Separation of Church and State: Perhaps the greatest idea the founding fathers had

[Az]

As we look around the world today it occurs to me that the establishment clause and its supporting letters and explanations may be the single greatest idea our founding fathers came up with. The combination of dogma and sovereignty is perhaps the most dangerous thing imaginable on the planet.

Any historians here know whether it was an original idea or did they develop it based on an existing idea?

[curious one]

1. I am not a historian, but when I think about the reason that our founding fathers came here,

I understand why. Most of them came here on the bases of religious prosecutions. They valued freedom, specially individual rights. They were wise to distinguish the problem of mixing both religion and government. Look at all the countries that are run by religion.

[cosmik debris]

6. The Pilgrims came here for dominance, not freedom

They did not allow religious freedom or individual rights. They purposely mixed religion and government so that they could persecute those who were different from them.

They were the problem, not the solution.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. Well, they were interested in their own freedom - but

that definitely didn't translate beyond their own practice. They had been persecuted back in England. But in what seems to be a time-honored tradition, their own persecution didn't teach them much about not persecuting others.

[cosmik debris]

9. We seem to have different ideas of freedom.

I would say that its not freedom unless everybody has it.

In the case of the Pilgrims, they established a theocracy in which the church-state ruling class had absolute power. I'd call that a system of privilege, not a system of freedom.

If one person (or group) gets a benefit, it is a privilege.

If everybody gets a benefit, it is a freedom.

That's the distinction I make, what's yours?

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Cosmik

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Perhaps I needed a sarcasm thingie there.

In their minds, this was a great quest for religious freedom, since they themselves weren't allowed to practice as they wished in England.

I found it sad and ironic that their definition of freedom extended only so far as their own practice. Beyond those boundaries, they were about as restrictive and authoritarian as you could get.

[cosmik debris]

16. OK, I see now.

That's just one of the American Myths that really gets under my skin.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Don't blame you!

We have a number of those things...

[trotsky]

11. That's a very popular myth that unfortunately has little basis in reality.

First, as cosmik debris has mentioned, the Pilgrims were more interested in forcing THEIR religious beliefs on others, and the Church of England wouldn't let them. So they came here where they could set up their little theocracy in peace.

Second, most of the Founders were extremely wealthy white men. They came to America to make money, and most were enormously successful at it. Thankfully they were highly enlightened too, and gave us a remarkably good system of government. Sure we've added necessary tweaks here and there, and made it more representative than what they envisioned (only wealthy white men like themselves being allowed to vote), but overall I don't think any of them seriously thought it would last this long.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. The Founders merely adopted a very good idea more than a century old

Credit must be given to Hugo Grotius, the Dutch philosopher and jurist. Grotius' adult life spanned both the Eighty Years War between Spain and Netherlands (fought as much about religion as politics), and the Thirty Years War between Catholic Europe and Protestant Europe. Seeing first hand the devestation brought about by unconstrained warfare, he was one of the main architects of the concept of international law. Seeing first hand the terror brought by wars based on religious ideology, he was a strong proponent of government taking a hands-off approach to religion.

By the time he died, Grotius' works were well known throughout Europe. These works influenced social philosopher and humanistJohn Locke. Locke started with Grotius' views that the state should not interfere with personal beliefs and argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. A letter to a friend, published by the recipient as "A Letter Concerning Toleration," outlines why diversity of religion is good for society (this toleration was not extended to atheists and Roman Catholics, although it was far more open than was the general attitude of the day.)

Both Grotius and Locke were major influences on many of the Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson. In his papers, Jefferson noted several times that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was based on his understanding of Locke's work. The Virginia Statute, in turn, was the basis for the first two clauses of the First Amendment.

[cosmik debris]

12. And one more thing,

Most of the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution did not come here. They were born here.

[pokerfan]

2. I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State.

These two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

[Jim__]

3. Wikipedia has a fairly good article on it.

Here. Their article credits John Locke with the modern idea of separation of church and state:

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of the British philosopher John Locke.<6> According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.<7>

[HarveyBrooks]

4. I just wish...

our Nominee had more respect for it.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. He does. nt

[HarveyBrooks]

13. Thank you...

for your enlightening post!

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Well, honestly - if you're going to make

blanket, not to mention false, assertions about Obama, you might be expected to back them up yourself.

He is entirely supportive of our Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment. I suspect your problem with him is that he has the unmitigated gall to hold religious beliefs himself, and to *gasp* speak about them publicly. Such an affront!

