Week 1 -- Secularist Foundations

[clunney]

As an introduction to this, I wrote a little review (my perspective) on the reading for this week.  It's a little long, but I think it provides a good starting point for the discussions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ingersoll named the United States "the first secular government that was ever founded in this world," and in doing so identified one of the most unique and significant testaments of our founding fathers.  Values of secularism belong at the heart of any discussion of public policy and government operations, not relegated to the hysterical fringe and demonized by just about every religious leader that has had the opportunity to speak out.

It's interesting how marginalized the secular foundations of our government have become, and how afraid we all are of offending someone if we remind them of it.  Susan Jacoby does an excellent job of expounding the secularist history of the United States and how the major players in it's formation were not just atheists, infidels or heathens, but all manner of religious followers -- from strict atheists with a mortal hatred of all religious beliefs (Paine and Ethan Allen) to deists with a much more open, but still extremely non-traditional viewpoint (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) to a more formalized and recognizable traditional Christianity (George Washington).  Yet all of them recognized and identified with the concept of secularism as a core value in what a government "Of the people, by the people and for the people" should be.

It's amazing to read some of the statements by both proponents and opponents of the secularist-style laws being proposed up to and including the US Constitution.  Many, if not all, of the concepts and quotes could just have easily been written in the last 15 years by the creationists, hyper-religious judges, and hard-core atheists battling it out in courtrooms across the country.

     "Notions of the depravity of human reason were cherished by priests because, if ordinary human beings were assumed to be perfectly capable of reasoning for themselves, the clergy would be out of work."
      -- Ethan Allen

     "Deism has got such a Head in this Age of Licentious Liberty, that it would be in vain to stop it by hiding the Deistical Writings: And the only Way left to conquer and demolish it , is to come forth into the open Field and dispute it on an even Footing."
     --Reverend Ezra Stiles

     "We will have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individulas, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck."
     --Reverend John Mason

I found it also curious that one of the biggest detractors of Thomas Paine in the late 1790's, William Cobbett, actually had not read any of Paine's works before attacking him for being an infidel and an evil influence.  It reminds me a lot of the typical religious believer who accepts creationism or Intelligent Design, and yet does not understand basic scientific concepts and principles which are violated by both of those "theories".  They are much more willing to dismiss and disregard valid, documented and well established science and evidence, hard facts and logical conclusions based on those facts and evidence, and yet would prefer to accept, with no logic, reason or evidence, some non-natural explanation for everything.  

The similarities to today's world and that of nearly 250 years ago is frightening.  When Paine wrote about the irony that Americans complained about injustices done by the British to them, and yet Americans continued to enslave others, he could just as easily be talking about Christians today whining because their influence in public is being diminshed by the 'atheists', and yet their influence in the public square is growing and becoming much more prominent (re: Bush, Ashcroft, Judge Moore in Alabama, etc).  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think will provide some fodder for the masses to digest and spit out some responses!  For now, that's my initial contribution to the group, and expresses my views and interpretations of the first couple chapters.  I spent most of my efforts focusing on the Introduction and Chapter 1, with only a few little pieces dedicated to Thomas Paine.  I'm hoping someone else will provide some insight and discussion of his works and life.  I'm really interested to see if others have the similar interpretations of what Jacoby has written and what history has provided.  I personally think she did a fabulous job, but I'm not a historian (it's been nearly 20 years since I took a formal history course), and I don't have the background to verify her sources and quotes.  

Have fun, write extensively, and learn from each other.  I'm personally looking forward to this for a number of reasons, only one of which is to analyze and understand the American secularist history.  

Talk to you all later,

Chuck

[Zoroaster]

I agree that Ms. Jacoby does a great job with the limited space she had to devote to the nascent U.S. and its founders. One point though, that I think is worth lingering upon is that religious culture is very different now than it was 200 years ago.

Jacoby makes the point, in part, by describing the Bush Whitehouse and the various ways in which he has behaved to promote a Christian agenda.  While this is true, it is also true that our society is much more secular than it was 200 years ago - which Jacoby does acknowledge.  

