Separation of Religion and Government; Liberty of Conscience and Toleration

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

This topic overlaps, to some extent, with other topics in the present folder: Roger Williams (ca. 1603-1683) and Types of Government: Theocracy and Erastianism. See these topics for discussions that are relevant to the present topic.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2022 NOTE: See my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (2015).

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

With regard to Hobbes and Erastianism, see post 37 in the Government and the Economy; Property Rights topic in this folder. Hobbes's Erastian approach to government control of religion is elaborated in his Leviathan.

[Erick]

I think it is probably often overlooked the influence that Roger Williams and the Levellers had on the Bill Of Rights and religious freedom. Many would point to Locke as the primary influence, but certainly those ideas were already common by his day.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Another chapter of my forthcoming book addresses the influence of Roger Williams on the American Founders of the Revolutionary era. An Appendix addresses the question of the influence of Williams on Locke. In both instances, the influence was real, albeit somewhat indirect. There were, interestingly enough, strong followers of Williams who personally interacted with John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, among others. There are also some very interesting interpersonal connections between Williams and Locke. Additionally, as you and James Ernst (and others) observe, Williams helped generate the ideas that eventually reached Locke.

Ernst also argued that Williams's democratic political ideas also influenced the Levellers and the later American Founders. This is a somewhat more difficult subject, involving, inter alia, the question of exactly what form of government Williams established when he founded Providence. I am writing this part of my book right now. I have already written most of the discussions in the book of Williams's influence on Locke and on the later American Founders. Locke, of course, did not extend liberty of conscience to Catholics and atheists and was rather ambivalent about separation of church and state. Williams had no such qualifications. It can be (and has been) argued that Madison's views correspond more closely to Williams than to Locke.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

The famous New England historian Perry Miller and many other scholars of the middle and late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have argued that Roger Williams had no influence on the American Founders of the Revolutionary War and early national eras. Miller et al. were reacting against James Ernst and other scholars of earlier generations who allegedly made Williams out to be a kind of seventeenth-century rational Enlightenment figure. The truth is more complicated and nuanced than either side of this debate acknowledges. Williams was not an Enlightenment deist or atheist, but he supported liberty of conscience and separation of church and state for both religious and secular reasons. This is one of the essential arguments I make in my book.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "There were, interestingly enough, strong followers of Williams who personally interacted with John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, among others. There are also some very interesting interpersonal connections between Williams and Locke. Additionally, as you and James Ernst (and others) observe, Williams helped generate the ideas that eventually reached Locke."

I was not aware of most of that. I assumed the connection between Locke and the earlier proponents of freedom of conscience. The connection between the Levellers and Williams is more obvious when one reads their writings. I had not read Ernst. I made the connection myself when reading the writings. The connection between Williams and Madison has struck my curiosity I must say. That would be an interesting investigation and discussion to read.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "Williams was not an Enlightenment deist or atheist, but he supported liberty of conscience and separation of church and state for both religious and secular reasons. This is one of the essential arguments I make in my book. "

Sounds very interesting.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I think you will find my book of interest. It's full of relevant historical details, and I think its approach is original. As a result of all the research it has required, I probably won't finish and publish it until 2015.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "I think you will find my book of interest. It's full of relevant historical details, and I think its approach is original. As a result of all the research it has required, I probably won't finish..."

I would like to read it my friend. You did peak my curiosity. I try to both read primary and secondary sources when I approach any subject. My main focus is philosophical and religious movements. Anything related to that usually can spark my interest.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

My book relies mostly on primary sources. For example, reading the entire corpus of Roger Williams's writings (my reviews of each volume can be accessed on my Academia.edu profile page) took me a long time. I don't get involved in all the scholarly debates, but I do address the most important ones, mostly in endnotes and appendices. I have also been assisted by several books about English history as well as a few about New England history (though I rely mostly on primary sources for the latter). I'm trying to accomplish a difficult task: write a book that the intelligent general reader as well as the scholarly specialist can understand and appreciate.

