Fallacy #1: The Founders
Weren't Deists
The idea for this book came a few
years back after I'd gotten a blizzard of e-mails of
culture warriors on the left of right, each quoting a
Founding Father to prove whatever point the activist was
making. One day it would be a conservative using a quote
to prove that this was a Christian nation. The next it
would be a progressive highlighting a different quote
proving the Founder's commitment to separation of church
and state.It felt a bit
like a custody battle for the Founding Fathers, and
prompted me to get curious what really happened. So, the
meta-premise of my book, Founding Faith, is
that the culture wars have utterly distorted the history
of how we ended up with religious freedom in America.
Though the book is written mostly has a historical
narrative – starting with the settling of the New World
and ending with the Founders in retirement – along the
way it argues that several of the most common assumption
about the Founders and religion are wrong. In each post
this week, I'll address a different myth.
Liberal Fallacy #1: Most
founding fathers were Deists or secular.
Many progressives describe the
Founders as Deists, as if that provides some comfort
against the idea that the Founders might have been
religious zealots. Deism held that God created the laws
of nature and then receded from action. Most of the
Founders agreed with the first part of that sentence but
disagreed with the second. They rejected the idea that
the Bible was inerrant but, to a person, believed in an
omnipotent god who intervened in the lives of men and
nations. Later in life, they also believed that their
actions in life would be judged and determine their fate
in the afterlife. A few examples:
Washington – He regularly ascribed
battlefield events to the "Smiles of Providence." Just
one example out of many: After General Horatio Gates'
victory over General John Burgoyne in Saratoga in
October 1777, Washington ordered thanksgiving services
and declared: "Let every face brighten, and every heart
expand with grateful Joy and praise to the supreme
disposer of all events, who has granted us this signal
success."
Adams -- After his election to the
presidency in 1796, he told Abigail that the results
reflected "the voice of God."
Franklin – At the Constitutional
Convention, he suggested the delegates
pray together because "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. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without
his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise
without his aid?"
The most Deistic of the Founders
was probably Jefferson but even he, at points in his
life, envisioned a rollicking afterlife and God's
intervention. Certainly he indicated that in his public
pronouncements, such as when, in his first inaugural
address when he acknowledged the "adorping an overruling
Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that
it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater
happiness hereafter.” In his second message, he credited
the
"smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity,
peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians.
When Napoleon was defeated he wrote a friend that, "it
proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just,
and not careless of what passes in the world."
Really, it's impossible to say
"the Founding Fathers" were anything in particular, as
they had a variety of views.
Also we have to remember that
these four were not the only men sitting in the
Continental Congress or at the Constiuttional
Convention. Many of the other men who were instrumental
in the revolution and the Continental Congress were
orthodox Christians. Important figures who fit that
description included: Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, John
Hancock, John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman and many more.
These men represented viewpoints that had to be heeded
by the likes of Jefferson and Madison who were not just
philosophers but politicians who assembled coalitions.
Fallacy #2 The Founders Weren't
Conservative Christians
In my last post, I mentioned the number
one "liberal fallacy." Here is one of the common
conservative myths: "Most Founding Fathers were
serious Christians."
Of course it depends on how one
defines the term, but if we use the definition of
Christianity offered by those who make this claim – i.e.
conservative Christians – then the Founders studied in this
book were not Christians. Adams became an active Unitarian,
rejecting much Christian doctrine. And Franklin, Jefferson
and Adams abhored the Calvinist idea that salvation was
determined by divine preference rather than good works.
Madison and Washington remained the most silent on matters
of personal theology and continued to attend Christian
churches but in their voluminous writings never seemed to
speak of Jesus as divine. If they must wear labels, the
closest fit would be “Unitarian.”
Jefferson &
Franklin overtly rejected the divinity of Jesus.
Jefferson loathed the entire clerical class and what had
become of Christianity. It's really quite amazing to read
Jefferson spew venom toward religious leaders. Imagine a
president saying some of these things today:
On the Apostles: "ignorant, unlettered
men" who laid "a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things
impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and
fabrications."
The Apostle Paul: "first corrupter of
the doctrines of Jesus."
The doctrine of the Trinity: The
"abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the
priests of Jesus" and the "hocus-pocus phantasm of a god
like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads.”
