The Persecuted Christian

A bit over two years ago I posted “Gimme That Old Banned Religion”, about a t-shirt with the words “I am not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God the salvation of everyone who believes. Romans 1:16” on the front. On the back it stated, “This shirt is illegal in 51 countries.”

Obviously I checked out the accuracy of this back statement and then used this to discuss the interesting fact that many Christians in America claim that they are persecuted, not only in other countries but also here in the United States.

This blog has gotten some interesting responses, including two that I did not allow due to their abuse of language. A few days ago I received in comment that made me want to briefly revisit the topic of the “persecution” of Christians in America. Before I do though, I realize that many if not most Christians in the United States do not believe they are persecuted. In fact, I received a couple of thoughtful comments from Christians to this effect.

However, while acknowledging the truth of this, it is still also true that a sizable number of Christians do believe they are persecuted in the United States. Now, I am not going to deal with all the problems in claiming that Christians are persecuted in the United States. Much of it stems from the fact that “They wish to elevate the loss of their religious privileges – which are forbidden by the United States Constitution – to the loss of their religious rights – which is very much protected by the Constitution.”

What I want to focus on instead is the claim of a commenter that “Christians are the MOST persecuted in the world”. Really?

Consider the following:

• In every country in which Christianity is outlawed and expressing Christian beliefs illegal, so too are other religious beliefs, including atheists. Does the Most Persecuted Religion trophy go to the group with the most individuals being persecuted? If so, then Christianity has an unfair advantage in that they are the largest religious group in the world. A better measurement would be a proportional one in which you look at laws outlawing and restricting a religion. By this measure, Christianity is not the most persecuted religion in the world. At best, it is tied with many others.
  
• In Iraq  today a religious group is in danger of being totally wiped out by ISIS. Those who follow the Yazidi faith are being hunted and killed for their faith. Just because they are not as numerous as Christians does that mean that their persecution doesn’t count? Or perhaps it counts, but just not as much. How do you compare their persecution with their smaller numbers with that of Christians? After all, they are in grave danger of giving their all, just as the widow did in Mark 12: 41- 44
  

  41 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

  It seems to me that even though the Christians today might be persecuted out of their abundance, those who in their poverty of numbers are in danger of being wiped out are being the more persecuted.
  

• Does it count as persecution when those persecuting you are also a Christian, just of a different variety? For example, the Catholic persecution of Protestants, the Protestant persecution of Catholics, the persecution of Quakers by both, etc. It seems to me that this should not count towards the count for most persecuted religion. Instead, this should be reserved for persecution by those of a totally different religious belief.

So, who do I think is the most persecuted religion? The Jews. They have been persecuted for far longer than Christians have, have suffered more deaths and restrictions than Christians have. What is of interest here is that the Jews have suffered deaths and restrictions frequently at the hands of Christians. In fact, this makes me wonder, does the fact that Christians persecuted other religions mean that they should be deducted points for most persecuted religion? This question is especially important in light of the fact that the religion that has engaged in the greatest amount of persecution of the Jews is Christianity.

Yes, Islam has done so too. Both have anti-Semitic elements within their respective sacred books. However, for most of history, Islamic countries have been a safer place for Jews to live than Christian European ones. That is not to say that Jews were considered the equals of Muslims, nor that they did not suffer persecutions and extra taxations . They did. However, what the Jews experienced in Christian Europe was worse, on average, than what they experienced in the Middle East. Just consider, the greatest number of Jews being killed for being Jewish occurred during the First Crusade and in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. Both of these were Christian countries and these actions carried out by Christians.

So, how does the fact that Christians have engaged in severe persecution fit into these Christians calculations for being the most persecuted religion?

A more basic question, though, is why do so many Christians seem to feel this is important. They seem to believe that if a religion can survive such persecution then that is evidence that that religion contains the truth and is the one correct religion. However, is this true?

Not really. Although my tone may have, at times, been slightly sarcastic in my questions and points above, the questions and points are all valid. Christians have been and in many countries are still being persecuted – along with atheists, Jews, and other religious groups.

Christians have also often been the persecutors.

And it is Judaism, not Christianity, which has suffered the greatest amount of persecution throughout history.

