Thom Hartmann is at his best in this column. He writes about the current GOP obsession with a “Christian America” and compares it to what the Founding Fathers wrote about the role of religion in their new nation. Added to the current pandering is the fact that we now have a Supreme Court majority of six-three that elevates “religious freedom” above the Constitutional prohibition of “establishment” of religion. That means trouble for those of us who do not want to live in a theocracy.
He writes:
Monday, in addition to being Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, was National Religious Freedom Day. But what does that mean, and for whom? What would the “Christian America” that Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson are calling for look like?
When I was a kid, my parents and our pastor taught me that Jesus specifically, and religion more generally, was all about peace, love, and people caring for each other. That’s what’s explicitly at the core of Jesus’ most famous and clear teachings at the Sermon On The Mount and in the Parable of the Goats and Sheep.
But the Republican Party, thirsting for more voters in the 1980 Reagan vs Carter election, realized that Southern Baptists had helped give the White House to Carter in 1976 (he’s a Southern Baptist). If they could just peel those voters away from Carter and the Democratic Party, they believed they could win big.
The issue the Reagan campaign decided to use to bring religious voters to Republicans in that election was abortion, a topic Jesus never discussed.
Up until that election, both former Governor Reagan and former CIA Director Bush had been open supporters of a woman’s right to choose; in the run-up to the primaries Reagan became an unabashed foe of abortion, and George H.W. Bush changed his position on the issue when he joined the ticket in 1980.The legacy of those decisions has brought us Trump, Qanon, and badly damaged large parts of what’s left of Christianity in America (church attendance is collapsing). It’s turned both religion and politics into armed camps. At the founding of our Republic, if there was any one topic that the Framers of the Constitution were mostly in agreement about, it was the importance of keeping religion separate from government.
More recently, even uber-Catholic Antonin Scalia wrote, in the 1990 Employment v Smith case rejecting Native Americans’ petition to overrule federal regulations and legally use peyote (an outlawed substance) for religious purposes:
“The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes; to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty does not require this. …
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
Don’t tell today’s Republicans that’s a bad thing, though: Scalia’s list is a good summary of many of the realms they’re currently targeting. The six Catholic extremist Republicans on the Court appear anxious to overturn any final semblance of secular primacy in law, using religion as their excuse.
It’s gotten so absurd and frankly obscene that a reporter recently spoke with a woman at a Trump rally sporting a crucifix and a tee-shirt that said “Hang Joe Biden For Treason”; she was essentially arguing that Jesus would be all in favor of watching Biden’s execution.
Monday was Religious Freedom Day because it commemorated the publication of Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. That early publication (he was 33) not only asserted that all citizens should be free to practice whatever religion they wanted but, more importantly, that nobody should be persecuted for holding either a religious belief or no religious belief.
Jefferson thought it was more important than his having been a two-term president: when he wrote his own epitaph, he only included his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his founding America’s first free university (University of Virginia), and his Statute for Religious Freedom.
Jefferson and Madison had a philosophical debate over which would be more dangerous: a religious individual who wants to bring religion into government like Christian nationalist Mike Johnson, or the government endorsing or subsidizing any particular religious group or belief like Trump is promising.
Jefferson (a Deist) was worried about religious leaders (a letter of his is *footnoted below) corrupting government; Madison (a Christian) was more worried about government corrupting his beloved religion.
For example, on February 21, 1811, President Madison vetoed a bill passed by Congress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor. Faith-based initiatives were a clear violation, Madison believed, of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and could lead to a dangerous transfer of both money and political power to religious leaders.
In Madison’s mind, caring for the poor was a public and civic duty — a function of government — and must not be allowed to become a hole through which churches could reach and seize political power or the taxpayer’s purse.
Funding a church to provide for the poor would establish a “legal agency” — a legal precedent — that would break down the walls of separation the Founders had put between church and state to protect Americans from religious zealots gaining political power.
Thus, Madison said in his veto message to Congress, he was striking down the proposed law:
“Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same;…” which, Madison said, “would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.”
