A Historical Look At The Impact Of Christianity On American Politics

By Chris Dumford:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here…" Patrick Henry

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God…” Romans 13:1

“Whatever America once was, we are no longer just a Christian nation…” Barack Obama

One of the most disconcerting things that I have recently noted in modern revisionist history, is the open denial by most secular writers of the impact of Christianity on American politics. This is mostly because secular writers do not understand theology and the underlying impact of theology on ideas and philosophies that drove past generations. 

The root theology that has driven the foundation of America is the escatological view that came out of the Reformation. This eschatological view was Post Millennialism.

I. Tenets of Post Millennialism.

Post Millennialism is based on a concept of Preterism. Preterism teaches that the events of the 70th week of Daniel were fulfilled during the New Testament period. Notice Daniel 9:24-27,

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate…”

According to the Preterist view, the seventieth week constituted a 7-year period fulfilled between 66 and 73AD during the Jewish revolt. The abomination of desolation occurred in 70 AD when General Titus captured Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. According to the Preterist view, The Kingdom of God was both inaugurated and consummated when Jesus entered Jerusalem in His triumphal entry. Post Millennialism is largely a view based on allegorical interpretation of the Bible. According to this method of interpretation, Biblical phraseology is not literal but is representative of broader truths. Post millennialism teaches the following tenets:

1. The 1000 year millennial reign is representative of a long period of time that began in 33 AD and extends to today.

2. The promises of the Kingdom were removed from Israel and were transported to the Gentiles.

3. The church will usher in the return of Christ by evangelizing the entire world thus bringing in a spiritual utopia.

These tenets were the predominate view of the reformation church and the preachers of the Great Awakening that occurred in America in the 1740’s.

II. Post Millennialism and Its Impact on The American Revolution.

“Prior to the founding of the U.S., English Puritans believed that England was to be a ‘new Israel.’ They practiced a form of post-millennialism that caused them to be optimistic about England’s role as a force for righteousness in the world…” Major Brian L. Stuckert, US Army

A. In the 1740’s, a great revival broke out in the American Colonies. This revival was in reaction to what was perceived as dead spirituality in the Church of England. Men such as Jonathan Edwards, who preached to literally thousands taught that the Church of England was dead and that Christ desired to evangelize the world through a new nation of believers in order to usher in His earthly kingdom. Notice what Jonathan Edwards preached:

“ We may observe who they are that shall be united in thus seeking the Lord of hosts: the inhabitants of many cities, and of many countries, yea, many people, and strong nations, great multitudes in different parts of the world shall conspire in this business. From the representation made in the prophecy, it appears rational to suppose, that it will be fulfilled something after this manner:-There shall be given much of a spirit of prayer to God’s people, in many places, disposing them to come into an express agreement, unitedly to pray to God in an extraordinary manner, that he would appear for the help of his church, and in mercy to mankind, and pour out his Spirit, revive his work, and advance his spiritual kingdom in the world, as he promised. This disposition to prayer, and union in it, will gradually spread more and more, and increase to greater degrees; with which at length will gradually be introduced a revival of religion, and a disposition to greater engagedness in the worship and service of God, amongst his professing people. This being observed, will be the means of awakening others, making them sensible of the wants of their souls, and exciting in them a great concern for their spiritual and everlasting good, and putting them upon earnestly crying to God for spiritual mercies, and disposing them to join in that extraordinary seeking and serving of God…”

“In this manner religion shall be propagated, till the awakening reaches those that are in the highest stations, and till whole nations be awakened, and there be at length an accession of many of the chief nations of the world to the church of God. Thus after the inhabitants of many cities of Israel, or of God’s professing people, have taken up and pursued a joint resolution, to go and pray before the Lord, and seek the Lord of hosts, others shall be drawn to worship and serve him with them; till at length many people and strong nations shall join themselves to them; and there shall, in process of time, be a vast accession to the church, so that it shall be ten times as large as it was before; yea, at length, all nations shall be converted unto God. Thus (Zechariah 8:23.) “ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, of the skirt of him that is a Jew,” (in the sense of the apostle, Romans 2:28, 29.) “saying, We will go with you; for we have heard, that God is with you.” And thus shall be fulfilled…”

Edwards did not believe that America should rebel against England, he rather saw post millennialism as a view toward all nations, in that a revival in America would spread to England. The New England ministers took his views and narrowed them to America being the nation that would establish the evangelic light to the rest of the world. This theonomy led to the American Revolution being as much an evangelistic crusade as a fight for a new nation.

