Today (Jan. 16) is the National Day of Religious Freedom, a day in which we are supposed both to recognize our nation's heritage of religious liberty and to promote that liberty to the world. But as Walter Lippmann once said, "Nations make their histories to fit their illusions," and the American celebration of our religious freedom is no exception. Our self-conception is in fact based on a three-fold myth of American religious freedom that distorts the current debate about religion in public life.
The first myth is that of church-state separation, which claims that the First Amendment separated church and state for the protection of each from the other and the mutual prosperity of both. Liberal writers love to point to Thomas Jefferson, who first coined the "wall of separation" metaphor that made its way into mid-20th-century church-state jurisprudence, and to James Madison, Jefferson's protégé and the architect of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. And liberals are correct when they suggest that Madison and Jefferson supported an absolute separation of church and state. But the First Amendment did not create the separation for which Madison and Jefferson hoped. Its religion clauses (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) did not apply to the states until 1940. Since almost all church-state issues emerged on the state level, the First Amendment did not apply. And, contrary to the myth of separation, states were free to do any number of things that surprise us today. They could pay churches out of the public treasury, as some did until well into the antebellum period. They could prosecute for blasphemy against the Christian God. They could establish laws that favored churches as the originators of charitable institutions. They could prosecute violations of the Christian Sabbath. They could require public Bible-reading and prayer in the name of Jesus Christ in public schools. They could do all of this and more -- and they did -- without violating the First Amendment.
Those who acknowledge this past religious coercion are sometimes tempted to wave it away as irrelevant to the current debate. They claim that such religious power has faded with the loss of personal faith in religion that is a mark of modernity. But this is the second myth of religious freedom: the myth of religious decline. Historical sociologists tell us that between 10 and 20 percent of the U.S. populace were church members in 1776. But starting in the early 19th century during the Second Great Awakening, church membership expanded rapidly, doubling to 35 percent of the population by 1850. Church members became a simple majority in 1906, and 62 percent of the American populace belonged to religious institutions in 2000, though not exclusively Christian churches. Evangelical Christians led the way in this organizational expansion. Because evangelicals have long felt that their religion requires them to spread God's word in an attempt to bring their theological understanding to bear on public life, religion has become more important in the public life of the United States over the last 200 years, not less.
Taken together and in a certain light, the first two myths might seem to aid conservatives, but they actually entail a third myth that undermines positions all around: the myth of exceptional liberty. This is the myth most clearly celebrated in the National Day of Religious Freedom. The general idea is that the United States was on the vanguard of religious freedom so that it has become a beacon of freedom to the world. Yet foreign observers of the United States and dissenters within it constantly criticized the notion that America had perfected religious freedom. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted in 1835, a "moral empire" in the United States exerted a powerful force against individuals by using the mechanism of the state. This moral empire, which was led by religious partisans, would grow with the evangelical expansion that Tocqueville observed first hand. As it did so, Tocqueville suggested a troubling dynamic. Unlike in Europe where religious groups sponsored political parties, religious power in the United States did not require formal religious partisanship. Religious partisans worked instead indirectly. They sought first to direct morals, Tocqueville noted, which eventually worked "to regulate the state" even without a formal political apparatus. That actually made religion more powerful in public life -- and more coercive as a result -- while disguising the preferential standing that religious partisans maintained in law and government.
These three myths are long-standing and both liberals and conservatives draw upon them to advance their political aims. But because they are so detached from an accurate history they have yielded a remarkably unproductive discussion about religion in contemporary American life. Rather than advancing the same tired myths, which result in gridlock and falsity in public debate, it is time that we stopped celebrating ourselves and started looking seriously at our past. Overcoming our myths and our illusions about the religious coercion in our national history is a first step toward having an honest debate about the public role that religion should have in the present.
Marilyn Mellowes: 'God in America:' A House Divided Twice (VIDEO)
Freedom of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religious Freedom - US Department of State
Oxford University Press: The Myth of American Religious Freedom ...
National Religious Freedom Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regardless of your interpretation of the First Amendment Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution is pretty black and white.