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, flatly rejected government supporting religion in any way whatsoever, noting in a July 10, 1822 letter to Edward Livingston:
“We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government.”
He added in that same letter:
“I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”
Now we see that both were right, although Madison probably had the edge: when the GOP offered evangelicals political power and big money in 1980, it so corrupted many conservative Christian churches that they’ve today put Trump above Jesus.
It’s gotten so bad that fully a third of evangelicals polled said they supported violence to advance political goals, which is quite literally the opposite of Jesus’ telling the Pharisees:
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Not to mention his extensive preaching about nonviolence. He was MLK’s role model, for G-d’s sake.
Instead, Trump’s followers are busily sharing memes of him as their savior, while Speaker Johnson and his fellow travelers on the Supreme Court are working as hard as they can to open the doors (and money) of government to religious leaders.
Religion has a lot to offer people and often fulfills a basic need to stand in awe of creation, to feel at one with everything and everyone. Every culture all the way back to the Neanderthals have engaged in religious rituals, particularly around funerals: no tribe or group has ever been found that entirely lacked what could be described as religious rituals.
But, as our founders pointed out, religion should be separated from government as far as possible. Jefferson’s Virginia Statute says it explicitly:
“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Instead, Republicans are exploiting that religious urge built into us humans to cynically pander for the votes of those people who’ve put religion at the center of their lives.
They’re reinventing America as a country where religion dictates women’s healthcare, specifies who can marry whom, and destroys the lives of people who weren’t born heterosexual.
They’re promoting movies/vids portraying Trump as the incarnation of Jesus, a bizarre sort of Second Coming worthy of North Korean propaganda.
They’re using religion as an excuse for bigotry, a rationale for government tax subsidies of churches that promote Republicans from the pulpit, and a weapon to wield against those they condemn as being insufficiently pious.
In the process, they’re harming both religion and our government.

MAGA. Is. A. Cult. Full stop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madison was perceptive concerning the needed separation of church and state for the good of religion. Jefferson did the same for the good of the state. You cannot get any more original than these two. But remember, modern originalists are only originalist if it suits them and their point of view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I caught something when I re-read this essay. Hartman alludes to ancient man being essentially religious, which makes me think of Black Elk and his vision as reported by John Niehart in Black Elk Speaks. Apparently, the Souix were in the habit of having visions that would be collectively celebrated in dance by the entire group after the reported vision.
I have always thought of the contrast between that religious experience and the notion of strict orthodoxy that characterized European expression of Christianity to be remarkable
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good morning Roy,
One could say that every religion has an outward path (dogma – what you must BELIEVE) and an inward path (what you must EXPERIENCE for yourself). For example: Islam (outward)/Sufism (inward) or Christianity/Christian mysticism. In the West, our religions tend to be dogmatic. We must have BELIEF. In the East, the religions or philosophies are founded on personal EXPERIENCE. I’m thinking of Zen and Advaita Vedanta. Zen does not talk of god but Hinduism has many gods. In the West, we tend to take religious symbolism literally and therefore have difficulty BELIEVING the dogma – the gods and the stories surrounding them. In the East, the symbols and “gods” or religion are known to be forms through which divinity can be experienced. The image or symbol or god is a METAPHOR for the transcendent. So, the transcendent can be “experienced” with form (gods, etc) or without form as in Zen and Vedanta. So, throughout history, there have been both ways – the outward (belief) and the inward (experience). 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
I would add that the really beautiful thing about Advaita Vedanta is that the realization that you ARE Brahman (sat-chit-ananda) is a realization that you must EXPERIENCE yourself. There’s nothing to believe. Yet, the symbolism and the variety of forms (gods) is so beautiful So, here you have the two (transcendent and immanent – no form and form ) so beautifully working together. 🙂
LikeLike
Same with contemporary Shinto. The priest is not someone who lays down the law and is not even a guide. He (or, sometimes, she) simply provides a sacred space for the individual’s practice.
