home about us archives subscribe editor's blog in the … · 2012-09-07 · series to be...

Liberty Magazine | September / October 2007

http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=1152[9/7/2012 12:17:14 PM]

HOME ABOUT US ARCHIVES SUBSCRIBE EDITOR'S BLOG IN THE MEDIA

CONTACT US

The Battle for Sunday Baseball

The Real Deal

Toward a Paradigm of Religious Faith in Society

Faith Talk

Religious Pluralism and America's Christian Nation Debate

The Divided States of America?

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2007

http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=47




http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/

http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=15












Liberty Magazine | September / October 2007

http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=1152[9/7/2012 12:17:14 PM]

NEW! LIBERTY ROUND TABLERead ongoing discussions on currentreligious liberty issues presented byleaders in the field. Read Now

EDITOR'S BLOGSchool prayer has been a matter ofserious contention for decades. In1962 the ...Read More

LIFEQUEST LIBERTYPodcast: Join Charles Mills andLincoln Steed as they look at ourreligious liberty. Listen Now.

CAMPAIGN RESOURCESWatch campaign videos anddownload resources to promote theReligious Liberty Offering. More Info.

SUPPORT LIBERTYYour donation will help us in ourpursuit to maintain the religiousfreedoms we enjoy.

ARCHIVESView andsearchpreviousissues ofLiberty



















S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7

BY: ALBERT J. MENENDEZ

We are now approaching the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Pennsylvania legislature's decision to lift a 140-year-old ban on Sundaysports. This finally happened in April 1933 with Sunday baseball games scheduled for 1934 in the Commonwealth. They cleared theway for all major league baseball teams to play some games on Sunday.

The struggle for Sunday baseball coincided with an intense debate over the role of religion in public life, beginning in the 1870s andcontinuing well into the twentieth century. Religious libertarians, who wanted a minimum of government involvement with religion andwho welcomed the growing religious pluralism, battled Sabbatarians, who wanted to declare Christianity the legally established andpreferred religion and who supported various strictures on activities deemed disrespectful to the Sabbath (the Sunday Sabbath, that is).The Sabbatarians, who were mostly evangelicals, were distinctly unfriendly toward the increasing numbers of Catholic, Jewish, andEastern Orthodox immigrants, whom they saw as rivals to be subdued and marginalized.

Commercial and entertainment ventures, rooted in free market economics, had no particular brief for either religious viewpoint, butwanted to expand their enterprises. Changing attitudes toward Sunday were evolving rapidly, and the more fluid societies of the Westand Midwest were open to redefining Sunday.

Baseball was, at the same time, becoming "America's National Pastime," with no serious rivals. (Football, basketball, hockey, and othergames had not developed any great national following, and did not, in fact, do so until after World War II.) Gradually, beginning with St.Louis, Sunday baseball became a reality in most cities, even though the early skirmishes resulted in arrests of ball players in Cincinnati,Indianapolis, and Columbus in 1884 for "desecration of the Sabbath." Future Hall of Famers, such as Cap Anson, Mike Kelly, and JesseBurkett, were arrested in the 1890s for playing Sunday baseball. As Charlie Bevis, the preeminent historian of Sunday baseball, noted,"Sabbatarian groups focused attention on the arrest of ball players to make their point."1

Courts and juries refused to convict, and legislative bodies moved toward acceptance. Still, some owners were arrested, andPennsylvania's attorney general initiated a lawsuit as late as 1926 against the Philadelphia Athletics for violating that state's Quaker-eraprohibition on Sunday sports.

By the 1920s the only big-league states to resist the trend were Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, home to five of baseball's 16 teams.(New York, which had three teams, passed a Sunday baseball law in 1919, signed by Gov. Alfred E. Smith.)

Liberty Magazine | The Battle for Sunday Baseball http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1154

1 of 3 9/7/2012 12:17 PM

Sabbatarians, led by the Lord's Day Alliance, still possessed considerable clout.They blocked Sunday baseball games played by servicemen in Philadelphia duringthe First World War.

Massachusetts was the next-to-last battleground. Its Republican-dominatedlegislature was so conservative on Sunday matters that it rejected a bill in 1922 toallow the playing of checkers and chess outdoors on Sunday.2 Public opiniondemanded change. Voters petitioned a referendum on the subject for the 1928general election. The legislature could not refuse, but it did try to "fix" the outcomeby requiring that 30 percent of the total ballots cast had to be recorded in favor ofallowing Sunday baseball. Since thousands of voters routinely skipped referendumquestions, even while casting votes for president and Congress, this raised thethreshold for approval. Opponents immediately sprang into action, led by the pastorof the Park Street Church in Boston, the largest evangelical church in New England.The opposition called itself the "SOS (Save Our Sunday) Committee," pledging

defeat for any public sports activity on Sunday. Public opinion clearly favored the change, however. A large turnout on election day, farexceeding anything in Massachusetts' history, was stimulated by the presidential candidacy of Gov. Al Smith of New York, theDemocratic nominee. While Smith lost in a national landslide to Herbert Hoover (largely due, historians say, to anti-Catholic religiousprejudice), Smith carried the Bay State. Many new Democrats were elected to the legislature, and the Sunday baseball reform passedby a vote of 803,281 to 467,550, or 63 percent to 37 percent. It more than exceeded the 30 percent of the total vote requirement.Boston, which was the main jurisdiction affected by the law, voted yes 76 percent to 24 percent. Most other cities were supportive. Onlythree rural counties— Franklin in western Massachusetts, Cape Cod (Barnstable County), and the island of Martha's Vineyard (DukesCounty)—rejected the change. Several rural communities and Boston suburbs were also opposed. Since it was a local option election,approval still had to come from the Boston City Council, which allowed Sunday games to start in 1929. Even then, a state law forbiddingSunday games within a thousand feet of a church forced the Boston Red Sox to play their Sunday games at Braves Field rather than atFenway Park from 1929 to 1932, when the law was amended.

Massachusetts became the thirty-second state to authorize Sunday baseball. Of the 16 states that refused to do so at that time, sevenwere southern (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia), three were in the border South(Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia), three were in northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont), and two were in the West(Iowa, South Dakota). None of these states hosted major league teams.

