Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, November 17, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document The joining of church and state

by Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen

Thanks torowed and Adam for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=755f0e0c-9c44-40f2-95ac-200d6acfd463

America's founding fathers would not have been impressed with the holy alliance of Pat Robertson and Rudy Giuliani

pat
Observers were shocked when evangelical Christian Pat Robertson, left, last week endorsed the presidential bid of Rudolph Giuliani, who has supported abortion and gay rights.

NEW YORK - Legendary lawyer and scholar Alan Dershowitz laughs when I mention Rudy Giuliani and Pat Robertson.

Rudy Giuliani is a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination because the former mayor of New York City was calm and resolute when the planes hit that awful morning in September, 2001. Pat Robertson is a leading televangelist because he calmly and resolutely promotes religious quackery, such as his infamous observation that 9/11 was God's punishment for abortion and gay rights.

So reporters were stunned when Giuliani and Robertson stood together at a podium last week to announce that the preacher was endorsing the presidential bid of a man who has supported abortion and gay rights, and that the hero of 9/11 would gratefully accept this honour from the man who said New York got what it deserved. Both men grinned like they'd just robbed a bank.

"That's the best thing that's happened in a long time. It exposes the cynicism of both of them," Dershowitz says. "The fact is, Robertson is endorsing Giuliani not because of his religion but despite it, so it makes it very clear that Pat Robertson's religion is really politics. His Jesus packs heat, cuts taxes and hates immigrants. It's not the Jesus of the New Testament."

For Dershowitz, American politics isn't offering much to celebrate these days. Aside from the obvious problems of war and all the rest, the Harvard law professor and civil libertarian sees the separation of church and state steadily eroding. And that means the very foundation of the United States is weakening.

Like most jurisdictions at the time, the American colonies linked civil rights and religion. A full citizen was someone who professed the correct faith. Those who did not may have been tolerated to one extent or another, but they were not equals.

The Founding Fathers junked that. The American Constitution "was the first constitution in history to make no mention of God. The only reference to religion is a negative one," Dershowitz notes. It appears in Article Six: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Formally, that still holds. In reality, it's a dead letter. "Today, we have a religious test for office," says Dershowitz. "It is inconceivable that an atheist, an agnostic or a skeptic could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified atheist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of religious belief is an automatic disqualification for public office.

In this new environment, presidential candidates routinely tell impassioned stories about how they found Jesus and how faith shapes their thinking. Rudy Giuliani scarcely mentioned God at all when he was mayor of New York but now he can't stop talking about how important religion is to him. Saying nothing is not an option. Questions about faith have become standard in debates and every politician knows that the only acceptable answer is to gush. Barack Obama did. So did Hillary Clinton. Even Howard Dean, the quintessential secular liberal, pandered shamelessly -- and was humiliated when he claimed his favourite book in the New Testament is Job.

This is an astonishing change in a country which has always been religious but where, until a generation ago, faith was considered a private matter. "I believe that the Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty," Dershowitz says. "They all wear their religion on their sleeve and the appropriate place for religion is not in politics."

That may seem like a modern, liberal view, but Dershowitz insists it's very old and quintessentially American. "It was the view of the founding generation. The 1800 election was all about that. Thomas Jefferson ran and refused to disclose his religious beliefs. He refused to deny he was an atheist, though he was not. He was a deist. And he said I'm just not going to talk about my religion. Sorry. And Adams ran against him on a campaign of Adams and God, Jefferson and no God. And Jefferson won."

I spoke to Dershowitz a block away from St. Paul's chapel in New York, the old stone church where George Washington went to pray after being inaugurated the first president. Conservatives point to symbols like that to make the case that the United States was a Christian nation at its foundation and so it should remain, but Dershowitz, who has written three books on the subject, is having none of that.

Washington prayed after the inauguration, he says, because almost everyone at the time was protestant and "he was a politician." It would have been odd not to. "But he typically drove his wife to church in a horse and buggy and his wife went to church while he stayed outside. He was not a church-going person. And as president, he clearly espoused a kind of civic religion."

In the late 18th century, atheism was almost unknown but rising excitement about science and rationalism led intellectuals to reject organized religion. Instead, they embraced what was known as deism. The supernatural is an illegitimate explanation for anything within the universe, the deists argued, but still there must be a God. After all, we see design all around us. How can there be design without a designer?

And so deists concluded there is a God who created existence but who, like a clockmaker, does not interfere in the operations of his creation once he has set it in motion.

Deism was devastated by Charles Darwin. With evolution, it was possible to have design without a designer and so the deists' logic collapsed and modern atheism was born.
But for the men who founded the United States, that lay in the future. Intellectual life at the time was dominated by deism and those beliefs were reflected in the institutions they created, notably the "godless Constitution."