One might ask, how can this be so?  Jacoby does not venture a detailed explanation (as it is not particularly relevant to the theme of her book), but I have an idea for a partial explanation: the inadequecies of our two-party system have forced fundamentalists to coalesce in (and in some ways hijack) the Republican party.  This was not the case during Jefferson's administration, "orthodox" voters were spread more evenly.  Now, however, the consolidation of the "relgious" in the Republican party has given them substantial voting power, much the same way organized labor has consolidated in the Democratic party.  

The result of all this has been that the majority of secularists have flocked to the Democratic party, but their political power is still virtually naught.  The modern voting secularist ends up voting for higher taxes and more government programs in exchange for nominal representation by a LESS evangelical Christian.  I am a bit off the subject here, but Jacoby DOES open with an indictment of the religiosity of the current presidential administration.

I am not intending to write an apologia for Bush here - just to point out that the two party system has disenfranchised us.  If the Libertarian party were a viable alternative, I'd likely vote that way, but as of now that'd be a wasted vote.

[jsabel]

I agree with your assertion that fundamentalists have coalesced in the Republican party, but I don't agree that it is only because of the inadequacies of our current two party system.  In the first chapter of the book, Jacoby comments on the coalescence of religious conservatives in the Federalist party at the time of the Adams presidency.  She says, "Not all Federalists were religious conservatives, but nearly all religious conservatives were Federalists." (pg. 44)
It seems as though our secular foundation may be due, in part,  to the fact that political parties did not exist before the Washington presidency and so could not be influenced by a religious constituency.  Again, as Jacoby says, "Had the Constitution been written in 1797 instead of 1787, it is entirely possible that God, not  'we, the people,' would have been credited with supreme governmental authority." (pg. 43)

[Zoroaster]

I don't think Jacoby spends enough time explicating the tenor of religious culture at the turn of the 19th century.  I think the implication is that the Federalist party of yore is a parrallel to the Republican party of today, which for many reasons is incorrect.  Consider this quote, "t is impossible to overstate the importance of Virginia's 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, for much to the dismay of religious conservatives... (emphasis added)" (Jacoby, 19).  The usage of the very term "religious conservative" is not only non-sensical considering the context, but it is a blatant anachronism which shows her implication that the Federalists are the harbingers of Republicans.  It's worth noting that the Democratic-Republicans stood for state's rights and strict constructionism of the U.S. constitution which are two very important tenets of conservatism today.

Consider also, "

• nly a small proportion of secularists were brave enough to ackowledge that they were as interested in freedom of conscience for deists and freethinkers as they were in freedom for conventional religious believers..." (Jacoby, 23). This is the heart of my point - that while believers in the Federalist camp may have been more orthodox than many believers in the DR party, but that the believers in the DR party weren't willing either to concede freedom of conscience.  That the political landscape of posterity has not shaped into an easy comparison, is all I'm saying.

Switching gears now, My point about the two-party system was primarily that it has disenfranchised secularists.  As a fiscally conservative secularist, I can tell you that I have been disenfranchised (as a practical matter).  Imagine if all of Iowa's secularists lived in a single community, and we could select whomever we chose to represent us on the city council and state legislature.  From that would emerge candidates with varying political philosophies, but the one thing they would likely have in common is being pro-secular.  So, in a situation such as that a two-party system might do well for me but with the present secular diaspora I don't always have a legitimate choice to represent me in government.

[jsabel]

But, even if we did not have a two party government are you sure you would find someone to represent you?  Even in the Democratic party, which is not as full of religious extemism, it is still impossible to expect to be elected if you are not religious.  Kerry ran into trouble from those questioning his faith - and he started talking so much about how he used to be an alter boy as a result.  It seems to me that secularists in Jefferson's time were more likely to find their way into politics than they are today.  Jefferson became president even though it was well known that he was not an active Christian.  I think our current political climate would make it impossible for anyone to be openly sympathetic to the secular cause from either, or any, party.
On another note, I agree that Jacoby opens with an "indictment of the religiosity of the current presidential administration."  She continues to do so throughout the book.   This is the one complaint that I have about this book.  I think a book of history should remain as timeless as possible.  Of course it will be dated by the constraints of the year in which it was written and the information available at that time.  But, the Bush administration should have remained as a point in the story just as all the other administrations.

[Zoroaster]

I'm not sure you're following me exactly.