Immaculate conception: would some day
be “classed with the fable of the generation of
Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Calvin: Best response was the "strait
jacket alone"
Priests: "Sweep away their gossamer
fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more
flies."
And… "In every country and in every
age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." And they've
"made of Christendom a slaughter-house."
In fact, it was because he thought
Christianity had been so thoroughly corrupted that he
created his own Bible, slicing out the miracles and
thereby "rescuing" Jesus and separating the "diamonds" from
the "dunghill" that was the rest of the Bible. Imagine the
attack ads that could be made out of that!
In future posts, I'll discuss why any
of this matters. But my point for now is simply that the two
most common descriptions of the Founders are highly
misleading.
What Did the Founders Believe
About Church and State?
Many of you commented that the Founders’
religious beliefs did not determine their approach to separation
of church and state. I agree. So let’s turn now to the big
question: what DID the Founders believe about separation of
church and state?First, there’s no
such thing as “the Founders.” They disagreed with each other on
a number of key points. John Adams and George Washington
supported more church-state mingling than did Jefferson and
Madison. Crucially, while some folks back then seemed to use the
term “establishment” to refer to official state religions,
Madison for one thought it meant something much broader. During
the fight in Virginia over state support of churches, he
referred to tax subsidies for religion as being “an
establishment,” just as dangerous ultimately as an official
church.
Second, though it’s certainly interesting
and important what the Founders believed on this – hell, a lot
of my book is about that topic – that alone doesn’t determine
what the law is on separation of church and state.
Madison believed that we should have
separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and
local. But his proposal to apply this principle to the states
was defeated. Madison was not allowed to send his legislative
draft straight to the National Archives. The First Amendment was
a states rights compromise. There was a fascinating moment
during the congressional debate over what became the First
Amendment. Rep. Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut complained
that Madison’s amendment could "be extremely harmful to the
cause of religion." How could the beloved First Amendment be
harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or
interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have
state-supported religion. Madison assuaged him by assuring him
that the amendment would allow Connecticut to keep doing what it
was doing. Some people supported the First Amendment only
because it allowed the states to continue with their practice of
NOT having separation of church and state. It wasn’t until the
14th amendment that the nation began the process of applying
some principles of the Bill of Rights to local government, and
even then in a confusing way. What Madison believed, and what
the First Amendment means, are two different things.
What no lawyer or advocate on either side
wants to admit is this: the First Amendment does allow many gray
areas. We need to stop looking at every church-state question
solely in Constitutional terms. My personal view is that because
of intentional ambiguities in the First Amendment, that
constitutionally a fair amount of church-state mingling is
allowed. That’s what’s Constitutional. What’s wise is a separate
question. On the merits of what actually should happen, I’m more
with Madison. When in doubt, err on the side of separation:
“Religion and Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less
they are mixed together." [i] I agree with him that having
government or politicians involved in religion not only is
problematic in terms of political discourse, it also sours
people on religion. Has the Republican Party embrace of the
religious conservative moral agenda really been good for
Christianity? Has it really taught more people the beauty of
Jesus’s teachings? I think the experience of the last few years
has validated Madison’s view that the biggest beneficiary of
separation and church and state is likely to be the church, or,
more accurately, religious vibrancy.
The time has come for separationists to
focus their arguments on what’s best for society, not only
what’s Constitutional or what “the Founders” believed. I think
they happen to have the better argument, but on social, not
Constitutional grounds. One of the most effective arguments for
religious freedom is that it’s good for religion. Advocates for
separation have sometimes had such hostility toward religious
leaders that they’ve failed to see that the most religious
Americans ought to be the biggest advocates of separation.
Madison and Jefferson understood this, which is why they worked
so closely with the evangelicals of their day to promote
separation. Meanwhile, it’s time for conservatives to stop using
the faith non-sequitur – as in, “I know I’m right about
separation of church and state, because John Adams believed in
God.” And it’s time for them to stop perpetuating the myth that
the United States was created as a Christian nation.
I’m sorry if this casts me as a
mealy-mouthed centrist. I just happen to think that religious
freedom is one of America’s greatest achievements. And it seems
to me that in their anger at each other, both sides have failed
to see the obvious common ground position that Madison laid out
for us: the best way to promote religion is to leave it alone.