The vast majority of people in this country claim to be people of one faith or another. That we finally have a candidate who isn't embarrassed to discuss his own views, while making it perfectly clear that his vision of the US embraces the expression of all views on the topic - atheist to extremely devout and all in-between, is a good thing, not something to fear.

[heidler1]

21. Obama is smart enough to satisfy most of our diverse groups that he'll keep it all glued together.

I do not believe he is too religious, nor too liberal, nor too conservative, nor too hateful, nor too stupid to govern us. Therefore, I'll vote for him with justified hope.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Yup. Me too, Heidler. nt

[varkam]

23. Hmm...

He is entirely supportive of our Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment. I suspect your problem with him is that he has the unmitigated gall to hold religious beliefs himself, and to *gasp* speak about them publicly. Such an affront!

I don't think that is what upsets the apple cart for some people. I mean, politicians playing the god card by talking about their faith is nothing new, really, and most people accept it as the status-quo.

With Obama, a lot of people have issues with his plan to start a new faith-based initiatives office in the WH.

[cosmik debris]

24. He has resolved that to my satisfaction

He will require the religious organizations receiving government money to obey EEOC laws.

The government is gonna be right up in their business. And they don't like that.

So the churches will decline to participate.

It was just good politics to make the offer unpalatable and get the churches to decline the offer.

But that's just my take on the situation.

[varkam]

25. I'm not saying that I personally have a big hairy problem with it, just that...

...some people do.

For my money, I would be more comfortable if there were no such office in government. I realize, however, that sort of thing is just not possible in this day and age. Politicians have to be ostentatious about their faith, lest voters view them as a damn dirty atheist.

I do think that his plan is certainly a cut above Bush's, though. Bush has turned the whole of the American government into one big faith-based initiative.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. The thing is, from a non-profit perspective, from a community

perspective (which Obama has), some of the most effective organizations out there, doing good work, the down and dirty, right where people need it work, are faith-based, or spring from faith-based organizations.

So long as the gov't IS really watching and providing oversight, I see this as a plus. It would be wasteful to reinvent and duplicate the efforts when some organization already has the infrastructure and know-how in place. There's already some degree of that duplication in the non-profit world, and often it doesn't result in more services being delivered, but more people doing the same work without twice the results, you know?

[varkam]

32. I'm not disagreeing that such groups do good work.

Here's my thing, though: why not dump those funds into secular programs that are already in place but just under-funded such as school programs, addiction treatment, job training for felons, et cetera?

[JerseygirlCT]

35. From what I read on his plan

there will be funding going to those. I think the idea is to fund the programs that are getting things done - whether they are faith-based or not - so long as they meet those criteria we mentioned already (no preaching, no discrimination). In some places, the work's getting done with secular groups - in some places, the work's being handled by a group with a relationship to some church or other faith group.

I think, looking at the gov't as a funder, it's in the best interest to let the group providing the best services for the least money to be funded. And to follow up on that A LOT. A great many non-profits of any stripe are able to accomplish a great deal with far less overhead and bureaucracy than say a similar gov't organization could do. Especially on the smaller, right in the community level. (There probably isn't much substitute for gov't on the biggest level).

I didn't see the only going to faith-based idea in the proposal. I saw constant mention of "faith-based or community" all over, and encouragement for all to work together and focus on the problems that need help.

We'll see, of course. Proposals are one thing; the actual practice another. But with what I've read, I'm pretty satisfied that it's a solid plan. It read like someone who'd actually BTDT, which is always good, you know?

[JerseygirlCT]

28. The organizations that want to proselytize, and

want to discriminate will opt out. As you say, that's just dandy.

But the ones that haven't been preaching and haven't been discriminating will get the extra help they can use to simply help people.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. But it's not new. The new part is that he's proposing actual

oversight - so that, unlike under Bush, organizations getting federal aid couldn't discriminate, and couldn't proselytize.

His program also proposes aid to community organizations - which are not faith based. That's also different from the "never saw an abstinence program they didn't want to fund" Bush gang.

So I see him protecting that "separation", while making use of what are often the best run organizations already in place in various communities.

[HarveyBrooks]

34. Um.....no

I suspect your problem with him is that he has the unmitigated gall to hold religious beliefs himself, and to *gasp* speak about them publicly. Such an affront!

I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs. I just don't want my tax dollars going to religious organizations - Obama has promised to expand bush's "faith based" BS and that is a violation of the separation of church and state.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. No, it wouldn't - read all the posts above -

and then, better yet, read the actual plan that Obama has.