Seeking to portray a very different reality, religious conservatives today ignore the Constitution and focus instead on the Declaration of Independence, which is shot through with references to God. That's the real founding document, they say, and it shows the United States was a Christian nation from the beginning.

Wrong, Dershowitz responds. Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration and Jefferson actually ridiculed Christianity. The New Testament, Jefferson wrote, was the product of "very inferior minds" and consisted of "so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture" that it could be characterized as "dung." Jesus was a wonderful teacher in Jefferson's eyes, but nothing more. He even went through the Bible with a pair of scissors, taking out all the supernatural nonsense.

When conservatives point to the declaration and cite the references to God, "they make an easy transition from God to the God of the Bible, from God to Jesus, from God to Jehovah," Dershowitz says. "And that's precisely what the framers intended to avoid. The God of the declaration of Independence is the God that got Spinoza excommunicated from Judaism in Amsterdam. It was the God of nature. In fact, the God of nature is explicitly referred to in the Declaration of Independence. There is no reference to the God of the Bible, to an intervening God. There is no reference whatsoever to Jesus, to Jewish traditions, to Christian traditions, none at all. The reference is to a very different type of God. It's Aristotle's clockmaking God, the deist God, the God who had nothing to do with the Bible. Jefferson was as clear as could be."

American political culture is unique in the reverence it has for the beliefs and intentions of the (always capitalized) Founding Fathers, and yet religion has become so dominant in American politics that probably the greatest Founding Father could not be elected president today. "Jefferson didn't do what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and everybody else is doing," Dershowitz says. "He must be turning over in his grave."

Dan Gardner Writes Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #88539 by stevieb on November 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

nice article- maybe dershowitz should write a book about the declaration of independence... then journalists could mention that when quoting him...

Other Comments by stevieb

2. Comment #88544 by FreeThink25 on November 17, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Jefferson and Jesus both!

Other Comments by FreeThink25

3. Comment #88599 by elfstoned on November 18, 2007 at 2:31 am

I read somewhere that Robertson is supporting Giuliani because he believes it will hasten the Apocalypse. It is definitely believable.
Now, if we could convince all religions that supporting secular causes will bring Apocalypse, Second Coming, 72 virgins or whatever else they have in mind for the end of the world... It would be sad to waste such stupidity when it can be used for good!!

Other Comments by elfstoned

4. Comment #88602 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 2:39 am

 avatar 3. Comment #88599 by elfstoned on November 18, 2007 at 2:31 am
I read somewhere that Robertson is supporting Giuliani because he believes it will hasten the Apocalypse.


DUDE!!!! That was a spoof article! This is a clear thinking oasis remember? Lets not post crazy shit, not even about religious nut jobs, without making sure it's true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/pat-robertson-says-giulia_b_71744.html

Roberstson is a cynical old fart, thats what this clearly indicates. So no surprise there then.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

5. Comment #88609 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 3:15 am

 avatarThere is an interesting editorial piece in today's New York Times about Giuliani. Nothing to do with religion, but possibly a pointer to future sleaze allegations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18rich.html?ref=opinion

Other Comments by epeeist

6. Comment #88620 by elfstoned on November 18, 2007 at 3:59 am

brian, I didn't say it was true, just believable. I didn't remember the source. Don't freak out.

Other Comments by elfstoned

7. Comment #88641 by Steever on November 18, 2007 at 7:57 am

Comment #88539 by stevieb
nice article- maybe dershowitz should write a book about the declaration of independence... then journalists could mention that when quoting him...


He has ... I saw it at the library the other day. Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/37b7kl

Other Comments by Steever

8. Comment #88648 by mithraman on November 18, 2007 at 9:27 am

This is the same Alan Dershowitz that condones torture. I guess he'd get along well with Sam Harris.

Other Comments by mithraman

9. Comment #88713 by stevieb on November 18, 2007 at 4:15 pm

>He has ... I saw it at the library the other day. Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/37b7kl

I know! ;-)

Other Comments by stevieb

10. Comment #88736 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 6:24 pm

 avatar
DUDE!!!! That was a spoof article! This is a clear thinking oasis remember? Lets not post crazy shit, not even about religious nut jobs, without making sure it's true.


the problem of course its hard to differentiate between spoof and non spoof when it comes to the religious mind.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

11. Comment #88737 by steveroot on November 18, 2007 at 6:42 pm

 avatarFrom the Horse's mouth:
http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=6796&srch=

Look at the grins on their faces. Wilson's disease? And what is Rudy doing with his hand in his pocket??
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

12. Comment #88784 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 2:01 am

 avatar11. Comment #88737 by steveroot-

That's not Rudy's "hand" in his pocket...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

13. Comment #88806 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 2:40 am

 avatarIsn't anyone going to take this article to task for its inaccuracies and faulty reasoning? Or do we only do that to articles which reach a conclusion we don't agree with?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

14. Comment #88832 by RoryCalhone on November 19, 2007 at 3:38 am

 avatar
Isn't anyone going to take this article to task for its inaccuracies and faulty reasoning? Or do we only do that to articles which reach a conclusion we don't agree with?