That left only conservative Pennsylvania, the nation's second-largest state and one noted for its legendary Republican political machine,out of sync with the rest of major league baseball. The Phillies, Athletics, and Pirates had been juggling their schedules for yearsbecause of Sunday prohibition, making their teams travel out of state on Sundays and placing them at a disadvantage with the other 13teams. Charlie Bevis describes how this worked: "The Athletics often made the train trip to Washington to play the Senators on Sunday,with occasional one-day forays to New York to play the Yankees. The Phillies played many weekends in New York, playing the Giants atthe Polo Grounds on one day and the Dodgers at Ebbets Field on the other day. The Pirates ventured from Pittsburgh frequently onone-day Sunday excursions to Cincinnati and Chicago."3

Attempts to change the Pennsylvania law in the legislature and the courts came to naught. The Keystone State's Republican Party,which had won every presidential election since 1860 (and would do so until 1936) and most state offices, was allied with the ProtestantEstablishment and conservative business and commercial interests. The state was known for one-party rule, even supporting PresidentHerbert Hoover against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, and the state's establishment loathed and feared change of any kind. An attemptto challenge the 1794 blue laws failed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1927. In Commonwealth v. American Baseball Club ofPhiladelphia, 290 Pa. 136, Atl.497, the court refused to budge and included language that still sends shivers down the spine ofAmericans who cherish religious liberty and governmental neutrality in religious matters: "Christianity is part of the common law ofPennsylvania and its people are Christian people. Sunday is the holy day among Christians."4

But economic, demographic, and cultural changes can cause even the most recalcitrant institutions to modify existing laws.Pennsylvanians were increasingly embarrassed by the enforcement of the law. "Because the 1794 Sunday law was still in effect inPennsylvania, Sunday baseball games remained prohibited in the state, and thus, the law forced the fifth game of the [1929] WorldSeries to be played one day later on Monday, October 14." 5 Polls showed overwhelming support for change among the state'selectorate. The legislature finally agreed in April 1933, and the state's "Progressive" Republican Governor Gifford Pinchot signed it intolaw on April 25. After voter approval, it would allow Sunday games in 1934. Philadelphia voters in 1933 gave a decisive 87 percentapproval. Pittsburghers were also supportive, but many rural voters preferred the old prohibition.

Pinchot, a Teddy Roosevelt-style Republican, frequently broke with his party's reactionary wing. Upon signing the bill, he said: "I amemphatically opposed to the commercialization of the Sabbath. But in a state which has Sunday trains, Sunday concerts, Sunday golf,


2 of 3 9/7/2012 12:17 PM

Sunday tennis, and a host of Sunday activities of many kinds, the possible additionof baseball and football between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., if the peopleof any locality vote for it, will not seriously change the present picture. For yearsanyone with money enough to play golf or tennis on Sunday morning or afternoonhas been free to do so—law or no law. This unjust discrimination in favor of the richand against the poor which has thus existed is one of my strongest reasons forsigning this bill."6

Sunday baseball is so common at present that most people probably have no ideahow difficult it was to bring it to fruition. A convergence of commercial, social,political, and religious changes was required to overcome objections that seemabsurd by today's standards. Another lesson of this little saga is that proponents ofchange cannot—and should not—rely solely on courts to bring about advances inliberty.

Albert J. Menendez is associate director of Americans for Religious Liberty, basedin Silver Spring, Maryland.

1 Charlie Bevis, Sunday Baseball: The Major Leagues' Struggle to Play Baseballon the Lord's Day, 1876-1934. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2003),p. 6.2 Bevis, ibid, p. 219.3 Bevis, ibid, p. 250.4 Bevis, ibid, p. 288. Full text in Bevis, pp. 285-291.5 Bevis, ibid, p. 246.6 Quoted in Bevis, p. 257. A thorough summary of this era can be found in John A.Lucas, "The Unholy Experiment: Professional Baseball's Struggle AgainstPennsylvania Sunday Blue Laws 1926-1934." Pennsylvania History, No. 38 (1971).For an overview of this issue, see David Laband and Deborah Hendry Heinbuch,Blue Laws: The History, Economics, and Politics of Sunday-Closing Laws(Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987).


3 of 3 9/7/2012 12:17 PM


BY: TODD R. MCFARLAND

Robert Lesure was good at his job, and that was about to cause him a problem. An assistant recreation supervisor for the city of Albany,Georgia, Parks and Recreation Department, he simply wanted to keep his Sabbath. However, standing up for his beliefs meant that bythe time his case was over he would be lied to, discover he was cheated out of pay, suspended, fired, and rehired with a promotion andpay raise. His case has become a textbook example of what can go wrong, and right, in a religious discrimination case.

It was January 2005 and the annual basketball Mite League for 7- and 8-year-olds was scheduled to start in a couple of weeks. Thisprogram had been started by Lesure's boss, but Robert had taken it over a few years back, improved on it, and now it was his. Mostbasketball leagues are competitive affairs with individuals signing up for teams and playing one another. However, Lesure, who has abachelor's degree in wellness, knew that 7- and 8-year-olds are not the most disciplined souls. Games often resemble a flock of geesefollowing their mother rather than any type of organized sport. To remedy this, Lesure changed the program and essentially ran drillswith the kids that he turned into games. They learned important basketball skills that would serve them well as they grew older.

The problem for Lesure in this was that the league was held Saturday mornings. This had not been a problem in the past, but Roberthad started studying his Bible again. As a result he determined to abstain from secular work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Lesure, though he had become a Sabbathkeeper years before, had drifted away from observing the Sabbath over the past severalyears. Ever since he worked for the city of Albany, he had worked, if required, on Sabbath. During the summer of 2004, though, Roberthad rearranged his schedule so that he no longer worked on Saturdays.Robert's immediate supervisor was not excited about Robert not being able to work on Saturday mornings anymore. When Robertasked him for a religious accommodation, he did more than just refuse; he made sure Lesure had to choose between his faith and hisjob. Originally Robert would have been required to work only the six Saturdays that the Mite League ran. Under the city's progressivediscipline problem, Lesure could have missed all of these Saturday mornings and not been fired. So Robert was given a "new"schedule. From then on he would be required to work every other Saturday morning. Further, the other worker at his facility who hadbeen working Saturday mornings was moved to a different, smaller facility.

As Robert began to accumulate absences, he continued to work toward a solution. He asked if there were any other jobs with the cityhe could transfer to; he was told there were none. He also asked if there were any workers who could swap with him and cover hisSaturday mornings. Since the Parks Department workers are spread out over several different facilities, he could not ask them himself.The city said they would ask, and then reported back to him that after checking with all the eligible workers, no one was willing to swapwith him.

As Robert got more absences he was suspended and warned not to miss more work. When he still refused to violate his conscience, hesoon found himself terminated. The city claimed it had done all that it could do. It needed to keep its facilities open on Saturdays andhad a limited number of workers with which to do that. Since no one was willing to work his shift, it had no choice but to fire him and

Liberty Magazine | The Real Deal http://libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1155

1 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

replace him with someone who could work on Saturdays.

Robert filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), claiming religious discrimination. However, hesoon discovered that when it comes to discrimination, religion is often the neglected category by the EEOC. After conducting its"investigation," the EEOC determined that it could not find cause that Lesure was discriminated against because of his religion. AsRobert would learn later, the EEOC came to the conclusion by accepting nearly everything the city said at face value and ignoring whathe said.

Religion cases are different than most other forms of discrimination. In cases of race, national origin, or gender discrimination, thequestion is whether the employer treated the employee differently because of his or her "protected class"; i.e., had the employer treatedthe woman or Black employee differently because of gender or race. Since employers would never admit that they fired the employeebecause of a protected category, the employee had to prove that he or she was not fired for whatever reason the employer gave, butbecause the employer had an animus against Black persons. This is called "pretext" in the world of employment lawyers; the statedreason for the termination was a pretext for the real reason, which is race.

In religious discrimination cases, pretext is rarely the issue. There is usually no question that the employee was fired because of his orher religion. The question is almost always whether or not the employer could have accommodated the employee's religious needswithout causing undue hardship.

