Saturday, November 17, 2007

Challenging Conventional Wisdom

The so-called separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment. Eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American constitutional law only much later.

In reality, separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice. Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants (ranging from nineteenth-century Know Nothings to twentieth-century members of the K.K.K.) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions. Eventually, a wide range of men and women called for separation. Almost all of these Americans feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and, in response to their fears, they increasingly perceived religious liberty to require a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed. In the process, the First Amendment was often used as an instrument of intolerance and discrimination.

But what does this mean - that I am in favor of a state established religion? Hardly (
we do in fact have one in the United States: its called Gnosticism). Can you imagine me pining for our federal government (or Oregon State legislature) to establish my religion for me? And yet . . . could it not be that in principle an established religion can be good for a nation? Why not?

No comments: