So its been roughly 24 hours since Mitt delivered his big speech, and by now virtually everyone has had a chance to weigh in on how they feel. Normally I would have been right there with them, but in this case my reaction was so intense that I decided to hold off for a day in the hope that I might settle down. But it's now been a day, and my feelings haven't changed. My reaction today is in fact precisely what it was yesterday. I'm still angry. And here's why:
In this speech Romney set out a very specific vision for America, and it is one with which I have deep and profound disagreements. But I don't support Romney, nor do I support his party, so that's neither surprising nor disappointing. In fact, to be perfectly honest I would have been disappointed had I not disagreed with it. So that's not what bothers me.
What bothers me is that Romeny wasn't just outlining his vision for a future America. He was also trying to tell a story about our collective past. And to tell that story in a way that makes his vision of the future make sense, he had to rewrite our history. And that I find deeply offensive.
Take, for example, this key section from the middle of the speech:
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong....We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
No, Mitt. You are wrong. And demonstrating this is not even the slightest bit difficult.
In a series of papers now known as the "Detached Memorandum," James Madison, the author and congressional sponsor of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, wrote the following:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor....
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.
Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers....
They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.
Madison, the man who literally wrote the First Amendment, opposed the idea of chaplains in Congress. He opposed the idea of Presidential proclamations of thanksgiving that mentioned God. And as President, he carried through on his beliefs with a series of vetos, one of which prompted the following message to Congress:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration...
Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
Madison could not possibly have made this more clear. The First Amendment was intended to prohibit things even as simple as donating land for a church or paying the salary of a congressional or military chaplain. This man literally wrote the First Amendment. If he did not understand its meaning, no one did.
Aside from concerns about historical accuracy, this error - one that most Americans undoubtedly make - leads to a set of false and dangerous conclusions. If you believe that the Founders intended religion to be a central element of the part of the public sphere occupied by government, you will almost necessarily work backwards to assume that a belief in the existence of christian god was a key aspect of their understandings of liberty and freedom. And having done so, you are likely to make statements like this, taken from early in Romney's speech:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
From a philosophical point of view this is absurd, but I'm not here to debate Romney on philosophy, so I'm going to leave that be. Rather, what I take issue with is his implication that this view can and must have been shared by the men who wrote our constitution and founded our country. Having spent literally countless hours reading the writings of Jefferson and Madison, I can promise you that this vision of freedom tied to religion is not at all what these men had in mind. In fact, Romney's vision is precisely the opposite of what they believed.
But rather than construct the argument, I'm going to allow these men to speak for themselves. As you consider these quotes, think about Romney's "freedom requires religion" formulation, and consider how these men might have responded.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together -James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. -Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. - James Madison
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity. -James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821
The historical record makes clear that this "debate" is entirely one sided. The record here is perfectly clear. Jefferson and Madison clearly understood that religion requires freedom, but they just as clearly rejected the notion that freedom requires religion. To the men responsible for writing our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, true freedom required a "mutual independence" between the two. If Romney wants to argue that this nation should choose to become a theocratic democracy, that is his right. But to argue that such a vision is what we have always been, or worse, what we were always intended to be, is a lie. And I suspect his religion might have something to say to him about lies.
Moreover, having set out this argument - "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" - I cannot help but wonder: What impact does this statement have on Mitt's vision for a global struggle against radical Islam? If we are in a battle against the forces of a dangerous religion, clearly some caveats are needed here. If not all religions are required for freedom, how are we to distinguish between them? And more to the point, how is our government to distinguish between them without running afoul of his declaration that "no state interfere with the free practice of religion?" I'm not being flippant here. Given his formulation of freedom, this is a very real and very serious question. Is Romney arguing that any and all religions support freedom? And if not, what will be the test applied by the government that will allow us to distinguish between the two?
These questions, ones that flow directly out of Romney's logic, are precisely the sort of questions that Madison and Jefferson's definition of liberty and freedom sought to avoid. They are precisely and exactly why they insisted throughout their lives that a "mutual independence" be maintained between the two. They are precisely and exactly why they argued for a strict, total, and complete separation between the church and the state. Forget the slippery slope - this really is a binary argument. Once you cross the threshold into linking freedom and religion, you have entered an entirely different world.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