What is and is not an undue hardship is a different article. But in a nutshellit is anything that is more than a minimal cost to the employer. What isimportant, though, is that to evaluate a religious accommodation case it iscrucial that the EEOC learn about the business practices of the employer.It is crucial to understand how the employer conducts its businessoperations so that the employer's claim of undue hardship can beevaluated.

Unfortunately for employees, this is a job at which the EEOC often failsspectacularly. Since religion makes up only a little more than 3 percent of the EEOC's caseload, an investigator can go a long timewithout handling one, if they ever do. In the absence of experience or training on handling religion cases, many times the investigatorwill treat the religion case like their other cases and focus on whether derogatory comments were made about the employee's religionand whether other employees were fired for similar offenses. Some investigators have gone so far as to say the EEOC cares only aboutrace and gender cases. In one case (not Lesure's) the letter to the employee stated that there was no evidence that religion was a factorin his termination despite the fact his refusal to work on Sabbath morning was the only reason he was terminated. The letter made noreference to undue hardship. There are of course exceptions to this. There are EEOC personnel who take religious discrimination casesseriously and do a good job investigating them. But nationwide, religion cases are often as mishandled as Robert's was.

For many victims of religious discrimination, a refusal by the EEOC to find that discrimination and represent the employee means theend of the case. Fortunately for Lesure, this was not the case. He made contact with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which providedrepresentation to him even though he was not a member. Counsel in Atlanta was retained for Lesure in the form of Jay Rollins and LarryKosten of Thompson, Rollins & Schwartz. A suit was filed in federal court, and the case started.

The first part of any lawsuit is when each side gets to find out what the other side knows. This is done via written questions,depositions, and requests for documents. It was at this point that Robert's case took a turn for the better. It is during this part of the suitthat Robert's lawyers were able to test all of the city's claims and investigate the case in a way the EEOC didn't.The first thing Lesure learned was that the city did not ask every employee if they would swap shifts with Robert. The two who weredeposed said they were not asked, and one said he would have swapped; the other said he would have thought about it and mighthave. It also turned out that several of the representations the city made to him and the EEOC with regard to staffing and whyindividuals were moved to different facilities were not accurate. He also learned that shortly after he was fired the city shut down itsgyms on Saturday for budget reasons. On top of this he also discovered that the city had not been paying him required overtime pay.

As the city's case began to crumble, to its credit, it became willing to face reality. Without compromising the city's legal position, counselrepresenting the city expressed a willingness to settle the case. However, budgets being what they were, it did not have a lot of moneyfor Lesure, but it did have a job for him. The city was getting ready to open up a new facility that had an opening for someone with adegree in wellness.

The city proposed giving Robert a new job, at a substantially higher salary that would better use his education, skills, and more closelymatch his interests, but giving him less cash as part of his settlement. While Robert was not excited about getting less cash in hand thanhe was entitled to, he knew that with the higher paying job he would be economically ahead in a few short years. Further, the new jobwas doing something that he loved to do. With the supervisor and other personnel who had caused him problems gone, Robert


2 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

accepted the city's proposal.

Cases do not always work out this well for both sides. Few employers are willing to even tacitly admit they did anything wrong byrehiring the employee. (In this case the city of Albany did not admit to any wrongdoing in settling the case.) Further, employees can bereluctant to go back to work for an employer they feel mistreated them. But when both sides are willing to compromise and find asolution that meets everyone's needs, as opposed to wants, many times a deal can be struck.

As Robert's case demonstrates, to get to that point requires a significant amount of work and resources. Given the current state of thelaw, religious discrimination cases are difficult to win, and many times employers have few incentives to come to the table. This issomething that needs to be changed. In a country that likes to talk about religious freedom, we need more respect for religion in theworkplace. Measures such as the Workplace Religious Freedom Act now pending in Congress are a good place to start. Anotherneeded reform is improvement in the way the EEOC, the agency charged with enforcing these laws, handles these cases. It is time theUnited States quits giving lip service to the principle of religious freedom and starts doing something real about it.

Todd R. McFarland is associate general counsel for the Seventh-day Advenstis Church. He writes from Silver Spring, Maryland


3 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM


BY: DR. RICHARD LAND

For the past few years I have been writing a book entitled The Divided States of America? What Liberals AND Conservatives AreMissing in the God-and-Country Shouting Match! The book, published this past April, is the product of almost a half century ofreflection and study about an issue that matters deeply to me as an American committed to the Baptist faith tradition.

I might describe my book as an equal opportunity offender. It has two whole chapters explaining how both liberals and conservativeshave taken a wrong fork in the road when it comes to the role of religious faith in America. I outline how both "factions" should, andshould not, act in this ongoing American story. The shorthand version of those two chapters is that conservatives much too oftenassume that God is on their, or America's, side and that liberals much too often assume that God doesn't have a side in the perplexingissues that face us as a country—vital issues such as the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death and at all pointswithin those parameters.

One of the more enjoyable experiences one garners from writing a book is getting feedback. Many people paid me the great complimentof not only taking their valuable time to read the book, but taking the time to give me a detailed response. I appreciated this indicationthat they gave my ideas serious attention. By far the most personally satisfying response has been of this type: "You have articulatedwhat I have believed for years, but had never read as a developed model before."

While the critiques of both liberals and conservatives have generated considerable interest, most responses have come in two areas:the book's model of religious "accommodation" and the book's definition and development of American "exceptionalism."

In The Divided States of America?I construct a model, or paradigm, of the role of religious faith in society. Around our world in the earlytwenty-first century, societies are basically seeking to implement one of three models of how religion relates to government and society.

The first model, "theocratic acknowledgment," would have the government officially favoring or sponsoring a majority faith, and oftenseeking to coercively enforce at least outward observance of that faith. Perhaps the highest profile proponent of this model in the worldis Iran where, among other things, the government coercively enforces the wearing of Muslim head coverings for women.

A second model, "supreme secularism," insists that the ultimate value of the state is secularism, and all religious faith and observancemust acquiesce to a state-enforced secular sanitization of the public square and public places. A high-profile proponent of this model is

Liberty Magazine | Toward a Paradigm of Religious Faith in Society http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1156

1 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

modern-day France, where Muslim girls were given the stark state-coerced choice of abandoning their faith-mandated head coveringsor forgoing the right to attend public school.

A third model, "principled pluralism," argues that the government should neither coerce, sponsor, nor suppress religious faith, butinstead should "maximally accommodate" the right of all its citizens to express their varying faiths or lack of faith according to thedictates of their own consciences. In this model, everyone's faith perspectives are welcomed in the public square, with the governmentshowing no favoritism. Instead, government plays the role of judicial umpire, guaranteeing everyone's right to expression—minority, aswell as majority religions; and to both faith-affirmers and faith-deniers.

I believe the model that most fulfillsthe aspirations of the foundingfathers and the protections of theConstitution's First Amendment freeexercise guarantee is "principledpluralism." I also believe that this iswhat a significant majority of

Americans will choose as their preferred model when presented with these three options. A majority of Americans do not wantgovernment-sponsored or government-established religions. Most Americans of religious faith understand that government-sponsoredreligion is like being hugged by a python—it squeezes all the life and vitality out of religion.