[HarveyBrooks]

37. Look...

it's TAX DOLLARS going to religious organizations. How is that not a violation of C & S?
Oversight of every single person in every organization that receives funds is impossible - there WILL be proselytizing.
It's great that you're able to rationalize expanding an unConstitutional program just because the guy doing it has a D next to his name instead of an R but I can't.
90% of DU'ers were OUTRAGED when bush pulled this crap. Now it's just hunky-dory to most of you.

[JerseygirlCT]

38. No they won't.

Obviously you haven't intersected with many of these groups, have you?

A great many have no interest in proselytizing. They're not in this to make converts, they're simply doing what they've been called to do - helping people. Not all of these organizations are Christian, either. And you do know, for example, that Jews don't proselytize, right?

The money isn't going to religious groups - it's going to people in need. These groups have just shown that they are the most effective means of delivering services in a particular community.

Any funder worth their while develops strong outcomes measurement procedures. They will expect reporting from their fundees. The US gov't ought not to be any different. The problem with Bush is that they had no problem with preaching or with discrimination. Their only criteria was whether this money was going to further the aims of the GOP - they weren't in the least interested in helping people. Thus the spate of idiotic "abstinence-only" programs funded under Bush.

If XYZ Church is running the food pantry in town, and with a grant of $50k, they could serve twice as many people, and if those people are offered food and perhaps clothing, no preaching, and welcome to anyone walking in the door ... then exactly where is the problem? In your view, we should perhaps form an entirely new organization to do the same work, duplicating staff and expenses? Which would, of course, cut into the number of people served.

I'm far more interested in how many people are helped than in who is helping them - so long as helping them is what's happening, not preaching to them. And so long as no one is discriminated against - clients or staff.

You really ought to read the plan. But I'm sure it's more fun to get all exercised with it.

[HarveyBrooks]

41. Yes they will.

Obviously you haven't intersected with many of these groups, have you?
I do my best to avoid them.

A great many have no interest in proselytizing.
And a great many do.

They're not in this to make converts, they're simply doing what they've been called to do - helping people.
GO FOR IT! Just not with MY money. Hold a bake sale or something.
They've *also* been called to spread Gods word. If a highly religious person believes he can help someone by "turning him on" to Christ, wouldn't it be a sin in their minds not to? Do you really think a silly government regulation would hold more sway with them than their obligations to God?

The problem with Bush is that they had no problem with preaching or with discrimination.
Bushs' scheme, like Obamas' bans proselytizing (winkwink.)

You really ought to read the plan.
I have.


"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." (James Madison, detached memoranda, 1820)

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

[kwassa]

39. It isn't and never has been a violation of church and state

as long as the money is not going towards the establishment of religion.

I worked for Catholic Charities in a program with federal funding. There was no proselytizing, which is ILLEGAL in programs receiving federal monies. Religion was never discussed, in fact. There was no religious requirement to work for them, or to receive services from them.

This arrangement is not new, it has been around many, many years.

edit to add some statistics

http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=5054

The White House released data showing that religious charities won $2.2-billion — or 10.8 percent of a total of $20.4-billion — in competitive grants awarded to nonprofit groups by 11 federal agencies in fiscal year 2007. That percentage is down slightly from 2006, when such charities won 11.2 percent of almost $19.5-billion.

The Health and Human Services Department awarded the most money to religious charities in 2007, almost $818-million, while the Veterans Affairs Department awarded the highest percentage to such groups — 37.8 percent of almost $89-million. The Commerce Department awarded the lowest percentage of grants to religious charities, 1.7 percent of $291-million.

[jody]

5. The Romans governed their empire by allowing indigenous people to continue their religious practices

as long as they did not pose a threat to the central government.

Of course that practice was not always followed but it suggests to me an origin in the Western world of letting people worship the supernatural as they chose while central government focused on the natural world.

The idea of trying to govern a multi-cultural society would encourage freedom of religion.

[YankeyMCC]

33. So did the Persians

but they did have state recognized gods and festivals, the idea of complete separation of church and state is actually pretty radical even considering the history of empires who allow religious freedom.

There is definitely a difference between allowing religious freedom/tolerance and separation. One keeps the peace but allowing subjugated people to do as they please in matters that are unimportant but still keep in place a traditional and control cultural infrastructure people would need to adhere to for true advancement in power.

While separation allows the free flow of ideas and is good not only for those that are not religious but for religous groups as well but more imporantly allows people to have a wider more fruitful range of ideas from which they can learn and develop their own ideas from and become more effective in thier positions and achieve power or results from that rather than having to conform to advance.

[edhopper]

10. The main philosphy that influenced

the founding fathers came out of the Enlightenment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

(Not the Christian Bible, as the RWs would have us believe.)

