Americans Ignorant of the First Amendment

[Haruo]

Not too encouraging. I wonder how many named the right to bear arms as a First Amendment right...

Haruo

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim, is there something that makes this thread of particular import for the ABC Life and Ministry Forum?

[ET]

I wonder what percentage thinks the phrase "separation of church and state" appears somewhere in the Constitution? I'm sure the ignorance would be reflected in the answer to that question also.

We might also ask folks whether or not the Constitution gives the federal government power to do all sorts of things, like school funding or anything to do with education, social security, medicare, etc. Probably show some Constitutional ignorance with that one too.

[Haruo]

(To Ed) This thread would be appropriate to any of the three main boards here, IMO, though there would probably be an implied criticism of the SBC if it had been started by a non-SBCer in the SB forum. It would also be an appropriate topic on many non-Baptist, and even non-Christian (secular or, say, minoritarian), discussion forums.

Haruo

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim, is there something that makes this thread of particular import for the ABC Life and Ministry Forum?

Issues of Baptist Freedom are always cogent to American Baptist Life and Ministry. And, since we are still members of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, while some of the other denominations represented here or not, it fits here as well as anywhere else Ed.

Also, just as a general FYI, I'm not going to spend a lot of time answer questions like "why did you put this thread here?" I am going to assume up front that my views as a moderator are going to continue to be different than yours were.

Ed: Hey Tim, I have no expectation that you views as moderator of the ABC forum are going to be, or even that they should be, the same as mine. But are you telling me that participants on your board have no right to question how you operate it?

And as for the reply that you did offer to my question, I find it some what contrary to the spirit of the NBC. The Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty nor the ABC-USA have any exclusive on Baptist Freedoms. In fact you reply itself seems to me to be contrary to Baptist freedoms.

[ET]

Actually, educated Church and State advocates are well aware of the wording of the First Amendment, the history of the wall of separation, and the wording of the establishment clause.

Its those who think Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were right wing Evangelical Christians who are scoring high on the ignorance quotient. Or, that a conservative Christian vision was the vision of our founding fathers.

But we're not talking about folks educated about the Constitution, are we? The mythical "separation wall" is not enshrined in the Constitution, but in a letter to the Danbury Baptists from Jefferson. Lest we wander too far off the path, let's just says that most folks don't realize that church services were held in the Capitol building for over 50 years. Jefferson attended a service in the Capitol building just a couple of days after he penned the famous "separation" letter. Can you imagine the outrage today if a politician proposed holding church services in the Capitol again?

As for the religious affiliation of most of the founders, I doubt one could apply a 21st century label to 18th century life, but most were Christians, if nothing but "cultural Christians". Some were anti-Christian/church (T Paine, C Lee, E Allen) and some were who-knows-what (Franklin, Jefferson). But even Jefferson at one time claimed to be a Christian, although he believed the church had corrupted Jesus' teachings down through the ages.

However, I notice that the same names always seem to appear when "rebutting" this issue of those that are "ignorant" of the founder's religious beliefs. They never seem to bring in folks like John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman, Charles Carroll, Benjamin Rush, etc. into the argument, for obvious reasons.

BTW, the Constitution is silent on religious issues because of federalism. Those issues were left to the states, where some still have religious qualifications for holding office in their state constitutions, although I doubt any of them have ever been enforced.

[Bruce Gourley]

Actually, educated Church and State advocates are well aware of the wording of the First Amendment, the history of the wall of separation, and the wording of the establishment clause.

Its those who think Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were right wing Evangelical Christians who are scoring high on the ignorance quotient. Or, that a conservative Christian vision was the vision of our founding fathers.

But we're not talking about folks educated about the Constitution, are we? The mythical "separation wall" is not enshrined in the Constitution, but in a letter to the Danbury Baptists from Jefferson. Lest we wander too far off the path, let's just says that most folks don't realize that church services were held in the Capitol building for over 50 years. Jefferson attended a service in the Capitol building just a couple of days after he penned the famous "separation" letter. Can you imagine the outrage today if a politician proposed holding church services in the Capitol again?

As for the religious affiliation of most of the founders, I doubt one could apply a 21st century label to 18th century life, but most were Christians, if nothing but "cultural Christians". Some were anti-Christian/church (T Paine, C Lee, E Allen) and some were who-knows-what (Franklin, Jefferson). But even Jefferson at one time claimed to be a Christian, although he believed the church had corrupted Jesus' teachings down through the ages.