Most Americans do not want "supreme secularization," and its censorship and suppression of religious faith. "Principled pluralism"shows respect for all faiths and holds that no human authority should coercively interfere with a fellow human being's relationship toGod. Such a stance is most in accord with our founding ideals and aspirations. When offered this model, a substantial majority ofAmericans stand ready to embrace it.

I like what Senator Joseph Lieberman noted in the foreword to The Divided States of America? "The United States is a faith-basedinstitution. You see it right at the beginning in the first American document, the Declaration of Independence, where our Founders saidthey were forming their new government to 'secure' the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which were (and are) the'endowment' of our 'Creator.'"

Senator Lieberman goes on to conclude that in a nation as religious as America, where nearly two out of three Americans say religion is"very important" in their lives, the attempt to "separate America and its people from their faith in God and the values it engenders" is both"an unnatural and unnecessary act."

American "Exceptionalism"The second subject of The Divided States of America? that has drawn the most impassioned and sustained response from readers ismy firm belief that America does have a special role to play in the world as the proponent and defender of freedom and human rights.

My formulation of this American "exceptionalism" is both shared by millions of Americans—and often misunderstood by liberals andconservatives alike. I well remember being with Jim Wallis on a panel discussion at Chautauqua in 2005. Jim was asked by someone inthe audience to outline the points on which he and I agree and disagree. Jim explained that we both believe that religious faith has avital, indeed an invaluable, role to play in American society—as opposed to the secularists who disagree vehemently with both of us onthat score. We have substantial disagreement, he allowed, about how religious faith should be "played out in American society and alsoin foreign policy" (Divided States , p. 30).

Jim went on to say that he does not believe in American "exceptionalism," which he then defined as an American-imposed hegemonyand empire. I responded that while I do believe in American "exceptionalism," I did not recognize what I believed from Jim's description.

American "exceptionalism," as I and millions of other Americans understand it, is not a doctrine of pride, privilege, and prejudice, whichallows America to be judged internationally by a lower standard than other nations. Instead, it is a "doctrine of obligation, responsibility,sacrifice, and service in the cause of freedom" (Divided States, p. 31).

Jim Wallis then asked me for my scriptural justification for such a belief. I cited Luke 12:48: "From everyone who has been given much,much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more" (NASB)*—to whom much is given, much isrequired.

America as a nation, and the American people as a people, have been wonderfully blessed with an abundance of natural resources aswell as a remarkable heritage of freedom, the rule of law, and "government of the people, by the people, for the people."


2 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

There was either a fortuitous or a providential set of circumstances in the development and rise of America. I, of course, believe therewas more providence than mere good fortune involved in the bountiful blessings experienced by America. Blessings, by definition, areundeserved and unmerited—that is why they are called "blessings." Such undeserved and unearned favor invokes obligation.

Most people of a more liberal persuasion find such beliefs anathema and reject any claim of America being "exceptional"—in blessingsor anything else. Unfortunately, far too many conservatives assume that such blessings mean that America is God's new "chosennation."

I summarized my argument for American "exceptionalism" as follows: "What liberals and conservatives are both missing is that Americahas been blessed by God in unique ways—we are not just another country. But neither are we God's special people. I do not believethat America is God's chosen nation . . . we are not the new Israel. We do not have 'God on our side.' We are not God's gift to the world.

"America does not have a special claim on God. Millions of Americans do, however, believe God has a special claim on them—and theircountry" (Divided States, p. 192).

This means that having been undeservedly given so much, we have an obligation and a responsibility to be the proponent and friend offreedom for all people. We have no right to impose freedom on others, but we do have an obligation to help those who desire it toachieve it whenever possible.

We are not just a country with interests—we are also a cause, and that cause is to be FREEDOM.

Dr. Richard Land has served as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission since1988. He writes from Franklin, Tennessee.

*Scripture quotations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright


3 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM


BY: LINCOLN E. STEED

The election of 2008 promises to be a historic one for a number of reasons. The campaign itself has set a record of sorts by starting soearly. The candidates have generally raised historically high amounts of money for their war chests—and they are already spending likethere is no tomorrow. Since there is no incumbent or vice president running to succeed him, each person in the field of candidates isable to add their voice more clearly to the public debate. And almost uniformly religion is a top topic of discussion—unlike the past twoelections, when most all the Democrats chose to remain silent on the faith issues. No more, that's for certain.

Some journalistic wag has coined a term for the phenomenon of religion in this developing presidential face-off. It's called "God-talk."And there is lots of it. The candidates have, as they used to say, "gotten religion."

President George Bush seems to have started something back in the 2000 election when he nominated Jesus as his most influentialfigure, "Because He changed my heart." With it he staked out the role of political stand-in for the nation's religious conservatives. PewResearch Institute surveys show that he has largely retained their support. This in spite of some evidence that while his administrationthrows red meat to conservatives on many an occasion, it has denied them the full game and, according to White House insider DavidKuo, laughed at them behind closed doors. In many ways this administration has been able to get credit for both talking the talk andwalking the walk—even as we heard the harsh words on open mikes and saw the double standard on things like gay lifestyles.

Perhaps because of this, the electorate seems to be wanting something more spiritual this time around. Senator Clinton is about theonly candidate willing to say that her religion is a private thing and that she was brought up to keep discussion of it out of the public eye.Of course she still feels obligated to give a very comprehensive history of her faith and the mentors who led her to Christ.

There are dangers in this new approach to presidential faith, however. For Hillary, it means the risk that she is perceived as inventing afaith narrative because it is required—indeed this is the danger for all Democrats. For Barack Obama the risk is that his deep faith willoffend both camps of voters: "to the left are liberals uneasy with religious intrusions into politics; to the right, conservatives who havequestioned his Christianity and denounced his ties to [an] Afro centric church." Christian Science Monitor.com.

So entrenched is this new assumption of Christian orthodoxy as a qualification for top office, that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has had tofend off charges that his is not a Christian religion at all. Now if we dedicated this page to an internal debate on Christian orthodoxy,Mormonism might indeed fare badly—as might other "offshoot" or "new" faiths. Catholicism could cast itself as the "true" church, asseveral recent Vatican documents have done. And those Protestants who still remember the meaning of that term and the grounds oftheir faith, might point to some issues with Rome's claim. But we cannot bring this into the secular state. It was well considered when the

Liberty Magazine | Faith Talk http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1157

1 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

framers of the Constitution specified that therebe "no religious test for public office."