It's nearing midnight here in the eastern time zone, and I have to get up early tomorrow (an unusual occurrence in my retirement), so I'm going to sign off for now.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I have reviewed Andrew R. Murphy's Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Dissent in Early Modern America (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001) here.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Alan wrote: "I have reviewed Andrew R. Murphy's Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Dissent in Early Modern America (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001) here."

I made an minor edit to this review on October 14, 2014.

[Erick]

Alan,

If you get a chance, you should really check out Caspar Schwenckfeld's commentary on the Augsburg Confession. I am currently reading it myself. To my knowledge, Schwenckfeld is the earliest proponent of religious toleration and freedom of conscience among the reformers. The book is hard to procure, but you can get it through the Schwenckfelder church. The website has a phone number which you can use to order it. It's fairly cheap.

http://www.schwenkfelder.com/sandsboo...

Phone number: 215–679–3103

[Erick]

If you would rather, you can also download the pdf of the book for free. Like I said, it's well worth taking a look at:

http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewconten...

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Great! Thanks. I just downloaded it. I recently read William R. Estep's The Anabaptist Story, which helped fill in a lot of gaps in my historical knowledge. Estep mentioned Schwenckfeld on a number of occasions but didn't treat him at length. I also have the Kindle edition of John T. Christian's History of the Baptists, which I will read one of these days. I may have become aware of one of both of these titles by looking at your Goodreads reading list (I don't remember right now how I became aware of them). It's quite clear, as you mentioned earlier, that Roger Williams was influenced by the Anabaptists, especially with his excerpt at the beginning of The Bloudy Tenent from John Murton's prison writing. See also my review of Linford D. Fisher, J. Stanley Lemons, and Lucas Mason-Brown, Decoding Roger Williams: The Lost Essay of Rhode Island's Founding Father (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014) here.

My forthcoming book also addresses the efforts of Baptists Isaac Backus and John Leland to obtain separation of church and state and liberty of conscience in Massachusetts and Virginia in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Leland worked with Jefferson and Madison in their efforts to separate church and state. I'm now reading, inter alia, Derek H. Davis's Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Davis is a constitutional separationist (as distinguished from an accommodationist), but he recognizes that the principle of church-state separation evolved during the founding period and that not all Founders were separationists. It always gets back to the point that Roger Williams was probably the first American to advocate complete liberty of conscience and separation of church and state—ideas that were quite unpopular when he lived under the theocracies of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth from 1631 to early 1636.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I should qualify my foregoing post by saying that Leland was probably involved in supporting Madison's opposition to Patrick Henry's General Assessment bill (governmental financial assistance to all Protestant "teachers," i.e. ministers, of religion). The evidence of Leland's involvement here is somewhat indirect. There is more evidence that he supported Madison's election to the first Congress after Madison pledged to support a Bill of Rights that would, among other things, guarantee that that federal government would not have an established church and would acknowledge the free exercise of religion. Leland also was a big supporter of Jefferson in his campaign for the presidency in 1800. Leland actually met Jefferson about the time of Jefferson's famous (or infamous, depending on one's perspective) "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "Great! Thanks. "

You are very welcome, my friend.

Alan wrote: My forthcoming book also addresses the efforts of Baptists Isaac Backus and John Leland to obtain separation of church and state and liberty of conscience in Massachusetts and Virginia in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Leland worked with Jefferson and Madison in their efforts to separate church and state... "

This is all new to me. I am not familiar with Backus or Leland, but I am certainly interested as always.

The relationship between Schwenckfeld and the Anabaptists is not entirely clear as far as I can tell. It seems they were dependent on him in some aspects of their religious ideology, but he didn't support their sacramental (i.e. baptismal) fanaticism. Schwenckfeld is usually grouped with the Spiritual reformers, which includes Sebastian Franck. I would include Hans Denck in that list as well; although, he is often listed with the Anabaptists. His tie with them is a little more clear than their tie with Schwenckfeld. Only in the case of Schwenckfeld do we have, not only a prominent, but also an early, example of toleration.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "I should qualify my foregoing post by saying that Leland was probably involved in supporting Madison's opposition to Patrick Henry's General Assessment bill (governmental financial assistance to al..."