I don't mean to say that it is the structure of a two-party system that has led to the effective disenfranchisement of secularists but that we've mostly opted for the Democratic party.  That decision has gotten us nowhere, for reasons exactly like you stated, that Kerry "ran into trouble from those questioning his faith."

One atheist friend of mine (Dan) votes primarily democratic because of his social and religious views, but happens to be fairly fiscally conservative.  However, he only ends up voting for someone who only marginally supports his secularist views and none of his fiscal ones.

I, however, tend to vote for candidates who support my fiscal concerns but would probably publically excoriate my religious views.  If all of Iowa's secularists, for example, moved to Granger, we could create a substantial enough population that secularists of all types of political philosophy would emerge.  Dan and I would have a fiscally conservative atheist to vote for, and others could have more traditionally "liberal" secularists to vote for.  We wouldn't all agree on everything, but in the end we'd at least vote for some kind of secularist.

Back to the book - it will disappoint me if Jacoby repeatedly returns to the Bush adminstration alone as an example of the modern religious/political relationship.  Modernity has created this litmus test that the president or candidate must publically demonstrate faith - Bush is not alone in that regard (though he may have done more harm in that respect than many of his predecessors).
 

[jsabel]

I understand that you're not blaming it all on the two party system.  My point is just that I'm not sure the problems created by the religious being in the "right" (politically only of course) would be eradicated if the population were more evenly spread.  Jacoby points to the poll released in 2003 where "fully half of Americans said that they would refuse to vote for an atheist for president - regardless of his or her other qualifications."  It does seem, though, that it would be easier to elect someone who would support secularists if they did not have to run up against the entire religious right!

Also, back to a few posts ago, I agree with you that Jacoby makes it sound as if the Federalists were comparable to the Republicans and thus the religious right was similar to today.  My point with that, though, was that Jefferson was elected president even though he was running up against the party of the religious.  Of course,  he was running on the fact that he was a founding father of our country so they had a reason to overlook his infidelity!  But, Jacoby makes the point that his success was also due to support of the separation of church and state.  "That many Americans could embrace evangelical revivalism while voting for the deist Jefferson attests to the widespead acceptance of separation of church and state in the young republic." (pg. 46).

I think it is telling of the climate at the time that Jefferson was elected president even though he was a deist based on his support of the separation of church and state but Paine was ostracized for his criticism of religion (that many of his criticizers had not even read).
 

[clunney]

This is a great start to the discussion!  

I happen to agree with Zoroaster that the way the current political system has developed, the fundamentalist evangelicals have almost all gravitated to the Republican party.  As Jamie most appropriately quoted "Not all Federalists were religious conservatives, but nearly all religious conservatives were Federalists."  Quite obviously, the same could be said today about the Republican party.

And, as Zoroaster makes clear on, not all secularists agree with or support the standard Democratic party agenda.  There are a lot of fiscal conservative, less-is-more government, more socially conservative secularists out there who are not well represented by either of the two majority party platforms.  

OK, enough of modern politics...

Seriously, it is a very interesting topic, and it makes this book much more timely and appropriate.  But I'm interested to hear some more in-depth analysis of the first two chapters (most of the discussion has focused on the Introduction).   I'd also love to hear from more members of the group -- Toast, Brian???  Beuler, Beuler?

What is your reaction to the treatment Thomas Paine received after the founding of the USA, and the hostility that he faced when he returned to the States?  Do you feel it was justified, or was it an example of the outpouring of religiosity that was forming in the late 1700's and early 1800's?  Also, as Jacoby points out several times throughout the book, there appears to be a cyclical pattern to secular acceptance and influence, followed by a strong shift to the religious in public proclamations and officeholders.  Obviously the founding fathers were acting in a time of strong secularist support, but it is equally obvious that by the turn of the century (1800), open support for secular ideas and legislation had waned significantly.

How about some more discussion of the arguments for and against the secularist bent of the Constitution, and whether the language used truly is "non-religious".  I know Jacoby thinks so, but what do you think?  Is the lack of mention of a Creator or God in the Constitution a well-defined "wall of separation", or is it (as many modern pundits claim) only focused on keeping government out of religions, not religion out of government?