LikeLike
Tat tvam asi
LikeLike
Right, Bob. The “problem” with the inner way is that you can’t make a dogma and power structure like a church out of it. A guru might help to show you a way to your own inner life, but ultimately you have to get there your own way. A real teacher must help you find your own way. The problem comes when we project knowledge and power on the guru and forget that that knowledge and power reside in us. But that happens when we project anything on someone else. 🙂
LikeLike
From my unpublished book Notes to Krystalina
Back in 1909, the British occultist Charles Leadbeater met a boy, perhaps 14 years old, on a beach by the Andyar River, in India. Leadbetter saw something astonishing in this boy and took him under his wing. Ledbetter and his friends in the Theosophical Society educated the boy, preparing their pupil to hold the office of “world teacher,” the guru of all gurus. And indeed, the boy, Jiddu Krishnamurti, grew up to be one of the greatest of gurus, for he taught people to distrust gurus.
He said, you go to a guru because you have a problem, and you seek gratification. You seek the truth you want to hear, he said, and someone to lead you to it, but the truth is not something static that you can be led to, as though it were a roadside attraction and the guru your bus driver. “You are more important than I,” said Krishnamurti, “more important than any teacher, any saviour, any slogan, any belief; because you can find truth only through yourself. . . . When you repeat the truth of another, it is a lie. Truth cannot be repeated. . . . There is no saviour but yourself.”
The Buddha put it more succinctly. “If you meet the Buddha on the road,” he said, “kill him.” This is what the Buddha thought of Buddhas.
LikeLike
Bob, how many unpublished books do you have?
My equivalent would be unsent emails.
LikeLike
A bunch of them, Flerp. I have one book on sentience in nonhuman animals, another on uncertainty, the philosophical book on ancient religion and modern technologies that I just quoted from, the unpublished manuscript of a novel called Pagan Moon, and another novel, about American Fascism, in progress. I also have hundreds of short stories, many of which I have posted on my website. Perhaps I shall find the time and energy to seek an agent for these again one day, which is insane in today’s publishing environment, or perhaps my literary executor (I have one) will sort all that out when the time comes. I have published literally hundreds of textbooks across a wide range of subject areas, but where I live is in my creative writing, which has yet to gain that traction, perhaps because I have not worked hard enough at making that happen. Here’s a SHORT sample from Pagan Moon:
LikeLike
Bob,
Since you wrote a book about sentience in nonhuman animals, I hope you read the recent newspaper story about the white beluga whale that is delighting Norwegians. It interacts with people and is at the center of a huge controversy about how to protect it. The article suggests it was trained by the Russian navy to do some underwater tasks but escaped. Fabulous piece. I think it was in NYTimes
LikeLiked by 1 person
The recent story: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/14/magazine/hvaldimir-whale.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
It has also been written up in Scientific American, NPR and elsewhere.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/former-russian-spy-whale-faces-his-greatest-danger/
Hvaldimir is called a Russian spy whale.
LikeLike
Thanks for the suggestion, Diane!
LikeLike
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing this, Diane.
LikeLike
Mamie– you express this really well. This is very much my understanding of both S Asian and E Buddhism, which I gleaned mainly from readings to expand my understanding of Asian Art (course on college). One of my favorite works depicted a couple of monks, floating in the clouds above a mountain, who were ceremoniously presenting an unrolled scroll that — was blank! (The monks were laughing.) I thought the intersection of the many Hindu gods/ myths with such a strict philosophy of conquering the ego– brilliant. [I didn’t even realize until my kids when young got involved with Asian-culture video games that the E Asians too had many creation-myths peopled by animal-human gods 😀 ]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree. There is a historical progression that seems to have been followed worldwide, with various parts of the world being at various stages on this progression: animism (the world itself is the spiritual world when viewed from a visionary state) to polytheism to monolatry (worship of a single god as superior while accepting that there are other gods) to either henotheism (in the sense of various gods being expressions of one) or monotheism. My take is that the decisive wrong turn was that between animism and polytheism, when the ignorant started taking symbolic stories literally.