Polls taken by Time magazine and reported inthe July 23 issue show the voters' bias towardreligion. Their survey shows that despite anexpected apprehension about Islam in an eraof Islamic fundamentalist violence, an Islamiccandidate would have less negatives than anatheist one! (To the question of whether thecandidate's faith or atheism "makes me lesssupportive" the results were: FundamentalistChristian 29 percent, Mormon 30 percent,Muslim 46 percent, and Atheist 59 percent!!)Sounds like the public is making its ownreligious test here. That is troubling for ahealthy separation of church and state. Itprobably reflects public adoption of the

conservative mantra for the past several years, to the effect that if you do not agree with their moral agenda, you are not a Christian or agood American, and are thereby essentially aiding the terrorists. The lower negative for Islam than Atheism, while containing the seedsof a gratifying American tolerance, may also signal the curious envy of Islamic fundamentalism in right-wing American circles that authorDinesh D'Souza tries to analyze in his recent book. Whatever the dynamic proves to be, we are left with Religion Rampant for 08.

Even as I write this editorial my desk is flowing over with the latest periodicals and their front-page stories on the faith factor forcandidates. My initial reaction is to smile. Politics have their utility of course, but the necessary hurly-burly of campaigning andgoverning always strikes me as somewhat antithetical to the life of the spirit. And the sight of candidates performing stations of the crossto get elected is as absurd as Miss Universe contestants breathlessly explaining how they want to work toward world peace anderadicating hunger. Our expectations must necessarily be low for substance in such a context. Maybe that's why the organizers, optingto keep the question, have seen fit to reinsert the swimsuit segment. That's not likely any time soon in the political arena. The emperormust keep his clothes on, and this time around they are woven of the stuff that only a child might question.

It is worth remembering that true faith is something we all need and, if honest, we must respect. That is why such a danger exists here.We know that true faith is such a rarity that Jesus could even wonder aloud if any would exist when He returns. Ironically faith withoutsubstance is a dead weight to a civil society. It leads to mass cynicism. To national self-righteousness. To the union of church and stateand support of someone else's view of how to keep us all on their religious wavelength.

Of all the candidates' comments on religion, I like best what Governor Mike Huckabee is saying. At a June 6, 2007, Pew Forum event inWashington, D.C., the ex governor of Arkansas said, "I would consider it an extraordinary shallow faith that does not impact the way wethink about other human beings and the way we respond to them." So, obviously, the faith, not the profession of a candidate matters.But put this way, as voters of a wide range of beliefs and non-beliefs should see it, what the governor is really underscoring as thenecessary component of a faith profession is character.

A little later in that same Pew event, when asked his thoughts on the First Amendment, Mike Huckabee said " We make it reallycomplicated, but it's pretty simple. Congress should make no law that prohibits or prefers one religion or another. . . To me that's reallysimple. It's not about people of faith being unable to participate in government; it's that government can't dictate to those who have faithsas to what they do and what they believe, as long as it does not infringe or endanger someone."

Quite well put, Governor, even if a little muted on the establishment effect of government spending for religion. But that is best saved fora later day—a day we discuss faith-based initiatives and the Supreme Court, perhaps. For now, we'll follow the yellow brick road, listento tin men and lions, and try to keep clear on such terms as faith, religion, and character.

Lincoln E. Steed


2 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

Editor,

Liberty Magazine


3 of 3 9/7/2012 12:18 PM


BY: G. EDWARD REID, ESQ.

Richard Land's The Divided States of America? (published in Nashville, Tennessee, by Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007) has as its subtitle:What Liberals AND Conservatives Are Missing in the God-and-Country Shouting Match! It is a thought-provoking book that analyzesboth groups of shouters. Albeit he does seem to come down a little harder on the secular fundamentalists, as he calls them, than the

religious fundamentalists.).

Dr. Land has been president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and ReligiousLiberty Commission for some time. His education is Ivy League, with a bachelor's degree fromPrinceton and a doctorate from Oxford. Accordingly, he has written his book fromconsiderable personal knowledge of the current American scene and from the perspective ofhaving read or scanned many works on American history—from the civil as well as thereligious perspective.

Land states: "This is a clear picture of the religious divide in this country: on the one side,those who are committed to a transcendent moral authority; on the other, those whose moralauthority is defined by rationalism and subjectivism" (p. 10).

Several places in his book Land speaks about the special blessing of God on America. Thismakes America an exceptional nation. "American exceptionalism," he writes, "is not based onethnicity, race, or religion. It is a doctrine of obligation, responsibility, sacrifice, and service" (p.31).

Dr. Land posits: "While it is true that America was not founded as a Christian nation, it was certainly founded by people who wereoperating out of a Judeo-Christian worldview, and the American government put in place by the Constitution was an attempt to wedJudeo-Christian values with Enlightenment ideas of self-government" (p. 32).

The book states very clearly that the institutions of the state and the church should be kept separate and that neither should try tocontrol the other. However, he takes the position that the "morals" of the majority should find their place in legislation. For example,"People aren't forced to read 'In God We Trust' on their currency to get paid or spend their money. If the majority of the American peopledecide they don't want that phrase on their currency anymore, or if the majority decide that they want to take 'under God' out of thepledge, all they have to do is pass legislation to repeal it" (p. 131).

Several places in the book Dr. Land mentions that a significant majority of Americans say religion is a very important part of their lives.He notes that the prevalence of religious belief seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. "God matters to the vast majority ofAmericans" (p. 34). With this statement in mind, it is very significant how he views the role of this majority. To Land, while the religion of

Liberty Magazine | The Divided States of America? http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1159

1 of 2 9/7/2012 12:19 PM

an individual should not enter into the civil area, the moral values that are based on a person's religion should be expressed there. "Inthe United States, 84 percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives. If we say that religiously informed moralvalues should not be part of the equation, then we are condemning ourselves to decisions made by a minority of the population forwhom religion is not important" (p. 174A Slippery SlopeIn an inconsistent flavor to the rest of the book, Land states that America is a democracy and should establish moral values consistentwith the majority of its citizens (p. 149). In discussing the civil rights movement Dr. Land states: "But this [America] is a democracy, sothe white supremacists had the right and the opportunity to make their argument. We didn't deny them their First Amendment right tofreedom of speech and freedom of expression. They simply lost the argument. They were outvoted. A majority of the American peoplesaid, 'You're wrong'" (p. 174).The author goes on to say, "Some renegade Mormons may advocate polygamy, but they arenot allowed legally to practice it – unless they can convince a majority of Americans they'reright, in which case the laws would then be changed" (p. 175).

Dr. Land uses this concept of legislating the moral values of the majority (p. 141) in severalmore places. For example, "To those who are advocating homosexual marriage, I say, if youthink there ought to be same-sex marriage in the United States, then go out and convince amajority of the American people that is what should be done" (p. 160). "The winning team isthe one that can put the most able-bodied players on the field with the best game plan forvictory. Moral values can carry an election because they are important to the majority of theAmerican people" (p. 162).

Dr. Land concludes, "When religion makes a difference in people's lives, they have a right tobring their religious convictions to bear on public policy. This is called 'the democraticprocess.' And when they convince a majority of Americans they are right, they have a right toa government that reflects those moral values" (p. 178).

The author cites several more similar examples; each time advocating the right of the majorityto make the laws that affect everyone. The concern I have for this position is that, thank God,America is not a democracy. If it were, the rights of the minority to their own religious moralvalues would not be honored and could, in fact, be legislated against! The fact is, America isa constitutional republic. Its citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by therule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy, thereby protecting dissentingindividuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. Thepower of the majority of the people is checked in electing representatives who govern within the limits of overarching constitutional law,rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself.