However, I notice that the same names always seem to appear when "rebutting" this issue of those that are "ignorant" of the founder's religious beliefs. They never seem to bring in folks like John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman, Charles Carroll, Benjamin Rush, etc. into the argument, for obvious reasons.

BTW, the Constitution is silent on religious issues because of federalism. Those issues were left to the states, where some still have religious qualifications for holding office in their state constitutions, although I doubt any of them have ever been enforced.

The separation of church and state is not mythical. Far from it.

The origins of the term go all the way back to Roger Williams, Baptist founder and father of American democracy, who discussed the "wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world [human government]." Thomas Jefferson echoed Roger Williams in his letter to Danbury Baptists.

Here's what else Roger Williams said:

"All civil states, with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.

It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries: and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only, in soul matters, able to conquer: to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the word of God.

The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.

God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jews' conversion to Christ.

An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

The permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth, only can, according to God, procure a firm and lasting peace; good assurance being taken, according to the wisdom of the civil state, for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.

... true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile..."

(Roger Williams. The Bloudy Teneent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience Discussed, 1644. excerpted from A.T. Mason. Free Government in the Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 64)

Between Williams and Jefferson, our Baptist forefathers here in colonial America were beaten, whipped, put in the chains, shot, dynamited, stoned, waterboarded (OK, almost killed by drowning the traditional way), had their children taken away from them, etc., etc. ... in their relentless campaign to secure the separation of church and state that Roger Williams had called for.

As to our nation's founding fathers, most of them believed in a deity of some kind, but only three or four (maybe) would be considered orthodox Christians. When they founded America as a secular nation, in accordance with the vision of Roger Williams and our Baptist ancestors, England was horrified that her former colony had established itself as a godless nation.

The irony today is that many Christians, supposedly in defense of truth, place their faith in historical myths instead. Our Baptist forefathers would be astonished.

[Joshua Villines]

The irony today is that many Christians, supposedly in defense of truth, place their faith in historical myths instead. Our Baptist forefathers would be astonished.

That, my friend, is one of the most brilliant statements you have made on this forum.

Joshua

[Bruce Gourley]

The irony today is that many Christians, supposedly in defense of truth, place their faith in historical myths instead. Our Baptist forefathers would be astonished.

That, my friend, is one of the most brilliant statements you have made on this forum.

Joshua

Yes, and I need to come up with some award like Flick's Golden Spur with Bruce as the first recipient for this brilliant statement. Wonderful writing Bruce!

For those among us who aren't in the ABC, Separation of Church and state and religious freedom are bedrock beliefs of American Baptists. And, we still strongly support the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom.

Bruce said it so well, there really isn't anything else I can add.

Actually, Roger Williams should get a historical Golden Spur of some kind ... and he should be read in every Baptist church in our land (even though he did not remain Baptist very long).

[David Flick]

Between Williams and Jefferson, our Baptist forefathers here in colonial America were beaten, whipped, put in the chains, shot, dynamited, stoned, waterboarded (OK, almost killed by drowning the traditional way), had their children taken away from them, etc., etc. ... in their relentless campaign to secure the separation of church and state that Roger Williams had called for.

As to our nation's founding fathers, most of them believed in a deity of some kind, but only three or four (maybe) would be considered orthodox Christians. When they founded America as a secular nation, in accordance with the vision of Roger Williams and our Baptist ancestors, England was horrified that her former colony had established itself as a godless nation.

The irony today is that many Christians, supposedly in defense of truth, place their faith in historical myths instead. Our Baptist forefathers would be astonished.

As several have already observed, those last two sentences are profound. In fact, all three paragraphs are profound.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[ET]

The irony today is that many Christians, supposedly in defense of truth, place their faith in historical myths instead. Our Baptist forefathers would be astonished.

Oh, what "myths" would those be? The Constitution calls for the separation of Church and State, not the separation of religion from public life as the phrase is interpreted today.