LikeLike
Black Elk, on why his people put their teepees in circles–“the great hoop of the Nation,” aka The Medicine Wheel:
“Everything the Power of the World does is done in a circle. The sky is round,
and I have heard that the earth is round like a ball, and so are all the stars.
The wind, in its greatest power, whirls. Birds make their nest in circles, for theirs is the same religion as ours.”
“For theirs is the same religion as ours.” Wow.
LikeLike
I would say every religion is true in that through its metaphors, stories, philosophies, and symbols, it aims to link you back (re-ligio) through experience to the transcendent. I love Black Elk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
same root as in ligature
LikeLike
In my thinking of the contrast I mention here, I am impressed with the gravity the group gave to the individual vision of the one who reported the experience. The Souix apparently danced a dance designed to express the vision of the individual whose time had come to have the vision.
I am reminded of an experience I had singing from the Sacred Harp, a living tradition especially important in Alabama. I was down there once for a singing and found myself beside an elderly gentleman who had a voice that was perfect in pitch but grating in tone color. He was loud, somewhere between a tin pan and a jackhammer. Halfway through the day (it was an all day singing), I realized that what had sounded harsh suddenly had become blended with all the other voices, everyone sounding at the top of their lungs in song after song, fourths and fifths blended like soy and ginger in a food.
And I thought of the contrast between all the logic and argument that had been the history of European Christianity and that wild expression among people who just sang and felt.
And I wept inside for all the heads that had been severed over dogma, all those souls sacrificed for the sake of argument over supposed reality.
But mostly I sang.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A beautiful story, Roy. I used to do Shape Note. What a Joyful Noise!
LikeLike
Roy– I am just finishing N Scott Momaday’s “House Made of Dawn” [1969]. I feel like Momaday is explaining/ expressing the Native American experience of life from the inside out, to Westerners. He himself was 3/4 Native American, but had dual insight. His youth on the reservation was experienced at one remove: he lived reservation life from age 1-18 as the son of an artist and a writer who had considerable off-reservation experience, and returned to a reservation as teachers. The novel is, on one hand, the story of NA’s who experienced the wrenching dislocation from reservation culture to WWII combat, and the aftermath [PTSD, trying to assimilate into American &/or back to reservation life]. Yet at the same time: the entire story is told in/ imbued with myth-like narratives and visions. I picked up exactly that sense that traditional feasts and gatherings elicited individual visions and tales for all to consider and celebrate. There was also a section on a NA “priest” who had set himself up as a sort of guru in LA, exposing the falseness and manipulation of that path. The main message I am getting is that the traditional NA experience is one of creating narrative-myths (often spurred by visions and dreams) to help guide one through life’s transitions.
LikeLike
The typical native view, and that found in early indigenous cultures around the globe, is utterly different from the Christian one AND is the same one held by the Greeks in the earliest stages of their religious development (see Gilbert Murray’s The Five Stages of Greek Religion). In this view, there is not a separate spiritual world “up there” or existing alongside this world. Instead, THE SPIRITUAL WORLD IS THIS WORLD EXPERIENCED FROM WITHIN A STATE OF VISION. And this view results in reverence for the world as opposed to Christian contemptus mundi, with its attendant ills. The finest exposition of this indigenous view that I have ever encountered is in Ohíye S’a’s (Charles Eastman’s) The Soul of the Indian (written in 1903; published in 1913). Ohíye S’a grew up among a native people, the Santee Dakota, but then received a Western-style education as a physician. He was the first native American ever to be certified as a medical doctor. His is one of the few authentic extended reports of native life and thought and belief that we have from one who experienced it. The purpose of his book was to explain native American religious thought to white people. His is one of the top five books ever written, IMO, with an honored place at the top of my recommendations list. It’s incomparable. Breathtaking. Really important.
LikeLike
Bob, thanks so much for this input. A whole new world to explore. I’ve read 6 or 7 novels by Louise Erdrich– another child of reservation teachers– but they feel like a Westerner looking in [despite her heritage], rather than a NA looking out. Am looking forward to reading Ohiye Sa.
