This is the name of
a book I read yesterday by Isaac Kramnick and R.
Laurence Moore. The full title is "The
Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State", which is
an updated version of a book they wrote in 1996. Which makes sense; it's not
like these issues have gone away.
As we are moving into the Christmas season, the time when the Bill O'Rielly's of the world are going to insist that liberals
are destroying Christmas, I wanted to read a book that covered Church and State
issues. Plus, this website usually shuts down over holidays, and I didn't want
to do that this time; rather we will do a sharply focused series of articles
about this book and the issues it raises.
I do want to be careful not to simply summarize the book; it's really quite
good and you should read it yourself.
I should comment on my biases before jumping into this particular subject. For
those of you who do not know, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints; A Mormon. My religious heritage will naturally inform my
discussion of this subject. My father was something of a church history buff
and I have also been interested in the history of the church, so I have a
strong sense of Mormon history.
Mormons believe, and I believe, that the Constitution was divinely inspired.
What will be clear, however, is that I believe that the separation of Church
and State, the Godless-ness that the authors
reference, is, in a paradoxical way, divinely inspired.
So that's the agenda for the next couple of days. Hope you enjoy.
This is a question
that has puzzled me many times; particularly when I am presented with somebody
asserting vigorously that we are a Christian Nation. My first response is
usually something along the lines of what do you mean by the phrase
"Christian nation."
Given the tone of such pronouncements, I know it does not in fact mean
"Statistically speaking, there are a lot of Christians in the
And such people are usually quick to deny that it means "Non-Christians
should not have the same rights as Christians." The then move to the
theory that Christians are persecuted in
Kramnick and Moore have a term to describe the
philosophy of those who favor the assertion that
It
[religious correctness] maintains that the
The authors do note
the importance of the Christian religion in our nation and in our current
culture; but they disagree on the notion that it has a special role in our
political culture.
They also believe that the injection of religion into politics hurts both
politics and religion. Religious leaders who stand on the public square
suffer the same slings and arrows that every other politically active person or
movement has to suffer. They quote Alexis de Tocqueville, who asked, ". . . what would become of its [religion's] immortality, in the midst of
universal decay?"
I'd also like to point out something on the burden of proof in this book.
Obviously Kramnick and Moore believe in the secular
state (as do I). But even if you are not convinced that the secular state is
the way to go, an honest reader of this book would have to concede that the
proponents of a Secular Politics and Government have at least as much of a
claim on the American tradition as proponents of religious correctness.
I wanted to quickly
expand on something I said in the last chapter, about how believing in a
secular politics and a secular government has its roots in our history.
The problem with
I find the current brand of Conservativism (or
Limbaugh conservatism) to be small-minded and mean-spirited, but I can't deny
that Limbaugh is building on a certain American historical tradition (although,
as we all know, he would deny that my liberalism has any American roots).
That is one of the reasons why the Right wing's constant attempts to portray
their political enemies as un-American is so troubling; it's a denial of the
spirit of conflict and discussion that this country's politics have been built
on.
Yes, the second
chapter has the same name as the book. Deal with it.
To start out this discussion let's check out an Amazon Book Review, of the
predecessor to this book.
Kramnick
and Moore imply in this book that the founders intended to create a godless
nation. Be assured, I am the last person in the world to claim that the
This is a
misstatement of what this book (and this chapter in particular) is about. The
founders most certainly did not want a Godless Nation; on the contrary many of
them believed in the ennobling influence of religion. But they wanted a
Constitution that did not reference any particular God.
I don't hold this reviewer all that guilty though; it was clearly a review of
the book's title, rather than the book itself. Doing that, you can't help but
make mistakes.
At any rate, despite claims to the contrary, the Constitution was clearly
intended as a Godless document. This was seen in the debates and attacks on the
constitution for failing to exalt the Christian religion into a special place
in our society.
Most states at that time (save
.
. . in
Mormons do not
believe in the doctrine of the trinity, and so, I assume, would not have been
able to take this oath.
Of course that's another dirty little secret about the desires of those who
wanted to impose a religious test for holding office; there were lots of
Christians they weren't very comfortable with either. Catholics, Quakers, and
the like were not desirable in high office.
Those who opposed imposing a religious test for high office pointed out the
seemingly insurmountable problem that there was no religious uniformity in the
If that was a problem then, it is doubly a problem now.
I think I can do the
next two chapters relatively quickly. This chapter covers Roger Williams,
founder of
Incidentally, the authors words of praise for the tight intertwining of church
and state in several New England states puts further lie to the suggestion that
they want a Godless America.
Williams reasoned that the ability to govern, like the ability to farm, was not
particularly tied to religion. It implicitly implied that an atheist might be
as good at governing as a devout Christian. Of course, we have not had an
atheist president and the current political climate makes having one unlikely.
He also noted that politics had a tendency to corrupt religion; the religious
feelings and ideals, when appropriated for political purposes, lose their holy
trappings and become just another ploy. Given the nature of politics (and I
mean politics in all of our history), I can see his point. You can't take a
silk scarf into a pig sty and expect it to stay clean.
