Sorta libertarian, sorta conservative, never poltically correct either way, dedicated to sarcasm and a refusal to grow up. That would be me.
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Thoughts On The Fourth Of July
Eleven score and eight years ago, our forefathers began the codification of a concept that would revolutionize not only this land, but this planet.
The Declaration of Independence was a radical document for its day. It decreed that all men possessed the same fundamental rights and prerogatives, that no man had a right, divinely or otherwise inspired, to sovereignty over the lives of others. In particular, it declared that no man could override the conscience of others. This was a refutation of virtually every form of government existing during that time.
While the Declaration mentioned a supreme Deity, the mention was only in passing. Indeed, the very words were written by a man who by most standards of his day, was a religious dissenter. Certainly he was a member of a religious minority, as a Deist. He kept the wording neutral, regarding matters of faith. A Deist wrote those words, yet a Jew, a Moslem, or any type of Christian could embrace them without reservation.
Significantly, the removal of the necessity of a divinely inspired monarch removed any need for a religious basis for government. Some men, such as Patrick Henry and Luther Martin, felt that the new nation's government should still be based upon Christian principles, and Christianity should receive special status. Others disagreed.
Those who felt that religion and government should be separate included both firm believers in the divinity of Christ, and those who remained unconvinced. Madison is perhaps the best example of the former. A strong Christian, he nevertheless recognized that a Nation which established Christianity as a whole would be under political pressure to eventually recognize one sect. In "A Memorial and Remonstrance", he wrote:
Even ministers saw benefits to the removal of government influence in religion. In the words of Isaac Backus:
Conversely, Jefferson and Franklin remained personally unconvinced of the divinity of Christ, but on a practical basis, approved of religion as a positive influence on people's lives. Thomas Paine excoriated the influence of religion upon government, but claimed it to be government's responsibility to protect religious minorities.
One thing held these men together: a belief that human intellect and reason had advanced far enough that men could govern their own affairs based upon firm and logical principles applicable to all and subject to periodic refinement and modification. This meant that religion was no longer needed as a basis for government, and all men could worship and practice according to their own conscience.
By no means did this mean that they felt religion had no use to men as individuals. Their own actions and words suggest otherwise. Nor did they maintain that religion had never been an important part of governance. In primitive cultures, "because God(s) said so" can certainly take on the role that "because Mom said so" takes on with three year olds. Even in more advanced cultures, religion can provide a common ground upon which consistent values can be applied. What they believed was that this was no longer necessary, and liberty had become practical.
Another factor is often overlooked. Many of the thirteen colonies had established faiths. They often differed from one another. The Puritans of Massachusetts, Catholics of Maryland, Quakers of Pennsylvania, and Episcopalians of Virginia often disagreed on matters of dogma. The affiliation of the national government would be a point of no small contention, and indeed a source of disunity or worse. The Thirty Years War was as recent to these men as the Civil War is to us. Governmental non-affiliation made this potential problem go away.
When the Constitutional Convention was convened, non-affiliation had become the near-consensus view of the Framers. While some men like Luther Martin objected, the document eschewed even the nominal nod to a Deity that the Declaration embraced. It went as far as to specifically state that there would be no religious tests for political office at any time. The Bill of Rights went further, saying that the Government may not grant special status to any faiths or group of faiths, and may not restrict the religious liberties of individuals. It was a powerful statement, and a radical experiment.
This experiment, though not perfectly implemented at times, has been wildly successful. America is the safest place in the world to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Baptist, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Have some been harassed or oppressed because of their faith? Yes, but far less than any other nation.
The compact is simple, you may practice your religion as you wish, but you may not impede others from doing likewise, nor ask special favors from the government. It has worked...But it is still sometimes threatened. From both sides.
When Roy Moore puts a multi-ton block of rock in an official place in a government building, he is attempting to place official government sanction on the statements it includes. When those statements include words like "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and "thou shalt not make a graven image" (without observation on the irony of circumstance), they directly contradict the specific promises of the First Amendment. Likewise, when one religious viewpoint is given a spot on a government body's formal agenda, preference is being shown. Even if it's a simple affirmation than that the Nation is somehow subordinate to a Deity. Indeed, since this concept appears nowhere in the Constitution, especially so.
However, the anti-religious also cross this line on a regular basis. When a child in a school chooses to wear religious attire to school, to read the Bible during study hall, or to use his faith as background for a project with a secular educational purpose, the school is not violating the Establishment Clause. The Constitution does not forbid religion, and indeed forbids the suppression of religious exercise. As long as the rules are the same for all faiths, there is no Constitutional issue.
Both sides endanger a concept that has worked. Strong believers often confuse their beliefs with facts. It is a temptation that is undoubtedly a part of human nature. America has done a very good job of squelching it, of separating the pure conscience of true religion from the inherently compulsive power of government. However, we must remain vigilant and ensure that Jefferson's wall is not breached by either the ultra-religious or the anti-religious.