LikeLike
There’s a very inexpensive Dover edition that is excellent. Here’s the whole for free on Gutenberg:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/340/340-h/340-h.htm
LikeLike
one of the few accounts in a native voice of native life before it was upended by the coming of whites
LikeLike
I had all my American literature students read this. And also Life among the Paiutes by Sarah Winnemucca.
LikeLike
Thank you Bob!
LikeLike
From my study of anthropology, I understand that cultures tend have a belief in the unexplainable and something beyond human kind. However, religious freedom does not imply that one religion should be able to foist their views on everyone else. Unfortunately, the right wing members of the court are interpreting The Constitution that way.
LikeLike
cultures tend have a belief in the unexplainable and something beyond human kind
It’s quite close to a human universal
LikeLike
It’s gotten so bad…
Is it bad enough to realize the continuum of badness
isn’t interrupted by the same strategies that HAVEN’T
interrupted the continuum of badness?
What the slave owners and merchants said then,
doesn’t change now.
The problems of today won’t be solved by
the same strategies, that have yet to solve them.
LikeLike
What the founders said, and thought doesn’t count. They should have put the exact wording in the U.S. Constitution so it would count when the time came.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Nothing with precise language that says church and state must be separated. Nothing that says the government can’t fund religious schools, as long, as they don’t restrict any religions from being excluded, they may get away with it.
Since lawyers seem to use another language when writing laws, so the wording is confusing and difficult to understand, this may be the reason.
“Among the Founding Fathers, 35 of the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were lawyers or had legal training.”
LikeLike
Lloyd– What is frustrating to me is that courts and govt for a very long time (since founding until…? recent history) had a general consensus that our norm was separation of church and state, as reflected in 1stA. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” can indeed be interpreted to mean that neither states (whose laws are subservient to Constitution) nor fed govt can levy taxes to support the practice of a certain religion, or any religion. Thus, per that norm, it was eventually decided it was not OK, e.g., to require all school kids to recite the [Christian] Lord’s Prayer every a.m.
By the same token: in recent history, some interpret “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” could, arguably, be interpreted to mean that those in govt-run facilities doing their tax-supported govt business [e.g., schools] should be allowed to simultaneously freely exercise their religion. That’s not a slam-dunk, it’s a contradictory proposal that has to be argued out. Talking schools: reasonably, that might mean that, say, Muslim students need to be allowed to unroll prayer rugs somewhere & pray pointing East every 6 hrs. But does it mean all students should be required to recite the [Christian] Lord’s Prayer every a.m.? Or that state taxes can be used to fund religious schools?
To decide such conundrums, contemporary SCOTUS’s supposed dependence on “originalist” theory would [if they were actually originalists] find themselves right up against the many writings of key Founders– not to mention history of founding itself– emphasizing the importance of separation of church and state!
LikeLike
Glorious Leader who shineth more orange than doth the sun, troll-doll yellow be thy mane. Give us this day our two-minutes hate. Thy sovereignty come, thy will be done, in Portland as at Mar-a-Lago. Forgive not those who trespass against you, but show them vengeance. Send out the SA to beat them, shoot them, and lock them up. Yield to every temptation (Adderall, Stormy), fantasize about dating your daughter, and deliver us from Marxists and the media. Thy will be policy, now and forever. For thine was the kingdom and the power and the glory in 2020 and shall be hereafter. May your sons inherit the kingdom. So it is ordained. Amen.
