Religion in American Politics -The Case for a Christian Nation
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity" (Kettler, 610). This quote from John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, clearly demonstrates an association often seen by many modern commentators as paradoxical at best and detrimental at worst. However it is the relationship between the church and the state, specifically Christianity and the federal government, which underlies the basis of many historical, foundational aspects of our nation. While it is clear to all that Christianity neither is or was an established national religion in America, the case can be made that Christianity is the common law moral foundation of the nation. This can still be seen in the underlying basis of the foundational institutions and policies of our country as well as the legacies left by our founding fathers. In examining the founding era for America- highlighting critical events from the Mayflower Compact to the treaty of Tripoli- it is most important to examine the impact of both nominal statements of founding fathers and the corresponding policies that went with those statements. In each area, the claims for and against the concept of a religiously founded nation will be judged in terms of basis, purpose and context.
The first and most obvious nominal statement to judge is the quote by Thomas Jefferson that there was “a wall of separation between Church and State” in relation to the establishment clause and protection of natural rights. However, I find that this is often left without the context that this was primarily a letter between a state official and a church body- not regarding religious impact on federal decisions but regarding federal impact on religious decisions. Specifically, the Danbury Baptist Association was upset because the leaders felt that going through a government-sanctioned process to avoid paying church taxes was a violation of their freedom (Boston). This is specifically regarding the intervention of the Federal government on the actions of individual believers, not vice versa. Also ignored is the fact that Jefferson’s letter goes on to say:
“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.” (Jefferson)
While this maintains the respect for the establishment clause, it still recognizes, in similar nominal form, the common backgrounds of faith shared by both the state official and the church association. It also leaves room for states to choose for themselves how or whether they want their own While many have interpreted the “wall of separation” to mean that there may be no involvement of either church or state in the other's realm, here, it is in response to concerns by the Danbury Baptist Association that
“...what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.” (Dodge)
The clear concern was that, as a part of the state, the association wanted to ensure that their religious privileges would be permanent and not just a function of the legislation of the government. The wall then would be the non-interference of government in free exercise, and the recognition of religious exercise by the government should be kept as an inalienable right. More context also exists which is often ignored- there was an earlier draft of the piece that Jefferson wrote which was edited in the final version for political expedience. According to a bulletin in the Library of Congress,
The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases …: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine." (Hutson)
Jefferson had been opposed to religious celebrations by the new American republic as it would give the impression that the government was showing partiality to one sort of Christian tradition over another, not that he was avoiding religion altogether. The editing process shows that religion was such a matter of significance in that time that, regardless of whether there was a true “wall of separation” in place or not, religion was definitely having an impact on how at least Thomas Jefferson was acting and what he chose to say. This proves that while he was advocating non-involvement by government in religion, religion was having an effect on government. In fact, this article goes on to say:
Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture… in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was… indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government. (Ibid)
So, in fact, there was an effect of religion on even Thomas Jefferson. This context shows a different implication than mere separatism- that while the church should be free of interference, the government should also be free to recognize (rather than from recognizing) the importance religion, particularly Christianity, has in governing the lives of the citizens. This recognition is crucial as it shows that ignorance by the government about the role of the church will be to the detriment of the rights of the citizens as a whole, and to itself. As even Jefferson himself came to recognize, religion is not only necessary for the people of the United States, but it is also necessary for the welfare of the government of the United States. This recognition is crucial to understanding the other arguments involved in nominal recognition of Christianity as a common law basis for the nation as it is shared by many other founding fathers.
And yet the claim can clearly be made that these nominal statements have no effect on actual policy, that they amount to mere words and have no effect on lasting policy of the country. In point of fact, when looking to the area of policy, we can clearly see that the nominal statements are actually rather poignant, and are influential in shaping the direction of the policies. James Madison, fourth president of the United States and widely considered “Father of the Constitution”, objected to slavery using religious principles, stating
"It is a great evil and under the providence of God, I look forward to some scheme of emancipation which shall free us from it. Do not, therefore, let us appear as if we regarded it perpetual, by using in our free Constitution an odious word opposed to every sentiment of liberty." (Morris, 177)
The underlying argument here is derived from a religious perspective, and prevented precedent from being set which would have caused even more lasting divisions in the Civil War era.
Even before the founding of the nation as separate from Britain, the Mayflower compact, established a legal precedent of recognition of Christianity:
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia... (Bradford)
This recognition is even seen in the form of a covenant between God and Man, particularly those who were coming to create their own new traditions in the new nation, largely escaping the religious persecution of their former European states and creating a place to worship God in their own fashion. Moreover, this is a direct declaration that their foundational act of planting a colony was for the Glory of God and to advance Christianity.
Recognition of the role of the Christian Church and the role thereof comes more directly from the pre-constitution Massachusetts Body of Liberties, which states specifically in the introduction that the commonwealth and the church are both necessary for a proper society:
The free fruition of such liberties, immunities, and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for as due to every man in his place and proportion without impeachment and infringement hath ever been and ever will be the tranquility and stability of churches and commonwealths. And the denial or deprival thereof, the disturbance if not the ruin of both. (Massachusetts Body of Liberties)
This clearly shows a positive relationship between natural rights, like civility and liberty, and Christianity. Indeed, it shows that both rely on each other for their very existence. This document furthermore has an entire section titled “A DECLARATION OF THE LIBERTIES THE LORD JESUS HATH GIVEN TO THE CHURCHES”, the first provision of which states that
“All the people of God within this jurisdiction who are not in a church way, and be orthodox in judgment, and not scandalous in life, shall have full liberty to gather themselves into a church estate. Provided they do it in a Christian way, with due observation of the rules of Christ revealed in his Word,” (Massachusetts Body of Liberties)
While not recognizing a specific church and allowing for those outside any specific church, there was a specific precedent for the free exercise clause later made in the constitution, but with specific parameters not mentioned in the final form of the constitution. However, the precedent is in place and demarcates a clear requirement for (particularly Christian) churches to be established.
