During the Great Depression, and more specifically with FDR, the Federal Government stopped adhering to a standard of morality and started imposing their will under the guise of "taking care of the needy". The historical reality of FDR's policies and public building projects and all the other things he tried to end the Depression, is that were largely massive failures. The only decision FDR made that helped our economy was when he finally entered the war; and the Japanese bullied him into that.
What FDR did achieve was establishing a mentality among Americans that the Government was there to take care of them. If I need food, I can go to the Government. If I need a place to live, I can go to the Government. If I do not want to take care of my retirement, the Government will do it. It started out slowly; just little incremental changes in how people saw their relationship with Government. What used to be a fall back position has turned into an expectation and a "right". I have the "right" to health care. I have the "right" to a job. It is my basic "right" to be fed. The list of "rights" that US citizens now claim is extensive and no where to be found in the Constitution.
I discussed the basic morality problem of this attitude in my previous post, and included a great segment from Walter Williams clarifying the point. The basic premise is that it is not possible for the government to provide a single service without taking something from someone else. The Government does not generate income; it's coffers are filled through only one method. Taxation. In order for them to provide Citizen B with food, shelter, health care, etc, they must confiscate the funds for this "right" from Citizen A. The Government is nothing more than an intermediary with a gun. The "provider" is the productive citizen that has been taxed. What would be theft in the private sector is acceptable for Government.
The rise of the entitlement attitude has been accompanied by the decline of religious influence in Government. Somewhere over this same 50-60 year period the Constitution has been reinterpreted as it pertains to religion. The prevailing opinion and belief is that the Founding Fathers put in an exclusion of religion from Government; a "Separation of Church and State." What it actually says is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Amendment I to the Constitution for the United States).What it actually says is that Congress cannot establish a State Religion; they cannot say that the Country is now Christian, or Muslim, or whatever, and that as a citizen you are required to adhere to the established State religion. It actually promotes the principle of Religious practice by the Governed by refusing to limit the "free exercise" of religion.
Somehow this has turned into the banning of all religious activities on public property and a general animosity towards things "religious" by the Government. More specifically, anything Christian. For some reason there is an unwillingness to permit a demonstration of Christian values and beliefs in a Country that is still overwhelmingly Christian.
The reality is that most moral codes are a result of adherence to a religious principle. It is a factual statement to say that the laws of this Country and the values of its Founders were firmly grounded in a Judeo-Christian belief system. The scary part is that they seem to have foresaw, among other things, a time when we would lose our moral compass and start to exclude religion. Read these quotes, it is amazing how applicable they are to today's world:
Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand....The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. John Adams
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness. George Washington
Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts...in which all religions agree. Thomas Jefferson
[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? George Washington
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
{All quotes obtained from The Patriot Post, where full credits are provided}
Powerful words from insightful men. The last one from Adams is particularly timely and somewhat frightening. Are we naive enough to think we have moved past this thinking? Are we truly ignorant to the effects of avarice and ambition on our current economy and Government? Do we honestly think we can move past that without a strong moral and religious code to guide us?
As he emerged from the Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of Government had been formed. His famous reply was " a Republic, if you can keep it." Can we keep it? If we are the virtues and morality, which I believe still exist, of the people are going to have to win out. We have to be heard by the politicians. We cannot allow them to set our moral compass for us, they have already taken us far off course.
As he emerged from the Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of Government had been formed. His famous reply was " a Republic, if you can keep it." Can we keep it? If we are the virtues and morality, which I believe still exist, of the people are going to have to win out. We have to be heard by the politicians. We cannot allow them to set our moral compass for us, they have already taken us far off course.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
ReplyDeleteWhile some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decisions as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, that letter played but a small part in the Court's decisions. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison confirmed that he understood the Constitution to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of politicians sometimes led them to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
It may well be that various forms of Christianity were the dominant religious influence on society at the time of the founding and that much of that influence is reflected in the laws and customs of the time. Whatever the religions of the various founders, though, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
First, thank you for the comments. Well said.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think it is important to keep in mind a couple of things about Madison: 1) He was also a deeply religious man who encouraged others to profess their religion, including those in political office 2) The Detached Memoranda you reference (and many others reference in the separation arguments) was written after he left public service, if the dates are correct, was discovered almost 100 years after that time, and contradicts many of the actions he took while in office.
It is also interesting that Madison seems just as interested in protecting Religion from the influences of Government as he is in keeping Religion out of Government.
Thirdly, in my ramblings I do not think I succeeded in making my point. I am not in favor of combining any religion and Government. I completely agree with keeping the two establishments separate. The point I was trying to make above all others, is that it seems as though there is no moral or ethical guidance ruling the actions of our political leaders. Graft and corruption are rampant at all levels; questions of legality of actions appear to be irrelevant; a taxation policy that amounts to a modern day Robin Hood approach (except those being stolen from have done nothing wrong, and those being given to, for the most part, have done nothing to deserve it). It all adds up to a complete lack of morals and virtue in Government.
I am not saying that we need to establish a religion, I am saying that we need to have Honorable, Moral and virtuous people in public office. Where does that come from if not from a strong religious belief and a code of behavior to follow. Society today says that it is ok to take something if you need it; it is acceptable not to work for your basic requirements of food, shelter and clothing; it is commonplace to kill children pre-birth and give criminals a pass because of their environment. The list of amoral behavior that we either accept or condone is extensive. What code of conduct do these actions fall under?
I go back to the words of Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Lacking a majority of "moral and religious people", where do we go next as a country?
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words.
As I understand it, Madison's personal religious views remain unknown since he largely kept them to himself after 1776. It is true, too, that he took some actions while President, e.g., issued a religious proclamation, that he declared unconstitutional in his Detached Memoranda. Rather apologetically, he also explained how he came to issue the proclamation and why he worded it as he did: "During the administration of Mr. Jefferson no religious proclamation was issued. It being understood that his successor [i.e., Madison] was disinclined to such interpositions of the Executive and by some supposed moreover that they might originate with more propriety with the Legislative Body, a resolution was passed requesting him to issue a proclamation. It was thought [presumably by Madison] not proper to refuse compliance altogether; but a form & language were employed, which were meant to deaden as much as possible any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting these expressly of the voluntary compliance of individuals, and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion."
On your larger point about the need for moral and virtuous people in government, I can but agree. The need is all the greater when, as you note, those in government are called upon to make so many more decisions about whether, when, and how to offer help to people. The opportunities for corruption and abuse of power are increased as the government's role expands.
While recognizing that many people intertwine their morality with their religion, I do not equate the two. Nor do I see any increase in governmental corruption and abuse of power over that of other times. Throughout history, the world's and our nation's, governmental misdeeds and religion have coexisted. Nor do I see any trend in governmental corruption being caused by a perceived decline of religiosity. Note that of all the world's industrial nations, the United States is the most religious, yet I doubt our level of government corruption is appreciably different than that of other industrial nations.