LikeLike
Great piece by Hartman, but I have to quibble with his characterization of Madison concerning the exclusion of the clergy from holding public office. I also think his characterization of Madison’s religious sentiments are problematic, but I’ll save that critique for another day. The debate between Jefferson and Madison over the clergy serving in the government arose in response to Jefferson’s draft of a Virginia constitution that he wrote in 1788. Madison challenged the exclusion of the clergy with a series of questions:
“Does not the exclusion of Ministers of the Gospel as such violate a fundamental principle of liberty by punishing a religious profession with the privation of a civil right? Does it not violate another article of the plan itself which exempts religion from the cognizance of Civil power? Does it not violate justice by at once taking away a right and prohibiting a compensation for it? And does it not in fine violate impartiality by shutting the door against the Ministers of one religion and leaving it open for those of every other?” (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-06-02-0255-0005)
His concern was the denial of the clergy’s rights, not the corruption of his “beloved Christianity” [note: both objected to religious establishments because they corrupted religion]. Jefferson yielded on this point, but he only did so only because the clergy “seem[ed] to have relinquished all pretensions to privilege, & to stand on a footing with lawyers, physicians &c. they ought therefore to possess the same rights.” (Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moore, 14 August 1800,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-32-02-0066)
LikeLike
Fascinating, Debbie. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debbie-
Adding as example for consideration, an event that happened a few years ago, Bishop Hebda prohibited his priests from voting in the Democratic presidential primary. He cited his Catholic Conference as the governing body that told him he had that right.
If you haven’t read the Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties, it is interesting. One of the signers was Barrett Young, Austin, Texas, Executive Director of Make Liberty Win PAC (an offshoot of Young Americans for Liberty). MLW PAC endorsed 76 GOP candidates in New Hampshire in a recent election. 53 were elected.
A candidate that MLW PAC endorsed in Maine (the organization is nation wide) pled guilty last week to assaults on Jan. 6.
LikeLike
The American principle of a “wall of separation” between government and churches goes back even further than our 1797 Constitution: In 1635, Roger Williams, who founded the American colony of Rhode Island laid down the American principle that there must be a “wall of separation” between government and churches because politics will corrupt religion and because free citizens could be forced to join a religion that they didn’t believe in.
And that is what happened to our Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution: Although many of them were Deists, not Christians, they were compelled to join the official British government Anglican religion in order to be able to take part in government and vote on issues, such as how much their land would be taxed.
Today, some who argue against the separation of church and state claim that when the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause says that government shall make no law “respecting the establishment of religion” that means only that the government shall not establish a religion and that government is free to provide all manner of support for existing religions. However, in the grammatical syntax of the time in which the First Amendment was written, the phrase “the establishment of religion” refers to “established religions”, not to establishing a government religion. Written in the grammatical syntax of our current times, the First Amendment would state that government shall make no law “respecting established religions”.
Correctly read, the First Amendment provides Americans with Freedom from Religion.
By the way, the lack of familiarity with the grammatical syntax and punctuation of the time in which the Amendments were written has long played a key role in the gun rights debate, with the Supreme Court’s ignorance of the grammatical syntax of the time in which the Constitution was written resulting in the Second Amendment being turned on its head: In the syntax of the time in which the Second Amendment was written, the first part — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — is the Independent Clause, and the second part — “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — is the Dependent Clause which is limited and defined by the Independent Clause. Correctly read in the context of the times in which it was written, that means that what the Second Amendment says in the syntax of our current times is that “the right of the people to bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.” You can only bear arms when part of a well regulated militia.
Of course, the phony “originalists” on the Supreme Court can’t be bothered with genuine originalism.
LikeLike
The “Originalists” on the Supreme Court act in accord with that principle only when it suits their needs.
LikeLike
So the government is free to ban Mormonism, or to directly fund Mormonism, because it was not an “established religion”?
May the government make laws disrespecting established religions>
LikeLike
No, the phrase meant having to do with (meaning of “respecting”) establishing (meaning of “the establishment of”) religion. The founders were reacting to the British and French systems that recognized one particular state religion and were concerned to meet the Anti-Federalist objection that the Constitution left the federal government free to establish a religion:
From the contemporary Annals of Congress:
[H]e [Madison] apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor
compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.
LikeLike
See https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jcl&httpsredir=1
LikeLike
Ah, so it doesn’t require government to make laws disrespecting religion. Pfew.
LikeLike
I can propose a few though, now that I think of it. ROFL.
