Letter: Founding Fathers knew stuff

Three of the four letters printed in the June 14Advocate addressed purely religious issues. I have to assume that this is an indication that religion has dominated recent editorial correspondence.

I have seen a number of references to “our Founding Fathers” in proselytizing letters to the editor. As far as I know, the only Founding Fathers that had strong opinions that have survived in their writings regarding the relationship between religion and the government were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who both believed in a strong separation of church and state.

I do not intend to imply that there were no 18th-century American patriots who believed, as many do today, that this barrier should be weak or nonexistent. However, the fact is that the people who wanted a stronger tie between our government and Christianity lost the legal debate a long time ago.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains two clauses that apply to religion. These two clauses are commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter stated the purpose of the Establishment Clause very succinctly when he said, “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” In other words, neither the government nor its employees can impose their religious beliefs on anyone who believes otherwise.

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees everyone the right to worship as they see fit or not at all if they so choose. It does not, as some people seem to think, permit you to ignore secular laws because you feel that they violate your religious beliefs.

I know many Christians, some of them Catholics, who do not believe that using birth control is a sin. Only some Christians believe that it is.

Does this mean that, if any Christian sect or subset of members of that sect believe that any particular act is sinful or that any other act is a requirement of their faith, that we must purposefully design our secular laws to avoid offending these beliefs?

Must we allow polygamy because some Mormons believe in that? What about sects that encourage the handling of poisonous snakes to prove faith or religions that command parents to withhold medical care from their children to allow God’s will to take effect?

Currently, the line on all of this is drawn in what I believe to be a very reasonable place. If a law is passed that is generally applicable to all people and does not target a specific religious belief, all must obey it.

Michael Hale

IT consultant

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 29/06/2012

They don't justify the teaching of creationism in public schools, but this is Louisiana.

2) Comment by 8.3 - 27/06/2012

So, how do the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause justify the mandated teaching of creationism in public schools? You have every right to your religious beliefs but you have no right to impose them on me.

3) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 26/06/2012

"No one is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Its a belief and therefore not amenable to scientific investigation. Why ask the question?" Because (in their eyes) in order to "win" the argument, all they have to do is muddy the waters.

4) Comment by DMJ - 26/06/2012

I can't prove god isn't a giant, invisible lizard either.

5) Comment by potkcalb - 26/06/2012

No one is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Its a belief and therefore not amenable to scientific investigation. Why ask the question?

6) Comment by mdsgu - 26/06/2012

As a person I respect once put it, "I can't prove God exists. I admit that. But, can you prove He doesn't?"

7) Comment by RationalOne - 25/06/2012

Without theists, there would be no god.

8) Comment by DMJ - 25/06/2012

"For without God there would be no atheists." Yeah....unless god isn't real. Love and morality don't come from religion; they're innate qualities within all people. Conversely, hate and cruelty are innate in people as well. Dealing with our base emotions in a way that is constructive to society is a product of evolution; indeed, this struggle IS the human experience. Morals don't come from religion. Religion is merely a vehicle in which such morality manifests itself, often incorrectly (see: Vatican's cooperation in the Holocaust). There are no gods, no angels, no demons, no heaven or hell. There is only the natural world and universe. In the words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other." Not because you're going to be re-united with your grandparents and your dead pets- you're not- or because you're going to a lake of fire for all eternity-you're not- but because the type of world we all want to live in, one in which people are kind to eachother just because, is good. Live long and prosper. Barookatahh....Allelujiaaaahhh...

9) Comment by hemogoblin - 24/06/2012

Chem, I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with religious people. Mine have been mostly positive. It seems like all people tend to suspect or even fear people who are different from themselves. My observation is and continued hope is that as people are exposed to neighbors and coworkers of different faiths or no faith, they will realize that we all are fundamentally the same. As far as the Bible goes, I can't refute any of your points with chapter and verse. I will say that Christians and Jews base their behavior on the 10 Commandments rather than on smiting Amalek. Jesus summarized the 10 Commandments as love God and love your neighbor. His main message was all about helping the poor.

