By Morris Dean
The U.S. postage stamp commemorated religious freedom and the Flushing Remonstrance, which was, according to Wikipedia:
a 1657 petition to Director-General of New Netherland Peter Stuyvesant, in which several citizens requested an exemption to his ban on Quaker worship. It is considered a precursor to the United States Constitution's provision on freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.The cartoon below (found I don't remember where on the Internet) comments on the lengths to which some people take that freedom:
According to Kenneth T. Jackson, the Flushing Remonstrance was remarkable for four reasons:
- it articulated a fundamental right that is as basic to American freedom as any other,
- the authors backed up their words with actions by sending it to an official not known for tolerance,
- they stood up for others and were articulating a principle that was of little discernible benefit to themselves, and
- the language of the remonstrance is as beautiful as the sentiments they express.
| Copyright © 2015 by Morris Dean |
When I read the question in the subtitle, I felt sure that the post would express some opinion on the subject. It seemed likely, given the recent hullabaloo over vaccination avoiders and the unwillingness of some religious institutions to cover birth control in their health insurance benefits. But there was no analysis of these issues nor any opinion on the limits of religious freedom. Maybe next Thursday?
ReplyDeleteThe article seemed like a good jumping off point for further discussion if not an independent essay of its own by Ken, Yours Truly, or others. Here briefly is my “Two Cents’ Worth.”
ReplyDeleteI always rankle a bit over the insistence by certain fundamentalist Christians (hereafter to be referred to only as Christians) that our nation was founded on Christianity. Not all the Founders were Deists. Their composition featured a host of belief systems and various degrees of devotion to a wide variety of creeds. That cannot be disputed. As has been pointed out, the Declaration does mention a Creator of unspecified attributes, whereas the Constitution is resolutely non-theistic. Something nearly all our Fathers (Women were not consulted) agreed on was a vehement suspicion of, if not a hatred for clerical authority and theocracy. The divine right of kings and official state persecutions of many minority sects had helped populate the Colonies. It might be said that another overriding point of agreement was an obsession with how to control power in light of the inherently fallen, corruptible state of men and institutions. In spite of their sometimes high-flown language our Founders were quite cynical about the nobility of man.
A lot could be written about how we have called down disaster on contemporary Amerikan society by our eroding of the delicate system of Checks and Balances, whereby the three main functions of government were designed to control each other, with the protected Press overlooking the whole proceeding. Later for that one.
I would be happy if one of our readers could point out to me a modern society ruled over by a monolithic “sacred” unquestioned religion or an equally sacred social doctrine like Stalinism, National Socialism, and Corporatism that did not become brutal and corrupt. Once the priests or technocrats establish absolute power they inevitably become power mad.
I’m a Buddhist and I cannot imagine any Buddhist regime as being less than beneficial to every sentient creature. Not so! says Michael Parenti in his critical analysis of feudal Tibet under the “benign” leadership of His Holiness the Dali Lama.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
When we have a country that has, up to now, insisted on a level playing field for all belief systems we have a society where no special, favored group can enforce their ideas the way the Christians in this country seem to be bent on doing presently. One does not need too many examples of the Buddhist repressions of their peasant class to believe that any religion, no matter what its precepts pretend to be, will become absolutely corrupt once granted absolute power. This to my mind is the overwhelming consideration behind the Separation of Church and State.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
PS
Lest anyone get the idea that I favor Buddhism as an organized religion, I must insist that I regard it as a system of precepts and practices that I find quite useful in my personal life. When People ask me what I believe, I tell them “I am an atheist with no religion—I’m a Buddhist.”
Bob, thanks much for expanding on the topic. Michael Parenti's essay on the Tibet myth throws uncomfortable light on organized Buddhism ["Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth"].
DeleteBob, last night I came across a passage in Daniel C. Dennett's 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that supports your own comment, including listing Buddhism among offensive organized religions:
DeleteThere has been a tremendous rebirth of fundamentalist faith in all these creeds. I think that there are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all the species: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as countless smaller infections. Is there a conflict between science and religion there? There most certainly is.
Darwin's dangerous idea helps to create a condition in the memosphere that in the long run threatens to be just as toxic to these memes as civilization in general has been toxic to the large wild mammals. Save the elephants! Yes, of course, but not by all means. Not by forcing the people of Africa to live nineteenth-century lives, for instance....
I love the King James Version of the Bible. My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free, it would kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too – when absolutely necessary. We just can't have forced female circumcision, and the second-class status of women in Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, to say nothing of their status in Islam....
Save the Baptists! Yes, of course, but not by all means. Not if it means tolerating the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world. According to a recent poll [this was published in 1995], 48 percent of the people in the United States today believe that the book of Genesis is literally true. And 70 percent believe that "creation science" should be taught in school alongside evolution. Some recent writers recommend a policy in which parents would be able to "opt out" of materials they didn't want their children taught. Should evolution be taught in schools? Should arithmetic be taught? Should history? Misinforming a child is a terrible offense....