Yet this belief that being persecuted validates Christianity still permeates the thinking of many Christians. It is why they so often try so hard to twist and distort the reality of Christianity within the United States so as to claim that they are persecuted too. It validates, in some strange way, their belief in the ultimate and exclusive truthfulness of their religion. Never mind the reality.

And the reality is? Persecution is no measure of how true a religion is. It is the result of many other factors instead – politics and economics, geography, social norms and values, and the interactions with other religions. If persecution were the measure of a religion’s validity then Judaism would be the winner. Of course, the atheist would rank fairly high too. Not to mention the Yazidi. Or the many other religious groups.

Instead of contemplating with joy how persecuted Christians are, even within the United States, these Christians should instead be working to protect all of those persecuted regardless of religious belief – atheist, Jew, Yazidi… all. They should be working to rid the world of persecution and discrimination for any reason whether it be for religion or race or gender or sexual orientation. They should, instead, be working to create a culture, a society, a world in which each is free to follow their conscience and to live their lives as they best see fit. That is a much more laudable goal than watching all their trials and tribulations sinking in a gentle pool of wine.

Read Full Post »

The Religious Root Leading to the Separation of Church and State

The creation of the idea of separation of church and state, arguably one of the most important innovations in government, has many roots.   Most people tend to know only of the secular root.  However there is also a religious root to this idea, a root that goes as deep if not deeper into time than does the secular, and which actually came to full fruition before the secular one did.

Most people, both religious and secular, are surprised upon finding this out.  I know I was when I found out.   However, upon a little reflection, what is really surprising is that Americans are surprised that Christian thought can lead to the separation of church and state, since most Americans are also already aware of one of the primary Biblical arguments for the separation of church and state.

 ¹⁷ Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

¹⁸ But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? ¹⁹ Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, ²⁰ and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

²¹ “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Matthew 22:17 – 21

Although I quoted from Matthew, the same story appears in Mark and Luke also. So, within the Gospels, from the mouth of Jesus, there is already Biblical support for the idea that there are two separate spheres – the church and the state.    However, within the Bible, these verses are not the only ones cited for support of this idea of two separate spheres – or domains, kingdoms, swords, or a host of other terms for this idea.   The Old Testament was also often cited as support for this idea.

For example, Exodus 18: 13-26 and Exodus 28:1 are cited as showing that the position of civil magistrate and that of priest are created separately, demonstrating, again, the existence of two separate domains.   Jehoshaphat, the righteous king of Judah, is another example that was often cited.  In 2 Chronicles 19:11 Jehoshaphat appointed one man to administer to matters “concerning the LORD” and another man to matters “concerning the king”.

¹¹ “Amariah the chief priest will be over you in any matter concerning the Lord, and Zebadiah son of Ishmael, the leader of the tribe of Judah, will be over you in any matter concerning the king, and the Levites will serve as officials before you. Act with courage, and may the Lord be with those who do well.”

Several other verses and examples were also used to support the idea that there are two different domains, one of civil government and one of the church.

Now, let me state here, that this is not separation of church and state yet.   However, it is the beginnings of it.   It is a recognition that the church does not control all and that the civil government does not control all – each has their own domain.   Without this basic concept there can be no separation of church and state.

And lest you wonder if this is a reading backwards from today’s views about church and state and imposing those views to the past, this doctrine of separate spheres of authority was introduced by Saint Augustine (354 – 430 CE) in his book City of God.   From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 

A distinction between Church and State—more exactly, between the priesthood and the power of the emperor, each independent in its own sphere, though the priesthood has the higher function. The classic place for this doctrine is the canon Duo sunt. Another canon, Cum ad verum, gave reasons for the separation: mutual limitation of their powers would restrain the pride of priest and emperor, and those on God’s service (the clergy) should be kept free of worldly entanglements. This was also the force of the canons Sicut enim and Te quidem.

Just as a quick aside for those who do not think religion had anything to do with modern rights and freedoms, you might like to read more of this link than just the part I quoted.   Augustine also argues that the source of political power lies in the people who have then entrusted this power to kings and emperors.  Further he advances an argument for the natural rights of all men as well as a belief that all men are equal and because of this slavery was contrary to natural law.   Both ideas sound strikingly familiar to what later, secular, enlightenment philosophers would argue.