10) Comment by chem - 24/06/2012

hemogoblin: I certainly agree that are very kind, compassionate people of faith, but I suspect, just from my own experiences and anecdotal evidence, that far more religious people are hateful and intolerant. What bothers me about those that follow a god, and in particular, the god of the bible, is that if the bible is the word of god, then that god is hateful and intolerant, and that is reflected in the followers of religion. Afterall, god is said to have destroyed the earth, killiing all life except those on an ark. He hated women. He ordered his followers to commit genocide. People were sentenced to death for such things as adultery, cursing, homosexuality and not believing in the so-called god. I find that is not a loving religion. Why would anyone want to follow such a nasty enitity? That is why people do evil in the name of god -- because god said to do such things.

11) Comment by hemogoblin - 23/06/2012

Chem, Lenin and Stalin were very enthusiastic in their opposition to religion, which Marx called the opium of the people. How about taking a more scientific view of religion, and consider why religion has survived over the years. Communities with shared values, emphasis on protecting and nourishing families, support in times of disaster. Do you reject what I would call the good that religions and religious people do? Damien with the lepers of Moloka'i? Mother Teresa in the slums of Kolkata? The dentists in Baton Rouge who travel on mission trips to Central America and who offer free dental care to needy children at home? I suggest that there are different flavors of religion just like there are different flavors of atheism. Atrocities committed in the name of Jesus Christ, for example, were perverted and antithetical to his teachings. Not all religious people are narrow-minded and intolerant, and not all atheists are like that, either.

12) Comment by GoldenSage - 23/06/2012

It is surprising how so many intelligent people are so blind. It isn't religion that is the issue or the problem. It is "people." And these intelligent people aren't bright enough to be able to know that there is a difference between church and God. They are not the same thing. God belongs to all religions in one way or another; God even belongs to atheists for without God there would be no atheists. Think about it. What religion brings to government, in an indirect way, is discipline. People need guidance. People need leadership. People need discipline and guidance. There is none. God Help U.S; help the world.

13) Comment by chem - 23/06/2012

hemoglobin: You are certainly correct, but they did not commit attrocities in the name of atheism. They were evil because of a perverted, radical Marxist dogma, akin to a religion. The attrocities of religious groups, whatever form they took, were committed, just as in communist countries, BECAUSE of religion. Because of the dogma of religion. I do not think that there is any evidence that people are evil because of being secular. That is quite a distinction.

14) Comment by hemogoblin - 23/06/2012

The atheist/secular government of Lenin and Stalin was very scary,too. I am all for the non establishment clause and free exercise clause.

15) Comment by chem - 23/06/2012

ScotB is absolutely correct. Separation of church and state IS a long settled issue. I suspect that all of the people who want religion in our government would be up in arms if there were laws passed based on Hindi, Islamic, Buddhist, or some other cults dogma. Regarding religion being the cornerstone of morality, just look at the evil that ALL of the religions have caused. The old testament is full of hatred, mass murder (genocide), rape, etc. Yea, that's some moral code. There is a plethora of research (look it up) that shows that religion is NOT needed for people to act in a good way toward others. My own opinion is that this world would be much better off had there been no religion. Religion has stifled human rights, has relegated women to third rate status, and has kept the world from moving forward (the Dark Ages).

16) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

@Tea_Slayer: " "Either way, the people can change the laws to reflect their will thru their representatives. If the people want more religion, they can have it. If not, then so it will be. Those whose views do not prevail can work to change the minds of the people or go live somewhere else. " -- this drivel is exactly what our Constitution is meant to protect us from. " -[**]- You can't change this through changes in laws by representatives of the government. It would have to be done through a Constitutional Amendment if it were to be done at all. . . which I can't see happening unless the demographic balance of the population of this country changes to such a degree that the culture prevalent in a certain other part of the planet where the insistence is not uncommon that religion and government be more intimately linked.

17) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

"Either way, the people can change the laws to reflect their will thru their representatives. If the people want more religion, they can have it. If not, then so it will be. Those whose views do not prevail can work to change the minds of the people or go live somewhere else. " -- this drivel is exactly what our Constitution is meant to protect us from.

18) Comment by potkcalb - 23/06/2012

Incidentally, the Supreme Court has never held that public buildings cannot contain depictions of the ten Commandments , but it proscribes those depictions that are intended to convey government endorsement of religion. Similarly, it has long been acknowledged that some religious symbols that have become traditional are legal, for example "In God We Trust" on coins, a motto deemed to be of "ceremonial and patriotic character."