This chapter,
obviously, covers about the intellectual tradition from which American
Secularism sprang from. Specifically it focuses on John Locke, who's writings were extremely influential on American
thought.
One revolutionary aspect of Locke's thought was the shrinking of the Public
Sphere and the enlargement of the Private Sphere. Under the medieval order, the
religious practices of the community were everybody's business; under the new
system religious practices were to be private and personal. One might share a
congregation with one's neighbors, but one would not be required to share a
congregation with one's neighbors.
The chapter also makes the points that the same forces that argued for a
rejection of the specifically Christian state also argued for a laissez-faire
economic policy. It is interesting that the modern forces of religious
correctness have abandoned this policy. They believe in the power of the
government to make men good but not in its power to make men good employers.
This chapter deals with, you guessed it, Abigail Adams. But it also mentions
Thomas Jefferson and that is who I want to focus on.
I don't think this assertion is accurate; I've pointed out, for example, the
author's see several positive effects of
Obviously these kinds of comments did not endear Mr. Jefferson to the religious
leaders of his day; particularly those religious leader who favored religious
correctness. But Mr. Jefferson is consistent. If the greatest religious benefit
comes from a personal and individual and private communion with God, and
if priests or politically ordained religion can distract us from seeking that
experience, well then they are obviously harmful.
There is, in the Book of Mormon, an extended
parable about a vineyard, which we understand to represent the House of
Israel or the
47
But what could I have done more in my vineyard? Have I slackened mine hand,
that I have not nourished it? Nay, I have nourished it, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged
it; and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long, and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me
that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard, and cast them into the
fire that they should be burned. Who is it that has corrupted my vineyard?
48 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the
loftiness of thy vineyard - —have not the branches thereof overcome the roots
which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof,
behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto
themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard
have become corrupted?
This can be read
many ways, I suppose. But I've always seen it as a metaphor for letting the
trappings of religion distract one from the purpose of religion. The purpose of
religion is to place one in harmony with God, which is a very personal process
(which is one of the reasons I haven't felt to discuss religion overmuch in
this blog). But one can be come distracted by the
trappings of religion, the branches, so that one neglects the roots of
religion; this experience with the transcendent.
And I believe this is one of the reasons
I do want to comment
on last night's post on Mr. Jefferson, where my personal religious convictions
may have bled into my writings on what he believed. And by may have I mean
definitely did.
In other words, I may have overreached by suggesting that my personal beliefs
on the experience with the divine aligned with
This chapter covers
the interesting position Baptists held in the early Republic and how that
position changed over time. Baptists were dissenters from the Calvinist beliefs
of the Puritans, particularly on the matter of infant baptism. Despite having
left the Puritan congregations, Baptists in
The chapter also covers the church's' movement into the areas of what we might
call moral guidance or social justice? If there was to be this barrier between
church and state, in what areas might the various religious organizations
properly operate? Some Christian organizations rejected the notion of
supplicating Congress for help in approaching moral problems; others chose to
embrace this idea.
The chapter ends with a discussion of the Southern Baptists, how they formed
(in response to northern abolitionist sentiment in the Baptist churches), and
how they have negotiated the political terrain in the intervening years. The
authors compare the Southern Baptist position to the Amish position, which is
interesting.
If
all the religious people in the
This passage makes
clear that the authors are not advocating that religious people should be
barred from political activities. Of course, they also note that Southern
Baptist leaders have made overtures to the Conservative movement; a tendency
which has only increased over the last few years.
What accommodations
should be made out of sensitivity to the religious concerns of Christians?
Today that question might center around whether or not
a Christian pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs or medical products
he disagrees with (such as birth control or the morning after pill.
In the early days of this country the question centered
around delivering the mail on Sunday. Should post-masters and postal
workers, who were assumed to be Christian, be required to work on their Sabbath?
What did the government of the
But of course there were good reasons for operating on Sunday. For small far
flung rural communities, coming into town to attend services was a struggle;
why compound the struggle by requiring a separate trip to get the mail. And
travelers who used the mail coaches would doubtless seek other transportation
options if forced to rest on the Sabbath. And people in the Western part of the
country at that time wanted up to the date information in order to make their
business decisions.
The authors point out that this debate also centered on the liberal idea of
giving people a day off. Forcing the post office to close on Sunday may sound
bad, but forcing people to work 7 days a week doesn't sound much better.
In this case, the necessities of keeping the mail running won out until such
necessities were alleviated by the development of the telegram and the
railways.
The chapter also covers the Christian Amendment, which was an attempt on the
part of the some to add an amendment to the constitution clarifying that this was
a Christian nation. This issue sprang up during the Civil War, when emotions
were naturally pretty high. In some versions this would have re-written the
preamble, as follows.
We,
the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the
source of all authority and power in civil government, The Lord Jesus Christ as
the Governor among the Nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority,
in order to constitute a Christian government . . . do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States.