The Development of Religious
Liberty in America
I’ve said a few times that the culture wars have
distorted the real story of how we ended up with
religious freedom. But except in very broad terms, I
haven’t stated what I think did happen. Obviously,
that’s what the
whole book is about so I can only provide an
absurdly truncated history of religious freedom in
America. Here goes:America
was settled to be a Christian land. To be more
precise, it was settled to be Protestant nation.
Inhabitants of most colonies prior to the revolution
were not interested in religious pluralism or tolerance.
They wanted society based on Protestant principles, with
a strong mingling of church and state and vigilant
antagonism towards Catholicism. Almost all of the
colonies tried some variant of state-supported religion
and everyone one of those experiments failed. Perhaps
the most important flair-ups of persecution came in a
few Virginia counties, as they were witnessed by a
thoroughly disgusted young James Madison. He and the
other Founders looked at the wreckage of these
experiments and concluded that official state religions
led to oppression of minority religions and lethargy
among the majority religions.
The break from Great Britain had
many causes, but the desire for religious freedom was
one of them. In one of the little known, and less
admirable, aspects of the struggle, rebels exploited
fear of Catholics to help fuel antagonism to British
rule. The War of Independence further transformed
colonial attitudes toward religious freedom. It created
from a collection of colonies a single nation -- and
forced, for the first time, its leaders to confront the
growing religious diversity. George Washington imposed
tolerance throughout the Continental Army. Demographic
facts and strategic wartime needs coincided with a
growing philosophical movement emphasizing individual
liberty.
Beginning in 1776 with Virginia
and ending with Massachusetts in 1833, all of the new
states discontinued the practice of having an official
religion. The destruction of these religious
establishments began a more subtle and complex debate
over the proper relationship between church and state.
Many people of good will believed that while official
establishments were ill advised, government support of
religion was still important and necessary. This view,
typified by people like Patrick Henry, ended up
eventually losing – thanks to an unusual alliance
between enlightenment rationalists and evangelical
Christians. They believed that in a free marketplace of
ideas and religion, the truth would prevail.
On some fundamental points, a
broad consensus developed.
* Government – certainly not the
federal government, and probably not the state
government -- should never establish an official
religion.
* Freedom of conscience was an
inalienable right – not a privilege generously offered
by those in power.
* Religious diversity and
pluralism was one of the most important guarantors of
religious freedom.
Most of the Founders would agree
with all of these statements. (To reach their actual
words on these topics, you might explore Beliefnet's
Founding Faith Archive). On other points, the
Founders disagreed. Some believed that government could
and should gently support religion because a vibrant
faith sector was essential to a functioning democracy.
Others – most notably James Madison and Thomas Jefferson
– believed that government support for religion would
invariably harm both and that the wisest route was to
always err on the side of strict separation. The U.S.
Constitution and the First Amendment did not resolve
this disagreement. They were approved with support from
people on both sides of that argument, thereby leaving
to future generations the battles we fight today.
I don’t mean to sound like I think
the Founders merely bequeathed us a legacy of
uncertainty and lawsuits. I suspect that if the Founders
were to visit us they would mostly be amazed and proud
of how well their formula has worked. Compared to our
past, and to most other countries, we have relatively
little religious conflict and have seen one barrier
after another fall. Religious "sects" once persecuted as
false and heretical – Quaker, Catholic, Unitarian,
Jehovah's Witness and Southern Baptist -- later sent men
to the White House. At various points in recent years,
we've had five Catholic Supreme Court Justices; five
Jewish Cabinet secretaries, and five Mormon U.S.
Senators, and stunningly little controversy resulted.
We've witnessed a Ramadan dinner at the White House; a
Hindu priest opening a session of the House of
Representatives; and a Buddhist sworn in as Navy
Chaplain.
Yes, we still have battles over
the gray areas. But on the whole, the Founders’ strategy
– augmented by the hard work of religious freedom
advocates over the next two centuries – has more or less
worked. Perhaps once a year, we can take a break from
fighting over the gray areas – legitimate, important
battles – and celebrate the great success that is
American religious freedom.
Pope Benedict has praised the American
tradition of religious freedom and separation of church and
state. But what is often forgotten is that Catholics were
not originally part of this arrangement in America. I'm
always amused when I hear about the Judeo-Christian heritage
of America because not only were the Judeos not equal
partners, neither were Catholics. What we really had for
most of the early years of the colonial America was not even
a Christian heritage but a protestant heritage.