It is nice to have grizzly bears and wolves living in the wild. They are no longer a menace; we can peacefully coexist, with a little wisdom. The same policy can be discerned in our political tolerance, in religious freedom. You are free to preserve or create any religious creed you wish, so long as it does not become a public menace...The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for. Slavery is beyond the pale. Child abuse is beyond the pale. Discrimination is beyond the pale. The pronouncing of death sentences on those who blaspheme against a religion (complete with bounties or rewards for those who carry them out) is beyond the pale. It is not civilized, and it is owed no more respect in the name of religious freedom than any other incitement to cold-blooded murder. [pp. 515-515]
Bob,
DeleteDo you question that the vision of what the original colonies could become did not stand established on a Christian worldview by a majority of the founding fathers? (granting that a few were deists)
And just for clarity, is your position that "organized religion" (you used "monolithic 'sacred' unquestioned religion) is the problem and not, more fundamentally, the human beings within it?
Kyle,
ReplyDeleteI think a more careful reading of my post will answer these questions, but let me take another run at it. First of all I must confess to not being very well read on the subject of the history of the American Revolution and the myriad issues that went into consideration in the framing of our Constitution. That said, I think even the most cursory examination of 18th Century world history will reveal the impact of The Enlightenment thinkers on the theological, scientific and political attitudes of the time.
After their defeat at the Battle of Yorktown, as the retreating Redcoats were singing the famous “The World Turned Upside Down” crowned heads in Europe were preparing to topple.
If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
The century was a time of ideological conflict as well as political strife. There were clearly Christian influences as well as Deistic ones represented by the oligarchs who turned up to frame the new Constitution. Two of the most influential men involved in the actual language of the Constitution, Madison and Jefferson were Deists. This might explain why there was not even a passing reference to The Creator in the whole document.
Based on what I have read, I would have to say that the vision of what the original colonies could become did not stand established on a Christian worldview but on a Deistic one, and a secular humanist—enlightenment one at that.
As to whether my position that "organized religion" is the problem and not, more fundamentally, the human beings within it. I think I can pretty much affirm, with our Founders, that monolithic, sacred, unquestioned religion should be resisted as it appeals to the basest of human instincts of corruption, power and intolerance. If human nature is at all redeemable, our Founders certainly agreed that it is more likely to be accomplished by a free, enlightened, well governed representative republic that by a theocracy with an official state religion with its dogmas, persecutions and holy wars.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with you that theocracy is not ideal on earth, but I would always point to hubris as the fault in that system. Give mankind any medium that grants him power (be it organized religion or the Manhattan Project), and he will abuse it. Jesus Himself (under suspicion of potentially leading a Jewish rebellion against the Roman authoritarian state) actually agreed with you when He said to Pontius Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)
But that does not mean that even the most “fervent” of deists among the founding fathers wanted to divorce the foundational principles of America from a Christian foundation. Whether they believed everything Christianity asserted or not (Jefferson, after all, did edit out all of the miraculous events in his Bible), they had to admit that Christianity was the best option they had for making the ideal society that they wanted. Rather than attempt to rid their deism from the very natural congruities to Christian theism, they recognized that their deism was a stone’s throw from Christian theism, and thus it “jived” well with what they wanted to see in future American leaders and political thought.
A few words from the two you mentioned (just so it doesn’t sound like I’m making this up):
James Madison:
ReplyDelete"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (New York: R. Worthington, 1884), Vol. I, pp. 5-6, to William Bradford on November 9, 1772.
"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."
James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, William T. Hutchinson, editor (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Vol. I, p. 96, to William Bradford on September 25, 1773.
Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDelete"The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."
Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
"Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816. (Return)
I would just be very careful to note with Jefferson that it was Jesus' doctrines with which he agreed and not His deity. Everyone should know that, especially Christians.
I have to also point out that it is a-historical to say that the Enlightenment thinkers thought God was unknowable and thus should be left out of our national discourse and culture, as if "reason alone" could completely replace theology. (I know you haven't said this explicitly, but it seems implicit when you constantly point out their deism.) They just simply weren't convinced by the science and historical knowledge of their day that the theistic Christian worldview coincided well with their notions of deity. I wonder what they would say about what we know today...
ReplyDeleteI actually know exactly what Thomas Paine would say about the interactive study of science and deity though; he expressed these thoughts in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a
Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists:
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.
When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .
The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."
As much as most atheists disparage the thought that America was founded on a Christian foundation, it ought to be recognized that there was one worldview that most of the forefathers thought would never be compatible with their vision for America: atheism itself.