In a paper titled, “Uncertain Dawn: Millennialism and Revolutionary Ideology in the Critical Period, 1783-1792” by Stephen Marini of Wellesley College, Marini writes about the usurping of Edward’s Post Millennialism by New England Preachers that fomented the American Revolution,

“Up to 1775, Edwardsean postmillennialism sustained a moderate, gradualist political stance. Emphatically colonial, the Edwardsean strand continued to voice John Winthrop’s Puritan hope that New England, and by extension America, would complete Britain’s political perfection, not challenge it. With the outbreak of revolutionary war in 1775, however, millennial categories took another form, pressed into service as eschatological justifications for a rebellion judged "unnatural" only months before.

Samuel Sherwood’s now-famous sermon identifying the woman in the wilderness of Revelation 13 as the saved American remnant overshadowed by God’s righteous power has become, by Nathan Hatch’s analysis, the classic exposition of Patriot identification with millennial imagery. While such millennial enthusiasm undoubtedly propelled the Patriot cause, it is important to note that Sherwood consistently named the church, and not the rebels, as the object of God’s providential protection. In this ecclesial definition of the millennial kingdom, Sherwood followed Edwards, who quite deliberately refused to secularize his millennial vision.

For Edwards and his followers of the Revolutionary generation, preeminently Samuel Hopkins, the millennial reign was exclusively an ecclesiastical affair and not to be confused with American national aspirations. In this Edwardsean tradition, from which most alleged examples of political millennialism have been drawn, God saved the church, not the state, from the perfidious threats of Satan. Given the Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms linking an elect church with a theonomous commonwealth, it was natural enough for New England ministers to conflate God’s church and the American cause, as they regularly did in Thanksgiving and Fast sermons during the war. But it is worth noting that this move secularized and contradicted Edwards’s own teaching, which insisted that God’s salvific action in history was directed solely to the elect saints…”

B. Post Millennial expressions in the writings of the early patriots:

1. Congressional Resolution October 1780: “It is therefore recommended to the several states to set apart Thursday, the seventh day of December next, to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer; that all the people may assemble on that day to celebrate the praises of our Divine Benefactor; to confess our unworthiness of the least of his favors, and to offer our fervent supplications to the God of all grace; that it may please him to pardon our heinous transgressions and incline our hearts for the future to keep all his laws that it may please him still to afford us the blessing of health; to comfort and relieve our brethren who are any wise afflicted or distressed; to smile upon our husbandry and trade and establish the work of our hands; to direct our public councils, and lead our forces, by land and sea, to victory; to take our illustrious ally under his special protection, and favor our joint councils and exertions for the establishment of speedy and permanent peace; to cherish all schools and seminaries of education, build up his churches in their most holy faith and to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth..”

2. Ezra Stiles, President of Yale College preached the following before Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut, on May 8th, 1783.

“I shall enlarge no further upon the primary sense and Eternal accomplishment of this and numerous other prophecies respecting both Jews and Gentiles, in the latter day glory of the church. For I have assumed the text, only as introductory to a discourse upon the political welfare of God’s American Israel; and as allusively prophetic of the future prosperity and splendor of the United States. We may then consider.What reason we have to expect that, by the blessing of God, these States may prosper and flourish into a great American Republic; and ascend into high and distinguished honor among the nations of the earth. To make thee high above all nations, which he hath made in praise, and in name, and in honor…”

III. Post Millennialism and The View of Christians Toward Politics.

"We have reason to hope that the time is at hand when the kingdom of God shall come with power, and all the people of this poor heathen land shall know Him, from the least unto the greatest…” John Wesley

A. 21st century American Christians fall into three camps regarding politics. The first camp believes that Christians should stay out of politics altogether. This is the view of the Amish. The second camp believes that America should be changed from an evangelistic point of view by measured involvement within society and the political realm. This is the view of the fundamentalist churches. The third view believes that America should be changed from a largely political and social point of view. This view stretches across the fundamentalist churches and includes many denominations. This tension between groups has at its root the collapse of postmillennialism and its impact on American politics.