Over the next two weeks I'm gong to
explore the early history of Catholics and religious freedom
(drawn from my new book
Founding Faith), including some episodes that bely the
notion that America has forever been a bastion of religious
freedom.
Christopher Columbus believed that
making the New World Catholic was a crucial reason for his
voyage – and that God was guiding his trip. "With a hand
that could be felt, the Lord opened my mind to the fact that
it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies.”
Though Columbus didn’t succeed in settling all of America,
his success did spook England into getting serious sending
their own in the 600s.
The twin goals of converting Indians
and defeating Catholics provided a strong rallying cry for
Virginia' settlers. Prospects were instructed to bring “no
traitors, nor Papists that depend on the Great Whore." An
Anglican promotional booklet argued that if the Spanish had
so much luck pressing their corrupt religion, imagine how
successful the English could be with their noble goals of
saving "those wretched people."
At that moment in history, the
Catholic Church was viewed in England not as a competing
form of Christianity but as a fraudulent faith. It was
called "the Whore" because it had prostituted itself by
selling indulgences (the promise that for a fee, the church
would make sure that the soul of a loved one wouldn't be
stuck in purgatory). Protestants believed Catholics should
be called "Papists," not Christians, because they had
substituted worship of the Pope for devotion of Christ. And
only the "anti-Christ," it was thought, would use the
trappings of faith to so distort the message of Jesus. Not
surprisingly, the Virginia government attempted to squelch
Catholicism within the colony. In 1640, it prohibited
Catholics from holding any public office unless they "had
taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy" to the Church of
England. It decreed that any "'popish priests'' who arrived
in Virginia "should be deported forthwith."
Massachusetts, of course, was settled
by the Puritans, who believed that despite Henry the VIII's
split with Rome, the Church of England had retained too many
vestiges of the Catholic Church. "Kneeling at the Sacrament,
bowing to the Altar and to the name of Jesus, Popish holy
days, Holiness of places, Organs and Cathedral Musick, The
Books of Common prayer, or church Government by Bishops…They
are nothing else but reliques of Popery, and remnants of
Baal," sniffed one prominent Puritan. And they Pilgrims who
settled Plymouth? They were Puritans who had become
"Separatists" because they believed that the Church of
England was so corruptly entangled with Catholicism that
nothing short of a clean break would suffice. Catholics were
not allowed in the colony. (Since the Puritans tried to
embody the compassion of Jesus, they did allow that any
"Jesuits" who had ended up in their midst due to a shipwreck
need not to be killed.)
Pope Benedict XI, it is said,
admires America’s religious freedom and history. I do
too, especially where we have ended up. But as we focus
this week on the role of Catholics in America, it’s worth
remembering just how loathed Catholics were at the founding
of this nation.
Indeed, to an extent rarely
acknowledged anti-Catholicism helped fuel the American
revolution.
If that sounds harsh, consider the evidence (plucked from my
new book,
Founding Faith):
Only three of the 13 colonies allowed
Catholics to vote. All new England colonies except Rhode
island and the Carolinas prohibited Catholics form holding
office; Virginia would have priests arrested for entering
the colony; Catholic schools were banned in all states
except Pennsylvania.
During the lead up to revolution,
rebels seeking to stoke hatred of Great Britain routinely
equated the practices of the Church of England with that of
the Catholic Church. In the late 1760s and early 1770s,
colonists celebrated anti-Pope Days, an anti-Catholic
festival derived from the English Guy Fawkes day (named for
a Catholic who attempted to assassinated King James I).
"Orations, cartoons, and public hangings of effigies
depicted royal ministers as in league alternately with the
pope and the devil," writes historian Ruth Bloch.
Roger Sherman and other members of
Continental Congress wanted to prohibit Catholics from
serving in the Continental Army.
In 1774, Parliament passed the Quebec
Act, taking the enlightened position that the Catholic
Church could remain the official church of Quebec. This
appalled and terrified many colonists, who assumed this to
be a British attempt to subjugate them religiously by
allowing the loathsome Catholics to expand into the
colonies. Colonial newspapers railed against the Popish
threat. The Pennsylvania Gazette said the legislation would
now allow "these dogs of Hell" to "erect their Heads and
triumph within our Borders." The Boston Evening Post
reported that the step was "for the execution of this
hellish plan" to organize 4,000 Canadian Catholics for an
attack on America. In Rhode Island, every single issue of
the Newport Mercury from October 2, 1774 to March 20, 1775
contained “at least one invidious reference to the Catholic
religion of the Canadians," according to historian Charles
Metzger.
