Indeed, tpaine -- they had seen enuf of "the divine right of kings." The DoI is full of complaints against royal privilege/abuse. Which is why, in our system, the people are nominally sovereign not, say, the president.
Thanks for the great essay/post! Not much to disagree with there! (Are you surprised? :^) )
Thanks Betty. - Your honesty doesn't surprise me, but I'm always amazed at how many disagree with the base principles behind our establishment/religious test clauses. [again, agreeing that prohibitionists have abused those clauses
Yes indeedy, they sure have!
Clearly, the Framers must have thought religious liberty (the right of conscience) of preeminent importance -- even though these same men would prohibit "religious tests" for federal public office in the main body of the Constitution.
Betty, notice my 'bold' quote from that test clause of Art VI; the clause clearly says that no test shall ever be required for "-- any office or public Trust under the United States. --"
-- State & local officials hold many offices of public trust in the USA. The clause applies to them, just as it applies to fed officials.
At the same time, however, all federal oaths of office require the candidate to "swear (or affirm)" his allegience to the Constitution before assuming his public duties. Always -- at least until the coming of Ralph Ellison, who demanded a Koran be made available to him for the purpose of his Oath (an unfortunate accommodation, IMHO, for it put a government institution in the position of discriminating/referee-ing among religious creeds) -- a Bible is involved for the purpose of the Oath....
Betty, many binding oaths are made without a bible, - for instance my military oath was sworn with simply a raised hand.
This instantly tells us that JudeoChristian moral law is the foundation and touchstone of our system of justice.
Greek, Roman, Norman, English common law, even Iroquois tribal law was mentioned by founders as being influential on drafting Constitutional law.
I mean, we don't ask public officers to swear on Marvel comics, or The DaVinci Code! This fact ought to moot the issue of whether the Ten Commandments should be removed from court houses (particularly the Supreme Court) and other public venues; or that "In God we trust" be removed from our currency; or the "under God" provision from the Pledge of Allegience....
The two -- federal government recognition of religious freedom and no religious tests for federal office -- are not in conflict: Both are reconciled in the idea that the federal government may not favor any particular religious creed over any other, but that religion in general is to be free to flourish.
State & local governments are equally obligated to recognize "religious freedom and no religious tests for office" under the provisions of Art VI's Law of the Land clause; "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
Nor can state & local gov'ts favor any particular religious creed over any other, so that religion in general is free to flourish.
The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.
We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
The so-called "wall of separation" between church and state is an illusion in the fevered brains of Left-progressive, positivist judicial theoreticians. It has no real Constitutional basis.
I thought we agreed that legislators were forbidden to write laws "respecting an establishment of religion" -- while protecting its free exercise. -- And no religious test could be required as "Qualification to any Office or public Trust" in the USA.
Our founders had seen enough of state sanctioned men of God, who attempted to rule as if they had the power of God.
Now you disagree, -- and say that no such 'wall' can separate church & state?
The First Amendment has to be read in 18th C. language. The classical interpretation is narrow: that the federal government is prohibited from establishing a national religion like the Church of England. Establishment of a religion was reserved to the several states and to the people. Only quite recently, in the 20th C. liberal era, has legal opinion broadened to interpret the clause as prohibiting any federal spending for religious purposes. That view is liberalism, not constitutionalism.
The Bill of Rights dealt very specifically with limitations on federal powers. The First Amendment is not to be read without reference to the Tenth, which reserved powers prohibited to the federal government to the several states and to the people. The states did exercise that power. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Georgia and Maryland all passed taxes specifically to support the Christian religion. Individuals generally were given the right to earmark their taxes to the church of their choice.
All I'm saying is there is no "wall of separation" language in the Constitution itself. That term was Thomas Jefferson's, in a letter to a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, during the ratification period. Rhode Island has a very long and noble history of religious toleration; the Jews evidently had been wondering whether their lot in life would be any better in a United States under a federal constitution. So TJ -- a champion of religious freedom and toleration and, thus, of the separation of church and state necessary to preserve them -- wrote back, with assurances that the proposed Constitution guarantees equal protection of Jews and freedom of religious conscience. He used the term "wall of separation" to make his point. But that seems to be a rather severe and highly simplified reduction of his full position WRT these matters.
We had this exchange:
Me: The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.With all due respect for your prodigious knowledge of the Constitution, tpaine, and your keen meditation of it, I'm not sure I can accept your "'bold' addition," if by it you mean that the federal Constitution also applies to the state and local governments on religious matters. I think that's still an open question. I guess the answer depends on the reach of the 14th Amendment. But after all this time, that is still unclear: At least it seems Supreme Court justices have been very choosey about what federally-recognized constitutional rights to "incorporate" under the 14th amendment for application to the States.You: We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
What is clear, however, is the federal Constitution envisions and, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, gives primacy to federal constitutional law; while at the same time, the Constitution also envisions a separation and balance of power between the federal government and the States'. It seems to me if the feds were to become overwhelmingly dominant in this sphere of power relations, then we'd probably have a totalitarian dictatorship on our hands. FWIW.
Plus recall that the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights were primarily designed to be assurances to the States that the feds would not transgress the States' own prerogatives, customs, and liberties in this regard.
It's an interesting, unresolved tension. Maybe it shouldn't ever be "finally resolved" for the above reason. In any case, attitudes of religious toleration have been widespread and customary in our society at all levels.
At least until very recent times.... When thanks to the popularity of "progressive ideas," religion itself is increasingly becoming what cannot be tolerated.
Your thoughts, dear tpaine?
Thank you so much for writing!