I would recommend the book to those who are interested in religious liberty—with the caveat to watch out for the slippery slope ofmajority rule—even if it is motivated by moral values.

G. Edward Reid, Esq., writes from Highland, Maryland.

Liberty Magazine | The Divided States of America? http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1159

2 of 2 9/7/2012 12:19 PM


BY: GREGORY W. HAMILTON

The constitutional system of the United States of America remains the envy of much of the outside world, despite the growing unrest ofour European allies toward our country's administration, and the continual provocation against it by terrorists and a few hostile Arabnations.

The greatest threat to our constitutional system comes from within. Most particularly from those who seek to reinterpret our nation'sconstitutional history in a way that suits their own desire for raw political power.

This "revolutionary" threat is led by religiously motivated revisionists who seek to recast our collective history as one that favors theirviewpoint. Since the late 1980s, beginning with the widely seen video productions by David Barton of WallBuilders, and advocated byfigures with populist credibility—such as Newt Gingrich, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Judge Roy Moore, and Attorney Jay Sekulow—anenormous amount of money, time, and energy has gone into blurring our national history to create the myth of an evangelical Christianfoundation.

Liberty Magazine | Religious Pluralism and America's Christian Nation D... http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1158

1 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

The first casualty in this struggle to create a history that supports a contemporary march toward power is the demolition of the distinctionbetween the Puritan and Constitutional founding periods. This has caused many unwary American citizens to believe that the UnitedStates government was specifically intended by our nation's Founders to be constituted on the basis of a narrow form of Christianity andliteral scriptural commands.

Rather than an honest evaluation of the past, a mythical history has been developed—one that provides an incomplete and inaccuratehistory to support populist viewpoints. The revisionists have benefited from substandard public education in history and have usedpopular ignorance of key historical facts to reinterpret the Constitution, and to establish the Christian Constitution and Christian Statethey have always cherished. Rather than rewriting the Constitution, they simply say it means something else.

These radical revisionists have even misapplied Francis Schaeffer's idea of A Christian Manifesto. They contemplate a failure ofwinning by persuasion and recognize the possibility of the government forcing secular humanism against the Christian community'scollective will. The revisionists have even contemplated what it would be like for "We the People" to abolish the Constitutionaltogether—a point emphasized in a special November 1996 edition of Richard John Neuhaus's First Things journal.

One of the means employed has been the proposal of so-called Constitution Reform Acts at the state level, including a Pledge ofAllegiance Act at the federal level. It is an idea promoted by Newt Gingrich, who is fed up with the amendment process as outlined inArticle V of the Constitution.1 These acts are specifically worded in a way that would bar state courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, fromever hearing cases involving acts of religious expression in the public square that are sponsored by the government. They would givestate legislative bodies and the U.S. Congress a blank check to pass whatever the popular will of the people wanted. This in turn wouldeffectively limit courts from interpreting the Constitution over an entire realm of jurisprudence—namely church-state and religious libertycase law. 2

According to Jack Rakove, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution ,such a move would strike at the very heart of Jefferson's and Madison's principled support for disestablishment and free exercise law: ".. . the radical conviction that nearly the entire sphere of religious practice could be safely deregulated, placed beyond the cognizance ofthe state, and thus defused as both a source of political strife and a danger to individual rights. By treating religion as a matter of opiniononly, Jefferson and Madison identified the one area of governance in which the realm of private rights could be enlarged by a flatconstitutional denial of legislative jurisdiction, thereby converting the general premise that all government rested on a delegation ofauthority from the people into a specific refusal to permit government to act over an entire area of behavior."3

Efforts to eliminate judicial review oversight by legislative fiat would, if successful, radically affect our country's constitutional separationof powers, separate individuals from the protection of the Bill of Rights, and effectively eliminate the constitutional separation of churchand state. Arguably, with church and state bound together, radical historical revisionists would achieve their objective of full power overall branches of government, and indeed, of all faith.

The Christian Nation DebateAccording to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 71 percent of Americans consider the UnitedStates a "Christian nation."4

Other polls show that secularism and atheism are on the decline while 82 percent of Americans claim to be Christian. The fact isAmerica is a nation with a large Christian majority, but it is a nation of many faith groups and religions. America is predominantlyChristian in terms of its population: 251 million Americans, out of a total population of slightly over 300 million, profess to be Christian.That's roughly 82-83 percent of America's population, with each categorized at varying devotional levels.5

Of this 82 percent cited, roughly 25 percent are conservative evangelical Catholics and 29 percent are evangelical Protestants. Thismeans that 54 percent are conservative evangelical Christians, leaving approximately 28 percent in the mainline liberal Protestantchurches.6 All other people of faith make up 9 percent (i.e., Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.). The remaining 8-9 percent range fromsecularists with no particular antagonism to institutional forms of religion, to atheists, who make up less than 2 percent of the Americanpopulation.7

From this, one could reasonably conclude that demographically and culturally, America remains a predominantly Christian nation in themidst of a competitive and diverse religious landscape. Spiritually, however, Americans don't view America as a Christian nationbecause of any real knowledgeable or passionate creedal commitment to Christianity. Instead, as Hugh Heclo of George MasonUniversity argues, "A noncreedal Christianity fits very well with the larger American culture that endorses individual choice, tolerance ofdifferent truths, and distrust of anyone's party line about what morality ought to be."8

More and more, Christians are developing a social faith that passionately merges into shared cultural, moral, social, and political values,regardless of doctrinal differences. An indication of this middle ground is seen in the growing segment of younger evangelicals who arebecoming concerned about global warming, AIDS relief, and economic relief for the poor and unfortunate, instead of the typicalconservative hot button issues.9


2 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

But this does not diminish today's cultural divide, where, as Christopher Clausen reminds us, pitched struggles over the proper place ofreligion in the public square "spill rivers of ink and spawn endless litigation." The issues are things like the celebration of Christmas inpublic venues, God in the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in public schools, the legality and propriety of same-sex marriage, courthousedisplays of the Ten Commandments, the notion of Intelligent Design, abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. EvangelicalChristians unite on these issues in a similar way.

Whether one is a liberal, conservative, or in-between, as Clausen argues, "War between the faiths, as well as between faith andgovernment, is raging again throughout most of the world, and America is part of the picture."10 Secular liberals, often professedChristians, continually seek to deface religion in the public square, making it void of religious expression. On the other side of the divide,many evangelical Christians have been vigorously trying—through legislation—to constitutionalize (or enforce by law) the dominance ofChristianity and Christian expression in the public square. As Clausen puts it, "The Left fears that fundamentalists have subverted theConstitution to establish a theocracy, while the Right complains of galloping secularism."11

The Constitutional and Legal Question

So let's ask the logical question. Is America a Christian nation from a constitutional and legal standpoint? When reading the Constitutionon a line-by-line basis, does it make biblical demands on us as citizens, or propose to organize our federal governmental system on thebasis of biblically defined principles? Did America's Constitutional Framers intend the Constitution to make Christianity the dominatingreligion or law of the land?

