Founding Faith by Steven Waldman

Author:Steven Waldman
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781588366740
Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
Published: 2008-03-10T16:00:00+00:00

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY

What are we to make of this? Scholars, Supreme Court justices, and culture warriors have picked over this basic chronology for signs of the Founders’ intent. What did they mean by establishment and national? Is it meaningful that the word a disappeared between the words establish and religion?

Allow me to first provide an absurdly truncated summary of the different schools of thought.

Most conservatives argue that the Founders had a very limited conception of the First Amendment; that it was designed specifically to prevent the establishment of an official national religion, and no more. Government support for religion is fine—even worthy—as long as it doesn’t favor one religion over another. In legal circles, these scholars are sometimes called accommodationists because they believe the Constitution can accommodate a fair amount of church–state intermingling. “Pluralism and liberty—not secularism or separation—define the relations between church and state under the Constitution,” wrote scholar Michael McConnell.43 Other times they’re called nonpreferentialists, since they believe government can aid religion as long as it doesn’t prefer one denomination to another. The word establishment, this camp argues, is quite clearly a reference to the practice common in some of the states (and many European countries) of designating a single denomination or religion for state support through taxes and other preferences. Former chief justice William Rehnquist looked at the legislative history and concluded that Madison had no intention of separating church and state. “His original language ‘nor shall any national religion be established’ obviously does not conform to the ‘wall of separation’ between church and state idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him.” Rehnquist pointed specifically to the account of Madison explaining the meaning of his amendment—“that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.” The fact that Madison replied to Representative Huntington’s desire to protect state establishments by suggesting the insertion of the word national would seem to back up Rehnquist’s point. “It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison’s thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects,” Rehnquist wrote. “He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion.”44

The accommodationists note that in the very same session in which Congress passed the First Amendment, it went on to mingle church and state with seeming abandon. It appointed congressional chaplains and, on the very day the House of Representatives passed the Bill of Rights, approved a resolution for a “day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed…[for] the many signal favors of Almighty God.” This was not lost on everyone even back then. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina argued that this resolution conflicted with the Bill of Rights. “This…is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us.” But Tucker was, in fact, in the minority.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.