Very interesting stuff. That merits a study I must say.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Estep's The Anabaptist Story is very good at explaining the opposition of leading Anabaptists to the sacramental character of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Having been raised as a Lutheran, this was all news to me. I'm not sure what the current views of the Baptists are on this issue. I am aware, however, that the Baptists are split on the concept of church-state separation, with some carrying on the tradition of Williams, Backus, and Leland, and others (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al.) backsliding significantly on these issues.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "Estep's The Anabaptist Story is very good at explaining the opposition of leading Anabaptists to the sacramental character of baptism and the Lord's Supper. "

As far as I can tell, the Anabaptists followed Schwenckfeld in his approach to the Lord's Supper, but not in regards to his approach to adult baptism. This is difficult though. Hans Hut and Hans Denck have been seen as Anabaptists and they both questioned the necessity of adult baptism; but in both these cases we have an example of a uniquely German reform movement that retained a mystical and revolutionary character, in contrast to other German, Dutch and Swiss Anabaptist movements. Denck and Hut both had ties to Thomas Muentzer -Luther's old bête noire. Muentzer was a religious revolutionary and radical. He had no obvious baptismal sympathies. His approach to the state was full on rebellion. For him, freedom from the Roman church wasn't enough; nothing less than the over throw of all worldly rulership was necessary. What is truly fascinating about this Alan is his approach to Romans 13. He reversed the order laid out by Saint Paul. He held that no Christian is bound to obey worldly rulership if those rulers are despotic; meaning, if rulers punish the innocent rather than the guilty in opposition to Paul's definition of righteous rulership, they are not only free to rebel, but even have God's sanction and permission! You find the same Romans reversal later with the colonial revolutionary pastor Jonathan Mayhew. I must say I find their approach to Romans 13 quite fascinating and appealing.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Yes, Romans 13 is an interesting text, which Roger Williams discussed at some length in his disputations with John Cotton and in his practical experience as a founder and political leader of Providence (and, later, his involvement in Rhode Island political controversies, including taxation). Williams had a moderate approach to its interpretation. Some antinomians, including his own brother Robert, took an extreme position against government, including taxation. Williams argued, partially on the basis of Romans 13, that taxation and government were necessary, but government should not be involved in religion, which was solely between God and the individual (in Protestantism) or (which Williams rejected) between God and the church (in Roman Catholicism and perhaps in Anglicanism). So Williams would likely not have joined the Tea Party!

Estep discusses all of these Anabaptists, including the lunatics among them. But Estep emphasizes that many Anabaptist leaders departed from Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans et al. in denying the sacramental (miraculous) character of both baptism and the Lord's Supper. This is why adult baptism was possible: it was a symbol of regeneration and a token of admission to a church, but it was not a necessary condition for salvation. I found Estep's discussion very interesting and (to me) novel.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: This is why adult baptism was possible: it was a symbol of regeneration and a token of admission to a church, but it was not a necessary condition for salvation. I found Estep's discussion very interesting and (to me) novel.

Sounds interesting. I'd like to look at it.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

It's available on Amazon (both in paperback and Kindle) here. I recommend it, especially considering your interest in the Anabaptists. I read the Kindle edition.

[Erick]

I have been looking at the book and put it in my cart on amazon. It does look very interesting. Some of this I'm acquainted with from other treatments of Anabaptism. Theology and church history are a special interest of mine. I usually go with primary sources when it comes to both, but I have some secondary sources as well.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Estep's book is valuable in part because a lot of the primary sources on Anabaptism have not been translated. He read all that material in the original German and gave English summaries/explanations. I know a little German but not enough to read it without a lot of help from dictionary and grammar books.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "I know a little German but not enough to read it without a lot of help from dictionary and grammar books."

