Frank Breslin is a retired teacher in New Jersey who taught English, social studies, Latin, and German.
He wrote recently in Church & State magazine about why the Framers of the Constitution wanted separation of church and state. His article reminded me of a Tom Lehrer song in which he sang, “The Catholics hate the Protestants, the Protestants hate the Catholics, and everyone hates the Jews.” Tom Lehrer was a singer, composer, and mathematician who was popular in my college years.
He writes:
We have a long tradition in America of separation of church and state that prohibits government’s promotion of religion on the one hand, and interference with its free exercise on the other.
In their refusal to establish a state church or to favor one religion over another, the Founding Fathers didn’t think that religion was bad but that there was something amiss in human nature, a certain tendency, a will to power and a lust for domination, that always bore watching. It was a virus that lay dormant until its host came to power, whereupon that person or group became suddenly rabid with a mania that sought to convert, punish or persecute anyone not of their fold or persuasion. Paradoxically, the guise under which this malady manifested itself, as the history of Europe made only too plain, was religion.
The Founders thought that religion, something good in itself, could be used toward either good or bad ends, and, unless preventive measures were taken, could induce in the susceptible a madness so malignant and vicious as to destroy the very essence of religion itself. By persecuting whoever refused to accept their religion or whose lives were deemed insufficiently righteous, those in power could impose a religious tyranny so suffocating in its grip, scope and intensity that one involuntarily thinks of barbed wire and concentration camps.
Various theories have tried to account for this bizarre aberration – the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the ascent of man from beasts, innate human depravity, the Freudian “id,” defective genes or bad social engineering.
But more important than those theories themselves is the lesson to be drawn from those institutions that promise heaven on earth. Given the weak human vessels in which this religious feeling resides, even this noble sentiment could become tragically twisted and unleash on the world unspeakable horror. Immanuel Kant’s words come to mind when considering such would-be utopians and their spiritual gulags: “Nothing was ever made straight with the crooked timber of humanity.”
In government, the need for transparency, accountability and investigative journalists – assuming they haven’t been censored, banned, imprisoned or shot – is not a casual suggestion, but the sine qua non for maintaining even a pretense of institutional integrity. Human nature is self-contradictory and prone to temptation, especially when the camera’s not running or the press isn’t present. And, no matter the institution, it’s always wise to audit the books – both the official ones and the real ones hidden in the back-office safe.
Politicians, as the saying goes, campaign in poetry but govern in prose, so that we had better distrust whatever they’re saying and doing by an ironclad system of checks and balances, fact-checking and vigilant oversight. As soon as they pass a law, they’ll invite a lobbyist to insert a loophole, recalling Juvenal’s admonition, “Who shall guard the guards themselves?”
Even religion can be dragged in the mire by persecuting those of another faith or of no faith at all until, weakened by torture, the unfortunates would end their suffering by conversion or death. So, to prevent these abuses of power as had occurred in Old Europe when Catholics persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Catholics, Protestants persecuted other Protestants and both Protestants and Catholics persecuted the Jews, the Founders erected a “wall of separation” between church and state as a safeguard against such outrages.
They wanted to put an end to intolerance, bigotry and sadism that wore the flattering garb of religion and spoke in the sanctimonious accents of self-promotion. They believed that what they were doing was ushering something new into this world, novus ordo seculorum or “a new order of the ages” (see the back of a one-dollar bill). America was to be a radically new experiment in government which, like ancient Athens, would show the world that free men had no need of princes and kings but could govern themselves. No wonder the royal courts of Europe hoped this fledgling experiment wouldn’t succeed lest the contagion of democracy spread to their people.
Please open the link to read the rest of the article.
“the Founding Fathers didn’t think that religion was bad but that there was something amiss in human nature, a certain tendency, a will to power and a lust for domination, that always bore watching.”
They should have gone further: they should have declared religion (and other philosophical convictions based on dogma) a private matter of which nobody should be able to make a living.
This second part “there was something amiss in human nature, a certain tendency, a will to power and a lust for domination, that always bore watching.” is not specific enough because it’s only a call for “watching” and allows organized religion and other dogmatic worldview to influence a huge mass of people to do what the leaders want without thinking.
One need not go back to the Old World to see examples of religious intolerance. Massachusetts Bay and the early New England Colonies provided enough of an example.
“I have read it with pleasure and instruction, having learnt from it some valuable facts in Jewish history which I did not know before. your sect by it’s sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance, inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights by putting all on an equal footing. but more remains to be done. for all tho’ we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. public opinion erects itself into an Inquisition, and exercises it’s office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto da fé. the prejudice still scowling on your section of our religion” … T.J.
He goes on to propose that education would be the best way to put all the sects on equal footings . And thus today we see the attack on Public Schooling by those illiberal forces in society who Jefferson also made this note about.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” TJ
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
Remarkable, almost poetic observation, however unfair it may sound when applied to some decent priests of small churches.
Perhaps small is the reason for that tolerance.
Putin and the Russian Orthodox hierarchy…
I always find that an interesting union in modern days, Putin being in bed with the Church, having grown up hearing over and over that Russia was ‘godless’ and thus our sworn enemy
ciedie aech
Perhaps the Russian Orthodox Church is in bed with Putin. As the Christian White Nationalists in this Nation are in bed with the Putin loving Godless Trump. It is not about God but power as Jefferson states. A symbiotic relationship between authoritarians and those factions of Christianity. The American Taliban wanting not much different than other theocracies in other religions and Nations. .
The Russian Orthodox Church supports the state —ie, Putin.
The state is He.
religion and politics SHOULD be kept as far apart as possible
And even further…
These Framers must be twirling in their graves.