B. Progressive Post Millennialism was the belief system of Woodrow Wilson who founded the league of nations. Woodrow Wilson’s views on government mark a turn in which postmillennialism marched toward progressivism. Wilson believed that the Constitution of the United States and its system of checks and balances hindered the march toward the transformation of society. He wrote regarding the forefather’s ideas that the Constitution should be viewed as a structured document, and applied a Darwinian framework of evolution to government in which government must be free to change without the constraints of archaic documents:

“The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive, coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice…”

Woodrow Wilson represented a new kind of Postmillennialism which embodied ideas borrowed from philosophers such as Georg Hegel, a German philosopher in the early 19th century who taught that governments evolved for the purpose of improving society. This evolutionary process could only come about by being freed from the constraints of traditional views of governmental structure. Thus, governing documents need not be embraced if the constraints of the documents prevent the evolution of the government into a higher form.

IV. Collapse of Post Millennialism and the Rise of Progressivism.

A. With the end of World War I, postmillennialism gave way to pre-millennialism. Pre-millennialism is much more pessimistic in its eschatology and emphasizes evangelism over social order. The tenets of postmillennialism survived as secular progressivism and communism/socialism. This was the utopian views of postmillennialism freed from the shackles of religion and tied to the philosophical ideas of the advancement of mankind on a social economic order freed from classes. Much of the tenets of Marxist socialism can be found within the views of early 20th century postmillennial theologians.

B. The collapse of postmillennialism and the rise of premillennialism resulted in large groups of Christian denominations retreating from the political realm. Their view is that the world will regress until Christ’s coming inaugurates the kingdom. Thus, the role of the church is not the improvement of society with a view of the church ushering in the earthly reign of Christ, but rather that of the church evangelizing the world with a view of rescuing the lost from the coming tribulational cataclysm which is soon to come. Since the world is only going to regress, and Satan will assume the role of world leader in the form of the Anti-Christ, then government by and large is destined to usher in the one world government of Satan. Therefore the church cannot influence God’s eschatological plan for the world through government.

Thus, the church is not responsible for the ushering in of the kingdom, but rather is responsible for fulfilling the great commission.

V. Modern Fundementalism, Progressivism and Christian Reconstructionism.

A. Christian Reconstructionism: There is a modern trend which has developed in Christianity known as Christian reconstructionism. This form of theology is a throwback to traditional postmillennialism in which reconstructionists believe that Christians and government should be intimately linked together in the establishment of a Theonomy. Their view is that world governments are under the dominion of God and therefore should be subject to God’s laws (i.e. a Theonomy). This view sees the concept of separation of church and state being non-existent. Thus, they view the role of Christians being one of direct involvement in all levels of government. This is manifested in such organizations as the Moral Majority and writers such as Gary North and in some forms by the late Jerry Falwell. This is a sort of proactive theology to the rise of progressivism. An example of this kind of thinking is found in the writings of Christian economist Gary North:

“The concept of the rule of law was Mosaic, not Greek (Ex. 12:49). The concept of private property is supported in the Decalogue's laws against theft and covetousness. The Mosaic economic law as a whole was pro-market, pro-private ownership, pro-foreign trade, pro-money-lending (Deut. 28:12). The New Testament did not break with most of these laws, and the few that it did break with, such as slavery and the jubilee land law, made the resulting position even more market favorable…” Gary North, Authentic Libertarianism

B. Progressivism: Progressivism believes that Christians should not be involved at all in Government. Their view is one of pure humanism and relativism freed from the constraints of traditional Biblical values. Their overarching ideology is the so-called improvement of human society through forced economic redistribution, removal of sociological class, removal of private rights and private property ownership, all for the good of the state and with all power concentrated within the state to enforce this end. Progressivism is a psudo-postmillennialism without the constraints of Biblical law.

C. Fundementalism: Fundementalism by and large tends to de-emphasize the role of the church in relation to society on a governmental level. The trend of fundamentalism is to change society one soul at a time. Fundementalism sees government as being secular in its views and practices and in essence as an enemy of the church. Most Fundementalists tend to participate in politics from a reactionary position. That is, instead of being pro-active, they tend to react to laws and policies that effect them and then either privately or publicly lobby against those policies.

John McArthur writes from the fundamentalist perspective when he states:

“One of the worst fallouts of the new preoccupation with political issues is that ultimately the ministry of the church is prostituted. People are selling themselves for something short of what the church is called to do. It cannot afford to become a flag-waving, protest voice for governmental change. That's not its calling. I am appalled to see that many pastors have turned from an emphasis on the gospel to an emphasis on politics--from an emphasis on teaching the Bible to an emphasis on coalitions that support particular kinds of legislation. Worst of all, their emphasis is based on the ridiculous premise that the growth and impact of Christianity is somehow related to government policy in America… “ John McArthur, The Christian and Government.