Obviously many
non-Christians and even smaller Christian groups (like the Seventh-Day
Adventists) saw this amendment as a threat to their religious freedom. And both
President Lincoln and the Congress felt no particular haste in addressing this
issue, so it was allowed to die a quiet death.
This was the last
chapter in earlier editions of the book. The big wrap up
chapter where the authors take their argument and apply it to the modern day.
The authors select three of the current proponents of "religious
correctness" to focus on. The three they select are Pat Robertson, Ralph
Reed, and Patrick Buchannan. This dates the book a little bit (which is,
presumably, why they felt to add a chapter. While both Robertson and Reed are
still players and Buchannan is still around.
Pat Robertson is notable for how he blended his religion and his political
ambitions. Ralph Reed is notable for how he has successfully marketed the
Christian Coalition by downplaying it's specifically exclusionary demands. And
Patrick Buchannan is notable for how he combines a sort of muscular
Christianity with libertarianism. If Kramnick and
Moore were writing the book today, possibly they might switch their focus to
Bill O'Rielly, defender of Christmas. They might also
reference James Dobson, who's star has certainly risen
since President Bush took office.
The section on Pat Buchannan is interesting for how it explains a particular
distinction between previous generation's understanding of the phrase
"Christian" nation and our current generation's understanding of it.
Previous generations might understand our nation as having a sort of national
relationship with God. Just like God might bless or punish a person for committing
sin, so might God bless or punish a nation for committing sin.
This theory can be used as a rationale for controlling private behavior. It's
hard to argue that I should have the right to say you can't drink (assuming you
aren't going to drive drunk). How does your choice to drink hurt me? Well in
this theory of a national morality, your drinking offends God and weakens our
nation's relationship with him. Remember these statements by Pat Roberts.
We
have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're
going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going
to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states.
We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not
going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God
at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this
happen?"
Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from
us.
Patrick Buchannan
has, in statements excusing modern responsibility for slavery or the treatment
of the Indians, rejected this argument. Frankly it's hard to be a libertarian
and believe in this sort of thing.
Of course, it's also easy to point out that the fact that we allow thousands of
children to go to bed hungry every night does not seem to bother God nearly as
much as removing the Ten Commandments from a court house. At
least in the mind of Pat Robertson.
The authors conclude the chapter with a clear statement that religious people
need to be involved in the political process, but they do not need to use their
religion as a sort of holy trump card that ends debate. Which
I wholeheartedly agree with.
What does it mean to
have a President who believes that he is doing God's will?
Can God's will be changed by new evidence coming
forward? By scientific surveys? By
sociological studies? By foreign intelligence?
By the will of the American people?
If God's will is clear and the President knows that will, how could he allow
the voice of the people to override God's will?
Now I don't know if President Bush looks at it this way. I would think in some
areas he probably does (the war, for example) and in other areas not as much.
But it is something to think about, particularly given the way he has melded
his political discourse to a certain religious argument.
The authors discuss how the tight intertwinning of
religion and political values has hurt our national discourse. The Republican
Right has done what it can to set up "Secular" and
"Religious" as opposites, forever hostile to each other. They have
also successfully, more or less, made Moral a synonym for Christian
Conservatives. They deplore both developments.
We
need then to view our moral language as common property, not as something that
belongs to people of a particularly religion or to people of no religion. Our
state is a secular one, which renders moral debate in the public sphere as
something different from a theological inquiry into the nature of God's will.
At the same time, self-styled secularists should never imagine that they have
nothing to learn from people of faith or that the moral passion of evangelical
Christians never speaks to issues that concerns them.
I think this sums up the book; Kramnick
and Moore are not arguing that Christians need to be removed from the public
stage (despite the paranoid fantasies of a few of them). Merely this is an
argument that they are going to have to share that stage with Jews, Muslims,
Catholics, Agnostics and Atheists.
Just read an article
by Patrick Hynes called "Time
to Rethink the Religious Right Stereotypes." In it Mr. Hynes lists off
the benefits of going to church; apparently people who go to church are
healthier, happier, and wealthier. Then he explains that being Christian means
you voted for George W. Bush. Specifically he notes that 65% of the people who
go to church more than once a week voted for President Bush, while only 35% of
those voted for Kerry. Or, to make a long story short, to be religious in
Hynes' nominal target in this piece is
I suppose if I were a Christian Conservative I would like that message. I know
that I occasionally laugh at the posters at
But it's a guilty pleasure, isn't it? Because the whole point to bothering with
a Democracy is that there isn't one right and obvious answer to all the
nation's problems (if there was, then Bush is right, a Dictatorship would be a
lot easier). Good-hearted, intelligent people can disagree on the best way to
handle our problems. As comforting as it might be to draw a line through the
country and put all the people who agree with me (or who agree with Patrick
Hynes, for that matter) on the good side and all who disagree on the bad side,
such a division would not only be stupid. It would be dangerous to our
democracy, because it essentially ends conversation.
At any rate, I heartily recommend The
Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State. It's well
written, interesting, and not overly long.