It's a language I'd like to learn. I can read a little bit of Greek and Hebrew, but I am far from fluent. That's true about there not being enough translations of German works in English. There's some that I've been hoping for.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

The distinction between theocracy and Erastianism is explained well in the following remarks of J. Philip Wogaman in addressing Derek H. Davis's discussion of the classical view of separation of church and state:

"Classical church-state theory notes a historical distinction between theocratic and Erastian tendencies. The former involves control of the state by religious institutions and authorities, the latter, control of religious institutions by political leaders for political ends. Both of these tendencies have been illustrated in the last few decades: Erastianism, especially by a number of communist countries before the end of the Cold War [and, one might add, by Vladimir Putin since 2000], and theocracy, especially by some of the contemporary Muslim countries such as Iran. It can be argued that historically what begins as theocratic quickly becomes Erastian, and what begins as Erastian, stays Erastian. So Davis is clearly right in arguing that the separation principle is, perhaps above all, a protection of the integrity of churches."

"Social Justice Response" of J. Philip Wogaman to "The Classical Separation Perspective" by Derek H. Davis, in Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views, ed. P. C. Kemeny (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), Kindle ed., chap. 2, Kindle loc. 1364-68.

Note: I do not necessarily agree with the entirety of either Wogaman's or Davis's approach, but I found the foregoing quotation especially perspicuous.

[Erick]

There is some truth there. I think the ideal would be separation, but with mutual dialogue. This has never really been attained. The church should be able to petition and express dissent when the state over steps it's bounds; and the state should be able to make clear when the church over steps it's bounds.
Both the theocratic and Erastian tendencies can be shown to have been very poor approaches to church and state relations. I do believe that this country is guilty of Erastianism. We need a more balanced approach. The church should function as the conscience of a nation, without it having juridical authority.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

The book I referenced (Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views, ed. P. C. Kemeny) addresses some of these issues, but I am not quite satisfied with what I've read so far (I'm about half-way through the book). After I finish writing my book on Roger Williams and the revision of my book on ethics, I may write a sequel to the Roger Williams book. This sequel would address contemporary church-state issues, including but not limited to constitutional issues arising out of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. I realize that a lot of ink has already been spilled on this subject, but I have a somewhat different approach than what I have read to date. My book on Roger Williams will not get into those issues except in general terms. For example, Roger Williams opposed any country calling itself a "Christian" nation. And his opposition was based, in substantial part, on his deep Christian faith.

My projected sequel to the Roger Williams book assumes that I will not, in the meantime, find an analysis of church-state relations with which I totally agree, in which case I would not bother (I have plenty of other things to study and write about, and, given my advanced age, my time is limited). I thought I would agree entirely with Derek Davis's approach. His article on Roger Williams was excellent, but I find that his church-state theory acknowledges a "civil religion" concept that basically contradicts the rest of his analysis. I also disagree with some of his analysis in his book on the Continental Congress. Instead of recognizing a "civil religion" (which negates all true religion as well as the views of atheists and agnostics), I would follow Madison in admitting that some things in this context are de minimis. In present-day terms, "In God We Trust" on governmental coins and other manifestations of what the Supreme Court calls "ceremonial deism" might be too embedded in popular culture for the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional. Even Justice Ginsburg has learned from the backlash against Roe v. Wade that the political effects of unpopular Supreme Court decisions may be worse than the problems they attempt to solve. It might be better to wait until popular opinion is more advanced than it is today. This is where philosophy attempts to educate public opinion so that a judicial determination is not even necessary. Nevertheless, such issues are likely to reach the Supreme Court before public opinion is ready for a separationist analysis. And it is more likely, given the trend of the last couple of decades, that the Supreme Court will adopt an illogical accommodationist approach rather than a separationist approach.

But please tell me, Erick, what exactly you mean when you write "I do believe that this country is guilty of Erastianism"? Are you referring to the "civil religion" concept or to something else?