I will let a Jewish writer - Michael Medved - address the issues from a recent commentary - The Founders Intended A Christian, Not Secular, Society (emphasis mine)

Not until the infamous Everson decision of 1947 did the Supreme Court create the doctrine of a “wall of separation between church and state,” quoting (out of context) from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. President Jefferson created the image of the wall in order to reassure the Baptists that government would never interfere with their religious life, but he never suggested that religion would have no role in government. In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians.

As for "the wall" (emphasis added), I give you Jefferson's own words on the subject:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

The purpose of the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was to assure them that the United States of America would not embrace a national church such as the Church of England, not to inform them that religion was to be excluded from government or public life.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Jefferson was stating the restrictions placed upon the federal government by the Constitution that prevented it - at least originally - from interfering with religious expression, not making a statement in support of restricting religion in public or on public occasions.

When the Supreme Court of the United States tells a student that they are prohibited from praying at a graduation ceremony, football game or anywhere else in a public school, are they or are they not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Just what part of "nor shall prohibit the free exercise thereof" do so many have trouble understanding?

The greatest myth of all is the belief that the infamous wall is intended to restrict religious expression in public.

One last quote from Jefferson (emphasis mine):

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p.96

Another Jewish writer weighs in on these so-called "myths":
America founded to be free, not secular, by Dennis Prager

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image.

Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?

If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.

You are correct that our Baptist forefathers would be astonished. They would be astonished that they cannot pray in public or celebrate Christmas in some places because the federal government has decided that it can "prohibit the free exercise thereof", in district opposition to Jefferson's words written to them in 1802.

If I recall correctly, Roger Williams was something of a donkey's backside. A bit of a zealot and a self-righteous fellow. I think he was one to tell some of the early Puritan leaders that they were basically apostates and sinning because they still associated with the Church of England and he refused to take communion with them unless they renounced the Church of England.

I notice in Williams "A Plea for Religious Liberty", he uses the phrase "enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state". How is allowing students to pray in school or allowing a Christmas nativity scene on public land an "enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state"? The government is allowing a religious expression, not enforcing one, and most certainly not enforcing a "uniformity" of belief.

[Bruce Gourley]

The irony today is that many Christians, supposedly in defense of truth, place their faith in historical myths instead. Our Baptist forefathers would be astonished.

Oh, what "myths" would those be? The Constitution calls for the separation of Church and State, not the separation of religion from public life as the phrase is interpreted today.

I will let a Jewish writer - Michael Medved - address the issues from a recent commentary - The Founders Intended A Christian, Not Secular, Society (emphasis mine)

Not until the infamous Everson decision of 1947 did the Supreme Court create the doctrine of a “wall of separation between church and state,” quoting (out of context) from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. President Jefferson created the image of the wall in order to reassure the Baptists that government would never interfere with their religious life, but he never suggested that religion would have no role in government. In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians.

As for "the wall" (emphasis added), I give you Jefferson's own words on the subject:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

The purpose of the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was to assure them that the United States of America would not embrace a national church such as the Church of England, not to inform them that religion was to be excluded from government or public life.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Jefferson was stating the restrictions placed upon the federal government by the Constitution that prevented it - at least originally - from interfering with religious expression, not making a statement in support of restricting religion in public or on public occasions.

When the Supreme Court of the United States tells a student that they are prohibited from praying at a graduation ceremony, football game or anywhere else in a public school, are they or are they not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Just what part of "nor shall prohibit the free exercise thereof" do so many have trouble understanding?

The greatest myth of all is the belief that the infamous wall is intended to restrict religious expression in public.

One last quote from Jefferson (emphasis mine):

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p.96

Another Jewish writer weighs in on these so-called "myths":
America founded to be free, not secular, by Dennis Prager

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image.

Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?

If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.

You are correct that our Baptist forefathers would be astonished. They would be astonished that they cannot pray in public or celebrate Christmas in some places because the federal government has decided that it can "prohibit the free exercise thereof", in district opposition to Jefferson's words written to them in 1802.

If I recall correctly, Roger Williams was something of a donkey's backside. A bit of a zealot and a self-righteous fellow. I think he was one to tell some of the early Puritan leaders that they were basically apostates and sinning because they still associated with the Church of England and he refused to take communion with them unless they renounced the Church of England.

I notice in Williams "A Plea for Religious Liberty", he uses the phrase "enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state". How is allowing students to pray in school or allowing a Christmas nativity scene on public land an "enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state"? The government is allowing a religious expression, not enforcing one, and most certainly not enforcing a "uniformity" of belief.

