countries: and they are only to be fought
against with that sword which is only, in soul matters, able to conquer: to
wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the word of God.
Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings and
people thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and
no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to
follow.
Eighthly. God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be
enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner
or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience,
persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and
destruction of millions of souls.
Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a
civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the
Jews' conversion to Christ.
Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation
or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of
Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and worships
than a state professeth, only can, according to God, procure a firm and
lasting peace; good assurance being taken, according to the wisdom of the
civil state, for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.
Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and Christianity may both
flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers
and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile... (Roger Williams. The
Bloudy Teneent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience Discussed, 1644.
excerpted from A.T. Mason. Free Government in the Making. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1965, p. 64)
Notice what Ulysses S. Grant said in his seventh annual address
(State of the Union address) to the Congress, December 7, 1875:
As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the
honor of transmitting to Congress before my successor is chosen, I will
repeat or recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which
may be legislated upon and settled at this session:
First. That the States shall be required to afford the
opportunity of a good common-school education to every child within their
limits.
Second. No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school
supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of
any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to
deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after
the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who
may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.
Third. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct,
but each free within their proper spheres; and that all church property
shall bear its own proportion of taxation (emphasis added). (A Compilation
of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. X. New York: Bureau of
National Literature, Inc., 1897, p. 4310)
Here is a quotation from the Encyclopedic Index of A Compilation of
the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, published in 1917:
Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States (q.v.) requires that "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." Religious freedom doubtless had its greatest inspiration from
James Madison while he was in the Virginia Legislature. An attempt was made
to levy a tax upon the people of that state "for the support of teachers of
the Christian religion." Madison wrote what he called a "Memorial and
Remonstrance," in which he appealed to the people against the evil tendency
of such a precedent, and which convinced people that Madison was right. A
bill was passed providing "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or
support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever * * * nor
shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all
men shall be free to profess, and, by argument, maintain their opinions in
matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge,
or affect their civil capacities." The religious test to which many of the
states put their office-holders were gradually abandoned, and the final
separation of church and state in America came in 1833, when Massachusetts
discontinued the custom of paying preachers (emphasis added).(A Compilation
of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. XX. New York: Bureau of
National Literature, Inc., 1917).
It should be clear, from these quotations, that the concept of
separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United
States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously
be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's.
In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time
on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S.
history.
If this is a "Christian" nation, then why did Jefferson write what
he did to a group of Baptists? Shouldn't he instead of said that they had
something to worry about? If the concept of separating church and state
were a recent idea, then why did Jefferson himself use it, one of the
founding fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence?
I think it is a big surprise to the Jewish people who have been
living here for longer than my ancestors (who only got here in the middle
of the 19th century) to think that this is a "Christian" nation. If it were
"Christian" then there would be religious requirements to be a part of it
and to participate in the public arena. If this were a Christian nation,
then why are so few Americans Christians? Even the most optimistic Gallup
pole shows that barely 1/3 of the U.S. population claims to be "born
again". Interestingly, that's up considerably since the time of the
nation's founding, when barely ten percent, if that, claimed intense
religious affiliation.
I believe that those who talk about "restoring" prayer to the
public school have a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling and have
failed to carefully think through their position. The Supreme Court decided
in 1962 that for the school administrators to write prayers and read them
over the intercoms to the students was wrong. It is hard for me to figure
out how anyone in their right mind would think it's a good idea for the
state to compose prayers and force them on people.
So why would you want to "restore" government sponsored
religiosity? Students and faculty and other employees are free to pray for
themselves if they want; that has never been a problem (admittedly, some
examples of overzealous administrators who didn't understand the issue, who
tried to stop individuals from exercising their religious beliefs, can
doubtless be found; but that is the exception, not the rule. That there are
murderers is not proof that murder is legal.).
As a Baptist, I frankly would be bothered by a Moslem or a Hindu
writing a prayer for my child. I no more want them imposing their religious
views on me and mine than they would want me to impose my Baptist beliefs
on them. And what about the agnostics and atheists? They no more wish to be
inundated by religious concepts in school than I would like to have my
children inundated by their beliefs (or lack thereof).
The attempt in the public arena is toward neutrality; certainly it
is a tough ideal to reach, and certainly there are a lot of mistakes made
on all sides. Certainly, too, in the past there has been a lot of
inconsistency in these ideals. But the ideal remains nevertheless.
The history of the U.S. has been one of lofty ideals rarely
achieved; our shame is that we so rarely reach what we proclaim: freedom,
equality, and the like. But our pride is that, unlike so many before, at
least we have ideals and we're trying, how often unsuccessfully, by fits
and starts, to reach them. Most of the political disagreements between the
parties is not so much over the goals (both Democrats and Republicans want
a free, prosperous, safe and happy society), but over the methods to reach
those goals. Demonizing the opposition is not reasonable, and both parties
are guilty of this (Democrats tend to turn Republicans into Fascists and
Republicans tend to turn Democrats into Communists; neither caricature is
accurate, appropriate or dignified).
The American Revolution, at its Foundation, was Unscriptural
At its foundation, our American revolution was unscriptural.
Therefore I have a hard time seeing how our government could have been
founded on Christian principles, when its very founding violated one:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority
instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to
governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend
those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)
No matter how you cut it, the founding fathers were revolting
against the King of England. It should be remembered that Peter wrote these
words while Israel was suffering under the domination of government far
more oppressive than England ever was. In fact, compared to current taxes,
our forefathers had nothing to complain about.
What Peter wrote seems perfectly clear and unambiguous;
furthermore, it is consistent with what Jesus said about his kingdom not
being a part of this world (John 18:23 and 36).
As a Christian, it would be very difficult to justify armed revolt
against any ruler. Passive resistance to injustice and evil, as embodied in
the concept of civil disobedience, however, does have Scriptural precedent
(as for instance in the case of the early Christians described in Acts
5:28-29:
"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said.
"Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to
make us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than
men!" (see also Acts 4:18-20)
Civil disobedience means obeying a higher, moral law, but willingly
suffering the consequences of your actions and submitting to the authority
of those in power to arrest or even kill you for your disobedience. Peter
and the others were arrested, and many of them were ultimately martyred.
But they never participated in violent protest, nor did they resist those
in authority by violence.
Conclusion
Certainly many of the early immigrants to the New World came for
religious reasons - often to escape persecution. However, they were not
interested in religious freedom for anyone other than themselves, and often
turned around and persecuted others who had slightly different viewpoints.
As Pastor Richard T. Zuelch pointed out in his letter to the Los
Angeles Times on August 14, 1995:
Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the
American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the
American population regularly attended religious services - to quote just
one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national
commitment to Christianity!
It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States
was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation.
That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the
nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of
other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied.
But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of
the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on
specifically Christian principles and doctrine.
We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit
our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to
cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian
nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take
back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to
face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that
Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel
would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in
him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity
would always be a minority faith. (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the
Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995)
The United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination a
Christian nation today, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to
be. The Religious right (or left) would do well to stop looking for the
Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth.
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