Conclusion: Our involvement in politics and the level of our involvement depends on our understanding of the role of government and our view as to what result we hope to gain.

The First Amendment Defended: The Freedom Of Religion, Pt. 2

I've compiled some comments and rebuttals I have received on this topic. There are quite a few, so I wanted to get them into a main post on the page. This is great reading, folks! If you haven't read the initial post by Chris, read it here first: http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/12/first-amendment-defended-freedom-of.html

FROM DOUG INDEEP: The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. That letter, though, played but a small part in the Court's decision. Indeed, the Court mentioned it only in passing after stating its conclusion based on a lengthy and detailed discussion of the historical context in which the First Amendment was developed. The metaphor was but a handy catch phrase to describe the upshot of its conclusion.

Perhaps even more than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

When discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish between the "public square" and "government." The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.

As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.

December 31, 2009 11:19 AM

FROM CHRIS DUMFORD: The Aspects of the limitations of the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding the Government's role in religion is not one without precedent. The 1963 decision was one borne out a change in cultural ideology, not one based on the historical precedent of the forefather's understanding of the 1st Amendment. To define the writings of the forefathers outside of their experiences and belief system is one of revisionism. The underlying background to the forefathers’ writings was that of a European model, not a modern secular model. Their writings reflected their separation, if you will, from a national Sect (i.e. Episcopalian or Catholic control of the religious hierarchy in league with the Government, or in some cases control of the government itself). Most of their early writings were influenced by practices such as forcing people to pay taxes to support certain churches such as the British model. Madison's detached memoranda cannot be quoted without its historical context. Notice that Madison is referring directly to this ideology when he writes, regarding Virginia's religious liberty act of 1786 which removed the requirement of Ministers to be licensed by the state and removed the requirement that a tax be paid in order to support Christian churches. In the fourth paragraph, Madison refers directly to this aspect of the Virginia law when he states that there was an attempt to require a tax in order to support Christian churches. Again, in a later paragraph, Madison refers to the various Christian charities openly supported by public taxation in Great Britain. What they saw at stake, was neither the recognition by the Federal Government of religion, nor an allowance of public religion to be expressed in a public or even a government forum. Notice when he discusses the issue of Congressional Chaplains, he does not imply that the Congress be purged of any recognition of God, if you will, but rather that the support of one sect above another is wrong, that is that instead of the Government being secularized, and completely dissected from religion, he refers to the inclusion of all sects. Madison's two caveats regarding Congressional chaplains and Military chaplains appears also to be one of financial support as refers to individual congressmen paying out of their own pockets for such means as chaplains.

Albeit, though Madison may have disagreed, there are still military chaplains paid for by taxpayer’s dollars. Though Madison felt that the public issue of a day of thanksgiving should not occur, even he appears to be somewhat radical in his view of the reach of the 1st amendment since as stated above, the Federal Government to this day pays chaplains in the military with public taxpayer's dollars, they still recognize a national day of prayer, they still have national holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas, both of which are largely Christian in their origin. They still open congressional sessions with prayer, they still have a national motto of In God We trust, they still recognize that God is the protector and Sovereign within the body of that Motto. What the Supreme Court did in 1963, was to placate a single complaint in which the justification for the ruling was at its worst completely at odds with historical precedent and previous court rulings as to the role of the government in openly supporting public worship and expression of such, and at its best, is hypocritical in regard to the practice of the other branches of Government, in that Congress can open in prayer, but a public school cannot. A chaplain can quote the Bible in a Prayer breakfast sponsored by the Executive branch, but a public school teacher cannot. The president can openly invoke the blessing of God in an address to Congress, but a public School teacher cannot. The government can print In God We trust on its currency, but cannot permit the display of the 10 commandments on a courthouse lawn, while swearing in a president on a Bible, a Governor on a Bible, or a witness within the same courthouse. Thus, what the Supreme Court did, was apply their ruling of Separation of Church and state selectively and ultimately, hypocritically. Thus, I agree that the Federal Government should not overtly or covertly support one sect over another (as was the traditional, historical argument), but I also believe that the removal of all forms of religious expression within the Government itself is also not the intent or historical application of the 1st Amendment. The current fear is that the idea of religious fundamentalism is inherently evil(especially in today's environment)and that somehow Christian fundamentalists have some covert idea to usurp the Government and establish some form of theocracy. On the contrary, most Christian fundamentalists only seek to have the historical freedom to express their religious views as they have since the foundation of the country and would be revolted at the idea of a theocracy as violating the very principle of priesthood of the believer.