The wall between church and state was never a wall, but has always been a paper curtain, put up occasionally to hide religious bias involved with the Civil Religion. Voters never checked their religious views at the door of the ballot box. More often, they have justified their vote through their faith and perceived their ethics as a reflection of their religion.
The direction to look to, for a model is western Europe which has progressed as a democracy because their political systems prevented religion from being weaponized. The direction that shows where the U.S. is headed is the Middle East, governed by religious sects.
“The new official contents of sex education in Mexico: laicism in the crosshairs,” posted at the Scielo site, 3-3-2021, is broader in scope than the title suggests. The research summary highlights the source of danger to the rights of Americans.
The messaging of groups like Moms for Liberty is promoted by religious media outlets.
The Koch/conservative religion brand of “liberty” takes away democratically elected school boards and replaces them with privatization, a situation where communities have no rights. The Charles Koch view is in evidence in his ongoing business interests in Russia.
So glad it wasn’t the Roman god Fascinus again!
LOLOL!
All excellent points. But our founders, while bright men, who saw dangers in an official religion, were also practical. They established balanced powers–executive, legislative, & judicial in separation, as we know. As to religion, our states were divided, with Massachusetts having a history of Puritan intolerance, which spun off Rhode Island. Also, we had mostly Catholics in Maryland. So, it wasn’t actually possible to have a specific, national church. Then, some of the leaders were deists–believing in some kind of god or God, but no particular church. Jefferson seems to have been in that category. So, not only did they not establish a church, they forbad the requirement of a religion as a test for office–as in, “There shall be no religious test for office.” Sadly, we’ve not paid too much attention to that. While states and locals don’t put religion down as a qualification, our newspapers, and sometimes other media, are quick to ask candidates about their church. And Ike & company got “under God” sandwiched into our pledge of allegiance, back in the ’50’s. Anyone not saying the pledge, or pointedly leaving out “under God” is signing a political death warrant. Like so many aspects of our great culture and nation, our governmental-religion relationships are mostly good, but sometimes coercive. We think of ourselves as having total freedom of and from religion, but we don’t, just as we think of our nation as being a “democracy,” but it’s really a “republic.”
What kept the separation of church and state an important principle was the recognition of a multiplicity of religions and sects. The power of evangelicals and conservative Catholics has pushed the nation close to abandoning that important principle.
Thank you for the comment, Diane.
Jack, are you aware that there are schools at which students recite a U.S. Pledge of Allegiance altered to include specific Catholic Church doctrine? As a result of the SCOTUS decision in Espinosa v. Montana, taxpayers will be forced to pay for those schools.
That’s interesting, Linda. I assume you are talking about something more than the Knights of Columbus gettng Ike to put “under God” in there. Any details?
bethree
NYT- 1-21-2019, “After viral video…circling to protect boys”. The story is about Nick Sandemann’s alma mater.
Also worth reading, Raw Story’s article today about Kayleigh McEnany’s call for Christian babies.
Jack, a republic is a representative democracy. A “democracy” is not necessarily a direct democracy, so it’s not wrong to say we are one, it’s just an incomplete definition.
I wish the Founders had been more specific than “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Breslin has given plenty of background as to their intentions. I thought SCOTUS ‘originalists’ were all about divining the intentions of the Founders. Yet it turns out I’m wrong:
Per Scalia back at some 1986 conference: “’Originalists ought to campaign to change the label from the doctrine of original intent to the doctrine of original meaning.’ In other words, instead of trying to intuit what James Madison or Alexander Hamilton may have intended, rely on what the public would have understood their words to mean at the time, using contemporary dictionaries and news coverage among other sources.” https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2021/1221/Originalism-moves-from-theory-to-high-court.-What-that-means-for-US Same source: “Up to five Supreme Court justices could be considered originalists, and the theory is now commonplace in American courts.”
Before that majority happened, the general rule was something about avoiding entanglements with religion, & a ‘lemon test’ for guidance. But the June 2020 Espinoza v Montana decision turns all that on its ear: once a state has decided to use public $ to support private schools, it may not discriminate against a school solely because it is religious– so all those state constitutions saying the public’s $ shall not be used to directly or indirectly support religious practice are out the window.
Working backwards: I didn’t really have a problem with 2017’s Trinity Lutheran v Comer, because the grants for resurfacing playgrounds were about protecting the safety of the state’s children, regardless of what kind of school they attended—not about religious practice. That case is often cited as a partial teardown of the ‘wall,’ [i.e., an erosion of Blaine amendments]. Some even say it was a turnabout from 2004 Locke v Davey, where it was deemed OK to exclude students pursuing a degree in ‘devotional theology’– nah, I don’t see it. If a state wants to underwrite costs of schools to make their playgrounds safer, it should be extended to every school.
So Montana is a key case. The Montana SC struck down the whole voucher law—why wouldn’t SCOTUS let that stand?
Look back further. Zelman (2002) appears to be a watershed case. The Cleveland schdistr, placed under state mgt in 1995, provided vouchers to all students in schools under state takeover to any public or private schs. Within 4 yrs, nearly all the priv alt schs were religious, and nearly all the students in the voucher program attended them, giving rise to the lawsuit. “In Zelman the court stressed that the parents in Cleveland had a variety of nonreligious choices, including options among public schools. Accordingly, the court characterized the funding through the Cleveland voucher plan as offered to a broad class of people, not just to those seeking religious schools. Further, the court noted that the program did not offer financial incentives that would encourage parents to select a religiously affiliated school over a secular institution.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zelman-v-Simmons-Harris
And there were precedents. In the ‘90’s we have “several previous cases—notably Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) and Agostini v. Felton (1997)—the court had held that a government-assistance program is ‘not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice.’” [Ibid.]
So I guess we can say, as regards public education at least, that the erosion of the church-state wall of separation (or paper curtain, as Roy says), has been going on for nearly 30 years.