Getting back to the separation of church and state now, these ideas and arguments of Augustine were then developed by Pope Gelasius (Pope from 492 – 496 CE) into an explicit political statement.

“Writing to Anastasius, emperor in the east, Gelasisu stated, ‘There are, then, august Emperor, two powers by which the world is chiefly ruled, the sacred power of the prelates and the royal power. ‘”

Spheres of Sovereignty by Robert Joseph Renaud and Lael Daniel Weinberger in the Northern Kentucky Law Review.

So, the theory of two separate spheres has existed since very early in church history.  Theoretically these should be co-equal, each having total and complete dominion over their area.     However, as is usual, theory tends to get bent and broken upon meeting reality.  The reality is that there were times when the church was dominant and ruled over civil matters.  There were other times when the state was dominant and ruled on church matters.  This varied dependent on various political and social factors.

In fact, in the 11^th century Pope Gregory VII morphed this doctrine into one of papal supremacy.   Pope Innocent III followed up by adding what had formerly been one of the emperor’s titles to his own, that of “Vicarius Dei”.   Pope Boniface VII openly declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope, with temporal only being on loan, so to speak, from the pope.   In other words, while they were two separate spheres, the spiritual reigned over the civil, which was a modification of what had been originally understood.

It will probably surprise many to find that the Protestant Reformers also made this distinction between the two spheres.   John Calvin for one, despite his reputation and his actions in Geneva, believed in the separate jurisdictions of church and state.

“Calvin believed in an independent church supported and reinforced by a godly civil magistrate.   In this we see hints of a blending of roles, where church and state cooperate to maintain purity.   This is what most observers think of first when they think of Calvin’s contributions to church-state relations.   But what is often missed is that even when Calvin speaks of the cooperation of church and state, eh does not speak of the subordination of one to the other.   Calvin believed that the church and state coexisted as two forms of government separated from one another by God, but both under God and subject to his law-word….An example given in the Institutes illustrates what Calvin meant by this:

Does any one get intoxicated.   In a well ordered city his punishment will be imprisonment.   Has he committed whoredom?  The punishment will be…more severe.  Thus satisfaction will be given to the [civil] laws, the magistrates, and the external tribunal.   But the consequence will be, that the offender will give no signs of repentance, but will rather fret and murmur.   Will the Church not here interfere?

Spheres of Sovereignty by Robert Joseph Renaud and Lael Daniel Weinberger in the Northern Kentucky Law Review.

Here is another quote from Calvin about the relationship between church and state, again from Institutes:

Some…are led astray, by not observing the distinction and dissimilarity between ecclesiastical and civil power.   For the Church has not the right of the sword to punish or restrain, has no power to coerce, no prison nor other punishments which the magistrate is wont to inflict.  Then the object in view is not to punish the sinner against his will, but to obtain a profession of penitence by voluntary chastisement.   The two things, the fore, are widely different because neither does the Church assume anything to herself which is proper to the magistrate, nor is the magistrate competent to what is done by the Church.

Although not exactly the same, Luther’s views of church and state paralleled that of Calvin; Luther saw two realms, the church and state, both under God but each being institutional equals.  James Madison, one of the principle creators of our Constitution, the creator of our Bill of Rights, and one of the staunchest proponents of church/state separation, acknowledged that this idea of the two being separated came from religious sources first.   In a letter to F. L. Schaeffer dated Dec 3^rd, 1821, Madison writes that, “It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way,  between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.”

Although Madison does not say so, I believe that he is referring to Martin Luther’s book On Secular Authority. From this work:

God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly…The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another.

And later in the book,

We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward matters…But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal.

Surprisingly modern in its ideals about separation of church and state, however, this is still not there yet.  That is because for the great majority, the church still has control over doctrine and what people should and should not believe.  While believing that the state should have no power to determine and enforce religious belief, most did believe that the church had this power and that, as the guardian of men’s souls, had a responsibility to do so.

Further, many of the sects and denominations had no problem integrating the two domains; others could not resist the lure of having the state support the church.   Nor could the state resist using the church in this way.  So, the elements were in place for a modern understanding of the separation of church and state, it only needed someone to put it together and add the individual’s right to determine his own spiritual belief, without coercion from either church or state.