Perhaps the closest our country came to becoming a Christian nation was when Alexander Hamilton proposed the creation of a"Christian Constitutional Society." While Hamilton's proposal was contained in an obscure letter to Congressman James Bayard ofDelaware, and never saw the light of day, it represented a systematic plan for ensuring the election of "fit [Christian] men," and thusensuring the transformation of the American political system into a Christian consensus, affecting generations of legislation with aChristian intent. Hamilton's proposal was, in some distinct ways, a precursor to the once vaunted Moral Majority and the ChristianCoalition in our day—voting guides and all!12

Despite the narrow vision of Hamilton, we are fortunate that most of our nation's Founders realized that a greater influx of immigrantswould bring a corresponding increase in religious pluralism. Many faith groups had escaped from the troubled European Continent,where religious wars and persecutions were a frequent and well-known condition of those times. For the Founders to anticipate anincreasing flood of new immigrants required establishing the new and fledgling Republic on a secure basis—on the basis of civil andreligious freedom. To do this they would have to at once calculate, acknowledge, enunciate, and apply the radical principle of theseparation between church and state in the new Constitution by preventing the establishment of a national church. It would also meanensuring that the federal government was not involved in financially supporting, officially endorsing, or sponsoring any particularreligious activity—particularly denominational acts of worship or spiritual devotion.


3 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

Constitutionally speaking, then, the United States remains a secular nation with secular laws that are neutral toward religion, religiousindividuals, and religious entities, where no religious belief system, tenet, or church is established through legal enforcement. IfAmericawere a Christian nation by law, and Christianity were to dominate and suppress any other faith expression, and this wasspecifically spelled out as such in our Constitution, then our government would be no different than some Muslim countries whoseconstitutions are based on Sharia law and Hadith writings—laws derived, interpreted, and applied from the Koran, the sacred Scripturesof Islam. The only difference, of course, would be that our laws and the enforcement of our laws would derive authority, interpretation,and application from the Holy Bible, the sacred Scriptures of Christianity. Given the ardor of power-seeking Christians today who leavelittle room for plurality or dissent, the practical application of those laws would surely shock many.

If America were a Christian nation on a legal and constitutional basis, religious freedom in this country would be virtually nonexistent.The nation might be tolerant of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Spiritists, and even some Christian minorities (i.e., Mormons, Jehovah'sWitnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists, all American-born religions), but religious groups that did not comply with fixed legal objectiveswould be at a distinct disadvantage.

This is why, in our country's historical formation, Christian men such as John Leland, an itinerant, hell-fire preaching colonial Baptistfrom Virginia, was motivated to write that "the notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever." He argued that"government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contendfor is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a preeminence above the rest to grantindulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."13 In these words Reverend Leland echoed thethoughts and words of many other Christians of his day. Indeed, no reasonable historian could accuse Reverend Leland of being amodern secular humanist.

From this, a true American imperative emerges: the principled need for religious freedom in a diverse land of many people of varyingfaiths and faith experiences. John Tyler is one of the least remembered presidents in the history of the United States. Yet on July 10,1843, he penned one of the most eloquent letters ever written applauding the American constitutional experiment in religious freedom.He wrote:"The United States has adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of allprevious precedent—that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience isleft free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are openalike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infalliblecreed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the Constitution to worshipaccording to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcatedby our political institutions. . . The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none tomake him afraid. . . and the Aegis of the government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we havetried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it."14

As Tyler so eloquently points out, religious and political pluralism—not a Christian nation—was the principled foundation that waschosen by America's Constitutional Founders, that religious and political freedom could truly be lasting.

Revisiting the Virginia Statute of Religious FreedomPerhaps the most convincing proof that America's Constitutional Fathers did not intend to establish a Christian Commonwealth comesfrom the words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Shortly before his death, James Madison addressed the threat of a Commonwealth in his day. In a September 1832 letter to theReverend Jasper Adams, responding to a sermon pamphlet that Adams had circulated to key individuals, including Supreme CourtJustice Joseph Story, Madison objected to the central argument in Adams' sermon. This was the idea that since the Christian religionwas a cultural and moral force pervading the entire nation, it deserved to be financially supported by the government through generaltaxation. This, Adams argued, would solve many of the nation's moral ills.

But for Madison, Adams' argument was more than just a suggestion to subsidize Christian churches; it was an attempt to favorChristianity in an official and thus constitutional manner. This ran contrary to his original understanding, particularly when theestablishment clause was largely drafted on the fresh experiences of defeating Patrick Henry's funding bill—a bill that would haveestablished "A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion"—with Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,"which in 1777 became Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom and allowed for no such funding or favoritism.

In response to Adams, Madison wrote: "The simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best and purest religion, the


4 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

Christian Religion itself, ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather thanbe left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it." Madison's rhetorical question had a quick and decisive answer: "On thisquestion, experience will be an admitted umpire. . . . In the papal system, Government & Religion are in a manner consolidated; & that isfound to be the worst of Governments." Madison argued that this was because history had proven that such a system had neither beenfavorable "to Religion or to government."15

Thomas Jefferson did a little reflecting of his own regarding the legislative battle over his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Mr.Jefferson, then retired at Monticello, noted in his autobiography Writings that even though "a majority of the legislature were churchmen. . . a great majority" rejected an amendment put forward by those who insisted on declaring in the preamble that coercion was "adeparture from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy Author of our religion."16

While Jefferson had no personal problem with the theological correctness of such a statement, he had a problem with Virginia declaringthat it was a Christian state, when in fact it was more than a state that merely tolerated other religions, but instead gave them equalstatus with Christians of every creed and stripe. He observed that "the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that theymeant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu, andinfidel of every denomination." 17 In other words, all people of faith, including those who chose to refrain from faith altogether, were to betreated equally.

Dr. Derek Davis, dean of the College of Humanities and dean of the Graduate School at Mary Hardin-Baylor University, comments that"Jefferson wrote this at a time when America was even more culturally Christian than it is today." But, he argues, "this never meant thatVirginia, let alone America, was to be Christian in a constitutional sense. The Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention of 1787in Philadelphia could have easily included language in the Constitution declaring the nation to be 'Christian' had they wanted to. In fact,many citizens argued for this kind of expressly 'Christian' language at the state ratifying conventions after the document was presentedto the states for approval. But the Founders weathered these proposals, choosing to remain true to their conviction that the nation wouldembrace a principle of religious pluralism whereby all citizens' beliefs would be legally protected with none favored."18

The Religion Clauses—Between Puritanism and GodlessnessAfter realizing the need to add a Bill of Rights to solidify their constitutional experiment, America's Founders sought to uphold both theestablishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to a high constitutional standard against very real and powerful forces.Using this standard, the Founders meant to do more than just prevent the establishment of a national religion. They intended theseclauses to be a powerful inspirational model to state governments: to disestablish their state-supported churches and to be neutraltoward religion and people of faith, so that religion could thrive more than ever—with political freedom enriched in turn. Disestablish theydid, with Massachusetts becoming the last of the original 13 states to disestablish its state-supported church. In time, the U.S. SupremeCourt, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) concluded that government neutrality meant that religion and religious institutions mustbe allowed to thrive freely, but without its official endorsement.19

The First Amendment, in part, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof." But today, many evangelical Christians seek to reinterpret the no establishment provision separating church and statein ways that would require government to financially support their institutions and enforce their religious dogmas in the public square soas to solve the moral ills of the nation. They seek to restore America to a time—a preconstitutional period—in which government directlysup-ported the church, and thus by default established it. In this case, instead of establishing a particular Christian faith or creed ordenomination, it seeks to establish Christianity and its values as a whole, constitutionally and legally.