January 1, 2010 10:47 PM

FROM DOUG INDEEP: Thank you for your thoughtful response. While disagreeing with your constriction of Madison's meaning, I agree with you that the available historical evidence falls short of definitively revealing the founders' intent and leaves much to interpretation. Wishful thinking leads some in different camps to declare, with unfounded certainty, that the founders' intent to separate church and state is a "myth" or plain as day; it is neither. It is such issues and such conflicting evidence that the Supreme Court is supposed to resolve in our system of government. The Court did just that in Everson v. Board of Education. The Court's reading of the First Amendment in this regard was unanimous; all nine Justices agreed on that much, but split 5-4 on whether the Amendment precludes states from paying for transportation of students to religious schools (the majority considering this okay).

Madison touched on the conflicting historical evidence in his Detached Memoranda, inquiring what should be made of the various actions (e.g., appointment of chaplains and thanksgiving proclamations) already taken in the nation's then "short history" inconsistent with the Constitution. Ever practical, his answer was not to demand these actions be undone, but rather to circumscribe their ill effect: "Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature]." He concluded it was "[b]etter to disarm in [this] way, the precedent of [such actions] than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion."

The Supreme Court, in effect, has followed Madison's advice, though not his suggested legal theories. The Court has confirmed the basic constitutional principle of separation of church and state, while also giving a pass to some governmental statements or actions, e.g., appointment of chaplains, sometimes with the explanation that they are more about tradition than religion per se. As you can imagine, those more interested in championing their religion than the constitutional principle commonly seek to exploit and expand such "exceptions" even if it requires they fake interest only in tradition. One consequence of the Court's approach has been, as you note, the seemingly disparate results of various cases in which some things are allowed and others are not.

Evidently not satisfied with that approach, you suggest, I gather, that the First Amendment should only prevent the government from overtly or covertly supporting one sect over another and allow the government some forms of religious expression. While not sure what you would encompass by the latter part of that suggestion, I think any such interpretation of the First Amendment would raise so many problems that I tire at the thought of listing them (perhaps I'm just feeling holiday laziness). For instance, where and how would one distinguish sects or groups of sects? While no expert on Christianity, I understand that it comprises dozens or even hundreds of sects depending on how one draws the lines. And why stop with Christianity since there are other monotheistic religions? Would it be okay for the government to support Islam as long as it refrained from choosing the Sunni or Shiite sect? And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism "belongs" in Christianity. A more fundamental question, naturally, is from whence does one derive any such interpretation of the First Amendment? While the founders were, no doubt, confronted with the need to address competition and conflict between a variety of sects, largely but not exclusively Christian, it is a non sequitur to suppose "therefore" that they intended merely to stop the government from favoring one "sect" (however defined), but leave it free to favor some (also undefined) grouping of sects (e.g., "generic" Christianity or perhaps monotheism, or theism, or deism, or some such).

The adage to be careful what you wish for comes to mind as well. Recall that to the extent "religion" in the establishment clause is reduced to a reference to one or more sects, "the free exercise thereof" is similarly reduced and rendered problematic.

Finally, you assert that the "current fear" is that evil religious fundamentalists want to establish a theocracy but say that "most Christian fundamentalists only seek to have the historical freedom to express their religious views as they have since the foundation of the country." I think this misses the mark.

The fear (historical and current) is that any religion may use the government to establish its position in society. This is not about Christians wanting "freedom to express their religious views." They have that freedom, and they use it prolifically. This is about Christians wanting to use the government to endorse their religion with its imprimatur and thereby permanently "establish" Christianity as the dominant religious influence in our society. In my view, under the First Amendment, Christians are free to strive to maintain and even increase their sway in our society; they simply cannot enlist the government as their ally or tool to that end. I think, though, some Christians fear their influence is waning and, out of fear, grasp at any means, even co-opting government, to hold on to Christianity's "traditional" dominance.