Protestant clergy fanned the flames.
Rev. John Lathrop of the Second Church in Boston said
Catholics "had disgraced humanity" and "crimsoned a great
part of the world with innocent blood." Rev. Samuel West of
Dartmouth declared the pope to be "the second beast" of
Revelation while Joseph Perry warned his Connecticut
neighbors that they would soon need to swap "the best
religion in the world" for "all the barbarity, trumpery and
superstition of popery; or burn at the stake, or submit to
the tortures of the inquisition." And, he reasoned, English
lawmakers were being controlled by the devil; the Quebec Act
"first sprang from that original wicked politician."
Commenting on anti-Catholic fervor, historian Alan Heimert
wrote that there was "a special and even frenetic urgency to
their efforts to revive ancient prejudices by announcing
that the Quebec Act—and it alone—confronted America with the
possibility of the 'scarlet whore' soon riding 'triumphant
over the heads of true Protestants, making multitudes drunk
with the wine of her fornications.'" The 1774 Pope Day was
one of the grandest in years; in Newport, two large effigies
of the pope were paraded. In New York, a group marched to
the financial Exchange carrying a huge flag inscribed,
"George III Rex, and the Liberties of America. No Popery."
Later that day, a pamphlet that had been distributed urging
tolerance toward the Catholics of Canada was smeared with
tar and feathers and nailed to the pillory.
These views were echoed even by some
of our most respected founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton
decried the Quebec Act as a diabolical threat. "Does not
your blood run cold to think that an English Parliament
should pass an Act for the establishment of arbitrary power
and Popery in such an extensive country?…Your loves, your
property, your religion are all at stake." He warned that
the Canadian tolerance in Quebec would draw, like a magnet,
Catholics from throughout Europe who would eventually
destroy America.
Sam Adams told a group of Mohawk
Indians that the law "to establish the religion of the Pope
in Canada" would mean that "some of your children may be
induced instead of worshipping the only true God, to pay his
dues to images made with their own hands." The silversmith
and engraver Paul Revere created a cartoon for the Royal
American Magazine called "The Mitred Minuet." It depicted
four contented-looking mitred Anglican Bishops, dancing a
minuet around a copy of the Quebec Act to show their
"approbation and countenance of the Roman religion."
Standing nearby are the authors of the Quebec Act, while a
Devil with bat ears and spiky wings hovers behind them,
whispering instructions.
The Continental Congress took a stand
against the Catholic menace. On October 21, 1774 it issued
an address "to the People of Great Britain", written by John
Jay, Richard Henry Lee and William Livingston, which
expressed shock that Parliament would promote a religion
that "disbursed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and
rebellions through every part of the world." It predicted
that the measure would encourage Canadians to "act with
hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a
wicked Ministry shall choose to direct them." Once Americans
were converted to Catholicism, they would be enlisted in a
vast Popish army to enslave English Protestants.
If it seems today a bit strange that a
war against a Protestant King George III could be cast as a
fight against Catholicism, this was a paradox apparent to
some British at the time. Describing the Quebec Act as the
turning point, General Thomas Gage puzzled over how
colonists had become convinced that Britain would eliminate
their religious freedom. When they could not "be made to
believe the contrary…the Flame [of rebellion] blased out in
all Parts." Ambrose Serle, who served as secretary to
Admiral Lord Richard Howe from 1776 to 1778, reported to his
superiors that "at Boston the war is very much a religious
war." Not surprisingly, some Britons over the years have
chafed over the idea that the revolution was about lofty
concepts of freedom.
In 1912, the English Cardinal Gasquet
flatly declared that "the American Revolution was not a
movement for civil and religious liberty; its principal
cause was the bigoted rage of the American Puritan and
Presbyterian ministers at the concession of full religious
liberty and equality to Catholics of French Canada. “ Yes,
he noted, people were upset by taxation but that could have
been resolved if not for the “Puritan firebrands and the
bigotry of the people."
Evangelicals-Christian Nation web page (4-28-2008)