With balance and reason, such a movement must be resisted if our beloved country is going to survive the cultural civil war within itsmidst. This is because there are others, mostly on the Left, who seek to marginalize the free exercise of religion in favor of placing ahigher level of protection on lifestyles that are not viewed favorably by a society that is predominantly made up of moral and socialtraditionalists (i.e., evangelical Christians). This is particularly so when it is perceived that any proposed religious freedom legislationcompetes with same-sex rights.20

The good news is that the nation's Founders anticipated this tension, creating an internal check and balance within the very wording ofthe First Amendment in order to prevent America from being overrun by either extreme in the great church-state debate (a puritanical vs.godless nation). Remove this balancing safeguard and I believe America's constitutional guarantees will be lost, and with it its civil andreligious freedoms.

The United States is a culturally and spiritually diverse nation—perhaps the most religiously diverse nation in the world. It seems hardfor any of us in the United States to imagine that a persecuting church-driven state could ever raise its ugly head again.


5 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

Yet it was Jefferson, who, shortly after America's Revolution, warned that America's constitutional experiment in freedom and republicanforms of government could either "revive or expire in a convulsion" depending on how long the memories of the people were inremembering and cherishing the bold experiment the Founders were bequeathing to them and to us.21

Certainly it can be said that how a nation interprets its own historical development—or tells its national story in the minds and hearts ofits people—will determine its ultimate success or failure. This is how nations are sustained and how revolutions emerge.

National and international circumstances can change quickly. The history of peoples and nations has demonstrated this. That is why theresponsibility to uphold religious freedom in America, and to value religious pluralism, is vitally important in this era of worldwidereligious and political instability.The United States was founded with the intent of serving as a beacon of freedom for all peoples, languages, and tongues, regardless ofreligious persuasion.

From a demographic and cultural assessment, America remains a predominantly Christian nation. But from the historical development ofour country it is clear that the Constitutional Framers (as opposed to the Puritan Founders) resisted the temptation to establish aChristian nation when drafting the Constitution. With increasing immigration to the New World, they were realistic and wanted more.

Working from a constitutional and legal standpoint, the Framers had the wisdom to adopt secular laws with the express intent ofensuring that all faith traditions would be welcomed and protected. Religious and political pluralism—not a Christian nation—was theprincipled foundation that was chosen by America's Founders to perpetuate religious and political freedom for succeeding generations.

Gregory W. Hamilton is president of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association, located in idgefield, Washington. The NorthwestReligious Liberty Association (NRLA) is a legislative advocacy and workplace mediation services program, representing theconstitutional and workplace discrimination concerns of all people of faith in thestates of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. For more information, visit their Web site at www.nrla.com.

1 See Newt Gingrich's fourth chapter entitled: "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," in Winning the Future: A 21stCentury Contract with America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005): 57-83.2 Larry D. Kramer's book The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2004), is used by Newt Gingrich to justify his arguments for a congressional scale back of the Court's judicial review powerswhen it comes to deciding cases involving religious freedom and religious expression in the public square.3 Rakove, Jack. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996):311, 312.4 The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, "Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics," August 24, 2006.In 2006, 67 percent of Americans viewed the United States as a Christian nation, roughly four percentage points lower than in 2005.5 Ibid. Another recent survey by Newsweek confirms these numbers. With a few percentage points off here and there in othercategories, the 82 percent margin for the number of Americans professing to be Christian is confirmed in this survey: Brian Braiker,"U.S. Poll: 90% Believe in God," Newsweek, March 30, 2007. See also Todd M. Johnson, "Christianity in Global Context: Trends andStatistics" prepared by Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2005. Mr. Johnson cites the fact that 251 million American citizens in theUnited States of America profess to be Christian. Out of a total population of 300 million, 82 to 83 percent of all Americans aretherefore Christians in one various belief form or another. See also Janice D'Arcy, "Christian Conservatives Flex Their Muscles in thePolitical Arena," Baltimore Sun, March 27, 2005, in which she refers to "our country's Judeo-Christian roots and its roughly 80 percentChristian population."6 After the 2004 presidential election, Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, observed that "when you get 25 percent ofAmerica, which is basically Catholic, and yet get 28 to 29 percent of America, which is evangelical, together, that's called a majority.And it is a very powerful bloc, if they happen to stay together on particular issues." See "Myths of the Modern Mega-Church," an eventtranscript published by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life of its biannual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics, andpublic life, held in Key West, Florida, May 2005.7 According to Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Areila Keysar, in their 2001 American Religious Identity Survey, a mere 2 million of208 million adult Americans claimed to be atheist, agnostic, humanist, or secular. This survey can be accessed at www.gc.cuny.edu.8 Hugh Heclo, "Is America a Christian Nation?" Political Science Quarterly, Winter 2007: 71.9 Jim Wallis and Rick Warren, as well as a number of new advocacy organizations proliferating across the country, are leading thisrecent trend toward this larger "ecumenical and political big tent."10 Christopher Clausen, "America's Design for Tolerance: Religious Conflicts in Multi-faith America Are Mild Compared With Thosein Countries That Have Only One Faith or Virtually No Faith at All," The Wilson Quarterly (Winter 2007): 27.11 Ibid.12 Hamilton, Alexander. Letter to James Bayard, April 1802. Writings. (New York: The Library of America, 2001): 987-990.


6 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

13 John Leland, "A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia," as cited in Forrest Church, The Separation of Church and State: Writings on aFundamental Freedom by America's Founders (Boston: Beacon Press, 2004): 92.14 Cited in Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004): 331.15 See James Madison, The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings, edited by Saul K. Padover (Norwalk, Connecticut: The EastonPress, 1988): 311-312. See also Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed., Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and theChurch-State Debate (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996).16 Jefferson, Thomas. Writings. Autobiography (New York: Library of America, 1984): 34-40.17 Ibid. When Jefferson refers to "the infidel of every denomination," he is referring to himself. He wrote this in a "tongue and cheek"manner, recalling the presidential election of 1800 when he was falsely accused of being an infidel by Federalists and Puritans inMassachusetts and Connecticut who vigorously opposed his election.18 Davis, Derek H. "Why Keep Church and State Separate," in "The Christian Nation Debate: Weighing the Founders' Intentions,"Liberty Express, Signature Edition, 2007.19 Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).20 State Religious Freedom Acts are regularly opposed by advocacy groups who seek to make religious freedom a second-tier right inAmerica.21 Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII. Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1984): 283-287.


7 of 7 9/7/2012 12:18 PM

home about us archives subscribe editor's blog in the … · 2012-09-07 · series to be...

Documents