Well Hungarianelephant, why don't you?

Other Comments by RoryCalhone

15. Comment #88845 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 4:11 am

 avatarWell let's start with this:
Formally, that still holds. In reality, it's a dead letter. "Today, we have a religious test for office," says Dershowitz. "It is inconceivable that an atheist, an agnostic or a skeptic could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified atheist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of religious belief is an automatic disqualification for public office.

Try a bit of substitution and it's more obvious what a weak argument this is:
"It is inconceivable that a white supremacist could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified white supremacist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of belief in racial equality is an automatic disqualification for public office.

This has nothing to do with the constitutional bar on religious tests and everything to do with the notion of electing public representatives by popular vote.

Then there's a whole lot of nonsense about the supposed influence of deism on the American constitution, which is presented without a shred of evidence (not surprisingly, because it's inaccurate), and the silly assertion that Darwin "devastated" deism, which for good measure throws in a confusing reference to "design without a designer".

I also think a number of countries would be surprised to learn that
American political culture is unique in the reverence it has for the beliefs and intentions of [its founders]

Iran and North Korea spring to mind as possible alternatives - even the French might have a thing or two to say on the subject.

Anyone else?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

16. Comment #88932 by sidfaiwu on November 19, 2007 at 7:34 am

 avatarHello hungarianelephant,

I agree with your first point. The test for office is public support, not religious beliefs. The public chooses the criteria, not the Constitution.

I strongly disagree with your second point. Deism definitely had a strong influence on America's founding documents. The best evidence is the wording of the Declaration of Independence, as mentioned in the article. Also, the writing so Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin express very deistic views.

This is not to suggest that Christianity had no influence, because clearly it did. But that influence was not felt in the three founding documents, The Declaration of Independence (3 mentions of God, all using deistic wording), The Articles of Confederation (only mentions religion as a potential cause of conflict), and The Constitution of the United States (mentions religion only in negative terms). The founding fathers who were Christian where wise enough to recognize that the best protection for their religion was a Constitutional protection of all religions, in the form of the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

What Darwin did was to conclusively demonstrate that the appearance of design, even the appearance of complex design, can come about naturally and thus require no designer. At the very least, evolution shows that we must now be weary about concluding a designer from the appearance of design.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

17. Comment #88945 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 8:16 am

 avatarsidfaiwu - I agree with nearly all of your post, but I don't think it supports the line of reasoning in the original article.

Firstly, I think you are right to treat the founding documents as similar, unlike Gardner's treatment of them. He describes the Declaration of Independence as "shot through with references to God". Er, no.
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

And that's it. But these aren't unequivocally deistic uses. The first and second assume at least the creation of humans with a "correct" and pre-determined set of entitlements. The third is explicitly theistic, though it's probably not a coincidence that Jefferson chose the highly impersonal noun "Providence", suggesting destiny and fortune rather than a god.

Many of the founding fathers were deists, but that's of much less relevance than the fact that they were secularists - including the Christian ones. Religious conflict and oppression were fresh in the minds of many Americans at the time. It was a time closer to the Glorious Revolution than World War I is to us today.

As you point out, the framers realised that the best chance for everyone was religious freedom for all. It was that, not some metaphysical pontification, that drove their political action. It's no coincidence that the very first article of the Bill of Rights deals with both freedom of speech and religious non-establishment.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

18. Comment #88994 by arogop on November 19, 2007 at 12:44 pm

 avatarWhen talking about the constitution you should remember the 10th admendment.

It goes something like:

"The powers not granted to the federal goverment are reserved to the states."

ie. It supports the rights of the state to establish their own religious preferences among other things.

Other Comments by arogop

19. Comment #89154 by BT Murtagh on November 19, 2007 at 9:33 pm

 avatar
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The prohibition of a religious test for public office is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, in Article Six as quoted in the article..

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

20. Comment #89224 by hungarianelephant on November 20, 2007 at 3:29 am

 avatarThe 14th amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to states. The Supreme Court has already ruled that this means states cannot prefer one religion over another, or religion over non-religion: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

This doesn't stop the ID brigade trying to revisit it, of course.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: