I ran this thread by a couple people I know who had never heard a presentation by anybody like David Barton, etc. who goes around presenting the religious views of the founding fathers.  One is a PhD at a national lab and the other is a retired CEO who teaches history and civics classes for fun in his retirement.  Though neither agreed with the conclusions of most Christians for whom the founder’s faith is important (that we should return to the way the first amendment was interpreted in say 1800), they both saw the reasoning of these people as rational given their assumptions.  Given that you are all bright people, I’m not quite sure why you can’t see that.  Perhaps you read the Patriot Bible and assume that everybody is like that?  I don’t know.  The people I know who emphasize the faith of the founding fathers are pretty balanced compared to the views presented in the Patriot Bible, so I’m not sure what to make of it.  Anyway, I would encourage you to not judge people as irrational so quickly.  People often have reasonable ways of thinking of you can walk in their shoes long enough to understand their assumptions and background.

For the record, I’m equally appalled by both recent decisions on religious freedom and the ideas of the late 1700’s early 1800’s.

MB

The religion and public practice of religion by the founding fathers would matter to society if one could show by this that modern interpretations of separation of church and state which have the effect of limiting religious freedom are completely unfounded and unhistorical and thus unconstitutional.  In other words, a proper understanding of history can help buttress the legal framework behind religious liberty in this country.

This only has the above effect if one also uses an originalist framework when interpreting the constitution. If one relies on the concept of a constantly evolving constitution where the past doesn’t matter if society no longer holds those aspirations (as interpreted by the supreme court, not by a constitutional amendment), then it doesn’t matter.  Currently, there is older historical precedent and recent precedent in constitutional law regarding religious liberty.  In the originalist framework, historical precedent and original meaning matter more, strengthening protections of religious liberty.

It also only matters for society at large, if one thinks that by teaching accurate history, one can help change the both the outcome and tenor of debates on religious freedom. Personally, while I think it can help in that regard, I don’t think an accurate understanding and application of the separation of church and state is a panacea to defusing attacks on religious freedom. It can certainly help, but it isn’t the key to preserving religious liberty at this point in our culture.

It also only matters if one thinks that the legal foundation for religious freedom in this country is contained in the first amendment, which has been misconstrued as a modern interpretation of the separation of church and state by some people.  This also assumes that religious liberty matters.  For most this is a given, so I won’t expand on the topic, but some may disagree.

My previous post attempted to show how the freedom of doctors, pharmacists and others to practice their jobs without violating their conscience is threatened in this country.  I also attempted to state that religious freedom is tied (however directly or indirectly) to a proper historical understanding of the first amendment and the separation of church and state.  In this comment, I have attempted to draw a clearer connection between how a proper historical understanding of the religion of the founding fathers effects how one understands the legal interpretations of the first amendment, and by extension the religious freedom of US citizens. 

Lastly, I would like to make a suggestion.  I think it would help the tenor of online discussions of people could refrain from calling statements made by those they are discussing things with irrational.  Perhaps, I’m a bit anal on this point, but it doesn’t seem conducive to respectful discussion.  I will refrain from answering the follow-on questions about what I am doing about it and what I think others should be doing about it, until it appears that it is understood why some people care about the religion of the founding fathers at all.  I’ve spilt enough ink on that topic without muddying the waters by changing topics.

MB

Maybe I’m slow.  Complete the sentence for me: It matters to me whether the founding fathers were Christians or not because __________________.

What I think you might be saying is: It matters to me because “the modern idea of the separation of church and state is being used as cover to deprive religious people and groups of their duty to give public expression to their faith in the public square.” <–Not a rational answer.  It jumps from A to Q with none of the connections in between.  It’s like saying “What my wife buys at the grocery store today matters to me because yesterday I had a grilled cheese sandwich.” Huh?

I don’t think your comments here have been written in an attempt to answer that question of mine.  I think you’re ticked off about how separation of church and state stuff is being handled and so you used a post that mentions religion and politics to vent a little.  That’s cool. Tangential, but still cool. Confusing, but again, cool. I was just hoping there was a connection, but there doesn’t have to be.

You’re obviously passionate about the subject, MB.  What are you doing about it?  What would you like to see the rest of us do about it?

It seems that you don’t think what I wrote had a bearing on the topic you proposed.  If I may paraphrase, the topics you seemed to propose through a few quotes from the founding fathers were 1) Were the founding fathers Christian? and 2) Why does this matter to some people?