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

By the way, I don't mean by "separationism" any notion that churches and religious people should not be allowed to express their views in public. That notion never occurred to me until I read secondary accounts of John Rawls's work (I have not yet read his actual writings). Religious institutions and individuals should have freedom of speech to articulate any position they like, whether based on their religious beliefs or otherwise. I just don't think that government should incorporate religious views as such in legislation and regulation. Legislation and regulation should be purely secular: intelligible and applicable to secular humanists as well as religionists.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "But please tell me, Erick, what exactly you mean when you write "I do believe that this country is guilty of Erastianism"? Are you referring to the "civil religion" concept or to something else? "

You nailed it. I was indeed referring to civil religion. Civil religion grades things on a curve; meaning, even though the New Testament may say something very clearly and irrefutably, people who have conflated nationalistic or party sympathies with their faith, will often compromise their allegiance to that faith in the ideological confusion of platform rhetoric versus Biblical ethics. Invariably, Christianity is more at peril in this relationship, than party politics is. Gregory Boyd deals with this specifically in his book Myth Of A Christian Nation. Christians are often guilty of allowing popular party opinion to guide their faith, but this is dangerous. Christianity can no longer be the conscience of a nation when it is compromised by nationalism. It then only becomes the voice of assent to everything that is Republican and Conservative, but this makes a mockery of Christianity, which must take a more impartial position when it comes to politics.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "By the way, I don't mean by "separationism" any notion that churches and religious people should not be allowed to express their views in public... Religious institutions and individuals should have freedom of speech to articulate any position they like, whether based on their religious beliefs or otherwise. I just don't think that government should incorporate religious views as such in legislation and regulation. Legislation and regulation should be purely secular: intelligible and applicable to secular humanists as well as religionists. "


I agree, but I believe the church should have an outlet to be able to curb a government run amok. Assembly, petition, demonstration, ballot, peaceful protest, civil disobedience etc etc must and will always be rights in a nation that is not tyrannous. These are the tools that should be open to the church in order to curb tyranny.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Erick, we agree almost entirely on these issues. My only reservation is that people engaged in "civil disobedience" do not, of course, have (by definition) a legal right to the civil disobedience. But they may, under certain circumstances, have a moral right. The state does not have to excuse them from obeying the law, but the state might be influenced by their witness to change the law.

Roger Williams would also have agreed entirely with your analysis. He was deeply committed to his own version of Protestant Christianity and would have eschewed all "civil religion" as just so much Erastianism, which, in essence, it is.

I have Boyd's book (downloaded the Kindle version a few weeks ago) but have not yet read it. Perhaps this is the book I got from your Goodreads reading list.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "Erick, we agree almost entirely on these issues. My only reservation is that people engaged in "civil disobedience" do not, of course, have (by definition) a legal right to the civil disobedience...."

I thought you might mention that. What I mean is that the governing body should have enough equitable conscience to not treat civil disobedience as an act of insurrectionism. If governing authorities have an ounce of legitimacy, they should also know to what degree a legitimate act of civil disobedience, springing from moral conscience, is to be distinguished from an act of terrorism. Indeed, part of the act of civil disobedience entails accepting the legal consequence, but that consequence shouldn't be draconian. This is really what I am getting at. With things like the Patriot Act, it is now far less clear than it should be. Civil disobedience should be more of an implied right through what is equitable, rather than what is legal.

[Erick]

Alan wrote: "I have Boyd's book (downloaded the Kindle version a few weeks ago) but have not yet read it. Perhaps this is the book I got from your Goodreads reading list. "

It's a very good book and I agree largely with his points. I already held a lot of them before reading it. He doesn't address what avenues are open to the church as far as limiting government. The above is my own perspective.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Erick wrote: "I thought you might mention that. What I mean is that the governing body should have enough equitable conscience to not treat civil disobedience as an act of insurrectionism. If governing authorities have an ounce of legitimacy, they should also know to what degree a legitimate act of civil disobedience, springing from moral conscience, is to be distinguished from an act of terrorism. Indeed, part of the act of civil disobedience entails accepting the legal consequence, but that consequence shouldn't be draconian. This is really what I am getting at. With things like the Patriot Act, it is now far less clear than it should be. Civil disobedience should be more of an implied right through what is equitable, rather than what is legal."

Interesting points. My first year in college (1964-65) I wrote a paper arguing that civil disobedience was sometimes valid but that one must be willing to accept the legal consequences of one's civil disobedience. As you observe, such measures as the Patriot Act put a whole different light on this issue. Fear seems to be the most important political consideration these days (Hobbes would be happy), as we are likely to see next Tuesday. As Jon Stewart observed earlier this week, we are no longer the "home of the brave." The one in a zillion chances of getting Ebola (unless one is a health care worker dealing directly with affected people in Africa) has got the whole country riled up. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Americans die every year from infectious diseases, many of which have become immune to antibiotics through widespread use of antibiotics in the meat industry. We worry about abstract problems that the popular media and political culture drum up while ignoring the real problems that are going to kill us.