Keep up the great work, Zo and Jamie.  Let's try and get some more voices involved!  

[bsabel]

I apologize from my absence from the discussion.  I wanted to re-read the chapters before I commented (it's been a while since I read it.)  I'm not quite done with 2 but I will throw out a few comments in response to Chuck's questions.  Specifically, I want to address the language of the Constitution and Thomas Paine's unfortunate homecoming.

First, the Constitution.  There is no doubt in my mind that the omission of the word "God" in the Constitution was deliberate.  While it's true that at the drafting of the Constitution, there was little discussion of the divine, the subsequent considerations of the document put religion at the center of the debate.  To claim that the drafters inadvertently omitted religion from the Constitution is a joke and an insult!  [Scene:  Jefferson and Washington standing over the Constitution.  Washington exclaims, "Hey...we didn't talk about God!"  Jefferson smacks his forhead, "OH! I totally forgot!  That sucks.  Well, maybe everyone will just assume we meant to put Him in there."] They were painfully aware of what they were doing.  I imagine that it took a great deal of bravery.  They knew that what they were doing was revolutionary.  I think it is also true that they did not envision a society like ours.  I'm sure the culture wars would never have occurred to them!  But they did know that if there had been a state religion, the conditions of our day would be much worse.  Imagine what our horrific Civil War would have looked like with a state religion involved...sobering thought.

Now for poor Thomas Paine.  I think he was the victim of very bad timing.  His return to the US in 1802 refocused on him a negativity that might have abated had he been in the country the whole time.  The revivalism of the era was also part of a cycle that we've seen repeated over and over throughout history.  I'll have more on this tomorrow when I finish Chapter 2!

[Zoroaster]

Frankly, I think Jacoby overstates the pro-secular mood of the newborn U.S.  I agree with her, however, that the constitution was written at the apex of tolerance and had it not been, we would likely have references to a divine creator.

I quoted a piece earlier in which Jacoby acknowledges only a small proportion of the secularists of the day were willing to concede freedom of "conscience" for atheists.  Remember that Jefferson always claimed to be a Christian, and never publically questioned the divinity of Christ.  Paine was simply too radical and would have been an ignominy regardless of his timing.

As for the lack of mention of "God" creating the "wall of separation," again I don't think that most founders would have viewed it that strongly.  Perhaps a semi-permeable membrane [speaking of anachronisms] through which Christians can flow in but no religion flows out.  Essentially, someone like George Washington envisioned Christians in government but not a Christian government.

[bsabel]

I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on the state's rights versus federal control issues surrounding the absence of religious language in the drafting of the Constitution.  The lack of such language is attributed by some to a passive acknowlegement of states' rights to determine their own balance.  How does that settle with the influence of the Virginia model on the US Constitution?  Jacoby argues that the founding fathers hoped that other states would follow their lead, implying that they had specifically intended to influence the states' decision.

[Zoroaster]

The question of whether the 14th amendment "incorporates" the 1st amendment has been a much debated legal question and has generated numerous cases.

The 14th amendment extends priveleges and immunties and due process to state as well as federal action, but how the 14th amendment applies to the rights in the bill of rights has engendered much litigation.

From a historical perspective, I think it obvious that state sovereignty under the federal constitution was a delicate balance and that most people of the time would have viewed each state as solely having the right to determine religious rights under their own state constitutions and laws.  I think Jeffersonians hoped other states would follow Virginia's lead, but believed that the extant federal system allowed states to chart their own course.

I believe it wasn't until the 20th century that the 1st amendment received full incorporation status under the 14th amendment (there are a lot of cobwebs in this stuff from law school years ago) and indeed the 14th amendment was still decades from existence for the time period we're discussing.

I guess my overall point is the fact that we had to have supreme court cases to decide that the bill of rights applies to the states indicates strongly that no one before the 14th amendment believed that they did.

[Toast]

Hey everyone.
I still don't have my copy of this book, so I'm standing mute on book content.  I am happy to throw in general comments on comments!!
 
On this matter of the seperation of church and state in the Constitution and the feeling of Congress near the end of the 1700s, I offer into evidence the Treaty of Tripoli, sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved..  In which is the following:
 

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This is my favorite quote for use with the 'founding fathers' arguments.