Now, there were many who started to piece this together and started to promote an ideal of separation that more closely approached our own.   But in the interest of keeping this from getting too long, let me jump to the fruition of religious thought on separation of church and state, the writings and actions of Roger Williams.

Religious Argument for Separation of Church and State 

Roger Williams, in his book The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience, was the first person, either secular or religious, to forcefully argue for the total separation of church from state.  Being a Protestant Theologian, a Puritan, and the founder of the Baptist church in America (although he did not stay a Baptist for long), his arguments were, of course, religious; building on all the elements I mentioned above, from the Bible and the works of such men as Luther and Calvin.   What is even more important, he did not just talk the talk, but he walked the talk too. To all of this he also added in his own critical look at both the current state of affairs and recent history.

Williams was also the founder of Rhode Island, and he managed to convince King Charles to let him set it up along his principles as set out in The Bloody Tenet.  Rhode Island thus had the first government in which state and government were fully separated; a much more thorough separation than ours is today.  And this was well before a similar secular case was made for the separation of church and state.  Williams founded Rhode Island in 1636.  The Bloody Tenet was published in 1644.   John Locke, widely considered the chief proponent of the secular argument for the separation of church and state, was born in 1632.   In fact, John Locke was influenced by the religious arguments for the separation of church and state, either directly through Williams or indirectly through John Milton, who knew Williams and was much influenced by him.

Williams agreed with Augustine, Calvin, Luther and the others that the civil magistrate had no power and jurisdiction on matters of faith, belief and the church.  Where Williams disagreed with most of his fellow Christians though, is that he extended this to the church, parting company with them on the power of the church over individual beliefs, the power or the church to enforce doctrine and beliefs, and over the link between the state in supporting one religion over another.  He believed that the church, far from being an instrument of God was a creation of man, and thus flawed.    After all, there is plenty of Biblical support for this – view the Bible’s condemnation of the religious institutions of their times in both the Old and New Testament, how they all fall short – as well as historical support in the form of religious wars, religious persecution, and competing doctrines.

From an article on the Smithsonian site:   

Williams’ main purpose was to prove, “It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of his Sonne the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships, bee granted to all men in all Nations and Countries.” Over hundreds of pages he lays out his case, expanding upon his view that the state will inevitably corrupt the church, rebutting Scriptural arguments for intolerance with Scriptural arguments for tolerance.

Then he countered the almost universally held view that governments received their authority from God, and that in the material world God favored those who were godly and punished those who were not. If it were that simple, then why did He subject Job to such an ordeal? And Williams noted that at that very moment in European conflicts, Catholics had “victory and dominion.” If “successe be the measure,” then the evidence proved that God had chosen Catholics over Protestants.

What caused Williams to make this next step was his understanding of his religion, both of the Bible and theology, and his critical examination of the world he lived in.   At that time religious wars and persecutions were common, and often bloody.   Williams had himself been persecuted for his beliefs, both in England and in America.  There were numerous varieties of Christianity, all claiming to be doing what God wills.   Given that this was not possible, then there was something wrong with the idea that the Church had been entrusted by God to keep men from straying.   Roger Williams identified that wrongness by use of standard Christian theology.   Man was a sinful and fallen creature living in a sinful and fallen world.   That means that all of the institutions he created, both secular AND religious would be flawed and imperfect.

Further, one could never be certain of anyone else’s salvation other than one’s own.   God and God alone is the final judge.  Given the flawed nature of man, no man is going to be correct all the time, and their judgment on another’s soul could well be in error.   Given this, then best to let that be between the individual and God.  He believed that only individuals could be redeemed, not nations, not institutions, but individuals.  So there was no such thing as a Christian nation or Christian school, only Christian individuals.

Taking this even further, if one could never be certain about the state of another person’s soul, and if all persons and all human institutions are flawed, then should any institution try to force another to believe against their conscience?   What if the Puritan church were wrong and had forced people for all of its years of existence to believe wrongly.   Now, all of those souls damnation was their fault.  Far better to let each person choose to believe as they wished, to relegate all conversion attempts to words only and not to government strictures and force; “The civil sword may make a nation of hypocrites and anti-Christians, but not one Christian”.   In fact, this extends not only to those professing to be Christian but to all of humanity.   Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Quaker, Atheist…. all.