My line of reasoning was that 1) While some weren’t necessarily Christian yesterday’s deists were different from today’s deists and that 2) It matters to many people because the modern interpretation of separation of church and state is being used as cover to remove religion from its place in the public square.  3) Most critical, it matters when separation of church and state is used as cover to deprive religious individuals and groups the right to provide public services in ways that they deem consistent with their personal mores or the mores of their religious group.

While you acknowledged the threat to tax exempt status and public funding for those religious groups providing social services, much more is at stake.  At stake is the very ability of religious groups to provide services to the public in accordance with their religious beliefs.  The largest private facilitator of domestic adoptions in the state of Massachusetts wasn’t merely given the choice to a) provide adoptions to homosexual partners or b) turn down public funding.  They were told to either provide adoptions to gays or cease facilitating any adoptions.  They stopped providing adoption services.  Sure it isn’t essential to the Christian faith to provide adoptions, but for those of us who believe that our Christian faith should result in helping the orphan, poor and hungry, it surely is a loss.

I won’t delve deeply into gay marriage and religious freedom because I don’t think it is an essential function of the church to perform civil marriage, and I believe much has been lost with the convolution of civil and Christian marriage.  However, most practicing Christians disagree with that and have good points.  Also, even the Pew research group has written about the present and future showdown between religious clergy/groups/individuals and homosexuals over gay marriage.  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1228/gay-marriage-free-exercise-religion While I think the chances are much less than even, it is a very real possibility that Christian clergy will not be allowed to perform civil marriages in another 20-30 years unless they perform marriages for gays. 

Much more important to me is the area of health care and the rights of doctors and hospitals to provide health care in ways that they deem moral.  There have been several pushes over the last few decades to force hospitals to provide abortions.  While these have failed when it comes to surgical abortions, there has been tremendous progress made by pro-choice people in requiring pharmacies and hospitals to provide “medical care” that in some or even most cases results in chemical abortion. 

Pharmacies are right now in some locales being required to staff their facilities with pharmacists willing to fill prescriptions for drugs that can provide chemical abortion.  To be a pro-life pharamacist is becoming extremely difficult.  Who wants to hire one, if they will just have to hire duplicate staff and monitor their pro-life/pro-choice status when figuring out staffing hours?  To be a thoroughly pro-life company that owns a pharmacy is in some locales an impossibility.  When I was in grad school I used to run AV equipment for a group providing continuing ed to doctors and medical students.  I’ve heard pro-life doctors and (especially) pharmacists discuss their concern about their future livelihood and caution residency students that there is a real possibility they may have to change careers if they want to be true to their pro-life convictions.  Also, the existence of pro-life ob-gyn’s and hospitals has been a big reason why planned parenthood and the pro-abortion lobby has not been able to pass draconian restrictions on ultra-sound machines in crisis pregnancy centers.

While none of these examples directly relates to the founding father being Christian, they do relate very directly to the motivation of many people in studying the topic and promoting these studies.  This is because the modern idea of the separation of church and state is being used as cover to deprive religious people and groups of their duty to give public expression to their faith in the public square. 

Regarding the 10 commandments example, I completely agree with you that the mere existence of the monument is completely “non-essential to practicing Christianity.” I only gave it as an example to show how ridiculously unhistorical the current interpretation of “separation of church and state” has become. 

Honestly, I think there is much that you and I would agree on regarding the benefits and drawbacks of a distinctly Christian government.  I think evangelicals have done themselves a huge disservice by turning extremists like Judge Moore into a celebrity.  I had a foster daughter who attended a non-denom church where they actually brought him in as a speaker at their Sunday services, which was a shame.  However, I do think that there is also a very real good that is being done by some of these groups in educating people on a more complete and accurate history of the legal concept of separation of church and state than they would hear in 99.999% of public school classrooms (or most universities for that matter). 

I hope you will forgive the long comment.  I tried to be more succinct and was not understood.  It is my experience that blogging can be a poor forum for discussion of nuanced, complicated topics like this.  Too often the common ground in what is agreed upon gets lost what is disagreed on and there is rarely enough room or time to develop a sufficient understanding of the ideas of others.

MB

I didn’t ask “What difference does it make if ‘religion is removed from the public square’?” (And I wouldn’t ask that, since I don’t believe “religion” can be – only certain non-essential outward expressions of it.)

What I asked was “Why does it matter to you today if the founding fathers were or weren’t Christians?”

As for the rabbit trail (I think) you went down: Sometimes when we take up the cross we get splinters. I know you know that but yet it sounds like you’re trying to prevent a few necessary pricks (no pun intended). When we obey Christ we might not (probably will not) have the full support of non-Christians, especially financial support. And I don’t think we should expect it…or that it makes much theological or practical sense to get angry when we don’t get it.

