<p>and of course it wasn’t until 1954 that “God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance</p>
<p>It wasn’t just that religion or church should be separate from the state, but rather that God was consciously edited out entirely.</p>
<p>And yet, it is what it is. However we care to understand why the authors decided not to put in a separation of church and state, or the title ‘God’ they did not and almost certainly could not and have and still had it ratified with either a strict or loose separation. </p>
<p>It seems to me that the document represented more than just what the authors of the constitution believed at that moment in time, but rather it represents what the people of the would-be United States of America believed, or at the very least what they would tolerated as the law of their land: There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in the founders philosophies. </p>
<p>Thus, there is no strict separation, or for that matter, any separation at all in the way that we would understand the phrase, separation of church and state, no matter what the personal philosophies of the authors at the moment they hammered it out, even if we have access to their minds.</p>
<p>But we DO have access to their minds, in the Federalist papers first of all, but mostly in those who railed against the ratification of the Constitution for leaving God out. So I guess you are making the argument that not only the Constitution writers found the idea of God in the foundation document of their government anathema, but that the people did too. </p>
<p>And historically, I think that is likely true as well. Church memberships throughout the colonies declined throughout the 1780s and 1790s. Congregationalists became Unitarians! Paine, the single most important figure in the American Revolution (prior to Common Sense, most American patriots thought they were fighting for their rights as Englishmen), was to follow it up with "The Rights of Man’ (in which he was to call the new Constitution, without God, “the bible of the political state”), and the deist tract “The Age of Reason”.</p>
<p>Patrick Henry was a very, very unhappy guy! He would have been happier had he lived to 1805.</p>
<p>“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.</p>
<p>“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature…In the formation of the American governments…it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven…These governments were contrived merely by the use of Reason and the Senses.” John Adams quoted from A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 1788.</p>
<p>John Adams in a letter 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 has produced!”</p>
<p>“So I guess you are making the argument that not only the Constitution writers found the idea of God in the foundation document of their government anathema, but that the people did too”</p>
<p>Mini,
I cannot make that judgment, but I suppose it is possible that the people of the states themselves would have cringed to see God referred to in the constitution (or not), but, perhaps for a variety of reasons other than an unhappiness with the moral support the word “God” would have leant to the document.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think it is clear that they would not have accepted the wording or meaning appropriate to the phrase separation of church and state. Do you? </p>
<p>Few today argue that the word God should or should not have appeared in the constitution, although there still seems to be quite a bit of heat to the conversation over why the authors of the constitution decided not to include a strict or loose separation of Church and State. Most ir-a-religious people here on CC seem to think these exact words are imprinted in the constitution when they are clearly not. Are they?</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>I do believe that the actions of Jefferson and Madison and others who tried to avoid using God-language and deliberately left out the notion of a Divine Being in the era of the Constitution and post-Constitution was more an effort to avoid sectarianism in the religious aspect and less their own beliefs. Surely, a nation that had God as the sole and sovereign being watching over it wouldn’t have been so inviting to those of other denominations, and the Deist Framists were quite well aware of this.</p>
<p>“our nation was founded upon scientific reasoning, founded on the ideas of the great enlightenment philosophers of locke, rousseau, montenesque, smith, voltaire.”</p>
<p>Don’t forget Montesqieu. It was from his Spirit of Laws that sprang the separation of powers in our government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he was trying to, with Montenesque. I can’t figure whether that’s supposed to be Montaigne or Montesquieu. </p>
<p>And Montesquieu was never a forthright atheist, I think. </p>
<p>And if you haven’t done your reading, tsk tsk, Montesquieu also stated that the monarch-ruled form of government was considered the best. Something along the lines of this:</p>
<p>Monarchies are ruled by a reliance on honor.</p>
<p>Republics are ruled by a reliance on virtue.</p>
<p>Despotisms are ruled by a reliance on fear.</p>
<p>“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature…In the formation of the American governments…it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven…These governments were contrived merely by the use of Reason and the Senses.” John Adams quoted from A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 1788."</p>
<p>What is most telling about this citation is its date. 1788 was after the drafting of the Constitution, but before its ratification, Adams thought it more likely that states would ratify the Constitution if he made a clear argument for the clear separation of ‘God and state’ - not ‘church and state’, ‘God and state’. And he put forward this argument in 1788 to sway public opinion. ‘Church and state’ was a separate, secondary issue as far as he was concerned (and he was a churchgoing Congregationalist), and the 1st Amendment was put forward to make that separation even clearer, in case anyone had missed it.</p>
<p>No, the words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution. But this doesn’t mean we don’t know what the framers intended, which went much further - complete separation of ‘God and state’.</p>
<p>“On the other hand, I think it is clear that they would not have accepted the wording or meaning appropriate to the phrase separation of church and state. Do you?”</p>
<p>So to answer your question - I think, and the evidence of 1787-1791 support the view, that they would have gone much further.</p>
<p>all i know is…none of our greatest leaders have shyed away from incorporating GOD in the daily lives of the American people.</p>
<p>Take Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as an example, two references to God: </p>
<p>Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are CREATED equal.</p>
<p>Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that
nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long
endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We
have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final
resting place for those who here gave their lives that that
nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that
we should do this.</p>
<p>But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not
consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men,
living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far
above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can
never forget what they did here. It is for us the living,
rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they
who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather
for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before
us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion
to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of
devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall
not have died in vain – that this nation, under GOD, shall have
a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.</p>
<p>whoever said that Eisenhower was the one that incorporated “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance (which is true) made it seem as if it was the first time someone dared use that phrase. um…no. Just look at the speech above as proof.</p>
<p>So to answer your question - I think, and the evidence of 1787-1791 support the view, that they would have gone much further.</p>
<p>There are, perhaps, a great many things they would have done, but we only know, with any certainty, the things they did do, through consensus and negotiation and–specifically–codification. Clearly, the states did not want a Church of the United States which would have followed the model of the Church of England and the wording of the separation clause supports this point specifically and exactly, to add more is to wish for more without making it so.</p>
<p>Washington was not the head of the Church of America as was the Queen of England the head of the “Church of England”, nor was he a monarch though I understand there are those which may have wished for something like this.
As I understand it, the Separation Clause was intended to make political rights independent of religious belief and to prevent a Church of America looming over the land like the Church of England over England.</p>
<p>To add more to the meaning of the separation clause by speculating about why certain words and phrases are not in the constitution is still, in the best of circumstances, speculating, and although it is fun to do so, it has no definitive end or force.</p>
<p>Heres the thing itself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</p>
<p>Moreover, the very day that Congress passed the 1st Amendment (Sept. 24, 1789), it issued the first call for a National Day of Prayer: Obviously, they just didn’t get it.:)</p>
<p>As to Jeffersons personal inclinations, he was also known to have written this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness
of course, he didnt use the dirty three-letter-word: GOD. ;)</p>
<p>With regard to marriage and children…that marriage is made to protect children…well, what about the couples that don’t have kids, or couples that marry late in life…marriage is a legal agreement to protect and give rights to two people that have created a legal contract by marrying. Those rights are varied, but include such simple things as the right to visit someone in the hospital. Married people have the right, many unmarrieds don’t.</p>
<p>None of them had any problem with God, as far as I know. They just thought (in 1787-1791) that it was best to keep Him away from government.</p>
<p>What Jefferson wrote in 1776 (or Adams, or any of the others) was very different in 1776 than in 1787, and in 1815.</p>
<p>Anyhow, we know one thing for sure. The framers took great pains to keep God out of the Constitution, the first such document in the history of the world to do so.</p>
<p>Setting the consitution aside for a minute, surely the main issue is what we believe about religion in government now?
Presumably most people would agree that in a country where freedom of speech, worship, etc. is highly valued, then a secular government is vital.</p>
<p>personally i find fundamentalist evangelists very scary. their open profession of narrowmindedness through things such as homeschooling is appalling. the article talks about Patrick Henry debating to be very successful. i would really like to see how they debate creationism vs. evolution.</p>
<p>churches that have not gone off the deep end do not espouse creationism. the Bible is not to be taken literally at every turn.</p>
<p>“that marriage is made to protect children…well, what about the couples that don’t have kids, or couples that marry late in life.”</p>
<p>Well, first of all, historically people would have been at pains to know whether or not they were infertile before they married. Secondly, as I said, I would have thought that historically marriage was also to protect women, as they were not otherwise protected with the same rights men were.</p>
<p>To my knowledge, women no longer need such protections, since they more or less share the same rights as men, however children still do need such protection as is granted in the institution of marriage.</p>
<p>As I say, if it is about equality all adults should have such rights as are granted to married couples, and such rights as are not applicable to single individuals should not be granted to those in a sexual union—for the sake of the equality many seem to long for.</p>
<p>“their open profession of narrowmindedness through things such as homeschooling is appalling”</p>
<p>I imagine some rather interesting responses to this one.;)</p>
<p>Re: the Patrick Henry debating thing - it might have been on the other thread which specifically mentioned the debate with Oxford students.
An alternative perspective from one of the Oxford Student papers:
<a href=“http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt2005wk6/Features/a_model_of_liberal_democracy%3F[/url]”>http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt2005wk6/Features/a_model_of_liberal_democracy%3F</a></p>
<p>(couldn’t get it to link properly)</p>
<p>good link, saintjude.</p>
<p>when people want to go to a school because everybody there thinks the same way they do, i scratch my head. education should be about understanding different viewpoints. this applies to liberal universities as well, for instance wanting to go to Oberlin because its so liberal. going somewhere in order not to be an outcast sounds good, going because of the absence of people who dissent from your opinion somewhat defeats the purpose of education. Patrick Henry is on the extreme of going somewhere where one doesn’t have to worry about the horror that they might change their mind about issues.</p>
<p>Random musing… I can’t help but think that the rise of the Fundamentalists and evangelicals, who are inserting themselves more and more into public and political life - is due to the extreme “liberalisation” of America. Permit an example: I saw an advertisment for Christian rock for kids - CDs with updated, “hip” Christian lyrics. Scary? Sure - unless you realise that the alternative is Britney and Christina. When I was growing up (not too long ago), there was Debbie Gibson and Tiffani - and our parents didn’t feel the need to pre-screen our music. Try looking for clothing for a 10-year-old girl that covers her waist and isn’t see-through. Heck, try to find something work-appropriate - it’s now Brooks Brothers for me, because Ann Taylor, the Gap, etc. only have shirts that are cut to the middle of the chest. Try finding anything to wear that doesn’t look like lingerie. More people have died from heroin ODs this year in my suburban town’s high school than in my class, from grade 1 to now, from all causes combined (accidents, cars, drowning, cancer). Back in my day (not too long ago), the kids who were really wild would drink when their parents were away on the weekend and some really “bad” kids would do pot. Now, it’s heroin at $2 a dose. Try dating without getting dumped after three weeks because you won’t sleep with the guy right then and there. Maybe “liberalisation” is the wrong word.</p>
<p>Just doesn’t surprise me that certain people have said “Enough!” and are becoming more public/political/strident in an effort to change our culture. Don’t blame them - don’t like the way they are doing it, hate the religious overtones in our wonderfully secular society - but I understand it. I understand the people who are becoming more strident about pre-marital sex, dress codes, alcohol, and curfews: it’s called a backlash. Not surprised at all.</p>