January 2, 2010 2:40 PM

Here is the latest post from Chris Dumford. Check the comments section for any additional reading

In regard to your last post, I am thankful for your information and the spirit by which you are discussing this issue. What I intended by my previous posts, was not some overt missive to establish Christianity above other religions (and I will confess that I am an ordained minister of the Gospel and personally would like to see Christianity propagated throughout the world), but rather to support the notion that the 1963 court ruling was one which overturned the previous precedents of the Federal Government in it's support of religious expression, especially in both the written, spoken expression and the open propagation of religion, and from my view an expression which mirrored the largely Christian practices within society. Here are several examples, which did not lead to the establishment of a Theocracy, nor threaten the free exercise of religion as practiced for almost 200 years prior to the court ruling. The issue at stake is whether the intent of the 1st Amendment was for members of the Government (I.e. including school teachers et,al) being restricted in either the open expression of religion, or the promotion of the practice thereof as so-called representatives of the state as I understand your argument. I contend as I have previously that this intent (and I am only expostulating my opinion that the court ruling was not in keeping with the original framers intent, nothing more, and nothing less) was not the case when penned by the framers. This is borne out by the implementation of prior policies openly supported and practiced by the Federal Government.

One of these indications was the 1803 treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which the Federal government under article 3 of the treaty agreed for 7-years to pay the salary of a Catholic priest and to provide funds for the erection of a church:

Excerpt from Article 3:

"The greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church. The stipulations made in this and the preceding article, together with the sum of five hundred and eighty dollars, which is now paid or assured to be paid for the said tribe for the purpose of procuring some necessary articles, and to relieve them from debts which they have heretofore contracted, is considered as a full and ample compensation for the relinquishment made to the United States in the first article..."

Now it can be argued that the Government was only assenting to the current culture of the Kaskaskia Tribes and this under the contemporary framework of viewing Indians as heathen and Christianity being a tool to "civilize" the Indians. The actual truth may be this case, but it indicates that the Government was a reflection of the cultural ideas of the day and saw no problem with supporting and propagating those ideas.

It is common knowledge that Jefferson approved holding church services in the capitol building on Sundays and the Marine Corps band was utilized to provide music during the services as attributed by his biographer. The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson approved the decision as president of the senate, and though still Vice President, had been elected president previous to the Congressional Approval. The Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported: City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph.

Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural address in 1864 could be preached in any church today. Lincoln accedes to the Bible being the predominate guiding force of both the US and CS populace. He both quotes scripture and applies it to Government policy regarding the prosecution of the war.

I am an avid military collector and amateur historian and in my collection is a Bible distributed by the federal government to US soldiers in France in WWI with an introductory letter in the fly leaf by Woodrow Wilson extolling them in their Christian faith.

By precedent, we have the Congress negotiating treaties and openly supporting the propagation of the Catholic faith among the Indians, we have the Congress and Senate approving the use of Federal public buildings for religious worship, we have the executive branch referring to the Bible as the standard for prosecuting the war between the states and openly promoting the distribution of religious materials to the military. It was lawful and legal for prayer and Bible reading in public schools prior to 1963. None of these practices resulted in forcibly bringing people to be required to worship God or any religion for that matter, it only indicates that the Supreme Court ruling in my opinion over-reached it's authority to narrowly define the intent of the 1st amendment in the face of all previous historical precedent to the contrary.

I do understand that the Constitution has within its body the allowance for the Constitution to be amended to provide for changes in culture. A supreme example would be the question of slavery. Prior to the Civil War (and you being an attorney are much more versed on this decision than I am), The Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves were property and not subject to the rights granted under the Constitution. If the Civil War had occurred in our modern age, the Court would most likely have simply ruled that the right of former slaves to vote and the right to be free were implied under the "We the People" clause of the Preamble. Not so for the Court in that day. They tackled what was then a decisive question regarding the cultural ideologies of their day by amending the Constitution. This implies that former courts were very careful NOT to read into the Constitution more than what was intended by the framers, especially based on former practice. This same principle occurred when the Court addressed Women's suffrage.

As I previously stated, I believe that the current social understanding of the separation of Church and State is not the historical understanding. Converse to this, I do not advocate that the 1st Amendment be stretched beyond the historical precedents into some ideology that the Government should carry the banner of religion, only that the Government itself, and the individuals that are representative of such Government be permitted the same freedoms of expression that private citizens have outside of the auspices of the Government, as was practiced up to 1963.

As with any Court ruling, this ruling has been used to filter down to state and local governments. In some cases the courts have upheld religious freedoms, but in the majority of cases which have stemmed from this ruling, there is a continuing erosion of those freedoms due to the court kicking open the door if you will. This can be seen in the current 2nd amendment debates, the apparent overreach of the Department of the Interior, the Government reach regarding environmental policy, the debate over the 10th amendment, and a whole host is issues which would constitute another series of blog debates which I do not have the desire or energy to enter into.