19) Comment by potkcalb - 23/06/2012

Forget it ScotB. Separation of church and state is a long settled issue.

20) Comment by ScotB - 23/06/2012

By the way, InPVille, had an excellent post regarding the government and religion issue. The ten commandments still reside in the Supreme Court is one point he did not mention. I just thought I would throw that in to add something for the third branch.

21) Comment by ScotB - 23/06/2012

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people". The law evolves according the the wishes of the people. Even the Constitution can be changed. And sometimes, the law of the land is changed solely by judicial fiat (Roe vs Wade or Kelo, for example). Either way, the people can change the laws to reflect their will thru their representatives. If the people want more religion, they can have it. If not, then so it will be. Those whose views do not prevail can work to change the minds of the people or go live somewhere else.

22) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

@chem: "The religious cults in this country love to take statements out of context to make it seem that the Founding Fathers wanted religion as part of the government, but nothing is further from the truth." I don't think that is what anyone is saying here. Where in the heck do you think ideas about what is right and wrong and what should be legal and what should be illegal developed from? It is a completely different statement for someone to say that you have to believe what I believe. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who was not a religious man himself but who supported a number of churches and had a family pew in several of them who stated something to the effect that the constitution of the U.S. was developed for a country where religious people were predominant and was unsuitable for any other. The idea being that the religious institutions created values which made it unnecessary to include a lot of stuff into the constitution which would otherwise have been necessary to put into the constitution to maintain good order.

23) Comment by chem - 23/06/2012

The religious cults in this country love to take statements out of context to make it seem that the Founding Fathers wanted religion as part of the government, but nothing is further from the truth. One of the reasons they broke away from England was religious freedom. One of the big problems we have in this country, especially these days, is that we have to many politicians wanting to pass laws based on the beliefs of their respective cults. There should be no law passed in this country, at any level of government, that is based on the dogma of some cult. People can believe in whatever superstitions they want, but they should not want to force those beliefs on people through the legislative process.

24) Comment by potkcalb - 23/06/2012

In view of RALLEN'S comment: Separation of church and state was acknowledged by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Alexis de Toqueville an astute and prescient observer who toured the United States in 1831, five years after the deaths of Jefferson and Adams, and authored Democracy in America interviewed the clergy and found that "to a man they ascribed the peaceful ascendancy of religion in America to the complete separation of church and state."There is nothing in that history to indicate that the concept of separation of church and state was conceived to "attack religion."

25) Comment by potkcalb - 23/06/2012

Fine points will be debated and adjudicated, but separation of church and state is a settled issue. Get over it.

26) Comment by RALLEN - 23/06/2012

All comments thus far are correct that "separation of church and state" is not included in the Constitution but has been adopted from an obscure writing of Jefferson"s as a means to attack religion.

27) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

Jefferson is considered the main author of the Declaration of Independence where in he wrote the works "endowed by their Creator". Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution. jdk944 is correct that the phrase "separation of church and state" or the phrase "strict separation of church and state"(coined I believe by Justice Blackman) came into use later. At the time of the framing of the constitution the phrase "establishment of religion" referred to setting up a specific religious denomination as the official church for the state. This mean, for example, that one state might decide to support the Baptist Church, another the Methodist Church, and another still the Catholic Church OR even support no church. The establishment clause of the first amendment only applied to the federal government when the U.S. Constitution went into effect. The states were added to the requirement by later amendment after the original 10 amendments that are in the Bill of Rights. The idea that the federal government can mandate that a religious affiliated organization must include something in their medical insurance coverage is a new one. We will discover in due course whether the courts(perhaps it will go as far as SCOTUS), the final arbiter of the question, decide in the end who is correct as to the appropriate application of federal power and religious freedom. Whatever is decided we will have no other choice but to abide by the decision under the rules of law we live by. However, the idea that there should be a strictly applied complete strong and separation of church and state doesn't fit history. The presidential oath of office has always been taken with one hand on a bible or other book. There is an official chaplain of the House of Representatives which has an office in the U.S. Capital Building. There are other examples which could be cited. Mr. Hale could find many other sources to discover common thinking on the question if he is seriously interested in the topic of the relation of religion and government.

28) Comment by jdk944 - 23/06/2012

The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did. In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant

29) Comment by dday198 - 23/06/2012

great letter