Depends: does it apply to atheists? Many states had laws had similar no-religious-test clauses in their constitution, with a modifier to specifically exclude atheists. For instance, Pennsylvania's constitution: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
Of course, because of Supreme Court rulings of the past 70 years, these qualifiers are considered incompatible with the 1st amendment and cannot be enforced. But for most of the nation's history, exclusion of atheists and other non-standard believers from juries (including federal!) and public office was sanctioned on the theory that by not acknowledging judgment of actions in life, they had no moral code.
Also, that clause was never denounced historically by most churchmen. It was inserted as a direct reaction to England's Nonconformist Acts, which barred dissenters (at the time, primarily quakers, baptists, methodists, congregationalists, puritans and calvinists) from holding office or trust in the UK. Though parliament had relaxed the law after American declared independence, memory of it was still fresh in the minds of the framers. It was a reaction against the state Anglican church, not against religion in general.
What they should be claiming is that such coercion is antithetical to the grand proposition of this nation, which is individual liberty for all, and that it is about time that such longstanding injustices be addressed and corrected.
Iʻve never understood the principal that torture was only wrong when done by the ʻwrongʻ people for the ʻwrongʻ reasons.
I prefer Joe Abercrombie and Bernard Cornwell. I think they have done more to truly represent the contributions of Religion to society than the bible ever did and while they do tell tales of nastiness, they do NOT direct Fear or directives at their readers thus leaving my Free Will intact.
However, as an American, it is your right to believe in whatever you want to.
There is nothing wrong fantasy imagination time, confusing it with reality is where the line between crazy and dangerous is drawn.
nobody has the right to enforce populism. That is the beauty of the 1st ammendment.
The creator's of basketball didn't have a 3-point line or a shot clock, but we recognize that these additions make a better game. Why should law be any different?
Think of the criminal (Luke 23: 42/43) that was being impaled with Jesus, his last words: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.” 43 And he (Jesus) said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” End of reading!
My point, the above passage shows how loving, patient, and understanding of man’s struggle, under the weight of this current system of things God is! God plans to do away with this system and march in a new earth under his eternal rule, perfection a bound, and death, man’s final enemy, will be no more – the former things have past away! Yahweh Almighty God wants everyone thirsting for truth to drink from his fountain where man will not thirst again!
It is exactly people like you that constantly need to wear their religion on their sleeves at all times, constantly preaching that theirs is the "only way", and are annoying everyone of other faiths and those with none at all.
Please read the article again, Maybe then you will possibly understand what was indeed the intent of the founding fathers.
Think of the criminal (Luke 23: 42/43) that was being impaled with Jesus, his last words: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.” 43 And he (Jesus) said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” End of reading!
My point, the above passage how loving, patient, and understanding of man’s struggle, under the weight of this current system of things God is! God plans to do away with this system and march in a new earth under his eternal rule, perfection a bound, and death, man’s final enemy, will be no more – the former things have past away! Yahweh Almighty God wants everyone thirsting for truth to drink from his fountain where man will not thirst again!
The problem with the concept of religious freedom is that people only take it on the level of religion and not on the larger issue of the government as a moral agent. People who are for a religiousless government can be for a moral government. That does not work. A moral government without religion is just as bad as moral government with religion.
I do not know how much more clear that can be. You are more than welcome to make the argument that it's improper or discourteous. That doesn't matter. Not at all.
Also, how was the "mosque" (which wasn't even a mosque) a "business"?
I could go on about early settlers coming to America escaping state sanctioned religious persecution but since you like history so much, perhaps your next article could explain how it relates to our secular constitution.
Ultimately, the debate over the intentions of our founding fathers is irrelevant. Supreme court justice Harry A. Blackmun explains: "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
Among the signers of the constitution, as I recall, belief ran from the gamut from a couple devoted church ministers, to soundly religious men like Roger Sherman (a major figure! now often forgotten), to open deists like Madison and Franklin. One thing is certain, though: from all the materials we have on the debates on the constitution, religion played almost no role. At one point, in what must have been a very low time when they weren't making any headway, the great deist Ben Franklin did recommend bringing in a minister to open each session with a prayer (it must have been really bad, for him to resort to that to try to bring everyone together!), but no action was taken. Madison's notes on the writing of the constitution detail that, and it's wonderful to read.
One thing is pretty clear: whether religious or not, religion was confined to the church or home, and when it came to founding a workable government, almost no one, even the devout ones, thought to invoke religious arguments or reasons for their new government.