-Eric
Eleven score and eight years ago, our forefathers began the codification of a concept that would revolutionize not only this land, but this planet.
The Declaration of Independence was a radical document for its day. It decreed that all men possessed the same fundamental rights and prerogatives, that no man had a right, divinely or otherwise inspired, to sovereignty over the lives of others. In particular, it declared that no man could override the conscience of others. This was a refutation of virtually every form of government existing during that time.
While the Declaration mentioned a supreme Deity, the mention was only in passing. Indeed, the very words were written by a man who by most standards of his day, was a religious dissenter. Certainly he was a member of a religious minority, as a Deist. He kept the wording neutral, regarding matters of faith. A Deist wrote those words, yet a Jew, a Moslem, or any type of Christian could embrace them without reservation.
Significantly, the removal of the necessity of a divinely inspired monarch removed any need for a religious basis for government. Some men, such as Patrick Henry and Luther Martin, felt that the new nation's government should still be based upon Christian principles, and Christianity should receive special status. Others disagreed.
Those who felt that religion and government should be separate included both firm believers in the divinity of Christ, and those who remained unconvinced. Madison is perhaps the best example of the former. A strong Christian, he nevertheless recognized that a Nation which established Christianity as a whole would be under political pressure to eventually recognize one sect. In "A Memorial and Remonstrance", he wrote:
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 threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Even ministers saw benefits to the removal of government influence in religion. In the words of Isaac Backus:
Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state.
Conversely, Jefferson and Franklin remained personally unconvinced of the divinity of Christ, but on a practical basis, approved of religion as a positive influence on people's lives. Thomas Paine excoriated the influence of religion upon government, but claimed it to be government's responsibility to protect religious minorities.
One thing held these men together: a belief that human intellect and reason had advanced far enough that men could govern their own affairs based upon firm and logical principles applicable to all and subject to periodic refinement and modification. This meant that religion was no longer needed as a basis for government, and all men could worship and practice according to their own conscience.
By no means did this mean that they felt religion had no use to men as individuals. Their own actions and words suggest otherwise. Nor did they maintain that religion had never been an important part of governance. In primitive cultures, "because God(s) said so" can certainly take on the role that "because Mom said so" takes on with three year olds. Even in more advanced cultures, religion can provide a common ground upon which consistent values can be applied. What they believed was that this was no longer necessary, and liberty had become practical.
Another factor is often overlooked. Many of the thirteen colonies had established faiths. They often differed from one another. The Puritans of Massachusetts, Catholics of Maryland, Quakers of Pennsylvania, and Episcopalians of Virginia often disagreed on matters of dogma. The affiliation of the national government would be a point of no small contention, and indeed a source of disunity or worse. The Thirty Years War was as recent to these men as the Civil War is to us. Governmental non-affiliation made this potential problem go away.
When the Constitutional Convention was convened, non-affiliation had become the near-consensus view of the Framers. While some men like Luther Martin objected, the document eschewed even the nominal nod to a Deity that the Declaration embraced. It went as far as to specifically state that there would be no religious tests for political office at any time. The Bill of Rights went further, saying that the Government may not grant special status to any faiths or group of faiths, and may not restrict the religious liberties of individuals. It was a powerful statement, and a radical experiment.
This experiment, though not perfectly implemented at times, has been wildly successful. America is the safest place in the world to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Baptist, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Have some been harassed or oppressed because of their faith? Yes, but far less than any other nation.
The compact is simple, you may practice your religion as you wish, but you may not impede others from doing likewise, nor ask special favors from the government. It has worked...But it is still sometimes threatened. From both sides.
When Roy Moore puts a multi-ton block of rock in an official place in a government building, he is attempting to place official government sanction on the statements it includes. When those statements include words like "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and "thou shalt not make a graven image" (without observation on the irony of circumstance), they directly contradict the specific promises of the First Amendment. Likewise, when one religious viewpoint is given a spot on a government body's formal agenda, preference is being shown. Even if it's a simple affirmation than that the Nation is somehow subordinate to a Deity. Indeed, since this concept appears nowhere in the Constitution, especially so.
However, the anti-religious also cross this line on a regular basis. When a child in a school chooses to wear religious attire to school, to read the Bible during study hall, or to use his faith as background for a project with a secular educational purpose, the school is not violating the Establishment Clause. The Constitution does not forbid religion, and indeed forbids the suppression of religious exercise. As long as the rules are the same for all faiths, there is no Constitutional issue.
Both sides endanger a concept that has worked. Strong believers often confuse their beliefs with facts. It is a temptation that is undoubtedly a part of human nature. America has done a very good job of squelching it, of separating the pure conscience of true religion from the inherently compulsive power of government. However, we must remain vigilant and ensure that Jefferson's wall is not breached by either the ultra-religious or the anti-religious.
-Eric