LikeLike
quikwrit– Congratulations on bringing grammar into the debate. I have to correct you, though, on the nature of Heller’s grotesque distortion of standard Eng– which SCOTUS had the nerve to make a central part of the ruling. There are no “dependent” and “independent” clauses in 2ndA. This is the absolute construction, as valid in today’s std Eng as it was in 1791. Both clauses modify the entire sentence. Neither can be eliminated [or deemed ‘dependent/ independent’ or worse, ‘prefatory/ operative’ in SCOTUS’s ruling– not even grammatical terms] without changing the meaning of the sentence. The construction is still common in written English/ books, novels. Examples: “The potential heirs having arrived, the reading of the will shall proceed.” “The umpire’s presence being crucial, the game shall be postponed until his arrival.” Common even in informal communications: “Weather permitting, the barbecue will be held Saturday.”
Do you have any cites to back up that, in the grammatical syntax of the time when 1stA was written, “the establishment of religions” refers to “established religions,” not to the establishment of a govt religion– so that in current parlance, this would be rendered as “shall make no law respecting established religions”?
LikeLike
Exactly right. This is an absolute construction.
LikeLike
His hat tipped at a rakish angle, he walked into the bar.
He often showed up at this time, lunch being free from the covered bowls set out for customers.
LikeLike
I learned a lot reading this. Thank you.
LikeLike
At some point, no doubt, too late, there will be an acknowledgement about what will make a difference.
Down the road, the understanding of a concept, will meet with the political reality of the success of the sophisticated, well-funded Catholic Church machine.
As example, in Jan. 2023, the Tennessee Catholic Conference was formed with the explicit purpose of influencing the General Assembly. In January of 2024, right wing Catholics in Tennessee are being interviewed on local news promoting vouchers.
Some democracy-believing, investigative reporter should dive deep to find out who is funding the expansion of the political Catholic Conferences. But again, it’s too late, just like it was too late in the case of the priest pedophilia and its cover-up. The difference is the scope of victims- all American women (and, men who want to decide the size of their families) suffer from the abortion ban, all LGBTQ suffer from anti-gay policy and now, all taxpayers and those who want locally elected school boards suffer from school privatization.
LikeLike
After reading all of these comments it is somehow comforting to know that I will always have a lot to learn. My own interpretation of the New Testament is that Jesus, and later Paul, were concerned about our obligations to one another. Empire was the government of the day and it was viewed as the reality people lived under. When Emperor Constantine cynically adopted Christianity, everything changed. Most of the proclamations made by the theocrats and Christian Nationalists of today have no grounding in scripture. Abortion is not about religion but control advocated through the misogyny of an autocratic medieval Roman Catholic Church. The same can be said for the “creationist” view that the earth is 6000 years old that came from medieval monks, in fact there is no mention of elapsed time in the greater human context in the Bible. Mike Johnson’s proclamation that his governing principles are guided by the “biblical republican” model is just…absurd. I only have the justification of recall, but it also seems to me I have read that the Founders did not want to continue the centuries violence and slaughter in Europe over religious doctrine. Religion and government shouldn’t collude for power. When they have, the result is tragic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
pabonner– The problem comes from folks who insist on reading the Constitution– and the Bible– in a binary fashion, like cookbooks or instruction manuals that tell you exactly what to do– carved in stone, like the 10 Commandments. The 10 commandments still have weight: short, sweet, sum up general humane premises about love, promises, lies, etc. But such folk ignore that similarly constructed instruction manuals evolve in order to become more user-friendly, recipes evolve to show where one may vary and innovate without ruining the recipe, etc. The Bible is a perfect example, recording as it does many conflicting prescriptions, and demonstrating a continual evolution toward more humane treatment of each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We all need to continually remind our religious relatives & friends that most of our Founders were Deists, and what Deism actually means—A belief in a “Supreme Being” who created the universe, but does not interfere with anything beyond that. Natural laws determine how things in the universe play out. Pray all you want. Believe all you want. Just don’t impose any ideas that YOUR god has any influence on anything anyone else does.
LikeLike