I would like to point out that Roger Williams separation of church and state was even more absolute than that of John Locke’s.   Locke would have limited the freedoms of conscience for Catholics and atheists (although he did later back of outlawing atheism).   Williams allowed all of whatever faith or of none to enjoy full civil and personal liberties.

Further, building upon the thoughts of Augustine (that I had earlier briefly alluded to) and other theologians about human rights and the source of political power, “I infer that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people.” The governments they establish, he wrote, “have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with.”

So, far from being a purely secular ideal, the separation of church and state came first from religious thought, with the goal of preserving the integrity of both the church and of the individual believer, and then influenced the secular thinkers to argue the same, but from the view of the benefits such an ideal provided to the state, and also the individual.

While it is easily understandable why secularists today might have forgotten this history, being focused on the secular, Enlightenment thinkers who directly influenced the men creating the first nation with separation of church and state and ignoring those who came before them; but it is truly a shame that so many Christians have forgotten this important part of history too.    The separation of church and state is one of those areas where there are both good religious and good secular reasons for not only maintaining, but jealously guarding.  It is an institution that protects both the state and the church and, most importantly of all, the individual.

Read Full Post »

What Most Have Forgotten

The sight of gallows loaded with the bodies of men and women hanged and sometimes mutilated just for their beliefs. Men such as the Jesuit John Ogilvie who was sentenced to death by a Glasgow court and hanged and disemboweled on March 10, 1615.

The thousands of men and women deprived of their property due to being of the wrong religion with the definition of the wrong religion changing when the English rulers changed. First Protestant, then Catholic, then Protestant again.

The thousands of Lutheran men, women, and children who starved and froze to death when, on October 31, 1731, 20,000 of them were expelled from their homes in Salzburger, Austria by the Archbishop Leopold von Firmian. They were given only eight days to leave their homes.

The drowning of Protestants by the Irish Catholics in 1641. After holding them as prisoners and torturing them, the Catholics then forced them to the bridge over the River Bann, forced them to strip, and then drove them into the water at sword point. Those that survived the plunge were then shot.

Our Founders remembered this and more. It is why there is no mention of Christianity, no mention of God, no mention of Jesus in the Constitution. Our Founders set up a secular state so that freedom of conscience would be guarded for all men.

The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris on August 24, 1572 when thousands of Huguenots (Protestants) were butchered by Catholic mobs. This was just the worst of the many killings and riots that occurred during the 30 years of war between the French Protestants and Catholics that started in 1562.

The Huguenots disemboweling and burying alive priests. The killing of Catholic children. The torture of priests and Catholics during the same 30-year war.

John Rogers being burned alive at Smithfield England, the “first Protestant martyr” executed by England’s Catholic Queen Mary.

The smell of burning flesh as John Lambert was chained to a stake in 1537 at Smithfield, England and then burned. He had defended his conscience and faith after being summoned to an inquisition.

For not enshrining God and Christianity into its text the Constitution was heavily criticized. This omission of God and Christianity was denounced by the Reverend John M. Mason who declared it “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” He went on to warn “we will have every reason to tremble lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck.”

 

Others warned of the dangers of not putting God and Christianity into the Constitution because it would be an “invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us.” and that “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States.”

 

Our Founders knew that, with most of the states having religious tests for citizenship and holding office, that pushing a thoroughly secular Constitution would be difficult. Yet they did push.

 

George Washington, John Adam, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the others of our Founders considered the lack of religion in the Constitution important enough to weather the firestorm of criticism to get the Constitution ratified as it was – without God and without religion.

 

In fact, eventually all the states would follow the lead of the writers of the Constitution and erect their own wall of separation between church and state.

Anne Hutchison defending her beliefs and being banished by the Puritans from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637. The same Puritans who were persecuted in England and sailed to the New World carried the Old World’s intolerance of dissent with them. Anne Hutchison, her servants, and 5 of her children were killed by Indians in New York in 1643.

Roger Williams’ defense of the separation of church and state in the mid 17th century. He believed that the state should not be involved in religion at all. He believed that all men — the Muslims, Jews, infidels, and atheists – should have freedom of conscience and for the state to be involved in any way with religion would infringe on this right. His books were banned and burned in England. In America he was banished by the Puritans.

The persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1656 the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed laws against anyone bringing Quakers into the Colony or anyone harboring them. They would be fined 100 pounds and then either imprisoned or banished. Other fines included 54 pounds for possessing Quaker books or writings, 40 pounds for defending the teachings of Quakers, 44 pounds for a second offence of defending the teachings, followed by imprisonment until the offender could be shipped out. The laws also allowed corporal punishment ie., whippings, cutting off of ears, boring holes in tongues, and hanging. Mary Dyer, William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson were some among many who braved these punishments in order to speak their conscience. All three had been banished, endured flogging, and were eventually hanged.

Today we take the benefits of keeping church and state separate too much for granted. It has allowed us to avoid most of the religious violence that has embroiled much of the world despite our being the most religiously diverse nation on earth.

 

Even though we are home for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics we have avoided the strife that plagues India from the Hindus and Muslims, the wars that consume the Middle East between the Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and Christians, and the violence between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

 

We take these so much for granted that many do not understand why the state cannot favor any religion; why the state shouldn’t fund or help religious groups and organizations.

 

In An Essay On Toleration Benjamin Franklin wrote, “If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.”

In his statement about why he refused to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer Andrew Jackson in 1832 said, “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”

James Madison, the chief author of our Constitution, wrote in a letter objecting to the use of government land for churches in 1803, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, carried unanimously by the Senate reads, “As the government of the United States 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 (Muslims) … it is declared.. that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”

In a letter John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

These and more statements from our founders, from George Washington to Thomas Paine, from Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson all attest to the fact that they set up a secular government in order to preserve the new country that they had created from being torn by religious wars. A country where all men, not just Christians but all men, would be free to follow their conscience and express their beliefs.

During the beginning of the Civil War, the National Reform Association was founded in order to correct the mistake that was tearing our nation apart. No, it was not slavery that was the mistake in the eyes of these clergymen but instead it was the lack of an acknowledgement of God and Jesus in our Constitution.

 

In 1863 an attempt was made to amend the Constitution’s preamble and there acknowledge not only God but also Jesus Christ as the source our government. A foreshadowing of one of our recent President’s use of Jesus as his political mentor.

The clergy involved in the National Reform Association devised a statement that would not offend any of the mainstream Protestant denominations (they were not worried of course about Jews, Quakers, or Catholics who, being religious minorities, were aghast at the idea). It proposed replacing “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” with “Recognizing almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government…” Shades of the Islamic constitution in Iran.

The National Reform Association met with President Lincoln in February 1864 and presented him with their petition for a Christian government. His response was the observation that “…the work of amending the Constitution should never be done hastily.” and a promise to “take such action upon it as my responsibility to my Maker and our country demands.” He then took no action at all. Neither did Congress, instead tabling the resolution for years until it was forgotten.

 

Now these and other histories have been forgotten. We have taken for granted the benefits of a secular government. Now a new mythology is being created that our founders would be appalled by. The myth that the United States of America was created as a Christian Nation.

 

We no longer remember why that road is such a dangerous one. We no longer seem to understand why a secular government is necessary for the continued freedom of belief and conscience that we now so blithely enjoy.

 

Even such seemingly laudable actions such as giving government money to religious charities creates problems and raises troubling questions.

 

When the government gives money, as in the faith based charity programs, it decides which religions get money and which do not. Is it really any surprise that during President Bush’s Presidency the vast majority of the money is given to evangelical organizations that supported him?  Is it any surprise that only they, out of all the organizations that our government supports with our money, are allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion with that money?

 

And how will you react when Moslems charities start receiving money? How about Scientology? Wiccan charities? Secular Humanist charities? Do you approve and trust our government to start picking and choosing what religions are “worthy” of receiving money and government approval and which are “unworthy?”

 

Despite all the talk about original intent we are moving away from what our founders intended.

 

Although some of our founders were traditional Christians, most, while devout, were not traditionally so. Many believed that religion encouraged morality in the common people and so followed religious practices. All, though, recognized the danger that comes from religion and government becoming entangled. All recognized the necessity for a secular government. All remembered the reasons why a strict separation between church and state is necessary. I think it is time that many of us read more thoroughly our own and European history and take a good look at the world around us.

 

I think it is time that we start remembering again.

Read Full Post »