The Constitution of the United States is sometimes referred to as “the Godless constitution”, in reference to the fact that there was no mention of God or a Creator, except the Establishment clause does state that there would be no established religion. In fact, on all of these matters, the federalists framing the Constitution were avoiding controversy and deferring these matters to the state. The Library of Congress, in its exhibition on Religion and the Founding of the American Republic states specifically:
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion. (Library of Congress)
Therefore this lack of inclusion demonstrates that the matters of specific sectarian religion would not be impinged upon by the state rather than the federal government, not that the federal government would not be affected by the religion or morals of those state governments, but that the federal government itself would not tell state governments which sect to choose.
A document which has also been long held as evidence of foundational separatism is the Treaty of Tripoli, which states the following in article 11-
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 arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School)
Here again, we see a quotation without context, but see that there is a mention of the “Christian Religion”, and that in a ratified document, the United States took the position that the United States was not founded upon it. However, a crucial point is missing here- in that time, there was no similar democratic government to look to, only the governments of European states, which were founded specifically on one religion or another. In fact, at the time, Americans such as Noah Webster, founder of Webster’s Dictionary, wrote that “The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it” (Webster, 339). Here, the authors of this document are stating that they are separate from the governments of Europe. Note also that there is still a mention of God even within the document- “Praise be to God” and “(Signed) JUSSUF BASHAW-Bey whom God Exalt” are both found with the document (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School). This doesn’t seem to work with the concept of separatism- in fact it seems to point to either confused contradiction or political understatement. To determine this, it is important to note that this entire treaty was created to deal with the fact that this treaty would end America’s first war as an independent nation (Tucker, 127). In fact, this conflict was justified to the Muslims because of the injuries incurred as a result of Crusades and in retaliation of Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada (Ibid, 50) - again a response to a perception of Christianity as it pertained to European Christian nations which needed to be responded to. In correspondence with Thomas Jefferson about the conflict, John Adams, the sitting president at the time of the treaty, stated:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. (Adams, 45-46)
It appears that there was real distinction being made at the time of the treaty between the American Federal government and the European governments of the time. This is summarized clearly in the frustration of General Eaton in his personal account of the conflict:
April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! (Prentiss, 325)
It would be a harder undertaking to prove that this single article, with all of its justifications and limitations, expressed the will of the founding fathers more clearly than all the publicly recorded statements of the elected officials ratifying the document. It is also worth mentioning that the in the Arabic version, each section was preceded by the phrase “Praise be to God!” and that, about the eleventh article, on which this entire argument lies, the translator wrote the following-
The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School)
Interestingly enough, the eleventh article as translated makes no mention of America not being a country founded on Christian principles.
Noah Webster wrote in the preface to the 1828 version of the American Dictionary:
In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Webster, Preface)
This summarizes the clear opinion of many founding fathers as expressed in their previously quoted statements and actions- that the basis of American government was Christianity. Although inherently separate from the otherwise religiously controlled governments of Europe, there was a definite Christian basis for the foundation of the nation. This moral foundation underlies the precepts of our law today, just as it did at its inception. When examining the basis, purpose and context of important quotes and corresponding policies of the founding fathers, it becomes clear that the morality inherent in Christianity was critical to the creation of the freedoms we enjoy today. Even when examining more controversial documents and quotes, it becomes clear that they only serve to enforce the claim that while there was no established sect, Christianity as a general, non-sectarian religion, was the foundation America was built on, and the basis on which she was founded.
BibliographyAdams, John. Works. Vol. X, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Avalon Project: The Barbary Treaties 1786-
1816. New Haven, Connecticut: The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of
Sol Goldman, 2007. 6 Apr 2008.
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/>
Boston, Rob. Priority Mail- Why President Jefferson's Letter To The Danbury Baptists Is
Still Being Read By Americans After 200 Years. 2002. Americans United. <http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&id=5609&news_iv_ctrl=1046&page=NewsArticle&security=1001>
Bradford, William. U.S. GOVERNMENT > Introduction to the U.S. System > Guiding
Principles > Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy. InfoUSA. 1952. Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State. 6 Apr 2008 <http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/overview/2.html>.
Brewer, David J. The United States a Christian Nation. Philadelphia, PA: John C.
Winston Company, 1905
Dodge, Nash. Danbury Baptist Association, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1801. The
Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive. 07 Oct 1801. Library of Congress. 5 Apr 2008 <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html>.
Hutson, James. 'A Wall of Separation' - FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft.
June 1998. Library of Congress. 5 Apr 2008
<http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html>.
Jefferson, Thomas. "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998)." Library of
Congress. June 1998. Library of Congress. 5 Apr 2008
<http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html>.
Kettler, Steven C. Biblical Counsel: Resources for Renewal : An Annotated Topical
Bibliography. Keezletown, VA: Lettermen Associates, 1993
Library of Congress. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and
the Federal Government. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
Machine, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. NY: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1923.
"Massachusetts Body of Liberties," The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, ed. W. H.
Whitmore. Boston, MA: 1890
Morris, Benjamin Franklin. Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the
United States Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic. Philippians, PA: George W. Childs, 1864.
Prentiss, Charles. The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in
the United States' Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary,
and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt
Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which
Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli.
Brookfield, CT: Merriam & Company, 1813.
Tucker, Glen. Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963.
Webster, Noah. History of the United States. New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck, 1832.
Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language…in two
volumes. New York, 1828.
1 comments:
Your essay on "The United States as a Christian Nation" is well thought out, enlightening on some points, and an excellent presentation over all. Thank you.
Post a Comment