You're building a straw man. No one is arguing that religion does not have a place in public life. Those who adhere to historic Baptist principles, however, argue that religious expression on government property is a problem ... while some Christians who have forgotten our nation's heritage of equal treatment of all religions, insist that Christianity should receive special treatment and privileges, both in public life and on government property.

Many nations in Europe still give favorable government treatment to Christians, as they have done for eons ... and as you say, look where Europe is today, spiritually speaking. Do you want America to trod that path?

The phrase "Judeo-Christian," by the way, is a 20th century invention (and the phrase "Judeo-Christian tradition" did not appear in legal decisions until the 1980s). And until the 1950s, the American pledge of allegiance did NOT include the words "under God," and "In God We Trust" was NOT the official motto of the United States and was NOT printed on paper money.

Finally, I leave you with the following quote. You can tell me where it comes from:

Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected. The ___ has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public. Particularly when compared to other industrialized democracies, religion plays a prominent role in American public life. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, cathedrals, and Gurdwaras are plainly visible in the public sphere and their right to display religious symbols and to construct religious edifices is protected by the Constitution and by statutes. The ____ has actively supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Some people, however, mistakenly use the word "public" when they really mean "governmental." This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not "religion in the public square" - as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests - but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected.

[Bruce Gourley]

A Golden Spur and the inaugural Roger Williams Baptist Freedom Award? Wow!

Perhaps I should retire from BaptistLife.Com right now, so I can go out in a blaze of glory.

[David Flick]

A Golden Spur and the inaugural Roger Williams Baptist Freedom Award? Wow!

Perhaps I should retire from BaptistLife.Com right now, so I can go out in a blaze of glory.

Congratulations, Bruce. You're the first person to receive two of the three awards from moderators. Don''t forget that William has that "When Pigs Fly" award. Don't think you want that one, however...

BTW, wait'll you see the award when Tim gives it next time. It's pretty neat even if I do say so myself...

[Dave Roberts]

I would heartily recommend reading Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy. I don't agree with his all his prescriptions, but his descriptions are perfectly accurate. That's what we are up against--a country that does not possess religious literacy.

[Dave Roberts]

As a former English major, I question how anyone can read literature without an amount of religious literacy. You would hardly understand much of American literature and British literature. Biblical allusions are replete in Shakespeare and almost every novel that is worth reading.

As to the Christian trinket shops, Charles Stanley and the Lakewood Wonder are hadly good religious literature. When I go, I am amazed at the poor quality and the amount of "Christian fiction" that is of a very poor quality. We have cultivated a people who do not read anything of real value. Literacy is hard to find.

[Jonathan]

I first heard this on a national radio news program (don't remember if it was NPR or WSJradio) and then saw the APB story.

The story behind the story is the poor and declining quality of our public school system. The "shocking" answers to these questions come from the culturally installed viewpoints of the folks in the polling sample. As education and literacy has declined (ironically, at the same time as public spending on education has skyrocketed), we have a citizenry increasingly unable to perform its duty to properly investigate candidates for office and hold them accountable once installed.

This is not an isolated situation.

When I was in grade school (not that many years ago), I was taught that the US had a "living" constitution and that this meant that the constitution could be changed via the ammendment process. Today, we have tenured, terminal degreed professors in colleges and universities teaching that, now, this means that the judiciary can simply redefine the terms (or in certain cases, invent new terms) so that the basis of law can be adjusted to meet new demands or cultural shifts.

The greatest weapon against tyranny is an educated citizenry. Our weapon is in need of repair.

[ET]

When I was in grade school (not that many years ago), I was taught that the US had a "living" constitution and that this meant that the constitution could be changed via the ammendment process. Today, we have tenured, terminal degreed professors in colleges and universities teaching that, now, this means that the judiciary can simply redefine the terms (or in certain cases, invent new terms) so that the basis of law can be adjusted to meet new demands or cultural shifts.

The greatest weapon against tyranny is an educated citizenry. Our weapon is in need of repair.

Ditto.

[Joshua Villines]

The greatest weapon against tyranny is an educated citizenry. Our weapon is in need of repair.

Agreed!

[Norm]

Central to the thought of John Dewey was the importance of an educated citizenry for a viable democracy.