[Erick]

That is the truth. People are way more apt to surrender God given rights when they are kept in a state of perpetual fear. That was understood by the founding fathers who warned us about it. Too bad hardly anyone is aware of the ideals of the founding fathers and how far we have departed from them.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I have reviewed David Sehat's The Myth of American Religious Freedom here.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

See also posts 73-76 of the Government and the Economy; Property Rights topic in this group.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Excerpt from Chapter 8 of Alan E. Johnson, The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (Pittsburgh: Philosophia Publications, forthcoming) (copyright © 2015 by Alan E. Johnson, all rights reserved):

Although Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, supported liberty of conscience and separation of religion and government on both the federal and state governmental levels, some others of the founding generation were not so sure. The courts did not apply the First Amendment Religion Clauses to state and local governments until well into the twentieth century. As we have seen, people were compelled in Massachusetts to support religion by taxation until 1833. During much of the nineteenth century, various judicial, political, and religious leaders claimed that Christianity was part of the common law and that the United States was a "Christian nation." Although no state, after 1833, formally supported any church with tax dollars or made any particular denomination a legally established church, religious test oaths remained in many states for political office holders and for witnesses in judicial proceedings. People were prosecuted for blasphemy and for the related offense of cursing. Protestantism reigned supreme, and Roman Catholics and Jews, among others, suffered legal and other discrimination. Public school children were compelled to read, or listen to readings, from the King James Version of the Bible—a Protestant translation that differed from the Catholic Bible and a practice that was anathema to Roman Catholics in the absence of real time interpretation by their priests. School children had to recite the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. Courts routinely held that morality was essential to public education, that Protestantism was necessary to morality, and that Protestant religious views and values could therefore be legally enforced in school settings.

Only during the last few decades of the nineteenth century were these religiously motivated legal disabilities gradually removed. However, the early twentieth century saw a conservative Protestant backlash, and some of the progress made in the later nineteenth century was reversed. The twentieth- and early twenty-first centuries have witnessed a continuation of these "culture wars." In reaction to mid-twentieth-century Supreme Court attempts to reinstate the church-state separation views of Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, the Religious Right resurrected the nineteenth-century dogma that the United States is a Christian nation that must legislate Christian theology and morality. Non-Christians must, in this view, bow to the will of the majority—a position directly in opposition to that of the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, not to mention Thomas Jefferson and Roger Williams. From time to time during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, various groups actually supported constitutional amendments that would revise the First Amendment to state explicitly that the United States is a Christian nation.130

130. It is not possible, within the space limitations of this book, to explain and corroborate the details of these historical developments, but the interested reader is referred to the following books that treat them in considerable depth: Steven K. Green, The Second Disestablishment: Church and State in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); David Sehat, The Myth of American Religious Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); and Benjamin T. Lynerd, Republican Theology: The Civil Religion of American Evangelicals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Although I do not agree with everything in these books (and, indeed, they sometimes disagree with each other in relatively minor matters), these authors often elaborate indisputable and relevant historical developments in substantial detail with copious references to primary sources.

[Ronaldo]

Thanks Alan - let me underline your statement that I strongly agreed:
Courts routinely held that morality was essential to public education, that Protestantism was necessary to morality, and that Protestant religious views and values could therefore be legally enforced in school settings.
Some morality base must be enforced and included in school agenda. Your book teach us to return to the origins to deserve the future. Regards and success in your good job. Ron Carneiro

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Thanks, Ron. I'm not sure about your statement that "[s]ome morality base must be enforced and included in school agenda." It seems to me that religion and morality should be taught at home and at church and not at a public school. Still, I suppose that you may be correct regarding very basic and universal morality (not stealing, murdering, etc.).