If a hospital or doctor is being told they cannot accept government funding unless they do X, Y or Z, then they should stop accepting government funding.  Easier said than done, sure, but action much more faithful to historical Christianity.

What happens in history when Christianity is the religion of Caesar or is financially backed by Caesar?  (It winds up not all that Christian-y)

When in scripture can Jesus do as his Father wills without the possibility/probability of persecution as a result? (He was nailed to a cross for sedition right?)

What is the relationship between physical freedom/government support of Christian worships and church growth by conversion? Parallel or inverse? (The majority of Christians throughout history and around the world today are not “free”.)

In what way is an American not physically free to love God and love people?  At most we might be mildly inconvenienced or be forced to change our methods or become more shrewd.

Also, not putting up the ten commandments in a courtroom?  How non-essential to practicing Christianity can you get? I’ve never understood the outrage over this one. Didn’t Jesus solve this little dilemma for us already? Render under Caesar what is Caesars. It’s his room isn’t it? Let him decorate how he sees fit. ; )

Take Judge Roy Moore’s placement of the Ten Commandments in Florida and subsequent removal for instance.  While I think Judge Moore showed a lack of respect for the rule of law that necessitated his removal, it is also clear that there would have been no controversy regarding the constitutionality of what he did 150 or even 60 years ago.  What passes today for the constitutional separation of church and state is a relatively new legal invention, contradictory to the very letter by Thomas Jefferson which coined the term.

Why do people care if religion is removed from the public square, though?  Because religion and morality are restraints on the excesses of popular culture.  A public presence for religion helps counterbalance the influence of popular culture (e.g., Hollywood), which often is outright antagonistic to the moral good. 

Also, when religion is removed from the public square, then often the rights of people or institutions to act according to their religious beliefs in the public square is lost.  Today we are seeing a tremendous undermining of religious liberty in the ability of religious organizations to act according to their beliefs in the public square.  There is pressure on religious hospitals and/or individuals to violate their beliefs in providing abortion and contraception services (even when those “contraceptives” are sometimes abortifacient in nature).  There is pressure on adoption agencies to provide gay adoptions or else be shut down by state/local governments (as happened in Massachusetts) or to lose funding and government cooperation (as happened in San Francisico and was recently upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals).  Combine that with recent proposed laws which try and take control of how the finances of individual churches are governed and to make churches register as lobbyists when they try and protest these intrusions of government into the internal affairs of religious communities, and is it any wonder religious people feel under attack?

When Christians organizations are told that they have to sacrifice their beliefs to the whims of their relativistic dictators or else lose their right to love the poor and provide social services for them as a community, it makes people ask where these laws are coming from.  It causes people to point out the mythical historical nature of laws that prohibit religion from a place the public square.

MB

As for Jefferson, he despised organized religion, but claimed to be a disciple of Jesus’ teachings.

As for Hitler, satan himself uses his knowledge of scripture to do all sorts of harm.

The debate really is this: What role has God in government? Our founding fathers argue that He indeed MUST have a strong role in our government – otherwise (to paraphrase one of the fathers…don’t remember which) morality deficiency will lead to liberty deficiency will lead to the downfall of our nation.

Congressional Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

Continental Congress

November 1, 1777

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/34/Congressional_Thanksgiving_Day_Proclamation_1.html

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/signers-of-declaration-of-independence.html

Chief Justice John Marshall was appointed in 1801 by Thomas Jefferson, and said: “No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. The American population is entirely Christian; and with us Christianity and religion are identical. It would be strange indeed if, with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.”

Seriously, I think this is an amazing conversation. Shaun you have boiled this issue down to its core and that is something that has evaded me for sometime. I have several friends who have taken this “bunker” mentality when it comes to the “liberal assualt on Christian America” *cue Lee Greenwood music*. What I get stuck on is why so many Christians go to such great lengths to argue this issue. It seems that the end result is that we place our faith in a worldly institution. Society is immoral because government is immoral so if the government is Christian then society will be Christian. Ironically, that is the primary reason many of the first settlers came to America. And when they came some of them barred other religions in their settlements (to preserve and protect their society) thus establishing this bunker mentality from the very begining. I’ve read the book of Revelation and I know who wins and I know there’s not much time left.

Veratex, I completely appreciate and honor your humility and willingness to continue this discussion. I believe this shows a great amount of maturity and security in who you are and who you are becoming.