Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk


What the First Amendment Intends

posted by Mark Silk

I’ve been following with interest the back-and-forth following my post on Christine O’Donnell and the First Amendment, and would like to offer a few remarks in response to Paul Thompson. Thompson believes that the United States currently protects a secularist belief system while denigrating religion in general and Christianity in particular. The central issue here is the obligation Americans are under to make policy based on what is sometimes called public reason. An example: Young earth creationists do not argue that their views should be taught because the Bible says God created the world in six days. They offer secular arguments that they believe will convince those who do not accept a literalist reading of Genesis. Thompson in fact seems to grant the importance to proceeding according such a “public reason” standard.

As far as the meaning of the First Amendment is concerned, Thompson urges me and other readers to look an an article by Joseph A. Zavaletta, Jr., published a dozen years ago in the online journal Early America Review. Zavaletta, a lawyer in Brownsville, Texas, offers a pretty good example of the kind of argumentation that lies behind O’Donnell’s dismissal of the idea that the Constitution provides for separation of church and state.


The pillars of his argument are the importance of interpreting the Constitution according to original intent; the intention of the Framers not to have the Supreme Court be the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality; and the natural law basis of religious rights. I’ll confine my remarks to what he has to say about the religion clauses.

1. It’s certainly true that the Constitution doesn’t include the words “separation of church and state.” The question is whether forbidding religious tests for federal office and disallowing congressional legislation “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” amounts to such separation, by the standards of the time. I say yes.

2. With respect to Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, where the phrase “wall of separation between Church & State” first occurs in the new republic, it’s important to bear in mind that what the Danbury Baptists wanted was help in doing away with Connecticut’s Standing Order, which directed tax monies to support the state’s Congregational establishment, unless non-conforming citizens like the Baptists specified that the relevant portion of their tax payments should go to their own churches. The Baptists considered this a violation of their religious rights.

3. Like others in his camp, Zavaletta skates over this anti-establishment dimension of contemporary discussions, preferring to see the Establishment Clause as designed only to prohibit the creation of a national church. No one looking seriously at the historical record should come to such a conclusion. There was, for example, significant uncertainty over whether it permitted the president to proclaim days of prayer or thanksgiving. Washington and Madison thought it did; Jefferson and others thought it didn’t. Congress maintained Sunday mail delivery throughout the 19th century on constitutional grounds. To be sure, we still debate–and the Supreme Court continues to decide–what the Clause prohibits.

4. It’s true that the religion clauses, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally only applied to the federal government. Justice Clarence Thomas would like to go back to the days when that was still true. I doubt whether most people, including Paul Thompson, would appreciate opening such a can of worms. To imagine a few examples, this would permit Utah to require all school children to hear readings from the Book of Mormon; allow Vermont to forbid public school students from gathering around the flagpole to pray; enable Alabama to mandate prayers at football games; allow Oregon to require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. I’m not saying that any or all of those things would happen, but do we really want to return to the days when 50 states determined the bounds of religious rights within their borders?

5. Finally, for the originally minded, I believe that any statement made by one of the framers or founders after 1793 or 1794 must be used advisedly to interpret the original intent of the religion clauses. That’s because many of them became more religion-friendly after the news of French Revolution’s anti-religious activities began to be known. Thus, Washington’s 1790 letter to the Jews of Newport is a better guide to the separationism of the Constitution than his 1796 Farewell Address. The latter, in language drafted by Alexander Hamilton (who had his own post-French Revolution conversion), stresses the importance of religion to “political prosperity.” The former is concerned only with “liberty of conscience” and the “immunities of citizenship.”  



Advertisement
Comments read comments(2)
post a comment
kenneth

posted October 25, 2010 at 6:55 pm


If it’s true that our government is so down on Christianity, how is it that churches still enjoy massive tax breaks (an indirect but very real form of public subsidy)? How is it that they have enjoyed virtual immunity to criminal and civil law until quite recently? Even now, no prosecutor has had the guts to go after bishops who were quite obviously involved in major felonies.
To Ms. O’Donnell and others like her, Christianity is being “persecuted” by the mere fact that government cannot compel absolute public deference to the religion as they did in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That’s their bottom line: a regime in which everyone is outwardly Christian OR ELSE. The rest of us (and the many Christians who don’t “measure up” would live, or not, at their pleasure and be guests in our own country on conditional visas, in effect.
You raise some good points, but you won’t convince any of them because they are in open contempt of facts and reasoning itself. In their vision of the past, ALL of the framers were devout, Evangelical Christians who envisioned no legitimate role for federal government outside of a joint military for the colonies, which were supposed to be loosely affiliated sovereign nations. Anyone who dispute those assertions, is, by definition, a liberal/communist/atheist/fill in the blank pejorative.



report abuse
 

Rob the Rev

posted October 28, 2010 at 11:49 am


This blog post’s fine analysis of Zavaletta’s article appears to have caused Paul Thompson to crawl back under his rock.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Religion and Public Life. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Latest News Story on Beliefnet Happy Reading!  

posted 3:10:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The Ayn Rand Republicans
I confess to feeling a little bit queasy about the American Values Network's new video hoisting Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and other GOP luminaries on the petard of Ayn Rand and her atheistic philosophy of objectivism. Take a look. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCW

posted 7:13:30pm May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

Whither evangelicals?
I'm fully prepared to believe that Mitch Daniels' family proved to be the unleapable hurdle in his abortive run-up to the GOP presidential race. Imagine yourself as wife Cheri, having split for the coast to marry on old flame, your husband and young daughters left behind in Boone County, Indiana,

posted 9:19:56am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »

No more "social conservatives"
With the presidential election cycle getting up to speed, it's time for reporters and yakkers like me to stop writing about "social conservatives" as if they were an identifiable segment of the voting population. I say this as someone who has happily been using the term since late 2008, when it

posted 8:25:11am May. 20, 2011 | read full post »

So clerical celibacy was not the problem?
Those on the Catholic left are not very happy that the Jay Report declines in no uncertain terms to blame clerical celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis. As the report puts it: Factors that remained consistent over this time period, such as celibacy, do not explain the sexual abuse "crisis." Celib

posted 9:50:34am May. 19, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.