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I have reviewed Kevin M. Kruse's One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (New York: Basic Books, 2015) here.

[Charles]

Alan, I refer you to "Joseph Story and the American Constitution" by James McClellan for a very detailed recitation and explanation of that jurist's beliefs regarding the Constitution. His focus on natural law as the basis of American constitutional law was initially, off putting, my natural inclination being to take the separation of church and state literally. What I have learned is that the the Founders took their belief in natural law seriously and made it the foundation of American jurisprudence. This approach was a total rejection of Jefferson's belief in natural rights and the guiding lights of the French Revolution. It is, at least, a more nuanced discussion than most are prepared to make.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Charles wrote: "Alan, I refer you to "Joseph Story and the American Constitution" by James McClellan for a very detailed recitation and explanation of that jurist's beliefs regarding the Constitution. His focus on..."

If you wish to establish Christianity as the state religion, Justice Story is, indeed, your man. Story wrote the following in his May 14, 1833 letter to Jasper Adams: "I distinguish, as you do, between the establishment of a particular sect [of Christianity], as the Religion of the State, & the Establishment of Christianity itself, without any preference of any particular form of it." Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed., Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), 115. Story supported the establishment of Christianity, but not the establishment of any particular sect of Christianity, as the state religion. He wrote (opposing Jefferson and others) that Christianity was part of the common law. Ibid., 116-17. "Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion, will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice." Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Lake Bluff, IL: Regnery, 1986), 314 (section 442).

So, in Story's view, Deists (including Jefferson and many other leading Founders influenced by the Enlightenment), Jews, Muslims, adherents of other non-Christian religions, and atheists, agnostics, and "secular humanists" need not apply. The state can discriminate against them in order to promote Christianity. This is called theocracy, which usually morphs into "civil religion" or Erastianism. See Hobbes, Thomas.

In the seventeenth century, a deeply religious Christian minister, Roger Williams, explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly opposed any such establishment of the Christian (or any other) religion. Jefferson and Madison later opposed the establishment of Christianity as the state religion in Virginia. My forthcoming book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (available July 2015 at Amazon.com) is an antidote for those who disagree with Williams, Jefferson, and Madison. I am currently preoccupied with last-minute technical details of this book's publication, but I may comment further in the present venue after I have completed that process.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Another quotation from Story: "it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity as a Divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects." Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Lake Bluff, IL: Regnery, 1986), 315 (section 442). The secondary historical analyses that I cited in my review here examine in great detail the views of Story and others who opposed Madison's interpretation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As discussed in these sources, there have been periodic attempts during the nineteenth, twentieth, and early twenty-first centuries to amend the Constitution so that it establishes Christianity as the official governmental religion. Judge Clarence Thomas and some other jurists and scholars (not to mention right-wing journalists and legislators) even interpret the existing First and Fourteenth Amendments to permit state governments to establish religion. I discuss such matters in Chapters 9 and 10 of my forthcoming book on Roger Williams. Needless to say, I oppose all such constitutional heresies.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

I would add only that all leading eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Founders believed in natural rights and frequently cited John Locke and others for this principle. Some of the famous language of the Declaration of Independence quotes virtually directly from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Here is an excerpt from Appendix D of my forthcoming The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (endnotes omitted):

"Thomas Jefferson regarded the philosophers John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton as 'the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception . . . .'

"Some of the language in Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence mirrors language in Locke's Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government (also called the Second Treatise of Government), first published in England in 1689. The famous opening sentences of the second paragraph (beginning with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident') of the Declaration were mostly Jefferson's language, though his initial draft did not include the word 'Creator.' Jefferson later wrote: 'Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, [the Declaration of Independence] was intended to be an expression of the American mind . . . . All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.' The language in Jefferson's draft of the opening of the second paragraph of the Declaration is similar to (and in some instances directly quotes from) language and concepts in sections 4, 6, 123, 124, 149, 210, 222, 223, 225, and 230 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Nevertheless, Jefferson stated in 1823, in response to Richard Henry Lee's allegation that the Declaration was copied from Locke, that 'whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book or pamphlet while writing it.'"