The separation of Church and State came from this.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Ironically, I'd credit Pope Leo III with the genesis of the idea, though

it would undergo nearly a thousand years of refinement, progress, and retreat before emerging in its modern form. Though I could happily type for hours, I'll give an abbreviated version:

The year is 800. In the East, the emperor of Constantinople claims secular control over the remaining half of the Roman Empire (and protectorship of Rome itself), and religious authority over Christendom. In the West, the Pope claims religious authority over Christendom, and a number of German kings fight for territory in the West. The Bishop of Rome, Leo III, is frustrated deeply with Constantinople and its emperor/empress Irene for a number of reasons, both political and theological. He also manages to anger the Roman nobility; he flees the city to the safety of Charlemagne's army. Charlemagne protects the Pope and returns him to Rome. On Christmas Day 800, he crowns Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor, in a direct challenge to both the religious and political authority of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople.

In doing so, he was (inadvertently) declaring, for the first time in European history, a clear separation of religious and secular authority. By declaring a Holy Emperor despite the existence of the emperor in Constantinople, Leo III was announcing that he, personally, possessed religious supremacy. By declaring Charlemagne the new, autonomous, and sovereign Emperor of Rome, despite the claims of the emperor in Constantinople, Leo III was placing full secular authority in the hands of a man with absolutely zero religious ties or inclinations. On New Year's Day, 801, western religious authority was seated in Rome, and western sovereign political power was seated in the Carolingian Empire.

Sure, it's a long way from that to the Constitution. However, you've gotta start somewhere...

[SidneyCarton]

18. I see the foundation of this idea in America in the founding of Rhode Island

Roger Williams found Massachusetts insanely oppressive and founded his own colony of outcasts in which universal religious freedom was first declared in the European settlements of North America. If the tradition has a colonial source, we find it here, and in Maryland, which was technically a Catholic colony, but due to the diversity of the settlers, established de facto toleration.

[Evoman]

20. I think your wrong....the greatest idea the founding fathers had was

"free sundaes for every americans on saturday afternoon".

And then William Jackson was all like, "Guys, I hate ice cream. You put that in there, I tear this thing right now."

Even the 1700's had their version of a Wacko Jacko.


Not that I think separation of church and state was a bad thing. Although, I wonder if things would be really different if they hadn't had it. I sometimes also wonder what would have happened if you hadn't had the Declaration of Independance and fought that particular war. How different would your country look?

[cosmik debris]

26. Hey! we might look like Canada!

One of my favorite stories (that may be partly true) goes like this:

Between 1776 and 1900 the US fought over 100 Indian Wars.

During the same period the Canadians fought zero Indian Wars.

Apparently Canadians don't believe in shooting their customers.

:)

[Marrah_G]

30. Separation of church and state has alot to do with the Masonic roots of the founding fathers

In fact, the Pope at the time was outraged that they included this and spoke out against the Masons.

Of course the orthodox religions strongly opposed Freemasonry organizations. So strongly did the Catholics oppose freemasonry, that in 1884, Pope Leo XIII formed an encyclical Humanum Genus, the strongest and most comprehensive papal condemnation of Freemasonry up to that time. The encyclical stated that, "this Apostolic See denounced and openly declared that the sect of Masons is established against law and honesty, and is equally a danger to Christianity as well as to society.... They deny that anything has been revealed by God; they do not admit any religious dogma and truth but what human intelligence can comprehend..."

The encyclical's most revealing statement showed the Church's own position against religious freedom and how the Mason's practiced separation from church and state:


"Now, if one watches the proceedings of the Masons, in respect of religion especially, where they are more free to do what they like, it will appear that they carry faithfully into execution the tenets of the naturalists. They work, indeed, obstinately to the end that neither the teacher nor the authority of the Church may have any influence; and therefore they preach and maintain the full separation of the Church form the State. So law and government are wrested from the wholesome and divine virtue of the Catholic Church, and they want, therefore, by all means to rule States independent of the institutions and doctrines of the Church."

[onager]

40. I think they were also influenced by a lot of BAD ideas.

Especially in Europe during the 2 centuries before the American Revolution. The 16th and 17th centuries witnessed especially bloody wars over religion. e.g, the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants broke out in 1618, while Catholic Spain was already in the middle of its futile Eighty Years' War to convert the Netherlands back to Catholicism.

The writings of the Founders made it clear they did not want to repeat the same mistakes:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.--James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785.

Madison also had some opinions about giving government money to religious charities:

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, 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, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to fund "pious charity" organized by the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, saying that a project comparable to the modern "Charitible Choice" scheme of the George W. Bush administration gives religious societies legal agency in performing a public and civil duty

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/madison.htm