Although all of the leading Founders believed in natural rights and cited Locke and others on this point, they differed among themselves as to the extent of liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. Ergo (among other issues), the Federalists vs. the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. Massachusetts (a strong locus of Federalist ideology) continued substantial theocratic practices, opposed by Jefferson and Madison, until 1833. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment did not, of course, apply to state and local governments until after the post-Civil War ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court did not so apply them until the twentieth century.

The term "natural law" is somewhat ambiguous and refers, in some instances, to philosophical views going back to classical antiquity. It is, of course, discussed at length by Thomas Aquinas and his Scholastic epigones (who distinguish it from divine and positive law). The concept of "natural rights" is, I understand, more of a modern concept. Although I am sure some Founders were influenced by ancient and medieval natural law principles (see the quotation from Jefferson above), they were most interested in the natural rights philosophy of Locke and others. In fact, that natural rights philosophy really originated before Locke. It can be found, for example, in the writings of Roger Williams, especially as it relates to liberty of conscience. Williams had already published his major works supporting freedom of conscience and separation of church and state while Locke was still a student and before he had published anything. I discuss the relationship of Williams and Locke at length in Appendix D ("Roger Williams and John Locke") of my book.

Thus, the Declaration of Independence states that all human beings (or "Men") have "certain unalienable Rights, that among these and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The language of the Declaration of Independence is the Lockean language of natural rights, not the Thomistic language of natural law. Of course, later developments during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were to address whether "Men" included African Americans and women. Lincoln prevailed in his view that the Declaration implicitly included African Americans as "Men," but Lincoln's view succeeded, of course, only as a result of the Civil War. Women were finally included as full-fledged citizens (they probably always had citizen rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, though not electoral rights) as a result of constitutional amendment in the twentieth century.

Jefferson and his party were overly optimistic about the French Revolution, thinking it would parallel the American Revolution. They did not realize that the French Revolution was probably inspired more by Rousseau than by Locke. Madison wrote, after Jefferson's death, that the latter often had a tendency to exaggerate and simplify his positions, referring in that particular case to Jefferson's use of the term "nullification" in the Kentucky resolutions opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts. Madison opposed the Calhounian doctrine of nullification that emerged during the closing years of Madison's life. I have always liked Madison more than Jefferson. Although (like all human beings) he was not free of all faults, he was mostly right on many issues. His big failure was his inability or unwillingness to deal adequately with the issue of slavery. I have addressed his preindustrial views on the relationship of the government and the economy in the "Public Choice" topic of this group. His contribution to a more nationalist Constitution in 1787-89 is, to me, more important, historically, than his later identification with Jeffersonian politics. In and before 1789, he was a statesman. It might be said that he was more a politician after 1789. His presidency was largely a mess, though he was dealt a bad hand and did not have attractive options.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Jeff Shelnutt, a member of this group, has discussed Anabaptist views regarding separation of church and state and freedom of conscience here. These discussions are excellent. Roger Williams followed Anabaptist views on these issues and, at the beginning of his work The Bloudy Tenent, quoted excerpts from an Anabaptist writer imprisoned during the reign of James I. Williams perhaps disagreed with the Anabaptists only on the question of pacifism. In contrast to many Anabaptist writers, Williams was at times a political leader who supported, when necessary, military action. However, he counseled peace at every opportunity, especially peace between English settlers and Native Americans.

For further information about Jeff and his views, see his posts 68 et seq. in the New Member Introductions; General Information topic of this group.

[Charles]

Alan, thanks for your generous responses to my post. I learned and am challenged by much of what you shared. I have been participating in various groups to find the group that I could truly learn from and contribute to. Your detailed and well thought out posts have led me to further study and readings and so will respond to you later. In the meantime , many thanks.

[Alan, Founding Moderator and Author]

Thanks, Charles. Although I have not read McClellan's book on Joseph Story (and thus am perhaps missing something), it happens that I have read many primary and secondary sources in seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century American history as well as many works in the history of political philosophy. For example, my book on Roger Williams cites about 400 primary and secondary sources and relies mostly on primary sources. I am not as knowledgeable in other fields.